Pressure builds for NBC's Kristen Welker to address Hunter Biden at debate:

Discussion in 'Elections & Campaigns' started by Josephwalker, Oct 22, 2020.

  1. Asherah

    Asherah Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2017
    Messages:
    1,333
    Likes Received:
    912
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Some of the individual incidents absolutely meet the standard. Is the number 8? 6? 4? Not sure without going over the details of each, but it doesn't really matter.

    Expert opinions matter a whole lot more than the opinions of Trump supporters who refuse to admit he does anything wrong.
     
    Sleep Monster likes this.
  2. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Where did Mueller make the factual determination that Trump acted corrupt intent?
    Absent this determination, the standard is not met.
    I'm sorry you do not like the fact Mueller did not, even once, make the factual determination that Trump acted with corrupt intent, but nether your opinion, nor the opinion of those people whose opinion you like (because you agree with them), can change that.

    Absent a factual determination of corrupt intent, a 'obstructive act' cannot qualify as obstruction of justice. Period.
     
  3. Asherah

    Asherah Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2017
    Messages:
    1,333
    Likes Received:
    912
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That's ludicrous. The standard is a legal one that would be made by a prosecutor, grand jury, and jury. Although given the title of "prosecutor", Mueller noted that an indictment was not an option - and that's specifically why he didn't make that determination, while also noting Trump was not exonerated.

    Given the high bar you set for assigning guilt to a criminal charge, I bet you were appalled by the calls to lock up Hillary, despite there being no criminal charges. Same with the dirt being tossed at Hunter Biden.
     
    Last edited: Oct 27, 2020
    Sleep Monster likes this.
  4. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You haven't read the Mueller report?

    Mueller:
    Three basic elements are common to most of the relevant obstruction statutes: (1) an obstructive act; (2) a nexus between the obstructive act and an official proceeding; and (3) a corrupt intent.

    Mueller:
    Applying the obstruction statutes to the President’s official conduct would involve determining as a factual matter whether he engaged in an obstructive act, whether the act had a nexus to official proceedings, and whether he was motivated by corrupt intent.

    Mueller:
    “Acting ‘corruptly’ within the meaning of § 1512(c)(2) means acting with an improper purpose and to engage in conduct knowingly and dishonestly with the specific intent to subvert, impede or obstruct” the relevant proceeding

    Mueller:
    As an initial matter, the term “corruptly” sets a demanding standard. It requires a concrete showing that a person acted with an intent to obtain an “improper advantage for [him]self or someone else, inconsistent with official duty and the rights of others.”

    Mueller:
    Direct or indirect action by the President to end a criminal investigation into his own or his family members’ conduct to protect against personal embarrassment or legal liability would constitute a core example of corruptly motivated conduct. So too would action to halt an enforcement proceeding that directly and adversely affected the President’s financial interests for the purpose of protecting those interests. In those examples, official power is being used for the purpose of protecting the President’s personal interests. In contrast, the President’s actions to serve political or policy interests would not qualify as corrupt. The President’s role as head of the government necessarily requires him to take into account political factors in making policy decisions that affect law-enforcement actions and proceedings. For instance, the President’s decision to curtail a law-enforcement investigation to avoid international friction would not implicate the obstruction-of-justice statutes.

    So, I ask again:
    Where did Mueller make the factual determination that Trump acted with corrupt intent?
    Absent this determination, the standard for obstruction of justice is not met.
     
  5. Asherah

    Asherah Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2017
    Messages:
    1,333
    Likes Received:
    912
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I focus on Mueller's conclusion:

    Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President 's conduct. The evidence we obtained about the President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. At the same time , 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. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.


    The first statement in bold explains why Mueller didn't make the "factual determination" that you insist is needed. You are treating that failure as the exoneration that Trump claimed he received, and that Mueller explicity denies giving.
     
  6. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Because you know he did not make the factual determination that Trump acted with corrupt intent.
    Absent that factual determination, your claim that "some of the individual incidents absolutely meet the standard" has no basis in fact.

    No. That MUELLER insists is needed. Several times, with a clear extrapolation as to -why- it is necessary.

    Never mind the fact that the bolded text in no way precludes his making that factual determination, given that the --entire purpose-- of the investigation was to make a factual determination of what happened --- he -can- make that factual determination w/o making a subsequent prosecutorial judgement, just like he can (and did) make the factual determination that Trump committed several obstructive acts, and the factual determination that those acts has a nexus with a federal investigation
    In other words: The statement you bolded in no way explains the absence of a factual determination of corrupt intent.

    Fact is, he did not make that factual determination because he could not make a concrete showing that the President acted with an intent to obtain an “improper advantage for [him]self or someone else, inconsistent with official duty and the rights of others.
    Absent this determination, the standard for obstruction of justice is not met.
     
  7. Asherah

    Asherah Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2017
    Messages:
    1,333
    Likes Received:
    912
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That's wishful thinking on your part. No only did Mueller not say that, in his press conference, he said: "As set forth in the report, after that investigation, if we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so." How can you possibly rationalize that?

    I agree that the special council law did not preclude Mueller judgingTrump's guilt. But Mueller decided not to because he felt it would be unfair: "It would be unfair to potentially accuse somebody of a crime when there can be no court resolution of the actual charge."
     
  8. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Is it? Really?
    Nope.

    Mueller:
    ...unlike cases in which a subject engages in obstruction of justice to cover up a crime, the evidence we obtained did not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference. Although the obstruction statutes do not require proof of such a crime, the absence of that evidence affects the analysis of the President’s intent and requires consideration of other possible motives for his conduct.

    If Mueller, et al, are required to consider other motives for the President's actions - that is, granting the very real possibility that Trump did not act "corruptly" - it is therefore -impossible- to make the factual determination of corrupt intent necessary to meet the standard of obstruction of justice.

    With an understanding of the issue exceeding that which can be gained form MSDNC talking points.

    Mueller:
    The Order appointing the Special Counsel gave this Office jurisdiction to investigate matters that arose directly from the FBI’s Russia investigation, including whether the President had obstructed justice in connection with Russia-related investigations.

    That is, Mueller was to determine if Trump committed obstruction of justice.
    To do this, Mueller needed to make three factual determinations - act, nexus, corrupt intent.
    Did Mueller make the factual determinations necessary to conclude Trump committed obstruction of justice, or did he not?
    He did not.
    Therefore, Mueller did not determine Trump committed obstruction.

    The fact Mueller said he did not prove the opposite - that is, he did not prove a negative - has no meaning.
    And therefore you cannot explain why Mueller did not make the factual determination that Trump acted w/ corrupt intent - other than it was not possible tor him to do so.
     
  9. Asherah

    Asherah Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2017
    Messages:
    1,333
    Likes Received:
    912
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The best you could say is that the evidence cited in the report is insufficient to establish corrupt intent beyond a reasonable doubt for each of the acts. However, an indictment only requires a determination of probable cause, and it seems hard to deny that there's sufficient evidence to meet THAT standard. 1000+ former federal prosecutors attest to that:
    "Each of us believes that the conduct of President Trump described in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report would, in the case of any other person not covered by the Office of Legal Counsel policy against indicting a sitting President, result in multiple felony charges for obstruction of justice.

    If not re-elected, Trump could be subpoenaed to testify (something that Mueller chose not to pursue), and as the above demonstrates - he could be indicted. Whether or not he would be convicted would depend on what sort of defense he could muster. His defense would obviously entail showing that his intentions were innocent of corruption. That case became harder when he pardoned Roger Stone, and if he pardons more people who lied for him, it will look that much worse for him.

    We can each judge the currently available evidence for ourselves, regardless of whether or not he's indicted. Personal judgments are not based on "reasonable doubt" analysis (as Trump's perpetual claims about Hillary, and the "Biden Crime Family"). There is clearly an abundance of evidence for objective people to see that Trump acted corruptly in at least some of the instances of obstruction.
     
    Last edited: Oct 29, 2020
  10. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No.
    The best I can say is Mueller did not, once, make a factual determination that Trump acted with corrupt intent.
    From that, it necessitates that -none- of the obstructive acts he listed meet the criteria for Obstruction of Justice.
    No prosecutor will seek an indictment unless he knows he can make his case.
    Mueller, who investigated the issue -far- more thoroughly than anyone on the planet, could not make the factual determinations necessary to prove a case of obstruction. This -fact- is not in any way diminished by the opinions of any number of others who have less access to the relevant information.

    Mueller was charged to determine if Trump committed obstruction of justice.
    He did not.
     
    Last edited: Oct 29, 2020
  11. Asherah

    Asherah Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2017
    Messages:
    1,333
    Likes Received:
    912
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That is true.
    That does not follow.
    I agree, and that's exactly why a subpoena would be needed. In the ensuing interview, he'd need to explain his motivations for his actions. Would they be credible? Personally, I doubt it - because if he had good reasons, he could have explained them at any time, and hasn't done so. Instead he's just proclaimed himself "exonerated", and supporters look for excuses to believe him.

    That's false. The directive from Rosenstein did not direct him to determine if Trump committed obstruction of Justice. Mueller clearly states that he felt he was precluded from making such a determination:

    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 (Justice Manual). Fairness concerns counseled against potentially reaching that judgment when no charges can be brought.


    Given that he could not (or chose not) to make such a judgment, it is fallacious to claim his failure to make a judgment proves Trump was innocent.
     
    Last edited: Oct 29, 2020
  12. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It does.
    Obstruction of justice requires thee factual determinations.
    Mueller did not make one of those factual determinations.
    Thus, the acts do not meet the criteria from obstruction of justice, because the do not meet the requirements for same.
    Mueller sent out so many subpoenas, he ran Office Max out of ink.
    Who? Trump?
    You know you cannot force someone - a subpoena is force - to testify against himself, right?
    Mueller:
    The Order appointing the Special Counsel gave this Office jurisdiction to investigate matters that arose directly from the FBI’s Russia investigation, including whether the President had obstructed justice in connection with Russia-related investigations.
    So... true.
    And yet, Mueller made the factual determination that Trump committed obstructive acts, and made the determination those acts had a nexus with a federal investigation.
    If the quote your provided means what you want it to mean, how could Mueller have made those determinations?
    We've been over this. Factual determinations are statements of facts, not prosecutorial decisions or judgements.
    Nothing - no policy, no law, nothing - prevented Mueller from making the factual determination that Trump committed obstructive acts, said acts had a nexus to an investigation, and he did so with corrupt intent.
    Mueller was charged to determine if Trump committed obstruction of justice.
    Mueller made no such determination
    What Mueller did not NOT prove is irrelevant.
     
    Last edited: Oct 29, 2020
  13. Asherah

    Asherah Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2017
    Messages:
    1,333
    Likes Received:
    912
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Show me where it says this....or admit it doesn't.
     
    Last edited: Oct 29, 2020
  14. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    For the third time:

    Mueller:
    The Order appointing the Special Counsel gave this Office jurisdiction to investigate matters that arose directly from the FBI’s Russia investigation, including whether the President had obstructed justice in connection with Russia-related investigations.
     
  15. Asherah

    Asherah Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2017
    Messages:
    1,333
    Likes Received:
    912
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It says he was charged with investigating whether he had obstructed justice. It does not say:

    Shortly after the quote you provided, Mueller states:
    "we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment."

    He then proceeds to give his reasons for that.

    My position is that he met his obligation to investigate whether the President obstructed justice (the investigation obviously occurred), and that this did not require that he make a judgment. That seems plain as day to me. How do you reconcile the statement ("we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment.") with your insistence that he was "charged to determine if Trump committed obstruction of justice"?
    This seems like a contradiction.
     
  16. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And what, do you suppose, is the purpose of the investigation?
    Hint: To determine if the President had obstructed justice in connection with Russia-related investigations.
    How do you not understand that making the factual determinations necessary for Trumps actions to qualify as obstructions of justice is -not- the same as making a judgement as to whether the President should be prosecuted for same?

    Nothing -- and that's nothing - legally or procedurally or through policy prevented Mueller from making the three factual determination necessary for Trumps actions to qualify as obstruction of justice; to this end, he made TWO such determinations.
    But not the third.
    Thus, he did not make the factual determinations necessary to conclude Trumps acts qualify as obstruction of justice.

    And so, in his investigation of whether the President had obstructed justice in connection with Russia-related investigations, Mueller did not conclude that he did.
    What Mueller did not NOT prove is irrelevant.
     
    Last edited: Oct 29, 2020
  17. Asherah

    Asherah Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2017
    Messages:
    1,333
    Likes Received:
    912
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You're suggesting that he might check all the boxes for an obstruction charge, but simply omit stating the obvious implication. That's silly.

    The fact is, his investigation was incomplete because he chose to not engage in a lengthy court battle to get an interview. If you're so convinced Mueller considered him innocent, why do you suppose he even considered doing this?
     
  18. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    .No. That's reality, undiminished by the fact you think it is silly.

    Nothing, legally, procedurally, or through policy, prevented Mueller from making the three factual determination necessary for Trumps actions to qualify as obstruction of justice as proven by the fact he made TWO such determinations.
    Why did Mueller not make the third determination, when it was completely within his purview to do so?
    A court-mandated interview....with Trump?
    No about of court battle will result in the subject of an investigation being forced to testify against himself.
    Your complaint there is ignorant and meaningless.
    You need to pay better attention.
    I said:
    And so, in his investigation of whether the President had obstructed justice in connection with Russia-related investigations, Mueller did not conclude that he did.
    What Mueller did not NOT prove is irrelevant.
     
    Last edited: Oct 30, 2020
  19. Asherah

    Asherah Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2017
    Messages:
    1,333
    Likes Received:
    912
    Trophy Points:
    113
    He drew no conclusion at all.
    It's relevant that Trump was not exonerated, and it's relevant when a President conducts criminal acts. The Mueller report makes a good case for his guilt, one that meets reasonable standards for an indictment (refer again to the 1000+ former federal prosecutors who attest to that). He actually could be indicted when he leaves office, although that's unlikely because it would look like political revenge. Absent an indictment, every interested person can examine the evidence for himself and judge it. The case for his guilt is pretty strong, particularly for witness tampering. I'm also pretty sure history will judge him badly.
     
    Last edited: Oct 30, 2020
  20. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Correct. He did not conclude that Trump committed obstruction of justice.
    He did not conclude this because he could not, and thus, did not - make the factual determination that Trump acted with corrupt intent.
    And yet, you still seem to believe Trump -did- commit obstruction of justice, and the Mueller report proves it.
    Funny, that.
    Mueller was not charged to determine that Trump did not do, but what he did do.
    The fact Mueller did not determine what Trump did not do has no meaning whatsoever.
    Mueller did not determine that Trump committed criminal acts.
    Mueller stated that for someone to commit obstruction, he has to act with corrupt intent.
    Mueller did nit, even once, present the factual determination that Trump acted with corrupt intent.
    Thus, Mueller -did-not-make-any-case-at-all- that Trump is guilty of obstruction.

    You can believe whatever you want - so long as you admit to yourself the Mueller report does not support your belief.
    But, you won't.
     
    Last edited: Oct 31, 2020
  21. Asherah

    Asherah Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2017
    Messages:
    1,333
    Likes Received:
    912
    Trophy Points:
    113
    He explained why he did not make that determination:

    "Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President 's conduct."

    You are concluding that he didn't make a case solely on the basis that Mueller failed to publish a judgment, a judgment that he proclaimed HE WOULD NOT MAKE. Furthermore, it's simply false to claim he didn't make a case for Trump's corrupt intent. Here's some of the statements Mueller made in his analyses of intent:

    "Substantial evidence indicates that the President's attempts to remove the Special Counsel were linked to the Special Counsel's oversight of investigations that involved the President's conduct - and, most immediately , to reports that the President was being investigated for potential obstruction of justice."

    ...
    "There is evidence that at least one purpose of the President 's conduct toward Sessions was to have Sessions assume control over the Russia investigation and supervise it in a way that would restrict its scope."
    ...
    "Substantial evidence indicates that in repeatedly urging McGahn to dispute that he was ordered to have the Special Counsel terminated , the President acted for the purpose of influencing McGahn 's account in order to deflect or prevent further scrutiny of the President's conduct towards the investigation."
    ...
    In light of the President's counsel's previous statements that the investigations "might get cleaned up with some presidential pardons" and that a pardon would be possible if the President "come[s ] to the conclusion that you have been treated unfairly," the evidence supports the inference that the President intended Manafort to believe that he could receive a pardon, which would make cooperation with the government as a means of obtaining a lesser sentence unnecessary.
    ...
    "In analyzing the President's intent in his actions towards Cohen as a potential witness , there is evidence that could support the inference that the President intended to discourage Cohen from cooperating with the government because Cohen's information would shed adverse light on the President's campaign-period conduct and statements."
     
    Last edited: Oct 31, 2020
  22. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    [
    Again: Your statement, above is --separate-- from making factual determinations.
    Allow me to explain:

    Question:
    Did the President commit obstruction of justice?
    Step 1: Factual determinations
    - Did the President commit obstructive acts?
    - Did these act have a nexus with a federal investigation?
    - Did the President commit these acts worth corrupt intent?
    If Yes to above:
    Step 2: Prosecutorial Judgement
    - Should we seek an indicctment of the President for Obstruction of Justice?

    So, in this case, we have:
    Step 1: Factual determinations
    - Did the President commit obstructive acts? Yes
    - Did these act have a nexus with a federal investigation? Yes
    - Did the President commit these acts worth corrupt intent? No factual determination to that effect
    If Yes to above:
    Step 2: Prosecutorial Judgement
    - N/A

    If you cannot understand this, there's no sense in continuing the conversation.

    Knowing your response, I will now thank you for playing.
     
    Last edited: Oct 31, 2020
  23. Asherah

    Asherah Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2017
    Messages:
    1,333
    Likes Received:
    912
    Trophy Points:
    113
    ...was made by Mueller. That does not imply that a reasonable prosecutor, unfettered by Mueller's decision against "mak[ing] a traditional prosecutorial judgment," would not make such a determination.

    Surely you realize this, don't you?

     

Share This Page