Logic 101 quiz

[Pete F.]

Instructor: R. Mueller

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

We did not say so.

Ergo________________

[Got Stripers]

To simple for some.🙄
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

what I think he said, was that if he could prove trump didn’t commit a crime, he would
have said so. he couldn’t prove trump didn’t commit a crime. that’s not nearly the same thing as saying you can prove he did commit one. your quiz is flawed and misleading. Trump doesn’t have to
prove he didn’t do it, he is presumed innocent. we have to prove he did. We haven’t proven that.

how does one prove that they didn’t commit obstruction or conspire to collide?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Got Stripers]

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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

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

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.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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.

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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

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

no, i’m
claiming you lied here. Mueller said he couldn’t prove that Trump
didn’t commit instruction. YOU are saying that means he did it.

Absurd.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

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

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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

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

bingo.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[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.

[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?

[Sea Dangles]

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________________

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Sea Dangles]

So simple yet incredibly revealing. Thanks for exposing this crazy evidence PeteF.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

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

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

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

Some of the guys Mueller brought onto his team, like Weissman (not sure of spelling), are notorious for doing just about anything, including withholding evidence favorable to the defense, in order to get convictions. The woman being interviewed in the video I posted above, Sydney Powell, was the leading defense counsel in some high profile federal prosecutions in which Weismann and others that Mueller hired were leading investigators and lawyers for the prosecution, and she witnessed first hand how irreputable, basically evil, those men could be. Her book, LICENCED TO LIE, details the corruption in the DOJ at the time, which included some of the men Mueller hired. I know you don't watch the videos I post, but if you did, you could learn some things you don't know and disabuse yourself of some of the things you think you know. Just sayin.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

So in light of what Russia has done, is doing and will do your ok with Trump encouragement of their interference in the 2016 election?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Quite a leap there--from my pointing out how you were wrong--to implying that I'm OK with what Russia is doing and will do.

I'm OK with Trump's sarcasm. I thought it was funny when he said it, and when he said the media would applaud the Russians for exposing Hillary. What's also funny is the idea that Russia needs Trump's encouragement. They been doing this way, way, before Trump. They probably laugh at and are satisfied with accusations that they need Trump's encouragement. They are going to do what they are going to do regardless of what Trump says or doesn't. I'm sure they are happy with the divisiveness that such accusations inspire. You fall right into being a willing victim of their disinformation and its sowing of seeds intended to blossom into discord.

And the Russians were encouraged to "interfere" in our affairs by Progressive leftists in the past, from Academia, NY Times and other "liberal" media, Progressive Politicians, and all sorts of anti-American left leaning groups. And the old Soviet influence in our political affairs is flourishing again now with the Communist Party annexing itself to the Democrat Party. If you don't see the Communist influence in the push of the Democrats to the left, even more openly in some of the rising stars in their party, and old ones such as Bernie Sanders, your being blinded by leftist spin and partisan intentionally driven hate, aided with even the redefinition of polarizing words such as racist and all the phobes, and the attempt to make those on the "right" an embodiment of those manufactured words.

No, I am not happy with what Russia does. And I am not happy with a Democrat Party which is more and more embracing Communist ideals.

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

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

No, it is not. It is another in a long line of tools they wield to influence. Hell, they don't even need to change your mind, just cast doubt. Or pit you against your brother.

For a moment put aside the question of whether or not Trump actively asked for assistance from Putin. The fact there is such a disarray over it is what they will exploit. They sprinkle problem seeds (Steele Dossier for example) around where they exist and where they don't exist just to see what takes root.

They have done this for decades with unions, Civil Rights leaders, and a lot of Democrats. They tried hard to flip MLK, he wouldn't. After his assassination, they tried to get remaining civil rights leadership to declare a race war (almost happened, but some prominent leaders would not bite).

You see the same thing today over the past few years with RUS spiking both sides of the Black Lives Matter. Particularly using Social Media.

They have done this countless times, on many subjects, long before the Internet. This is all documented.

Do I think Trump is dirty? Yeh, probably (I know HRC is dirty).

Now for emphasis: Do I KNOW that Trump entered active agreement with Russia to have the election pushed to DJT's benefit? No. This was the bar I needed to see reached with the Mueller Report. It did not.So when the Progressive Left politicians are all wrapped around the axle with Russia, Russia, Russia: Ehhfuk Them. Welcome to the Party Pal (insert Bruce Willis image). The consistently pro-dem party media for DECADES has eaten pro Russia spin. Ehhfuk Them Too.

Originally Posted by detbuch

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.

The Green Parties of Western Europe in the 80s protesting US/NATO.
The college campuses of the 30s to a lesser extent and exploded in the 60s (and ever since).
World leaders. Sitting members of congress. Administration people (cough Robert Kennedy - though this one was probably beneficial)

Any pot that can be stirred.

Originally Posted by detbuch

And the Russians were encouraged to "interfere" in our affairs by Progressive leftists in the past, from Academia, NY Times and other "liberal" media, Progressive Politicians, and all sorts of anti-American left leaning groups. And the old Soviet influence in our political affairs is flourishing again now with the Communist Party annexing itself to the Democrat Party. If you don't see the Communist influence in the push of the Democrats to the left, even more openly in some of the rising stars in their party, and old ones such as Bernie Sanders, your being blinded by leftist spin and partisan intentionally driven hate, aided with even the redefinition of polarizing words such as racist and all the phobes, and the attempt to make those on the "right" an embodiment of those manufactured words.

No, I am not happy with what Russia does. And I am not happy with a Democrat Party which is more and more embracing Communist ideals.

^^^ This is all true

[scottw]

geeze John...it's like you dropped a MOAB on the commiecrats

[Pete F.]

Time will tell, much like with Russian interference history cited by others, where information has come out that was not public knowledge at the time it occurred.

Of course all of the information contained in the Mueller report is of no importance, just SOP for Russia, likely prosecutorial overreaches on Muellers part, perfectly acceptable behavior to Trumplicans and some here.

1. Trump was receptive to a Campaign national security adviser’s (George Papadopoulos) pursuit of a back channel to Putin.

2. Kremlin operatives provided the Campaign a preview of the Russian plan to distribute stolen emails.

3. The Trump Campaign chairman and deputy chairman (Paul Manafort and Rick Gates) knowingly shared internal polling data and information on battleground states with a Russian spy; and the Campaign chairman worked with the Russian spy on a pro-Russia “peace” plan for Ukraine.

4. The Trump Campaign chairman periodically shared internal polling data with the Russian spy with the expectation it would be shared with Putin-linked oligarch, Oleg Deripaska.

5. Trump Campaign chairman Manafort expected Trump’s winning the presidency would mean Deripaska would want to use Manafort to advance Deripaska’s interests in the United States and elsewhere.

6. Trump Tower meeting: (1) On receiving an email offering derogatory information on Clinton coming from a Russian government official, Donald Trump Jr. “appears to have accepted that offer;” (2) members of the Campaign discussed the Trump Tower meeting beforehand; (3) Donald Trump Jr. told the Russians during the meeting that Trump could revisit the issue of the Magnitsky Act if elected.

7. A Trump Campaign official told the Special Counsel he “felt obliged to object” to a GOP Platform change on Ukraine because it contradicted Trump’s wishes; however, the investigation did not establish that Gordon was directed by Trump.

8. Russian military hackers may have followed Trump’s July 27, 2016 public statement “Russia if you’re listening …” within hours by targeting Clinton’s personal office for the first time.

9. Trump requested campaign affiliates to get Clinton’s emails, which resulted in an individual apparently acting in coordination with the Campaign claiming to have successfully contacted Russian hackers.

10. The Trump Campaign—and Trump personally—appeared to have advanced knowledge of future WikiLeaks releases.

11. The Trump Campaign coordinated campaign-related public communications based on future WikiLeaks releases.

12. Michael Cohen, on behalf of the Trump Organization, brokered a secret deal for a Trump Tower Moscow project directly involving Putin’s inner circle, at least until June 2016.

13. During the presidential transition, Jared Kushner and Eric Prince engaged in secret back channel communications with Russian agents. (1) Kushner suggested to the Russian Ambassador that they use a secure communication line from within the Russian Embassy to speak with Russian Generals; and (2) Prince and Kushner’s friend Rick Gerson conducted secret back channel meetings with a Putin agent to develop a plan for U.S.-Russian relations.

14. During the presidential transition, in coordination with other members of the Transition Team, Michael Flynn spoke with the Russian Ambassador to prevent a tit for tat Russian response to the Obama administration’s imposition of sanctions for election interference; the Russians agreed not to retaliate saying they wanted a good relationship with the incoming administration.

[scottw]

great work pete...that's riveting stuff

when exactly was Papadopoulos Trump's National Security advisor?

keep digging...I'm sure you will unearth a 15th....

[spence]

Originally Posted by JohnR

Now for emphasis: Do I KNOW that Trump entered active agreement with Russia to have the election pushed to DJT's benefit? No. This was the bar I needed to see reached with the Mueller Report. It did not.

So I guess you're OK with a POTUS who's sworn to uphold the Constitution obstructing justice that's just fine and dandy. I guess Putin made him do it because that's what Russians have always done.

Brilliant.

[Sea Dangles]

PeteF has a thesis going
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device