Originally Posted by Got Stripers (Post 1167988)

Keep believing, read the report, it’s clear obstruction happened.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1167972)

Instructor: R. Mueller

If the President did not commit a crime, we would have said so.

We did not say so.

Ergo________________

Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 1167989)

What Mueller said, is that he could not prove that Trump didn't commit a crime. That is nowhere near the same as saying that he committed a crime.

As to obstruction, I want him charged if he did it. But the long list of examples of liberals willing to say ANYTHING to make him look bad, makes me skeptical.

I heard for two years that there'd be an indictment on collusion with Russia, then Buzzfeed and CNN said Trump ordered his lawyer to lie to Congress under oath.

I praise him when he deserves it, I criticize him when he deserves it. I don't have an agenda to defend him at all costs, nor do I have an agenda to get rid of him at all costs. His attackers have the same amount of credibility as Sean Hannity, they are fools who are not to be taken seriously. That doesn't mean he didn't do it.

Originally Posted by detbuch (Post 1167994)

Ergo...….the title of your thread should be illogic 101 quiz.

It is illogical to compare what you imply that Mueller said to what he actually said, then proceed to "ergo" into a conclusion.

Mueller said "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.”

That is nowhere near what you imply that he said. Saying that he did not have confidence that Trump did not commit obstruction is saying that he is not sure that Trump did not obstruct.

DOJ rules did not prevent him from saying that he had "confidence" that Trump obstructed, nor did they prevent him from saying he had confidence that Trump didn't obstruct.

Your "If the President did not commit a crime" proposes a fact--that the President did not commit a crime. And your "Ergo" leads us to the fact that he did.

But Mueller's lacking confidence proposes uncertainty, unsurety, that Trump did not obstruct. So an "ergo" re that would be that Mueller is unsure that he did obstruct.

Again, DOJ rules do not prohibit the Special Counsel from saying that his thorough investigation gives him "confidence" that Trump obstructed. Mueller did not say that . . . ergo . . . . .

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1167997)

“If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so,” Mueller declared.
Keep obfuscating

Mueller's statement is the obfuscation. That you keep repeating it and falling for it just shows your ignorance of the law and how it works.

The purpose of a prosecutorial investigation is to find if there is sufficient evidence to convict. It is not its purpose to find if there is sufficient evidence to "exonerate." Trump is already, before the law, presumed innocent until such evidence proves otherwise. The purpose here is to find if there is sufficient evidence to convict

Mueller not only did not say so, he also, in his report, presented evidence that was exculpatory or could be viewed as such. And regardless of the DOJ notion that a sitting President cannot be indicted, the special counsel can state that the evidence is sufficient to convict. He did not say that, and his lack of "confidence" in exoneration is not a confidence of guilt. It is purposeful obfuscation. What the purpose for it is the real mystery in what he said, not the uncertainty.

Uncertainty of guilt, before the law, gives way to the presumption of innocence. That you refuse to see that, or understand that, is a testament either to your bias, or to your ignorance, or to both.

Here is a very interesting video that might put at least a tiny chink in your perspective. Probably not. But others may find it helpful:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udRqsEa2N9E

Mueller and Trump are opposite ends of the spectrum.
Trump is a con man, always has been and always will be.
Do you think Mueller has the ability to spin?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1167972)

Instructor: R. Mueller

If the President did not commit a crime, we would have said so.

We did not say so.

Ergo________________

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1167997)

Do you think Mueller has the ability to spin?

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by Got Stripers (Post 1167988)

Keep believing, read the report, it’s clear obstruction happened.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by detbuch (Post 1167994)

That is nowhere near what you imply that he said. . . . .

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1167996)

Are you claiming that Robert Mueller is a liberal ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by scottw (Post 1168003)

you are ignoring the part of the report that said there was no collusion which is the ONLY thing that matters...this was a partisan hack job from the beginning ...if he obstructed partisan hacks from destroying his presidency I'm ok with that and really don't blame him...if you were being falsely investigated by people that hate you for some really egregious trumped up phony crimes would you happily play along with them or would you do everything you could to fight them?

democrats cried wolf too long, the wolf never appeared....now they want to cry sheep....and when that doesn't work they will cry something else....dummycrats have been running around yelling TREASON!! for 2 years.....yawn

Originally Posted by detbuch (Post 1167994)

DOJ rules did not prevent him from saying that he had "confidence" that Trump obstructed, nor did they prevent him from saying he had confidence that Trump didn't obstruct.. . . .

Originally Posted by Got Stripers (Post 1168009)

You are doing the Barr spin. As head of the investigation his ethics and interpretation of DOJ guidelines, dictated if we can’t charge we can’t accuse and he clearly left that in the hands of congress and he reiterated that in his news conference.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by JohnR (Post 1168012)

For two years we screamed under needing to wait for conclusions in the Mueller Report.

It came and it was underwhelming. I do suspect Trump did something wrong and illegal which means there is no difference than his competition or predecessors.

The Mueller Report did not deliver anything earth shattering, damning, nor apparently something to prosecute with.

Originally Posted by Got Stripers (Post 1168009)

You are doing the Barr spin.

Barr knows more about DOJ guidelines than you do, and, apparently more than Mueller does, or else Mueller is being a weasel.

As head of the investigation his ethics and interpretation of DOJ guidelines, dictated if we can’t charge we can’t accuse and he clearly left that in the hands of congress and he reiterated that in his news conference.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by Got Stripers (Post 1168014)

I'm surprised you think it's underwhelming John, especially in light of the extent the Russians went to in order to hurt one candidate and help another get elected; that part everyone seems to be glossing right over. Did the investigation proof Trump and his campaign staff didn't actively conspire with the Russians sure, but it also pointed out they didn't turn to the FBI every time they were offered help either. Trump even went so far as to encourage hacking on national TV, there's real patriotic act by someone running for president.

So sure no collusion, but volume 2 clearly is where the rubber meets the road and that part may be his downfall. Funny you say Trump may have down "something" wrong, when volume 2 details numerous things he did wrong, but I guess if you believe he is no worse than any other president in the past you are entitled to that opinion. If this is the new norm, we are in trouble people.

Originally Posted by Got Stripers (Post 1168014)

I'm surprised you think it's underwhelming John, especially in light of the extent the Russians went to in order to hurt one candidate and help another get elected; that part everyone seems to be glossing right over. Did the investigation proof Trump and his campaign staff didn't actively conspire with the Russians sure, but it also pointed out they didn't turn to the FBI every time they were offered help either. Trump even went so far as to encourage hacking on national TV, there's real patriotic act by someone running for president.

Originally Posted by Got Stripers (Post 1168014)

So sure no collusion, but volume 2 clearly is where the rubber meets the road and that part may be his downfall. Funny you say Trump may have down "something" wrong, when volume 2 details numerous things he did wrong, but I guess if you believe he is no worse than any other president in the past you are entitled to that opinion. If this is the new norm, we are in trouble people.

Originally Posted by JohnR (Post 1168019)

I am not surprised that is your response, that is the response a lot of well intentioned people have.

Here are some historical notes: choose to do with them what you will, but I would highly suggest you go over Russian history for the past 300 years. Russia has been lying, "hacking", influencing, and sabotaging other countries positions and governments, and when available elections, for over 300 years. It is what they do.

From the 1200s up into the times of the Great Game they did this to their nearby neighbors.

In the Great Game they conquered or stole or influenced their expansion south and east through the Caucuses, the Stans, the steppes, and eventually to the Pacific. They have played games with all of Europe, Asia before we even fought among ourselves.

From their revolution on they have been aligning with progressives and worker's parties in the US with varying levels of success, all the way up until heavy influence in the pre WW2 times and other than a small decade when they were licking their wounds, back again with the 60s through today.

This is what they do.

Frankly, I find it somewhat insulting that all of the people that complain about it now after ignoring it forever are often the same people that rush to McCain's defense now yet pilloried him prior to Trump.



I believe that when the Media, in lockstep with the Democratic party, makes a moderate with some level of integrity like Romney into the next Hitler, that we reap what we have sown. We have lost the middle, with both sides going more extreme and more and more out of balance. This looks like there is little chance to correct this imbalance. The future is terrifying.

Trump wasn't the cause, he was the result.

Originally Posted by JohnR (Post 1168019)

I am not surprised that is your response, that is the response a lot of well intentioned people have.

Here are some historical notes: choose to do with them what you will, but I would highly suggest you go over Russian history for the past 300 years. Russia has been lying, "hacking", influencing, and sabotaging other countries positions and governments, and when available elections, for over 300 years. It is what they do.

From the 1200s up into the times of the Great Game they did this to their nearby neighbors.

In the Great Game they conquered or stole or influenced their expansion south and east through the Caucuses, the Stans, the steppes, and eventually to the Pacific. They have played games with all of Europe, Asia before we even fought among ourselves.

From their revolution on they have been aligning with progressives and worker's parties in the US with varying levels of success, all the way up until heavy influence in the pre WW2 times and other than a small decade when they were licking their wounds, back again with the 60s through today.

This is what they do.

Frankly, I find it somewhat insulting that all of the people that complain about it now after ignoring it forever are often the same people that rush to McCain's defense now yet pilloried him prior to Trump.



I believe that when the Media, in lockstep with the Democratic party, makes a moderate with some level of integrity like Romney into the next Hitler, that we reap what we have sown. We have lost the middle, with both sides going more extreme and more and more out of balance. This looks like there is little chance to correct this imbalance. The future is terrifying.

Trump wasn't the cause, he was the result.

Originally Posted by JohnR (Post 1168019)

I am not surprised that is your response, that is the response a lot of well intentioned people have.

Here are some historical notes: choose to do with them what you will, but I would highly suggest you go over Russian history for the past 300 years. Russia has been lying, "hacking", influencing, and sabotaging other countries positions and governments, and when available elections, for over 300 years. It is what they do.

From the 1200s up into the times of the Great Game they did this to their nearby neighbors.

In the Great Game they conquered or stole or influenced their expansion south and east through the Caucuses, the Stans, the steppes, and eventually to the Pacific. They have played games with all of Europe, Asia before we even fought among ourselves.

From their revolution on they have been aligning with progressives and worker's parties in the US with varying levels of success, all the way up until heavy influence in the pre WW2 times and other than a small decade when they were licking their wounds, back again with the 60s through today.

This is what they do.

Frankly, I find it somewhat insulting that all of the people that complain about it now after ignoring it forever are often the same people that rush to McCain's defense now yet pilloried him prior to Trump.



I believe that when the Media, in lockstep with the Democratic party, makes a moderate with some level of integrity like Romney into the next Hitler, that we reap what we have sown. We have lost the middle, with both sides going more extreme and more and more out of balance. This looks like there is little chance to correct this imbalance. The future is terrifying.

Trump wasn't the cause, he was the result.

Originally Posted by Got Stripers (Post 1168023)

John thanks for the history lesson, but what Russia was capable of doing and the influence that may have resulted in prior to the internet, is like comparing the first gas engine driven car to what circles the track at Daytona.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1168030)

Calling Mueller’s team “some of the worst human beings on Earth,” while saying he’s in love with Kim Jong-un, a dictator who murders people for sport, tosses thousands in gulags, and executes dissidents with anti-aircraft guns, tells me what I need to know about Trump.
What about all you want
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by detbuch (Post 1168028)

John just gave a brief overall sketch. If he had filled in the details, you would not have responded the way you did. The direct involvement and participation of Soviet agents and fellow travelers in the FDR administration was absolutely massive and persuasive. It was directly responsible for the takeover of China and other parts of Asia as well as all of Eastern Europe by Communists. The internet influence that Russia exerted in this last go-round amounts to nothing in comparison to what the Soviets accomplished with their infiltration of Roosevelt's administration.