The Mueller Probe is Complete - Longer OP Edition

[Shofercia]

A person who failed to grasp basic logic in this post, is questioning the intelligence of another - must be comedy hour. Once again:



Mueller cited that barrier regarding the charge of obstruction. I was referring to the charge of collusion/conspiracy. You do comprehend that those are two different charges, right? Judging by your posting thus far, that probably isn't the case, but instead of recognizing that, you'll continue to question intelligence, while failing to grasp that your question isn't going to be answered. Robert Mueller said that there's no collusion/conspiracy, ergo Putin does not control Trump, ergo Putin cannot tell Trump to release the report. That's basic logic.

Speaking of obstruction, if the Democrats want to purse that - go for it, provided that if the Democrats try Trump, a Republican for obstruction, as it relates to the Russia Investigation, the Republicans also get to charge Democrats for obstruction, as it relates to the Russia Investigation. The law should apply equally to Democrats and Republicans.

Furthermore, unlike investigation into conspiracy/collusion, obstruction isn't likely to reveal any sources working abroad. I thought that you were talking about conspiracy/collusion, not obstruction. I clearly quoted you talking about conspiracy/collusion.

If you want to impeach on the charge of obstruction alone, have fun with that. Republicans control the Senate, and a sitting president was not impeached on the charge of obstruction alone, not once in the History of the United States. As someone in this thread noted earlier, if Trump would've calmly reacted to the investigation, and didn't fire Comey over it, he would've been cleared of obstruction, just as he was cleared of collusion/conspiracy; at the very least, there was no evidence found relating to collusion/conspiracy, at least none according to Robert Mueller.

Your continued doubling down on an unwarranted condescending tone towards me is truly a frightening display of delusion. You appear to have fully convinced yourself that you are making intelligent noises. It's both hilarious and sad.

But it still dodges the question. You could just claim ignorance. It's not like you're hiding it.

Pointing out that there is no evidence of collusion/conspiracy in a report that Robert Mueller wrote, because Robert Mueller said that there is no evidence of collusion/conspiracy in a report that he wrote, is a truly frightening display of the delusion according to Rogue Hyperpower. I've yet to see a clearer example of projection. "But muh dumbz questionz, y u no answir?!"

[Shofercia]

I take it that this is an answer to:



?

Yes

Are you talking about both, the charges of collusion/conspiracy and obstruction, or just the charge of obstruction?

Not that it matters. If you're talking just about the charge of obstruction, then a person can view that charge as non-impeachable, and continue on with their daily life, without being a sycophant, at least not in the minds of those whom I'd consider sane. If no president was impeached for it, then setting a new precedent might drive the nation even further apart.

If you're talking about both charges, then you should note that Mueller said that there was no evidence of conspiracy/collusion, which might clear Trump on that charge alone, at least in the eyes of the average reasonable person. For the charge of obstruction, see above.

[Diarcesia]

Yes

Not that it matters. If you're talking just about the charge of obstruction, then a person can view that charge as non-impeachable, and continue on with their daily life, without being a sycophant, at least not in the minds of those whom I'd consider sane. If no president was impeached for it, then setting a new precedent might drive the nation even further apart.

Richard Nixon.

[Shofercia]

Not that it matters. If you're talking just about the charge of obstruction, then a person can view that charge as non-impeachable, and continue on with their daily life, without being a sycophant, at least not in the minds of those whom I'd consider sane. If no president was impeached for it, then setting a new precedent might drive the nation even further apart.

Richard Nixon.

He wasn't impeached solely for obstruction. His impeachment was about three charges, not one charge, and last time I checked, three is a bigger number than one. The charge - it's singular; it's not plural. No president was impeached just for the charge of obstruction. In fact, Nixon's major issue was the Abuse of Power charge; not the charge of obstruction.

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

Richard Nixon.

He wasn't impeached solely for obstruction. His impeachment was about three charges, not one charge, and last time I checked, three is a bigger number than one. The charge - it's singular; it's not plural. No president was impeached just for the charge of obstruction. In fact, Nixon's major issue was the Abuse of Power charge; not the charge of obstruction.

Declaring a national emergency (or attempting to declare one, I don't remember if he actually succeeded) to build a border wall could be seen as abuse of power.

[Shofercia]

He wasn't impeached solely for obstruction. His impeachment was about three charges, not one charge, and last time I checked, three is a bigger number than one. The charge - it's singular; it's not plural. No president was impeached just for the charge of obstruction. In fact, Nixon's major issue was the Abuse of Power charge; not the charge of obstruction.

Declaring a national emergency (or attempting to declare one, I don't remember if he actually succeeded) to build a border wall could be seen as abuse of power.

That's debatable. Nixon's abuse of power was rather blatant.

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

Declaring a national emergency (or attempting to declare one, I don't remember if he actually succeeded) to build a border wall could be seen as abuse of power.

That's debatable. Nixon's abuse of power was rather blatant.

I said 'could'. If you just need a certain number of charges to go for impeachment, then you can just add more charges.
(Also, saying "you can't impeach someone for just one charge" is like saying "you can't sue someone if they didn't do anything to you": you actually can, you're just unlikely to succeed.)

EDIT: Also, there were a lot of people at the time arguing that Nixon wasn't abusing power. Remember his whole "when the president does it, it is not illegal" spiel?

[Gravlen]

If you're talking about both charges, then you should note that Mueller said that there was no evidence of conspiracy/collusion, which might clear Trump on that charge alone, at least in the eyes of the average reasonable person. For the charge of obstruction, see above.

You keep saying Mueller said there was "no evidence" of conspiracy or collusion. That's not true.

Mueller said there was insufficient evidence, not no evidence. That's a substantial difference.

While the investigation identified numerous links between individuals with ties to the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump Campaign, the evidence was not sufficient to support criminal charges.

https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf

Here's the explanation of a legal scholar:

Some media reports went further, stating that Mr. Mueller had found “no evidence” of a conspiracy. The Democrats, some said, had now been proved wrong even for supporting the special counsel’s independent investigation into the matter.

Those accounts gave the president an undeserved free pass, for even Mr. Barr’s cherry-picked quotes had made no such claims. We can now see that all Mr. Mueller decided on that issue was that “the investigation did not establish” such a conspiracy. To non-lawyers this might seem like splitting hairs, but lawyers understand how important that difference is. “Establish” is prosecutor talk that simply means “I won’t bring an indictment because I don’t think a jury would find the proof of conspiracy to be ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’” — an extremely high standard of proof. As the Mueller report emphasizes in the introduction, “A statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of those facts.”

To the contrary, we now know that Mr. Mueller found abundant evidence of precisely such a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Russians. The section titled “Trump Campaign and the Dissemination of Hacked Materials” was very heavily redacted, but even the non-redacted evidence of conspiracy was substantial: campaign chairman Paul Manafort’s “periodically” sharing internal polling data and other campaign updates with the Russians; the campaign’s promotion of “dozens of tweets, posts, and other political content created by” the Russian hacking operation; Trump publicly urging Russia to search for Hillary Clinton’s “missing” emails; the campaign’s successful effort to tone down the anti-Russian language in the Republican Party platform at the nominating convention; the president’s bizarre support for Putin, resistance to sanctions, and corresponding antagonism toward our NATO allies; the multiple meetings between top campaign officials and Russians with Kremlin ties, including their famous meeting at the New York Trump hotel for the express, albeit ultimately unsuccessful, purpose of getting dirt on Hillary Clinton; and the lies they were caught in when they tried to deny either the meetings themselves or their content.

Whether or not that pile of evidence rises to the level of “proof beyond a reasonable doubt,” it is of grave concern. There is thus ample reason for Congress — which is not subject to the same standard of proof as a criminal prosecutor — to continue investigating this issue, as well as the obstruction of justice question and all the other disturbing allegations surrounding President Trump and his associates. There are also the continuing, very legitimate investigations by various US attorneys’ offices and state attorney general offices. And, of course, there is still hope that at least Congress, and perhaps the public, will find a way to see the crucial information that Mr. Barr has redacted from the Mueller report. So there is much more to come.

Stephen Legomsky, law professor, Washington University

Also, it's worth noting that Mueller several places in the report uses the term "no evidence" when they are saying they have no evidence to support something, for example on p. 107 of the report:

The Office found no evidence that Kislyak conversed with either Trump or Sessions after the speech, or would have had the opportunity to do so.

To be clear, this doesn't mean that there actually was a criminal conspiracy, or that the evidence in this case were such that it narrowly failed to establish a criminal conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt. It only means there were some evidence. It's not possible to say what threshold for burden of proof Mueller would say the evidence cleared - but claiming that Mueller is saying there's "no evidence" is incorrect.

[Shofercia]

If you're talking about both charges, then you should note that Mueller said that there was no evidence of conspiracy/collusion, which might clear Trump on that charge alone, at least in the eyes of the average reasonable person. For the charge of obstruction, see above.

You keep saying Mueller said there was "no evidence" of conspiracy or collusion. That's not true.

Mueller said there was insufficient evidence, not no evidence. That's a substantial difference.

While the investigation identified numerous links between individuals with ties to the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump Campaign, the evidence was not sufficient to support criminal charges.

https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf

Here's the explanation of a legal scholar:

Some media reports went further, stating that Mr. Mueller had found “no evidence” of a conspiracy. The Democrats, some said, had now been proved wrong even for supporting the special counsel’s independent investigation into the matter.

Those accounts gave the president an undeserved free pass, for even Mr. Barr’s cherry-picked quotes had made no such claims. We can now see that all Mr. Mueller decided on that issue was that “the investigation did not establish” such a conspiracy. To non-lawyers this might seem like splitting hairs, but lawyers understand how important that difference is. “Establish” is prosecutor talk that simply means “I won’t bring an indictment because I don’t think a jury would find the proof of conspiracy to be ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’” — an extremely high standard of proof. As the Mueller report emphasizes in the introduction, “A statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of those facts.”

To the contrary, we now know that Mr. Mueller found abundant evidence of precisely such a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Russians. The section titled “Trump Campaign and the Dissemination of Hacked Materials” was very heavily redacted, but even the non-redacted evidence of conspiracy was substantial: campaign chairman Paul Manafort’s “periodically” sharing internal polling data and other campaign updates with the Russians; the campaign’s promotion of “dozens of tweets, posts, and other political content created by” the Russian hacking operation; Trump publicly urging Russia to search for Hillary Clinton’s “missing” emails; the campaign’s successful effort to tone down the anti-Russian language in the Republican Party platform at the nominating convention; the president’s bizarre support for Putin, resistance to sanctions, and corresponding antagonism toward our NATO allies; the multiple meetings between top campaign officials and Russians with Kremlin ties, including their famous meeting at the New York Trump hotel for the express, albeit ultimately unsuccessful, purpose of getting dirt on Hillary Clinton; and the lies they were caught in when they tried to deny either the meetings themselves or their content.

Whether or not that pile of evidence rises to the level of “proof beyond a reasonable doubt,” it is of grave concern. There is thus ample reason for Congress — which is not subject to the same standard of proof as a criminal prosecutor — to continue investigating this issue, as well as the obstruction of justice question and all the other disturbing allegations surrounding President Trump and his associates. There are also the continuing, very legitimate investigations by various US attorneys’ offices and state attorney general offices. And, of course, there is still hope that at least Congress, and perhaps the public, will find a way to see the crucial information that Mr. Barr has redacted from the Mueller report. So there is much more to come.

Stephen Legomsky, law professor, Washington University

Also, it's worth noting that Mueller several places in the report uses the term "no evidence" when they are saying they have no evidence to support something, for example on p. 107 of the report:

The Office found no evidence that Kislyak conversed with either Trump or Sessions after the speech, or would have had the opportunity to do so.

To be clear, this doesn't mean that there actually was a criminal conspiracy, or that the evidence in this case were such that it narrowly failed to establish a criminal conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt. It only means there were some evidence. It's not possible to say what threshold for burden of proof Mueller would say the evidence cleared - but claiming that Mueller is saying there's "no evidence" is incorrect.

That's a somewhat lengthy and lame post, with a "legal scholar" who's actually an anti-Trump partisan hack, but then again, this wouldn't be the first time that Gravlen pulled this kind of a stunt. Here's what Mueller said:

The investigation also identified numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump Campaign. Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the campaign expected it would benefit electorally from the information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.

Once again: the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.

There has been no evidence that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities. There have been zero indictments of members of the Trump campaign for conspiring with Russia. Zero. Zilch. Nada. I don't give a flying fuck what some online poster pretending to be a lawyer, posts. I know evidence when I see it, and I know lack of evidence when I see it.

But if you want to play the Legal Scholar Game, here's one from Harvard: https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house ... ler-report

The report concluded that there is absolutely no evidence that anyone in his campaign (or any other American) illegally conspired with Russian operatives who were determined to try to influence the outcome of the election. That is the good news for Trump. It vindicates him legally on his claim from Day One that there was no collusion. The bad news is that the report contains information — much of which has been disputed by the Trump legal team — of non-criminal, but not very nice, behavior on the part of the president and some of his associates. Such conduct includes repeated misstatements about who knew what regarding meetings and other contacts. On balance, however, President Trump comes out way ahead on the Russia collusion issue. Putting aside legalisms, it really appears as if there was no actual collusion.

On the obstruction issue, the bad news for President Trump may exceed the good news. Although the report “does not conclude that the President committed a crime,” as it states, it also refuses to “exonerate him.” Already, Democrats are arguing that Congress can revisit the obstruction evidence and come to its own conclusions about whether President Trump’s conduct constituted obstruction of justice. The catalogue of ten instances of possible obstruction provide a roadmap for Congress to further investigate, even if in the end it decides not to impeach. Attorney General William Barr and special counsel Robert Muller apparently have a fundamental disagreement over whether a president can be charged with obstruction of justice if he merely engaged in an act authorized by the Constitution but with an improper motive.

So between Alan Dershowitz, a respectable Harvard Professor of Law, and Stephen Legomsky, an anti-Trump partisan hack due to Trump's immigration issues, who does Gravlen attempt to pass off as the legal scholar? Not the actual scholar, but rather the partisan hack, and no one on NSG is surprised. Legomsky admitted that he views Trump as an extremist, and is therefore a perfect partisan for Gravlen's needs: http://fortune.com/2016/04/01/immigrati ... l-parties/

To be sure, neither the parallels nor the worries should be exaggerated. Public support for the Alternative for Germany Party still trails far behind that of the more traditional parties, just as Donald Trump’s supporters remain a distinct minority of U.S. voters. But in Germany and the U.S., these minorities are large and increasing. In both countries, increased support has shown up in actual elections, not just opinion polls; voter turnout has been unusually high; and first-time voters have heavily fueled the success of these extremist factions.

So we shouldn't exaggerate parallels or worries, but the entire Republican Establishment backing Trump is an extremist faction. Legomsky Logic - so very loved by Gravlen. Not being a partisan hack favored by Gravlen, Dershowitz has this amazing ability called foresight:

Barr takes the view — a view that I have argued for many months — that the act requirement of a crime (actus reus) cannot be satisfied by a constitutionally authorized action of the president, such as firing FBI Director James Comey. Mueller takes the view that a constitutionally authorized act can be turned into a crime if it is improperly motivated.

Mueller’s view is extreme and dangerous to civil liberties because it creates pure thought crimes. According to Mueller, the corrupt motive is the crime because surely the constitutionally authorized act cannot be criminal. The implications of this view for all Americans are frightening. They are especially frightening if applied to a president. Do we really want prosecutors or members of Congress to probe the motivations of presidents when they take constitutionally authorized actions?

If only there was an example of the Democrats doing something bad, like exercising the nuclear option, that backfired... someone about SCOTUS and Merrick Garland comes to mind. Pure thought crimes are bad, mmkay?

[Shofercia]

That's debatable. Nixon's abuse of power was rather blatant.

I said 'could'. If you just need a certain number of charges to go for impeachment, then you can just add more charges.
(Also, saying "you can't impeach someone for just one charge" is like saying "you can't sue someone if they didn't do anything to you": you actually can, you're just unlikely to succeed.)

EDIT: Also, there were a lot of people at the time arguing that Nixon wasn't abusing power. Remember his whole "when the president does it, it is not illegal" spiel?

You don't need a certain amount of charges, but for some charges, you need other crimes. For instance, someone cannot be tried for felony murder, unless a felony was committed. The issue with Nixon was that he wiretapped the Democrats in the Watergate Hotel, and several other issues. Alan Dershowitz, whom I quoted above, explained why trying Trump solely on obstruction might set a bad precedent:

Barr takes the view — a view that I have argued for many months — that the act requirement of a crime (actus reus) cannot be satisfied by a constitutionally authorized action of the president, such as firing FBI Director James Comey. Mueller takes the view that a constitutionally authorized act can be turned into a crime if it is improperly motivated.

Mueller’s view is extreme and dangerous to civil liberties because it creates pure thought crimes. According to Mueller, the corrupt motive is the crime because surely the constitutionally authorized act cannot be criminal. The implications of this view for all Americans are frightening. They are especially frightening if applied to a president. Do we really want prosecutors or members of Congress to probe the motivations of presidents when they take constitutionally authorized actions?

[Gravlen]

You keep saying Mueller said there was "no evidence" of conspiracy or collusion. That's not true.

Mueller said there was insufficient evidence, not no evidence. That's a substantial difference.

While the investigation identified numerous links between individuals with ties to the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump Campaign, the evidence was not sufficient to support criminal charges.

https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf

Here's the explanation of a legal scholar:

Some media reports went further, stating that Mr. Mueller had found “no evidence” of a conspiracy. The Democrats, some said, had now been proved wrong even for supporting the special counsel’s independent investigation into the matter.

Those accounts gave the president an undeserved free pass, for even Mr. Barr’s cherry-picked quotes had made no such claims. We can now see that all Mr. Mueller decided on that issue was that “the investigation did not establish” such a conspiracy. To non-lawyers this might seem like splitting hairs, but lawyers understand how important that difference is. “Establish” is prosecutor talk that simply means “I won’t bring an indictment because I don’t think a jury would find the proof of conspiracy to be ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’” — an extremely high standard of proof. As the Mueller report emphasizes in the introduction, “A statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of those facts.”

To the contrary, we now know that Mr. Mueller found abundant evidence of precisely such a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Russians. The section titled “Trump Campaign and the Dissemination of Hacked Materials” was very heavily redacted, but even the non-redacted evidence of conspiracy was substantial: campaign chairman Paul Manafort’s “periodically” sharing internal polling data and other campaign updates with the Russians; the campaign’s promotion of “dozens of tweets, posts, and other political content created by” the Russian hacking operation; Trump publicly urging Russia to search for Hillary Clinton’s “missing” emails; the campaign’s successful effort to tone down the anti-Russian language in the Republican Party platform at the nominating convention; the president’s bizarre support for Putin, resistance to sanctions, and corresponding antagonism toward our NATO allies; the multiple meetings between top campaign officials and Russians with Kremlin ties, including their famous meeting at the New York Trump hotel for the express, albeit ultimately unsuccessful, purpose of getting dirt on Hillary Clinton; and the lies they were caught in when they tried to deny either the meetings themselves or their content.

Whether or not that pile of evidence rises to the level of “proof beyond a reasonable doubt,” it is of grave concern. There is thus ample reason for Congress — which is not subject to the same standard of proof as a criminal prosecutor — to continue investigating this issue, as well as the obstruction of justice question and all the other disturbing allegations surrounding President Trump and his associates. There are also the continuing, very legitimate investigations by various US attorneys’ offices and state attorney general offices. And, of course, there is still hope that at least Congress, and perhaps the public, will find a way to see the crucial information that Mr. Barr has redacted from the Mueller report. So there is much more to come.

Stephen Legomsky, law professor, Washington University

Also, it's worth noting that Mueller several places in the report uses the term "no evidence" when they are saying they have no evidence to support something, for example on p. 107 of the report:

The Office found no evidence that Kislyak conversed with either Trump or Sessions after the speech, or would have had the opportunity to do so.

To be clear, this doesn't mean that there actually was a criminal conspiracy, or that the evidence in this case were such that it narrowly failed to establish a criminal conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt. It only means there were some evidence. It's not possible to say what threshold for burden of proof Mueller would say the evidence cleared - but claiming that Mueller is saying there's "no evidence" is incorrect.

That's a somewhat lengthy and lame post, with a "legal scholar" who's actually an anti-Trump partisan hack, but then again, this wouldn't be the first time that Gravlen pulled this kind of a stunt. Here's what Mueller said:

The investigation also identified numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump Campaign. Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the campaign expected it would benefit electorally from the information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.

Once again: the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.

Exactly. Not "No evidence", but "did not establish". Two different things.

There has been no evidence that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.

Except there is evidence of that. You just said so yourself, just now, above.

[Rogue Hyperpower]

Your continued doubling down on an unwarranted condescending tone towards me is truly a frightening display of delusion. You appear to have fully convinced yourself that you are making intelligent noises. It's both hilarious and sad.

But it still dodges the question. You could just claim ignorance. It's not like you're hiding it.

Pointing out that there is no evidence of collusion/conspiracy in a report that Robert Mueller wrote, because Robert Mueller said that there is no evidence of collusion/conspiracy in a report that he wrote, is a truly frightening display of the delusion according to Rogue Hyperpower. I've yet to see a clearer example of projection. "But muh dumbz questionz, y u no answir?!"

As long as you're going to implicitly insist that there is no rational basis for regarding your comments as intelligent, I'm going to continue to point out that they are not intelligent.

"We determined not to apply an approach that could potentially result in a judgement that the President committed crimes.

The reason you won't answer the question is that you know damned well Mueller does not and never did have the power to bring an indictment against Trump. He can only bring evidence gathered, to those who can bring an indictment (i.e. Congress)

"If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts, that the President did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state."

Ring a bell? That's also from Mueller's report. If Mueller had the official power to bring an indictment on a sitting President, it's rather Captain Obvious apparent that he would have already. Does Mueller and his team believe the facts demonstrate Trump obstructed justice? YES. Does Mueller have the power to prosecute Trump? No. See how that works?

Your farcical argument boils down to "Bobby doesn't have a driver's license. That means roads don't exist."

It's cute, but catastrophically imbecilic.

[Shofercia]

That's a somewhat lengthy and lame post, with a "legal scholar" who's actually an anti-Trump partisan hack, but then again, this wouldn't be the first time that Gravlen pulled this kind of a stunt. Here's what Mueller said:



Once again: the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.

Exactly. Not "No evidence", but "did not establish". Two different things.

There has been no evidence that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.

Except there is evidence of that. You just said so yourself, just now, above.

Did not establish due to a lack of evidence regarding coordination/conspiracy. How else was this not established? There is no credible evidence that would meet even the most simplistic Court burden that any members of the Trump Campaign conspired/colluded with the Russians. There is evidence that Manafort helped Ukraine set some financial machinations in place, but at the time Ukraine wasn't a part of Russia.

Yes, from a pedantic perspective, the now discredited Steele Dossier can be viewed as evidence. However, we know that there wasn't even enough evidence for anyone to be indicted in front of a Grand Jury for conspiracy with Russia. When I use the term evidence, I don't mean that "some lady somewhere said something" or "foreign agent who got his ass handed to him by the Russians, is now butthurt and fantasizes about Trump urinating" types of evidence. I am referring to evidence that has a chance to stand up to a cross examination. I haven't seen it, and I read the report.

For instance - on the issue of obstruction, there's undeniable evidence - the firing of Comey. Whether that's criminal or not is debatable, depending on whether you adhere to Barr's or Mueller's standard, but the fact that it's evidence that can withstand a cross examination is undeniable. On the charge of conspiracy, I'm just not seeing any.

A person is presumed innocent. If said person is investigated over a two year time period, and there's a lack of evidence to establish that said person is guilty, then said person is still presumed innocent. This is one of the most basic tenets of Jurisprudence.

[Shofercia]

Pointing out that there is no evidence of collusion/conspiracy in a report that Robert Mueller wrote, because Robert Mueller said that there is no evidence of collusion/conspiracy in a report that he wrote, is a truly frightening display of the delusion according to Rogue Hyperpower. I've yet to see a clearer example of projection. "But muh dumbz questionz, y u no answir?!"

As long as you're going to implicitly insist that there is no rational basis for regarding your comments as intelligent, I'm going to continue to point out that they are not intelligent.

"We determined not to apply an approach that could potentially result in a judgement that the President committed crimes.

The reason you won't answer the question is that you know damned well Mueller does not and never did have the power to bring an indictment against Trump. He can only bring evidence gathered, to those who can bring an indictment (i.e. Congress)

"If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts, that the President did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state."

Ring a bell? That's also from Mueller's report. If Mueller had the official power to bring an indictment on a sitting President, it's rather Captain Obvious apparent that he would have already.

Your farcical argument boils down to "Bobby doesn't have a driver's license. That means roads don't exist." It's cute, but catastrophically imbecilic.

Once again, you're successfully confusing the issue of obstruction with the issue of collusion/conspiracy, while whining about the stupidity of others. That kind of projection's rather hilarious. On the issue of collusion/conspiracy, rather than the issue of obstruction, the Mueller Report is crystal clear:

the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.

So they didn't establish that, but they'd bring charges on that issue? Also, from the Mueller Report:

Volume II addresses the President's actions toward the FBI's investigation into Russia's interference in the 2016 presidential election and related matters, and his actions towards the Special Counsel's investigation. Volume II separately states its framework and considerations that guided that investigation.

Do you see conspiracy/collusion anywhere there? Actually, Rogue Hyperpower, you probably do. I wonder, where would one find conspiracy/collusion? Probably in Volume I:

Volume I describes the factual results of the Special Counsel's investigation in the 2016 presidential election and its interactions with the Trump Campaign.

Yeah, that would be it. What do I do when Rogue Hyperpower uses a quote from Volume II to address an issue from Volume I?

What makes all of this even more hilarious, is that Rogue Hyperpower actually edited the post, making a most vital change, from this:

Your farcical argument boils down to "Bobby doesn't have a driver's license. That means roads don't exist." It's cute, but catastrophically imbecilic.

to this:

Your farcical argument boils down to "Bobby doesn't have a driver's license. That means roads don't exist."

It's cute, but catastrophically imbecilic.

What would one call that change after reading a post that cannot tell the difference between "1" and "2" - I'd call the change cute, but catastrophically imbecilic.

[Rogue Hyperpower]

Exactly. Not "No evidence", but "did not establish". Two different things.


Except there is evidence of that. You just said so yourself, just now, above.

Did not establish due to a lack of evidence regarding coordination/conspiracy. How else was this not established? There is no credible evidence that would meet even the most simplistic Court burden that any members of the Trump Campaign conspired/colluded with the Russians. There is evidence that Manafort helped Ukraine set some financial machinations in place, but at the time Ukraine wasn't a part of Russia.

Yes, from a pedantic perspective, the now discredited Steele Dossier can be viewed as evidence. However, we know that there wasn't even enough evidence for anyone to be indicted in front of a Grand Jury for conspiracy with Russia. When I use the term evidence, I don't mean that "some lady somewhere said something" or "foreign agent who got his ass handed to him by the Russians, is now butthurt and fantasizes about Trump urinating" types of evidence. I am referring to evidence that has a chance to stand up to a cross examination. I haven't seen it, and I read the report.

For instance - on the issue of obstruction, there's undeniable evidence - the firing of Comey. Whether that's criminal or not is debatable, depending on whether you adhere to Barr's or Mueller's standard, but the fact that it's evidence that can withstand a cross examination is undeniable. On the charge of conspiracy, I'm just not seeing any.

A person is presumed innocent. If said person is investigated over a two year time period, and there's a lack of evidence to establish that said person is guilty, then said person is still presumed innocent. This is one of the most basic tenets of Jurisprudence.

"We determined not to apply an approach that could potentially result in a judgement that the President committed crimes." - Mueller Report

Mueller does not believe a thorough examination of the facts would clear Trump of criminal charges.

Why not?

[Shofercia]

Did not establish due to a lack of evidence regarding coordination/conspiracy. How else was this not established? There is no credible evidence that would meet even the most simplistic Court burden that any members of the Trump Campaign conspired/colluded with the Russians. There is evidence that Manafort helped Ukraine set some financial machinations in place, but at the time Ukraine wasn't a part of Russia.

Yes, from a pedantic perspective, the now discredited Steele Dossier can be viewed as evidence. However, we know that there wasn't even enough evidence for anyone to be indicted in front of a Grand Jury for conspiracy with Russia. When I use the term evidence, I don't mean that "some lady somewhere said something" or "foreign agent who got his ass handed to him by the Russians, is now butthurt and fantasizes about Trump urinating" types of evidence. I am referring to evidence that has a chance to stand up to a cross examination. I haven't seen it, and I read the report.

For instance - on the issue of obstruction, there's undeniable evidence - the firing of Comey. Whether that's criminal or not is debatable, depending on whether you adhere to Barr's or Mueller's standard, but the fact that it's evidence that can withstand a cross examination is undeniable. On the charge of conspiracy, I'm just not seeing any.

A person is presumed innocent. If said person is investigated over a two year time period, and there's a lack of evidence to establish that said person is guilty, then said person is still presumed innocent. This is one of the most basic tenets of Jurisprudence.

"We determined not to apply an approach that could potentially result in a judgement that the President committed crimes." - Mueller Report

Mueller does not believe a thorough examination of the facts would clear Trump of criminal charges.

Why not?

If you're going to continue to confuse the issues of conspiracy and obstruction, I am going to continue to make fun of you. Mueller holds that belief on the issue of obstruction, not on the issue of conspiracy/collusion. This can be seen in the actual indictments of Trump's staff, i.e. they were indicted for lying to FBI/Mueller, as lies can obstruct the investigation; they weren't indicted for conspiracy/collusion with Russia.

This means that if Trump simply left Comey alone, and if Trump and his staff simply plead the Fifth, Mueller would've ended up with nothing.

[Rogue Hyperpower]

"We determined not to apply an approach that could potentially result in a judgement that the President committed crimes." - Mueller Report

Mueller does not believe a thorough examination of the facts would clear Trump of criminal charges.

Why not?

If you're going to continue to confuse the issues of conspiracy and obstruction, I am going to continue to make fun of you.

I have no intention of stopping you from making a fool of yourself. I'll just keep pointing it out.

Mueller holds that belief on the issue of obstruction, not on the issue of conspiracy/collusion. This can be seen in the actual indictments of Trump's staff, i.e. they were indicted for lying to FBI/Mueller, as lies can obstruct the investigation; they weren't indicted for conspiracy/collusion with Russia.

It's sufficient to note the numerous convictions and pending criminal indictments that have emerged from investigating the Trump campaign's many interactions and ties to the Russians. Collusion. You can have collusion without having a criminal conspiracy, but you can't have a criminal conspiracy without some sort of collusion. Mueller did not find conspiracy. He found plenty of collusion and attempts to collude. In the context of the Russian efforts to influence the 2016 elections, the Trump campaign exhibited a willingness to give information to and receive information from the Russians. That's not a conspiracy. Trump, after all, very openly and publicly asked the Russians to help him acquire Hillary Clinton's emails during a live televised Presidential debate. Unseemly, disgusting, ethically deficient, brazenly seeking collusion and collaboration. That all said, collusion isn't illegal. It's just shamelessly reprehensible. As is denying the obvious collusion that took place. It remains to be seen if Trump is stupid enough to deny said easily demonstrated collusion under oath at risk of criminal perjury. Trump didn't conspire with the Russians to commit a crime any more than the employees of Papa John's conspire to make a pizza. The employees of Papa John's absolutely collude to make pizza. The Trump campaign and the Russians absolutely colluded to win Trump the Presidency. How that makes Trump look is Trump's problem.

This means that if Trump simply left Comey alone, and if Trump and his staff simply plead the Fifth, Mueller would've ended up with nothing.

Except that you are ignoring that Mueller and his team avoided taking a prosecutorial / adversarial approach that could "potentially result in a judgement that the President committed crimes." They just collected and uncovered the information someone else (i.e. Congress, or the Justice Department after Trump leaves office) could use to indict Trump, on either or both conspiracy and obstruction charges.

Your hysterical idea that Mueller, you know, the guy that wrote the Mueller Report, "exonerates" Trump with text that explicitly states that Trump is NOT exonerated is laughably idiotic.

Keep on hyperventilating.

[Gravlen]

Exactly. Not "No evidence", but "did not establish". Two different things.


Except there is evidence of that. You just said so yourself, just now, above.

Did not establish due to a lack of evidence regarding coordination/conspiracy. How else was this not established? There is no credible evidence that would meet even the most simplistic Court burden that any members of the Trump Campaign conspired/colluded with the Russians. There is evidence that Manafort helped Ukraine set some financial machinations in place, but at the time Ukraine wasn't a part of Russia.

Incorrect. As the Mueller report states, there was evidence, sufficient evidence for a court (the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC)) to issue warrants based on a finding of probable cause on four occasions.

(Noting that probable cause requires only "a fair probability," and not "certainty, or proof beyond a reasonable doubt, or proof by a preponderance of the evidence").

Yes, from a pedantic perspective, the now discredited Steele Dossier can be viewed as evidence. However, we know that there wasn't even enough evidence for anyone to be indicted in front of a Grand Jury for conspiracy with Russia. When I use the term evidence, I don't mean that "some lady somewhere said something" or "foreign agent who got his ass handed to him by the Russians, is now butthurt and fantasizes about Trump urinating" types of evidence. I am referring to evidence that has a chance to stand up to a cross examination. I haven't seen it, and I read the report.

For instance - on the issue of obstruction, there's undeniable evidence - the firing of Comey. Whether that's criminal or not is debatable, depending on whether you adhere to Barr's or Mueller's standard, but the fact that it's evidence that can withstand a cross examination is undeniable. On the charge of conspiracy, I'm just not seeing any.

A person is presumed innocent. If said person is investigated over a two year time period, and there's a lack of evidence to establish that said person is guilty, then said person is still presumed innocent. This is one of the most basic tenets of Jurisprudence.

Like OJ Simpson. He was aquitted, and in the eyes of the court he is not guilty. To say there was no evidence that he killed two people would be false, however.

[Forsher]

I feel like I must be missing something here. For a variety of reasons I have not, should not and will not trawl through this conversation to see if I can find it myself, so I will just ask.

Surely it is not in Trump's self-interest to reveal a report that everyone other than his sycophants thinks hasn't cleared Trump of wrongdoing?

Perhaps in this context I am missing it is revealed you mean something more like: why are Trump's sycophants refusing to declassify a report that they believe clears Trump of wrongdoing?

An analogy: Mueller has no evidence that Trump is keeping dead bodies in his closet, but, he was blocked from looking in Trump's closet.

The FBI perjury trap works like this: the FBI never asks anyone a question they don't already know the answer to. Trump avoided being asked questions altogether.

I'm still not convinced I follow... are you offering your/the answer to the question:

What harm to Trump comes from Trump declassifying a report that the vast majority of people (including Mueller himself) that exist outside Trump's bubble of sycophants disbelieve clears Trump of wrongdoing.

You appear to have what I'm going to call two maximum likelihood arguments. That is, it is possible... perhaps plausible... to believe an innocent explanation for why Trump's sycophants or Trump himself kept Mueller at arms length, but the explanation that makes this behaviour most likely* is that Trump really does have something to hide. Mueller didn't get access to Trump because if he had been allowed access Trump would either perjure himself or confess to criminal activity. That last bit about perjury is the subject of the second argument because it, again, is possible... maybe even plausible... to believe that Mueller would ask someone questions for research purposes, but it is most likely that someone like Mueller (the FBI) would ask questions if they know the answers.

Obviously if Mueller knew the answers then the answers are in the full report, therefore Trump and his sycophants are not releasing the full version of the report. The harm is whatever information Mueller found that made him want to talk to Trump.

In this sense I think I mistook a non-rhetorical question for a rhetorical question?

*As opposed to the most likely explanation. This is a key distinction if anyone is confused. Mathematically the main text is talking about P(A|X_i) where each X_i is a potential description but the most likely explanation is P(Xⁱ), which is completely different. Maximum Likelihood arguments are the MO of traditional statistical inference. Compare and contrast proof by contradiction.

[Forsher]

I created an account recently and have been posting around to make people familiar with me, maybe I should have waited until later to post, wasn't aware that new accounts are suspicious. Sorry

New accounts are suspicious because they're likely to be alt accounts made by someone (usually someone in the thread) to hide their identity.

Why would they hide their identity to make such an innocuous remark?

They're that desperate to be seen as the cool new thing? Pull the other one.

Yes

Ah. Thanks.

Such an enumeration would seem to tally with what I've taken away from Hyperpower's reply.

Not that it matters. If you're talking just about the charge of obstruction, then a person can view that charge as non-impeachable, and continue on with their daily life, without being a sycophant, at least not in the minds of those whom I'd consider sane. If no president was impeached for it, then setting a new precedent might drive the nation even further apart.

Richard Nixon.

On a semantic point of some considerable importance, let me emphasise that when I say sycophants I (at least**) am not talking about people like you. I am talking about people like Barr who have positional power. Sycophant means sycophant not some shorthand gloss for "people with unreasonable interpretations of the Mueller report brought about by their sycophantic desires to please Trump" (c.f. "a person can view that charge as non-impeachable, and continue on with their daily life, without being a sycophant"). I'm not clear if Rogue Hyperpower used sycophant in the same way (obviously... I mean, my point was literally that I didn't follow their post) but I would hope not and even if it's only for that reason do not believe Hyperpower used sycophant in such a fashion.

This thread also seems best by another semantic game... the conflation of "collusion" with "criminal conspiracy".

Collusion. You can have collusion without having a criminal conspiracy, but you can't have a criminal conspiracy without some sort of collusion. Mueller did not find conspiracy. He found plenty of collusion and attempts to collude.

.

I would like to offer my own take on the distinction that Hyperpower is drawing here. And therefore I am.

I am reminded of an idiotic series of posts that I couldn't avoid during a brief flirtation with Medium by one Caitlin Johnstone or something like that. I can't remember if it was a point in her posts or the comments attached to them but you'd often here the refrain that "collusion is not a criminal charge". This is a deeply problematic conflation because what Mueller was asked to investigate... broadly speaking... was the presence of criminal activities but the popular discussion was about collusion. That newspapers and so on used the term "collusion" to describe the idea of what Mueller was up to did not and could not* affect the nature of what Mueller was doing. Now that Mueller's finished his investigation, his commentary are not and cannot be seen as comments about collusion because that's not what he was looking into.

Collusion is a broader, looser and generally much more nebulous concept than, say, criminal conspiracy. This is not a nice proposition to disagree with since it's naturally very fluid or difficult to operationalise. That latter point should immediately serve as a clue that anyone charged with investigating collusion isn't actually investigating collusion but rather something with a similar essential idea. If you look at this from the other angle though... the fluidity of collusion makes it a great reason to object to something since, after all, how can you judge someone fairly by an unfair and unoperationalisable concept? You can't really. But, as I said, this is a clue that no-one tried to.

People talk about semantics like it doesn't matter, but it does. This explains the footnote incidentally. Deconstructionists... I may have forgotten the technical name but if the name Hayden White means anything to you or the Linguistic Turn, this is what I'm talking about... are quite correct to point out that what we call something affects its meaning. On the other hand, they're wrong to believe that this implies a linguistic construction of reality. Ours is a dual world. There is what happened or is... e.g. a Mueller investigation, a river or a shadow on the wall of a cave... but there is also an actual thing that is/was. The folk wisdom is completely correct: a rose by any other name does smell as sweet... the difference is, you just might not be able to buy it when you walk into a shop. If someone says "it's all semantics" that usually means it's time to pay much closer attention.

If you can convince someone that something doesn't matter... then it really does become that... but this is not a process that people have to take lying down. It is something people carefully work to achieve. Or accidentally create by not stopping to think about the underlying reality. The part of the world I'm from has an idea called "the fair go" (NZ actually has/d a TV show called Fair Go). It's unfair to give phenomena meanings that do not reflect their true nature: to call sweetly smelling roses foul flowers isn't fair. And, yeah, you might say calling something unfair sounds childish, but that doesn't mean it is fair, right or even that unfairness is something we shouldn't care about. All it means is that you have thought of a way of dismissing an inconvenient truth. Whether people let you succeed in that dismissal... that largely brings us back to the starting point about semantics.

I'm not sure if conflating "did not establish" with "no evidence" is a semantic no-no or a formal logical fallacy. But semantics is a field of logic and linguistics so maybe it's necessarily both. On the logical end.. an easy analogy: "not bad" and "good" are not the same statement.

*If you're a deconstructionist, know that your premises are correct but your conclusions are wrong.

[Shofercia]

If you're going to continue to confuse the issues of conspiracy and obstruction, I am going to continue to make fun of you.

I have no intention of stopping you from making a fool of yourself. I'll just keep pointing it out.

I'm not the one who's unable to tell the difference between the numbers "1" and "2" - that'd be you, since you're quoting things from Volume II, while failing to address the issue of Volume I.

Mueller holds that belief on the issue of obstruction, not on the issue of conspiracy/collusion. This can be seen in the actual indictments of Trump's staff, i.e. they were indicted for lying to FBI/Mueller, as lies can obstruct the investigation; they weren't indicted for conspiracy/collusion with Russia.

It's sufficient to note the numerous convictions and pending criminal indictments that have emerged from investigating the Trump campaign's many interactions and ties to the Russians.

Can you name one individual who was indicted for conspiring with Russia, rather than Ukraine?

Collusion. You can have collusion without having a criminal conspiracy, but you can't have a criminal conspiracy without some sort of collusion. Mueller did not find conspiracy. He found plenty of collusion and attempts to collude.

An attempt to collude is not the same as collusion. If I decide to rob a bank, but I failed because, just as I was pulling out of my garage, my neighbor hit my car and offered a nice pay off so that it doesn't go on her record, and I figured said payoff was enough - I didn't commit any crime.

In the context of the Russian efforts to influence the 2016 elections, the Trump campaign exhibited a willingness to give information to and receive information from the Russians. That's not a conspiracy. Trump, after all, very openly and publicly asked the Russians to help him acquire Hillary Clinton's emails during a live televised Presidential debate. Unseemly, disgusting, ethically deficient, brazenly seeking collusion and collaboration. That all said, collusion isn't illegal.

No, he asked the Russians to release them to the American Public. Not to his campaign. That's a World of difference. A politician can say "if anyone has dirt on my opponent, or on me, please make it public, and you can be mightily rewarded by our press!" That's legal. He didn't ask Russia to hack Clinton; he said that if Russia already hacked Clinton's emails, and if the Russians, Chinese, and Iranians had access to that intel, why shouldn't the American Public? But the American Public finding out the truth about your politician, Rogue Hyperpower, for you that's disgusting and ethically deficient. Waaa!

It's just shamelessly reprehensible. As is denying the obvious collusion that took place. It remains to be seen if Trump is stupid enough to deny said easily demonstrated collusion under oath at risk of criminal perjury. Trump didn't conspire with the Russians to commit a crime any more than the employees of Papa John's conspire to make a pizza. The employees of Papa John's absolutely collude to make pizza. The Trump campaign and the Russians absolutely colluded to win Trump the Presidency. How that makes Trump look is Trump's problem.

Difference being is that Trump didn't ask the Russians to hack; Trump asked the Russians to release material that was already hacked, and shared with Russian, Chinese, and Iranian intelligence agencies. He asked the information that foreign intelligence agencies had, to be shared with the American Voter.

This means that if Trump simply left Comey alone, and if Trump and his staff simply plead the Fifth, Mueller would've ended up with nothing.

Except that you are ignoring that Mueller and his team avoided taking a prosecutorial / adversarial approach that could "potentially result in a judgement that the President committed crimes." They just collected and uncovered the information someone else (i.e. Congress, or the Justice Department after Trump leaves office) could use to indict Trump, on either or both conspiracy and obstruction charges.

Yes, Mueller did say that. And then he proceeded to provide Congress with a road map to take a prosecutorial approach against President Trump.

Your hysterical idea that Mueller, you know, the guy that wrote the Mueller Report, "exonerates" Trump with text that explicitly states that Trump is NOT exonerated is laughably idiotic.

It exonerates Trump on the issue of conspiracy/collusion, which you equated to people making a pizza. Making a pizza is not a criminal act. I did not say that it fully exonerated Trump.

Keep on hyperventilating.

You continue to project my dear.

[Shofercia]

Did not establish due to a lack of evidence regarding coordination/conspiracy. How else was this not established? There is no credible evidence that would meet even the most simplistic Court burden that any members of the Trump Campaign conspired/colluded with the Russians. There is evidence that Manafort helped Ukraine set some financial machinations in place, but at the time Ukraine wasn't a part of Russia.

Incorrect. As the Mueller report states, there was evidence, sufficient evidence for a court (the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC)) to issue warrants based on a finding of probable cause on four occasions.

(Noting that probable cause requires only "a fair probability," and not "certainty, or proof beyond a reasonable doubt, or proof by a preponderance of the evidence").

If you're talking about the FISA warrant, then I should note that the presentation of facts to the FISC Court was improper, and should probably be investigated by AG Barr. That said, based on the poorly presented facts that the FISC Court had, the warrant was properly issued. In a Court Room, or when applying for a warrant, you're supposed to tell the Truth, the Whole Truth, and nothing but the Truth. Ergo, it is reasonable for the Court to presume that you are, in fact, telling the Whole Truth. So if you lie, you can be punished.

Yes, from a pedantic perspective, the now discredited Steele Dossier can be viewed as evidence. However, we know that there wasn't even enough evidence for anyone to be indicted in front of a Grand Jury for conspiracy with Russia. When I use the term evidence, I don't mean that "some lady somewhere said something" or "foreign agent who got his ass handed to him by the Russians, is now butthurt and fantasizes about Trump urinating" types of evidence. I am referring to evidence that has a chance to stand up to a cross examination. I haven't seen it, and I read the report.

For instance - on the issue of obstruction, there's undeniable evidence - the firing of Comey. Whether that's criminal or not is debatable, depending on whether you adhere to Barr's or Mueller's standard, but the fact that it's evidence that can withstand a cross examination is undeniable. On the charge of conspiracy, I'm just not seeing any.

A person is presumed innocent. If said person is investigated over a two year time period, and there's a lack of evidence to establish that said person is guilty, then said person is still presumed innocent. This is one of the most basic tenets of Jurisprudence.

Like OJ Simpson. He was aquitted, and in the eyes of the court he is not guilty. To say there was no evidence that he killed two people would be false, however.

There was plenty of evidence found and verified against OJ. There was no evidence found and verified against President Trump on that one issue - conspiracy/collusion. If you're talking about obstruction - then yes, there's evidence there. I never denied that.

[Seangoli]

I have no intention of stopping you from making a fool of yourself. I'll just keep pointing it out.

I'm not the one who's unable to tell the difference between the numbers "1" and "2" - that'd be you, since you're quoting things from Volume II, while failing to address the issue of Volume I.

It's sufficient to note the numerous convictions and pending criminal indictments that have emerged from investigating the Trump campaign's many interactions and ties to the Russians.

Can you name one individual who was indicted for conspiring with Russia, rather than Ukraine?

Collusion. You can have collusion without having a criminal conspiracy, but you can't have a criminal conspiracy without some sort of collusion. Mueller did not find conspiracy. He found plenty of collusion and attempts to collude.

An attempt to collude is not the same as collusion. If I decide to rob a bank, but I failed because, just as I was pulling out of my garage, my neighbor hit my car and offered a nice pay off so that it doesn't go on her record, and I figured said payoff was enough - I didn't commit any crime.

In the context of the Russian efforts to influence the 2016 elections, the Trump campaign exhibited a willingness to give information to and receive information from the Russians. That's not a conspiracy. Trump, after all, very openly and publicly asked the Russians to help him acquire Hillary Clinton's emails during a live televised Presidential debate. Unseemly, disgusting, ethically deficient, brazenly seeking collusion and collaboration. That all said, collusion isn't illegal.

No, he asked the Russians to release them to the American Public. Not to his campaign. That's a World of difference. A politician can say "if anyone has dirt on my opponent, or on me, please make it public, and you can be mightily rewarded by our press!" That's legal. He didn't ask Russia to hack Clinton; he said that if Russia already hacked Clinton's emails, and if the Russians, Chinese, and Iranians had access to that intel, why shouldn't the American Public? But the American Public finding out the truth about your politician, Rogue Hyperpower, for you that's disgusting and ethically deficient. Waaa!

It's just shamelessly reprehensible. As is denying the obvious collusion that took place. It remains to be seen if Trump is stupid enough to deny said easily demonstrated collusion under oath at risk of criminal perjury. Trump didn't conspire with the Russians to commit a crime any more than the employees of Papa John's conspire to make a pizza. The employees of Papa John's absolutely collude to make pizza. The Trump campaign and the Russians absolutely colluded to win Trump the Presidency. How that makes Trump look is Trump's problem.

Difference being is that Trump didn't ask the Russians to hack; Trump asked the Russians to release material that was already hacked, and shared with Russian, Chinese, and Iranian intelligence agencies. He asked the information that foreign intelligence agencies had, to be shared with the American Voter.

Except that you are ignoring that Mueller and his team avoided taking a prosecutorial / adversarial approach that could "potentially result in a judgement that the President committed crimes." They just collected and uncovered the information someone else (i.e. Congress, or the Justice Department after Trump leaves office) could use to indict Trump, on either or both conspiracy and obstruction charges.

Yes, Mueller did say that. And then he proceeded to provide Congress with a road map to take a prosecutorial approach against President Trump.

Your hysterical idea that Mueller, you know, the guy that wrote the Mueller Report, "exonerates" Trump with text that explicitly states that Trump is NOT exonerated is laughably idiotic.

It exonerates Trump on the issue of conspiracy/collusion, which you equated to people making a pizza. Making a pizza is not a criminal act. I did not say that it fully exonerated Trump.

Keep on hyperventilating.

You continue to project my dear.

It does not exonerate Trump in the least. Mueller basically was quite clear on this. Now, he also did not state that Trump was guilty, either, as he was incapable of doing so.

Basically, Mueller's options were "Trump is not guilty in terms of collusion" and "Trump is not not-guilty of collusion."

On this subject, he chose the latter and not the former. Which is why Barr was careful to state that the Mueller report does not exonerate Trump. It doesn't condemn him, either. It does neither, and passes the ball to Congress.

[Shofercia]

I'm not the one who's unable to tell the difference between the numbers "1" and "2" - that'd be you, since you're quoting things from Volume II, while failing to address the issue of Volume I.




Can you name one individual who was indicted for conspiring with Russia, rather than Ukraine?




An attempt to collude is not the same as collusion. If I decide to rob a bank, but I failed because, just as I was pulling out of my garage, my neighbor hit my car and offered a nice pay off so that it doesn't go on her record, and I figured said payoff was enough - I didn't commit any crime.




No, he asked the Russians to release them to the American Public. Not to his campaign. That's a World of difference. A politician can say "if anyone has dirt on my opponent, or on me, please make it public, and you can be mightily rewarded by our press!" That's legal. He didn't ask Russia to hack Clinton; he said that if Russia already hacked Clinton's emails, and if the Russians, Chinese, and Iranians had access to that intel, why shouldn't the American Public? But the American Public finding out the truth about your politician, Rogue Hyperpower, for you that's disgusting and ethically deficient. Waaa!




Difference being is that Trump didn't ask the Russians to hack; Trump asked the Russians to release material that was already hacked, and shared with Russian, Chinese, and Iranian intelligence agencies. He asked the information that foreign intelligence agencies had, to be shared with the American Voter.




Yes, Mueller did say that. And then he proceeded to provide Congress with a road map to take a prosecutorial approach against President Trump.




It exonerates Trump on the issue of conspiracy/collusion, which you equated to people making a pizza. Making a pizza is not a criminal act. I did not say that it fully exonerated Trump.




You continue to project my dear.

It does not exonerate Trump in the least. Mueller basically was quite clear on this. Now, he also did not state that Trump was guilty, either, as he was incapable of doing so.

Basically, Mueller's options were "Trump is not guilty in terms of collusion" and "Trump is not not-guilty of collusion."

On this subject, he chose the latter and not the former. Which is why Barr was careful to state that the Mueller report does not exonerate Trump. It doesn't condemn him, either. It does neither, and passes the ball to Congress.

Summary Barr's statement:

Charge of Collusion/Conspiracy: Nothing found
Charge of Obstruction: We're not going to prosecute

So yes, on both charges, Trump is not exonerated. On conspiracy/collusion, no evidence that was properly verified was found against Trump. So if he didn't allegedly obstruct the investigation, he'd be fine.

[Gravlen]

Incorrect. As the Mueller report states, there was evidence, sufficient evidence for a court (the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC)) to issue warrants based on a finding of probable cause on four occasions.

(Noting that probable cause requires only "a fair probability," and not "certainty, or proof beyond a reasonable doubt, or proof by a preponderance of the evidence").

If you're talking about the FISA warrant, then I should note that the presentation of facts to the FISC Court was improper, and should probably be investigated by AG Barr. That said, based on the poorly presented facts that the FISC Court had, the warrant was properly issued. In a Court Room, or when applying for a warrant, you're supposed to tell the Truth, the Whole Truth, and nothing but the Truth. Ergo, it is reasonable for the Court to presume that you are, in fact, telling the Whole Truth. So if you lie, you can be punished.

I'm talking about the fact that Mueller had sufficient evidence to get a warrant from the FISC court, and that he later didn't reject that evidence. I bring it up as a clear example in the report that evidence existed.

Like OJ Simpson. He was aquitted, and in the eyes of the court he is not guilty. To say there was no evidence that he killed two people would be false, however.

There was plenty of evidence found and verified against OJ. There was no evidence found and verified against President Trump on that one issue - conspiracy/collusion. If you're talking about obstruction - then yes, there's evidence there. I never denied that.

I'm still talking about conspiracy.

The following is a long analysis from the Lawfare blog written by Benjamin Wittes. He argues why the conclusion Mueller came to concerning conspiracy is the correct one, and goes through the main points. I don't dispute his arguments, but for the purpose of this argument I will highlight some parts:

First, Mueller makes clear that when the report concludes that “the investigation did not establish particular facts” this “does not mean there was no evidence of those facts.”

Mueller made clear early on that he knows perfectly well how to “point[] out the absence of evidence” when the investigation refutes something; the phrase “did not establish,” he noted specifically, “does not mean there was no evidence” of the facts in question. It means, rather, that the investigation could not prove something adequately for criminal purposes. Coordination, meanwhile, he interprets in light of conspiracy law, which requires a meeting of the minds between conspirators in an agreement to pursue an illegal end. So let’s start by noting the narrowness of the inquiry here and the fact that Mueller chose to use the phrase that he had specifically said earlier did not signify the absence of evidence.

The first point to make, therefore, is that Mueller did not conclude either that coordination between the Russians and the Trump campaign did not happen through some or all of these contacts. He concluded, rather, that he had insufficient evidence to allege criminally that it did happen. This is notably different from his conclusions about the IRA operation, where he affirmatively reported an absence of evidence: the “investigation did not identify evidence that any U.S. persons knowingly and intentionally coordinated with the IRA interference operations.”

It is not hard to see how he came to the conclusion that charges for conspiracy would not be plausible based on the contacts reported here. For starters, a number of the individual incidents that looked deeply suspicious when they first came to light do look more innocent after investigation. These include the change in the Republican Party platform on Ukraine at the Republican Convention, for example, and the various encounters between Jeff Sessions and other campaign officials, on the one hand, and the omnipresent former Russian ambassador, Sergey Kislyak, on the other. On these matters, Mueller does seem to have found that nothing untoward happened.

Even those incidents that don’t look innocent after investigation don’t look like criminal conspiracy either. So, for example, George Papadopoulos found out about the Russians having “dirt” on Clinton in the form of “thousands of emails,” but he does not appear to have reported this to the campaign—though he was trying to arrange a Trump-Putin meeting at the time. Even if he had reported it to the campaign, it doesn’t constitute conspiracy for the Trump campaign to be aware of Russian possession of hacked Clinton emails. The campaign, even if it did learn of what Papadopoulos had heard, never did anything about it.

The Trump Tower meeting is one of the most damning single episodes discussed, since the campaign’s senior staff took a meeting with Russian representatives having been promised disparaging information on Clinton as part of the Russian government’s support of Trump. Yet even here, while the campaign showed eagerness to benefit from Russian activity, the meeting was unproductive and nothing came of it. Where exactly is the conspiracy supposed to be?

Ditto the extended negotiations over Trump Tower Moscow. The investigation here makes clear that Trump—who spent the campaign insisting he had “nothing to do with Russia”—was lying through his teeth the whole time he was, in fact, seeking Russian presidential support for his business deal. But it’s not illegal to have contacts with Russians, including Putin’s immediate staff, to try to build a building. And it’s not obvious how this sort of “collusion” with the Russian government could amount to coordination or conspiracy on concurrent Russian electoral interference. Tellingly, Mueller notes that Michael Cohen couldn’t recall any discussion of the “political implications of the Trump Moscow project,” though he did recall “conversations with Trump in which the candidate suggested that his campaign would be a significant ‘infomercial’ for Trump-branded properties.”

The problem with imagining this series of contacts as a conspiracy law problem is that neither any one of them individually nor any group of them together reflects what Mueller described as his threshold definition of “coordination,” which “require[s] an agreement—tacit or express—between the Trump Campaign and the Russian government on election interference. That requires more than the two parties taking actions that were informed by or responsive to the other's actions or interests.”

But if that’s the case, then why is Mueller so reticent about a stronger “no collusion” conclusion? Mueller actually doesn’t answer this question. But I think there are likely two major factors that lead him to be circumspect in his conclusion on this score.

The first is the sheer volume of contacts. It really is breathtaking. These contacts were taking place even as it was publicly revealed that the Russians had been behind the Democratic Party hacks, even as the releases of emails took place, even as the incumbent administration was publicly attributing the attacks to Russia, even as—through the transition—the outgoing administration was sanctioning Russia for them. The brazen quality of meeting serially with an adversary power while it is attacking the country and lying about it constantly militates against a stronger conclusion that there is no evidence of conspiracy—at least not in the absence of solid answers to every question.

This brings me to the second factor, which is that there were not solid answers to every question—and some of the loose ends are weird. The Mueller team was clearly left unsatisfied that it understood all of Carter Page’s activities while he was in Moscow in July 2016, for example. While redactions encumber the reading of this portion of the discussion, Page had referred in an email to the campaign to “feedback from a diverse array of other sources close to the [Russian] Presidential Administration.” Mueller’s team was apparently unable to figure out what this reference to a "diverse array" of government "sources" meant. “The Office was unable to obtain additional evidence or testimony about who Page may have met or communicated with in Moscow; thus, Page’s activities in Russia—as described in his emails with the Campaign—were not fully explained,” Mueller writes.

Similarly, Donald Trump Jr., the office reports in its discussion of the Trump Tower meeting, “declined to be voluntarily interviewed by the Office.” This line is followed by a redaction for grand jury information. Given that a subpoena would normally resolve the problem of such a refusal of an interview, the redaction raises the question of whether Trump Jr. may have asserted his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination or indicated an intent to do so (prosecutors typically will not force someone to appear before a grand jury once they have been informed he or she intends to assert the Fifth). In any event, Mueller’s team was left without a full account of the conduct of the president's son.

The biggest problem in this regard was Paul Manafort. Mueller is candid that he was unable to determine why Manafort was having campaign polling data shared with his long-time employee, Konstantin Kilimnik; Mueller specifically cites evidence tending to support the FBI’s determination that Kilimnik has ties to Russian intelligence. Mueller was also unable to determine what to make of repeated conversations between Kilimnik and Manafort about a Ukrainian peace plan highly favorable to Russia. And while Mueller could not find evidence of Manafort’s passing the peace plan along to other people in the campaign, he notes that the office was unable “to gain access to all of Manafort’s electronic communications” because “messages were sent using encryption applications” and that Manafort lied to the office about the peace plan. As to the polling data, “the Office could not assess what Kilimink (or others he may have given it to) did with it.” So while the office did not establish coordination in this area, it was clearly left with residual suspicions—and with unanswered questions.

So there you are, on the legal side. The evidence arising out of links or contacts isn’t all that close to establishing coordination in the sense that conspiracy law would recognize. But the volume of contacts, the lies and the open questions make it impossible to say that there’s no evidence of it—much less that there’s positive evidence falsifying it.

Claiming that Mueller says there's 'no evidence' for conspiracy, when he actually says the evidence was not sufficient to support criminal charges, is simply wrong.