Logic 101 quiz

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Instructor: R. Mueller

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

We did not say so.

Ergo________________

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 . . . . .

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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 . . . . .

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

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

“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:



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

Of course Mueller has the ability to spin. Certainly to twist and obfuscate. His obstruction nonsense proves that.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Do you think Mueller has the ability to spin?

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Mueller could have been very clear and concise, he decided rather, to be ambiguous and confuse people like you.

Ergo_______

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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

this thread is
based entirely, on something that’s demonstrably false.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Got Stripers]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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.. . . .

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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

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

What Mueller said was, they couldn’t prove trump didn’t commit obstruction. Big whoop.

how do you prove you didn’t obstruct justice, anyway? i mean, you can prove you didn’t commit murder with DNA or
by proving you were somewhere else when the murder happened. but obstruction of
justice? there’s no conceivable way to prove you didn’t do it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[JohnR]

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.

[Got Stripers]

Originally Posted by JohnR

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.

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.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

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.

weren’t russians also behind the Steele dossier? who was that designed to help?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

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.

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.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by JohnR

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.

Absolutely, 100% correct. Trump was the inevitable product of the media and the DNC mercilessly portraying harmless, moderate, milquetoasts like McCain and Romney, out to be the next coming of Hitler. That's exactly, and the only reason, why we have Trump. Now the same weasels who unfairly attacked McCain and Romney, are whining about reaping what they sow. Tough nuggets.

We need to drain the swamp, flush the toilet, and elect a new kind of politician, and start talking about what works and what doesn't, and stop incessantly shrieking about racism and sexism, and whatever other drummed-up hate du jour will get you another vote.

The short term future is indeed terrifying, take a gander at your neighbor to the south, the state of CT.

I don't believe the GOP has radicalized anywhere near to the extent of the democrats. Individual cases, sure, not national party leadership. The right-wing equivalent of where democrats are today (open borders, legalizing drugs, abortion until birth, use whatever bathroom tickles your fancy), is concentration camps and zero taxes and executing people for being on welfare.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by JohnR

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.

You're being reasonable and logical, which is not welcomed in the midst of partisan squabbles--certainly not welcomed in arguments fueled by hate and personal animosity.

I agree with all of what you said. Except I think that I "interpret" it a bit differently.

Yes, Trump was the result not the cause. But I look at the result as being a corrective, not just a continuance of rushing to a mad end.

And I see the "middle" to be different than what I gather folks on this forum who refer to it believe it to be. I don't think there is a middle between ideological extremes. Picking portions of each extreme just results in a variation of extremes. A variation that changes as extremes change.

For me, the idea of a constant ideological "middle" is that which doesn't change, but is the point from which extremes diverge. It is an unchanging principle, a foundation, upon which a society is founded. My notion of losing our "middle" would be abandoning that founding principle. We no longer agree to even consider that middle when we discuss politics, much less act on it.

[Got Stripers]

Originally Posted by JohnR

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.

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

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

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

His "interpretation" is incorrect. And he knows that. There is nothing in the guidelines that prohibits accusation. Accusation and indictment are not the same. The purpose of the investigation is to determine wrongdoing. Presenting "possible" instances of obstruction while also presenting alternative "possible" exculpatory explanations, is not a determination of wrongdoing. It is a determination of nothing. There is no determination. By law, ERGO, the defendant maintains the presumption of innocence.

And, anyway, trying to frame it in a certain way is a subtle method of accusation. And he knows that. He knows that if there is not enough evidence to convict, an honest, reputable prosecutor would leave it at that, case closed, and not try to leave an aura of guilt, a stench in the public eye. A stench that cannot be verified to be certainly true is a smear. Reputable prosecutors and judges don't do that.

As the video I posted above states, Mueller turned justice upside down--presuming guilt that must be investigated in order to determine innocence, rather than presuming innocence, but investigating to prove guilt. It was not Mueller's job to prove innocence, to "exonerate." By law, Trump is already presumed, at the start, to be innocent. That does not have to be proved. A prosecutor's burden is to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, guilt. If he can't, and if he knows he can't after investigation, he doesn't even bring it to trial. And, if he's reputable, he doesn't make divisive comments later in order to leave a cloud of suspicion.

Did you watch the video?