Mueller NOT confident Trump innocent, but can't charge him

The Off-Topic forum for anything non-LDS related, such as sports or politics. Rated PG through PG-13.
_Chap
_Emeritus
Posts: 14190
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 10:23 am

Mueller NOT confident Trump innocent, but can't charge him

Post by _Chap »

Mueller: Investigators did not have confidence the president did not commit a crime

“If we had confidence that the president had not committed a crime, we would have said so,” he said. He added, citing a DOJ policy: “Charging the president with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider.”

He explained that the investigation was bound by longstanding DOJ policy that a sitting president cannot be indicted. He said it would have been “unfair” to accuse someone of a crime when that person would not have the opportunity to stand trial and defend himself.


Hmm. Is that what Trump calls being 'completely exonerated?
Zadok:
I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis.
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
_Res Ipsa
_Emeritus
Posts: 10274
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 11:37 pm

Re: Mueller NOT confident Trump innocent, but can't charge h

Post by _Res Ipsa »

Yep, just as the report said.
​“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”

― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
_Chap
_Emeritus
Posts: 14190
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 10:23 am

Re: Mueller NOT confident Trump innocent, but can't charge h

Post by _Chap »

Trump's first reaction to the report was:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump on Sunday welcomed Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s long-awaited report that found his presidential campaign did not work with Russia to sway the 2016 presidential election in his favor.

“No Collusion, No Obstruction, Complete and Total EXONERATION. KEEP AMERICA GREAT!” Trump said on Twitter in his first comment on the matter after his attorney general sent a letter to members of Congress summarizing the report.


Now all we get is:


Donald J. Trump

@realDonaldTrump
Nothing changes from the Mueller Report. There was insufficient evidence and therefore, in our Country, a person is innocent. The case is closed! Thank you.

24.2K
4:37 PM - May 29, 2019


From "Complete and Total EXONERATION " to "There was insufficient evidence [to charge me]". But Mueller did not say that his failure to charge was due to insufficient evidence of guilt: he said he simply was not allowed by the DOJ policy to charge a sitting president.
Zadok:
I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis.
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
_Res Ipsa
_Emeritus
Posts: 10274
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 11:37 pm

Re: Mueller NOT confident Trump innocent, but can't charge h

Post by _Res Ipsa »

It’s a little more complicated than that. On conspiracy, he said he did not find sufficient evidence to charge anyone in the Trump Campaign (and, by inference, Trump). On obstruction, he said they could not charge Trump by DOJ policy, but they looked at the evidence to see if they could exonerate him. They concluded that they couldn’t. As you said, not a exoneration.
​“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”

― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
_ajax18
_Emeritus
Posts: 6914
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 2:56 am

Re: Mueller NOT confident Trump innocent, but can't charge h

Post by _ajax18 »

but they looked at the evidence to see if they could exonerate him.


What happened to innocent until proven guilty? Are you saying that the past 2.5 years and untold expense was to see if they could possibly exonerate Trump? If it were just that DOJ policy doesn't allow you to indict a sitting president, why did it take 2.5 years and how many billion dollars to figure that out?
And when the confederates saw Jackson standing fearless as a stone wall the army of Northern Virginia took courage and drove the federal army off their land.
_Res Ipsa
_Emeritus
Posts: 10274
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 11:37 pm

Re: Mueller NOT confident Trump innocent, but can't charge h

Post by _Res Ipsa »

ajax18 wrote:
but they looked at the evidence to see if they could exonerate him.


What happened to innocent until proven guilty? Are you saying that the past 2.5 years and untold expense was to see if they could possibly exonerate Trump? If it were just that DOJ policy doesn't allow you to indict a sitting president, why did it take 2.5 years and how many billion dollars to figure that out?


Innocent until proven guilty is right where it’s always been. Mueller’s job was, in general, to determine whether there was probable cause to bring charges, using grand juries to decide whether there was. As part of that investigation, he looked at whether he could exonerate Trump. And if the evidence supported exoneration, then I agree with him that he had a duty to say so.

The conspiracy portion of the investigation involved people in the Trump campaign, not just Trump. And Mueller’s primary charge was to determine whether the Russians attempted to interfere with the 2016 election. He determined that they did, which resulted in two separate indictments with many defendants. It was clear from that part of the investigation that a number of people in the campaign had contact with Russia. Determining whether those contacts amounted to a criminal conspiracy required a helluva amount of work. The vast majority of time and expense went to the conspiracy investigation, including the claims against Flynn and Manafort.
​“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”

― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
_Kevin Graham
_Emeritus
Posts: 13037
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 6:44 pm

Re: Mueller NOT confident Trump innocent, but can't charge h

Post by _Kevin Graham »

What's getting lost in all this is the fact that Mueller is still a Republican and I think we're beginning to see he hasn't entirely divorced himself from partisanship. Why is he refusing to publicly address Congress? Ken Starr had no problem saying Clinton was guilty of a crime, so why is it suddenly a horrible thing for him to do what he very well knew the country expected him to do for over 2 years if he found Trump was guilty of crimes?

Why refuse to answer newer questions to Congress? Because he's afraid that by telling the truth on TV, it would hurt the Republican party too much. He pretty much said today that yeah, we can't exonerate Trump and he did a bunch of crummy things that we can't say are illegal because that wouldn't be fair, but at the same time here's a 400+ page report that is just ambiguous enough to make sure the media narratives are easily derailed by Right Wing commentators.

Oh yeah, and if you ask me to answer clarifying questions to ease the confusion, I'll simply read the report back to you and refuse to answer Congress's questions designed to expand our understanding. Yes, this is basically what you would expect from a True Republican who is just honest enough to cover his reputation but not willing to offer full disclosure because he still needs to cover his political ass, and he's probably afraid of the attacks from the Trump camp.

We know for a fact that William Barr lied when he said Mueller told him the policy for not indicting a sitting President had no role in his decision not to indict. Mueller flat out contradicted that in his report as well as his recent comments, but at the same time he won't say or even suggest Barr misrepresented him. Why not? Because Barr is Trump's new lapdog who has been given unlimited authority to "investigate the investigators." Mueller did his job and now wants out of the spotlight to return to private life with his family. Vexing the Trump administration would ensure that never happens.
_Bach
_Emeritus
Posts: 1606
Joined: Wed Oct 09, 2013 11:41 pm

Re: Mueller NOT confident Trump innocent, but can't charge h

Post by _Bach »

Res Ipsa wrote:As part of that investigation, he looked at whether he could exonerate Trump.

TOTAL BS!!!!!

Ispa, you are sooooo un-informed. Mueller was not engaged to exonerate anyone. Prosecutors are never charges with such a task. They are engaged to seek out if a crime was committed and then to indict if they believe they have the evidence to do so.

And, unlike the Starr Report, the word guilty was never invoked by Mueller Report.

You are very naïve and should [deleted]!

The Democrats are running around like chickens with their heads cut off. Nadler is such an idiot. I wish they would either impeach Trump or just shut the f up. They know they have no case and just want to milk this for 18 months just for political theatre. They are so weak and have no agenda to do anything constructive.

They are handing 2020 to Trump on a silver platter.

[MODERATOR NOTE: Bach, do not EVER, EVER invite someone to leave the board or suggest that they go elsewhere.]
_Res Ipsa
_Emeritus
Posts: 10274
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 11:37 pm

Re: Mueller NOT confident Trump innocent, but can't charge h

Post by _Res Ipsa »

Kevin Graham wrote:What's getting lost in all this is the fact that Mueller is still a Republican and I think we're beginning to see he hasn't entirely divorced himself from partisanship. Why is he refusing to publicly address Congress? Ken Starr had no problem saying Clinton was guilty of a crime, so why is it suddenly a horrible thing for him to do what he very well knew the country expected him to do for over 2 years if he found Trump was guilty of crimes?

Why refuse to answer newer questions to Congress? Because he's afraid that by telling the truth on TV, it would hurt the Republican party too much. He pretty much said today that yeah, we can't exonerate Trump and he did a bunch of crummy things that we can't say are illegal because that wouldn't be fair, but at the same time here's a 400+ page report that is just ambiguous enough to make sure the media narratives are easily derailed by Right Wing commentators.

Oh yeah, and if you ask me to answer clarifying questions to ease the confusion, I'll simply read the report back to you and refuse to answer Congress's questions designed to expand our understanding. Yes, this is basically what you would expect from a True Republican who is just honest enough to cover his reputation but not willing to offer full disclosure because he still needs to cover his political ass, and he's probably afraid of the attacks from the Trump camp.

We know for a fact that William Barr lied when he said Mueller told him the policy for not indicting a sitting President had no role in his decision not to indict. Mueller flat out contradicted that in his report as well as his recent comments, but at the same time he won't say or even suggest Barr misrepresented him. Why not? Because Barr is Trump's new lapdog who has been given unlimited authority to "investigate the investigators." Mueller did his job and now wants out of the spotlight to return to private life with his family. Vexing the Trump administration would ensure that never happens.


I disagree. I think Mueller is doing his best to play it straight up and not get sucked into the partisanship. Starr was not, in my opinion, as nonpartisan as an independent counsel should be, and I respect Mueller for not using Starr as a model for his own conduct.

Mueller has no duty to voluntarily appear before Congress, and I think he sent a message today that he would not testify to things not in his report. Some on both sides of the aisle think they can get something out of his testimony that will be of political advantage. He clearly isn’t going to play those reindeer games. He’s not going to opine as to whether he would indict Trump if there were no DOJ policy against it, and he’s not going to say that the FBI was on a partisan witch hunt.

I saw his press conference today as an attempt to say: I’ve given you the evidence — my opinions aren’t relevant to whether the House should begin an impeachment inquiry. I don’t think he said he would refuse a subpoena. And I suspect he would answer questions genuinely requesting clarification of something in the report that is unclear.
​“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”

― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
_Chap
_Emeritus
Posts: 14190
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 10:23 am

Re: Mueller NOT confident Trump innocent, but can't charge h

Post by _Chap »

ajax18 wrote:What happened to innocent until proven guilty?


Nothing whatsoever. It's always where it was - a binding principle on the actions of the justice system, which can impose no penalty on anybody who has not been convicted of an offence. (I.e. the court cannot say "you don't seem to have broken any law, but you are nasty piece of work so we are sending you to jail for a week just to teach you a lesson.")

On the other hand, it has no binding effect on the practical and prudential judgements that we all make in life about whether to trust people: you may, for instance, be pretty damn sure on the basis of close observation that person X is robbing your business, but you can't get enough evidence to convince a jury. If that person asks you for a reference for another job, you are under no obligation to give them one. Or you may have heard quite enough from other parents to convince you that a young man's attitude to girls is (shall we say) a little coercive in sexual matters. When it comes to giving your daughter permission to go out with him, you certainly don't have to treat him as innocent until he actually gets a rape conviction.


(We seem to have to explain this to someone about once every couple of months. Maybe this time it will stick?)

And you certainly don't have to encourage people to vote for a politician who comes out of the Mueller enquiry like Trump has.
Zadok:
I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis.
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
Post Reply