Special Council Investigation Complete - results are ....

[wufan]

Have you not read the executive summaries of the report? Or my other posts in this thread? There is no sentence where he says "obstruction can be established" because he could not indict a sitting president. He uses this logic to say he cannot even say if a crime was committed. He literally explains why he doesn't say "obstruction was committed," and that reason is constitutional.

What he does do is lay out the evidence, and he says it is because Congress can enforce obstruction laws and because presidents can be indicted after leaving office.

As I've said over and over again in this thread, he EXPLICITLY says that he would state if he felt obstruction could not be established. Since intent is an element of obstruction, he could have used that as a basis for believing obstruction could not be established. He does not say obstruction cannot be established. Therefore, Mueller must believe intent is able to be established. This is not subjective. This is just objective logic. He also literally explains why he doesn't say "obstruction was not committed" and that reason is because he factually did not agree with that statement.

You don't have to agree with Mueller, but objectively speaking he must have believed intent could be established. I mean, he analyzed intent in each instance of alleged obstruction. Read the executive summaries.

You’re using flawed logic and substituting reasonable summation for objective conclusion. We literally read the same thing and come to different conclusions. This shouldn’t be a surprise to you since you understand the post-modern theory of an infinite number of interpretations.

[jdshock]

You’re using flawed logic and substituting reasonable summation for objective conclusion. We literally read the same thing and come to different conclusions. This shouldn’t be a surprise to you since you understand the post-modern theory of an infinite number of interpretations.

I honestly don't understand what your post means. More importantly, you state that I'm using flawed logic, but you don't say where.

To be clear, "Substantial evidence indicates that the President's attempts to remove the Special Counsel were linked to the Special Counsel's oversight of investigations that involved the President's conduct--and, most immediately, to reports that the President was being investigated for potential obstruction of justice." Vol. 2, page 89. "Substantial evidence indicates that the President's effort to have Sessions limit the scope of the Special Counsel's investigation to future election interference was intended to prevent further investigative scrutiny of the President's and his campaign's conduct." Vol. 2, page 97. "Substantial evidence indicates that in repeatedly urging McGahn to dispute that he was ordered to have the Special Counsel terminated, the President acted for the purpose of influencing McGahn's account in order to deflect or prevent further scrutiny of the president's conduct towards the investigation." Vol. 2, page 120. I literally just searched "substantial evidence" in the obstruction section to get those sentences.

Again, you say "we literally read the same thing and come to different conclusions," but did you actually read it? Each of those sentences has a clear point.

But, back to the logic. Let's test it out:
I. Mueller says: "[I]f we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment." Vol. 2, page 8.
II. Mueller does not state that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice.
III. Therefore, Mueller does not have confidence that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice.
IV. One of the elements of obstruction of justice is corrupt intent.
V. Clearly establishing no corrupt intent would be sufficient to establish that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice.
VI. Therefore, Mueller was not able to clearly establish the lack of corrupt intent.

Where's the flaw?

Again, you can disagree with Mueller. You can believe intent is not possible. But Mueller absolutely believes intent could be established. If it clearly could not be established, he would have so stated. This is a silly argument, but it's not something that reasonable minds should disagree on.

[wufan]

I honestly don't understand what your post means. More importantly, you state that I'm using flawed logic, but you don't say where.

To be clear, "Substantial evidence indicates that the President's attempts to remove the Special Counsel were linked to the Special Counsel's oversight of investigations that involved the President's conduct--and, most immediately, to reports that the President was being investigated for potential obstruction of justice." Vol. 2, page 89. "Substantial evidence indicates that the President's effort to have Sessions limit the scope of the Special Counsel's investigation to future election interference was intended to prevent further investigative scrutiny of the President's and his campaign's conduct." Vol. 2, page 97. "Substantial evidence indicates that in repeatedly urging McGahn to dispute that he was ordered to have the Special Counsel terminated, the President acted for the purpose of influencing McGahn's account in order to deflect or prevent further scrutiny of the president's conduct towards the investigation." Vol. 2, page 120. I literally just searched "substantial evidence" in the obstruction section to get those sentences.

Again, you say "we literally read the same thing and come to different conclusions," but did you actually read it? Each of those sentences has a clear point.

But, back to the logic. Let's test it out:
I. Mueller says: "[I]f we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment." Vol. 2, page 8.
II. Mueller does not state that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice.
III. Therefore, Mueller does not have confidence that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice.
IV. One of the elements of obstruction of justice is corrupt intent.
V. Clearly establishing no corrupt intent would be sufficient to establish that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice.
VI. Therefore, Mueller was not able to clearly establish the lack of corrupt intent.

Where's the flaw?

Again, you can disagree with Mueller. You can believe intent is not possible. But Mueller absolutely believes intent could be established. If it clearly could not be established, he would have so stated. This is a silly argument, but it's not something that reasonable minds should disagree on.

I totally agree with the logic set out in I through VI. The conclusion is that “Mueller was not able to establish LACK of intent.”

The logical flaw is where you say, “Therefore, Mueller must believe intent is able to be established. This is not subjective.”

if you stop at VI, I’m good. When you believe that if he couldn’t be proved innocent, then he must be guilty (which is the way I read your statements), I disagree.

[jdshock]

I totally agree with the logic set out in I through VI. The conclusion is that “Mueller was not able to establish LACK of intent.”

The logical flaw is where you say, “Therefore, Mueller must believe intent is able to be established. This is not subjective.”

if you stop at VI, I’m good. When you believe that if he couldn’t be proved innocent, then he must be guilty (which is the way I read your statements), I disagree.

I did not say he couldn't be proven innocent. I said Mueller believed intent could be established or is able to be established. As in, Mueller did not find that intent could not be established or intent was unable to be established.

I was precise in my word choice, and I stand by it. It is not a subjective conclusion. Mueller must have believed intent was able to be established. We do not know if Mueller believes intent MUST be established or WOULD be established. We simply know that Mueller believes intent could be established. That is clear.

Which is to say that Mueller disagrees with your conclusion that intent is a foregone conclusion in Trump's direction.

[wufan]

I did not say he couldn't be proven innocent. I said Mueller believed intent could be established or is able to be established. As in, Mueller did not find that intent could not be established or intent was unable to be established.

I was precise in my word choice, and I stand by it. It is not a subjective conclusion. Mueller must have believed intent was able to be established. We do not know if Mueller believes intent MUST be established or WOULD be established. We simply know that Mueller believes intent could be established. That is clear.

Which is to say that Mueller disagrees with your conclusion that intent is a foregone conclusion in Trump's direction.

I disagree with you. It’s all good.

[C0|dB|00ded]

Mueller emphasized, however, that his analysis of the evidence did not clear the president of obstruction. Said Mueller: “[I]f we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment.”

Horseshit partisan op-ed masquerading as a legitimate prosecutorial statement. Why not comment on all the other issues that can't be proven like whether or not Donald Trump is an alien?
Maybe offer some clarity on the degree of white nationalism he exhibits?

Here's how a real prosecutor talks: Based on the evidence obtained, we can not establish that Trump colluded with the Russians or committed the criminal offense of obstruction of justice.

End
Of
Story


T


...:cool:

[Kung Wu]

"Substantial evidence indicates that the President's attempts to remove the Special Counsel were linked to the Special Counsel's oversight of investigations that involved the President's conduct--and, most immediately, to reports that the President was being investigated for potential obstruction of justice." Vol. 2, page 89.

Question: How does a President "attempt" to remove a Special Counsel? It seems to me he either does or does not have him removed. Is that true?

[wufan]

Question: How does a President "attempt" to remove a Special Counsel? It seems to me he either does or does not have him removed. Is that true?

He told someone to do it on his behalf, but they refused. Trump wouldn’t do it himself.

[pinstripers]

so?

[Kung Wu]

He told someone to do it on his behalf, but they refused. Trump wouldn’t do it himself.

Isn't that what legal counsel is for? You ask your legal counsel to take care of a matter and you expect them to inform you if it's illegal, or a bad idea, etc, right? Then it's up to you to take the expert opinion into account and then act or don't act. Sounds to me like he heeded the advice of his attorney and did not fire the Special Counsel, but he could have done it anyway. He didn't.

[wufan]

Is what he did obstruction? Not in my opinion. Is it immoral? Probably.

[ShockingButTrue]

Horseshit partisan op-ed masquerading as a legitimate prosecutorial statement. Why not comment on all the other issues that can't be proven like whether or not Donald Trump is an alien?
Maybe offer some clarity on the degree of white nationalism he exhibits?

Here's how a real prosecutor talks: Based on the evidence obtained, we can not establish that Trump colluded with the Russians or committed the criminal offense of obstruction of justice.

End
Of
Story


T


...:cool:

Right on. If it goes to impeachment then "let the evidence show..."

Therefore, there ain't gonna' be no impeachment proceedings, but, then again, this is a bunch of stupid Snowflakes (tood-a-loo) we're talking about. Over the last 2.5 years their only strategy seems to have been a Scorched Earth policy. They're probably not going to stop now; They have to save the Republic... By any means. Not for what he's done (he hasn't; they know it) but because of who he is.

His only act of obstruction was tellin' 'em to "get flipped."


TheBigLIe.jpg

[SB Shock]

I finally got through Volume 1. When did we start thinking that Russia is our friend? Volume I is as much of indictment on the Obama administration as anybody. They knew 2 years (2014) before Trump that Russia was trying to interfere and they refused to take any action. The interference was just not on Trump side, but they were supporting black social justice organization also. Doing everything they could do to stir the pot.

When the National Security team offered to take action the Obama administration made them stand down. The democrat's party apparatus was penetrated (and likely the state department). The Democrats were making the same back-channel contacts that the trump team was doing.

Russia and China are our enemies. But neither administration is willing to face that fact.

[jdshock]

Isn't that what legal counsel is for? You ask your legal counsel to take care of a matter and you expect them to inform you if it's illegal, or a bad idea, etc, right? Then it's up to you to take the expert opinion into account and then act or don't act. Sounds to me like he heeded the advice of his attorney and did not fire the Special Counsel, but he could have done it anyway. He didn't.

If you go to your personal attorney, and you say "would it be legal for me to fire X because he's annoying?" it's hard to imagine that anyone would have a problem with that since that is what legal counsel is for. That is roughly the scenario that you are putting forth. Here are a few of the issues with analogizing the Trump/Mueller situation to that scenario:

1. The "substantial evidence" was in reference to a direction for McGahn to fire Mueller. A direction to do something illegal is very different from a question as to "can I do X?" I imagine there are few hard and fast rules in this area of the law, but I suspect most would agree that, in terms of obstruction of justice, you're probably worse off if you said "Attorney, destroy all of my prior records" than if you simply asked "Attorney, is it lawful to destroy all of my prior records?"

2. Mueller explicitly stated findings that Trump knew his actions were wrong. This is much closer to the "it's up to you to take the expert opinion into account and then act or don't act" scenario than you are making it out to be. For example "Rather than rely on official channels, the President met with Lewandowski alone in the Oval Office. The President selected a loyal 'devotee' outside the White House to deliver the message, supporting an inference that he was working outside the White House channels, including McGahn, who had previously resisted contacting the Department of Justice about the Special Counsel." Vol. 2, pg 98. "There is also evidence that the President knew that he should not have made those calls to McGahn. The President made the calls to McGahn after McGahn had specifically told the President that the White House Counsel's Office-and McGahn himself-could not be involved in pressing conflicts claims.... And after the media reported on the President's actions, he denied that he ever ordered McGahn to have the Special Counsel terminated and made repeated efforts to have McGahn deny the story." Vol. 2, pg 90.

3. Mueller clearly indicates that the facts are much broader than Trump simply having a conversation with McGahn. Trump asked McGahn who said no. Trump asked Lewandowski to direct McGahn to terminate it as well. Trump asked Sessions to "unrecuse" himself to terminate Mueller. As a side note, the "unrecuse" instruction is absolutely insane. The AG is the attorney for the United States, and the idea that the president would ask the AG to "unrecuse" himself in order to protect the president is exactly the situation that would require recusal. It's so corrupt that it'd be funny if it weren't lost among everything else going on.

4. There is a major gray area in all of this because the requests were to White House counsel, not his personal counsel. White House counsel are not Trump's personal attorneys. They are attorneys for the office of the President. Even if Trump had phrased his request as a question about the ethics of firing Mueller (which is clearly not the case), it implicates a multitude of legal areas since McGahn would've been giving advice on the President's ability to terminate an investigation into the President's personal matters (prior to becoming the president).

[jdshock]

I finally got through Volume 1. When did we start thinking that Russia is our friend? Volume I is as much of indictment on the Obama administration as anybody. They knew 2 years (2014) before Trump that Russia was trying to interfere and they refused to take any action. The interference was just not on Trump side, but they were supporting black social justice organization also. Doing everything they could do to stir the pot.

When the National Security team offered to take action the Obama administration made them stand down. The democrat's party apparatus was penetrated (and likely the state department). The Democrats were making the same back-channel contacts that the trump team was doing.

Russia and China are our enemies. But neither administration is willing to face that fact.

Agreed, but I've actually seen a few articles saying Obama comes out looking really bad (which he does to a certain extent), but I have seen very little coverage applying this analysis to Trump. In regards to Trump, everyone seems focused on the obstruction issues.

We absolutely knew that Russia attempted to influence our election, and Trump was not willing to say it was Russia. People on here were not willing to say it was Russia. Going so far as to say that it was probably another WMDs situation where the intelligence community was wrong. I literally talked to someone last weekend that still doesn't think there is evidence that Russia was involved.

Trump isn't willing to call out Russia because he thinks it will belittle winning the 2016 election (most likely... we can always keep our fingers crossed that it's really because Russia has the pee tape and is blackmailing him, but it's just not that likely). But it's resulted in huge portions of his supporters just thinking that Russia is not a threat of any kind. I've been told (i) Russia wasn't involved; (ii) it's not a big deal because every country tries to interfere with every other country's election; and (iii) Obama was at fault. I have yet to see anyone who reads Volume 1 and says "wow, Russia is absolutely our enemy and what Trump's team did was absolutely unacceptable."

[pinstripers]

Ok, so the New York Times rag says that the Steele dossier was likely Russian disinformation. The Clinton campaign paid 10 million bucks for it and then leaked it to the media and to Obama's DOJ and the FBI. isn't that Russian collusion?

[C0|dB|00ded]

Are you working undercover Pin? Because all your posts are invisible until I highlight them.


T


...:cool:

[pinstripers]

About half my "copy and paste" posts are like that