Mueller Report: Trump is 100% Guilty but President is above the law

[Daemon Sophic]

Yeah it is. Because it's easy to build a strawman when you take info out of context. Here is what you and the panel in the above video left out.

View attachment 28598


And I quote:

"In this investigation the evidence does not establish that the President was involved to an underlying (as in the problem was already there before) crime related to Russian election interference."

But it does point to other possible motives* this is not proof or evidence this is conjecture.

It's a rap.

If I was Trump I would start my defamation lawsuit against Lawfare and its parent company The Washington Post a.s.a.p.

And if you were president, it would be pointless to do so, since you yourself have quoted the very portion of the Mueller report that outlines how one CAN be guilty of obstruction of justice, WITHOUT having committed the underlying crime that was initially being investigated.

It stuns me that you are so zealously fanatical about protecting this corrupt and amoral president that you can see a duck, hear a duck, smell and feel a duck, and declare to the world with a straight face (presumably) that it is a Norwegian Pine tree.

It is not @fantome profane who took statements out of context and built a strawman. It is you @Enoch07 .
To paraphrase your own words.

...the evidence does not establish that the President was involved to an underlying .......... crime related to Russian election interference."

But it (the evidence) does point to a range of other other possible personal motives animating the President’s conduct.”

That last bit, “animating the President’s conduct” is the President’s choice to obstruct justice. So Mueller’s saying that there are a variety of reasons to choose from that made Trump obstruct justice. Which one or multiple of them DID actually motivate him in the end to carry out the obstruction is beside the point, and as you say, it’s conjecture, it’s anybody’s guess; but the motive is irrelevant to the special council.
To Congress however, they might want to answer the question of “WHY” Trump obstructed justice, just for historical perspective. Either way, Trump “DID” obstruct justice.

 

[SkepticThinker]

"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 judgement. 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, however, we are unable to reach that judgment. The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."

The Mueller Report Has Been Released.
AP FACT CHECK: Skewed Trump, Barr claims on Mueller report
Mueller says Congress has authority to conduct obstruction probes

 

[Mister Emu]

So Mueller’s saying that there are a variety of reasons to choose from that made Trump obstruct justice.

"this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime".

If Mueller had said Trump obstructed justice, we'd be in the middle of an impeachment right now.

 

[SkepticThinker]

"this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime".

If Mueller had said Trump obstructed justice, we'd be in the middle of an impeachment right now.

"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 judgement. 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, however, we are unable to reach that judgment. The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."

 

[Mister Emu]

"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 judgement. 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, however, we are unable to reach that judgment. The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."

Was there a point to be made? You just quoted the same thing again, and again where it ends with no conclusion of criminal activity.

You agree with me, yes, that if Mueller had concluded that Trump did commit a crime, we would be in the midst of impeachment proceedings at this very moment?

 

[fantome profane]

You agree with me, yes, that if Mueller had concluded that Trump did commit a crime, we would be in the midst of impeachment proceedings at this very moment?

No, Mueller concluded that since a sitting President could not be indicted the only thing he could do was to lay out the evidence. Mueller could not indict, and he certainly can not impeach.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Was there a point to be made? You just quoted the same thing again, and again where it ends with no conclusion of criminal activity.

You agree with me, yes, that if Mueller had concluded that Trump did commit a crime, we would be in the midst of impeachment proceedings at this very moment?

I don't agree with that. Democrats are spineless.

 

[SkepticThinker]

"this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime".

If Mueller had said Trump obstructed justice, we'd be in the middle of an impeachment right now.

Mueller provided 10+ instances where Trump obstructed justice. The only thing actually stopping justice from being wholly obstructed was the fact that the people Trump ordered to do so, didn't carry out his orders.

 

[Mister Emu]

No

No? If the Mueller report had ended with something like "it is the conclusion of this investigation that the President, on several occasions, criminally obstructed justice" we wouldn't have an impeachment?

Mueller concluded that since a sitting President could not be indicted the only thing he could do was to lay out the evidence. Mueller could not indict, and he certainly can not impeach.

I agree, he certainly can't impeach him. But, he could have recommended it, which is what the Starr report did, if I'm not misremembering.

He didn't do that. He said any conclusions about whether criminal activity would be difficult to make, which can hardly be interpreted as meaning that he surely did or didn't commit a crime.

Meanwhile, saying that a lack of exoneration implicates him criminally is the equal and opposite reaction as saying a lack of conclusion of criminality exonerates him.

I don't agree with that. Democrats are spineless.

Fair enough. Would you agree that if Mueller had concluded that Trump had obstructed justice, we should be in the midst of impeachment proceedings?

Mueller provided 10+ instances where Trump obstructed justice.

Where in the report did he conclude that those instances amount to criminal obstruction of justice?

 

[Twilight Hue]

No, it clears him of conspiracy but clearly outlines that collusion did happen repeatedly.

If you are being investigated, hampering the investigation is obstruction and a crime whether or not the original charges are established or not.

Must have borrowed Hillary's bleach, smashing hammers , and some helpful aides. Violia! No legal worries anymore.

 

[sayak83]

Must have borrowed Hillary's bleach, smashing hammers , and some helpful aides. Violia! No legal worries anymore.

Is your continuing focus on Hillary rational?
By the way, I do not think Trump is a worse president than the last Republican, Bush Jr. He and his team deliberately misled the public about intelligence regarding Iraq, and led your nation into an unnecessary war that killed thousands and thousands and destabilized the entire region...whose effects continue to this day (ISIS Sri Lanka bombings). Further, the policies under his watch led to the massive banking and real-estate markets failure that caused untold national and global suffering for the next 5-6 years. Yet I saw no consequences for anybody in the White House then. Apparently one gets death penalty for one murder or life in prison for one robbery...but when one causes thousands of deaths and millions of robberies at one go, they get to retire and draw paintings in a farm.

Mr. Trump is incompetent, petty, sexist, racist and corrupt. But he has done nothing approaching the damage done by Mr Bush to your nation or to the world, yet. But he is certainly not taking USA in the right direction, and his trenchant opposition to climate change mitigation policies will do a lot of damage to this world for which the young generation will suffer greatly, I fear.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Is your continuing focus on Hillary rational?
By the way, I do not think Trump is a worse president than the last Republican, Bush Jr. He and his team deliberately misled the public about intelligence regarding Iraq, and led your nation into an unnecessary war that killed thousands and thousands and destabilized the entire region...whose effects continue to this day (ISIS Sri Lanka bombings). Further, the policies under his watch led to the massive banking and real-estate markets failure that caused untold national and global suffering for the next 5-6 years. Yet I saw no consequences for anybody in the White House then. Apparently one gets death penalty for one murder or life in prison for one robbery...but when one causes thousands of deaths and millions of robberies at one go, they get to retire and draw paintings in a farm.

Mr. Trump is incompetent, petty, sexist, racist and corrupt. But he has done nothing approaching the damage done by Mr Bush to your nation or to the world, yet. But he is certainly not taking USA in the right direction, and his trenchant opposition to climate change mitigation policies will do a lot of damage to this world for which the young generation will suffer greatly, I fear.

I used Hillary because she essentially is said to have did the same thing with the email archive while under subpoena.

From FBI fragments, a question: Did Team Clinton destroy evidence under subpoena?

It's very similar to what people are accusing Trump of doing in terms of obstruction.

 

[sayak83]

Nice! I am entertained. I think that since they feel so strongly about this that they should continue to press their perceived interpretation of the Mueller Report. Seriously though. They seem qualified and I give them credit for acknowledging that they are payed for by The Democracy Fund, which is important for evaluating their political bias (credibility).

They failed on a few key points such as failing the "shoe is on the other foot" test, but they did acknowledge that there was no proof of intent to obstruct or to conspire despite their wiggling and waggling about it. They phrased it as a "problem" that there was no proof of intent and that this was one thing that made it difficult to prosecute an (obviously?) guilty President. They criticized Mueller for not interviewing the President directly so that proof of intent could be established.

Another major failing of the presentation was the large amount of speculation about what Mueller was thinking or how Mueller felt. ...probably thought, maybe felt... it's really disappointing to see that because those are clear places where they can insert their bias about the investigation (and a lot of people won't notice). It's classic projection and they really should've stayed far, far away from doing that if they wanted to maintain the impression of being impartial as opposed to wittingly or unwittingly advancing a political agenda.

Finally, they really needed to have better counterpoint discussion. Benjamin Wittes did make the (token?) effort, but it was clear that they didn't have anybody sitting up there to really argue counterpoints when Margaret Taylor was caught off-guard when asked to provide a counterpoint. In response she asked, "Do you really want me to?" And that suggests the disturbing motivation: that they weren't interested in presenting a fair view of the Mueller Report.

Apparently, my summary about what Mueller report is stating is shared by 400 state prosecutors and attorneys who have signed an open letter stating as such.
Ex-Prosecutors: Trump Would've Been Charged if Not President

Hundreds of former federal prosecutors have signed onto a letter saying President Donald Trump would have been charged with obstruction of justice if he were anyone other than the president.

The letter was signed by former Justice Department prosecutors who served under both Democratic and Republican administrations, including ex-U.S. attorneys and public corruption trial lawyers. It was released Monday by Protect Democracy, an advocacy group formed two years ago that is routinely critical of the Trump administration.

As of late Monday afternoon, more than 450 ex-prosecutors had signed the letter, which was posted on the website Medium.com. The number of signatories was expected to continue growing.


"In our system, every accused person is presumed innocent and it is always the government's burden to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt," the letter states. "But, to look at these facts and say that a prosecutor could not probably sustain a conviction for obstruction of justice — the standard set out in Principles of Federal Prosecution — runs counter to logic and our experience."

You may disagree, but there is a lot of legal opinion backing up what the video panel basically said.

 

[Ponder This]

Apparently, my summary about what Mueller report is stating is shared by 400 state prosecutors and attorneys who have signed an open letter stating as such.
Ex-Prosecutors: Trump Would've Been Charged if Not President

Hundreds of former federal prosecutors have signed onto a letter saying President Donald Trump would have been charged with obstruction of justice if he were anyone other than the president.

The letter was signed by former Justice Department prosecutors who served under both Democratic and Republican administrations, including ex-U.S. attorneys and public corruption trial lawyers. It was released Monday by Protect Democracy, an advocacy group formed two years ago that is routinely critical of the Trump administration.

As of late Monday afternoon, more than 450 ex-prosecutors had signed the letter, which was posted on the website Medium.com. The number of signatories was expected to continue growing.


"In our system, every accused person is presumed innocent and it is always the government's burden to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt," the letter states. "But, to look at these facts and say that a prosecutor could not probably sustain a conviction for obstruction of justice — the standard set out in Principles of Federal Prosecution — runs counter to logic and our experience."

You may disagree, but there is a lot of legal opinion backing up what the video panel basically said.

I think this is great! I would love to know more about the credibility of the 450 ex-prosecutors, so that this letter can be properly assessed!
Qualification and Credibility are both required to make a convincing case. Trying to justify a particular opinion through an Appeal to Popularity is a known logical fallacy.

 

[FragrantGrace]

Guilty of what?

Wonder how many who comment here actually spent over an hour to watch that garbage?

Brookings Institution Pushes Liberal Trash While Being Funded by TAXPAYERS - Tea Party News


Brookings is a think tank in D.C.. The thread title is misleading and is contradicted even by the opening line. The title makes a declaration, the body of the thread in its first sentence denies the statement. "Seems" to be guilty means nothing.

Can you imagine if that was a standard of law in America? Talk about prison overcrowding! You seem to be guilty! So off to prison you go.

The great thing that came out of the Mueller report is it afforded the American spectator to witness how depraved the elected Democrats are when serving their base. Forget the idiots who denounce Trump and appear Democrat in the public sector. They're opinionated and they hate Trump. They'll claw onto any bandwagon just to get juice for their hate filled remarks. And most don't have a clue what they're actually saying.

The spotlight of concern should be on the Democrat lawmakers that stoop to the level they have so as to slander and defame a sitting President. If they committed these atrocities in the secular realm as an average citizen they'd face lawsuits. Defamation and slander are very serious offenses.
But the tripe the Democrats in D.C. spew is not even party politics. They are on a soft coupe agenda!And could care less how cowardly and vulgar they appear to the world. Especially our enemies, who we know they support and defend.

God bless America! And save us from the Democrats on Capitol Hill.

 

[FragrantGrace]

Where is the evidence of hampering?

You've got to appreciate the levity in this ridiculous rehash. Trump is guilty! Yes he is!
Where's the evidence!
We don't need no stinking evidence. We can infer till the cows come home and that's good enough!

I know why the Democrats are the blue party. Oxygen dep.

 

[Enoch07]

You've got to appreciate the levity in this ridiculous rehash. Trump is guilty! Yes he is!
Where's the evidence!
We don't need no stinking evidence. We can infer till the cows come home and that's good enough!

I know why the Democrats are the blue party. Oxygen dep.

The left have lost all objectivity, reasoning, and logic. Best case scenario it's a shared group psychotic disorder. Worst case scenario they have become emotionally driven zealots. Either way violence from the left is sure to ensue soon if they cannot temper their hate.

Let us pray they have the strength to conquer their inner demons.

 

[sayak83]

I think this is great! I would love to know more about the credibility of the 450 ex-prosecutors, so that this letter can be properly assessed!
Qualification and Credibility are both required to make a convincing case. Trying to justify a particular opinion through an Appeal to Popularity is a known logical fallacy.

Find out and let me know.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Wonder how many who comment here actually spent over an hour to watch that garbage?

Brookings Institution Pushes Liberal Trash While Being Funded by TAXPAYERS - Tea Party News


Brookings is a think tank in D.C.. The thread title is misleading and is contradicted even by the opening line. The title makes a declaration, the body of the thread in its first sentence denies the statement. "Seems" to be guilty means nothing.

Can you imagine if that was a standard of law in America? Talk about prison overcrowding! You seem to be guilty! So off to prison you go.

The great thing that came out of the Mueller report is it afforded the American spectator to witness how depraved the elected Democrats are when serving their base. Forget the idiots who denounce Trump and appear Democrat in the public sector. They're opinionated and they hate Trump. They'll claw onto any bandwagon just to get juice for their hate filled remarks. And most don't have a clue what they're actually saying.

The spotlight of concern should be on the Democrat lawmakers that stoop to the level they have so as to slander and defame a sitting President. If they committed these atrocities in the secular realm as an average citizen they'd face lawsuits. Defamation and slander are very serious offenses.
But the tripe the Democrats in D.C. spew is not even party politics. They are on a soft coupe agenda!And could care less how cowardly and vulgar they appear to the world. Especially our enemies, who we know they support and defend.

God bless America! And save us from the Democrats on Capitol Hill.

I wouldn't say Democrats alone, they no longer deserve that that title.

Socialists and Closet Marxists are more befitting.

 

[FragrantGrace]

I wouldn't say Democrats alone, they no longer deserve that that title.

Socialists and Closet Marxists are more befitting.

Agreed. Their intentions are obvious to those who pay attention. God help us if one of them gets the White house. Ever.