advertisement


Trump Part 17

Status
Not open for further replies.
This is Mueller's conclusion from the Mueller report - much media attention was paid to his "If we had confidence ....that the President did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state" But what I haven't seen reported the sentence before that "The evidence we obtained about the President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment."

I mean FFS, how many Trump apologists does it take to change Mueller's conclusion - a shed load, some of who are here on this forum

IV. CONCLUSION

Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw
ultimate conclusions about the President's conduct. The evidence we obtained about the
President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were
making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. At the same time, if 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. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a
crime, it also does not exonerate him.
Click to expand...

If you read the report, in appendix C you will see that Trump's (lawyers) reply to all but two or three of the dozens of questions asked him by Mueller with "I do not recall....."

Again, FFS, can people stop saying that he was exonerated by this report.
 
Last edited:
Ciunas Audio said:
If you read the report, in appendix C you will see that Trump's (lawyers) reply to all but two or three of the dozens of questions asked him by Mueller were "I do not recall....."
Again, FFS, can people stop saying that he was exonerated by this report.
Click to expand...
Maintaining that Trump was exonerated is, henceforth, a total credibility destroying position to hold, IMHO. Maintaining that the report clears him of collusion is not much better, either.
 
Again from the Mueller report page 10 - just look at the impediments to Mueller's team in gathering evidence

Code: 
The investigation did not always yield admissible information or testimony, or a complete
picture of the activities undertaken by subjects of the investigation. Some individuals invoked
their Fifth Amendment right against compelled self-incrimination and were not, in the Office's
judgment, appropriate candidates for grants of immunity. The Office limited its pursuit of other
witnesses and information?such as information known to attorneys or individuals claiming to be
members of the media. in light of internal Department of Justice policies. See, Justice
Manual 9-13.400, 13 .410. Some of the information obtained via court process, moreover, was
presumptively covered by legal privilege and was screened from investigators by a filter (or
'taint') team. Even when individuals testified or agreed to be interviewed, they sometimes
provided information that was false or incomplete, leading to some of the false-statements charges
described above. And the Office faced practical limits on its ability to access relevant evidence as
well -- numerous witnesses and subjects lived abroad, and documents were held outside the United
States.

Sorry, I left off the next two paragraphs
Code: 
Further, the Of?ce learned that some of the individuals we interviewed or whose conduct
we investigated?including some associated with the Trump Campaign?deleted relevant
communications or communicated during the relevant period using applications that feature
or that do not provide for long-term retention of data or communications records. In
such cases, the Of?ce was not able to corroborate witness statements through comparison to
contemporaneous communications or fully question witnesses about statements that appeared
inconsistent with other known facts.

Accordingly, while this report embodies factual and legal determinations that the Of?ce
believes to be accurate and complete to the greatest extent possible, given these identi?ed gaps,
the Of?ce cannot rule out the possibility that the unavailable information would shed additional
light on (or cast in a new light) the events described in the report.
 
Sue Pertwee-Tyr said:
Maintaining that Trump was exonerated is, henceforth, a total credibility destroying position to hold, IMHO. Maintaining that the report clears him of collusion is not much better, either.
Click to expand...
And anybody (again Trump lackies) saying that Trump was totally transparent & cooperative with Mueller, is a patent liar
 
vuk said:
you have re-defining the scope, which is why you are having problems. i said no collusion of the WW-II espionage fantasy realm, as presented by the likes of maddow and twitter hordes. i'm pretty comfortable with that.
Click to expand...
I still think this is eliding two different things: conspiracy, and criticism of the press construction of a conspiracy. The press can be criticised for their somewhat overexcited conspiracy stuff, and fair enough, in that context. But to give the impression, as you have, that he is not guilty of any conspiracy, because there is insufficient evidence for the press’ flavour of conspiracy, is intellectually dishonest.

And before you claim that you never gave that impression, just ponder whether it is an impression a careless reader might glean. It behooves you to avoid careless or unintentional misreading, if you aspire to precision in your writing, which I assume you do.
 
vuk said:
i was going to say "welcome to the 3rd world", but even there presidents rarely get away with scandals of this magnitude (unless it's a solid dictatorship).
Click to expand...
OK, please explain the latest phrase you used in relation to Trump "scandals of this magnitude"?
AFAIR you seemed to state that his infractions were trivial so please correct my memory
 
Sue Pertwee-Tyr said:
I still think this is eliding two different things: conspiracy, and criticism of the press construction of a conspiracy. The press can be criticised for their somewhat overexcited conspiracy stuff, and fair enough, in that context. But to give the impression, as you have, that he is not guilty of any conspiracy, because there is insufficient evidence for the press’ flavour of conspiracy, is intellectually dishonest.

And before you claim that you never gave that impression, just ponder whether it is an impression a careless reader might glean. It behooves you to avoid careless or unintentional misreading, if you aspire to precision in your writing, which I assume you do.
Click to expand...
I've said that the press version of Trump's treason was too focussed on Russia but understandable because collusion with Russia was all that was in public view at the time. Even given the possible exaggerated media hype around this (& the jury is still out, literally, on this), I don't believe Mueller's report actually contradicts what the media were claiming.

Mueller basically says that he didn't get enough access to evidence or people to compile a reasonable case for indictment but that he didn't find evidence that Trump is innocent of such Russian collusion (the media never suggested that Trump had made an arrangement with the Russian IRA, GRU to influence the US Presidential election - which is about the only thing Mueller's investigation made a clear statement about.

I'm not surprised Mueller is taking such a hard line in his presser - "the words speak for themselves" - he pretty much knows most people haven't read his words & this is also the factor that the Trump people are counting on - that people won't read the report. It actually behooves Mueller to get up there, on camera, in evidence & say that his report was/is obviously not read by Trump apologists & read his conclusions out loud on TV for the general US population.
 
Last edited:
Sue Pertwee-Tyr said:
I still think this is eliding two different things: conspiracy and the press construction of a conspiracy. The press can be criticised for their somewhat overexcited conspiracy stuff, and fair enough, in that context. But to give the impression, as you have, that he is not guilty of any conspiracy, because there is insufficient evidence for the press’ flavour of conspiracy, is intellectually dishonest.
Click to expand...

you are responsible for your own perceptions/impressions. for the f*ing last time: i don't really disagree with most of the facts (though i do not trust anything where we simply have to rely on the word of US intelligence services), but the conspiracy stuff, especially when viewed in the context of what goes on in international politics, is about as serious as selling a bit weed on the street. as for obstruction, that is truly bad and probably deserves impeachment.
 
vuk said:
wow, trump relegated to page 3. not sure if that's ever happened.

OK, so here is aaron maté interviewing his father, who has some interesting psychological speculations about trump and traumatized voters:

Click to expand...

Aaron Maté has been great at debunking Russiagate.

I like his dad too. He seems to be a very wise man.
 
vuk said:
you are responsible for your own perceptions/impressions. for the f*ing last time: i don't really disagree with most of the facts (though i do not trust anything where we simply have to rely on the word of US intelligence services), but the conspiracy stuff, especially when viewed in the context of what goes on in international politics, is about as serious as selling a bit weed on the street. as for obstruction, that is truly bad and probably deserves impeachment.
Click to expand...
Ok, so why do you think there was such impeachable acts of 'truly bad' obstruction if the crime of conspiracy was such a trivial thing?
I'm just trying to follow your logic here
 
vuk said:
you are responsible for your own perceptions/impressions. for the f*ing last time: i don't really disagree with most of the facts (though i do not trust anything where we simply have to rely on the word of US intelligence services), but the conspiracy stuff, especially when viewed in the context of what goes on in international politics, is about as serious as selling a bit weed on the street. as for obstruction, that is truly bad and probably deserves impeachment.
Click to expand...
Again you make a statement about the "conspiracy stuff" as if a full conspiracy investigation had happened & no or very little conspiracy had been found - this is patently not correct & it is what is being constantly pointed out to you & Max - Mueller investigated a very specific & narrow case. Extrapolating Mueller's investigation/report to your statement "the conspiracy stuff, especially when viewed in the context of what goes on in international politics, is about as serious as selling a bit weed on the street" is plainly, at best, mistaken.

What about the 14 pending cases that are investigating money laundering, bribery, aiding/abetting?
 
vuk said:
but the conspiracy stuff, especially when viewed in the context of what goes on in international politics, is about as serious as selling a bit weed on the street.
Click to expand...

Except it's a conspiracy between a white nationalist minority in one country with a longstanding adversarial government of another country. It's also an attempt by the right to subvert American democracy, the rule of law and a free press using Putin's playbook and with his help.
 
matthewr said:
We don't know what all/most of those cases are for so that is speculative.
Click to expand...
Yes, you are correct, I'm speculating but I will bet that the 3 criminal categories I nominated figure largely in these cases
Here are the cases transferred - a lot are redacted
Transfers
1. United States v. Bijian Rafiekian and Kamil Ekim Alptekin
  • Jurisdiction: Eastern District of Virginia
  • Status: Awaiting trial
2. United States v. Michael Flynn
  • Jurisdiction: District of Columbia
  • Status: Awaiting sentencing
3. United States v. Richard Gates
  • Jurisdiction: District of Columbia
  • Status: Awaiting sentencing
4. United States v. Internet Research Agency (Russian troll farm)
  • Jurisdiction: District of Columbia, National Security Division
  • Status: Post-indictment, pre-arrest & pre-trial
5. United States v. Konstantin Kilimnik
  • Jurisdiction: District of Columbia
  • Status: Post-indictment, pre-arrest
6. United States v. Paul Manafort
  • Jurisdiction: D.C. and Eastern District of Virginia
  • Status: Post-conviction
7. United States v. Viktor Netyksho (Russian hacking operation)
  • Jurisdiction: Western District of Pennsylvania, National Security Division
  • Status: Post-indictment, pre-arrest
8. United States v. William Patten
  • Jurisdiction: District of Columbia
  • Status: Post-sentencing
9. [REDACTED]

10. United States v. Roger Stone
  • Jurisdiction: District of Columbia
  • Status: Awaiting trial
11. [REDACTED]

Referrals
1. [REDACTED]

2. Michael Cohen
  • Jurisdiction: Southern District of New York
  • Status: Post-sentencing
3. [REDACTED]

4. [REDACTED]

5. Gregory Craig, [REDACTED] and Skadden Arps law firm
  • Jurisdiction: Various
  • Status: Post-indictment for Craig
6. [REDACTED]

7. [REDACTED]

8. [REDACTED]

9. [REDACTED]

10. [REDACTED]

11. [REDACTED]

12. [REDACTED]

13. [REDACTED]

14. [REDACTED]
 
Just ponder on this statement of Mueller's in his conclusions
"The evidence we obtained about the President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment."

First-off he says he amassed enough evidence of the President's actions & intent to investigate the matter further.
Why didn't he? - because he was prevented from such further investigation by DOJ policy as he stated elsewhere & alludes to here - "presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment."

This is not selling a bit of weed on the street (although I think he would be impeached if he did this :cool:) - this is the President obstructing an investigation into his & his team's conspiracy with Russia. The most likely reason he & his team obstructed the investigation in every way possible is that there is more to find & the very restricted, specific Mueller investigation is just the tip of the conspiracy.

But just consider - the people in the US are under the rule of a dictator (executive branch is ignoring the judicial & legislative branches of government = dictatorship) who has not been cleared of criminality (not lying about sex in the oval office) by a very limited investigation - holy f*ck
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


advertisement


Back
Top