Mueller

[kingcat]

First, Im not angry with anyone here (You are my good friends) and I dislike being of a different opinion because it obviously offends some.

But my question remains unanswered.
Rather, my opinion, which has at least equal support to those espoused here, is challenged.

[Doc]

And with others it will have d9iminished in meaning and purpose and, they will be so sick of hearing it, the hoped for effect will fail to materialize.,

Exactly which is why the unsubstanciated accusation of racism are offensive to me. Are there racists? Sure but when everything is racist it deminishes the effect and impact of actual racism.

[Doc]

I thought he was going to declare himself emperor/dictator in chief/king forever, so leaving office would be a moot point.

No...he was going to amend the costitution so he could run for a third term, after ignoring the results of the 2020 election because being the evil egomaniac he is, that was his plan. You know, ignore the results and overturn them. Of course that is exactly what the liberals have been attempting to do for 2 1/2 years...the exact thing they assume Trump will do

[Doc]

First, Im not angry with anyone here (You are my good friends) and I dislike being of a different opinion because it obviously offends some.

But my question remains unanswered.
Rather, my opinion, which has at least equal support to those espoused here, is challenged.

It offends nobody. For me, I enjoy differing opinions. I might not agree but that is the point. A one sided discussion isn't a discussion. It is a monologue and then a pep rally

[Catonahottinroof]

I don’t think anyone is offended. However, I do believe you need to put your political filter in neutral for a bit on this topic.

First, Im not angry with anyone here (You are my good friends) and I dislike being of a different opinion because it obviously offends some.

But my question remains unanswered.
Rather, my opinion, which has at least equal support to those espoused here, is challenged.

[kingcat]

I don’t think anyone is offended. However, I do believe you need to put your political filter in neutral for a bit on this topic.

I sort of feel the same. But I would not venture to ask that of you and others since you have the forums majority support.

In the words of Chris Wallace on the matter.. “the record will show what it shows. I promise you you’re wrong”

[Catonahottinroof]

Well, I’m not a republican, nor am I a democrat. I’m a Libertarian. The expanse of that particular political landscape is vast. It encompasses to conservative folks, as well as anarchists. So you tell me, what should I shut off and why? I see both sides clearly, which I can’t say about you....

I sort of feel the same. But I would not venture to ask that of you

[KeithKSR]

Exactly which is why the unsubstanciated accusation of racism are offensive to me. Are there racists? Sure but when everything is racist it deminishes the effect and impact of actual racism.

The left is at it again. Trump criticizes Cummings because he has done absolutely nothing for his rat infested destitute district, so the left automatically accuses Trump of racism because they cannot dispute what Trump says about the Baltimore area that Cummings poorly represents.

[Doc]

The left is at it again. Trump criticizes Cummings because he has done absolutely nothing for his rat infested destitute district, so the left automatically accuses Trump of racism because they cannot dispute what Trump says about the Baltimore area that Cummings poorly represents.

some numb nuts was on last night and suggested that Trump only uses the term "infested" when talking about African Americans (Cummings) and hispanics.

Bottom line Trump has attacked plenty of white folks...he is a nondescript attacker. Gone after Crooked Hilary, Sleepy Joe Biden, Comey, Meuller, Fat Rosie...the list is LONG and not exclusive to any race or gender. Yet when he attacks any minority it is automatically labelled racist.

[kingcat]

Well, I’m not a republican, nor am I a democrat. I’m a Libertarian. The expanse of that particular political landscape is vast. It encompasses to conservative folks, as well as anarchists. So you tell me, what should I shut off and why? I see both sides clearly, which I can’t say about you....

And I am a conservative Democrat. And I believe I see both sides just as clearly as you. Probably more so.

Maybe you should clarify your position as I will mine. I agree with Chris Wallace that the president was not cleared of obstruction. And that the opposite is closer to the truth
My response has been to those who claim he was totally cleared in this thread. Imo, there is no side to be taken other than accepting the report as fair or unfair. Drawing incorrect conclusions to fit an opinion is not an unbiased option.
That is the point Chris Wallace made and I agree with. Opinions on if that is fair are beside the point.

Your response speaks to your own question of me.

[KeithKSR]

Maybe you should clarify your position as I will mine. I agree with Chris Wallace that the president was not cleared of obstruction. And that the opposite is closer to the truth
My response has been to those who claim he was totally cleared in this thread.

Part 2 of the report outlined possible obstruction claims, but made no assertions that there claims were true. Rod Rosenstein, the DAG overseeing Mueller who would never be described as being pro-Trump, said there was no prosecutable obstruction case there.

The law doesn’t clear or exonerate. Juries don’t determine innocence, they determine guilty or not guilty.

Furthermore, despite the left’s wet dream fantasies, Mueller stated on the record that he was not impeded in his investigation. If he wasn’t impeded there was no obstruction.

[Catonahottinroof]

To me, I see an investigation into a campaign, with government resources used for political means, not to establish justice. A dossier that used fabricated data to establish standing for warrants that weren’t legitimate and was paid for by the opposing political party. Mueller played blind, dumb, deaf and stupid when asked about these topics. If it’s legitimate, show me, that is all I ask.
It hasn’t been established in any way more than Obama’s off mic comments to Medvedev prove he was a Russian stooge. Neither is proven, but the optics of one was completely forgotten by the politicized media, and one was trumpeted as the downfall of the American society. And NO, you do not clearly see both sides. Maybe a more accurate depiction is you don’t see both sides fairly.
This entire mess has been 2 1/2 years of political farce by the left over losing an election it thought it had “in the bag.” And will be another year and 1 1/2 to drag it out until election time comes.
I’m no Trump fan, he’s narcissistic and ego driven to the end of hells half acre, but he has not been treated fairly in the entire circus of political theater.
It would be no different if this dog and pony show pursued Obama over his quote to Medvedev. That would have been a witch hunt just as this one has become and with the right amount of pressure brought to bear, the investatigatees of that farce would have been caught in a web of process crimes just as this administration has.

And I am a conservative Democrat. And I believe I see both sides just as clearly as you. Probably more so.

Maybe you should clarify your position as I will mine. I agree with Chris Wallace that the president was not cleared of obstruction. And that the opposite is closer to the truth
My response has been to those who claim he was totally cleared in this thread. Imo, there is no side to be taken other than accepting the report as fair or unfair. Drawing incorrect conclusions to fit an opinion is not an unbiased option.
That is the point Chris Wallace made and I agree with. Opinions on if that is fair are beside the point.

Your response speaks to your own question of me.

[kingcat]

To me, I see an investigation into a campaign, with government resources used for political means, not to establish justice. A dossier that used fabricated data to establish standing for warrants that weren’t legitimate and was paid for by the opposing political party. Mueller played blind, dumb, deaf and stupid when asked about these topics. If it’s legitimate, show me, that is all I ask.
It hasn’t been established in any way more than Obama’s off mic comments to Medvedev prove he was a Russian stooge. Neither is proven, but the optics of one was completely forgotten by the politicized media, and one was trumpeted as the downfall of the American society. And NO, you do not clearly see both sides. Maybe a more accurate depiction is you don’t see both sides fairly.
This entire mess has been 2 1/2 years of political farce by the left over losing an election it thought it had “in the bag.” And will be another year and 1 1/2 to drag it out until election time comes.
I’m no Trump fan, he’s narcissistic and ego driven to the end of hells half acre, but he has not been treated fairly in the entire circus of political theater.
It would be no different if this dog and pony show pursued Obama over his quote to Medvedev. That would have been a witch hunt just as this one has become and with the right amount of pressure brought to bear, the investatigatees of that farce would have been caught in a web of process crimes just as this administration has.

This has nothing to do with our discussion as I have tried to made clear. I asked the question what did Mueller not clear the President of? And no one will give a direct answer to that. It has nothing to do with various opinions on the veracity of the report.

The opposing opinion is that Mueller cleared the President of all charges..is that your opinion? Mine is that he did not.
That is not unreasonable is it? I don’t mean it to be.

Nevertheless, I won’t continue a discussion where I am falsely labeled as unreasonable. Still, I dont hold any anger..it’s just the nature of political discussion in the current climate.

[Catonahottinroof]

No, I don’t think you are being unreasonable at all. However, a prosecutor either indicts and lets it play out with trial, or he doesn’t. If he doesn’t indict, he doesn’t speak about the case since the investigated cannot defend himself against what he speaks. The courtroom is the forum, not the media or spoken word.
It’s not the job of prosecution to exonerate anyone. They either proceed to prosecute and prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, or they don’t or can’t.

[Catonahottinroof]

And please, our friends in the legal profession, offer your readings on this...

[CitizenBBN]

This has nothing to do with our discussion as I have tried to made clear. I asked the question what did Mueller not clear the President of? And no one will give a direct answer to that.

Is that the question you are asking?

Things Mueller did not clear Trump of:

- Being a Russian agent
- Obstructing justice
- Being an alien from Jupiter
- Being a Pedophile
- Being a time traveler from the future
- Being the anti-christ
- being a Mutant capable of mind control


It's a long list, how much time do we have?

seriously, you're arguing a negative as a positive. that's a logical fallacy, misleading and in this case a travesty of the American system of justice.

First and foremost, it appears "Mueller" himself didn't clear or not clear anyone of anything, as he seems to have been a figurehead for this whole ordeal.

Second, the special counsel's office was unable to even charge a single person with anything related to collusion or obstruction, and they were certainly free to do that without any Presidential protections.

So they were unable to bring any indictments at all against anyone for anything related to the reason for the investigation. Nada, nothing. Yet somehow we're to believe they HAD enough to prosecute Trump, they just couldn't. What's the logic behind that conclusion?


The answer to your question has been answered many times, you just don't like the answer. The answer is Trump was not "cleared" of anything b/c Prosecutors dont' "clear" people, they simply charge them or don't. Trump was not charged, but neither was anyone else, which is very telling.

There's simply no balance here. This was clearly a politically motivated move from the outset, as is everything in Washington by both parties, and despite their best efforts they found nothing really useful.

I doubt many Presidents could withstand the scrutiny Trump just did and not find something to pin on them for something. I was sure they'd expand to find out about tax stuff or business deals, but even that so far is coming up pretty empty.

This isn't being balanced. This is clinging to a belief in faith rather than accepting the empirical evidence available at this time. If Trump or his people did anything sleazy it apparently wasn't any more sleazy than what anyone else does and apparently wasn't a crime, b/c people willing to send armed SWAT in the middle of the night to arrest people for filing a mortgage document falsely aren't exactly being restrained in their prosecutorial zeal.

[kingcat]

Is that the question you are asking?

Things Mueller did not clear Trump of:

- Being a Russian agent
- Obstructing justice
- Being an alien from Jupiter
- Being a Pedophile
- Being a time traveler from the future
- Being the anti-christ
- being a Mutant capable of mind control


It's a long list, how much time do we have?

seriously, you're arguing a negative as a positive. that's a logical fallacy, misleading and in this case a travesty of the American system of justice.

First and foremost, it appears "Mueller" himself didn't clear or not clear anyone of anything, as he seems to have been a figurehead for this whole ordeal.

Second, the special counsel's office was unable to even charge a single person with anything related to collusion or obstruction, and they were certainly free to do that without any Presidential protections.

So they were unable to bring any indictments at all against anyone for anything related to the reason for the investigation. Nada, nothing. Yet somehow we're to believe they HAD enough to prosecute Trump, they just couldn't. What's the logic behind that conclusion?


The answer to your question has been answered many times, you just don't like the answer. The answer is Trump was not "cleared" of anything b/c Prosecutors dont' "clear" people, they simply charge them or don't. Trump was not charged, but neither was anyone else, which is very telling.

There's simply no balance here. This was clearly a politically motivated move from the outset, as is everything in Washington by both parties, and despite their best efforts they found nothing really useful.

I doubt many Presidents could withstand the scrutiny Trump just did and not find something to pin on them for something. I was sure they'd expand to find out about tax stuff or business deals, but even that so far is coming up pretty empty.

This isn't being balanced. This is clinging to a belief in faith rather than accepting the empirical evidence available at this time. If Trump or his people did anything sleazy it apparently wasn't any more sleazy than what anyone else does and apparently wasn't a crime, b/c people willing to send armed SWAT in the middle of the night to arrest people for filing a mortgage document falsely aren't exactly being restrained in their prosecutorial zeal.

Now we are getting somewhere. Which of those listed did Mueller investigate and reach a conclusion on in his report?

That is the only answer I was asking for. Not the validity of my opinion or any other..just the opinion of Mr Mueller.

Thanks and I am seriously appreciative. It was simple question that I have been chided over but the unwillingness to answer made me out to be a bad guy. When I had no such intent other than to explain the validity of my opinion’ and not it’s exclusivity.

[KeithKSR]

Now we are getting somewhere. Which of those listed did Mueller investigate and reach a conclusion on in his report?

That is the only answer I was asking for. Not the validity of my opinion or any other..just the opinion of Mr Mueller.

Thanks and I am seriously appreciative. It was simple question that I have been chided over but the unwillingness to answer made me out to be a bad guy. When I had no such intent other than to explain the validity of my opinion’ and not it’s exclusivity.

Andrew Weissman, who cried at Hillary’s victory party turned hour of mourning, and the hounds of hell stated there was no evidence of conspiracy (collusion). Weissman and the hounds came up with a series of wild theories that in some alternate universe could be argued to be obstruction, however they lack the predicate of having a crime to cover up. Rosenstein determined there was no chargeable offense and Barr agreed.

[CitizenBBN]

Now we are getting somewhere. Which of those listed did Mueller investigate and reach a conclusion on in his report?

That is the only answer I was asking for. Not the validity of my opinion or any other..just the opinion of Mr Mueller.

Thanks and I am seriously appreciative. It was simple question that I have been chided over but the unwillingness to answer made me out to be a bad guy. When I had no such intent other than to explain the validity of my opinion’ and not it’s exclusivity.

You're welcome, but the problem is the question itself is moot.

The question at hand IMO is this: With a two year investigation run with unlimited budgets and near unlimited legal powers, run by a team of people who absolutely without a doubt were NOT going to protect Trump in any way, and a report that lists lots of activities but concludes nothing illegal or conspiratorial could be shown, what should we reasonably conclude at this point?

a) They think Trump is guilty and just couldn't do anything about it, or
b) They couldn't find anything to pin on him no matter how hard they looked


Even the report itself concludes that there was NO evidence of ANYONE colluding with the RUssians, and there were in fact incidents they found where Trump people were approached and they declined to do so.


So yes, Mueller doesn't "exonerate" anyone in word, b/c prosecutors don't do that, and certainly a cabal of Anti-Trump DNC donor lawyers sure as Hades aren't going to do it.

But in that they spent tens of millions of dollars, had the full might of the Federal justice system at their disposal, and shook trees so hard it at times was possibly prosecutorial misconduct, and they still couldn't charge anyone with collusion or conspiracy or obstruction, you really think it's presumptuous to say that this report should establish a good faith conclusion that Trump is at least no more dirty or questionable than any other President?

His opponents gave him their absolute best shot, with Hulk like legal powers, and didn't land a punch. IMO we can draw some conclusions from that without having to have them, as Trump opponents, actually admit Trump is in the clear. The fact they wiffed is proof enough of the outcome.

[Catonahottinroof]

So I heard a rather heard a simple explanation from my wife’s attorney boss about this today. He asks me how does a verdict read? I told him either guilty, or not guilty. He answered correct and went a little further on to say what a verdict does not say, “exonerated or not exonerated”. Not a legal term or legal outcome.

You're welcome, but the problem is the question itself is moot.

The question at hand IMO is this: With a two year investigation run with unlimited budgets and near unlimited legal powers, run by a team of people who absolutely without a doubt were NOT going to protect Trump in any way, and a report that lists lots of activities but concludes nothing illegal or conspiratorial could be shown, what should we reasonably conclude at this point?

a) They think Trump is guilty and just couldn't do anything about it, or
b) They couldn't find anything to pin on him no matter how hard they looked


Even the report itself concludes that there was NO evidence of ANYONE colluding with the RUssians, and there were in fact incidents they found where Trump people were approached and they declined to do so.


So yes, Mueller doesn't "exonerate" anyone in word, b/c prosecutors don't do that, and certainly a cabal of Anti-Trump DNC donor lawyers sure as Hades aren't going to do it.

But in that they spent tens of millions of dollars, had the full might of the Federal justice system at their disposal, and shook trees so hard it at times was possibly prosecutorial misconduct, and they still couldn't charge anyone with collusion or conspiracy or obstruction, you really think it's presumptuous to say that this report should establish a good faith conclusion that Trump is at least no more dirty or questionable than any other President?

His opponents gave him their absolute best shot, with Hulk like legal powers, and didn't land a punch. IMO we can draw some conclusions from that without having to have them, as Trump opponents, actually admit Trump is in the clear. The fact they wiffed is proof enough of the outcome.

[CitizenBBN]

So I heard a rather heard a simple explanation from my wife’s attorney boss about this today. He asks me how does a verdict read? I told him either guilty, or not guilty. He answered correct and went a little further on to say what a verdict does not say, “exonerated or not exonerated”. Not a legal term or legal outcome.

Exactly. It's a meaningless term legally. that's esp. true since, as Dershowitz pointed out long ago, it's questionable whether most of the things under investigation are even actual crimes.

They found examples of Russian agents approaching people, not one example of anyone agreeing to work with them, and more than one example of people refusing the advance. They found examples of Trump not liking Mueller or the special counsel but no evidence that he actually DID anything to impede the investigation.

Does that mean no one did anything "wrong" in some ethical or moral way, even if not illegal? No, I'm sure Trump was furious over this investigation and railed about it often. They included that stuff in the report even though that's not a crime.

But can any prosecutor say with 100% certainty a person is absolutely innocent of such a broad range of legal and quasi-legal questions? No, but it's also not relevant.

At the end of the day these questions are political, not legal. Are you OK with Trump railing about people like he does? If not can you get past it if he does other things you do like?

Judges and even Congress isn't the deciding voice for these behaviors. The People have that authority and they can decide next year if they can live with it or not.

The People are the ones with the power to "exonerate" a politician for his behavior when such behavior isn't actually illegal but may be upsetting to some.

[dan_bgblue]

The People are the ones with the power to "exonerate" a politician for his behavior when such behavior isn't actually illegal but may be upsetting to some.

I do not think the democrats are willing to allow that to happen. They are bound and determined to make sure the citizenry will not have a chance to vote on their own future.