Mueller report thread - Mueller testimony July 24

[SteveRogers]

Murder Investigation - 'Hey guys we've arrested 10 people.'
Murder Investigation Closes - 'We're not arresting anyone else.'
Press - 'So...there were no murders?'

LOL no.

Murder Investigation found people guilty of robbery, not murder.

You know Mueller indicted a whole bunch of Russian operatives for interfering in the election, right?

[SteveRogers]

Murder Investigation - 'Hey guys we've arrested 10 people.'
Murder Investigation Closes - 'We're not arresting anyone else.'
Press - 'So...there were no murders?'

LOL no.

Murder Investigation found people guilty of robbery, not murder.

You know Mueller indicted a whole bunch of Russian operatives for interfering in the election, right?

So what? He was hired to investigate COLLUSION between Trump campaign and those Russians.

That’s not true.

[SteveRogers]

What many of us have wanted from the beginning is simply to know the truth. What Trump has wanted from the beginning is to keep us from knowing the truth. We’ve known for a while that Russia sponsored a sophisticated operation to interfere in the 2016 election. Trump didn’t even want us to know that much. The American people deserve to know what the scope of the Russian operation was, what could have been done differently to prevent it, and whether any Americans were complicit in it. The simple fact is that Trump has been opposed to letting the American people learn any of this. Whatever his reasons may be , he has been against the very idea of an impartial investigation. That is why a special prosecutor was necessary.

If the Mueller report concludes that Trump’s campaign was not actively involved in coordinating efforts with the Russian agents, then I will accept that conclusion.

But that doesn’t by itself mean that Trump is guilty of no wrongdoing. “No collusion!” is a shifting goalpost that Republicans have set up for themselves. But Trump can still be guilty of obstruction of justice even if there was no collusion. Why do none of the blue avatars here get this? If he took deliberate steps to sandbag an ongoing investigation, even if it was just because the investigation wounded his ego, then that is obstruction.

[SteveRogers]

I'm ROFL right now, watching the Echo Chamber explode in frustration.  It really is amazing.

The Mueller investigation wasn't about investigating a crime.  It was about investigating Trump, personally, and individuals close to him.  This would be great if you had reasonable suspicion that Trump committed an actual crime, but that was not the case.

I have, for a long time, stated that I was waiting for the Mueller Report to come in before I drew any conclusions as to what Trump did or didn't do.  Well the report is in, and not only did the report not indicate an indictment for Trump, it indicated that (A) there would be no recommendations for further indictments, (B) there was no indication that Trump would have been indicted if he were not President, and (C) neither Trump, nor anyone else, was named as unindicted co-conspirators.  There was no "collusion" (whatever that means) and any interference in our elections by Russia was done by Russians, and not in conjunction with Trump's campaign.

The Democrats, of course, could accept this and go forward with actually allowing the government to function.  They are showing themselves as no better than the GOP and its endless investigations of Hillary, who WAS being investigated for a specific crime.  (That's a difference between Hillary and Trump that cries out for recognition.)  There is no evidence that Donald Trump, nor anyone else "obstructed justice".  And it's a little hard to say this when you can't point to a specific crime that was covered up.

How Donald Trump has conducted himself as President involves a number of relevant issues.  His Tweets are often indefensible in terms of taste and level of pettiness.  His policies are a matter for debate as he ran as a different kind of Republican and turned out to be pretty much a standard GOP conservative, with some shifts away from free trade and internationalism.  Let the politics begin, by all means.  Let the case against Trump's record in office, in terms of he actions and accomplishments as President be examined and discussed.  But let the political judgment also be rendered against a mindless Democratic Party that opts to investigate the investigation, and investigate the investigators investigating the investigation.  They are continuing the "investigation" solely to find some juicy tidbits that will serve their campaign well, and there is something very wrong with that, no matter who is doing it.

The specific crime is the hacking of a Presidential campaign and political party. The 21st century version of the Watergate break-in. That was a major crime with huge impacts, unlike whatever happened with Hillary's e-mails which literally had zero impact.

Well, yes, and those individuals (most of the Russian Nationals) have been charged.

And it’s still illegal to cover up other people’s crimes.

[SteveRogers]

Will this report say Trump acted like a yucky poo-poo head?  Probably.  Will what's there justify more investigations, let alone impeachment?  I doubt it, and everyone here doubts it too.  If it does, well, have at it, but what people are trying to do, ultimately, is define Obstruction of Justice in a way that criminalizes Trump's normal and legal use of his Presidential powers, and those powers include the right to fire the FBI Director.

Fuzzy, by your logic Rod Blagojevich should never have gone to jail. After all, appointing a Senator to fill Obama’s vacant seat was one of his “normal and legal” powers as the governor of Illinois. And yet he was still found guilty of abuse of office when he tried to use that power to sell the seat to the highest bidder.

Yes, in a vaccuum, it is totally legal for the president to fire the FBI director for any reason or no reason at all. But that doesn’t mean that action can’t constitute an element of a crime.

[SteveRogers]

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1119324901259661312

Yes yes. As usual, Republican Senators are “very concerned” by the President’s behavior but unwilling to do a damn thing about it.

[SteveRogers]

when the investigation doesn't even meet the standard of probable cause, is a dangerous concept that I believe many here lack the ability to appreciate.  

Fuzzy, you keep asserting this without explanation and it’s very clear that you don’t understand what that term means.

[SteveRogers]

when the investigation doesn't even meet the standard of probable cause, is a dangerous concept that I believe many here lack the ability to appreciate.  

Fuzzy, you keep asserting this without explanation and it’s very clear that you don’t understand what that term means.

Oh, I understand full well what the term means.  It is a standard of proof needed to charge someone with a crime where there is reason to believe that (A) a particular act was committed by someone that rises to the level of a criminal offense, and (B) that a particular person (or particular persons) committed that particular act as specified.  It's as simple as that.

"Probable cause" is the standard for an indictment.  It's the standard to name someone an unindicted co-conspirator.  It is NOT the "Reasonable Doubt: standard of proving guilt.  It is not the standard of "Clear and Convincing Evidence".  It is not even the standard of a "Preponderance of Evidence" which indicates that more evidence (as low as 51%) shows that a person committed an act than does the evidence indicating that the person may not have.  "Probable Cause" is a low standard.  And, indeed, when a Prosecutor seeks an indictment, or files an Information (in Florida) saying that they are going to bring forth charges, they are stating at that time that the Prosecution WILL be able to prove their case Beyond A Reasonable Doubt at Jury Trial (if the case comes to that).  Again:  They can't just indict or charge someone with a weak case and then hope to get enough so that enough sticks at jury trial.  A Prosecutor that does this is subject to discipline for Prosecutorial Misconduct.

I know what it means.  Quite frankly, you do to, and are resorting to the cheap trick of a personal attack to insinuate that I don't.  That's YOUR character on display, friend.

Probable cause is the standard that law enforcement must meet for searches and arrests. You don’t need probable cause to start an investigation, so to say that “ an investigation wasn’t supported by probable cause” is a nonsense statement that has no basis in the law.

But clearly there was ample probable cause to investigate Trump’s role in the Russian scheme to interfere in the election. If a cop pulls over a car of four people and smells marijuana, he has probable cause to search each passenger to see which ones are actually in possession of illegal substances. Here, Mueller clearly uncovered proof that various crimes had been committed and he indeed indicted various Russian nationals. You can keep calling that a witch hunt, but the evidence indisputably shows that Russian operatives were committing witchcraft. Under the circumstances, there was ample reason to investigate Trump’s inner circle to see whether or not anyone associated in the campaign was conspiring with those Russian operatives. Mueller’s investigation found no evidence that could prove such involvement beyond a reasonable doubt, and I accept that conclusion. None of that changes the fact that the investigation was in the best interest of our national security. It’s important to keep pointing out that Trump didn’t even want the Russians to be investigated, period.

On the obstruction of justice question, what basis do you have for saying that the evidence doesn’t amount to probable cause that a crime was committed. Mueller has identified the specific actions that he believes the evidence shows Trump took. In fact, there’s not much disagreement about the fact that Trump took most of those actions. Mueller has laid out the legal theory arguing that those actions are covered by the federal obstruction statutes. However, Mueller has acknowledged that the facts of the case are unique enough that any potential prosecution of Trump’s actions would be bogged down in legal battles for years, so he believes it would be better for the country for congress to take action instead. But to say that the investigation found no evidence of obstruction is flat out wrong.

[SteveRogers]

when the investigation doesn't even meet the standard of probable cause, is a dangerous concept that I believe many here lack the ability to appreciate.  

Fuzzy, you keep asserting this without explanation and it’s very clear that you don’t understand what that term means.

Oh, I understand full well what the term means.  It is a standard of proof needed to charge someone with a crime where there is reason to believe that (A) a particular act was committed by someone that rises to the level of a criminal offense, and (B) that a particular person (or particular persons) committed that particular act as specified.  It's as simple as that.

"Probable cause" is the standard for an indictment.  It's the standard to name someone an unindicted co-conspirator.  It is NOT the "Reasonable Doubt: standard of proving guilt.  It is not the standard of "Clear and Convincing Evidence".  It is not even the standard of a "Preponderance of Evidence" which indicates that more evidence (as low as 51%) shows that a person committed an act than does the evidence indicating that the person may not have.  "Probable Cause" is a low standard.  And, indeed, when a Prosecutor seeks an indictment, or files an Information (in Florida) saying that they are going to bring forth charges, they are stating at that time that the Prosecution WILL be able to prove their case Beyond A Reasonable Doubt at Jury Trial (if the case comes to that).  Again:  They can't just indict or charge someone with a weak case and then hope to get enough so that enough sticks at jury trial.  A Prosecutor that does this is subject to discipline for Prosecutorial Misconduct.

I know what it means.  Quite frankly, you do to, and are resorting to the cheap trick of a personal attack to insinuate that I don't.  That's YOUR character on display, friend.

Probable cause is the standard that law enforcement must meet for searches and arrests. You don’t need probable cause to start an investigation, so to say that “ an investigation wasn’t supported by probable cause” is a nonsense statement that has no basis in the law.

But clearly there was ample probable cause to investigate Trump’s role in the Russian scheme to interfere in the election. If a cop pulls over a car of four people and smells marijuana, he has probable cause to search each passenger to see which ones are actually in possession of illegal substances. Here, Mueller clearly uncovered proof that various crimes had been committed and he indeed indicted various Russian nationals. You can keep calling that a witch hunt, but the evidence indisputably shows that Russian operatives were committing witchcraft. Under the circumstances, there was ample reason to investigate Trump’s inner circle to see whether or not anyone associated in the campaign was conspiring with those Russian operatives. Mueller’s investigation found no evidence that could prove such involvement beyond a reasonable doubt, and I accept that conclusion. None of that changes the fact that the investigation was in the best interest of our national security. It’s important to keep pointing out that Trump didn’t even want the Russians to be investigated, period.

On the obstruction of justice question, what basis do you have for saying that the evidence doesn’t amount to probable cause that a crime was committed. Mueller has identified the specific actions that he believes the evidence shows Trump took. In fact, there’s not much disagreement about the fact that Trump took most of those actions. Mueller has laid out the legal theory arguing that those actions are covered by the federal obstruction statutes. However, Mueller has acknowledged that the facts of the case are unique enough that any potential prosecution of Trump’s actions would be bogged down in legal battles for years, so he believes it would be better for the country for congress to take action instead. But to say that the investigation found no evidence of obstruction is flat out wrong.

There was not Probable Cause. 

As I said before, you keep asserting this statement without explanation. You can keep repeating that mantra if you want, but can you explain what you're basing that conclusion on? The report is out. The report details the events and the evidence that lead up to the investigation, and it details the specific crimes that were committed by various people involved. Are you still trying to argue that there is no evidence that Russian nationals committed any crimes?

[SteveRogers]

The conclusion remains that the heifer was not exonerated.

But there was not even enough evidence to charge. 

No, that wasn't what was stated. Pretty much that only thing protecting Trump is that a sitting President cannot be indicted. Mueller said he could be charged post presidency.

Actually, Mueller said that this was not a factor. 

He directly said it was "The" factor.

Mueller could have named Trump an unindicted co-conspirator if that were the case.  Guess what.  He didn't. 

No he couldn’t because he didn’t indict anyone in Trump’s circle for obstruction (largely because Trump’s people refused to carry out Trump’s orders to obstruct the investigation).