Mueller report: It doesn't tell us how it knows some things.

Discussion in 'United States' started by chris155au, Apr 25, 2019.

  1. Robert

    Robert Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    68,085
    Likes Received:
    17,134
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I just stopped watching the CSPAN reports by Kevin Mccarthy and Doug Collins. Both were treated to a grilling by the media. The media signals it's bias inside it's questions. Both spoke of the illegal nature of the Nadler inquiry. Both do not believe the Democrats can approve the subpoena of Barr on the floor since it is by it's nature illegal.

    You simply can not demand the AG violate law. But Democrats want that done.
     
  2. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    41,176
    Likes Received:
    4,365
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Why do you suppose that Mueller didn't say something along the lines of, "if it wasn't for the fact that Mr. Trump was in office, we would indict?"

    What he wrote in the report was that he "accepted" it. Do you mind explaining how that means that it stopped him from indicting Trump? If it stopped him from indicting Trump, then why did he say the exact opposite in a meeting with Barr?

    So you don't think that there is more than one legal opinion on whether the evidence meets the requirements under the statutes for obstruction of justice?

    What are you talking about? In my last reply, I quoted you reminding me of exactly that! Again, are you saying that its a problem that the underlying evidence was taken as truth by Barr even though he didn't review it?

    Interesting, but the way that I see it is that a PROPER Conservative or a PROPER Republican would simply not risk letting a Democrat win. It simply wouldn't make sense.
     
  3. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    41,176
    Likes Received:
    4,365
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Inside job, as in the government were behind 9/11?
     
    Eleuthera likes this.
  4. ronv

    ronv Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2018
    Messages:
    20,312
    Likes Received:
    8,774
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I think it's because one of them is gonna be President.
    They didn't give Trump a full one, of course, because of "the Russian thing."
     
  5. ronv

    ronv Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2018
    Messages:
    20,312
    Likes Received:
    8,774
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Barr has it in his power to make it legal.

    Are you hiding behind a skirt?
    [​IMG]
     
  6. Raffishragabash

    Raffishragabash Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2018
    Messages:
    2,977
    Likes Received:
    356
    Trophy Points:
    83

    This is indeed very, true, and is exactly why the US AG needed to do its legal job of protecting USA citizenry (Mr. Trump) from the actions of roguish and unethical GOVT agencies. Where the House of Representatives right now is playing the role of roguish and unethical GOVT agency.
     
  7. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    41,176
    Likes Received:
    4,365
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    How do we know that?
     
  8. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    41,176
    Likes Received:
    4,365
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Then why aren't Democrats saying this as a counter argument?
     
    Last edited: May 10, 2019
  9. ronv

    ronv Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2018
    Messages:
    20,312
    Likes Received:
    8,774
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Comey testimony.
     
    chris155au likes this.
  10. ronv

    ronv Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2018
    Messages:
    20,312
    Likes Received:
    8,774
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    They are. Change the channel.
     
    chris155au likes this.
  11. Jonsa

    Jonsa Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2011
    Messages:
    39,871
    Likes Received:
    11,452
    Trophy Points:
    113


    He explains that rather succinctly in that report you keep insisting you have read.



    I guess it comes from the definition of the word "accepted" from the beginning as he said. He didn't say the exact opposite in a meeting with Barr. Barr once again attempted to misrepresent Mueller's position.



    Oh there is more than one opinion on just about everything. When it comes to law I believe those differing opinions are ENSHRINED in the adversarial court system.

    Pehaps you can point to 900+ former prosecutors who think trump has been exonerated?


    Not at all. I was saying that you questioning "where is the evidence for mueller's statements in the report" I responded by questioning you why, if Barr would accept that the statements made in the report were sufficiently backed up by the supporting evidence, do did you question if that evidence supported his conclusions?



    Yeah because they are the true enemy of the people. Proper conservatives or proper republicans believe in proper integrity, proper ethics and proper moral behavior in their leaders. Seems they totally forget amidst all that "winning".
     
  12. Asherah

    Asherah Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2017
    Messages:
    1,333
    Likes Received:
    912
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Because Mueller felt it would be unfair to the President to accuse him of a crime when Trump wouldn't have the opportunity to defend himself in a court of law. Here's the text from the Mueller report:

    we considered whether to evaluate the conduct we investigated under the Justice Manual standards governing prosecution and declination decisions, but we determined not to apply an approach that could potentially result in a judgment that the President committed crimes. The
    threshold step under the Justice Manual standards is to assess whether a person's conduct "constitutes a federal offense." U.S. Dep't of Justice, Justice Manual§ 9-27.220 (201(Justice Manual). Fairness concerns counseled against potentially reaching that judgment when no charges can be brought. The ordinary means for an individual to respond to an accusation is through a speedy and public trial, with all the procedural protections that surround a criminal case. An individual who believes he was wrongly accused can use that process to seek to clear his name. In contrast , a prosecutor's judgment that crimes were committed, but that no charges will be brought, affords no such adversarial opportunity for public name-clearing before an impartial adjudicator .
     
    Last edited: May 10, 2019
  13. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    41,176
    Likes Received:
    4,365
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Mueller doesn't explain WHY no charges can be brought and he doesn't explain why Trump wouldn't be able to defend himself.
     
  14. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    41,176
    Likes Received:
    4,365
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Do you agree that it matched the "PRINCIPLE CONCLUSIONS" of the Mueller report, which is that Mueller found no conspiracy with Russia and also did not come to a conclusion on obstruction? Can we at least get passed this? You are simply a RIDICULOUS human being if you are unable to acknowledge this and that would be surprising because you sound like a pretty intelligent human being.

    "Some of which was destroyed?" According to that utterly pathetic, silly little girl Omarosa? :roflol:

    Oh you mean just like Clinton campaign members interacted with a BRITISH agent?
     
    Last edited: May 11, 2019
  15. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    41,176
    Likes Received:
    4,365
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Well what part you are talking about! How can I possible know? Are you unable to quote him?

    How do you know that he didn't say the exact opposite in a meeting with Barr?

    No, but I can point to 900+ former prosecutors who disagree with Mueller! :roflol:

    How difficult do you think it is for a bunch of Trump hating Democratic prosecutors to sign a letter like this? They have an entire media covering for them, so its hardly going to damage their legal reputation! Republicans could have done the same, and got 900+ former Republic prosecutors to sign a letter saying that "even if it was possible to indict a sitting president, we would not have done so", but I guess Republicans aren't as dishonest as Democrats.

    Where did I ask the question, "where is the evidence for mueller's statements in the report?"
    I was simply saying that IF there was evidence that was worse for Trump than anything mentioned in the report, THEN it would mean that Mueller kept it hidden. Perhaps you can just say whether or not you think that the evidence should be released.

    Oh and they're going to get that in an abortion supporting Democrat? Yeah right, proper conservatives and republicans are really going to be happy with that!
     
  16. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    41,176
    Likes Received:
    4,365
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Pelosi?
     
  17. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    41,176
    Likes Received:
    4,365
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Are you equating the US citizenry to Trump?
     
    Last edited: May 11, 2019
  18. Raffishragabash

    Raffishragabash Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2018
    Messages:
    2,977
    Likes Received:
    356
    Trophy Points:
    83

    No. I am equating Trump to a USA, citizen, which then compells the US AG to protect him from any roguish and unethical GOVT agency.
     
  19. Plus Ultra

    Plus Ultra Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2017
    Messages:
    3,028
    Likes Received:
    1,190
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Stone is demanding evidence of Russians hacking the DNC computer, the prosecution doesn’t have any (Maybe Crowdstrike does?) so Stone needs evidence Crowdstrike gave evidence to FBI.

    If the FBI ends up admitting they don’t have evidence Russians hacked the DNC computers, the claim of Russian interference is weakened. If the FBI insists they do have such evidence, the court may compel them to provide it, and then Stone’s counsel will examine to see what it shows.

    My doubts are due to claims I’ve read saying the data transfer rate (time stamps recording the transmissions of files) is too fast for remote access and precisely the rate of transfer to a USB. This strongly suggests the files were not hacked, just copied by someone at the computer.

    Mueller doesn’t say in his report how it is known Russians hacked the DNC computers, it is a simple assertion, he must have some evidence to support that claim.
     
  20. ronv

    ronv Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2018
    Messages:
    20,312
    Likes Received:
    8,774
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Read the indictment of the Russians. It spells it out in great detail. I posted it somewhere in this thread.
    You just made the argument on why we should see the underlying evidence used in the report.
     
  21. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    41,176
    Likes Received:
    4,365
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    No answer for this @Eleuthera?
     
  22. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    41,176
    Likes Received:
    4,365
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Have you ungracefully bowed out?
     
  23. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    22,694
    Likes Received:
    11,760
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I've been gone for a few days.

    Yes, the events of 911 and the resulting cover-up is a perfect example of the inside job.
     
  24. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    41,176
    Likes Received:
    4,365
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    But they were actual Islamic terrorists who carried out the attack?
     
  25. Plus Ultra

    Plus Ultra Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2017
    Messages:
    3,028
    Likes Received:
    1,190
    Trophy Points:
    113
    An indictment provides allegations, not evidence. It will state alleged facts, not proof of them.
    Again, an indictment provides allegations, not evidence. It will state alleged facts, not proof of them. Mueller's Report differs from his indictments, in that the Report (not the indictments) will offer some evidence of the claims. In the Report there is reference to this Russian meddling, though no evidence, just bare assertions. Maybe the evidence of Russian meddling has been redacted, simply stating "Russians hacked the DNC server and then delivered the emails to Wikileaks" (or words to this effect) isn't evidence that this actually happened. I want to know how the FBI knows Russians hacked the DNC server and delivered its contents to Wikileaks, what means were used, when did it happen, who witnessed it, how do they know this -that's evidence. This sort of stuff is never in an indictment which will reference facts the prosecution will show at trial.
     

Share This Page