The Mueller Probe is Complete - Longer OP Edition

[Vassenor]

From NBC news, aka Democrat Central: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald ... rr-n986611



If collusion is not a crime, how can he criminally collude? If he cannot, why did Mueller investigate that?

Here's an explanation:

The word collusion appears nowhere in the order authorizing Mueller’s investigation. There is not even a relevant crime called “collusion.” What Mueller is tasked with is investigating “any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with” the Trump campaign.

If “links and/or coordination” also don’t sound like crimes, that’s because they aren’t. While Mueller is directed to charge and prosecute crimes he discovers, his is primarily a counterintelligence investigation — not a criminal one — the purpose of which is to identify threats to our national security, potentially including the President of the United States and his associates.

http://time.com/5540879/trump-mueller-report-investigation-collusion/

But that doesn't match what Trump said, and Dear Leader cannot lie.

[Gravlen]

Let's look at that in more detail: Mueller has cleared Trump of collusion but didn't exonerate him.

So by saying that Mueller didn't exonerate Trump on the charge of Collusion, you're saying that Mueller exonerated Trump on the charge of Collusion. Must be some weird Forsher language that I'm not getting. Let me place this in simpler terms:

Mueller exonerated Trump on the charge of Collusion.
Mueller did not prosecute Trump on the charge of Obstruction, but did not exonerate him on the charge of Obstruction.

Correct. People are probably using exoneration as donnie has been claiming it. donnie wasn't exonerated. All Muller reported is he couldn't charge donnie with criminal conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt. He is not exonerated on collusion nor obstruction. Impeachment will be an issue for congress.

People need to let go that donnie will be impeached. Nixon saw the GOP against him. The GOP isn't around anymore. Nor is the tea party. It's the trump party and they won't go against him. Look at old McC as he declared he won't put anything before the president unless he won't sign it.

I agree with you.

Here's a viewpoint from a former federal prosecutor supporting what you're saying in your first paragraph:

But crucially, Mueller reported that his investigation “did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities,” whether expressly or tacitly. To use the popular cable-news vernacular, Mueller did not establish “collusion.” (Never mind that collusion is not a legal term, and that the special counsel’s mission was to investigate “links and/or coordination” with the Russians.)

Trump’s triumphant supporters notwithstanding, we don’t yet know what that means. When prosecutors say that an investigation “did not establish” something, that doesn’t mean that they concluded it didn’t happen, or even that they don’t believe it happened. It means that the investigation didn’t produce enough information to prove that it happened. Without seeing Mueller’s full report, we don’t know whether this is a firm conclusion about lack of coordination or a frank admission of insufficient evidence. The difference is meaningful, both as a matter of history and because it might determine how much further Democrats in Congress are willing to push committee investigations of the matter.

[Confederate States of German America]

This thread is getting saltier than the Dead Sea and I fucking love it.

[Forsher]

Correct. People are probably using exoneration as donnie has been claiming it. donnie wasn't exonerated. All Muller reported is he couldn't charge donnie with criminal conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt. He is not exonerated on collusion nor obstruction. Impeachment will be an issue for congress.

People need to let go that donnie will be impeached. Nixon saw the GOP against him. The GOP isn't around anymore. Nor is the tea party. It's the trump party and they won't go against him. Look at old McC as he declared he won't put anything before the president unless he won't sign it.

I agree with you.

Here's a viewpoint from a former federal prosecutor supporting what you're saying in your first paragraph:

But crucially, Mueller reported that his investigation “did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities,” whether expressly or tacitly. To use the popular cable-news vernacular, Mueller did not establish “collusion.” (Never mind that collusion is not a legal term, and that the special counsel’s mission was to investigate “links and/or coordination” with the Russians.)

Trump’s triumphant supporters notwithstanding, we don’t yet know what that means. When prosecutors say that an investigation “did not establish” something, that doesn’t mean that they concluded it didn’t happen, or even that they don’t believe it happened. It means that the investigation didn’t produce enough information to prove that it happened. Without seeing Mueller’s full report, we don’t know whether this is a firm conclusion about lack of coordination or a frank admission of insufficient evidence. The difference is meaningful, both as a matter of history and because it might determine how much further Democrats in Congress are willing to push committee investigations of the matter.

So your point is: "did not establish" does not meet the burden implied by an argument such as "Trump was exonerated by the Mueller Report in the matters referred to as 'collusion' in popular/lay discussion"?

Which... for anyone paying attention is not what I said earlier in this post chain... I said: (a) the Mueller report does not exonerate Trump, because (b) Mueller actively refrained from making a decision about obstruction so (c) it was Barr (not the report) who actually cleared Trump even if, as was the case, (d) Mueller cleared Trump of collusion.

Whether deciding to do nothing counts as being "cleared" might be profitably disputed, of course. If "exoneration" is being innocent, then "cleared" is some lesser finding... such as "lacks legal proof" but my usage is more "isn't responsible for anything wrong" to be contrasted with "done/caused nothing wrong" a la exoneration.

For reference:

Yes. This did not clear him of all wrongdoing. Do you understand how the report worked? Barr: "Yo, guyz, my main main Mueller has cleared Trump of collusion but didn't exonerate him. Imma say that it's all gud tho, since it don't luk like he did dat obstruction stuff either. Peace out".

I have colour coded each part because they're ordered differently.

Note that this is, strictly speaking, disagreeing with Gravlen's point (at least as my sleep deprived brain has understood it). This happens because the distinction I've drawn between "cleared" and "exonerated" isn't really meaningful in the context of Gravlen's post. Therefore, it's saying that Trump has been exonerated of the collusion charges, whereas Gravlen is saying that the report says "did not establish" means the burden of exoneration must be unmet for both the collusion and obstruction components. Of course, it is still important that I say "cleared"... it's just that Gravlen's talking about "it happened" which isn't the same as "is responsible for," which means we're using two different meanings for exoneration.

(I assume that people are capable of understanding that collusion is a stand in for the technical details not a suggestion it is the technical terminology, of course.)

This discussion ultimately stems from these remarks:

What about Clinton taking emails to a private server? That's the equivalent of having a public meeting in the E-World.

inspiring the following comment:

Also, this was investigated... and went precisely as far as the Mueller investigation did: "cleared but not exonerated".

The point being the same here. That is, the report cleared Trump but because the report didn't make a decision on obstruction it did not and cannot be said to exonerate Trump. The necessity of explaining that the report considered two different things and reached different conclusions about each of those two things was considered (foolishly) something that didn't need to be done. It also proved unwise to assume that the reader would understand that for Trump to be exonerated it was necessary for him to exonerated for both things (which he wasn't). But, again, this assumes that Trump was exonerated over collusion whereas I understand (possibly wrongly) to be saying that Trump wasn't exonerated over collusion (or, rather, the relevant technical matters). That is a different and incompatible claim with what I'm specifically saying, even though the top-level conclusion is shared: Trump was not exonerated by Mueller.

[Fahran]

The operative word is conspiracy. That is a crime. Collusion is not a crime. The only thing I found was good in the memo is Barr mentioned there were no closed indictments. There is conspiracy talk they exist and will be released when donnie is out of office.

What the media has been calling collusion more closely resembles conspiracy. The Mueller report would seem to suggest that no conspiracy existed between Trump's campaign and agents of the Russian government to impact the presidential elections, elections whose outcome Russian meddling probably didn't decide. As for conspiracy theorist ramblings, I wouldn't put any stock in them given how hysterical people have been regarding this issue. There are a good many reasons to be critical of Trump. All the reasons cited for this investigation have largely been moonshine - and not the kind that leaves you stumbling and jolly.

Still I will wait for the report before I really take a stance on it. The memo is nice however I take notice when I see statements with ellipsis in front of them.

Fair enough, though, even in its absence, we shouldn't speculate excessively. Absence of evidence could quite plausibly be evidence of absence.

[Vassenor]

The operative word is conspiracy. That is a crime. Collusion is not a crime. The only thing I found was good in the memo is Barr mentioned there were no closed indictments. There is conspiracy talk they exist and will be released when donnie is out of office.

What the media has been calling collusion more closely resembles conspiracy. The Mueller report would seem to suggest that no conspiracy existed between Trump's campaign and agents of the Russian government to impact the presidential elections, elections whose outcome Russian meddling probably didn't decide. As for conspiracy theorist ramblings, I wouldn't put any stock in them given how hysterical people have been regarding this issue. There are a good many reasons to be critical of Trump. All the reasons cited for this investigation have largely been moonshine - and not the kind that leaves you stumbling and jolly.

Still I will wait for the report before I really take a stance on it. The memo is nice however I take notice when I see statements with ellipsis in front of them.

Fair enough, though, even in its absence, we shouldn't speculate excessively. Absence of evidence could quite plausibly be evidence of absence.

Do those suggestions account for the massive omissions Barr made in his quotes from the report?

[Seangoli]

This thread is getting saltier than the Dead Sea and I fucking love it.

I mean, its not. At all. We have people discussing the topic at hand civilly and the potential ramifications. This Trumpist obsession with salt has you seeing it where there is none, seemingly believing in a shared delusion that people are being salty because you actually believe you are owning libs. In reality you are just making nonsensical nonsequitars that contribute nothing to the conversation because, ultimately, you have nothing meaningful to contribute nor any inclination to maturely discuss an issue.

But I digress.

[The International Syndicate of Workers]

I'm not a fan of Trump. Not at all. But I always thought that the Mueller probe was a nothingburger (hence, "Russiagate"). The neoliberal media gave this way more attention than they should've. I'd much rather see more attention placed on the crippling poverty, or the need for Medicare for All, or police brutality.

I don't know. What do I know anyways?

[Vassenor]

I'm not a fan of Trump. Not at all. But I always thought that the Mueller probe was a nothingburger (hence, "Russiagate"). The neoliberal media gave this way more attention than they should've. I'd much rather see more attention placed on the crippling poverty, or the need for Medicare for All, or police brutality.

I don't know. What do I know anyways?

You do realise people are capable of doing more than one thing at once, right?

[Fahran]

I agree with you.

Here's a viewpoint from a former federal prosecutor supporting what you're saying in your first paragraph:

But crucially, Mueller reported that his investigation “did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities,” whether expressly or tacitly. To use the popular cable-news vernacular, Mueller did not establish “collusion.” (Never mind that collusion is not a legal term, and that the special counsel’s mission was to investigate “links and/or coordination” with the Russians.)

Trump’s triumphant supporters notwithstanding, we don’t yet know what that means. When prosecutors say that an investigation “did not establish” something, that doesn’t mean that they concluded it didn’t happen, or even that they don’t believe it happened. It means that the investigation didn’t produce enough information to prove that it happened. Without seeing Mueller’s full report, we don’t know whether this is a firm conclusion about lack of coordination or a frank admission of insufficient evidence. The difference is meaningful, both as a matter of history and because it might determine how much further Democrats in Congress are willing to push committee investigations of the matter.

Is there really an effective difference between exonerating Trump of conspiracy and failing to uncover substantial evidence pointing to conspiracy though? The result of the Mueller report is more or less the same when it comes to impeachment proceedings against Trump in that it strips away a good deal of the legitimacy from the media narratives of the last two years and makes it impossible to remove Trump from office with any legitimacy unless something else is uncovered. There's reason Pelosi stated that impeachment wouldn't occur unless something damning enough to elicit bipartisan support materialized. It's because this line of attack has more or less been a bust. We can speculate that the Department of Justice spun the report, but we have no evidence of that at the moment. At best, I think the Democrats might be able to jump on the obstruction train, but even that would entail obstructing an investigation that ultimately led nowhere and risks being remembered by posterity as a witch hunt.

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

I'm not a fan of Trump. Not at all. But I always thought that the Mueller probe was a nothingburger (hence, "Russiagate"). The neoliberal media gave this way more attention than they should've. I'd much rather see more attention placed on the crippling poverty, or the need for Medicare for All, or police brutality.

I don't know. What do I know anyways?

You do realise people are capable of doing more than one thing at once, right?

I think their point is that we've lost track of those issues because of what's going on with Trump, which we have.

[Fahran]

You do realise people are capable of doing more than one thing at once, right?

You can, but time and money are limited resources. Every minute spent reporting on a nothing burger is a minute that could have been spent reporting on genuine policy or social problems. Every dollar spent investigating someone for something that didn't happen is a dollar not spent on subsidizing a homeless shelter, commissioning a nuclear torpedo, or giving tax credits to a solar panel company. Never mind that the media narrative actually had people believing things that probably weren't grounded in any factual basis.

[Vassenor]

You do realise people are capable of doing more than one thing at once, right?

You can, but time and money are limited resources. Every minute spent reporting on a nothing burger is a minute that could have been spent reporting on genuine policy or social problems. Every dollar spent investigating someone for something that didn't happen is a dollar not spent on subsidizing a homeless shelter, commissioning a nuclear torpedo, or giving tax credits to a solar panel company. Never mind that the media narrative actually had people believing things that probably weren't grounded in any factual basis.

Not sure where the nothingburger thing is coming from given the number of people indicted.

[Gormwood]

You can, but time and money are limited resources. Every minute spent reporting on a nothing burger is a minute that could have been spent reporting on genuine policy or social problems. Every dollar spent investigating someone for something that didn't happen is a dollar not spent on subsidizing a homeless shelter, commissioning a nuclear torpedo, or giving tax credits to a solar panel company. Never mind that the media narrative actually had people believing things that probably weren't grounded in any factual basis.

Not sure where the nothingburger thing is coming from given the number of people indicted.

The presumption that since Trump wasn't directly indicted that it's a political hit job comparable to the Whitewater probe which lead to impeachment... over a lie about an affair.

[Fahran]

Not sure where the nothingburger thing is coming from given the number of people indicted.

An investigation into allegations of conspiracy/treason against Trump uncovered financial crimes and obstruction by members of his campaign who, according to Mueller, did not conspire with Russian agents to impact the US General Election. It stumbled into crimes by accident. I don't think that vindicates this investigation. In any case, it should make the IRS and SEC more keen to investigate bigwigs more broadly if our goal is to uncover financial irregularities, fraud, and the like.

The presumption that since Trump wasn't directly indicted that it's a political hit job comparable to the Whitewater probe which lead to impeachment... over a lie about an affair.

This is more or less comparable to Whitewater except we haven't gotten Trump to perjure himself yet. And the Clinton machine handled the PR a lot better.

[Luna Amore]

You can, but time and money are limited resources. Every minute spent reporting on a nothing burger is a minute that could have been spent reporting on genuine policy or social problems. Every dollar spent investigating someone for something that didn't happen is a dollar not spent on subsidizing a homeless shelter, commissioning a nuclear torpedo, or giving tax credits to a solar panel company. Never mind that the media narrative actually had people believing things that probably weren't grounded in any factual basis.

Not sure where the nothingburger thing is coming from given the number of people indicted.

It's coming from how much it all matters to the average American. This wasn't the next Watergate. Most of the indictments weren't Americans. None of Trump's family or administration got indicted. Nothing changed. I'm glad the investigation was conducted in its entirety, but it's time to move on.

It's 2019. Democrats can keep indulging this fantasy that they are going to kick Trump out or they can start working towards running a better campaign against him in 2020 than 2016.

[Gormwood]

The presumption that since Trump wasn't directly indicted that it's a political hit job comparable to the Whitewater probe which lead to impeachment... over a lie about an affair.

This is more or less comparable to Whitewater except we haven't gotten Trump to perjure himself yet. And the Clinton machine handled the PR a lot better.

The Whitewater probe did not result in the arrests, indictments and/or convictions of Clinton associates and campaign staff on criminal charges so you're reaching for a false equivalence and thus validating my point.

[Farnhamia]

Not sure where the nothingburger thing is coming from given the number of people indicted.

It's coming from how much it all matters to the average American. This wasn't the next Watergate. Most of the indictments weren't Americans. None of Trump's family or administration got indicted. Nothing changed. I'm glad the investigation was conducted in its entirety, but it's time to move on.

It's 2019. Democrats can keep indulging this fantasy that they are going to kick Trump out or they can start working towards running a better campaign against him in 2020 than 2016.

And kick him out that way, yes. But it hasn't even been a week, so I think the Democrats are allowed a little time to gnash their teeth in disappointment. Were the shoes on the other feet, the Republicans would be deafening the nation with their wailing. You wouldn't be able to get sack-cloth or ashes anywhere.

[Fahran]

The Whitewater probe did not result in the arrests, indictments and/or convictions of Clinton associates and campaign staff on criminal charges

Except it did. Several people alleged to have been involved in the Whitewater scandal were arrested, indicted, convicted, and served time in prison. Fifteen people were eventually convicted of around forty different crimes. Here's a list.

Jim Guy Tucker: Governor of Arkansas at the time, resigned (fraud, 3 counts)
John Haley: attorney for Jim Guy Tucker (tax evasion)
William J. Marks, Sr.: Jim Guy Tucker's business partner (conspiracy)
Stephen Smith: former Governor Clinton aide (conspiracy to misapply funds). Bill Clinton pardoned.
Webster Hubbell: Clinton political supporter; U.S. Associate Attorney General; Rose Law Firm partner (embezzlement, fraud)
Jim McDougal: banker, Clinton political supporter: (18 felonies, varied)
Susan McDougal: Clinton political supporter (multiple frauds). Bill Clinton pardoned.
David Hale: banker, self-proclaimed Clinton political supporter: (conspiracy, fraud)
Neal Ainley: Perry County Bank president (embezzled bank funds for Clinton campaign)
Chris Wade: Whitewater real estate broker (multiple loan fraud). Bill Clinton pardoned.
Larry Kuca: Madison real estate agent (multiple loan fraud)
Robert W. Palmer: Madison appraiser (conspiracy). Bill Clinton pardoned.
John Latham: Madison Bank CEO (bank fraud)
Eugene Fitzhugh: Whitewater defendant (multiple bribery)
Charles Matthews: Whitewater defendant (bribery)

so you're reaching for a false equivalence and thus validating my point.

Not really a false equivalence when you were incorrect about it.

[Gormwood]

The Whitewater probe did not result in the arrests, indictments and/or convictions of Clinton associates and campaign staff on criminal charges

Except it did. Several people alleged to have been involved in the Whitewater scandal were arrested, indicted, convicted, and served time in prison. Fifteen people were eventually convicted of around forty different crimes. Here's a list.

Jim Guy Tucker: Governor of Arkansas at the time, resigned (fraud, 3 counts)
John Haley: attorney for Jim Guy Tucker (tax evasion)
William J. Marks, Sr.: Jim Guy Tucker's business partner (conspiracy)
Stephen Smith: former Governor Clinton aide (conspiracy to misapply funds). Bill Clinton pardoned.
Webster Hubbell: Clinton political supporter; U.S. Associate Attorney General; Rose Law Firm partner (embezzlement, fraud)
Jim McDougal: banker, Clinton political supporter: (18 felonies, varied)
Susan McDougal: Clinton political supporter (multiple frauds). Bill Clinton pardoned.
David Hale: banker, self-proclaimed Clinton political supporter: (conspiracy, fraud)
Neal Ainley: Perry County Bank president (embezzled bank funds for Clinton campaign)
Chris Wade: Whitewater real estate broker (multiple loan fraud). Bill Clinton pardoned.
Larry Kuca: Madison real estate agent (multiple loan fraud)
Robert W. Palmer: Madison appraiser (conspiracy). Bill Clinton pardoned.
John Latham: Madison Bank CEO (bank fraud)
Eugene Fitzhugh: Whitewater defendant (multiple bribery)
Charles Matthews: Whitewater defendant (bribery)

so you're reaching for a false equivalence and thus validating my point.

Not really a false equivalence when you were incorrect about it.

Okay, I was wrong there.

[Fahran]

Okay, I was wrong there.

It happens to the best of us from time to time. That said, admitting it is something that few of us here ever really do and that speaks to your character. I like you. Can we be frenemies?

And kick him out that way, yes. But it hasn't even been a week, so I think the Democrats are allowed a little time to gnash their teeth in disappointment. Were the shoes on the other feet, the Republicans would be deafening the nation with their wailing. You wouldn't be able to get sack-cloth or ashes anywhere.

They certainly did when Clinton's colleagues fell on their swords, so I suppose it's a bit tit-for-tat. Still, I imagine the current right-wing smugness is a bit of retribution for left-wing smugness as well. We could all stand to be a little better to one another.

[The Great-German Empire]

We could all stand to be a little better to one another.

Hell, we should all be a lot nicer to each other. Right now the political landscape is more of a 'political hellscape', with people basing their lives around ideological, hitting the moral panic button whenever somebody interprets a situation or statements differently from them, and being of opposite political ideologies is a guaranteed way of being enemies. Every liberal is a degenerate without any life skills or ability to think pragmatically, and every conservative is a bigot who would rather die than give to the poor. We should just up and stop being at each other's throats and claim the other side are commies or nazis whenever they oppose us.

[Vassenor]

University of New Hampshire professor deconstructs the Barr report.

[Fahran]

University of New Hampshire professor deconstructs the Barr report.

"Not enough to indict" is kind of a roadblock here. That was a concession within the first five tweets. Are Robert Mueller and the Department of Justice not trustworthy enough to make that decision? If not, then who is?

[Vassenor]

University of New Hampshire professor deconstructs the Barr report.

"Not enough to indict" is kind of a roadblock here. That was a concession within the first five tweets. Are Robert Mueller and the Department of Justice not trustworthy enough to make that decision? If not, then who is?

So you're going to ignore the rest of it for precisely the reasons it suggests.

Barr had a choice here: he could summarize the evidence or summarize the *summary* of the evidence. The decision he made was to summarize the summary, knowing that him doing so would feed into Team Trump's false narrative that criminal evidence exists in an all-or-none binary.