The Mueller Report

[oxmixmudd]

No he didn't. There were several instances of behavior that Mueller listed that needed to be judged to see if they were legitimate obstruction, but no conclusion of obstruction was reached. Ergo, you are wrong. He is accused of obstruction by the Democrat house members, but has neither been charged or convicted of that.

That line of reasoning (ergo etc) was shown false yesterday. Mueller gave us the evidence for obstruction and the conclusion he could not clear Trump as to the implication of that evidence wrt obstruction. What that means is Trump commited obstruction but Mueller was not allowed to indict.

That the 'evidence speaks for itself' means Trump obstructed is nicely highlighted by the 900+ signatures from federal prosecuters.

Jim

[oxmixmudd]

"Obstruction of justice" is a blanket term, like "traffic violation"; there are dozens of individual crimes that fall under that description. So I ask again:

What laws did Mueller explicitly say Trump was guilty of violating, and what was the specific evidence for each charge?

Another interesting point to consider is Mueller's lack of candor. Why is he so reluctant to answer any questions? He fled from the press conference yesterday without taking a single question from journalists, and he effectively flipped the bird to Congress when he said he refuses to testify. This begs the question: What is Mueller trying to hide?

Wrong. By definition obstruction is ANY act whose intent is to obstruct. The act itself apart from the intent to obstruct does not have to be criminal on its own merits.

Mueller lists in detail many acts whose clear purpose was to obstruct, and for which no 'alibi' exists.

Jim

[Bill the Cat]

That line of reasoning (ergo etc) was shown false yesterday.

No it wasn't. Mueller basically said "I couldn't recommend charges against the President". He did not in any way say that if he could, he would have due to the evidence.

Mueller gave us the evidence for obstruction

No he didn't. He gave us the evidence that needed to be evaluated. He never once said the evidence proved obstruction. Period.

and the conclusion he could not clear Trump as to the implication of that evidence wrt obstruction.

Absent from his statement was any admission that Trump actually obstructed. But you lot will never accept that and will continue to drone on that he obstructed. Mueller NEVER said he obstructed.

What that means is Trump commited obstruction but Mueller was not allowed to indict.

Utterly false. The law doesn't work like that.

That the 'evidence speaks for itself' means Trump obstructed is nicely highlighted by the 900+ signatures from federal prosecuters.

Again, argumentum ad populum isn't how our laws work. And you continuing to cite them as evidence is pretty pathetic.

[oxmixmudd]

No it wasn't. Mueller basically said "I couldn't recommend charges against the President".

One could wish Mueller would speak at a 4th grade level for all the Trump aficionados in the room, but to do so would allow people to refocus blame on him if impeachment were to fail. And he knows that and is refusing to play that game.

What he saying is obvious. He could not even consider charging Trump with obstruction, but the evidence is extensive he did so and Mueller could find no means to clear him.

Q:What happens to a normal person when all the evidence points to them committing a crime and that person has no alibi - i.e. 'there is no evidence to clear them'?

A:They get charged.

But you can't charge a sitting president. That is congress' job through the impeachment process.


Jim

[Sparko]

Wrong. By definition obstruction is ANY act whose intent is to obstruct. The act itself apart from the intent to obstruct does not have to be criminal on its own merits.

Mueller lists in detail many acts whose clear purpose was to obstruct, and for which no 'alibi' exists.

Jim

list some examples from the report.

[oxmixmudd]

Again, argumentum ad populum isn't how our laws work. And you continuing to cite them as evidence is pretty pathetic.

This is not 'argumentum ad populum'. This is "presentation of expert testimony". Those 900+ signatures represent the expert opinion of 900+ specialists in the field.

Jim

[Zymologist]

Is there any reason Mueller could not explicitly recommend impeachment?

[seer]

Is there any reason Mueller could not explicitly recommend impeachment?

Nope...

[Bill the Cat]

This is not 'argumentum ad populum'. This is "presentation of expert testimony". Those 900+ signatures represent the expert opinion of 900+ specialists in the field.

Jim

Riiiight… And I'm sure they have no pre-existing bias against the President...

[Bill the Cat]

Is there any reason Mueller could not explicitly recommend impeachment?

Lack of evidence?

[JimL]

Is there any reason Mueller could not explicitly recommend impeachment?

Yes, it is not his job. His job is to investigate, gather evidence, and present it to Congress for their determination.

[Sparko]

Yes, it is not his job. His job is to investigate, gather evidence, and present it to Congress for their determination.

No, it was to present it to the Attorney General for determination.

[oxmixmudd]

Riiiight… And I'm sure they have no pre-existing bias against the President...

Actually - that is the point. They are willing to go on record and put their professional credibility on the line. What they are saying is that if this person's actions where put before them operating in a legal context as prosecutors, they would indict. Your skepticism is nothing more than blind loyalty to Trump, not an analysis of what Trump did against the legal definition of obstruction.

Jim

[oxmixmudd]

No, it was to present it to the Attorney General for determination.

An Attorney General that by attempting to whitewash the report has made clear he is acting in the best interests of Donald Trump, not the best interests of our nation.


Jim

[Mountain Man]

Wrong. By definition obstruction is ANY act whose intent is to obstruct. The act itself apart from the intent to obstruct does not have to be criminal on its own merits.

Mueller lists in detail many acts whose clear purpose was to obstruct, and for which no 'alibi' exists.

Jim

And by definition, "traffic violation" is any act that violates traffic laws. So I ask again, what were the actual crimes that Mueller accused Trump of committing?