Originally Posted by detbuch (Post 1164762)

Actually, thinking hard, in depth, about "these things" (e.g. the justice system) leads to the conclusion that in Smollett's case "American political life" is broken, regardless of what Smollett says. And those that support him to the hilt despite his guilt are a sign of that break.

In Trump's case, the justice system does not seem to be broken. There is no dismissal of charges in the face of overwhelming evidence. Quite the contrary. Regardless of what Trump says.

What sort of government do we deserve if we support shady dismissals of charges as in the Smollett case? What sort of government do we deserve if we support conclusions of an intense and thorough investigation that cannot find enough evidence to make a charge? You don't have the information to conclude that yet, do you? I don't see a symmetry between the two. I see an attempt to create an equivalence that doesn't exist--merely by noting the similarity of words about exoneration between Trump and Smollett.

The article is an unnecessary and nonfactual equivalence of Trump's case with Smollett's to create the appearance of why American political life is broken, with the slant that Trump and his supporters are at least half of the problem. God knows who the other half is. Certainly not just little ole insignificant Smollett and his few supporters.

The broken American political life is not caused by the trivia in your article. It is only broken if the base that hold's it together is cracked--you know . . . the "C".

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1164768)

Detbuch: What sort of government do we deserve if we support shady dismissals of charges as in the Smollett case? What sort of government do we deserve if we support conclusions of an intense and thorough investigation that cannot find enough evidence to make a charge?

You don't have the information to conclude that yet, do you?

Mueller provided the info. He found enough evidence to conclude that Trump did not conspire with the Russians. He didn't find enough evidence to conclude that Trump obstructed justice. And he enumerated a detailed account of how thorough and expensive his investigation was.

I would put forth that the other half of the fracture is the media et al, since 30 years ago we would have known little, if anything of either issue and that the first half is not just the Trumplicans but both of the political tribes.

The article you linked didn't make the same distinctions.

I would love to know Muellers opinion of Trump, since they are almost exact opposites.

Do you have the information to conclude that? Any way, Mueller's personal opinion of Trump doesn't interest me. It's irrelevant other than a conversation piece.

If Mueller followed his usual formula, he knows everything about Trump that he could possibly find out and then decided what of that was applicable to the investigation he was asked to make.
He is a very talented investigator and likely found questionable things Don the Con did.
If they were bad enough, I would think he would have been quite conflicted about not doing something about it.
What could he do?
Will the report tell?

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1164765)

What about the changes in the rules of golf is a very simple question if you took the time to learn about golf and the rules.

How could you possibly not know?

You were apparently annihilated by my simple question.

I did read some writing on Smollett that was in something I find interesting and I linked it previously.
Perhaps you missed that, if you want the link, just pedal back a page or so.


"I have two videos for you. In less than three minutes, total, they present the full lunatic tribalism that is American society.

First, here’s President Donald Trump claiming “complete and total exoneration” of all charges in the Mueller investigation.


And now here’s actor Jussie Smollett claiming that he’d been “truthful and consistent” in the face of charges that he’d committed a hate-crime hoax.


The symmetry here is perfect. Absolutely perfect. The only thing we really know from Bob Mueller’s lips is that on the subject of obstruction: “while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.” That’s eerily similar to the words said by the prosecutor who dismissed the charges against Smollett, saying that he “does not believe [Smollett] is innocent.”

Now you can believe that both of these men have been judged as innocent because the legal system has declined to prosecute them. Or you can believe that both of them can be viewed with suspicion because the official verdict of the legal system is not the last word in actual culpability.

But you cannot claim that one of them must now be treated as totally and completely innocent but that the other is clearly guilty. Which is what most of America seems to be doing.

Including the president of the United States. Barely 72 hours after TOTAL EXONERATION he demanded that federal investigators overturn the verdict of local law enforcement because he was positive that Jussie Smollett had not been, at all, in any way, even partially exonerated.


Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
FBI & DOJ to review the outrageous Jussie Smollett case in Chicago. It is an embarrassment to our Nation!

131K
6:34 AM - Mar 28, 2019

Though why Trump would trust the FBI—an organization Trump claims is full of “dirty cops” who tried to commit “treason”—to investigate Smollett is beyond me.

Then again, maybe we should take Trump’s criticisms of the FBI seriously, but not literally. Maybe FBI agents are only “dirty” in the same way that Mexico is “paying” for the “concrete wall” on America’s southern border."

:easy:

Originally Posted by detbuch (Post 1164770)

Other than obstruction or conspiracy, what bad stuff about Trump should Mueller have concluded about? Hard telling, not knowing, purely supposition
If there were other crimes he may have referred them to some criminal court.

Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 1164771)

"How could you possibly not know?

You were apparently annihilated by my simple question."

Explain the question so that I know what you're asking, I'll answer it. Gold changes were not all over the news. This was. You know what happened, you can't bear to say it.

Naturally, with Smullett, you brought it back to Trump. There is no symmetry. There is a ton of evidence that Smullett is guilty, there is no evidence (after a 2 year investigation, on top of other investigations) that Trump is guilty.

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1164773)

Quote Barr said it did not establish enough evidence to indict anyone with conspiracy or coordination.

Exactly. If there is not enough evidence to indict, there is no mandate or reason to go further. That's how the law works. Case closed.

As to obstruction Mueller neither concluded or exonerated the President. All we have to date is hearsay.

He did not find enough evidence to make a conclusion. Same as above. Not enough evidence, case closed. If your saying that Mueller's conclusions or lack of them are only to be considered hearsay, then there is no purpose for such an investigation.

Pete: I would put forth that the other half of the fracture is the media et al, since 30 years ago we would have known little, if anything of either issue and that the first half is not just the Trumplicans but both of the political tribes.

The article you linked didn't make the same distinctions.

So?

So if you disagree with some of your article how much confidence should I have either in you or the article--an article, BTW, which is basically a slanted and misleading peace of political crap to begin with.

I would love to know Muellers opinion of Trump, since they are almost exact opposites.

Do you have the information to conclude that? Any way, Mueller's personal opinion of Trump doesn't interest me. It's irrelevant other than a conversation piece.

Only from biographical pieces on both, I find it very interesting

Whenever you've shared some biographical or anecdotal information about Trump its either been negative or contradictory. Whereas I have read or seen bio info about him that was quite positive. So I guess that you've either only read one side or just believe what you want to believe. I have read or seen enough biographies to realize that most of them are part or mostly fiction along with slanted contextualization of facts. Comparing such bios of Trump to Mueller would seem more like an entertainment rather than an elucidation. But, whatever floats your boat.

If Mueller followed his usual formula, he knows everything about Trump that he could possibly find out and then decided what of that was applicable to the investigation he was asked to make.
He is a very talented investigator and likely found questionable things Don the Con did.
If they were bad enough, I would think he would have been quite conflicted about not doing something about it.
What could he do?
Will the report tell?

And if he found a pattern of behavior, not indictable but that he felt was untenable for a person in that position, what would/could he do?