Logic 101 quiz

[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_______