The Thread of Democrats

Post Reply
User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: The Thread of Democrats

Post by Forty Two » Wed Apr 24, 2019 3:03 pm

Tero wrote:
Fri Apr 19, 2019 12:43 am
Only Fox and Washington Examiner
:funny:
care

Schiff says Barr misled with Mueller report summary, he's 'not the president’s personal lawyer'
Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., slammed Attorney General Bill Barr on Thursday, stopping just short of asking for his resignation after saying the redacted Mueller ...

Fox News
3 hours ago
Adam Schiff: Mueller report condemns, it doesn't vindicate
House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., ripped into President Trump on Thursday for his contacts with Russians and those of his 2016 campaign, ...

Washington Examiner
3 hours ago
We can believe Adam Schiff, for sure. He said there was "ample evidence of collusion" but Mueller apparently missed that evidence. Maybe Mueller saw the "ample evidence" that Schiff saw, but he just didn't think it even met probable cause to indict? I have "ample evidence!" of illegal activity, campaign finance violations and treason, but "ample" is not enough to conclude anything. We aren't exonerating him!

I got a ticket for speeding when I wasn't speeding. I opposed the ticket, and brought a witness to testify along with myself that I actually could not have been speeding, as I had just pulled out of the bank parking lot and did not have time to speed up. It appears the police officer actually clocked a different, but similar, vehicle with his radar gun, and mistakenly pulled me over. However, nobody said I was "exonerated." I still can't get the prosecutor or the judge to declare me exonerated. They just dismissed the charges due to an inability to prove their case. Fuck, now people think I got away with something, cuz they're like "yeah, right! Sure! Like you weren't speeding!" because they know my penchant for driving fast - I rarely drive less than the speed limit, after all - this just happened to be a time when I wasn't.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
Hermit
Posts: 25806
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:44 am
About me: Cantankerous grump
Location: Ignore lithpt
Contact:

Re: The Thread of Democrats

Post by Hermit » Thu Apr 25, 2019 1:01 am

Forty Two wrote:
Wed Apr 24, 2019 3:03 pm
I got a ticket for speeding when I wasn't speeding. I opposed the ticket, and brought a witness to testify along with myself that I actually could not have been speeding, as I had just pulled out of the bank parking lot and did not have time to speed up. It appears the police officer actually clocked a different, but similar, vehicle with his radar gun, and mistakenly pulled me over. However, nobody said I was "exonerated." I still can't get the prosecutor or the judge to declare me exonerated. They just dismissed the charges due to an inability to prove their case. Fuck, now people think I got away with something, cuz they're like "yeah, right! Sure! Like you weren't speeding!" because they know my penchant for driving fast - I rarely drive less than the speed limit, after all - this just happened to be a time when I wasn't.
Court cases bring down verdicts of "guilty" "or "not guilty". That is what they are there for. The Mueller investigation was not a court case. Investigations don't bring down verdicts. That is not their task. Their task is to investigate. There's a hint in the title: Special Counsel investigation. It's not Special Counsel court. Investigations bring down reports, court not verdicts, so conclusions can be, but are not limited to "guilty" "or "not guilty".

As you will recall, Acting Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein appointed Robert S.Mueller III Special Counsel for the United States Department of Justice, and authorised him to conduct investigations into matters including

(i) any links and/or coordination bet ween the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump
(ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation and
(iii) any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a) [i.e. obstruction of justice]

Mueller's report was explicit about not exonerating President Trump from anything:
...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, however, we are unable to reach that judgment. The evidence we obtained about the President' s actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.
So you were wrong when you wrote
Forty Two wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 12:23 pm
According to Mueller, not only did Trump and the Trump campaign not collude with the Russians, neither did any other American.
The Mueller report concluded no such thing, and it explicitly tried to forestall other people saying what you wrote.
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: The Thread of Democrats

Post by Forty Two » Fri Apr 26, 2019 1:44 pm

Hermit wrote:
Thu Apr 25, 2019 1:01 am
Forty Two wrote:
Wed Apr 24, 2019 3:03 pm
I got a ticket for speeding when I wasn't speeding. I opposed the ticket, and brought a witness to testify along with myself that I actually could not have been speeding, as I had just pulled out of the bank parking lot and did not have time to speed up. It appears the police officer actually clocked a different, but similar, vehicle with his radar gun, and mistakenly pulled me over. However, nobody said I was "exonerated." I still can't get the prosecutor or the judge to declare me exonerated. They just dismissed the charges due to an inability to prove their case. Fuck, now people think I got away with something, cuz they're like "yeah, right! Sure! Like you weren't speeding!" because they know my penchant for driving fast - I rarely drive less than the speed limit, after all - this just happened to be a time when I wasn't.
Court cases bring down verdicts of "guilty" "or "not guilty". That is what they are there for. The Mueller investigation was not a court case. Investigations don't bring down verdicts. That is not their task. Their task is to investigate. There's a hint in the title: Special Counsel investigation. It's not Special Counsel court. Investigations bring down reports, court not verdicts, so conclusions can be, but are not limited to "guilty" "or "not guilty".
A special prosecutor's job is to "prosecute." He is specially appointed to investigate a particularly defined possible crime or set of crimes. But the words "Special Prosecutor" do not relate to mere investigators. A special prosecutor is a lawyer appointed to investigate, and potentially prosecute, a particular case of suspected wrongdoing for which a conflict of interest exists for the usual prosecuting authority. Also referred to as special counsel or independent counsel. So, a prosecutorial decision must be made. One does not need proof beyond a reasonable doubt in order to indict or arrest someone on charges.

It's been my view, repeatedly expressed, that what should have happened in 2017 was a "2016 Election Commission" should have been constituted, just like the "9/11 Commission" after 9/11. However, that would have provided a different focus, not the one desired. If the special prosecutor finds "probable cause" to indict, then he can move forward with charges. If he cannot find probable cause, then he ought not indict. But, prosecutors do not make statements that they've proven someone innocent. They just don't bring charges. When they don't bring charges, that's the biggest exoneration one will get.

Similar to the "no reasonable prosecutor" determination in the Clinton email case. No reasonable prosecutor would bring the case, right? You wouldn't take that as reason to claim that she's guilty of something, would you? She wasn't "exonerated" explicitly, but isn't a determination that her conduct isn't enough to prosecute as much of an exoneration as she could expect? Most people wouldn't even get that. They just would never hear from the prosecutors.

Hermit wrote:
Thu Apr 25, 2019 1:01 am

As you will recall, Acting Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein appointed Robert S.Mueller III Special Counsel for the United States Department of Justice, and authorised him to conduct investigations into matters including

(i) any links and/or coordination bet ween the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump
(ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation and
(iii) any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a) [i.e. obstruction of justice]

Mueller's report was explicit about not exonerating President Trump from anything:
...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, however, we are unable to reach that judgment. The evidence we obtained about the President' s actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.
So you were wrong when you wrote
Forty Two wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 12:23 pm
According to Mueller, not only did Trump and the Trump campaign not collude with the Russians, neither did any other American.
The Mueller report concluded no such thing, and it explicitly tried to forestall other people saying what you wrote.
Obstruction allegations and collusion are two different things. The Mueller report stated that it could not find that any American conspired with the Russians. Saying they did not find "clearly did not commit obstruction of justice..." is different from saying there was no evidence of conspiracy with the Russians. First, saying the prosecutor didn't find that Trump "clearly did not..." attempt to obstruct justice also means that they did not find sufficient evidence to conclude that he did. Oh, well - in the arena of "obstruction of justice" - shouting down the hallway "I want this thing shut down! Get rid of everyone!" could be seen by some as expression of an intent to obstruct, or it could be someone venting and shouting a wish that the wrongful investigation go away and that everyone be gotten rid of. So, you can't say that said person "clearly did not..." try to obstruct justice by shouting at employees to shut it down. But, you surely can't say it's obstruction of justice either.

Now, regarding Russia - the Mueller report did, in fact, find that the Trump campaign did not collude with the Russians, and they said that there was no evidence of any American doing so.
The attachment no coordination.jpg is no longer available
To get a further sense for how definitive the Report’s rejection is of the key elements of the alleged conspiracy theory, consider Mueller’s discussion of efforts by George Papadopoulos, Joseph Misfud and and “two Russian nationals” whereby they tried “to arrange a meeting between the Campaign and Russian officials” to talk about how the two sides could work together to disseminate information about Hillary Clinton. As Mueller puts it: “No meeting took place.”
Several of the media’s most breathless and hyped “bombshells” were dismissed completely by Mueller. Regarding various Trump officials’ 2016 meetings with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, Mueller said they were “brief, public and nonsubstantive.” Concerning the much-hyped change to GOP platform regarding Ukraine, Mueller wrote that the “evidence does not establish that one campaign official’s efforts to dilute a portion of the Republican platform was undertaken at the behest of candidate Trump or Russia,” and further noted that such a change was consistent with Trump’s publicly stated foreign policy view (one shared by Obama) to avoid provoking gratuitous conflict with the Kremlin over arming Ukrainians. Mueller also characterized a widely hyped “meeting” between then-Senator Jeff Sessions and Kislyak as one that did not “include any more than a passing mention of the presidential campaign.
Regarding one of the most-cited pieces of evidence by Trump/Russia conspiracists – that Russia tried once Trump was nominated to shape his foreign policy posture toward Russia – Mueller concluded that there is simply no evidence to support it:
The attachment Mueller 3.jpg is no longer available
The attachment Mueller 4.jpg is no longer available
As for the overarching maximalist conspiracy – that Trump and/or members of his family and campaign were controlled by or working for the Russian government – Mueller concluded that this belief simply lacked the evidence necessary to prosecute anyone for it:
no coordination.jpg
Mueller Quote 1
And Mueller’s examination of all the so-called “links” between Trump campaign officials and Russia that the U.S. media has spent almost three years depicting as “bombshell” evidence of criminality met the same fate: the evidence could not, and did not, establish that any such links constituted “coordination” or “conspiracy” between Trump and Russia:
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: The Thread of Democrats

Post by Forty Two » Fri Apr 26, 2019 1:47 pm

The attachment Mueller 6.jpg is no longer available
The attachment Mueller 5.jpg is no longer available
The attachment Mueller 4.jpg is no longer available
Mueller 6.jpg
Mueller 1
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: The Thread of Democrats

Post by Forty Two » Fri Apr 26, 2019 1:49 pm

Mueller 5.jpg
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: The Thread of Democrats

Post by Forty Two » Fri Apr 26, 2019 1:50 pm

Mueller 4.jpg
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: The Thread of Democrats

Post by Forty Two » Fri Apr 26, 2019 1:51 pm

Mueller 3.jpg
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: The Thread of Democrats

Post by Forty Two » Fri Apr 26, 2019 1:51 pm

no coordination.jpg
Last edited by Forty Two on Fri Apr 26, 2019 1:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
Svartalf
Offensive Grail Keeper
Posts: 40340
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:42 pm
Location: Paris France
Contact:

Re: The Thread of Democrats

Post by Svartalf » Fri Apr 26, 2019 1:52 pm

proof that obstruction of hiding of evidence prevented the inquest from properly bearing fruit.
Embrace the Darkness, it needs a hug

PC stands for "Patronizing Cocksucker" Randy Ping

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: The Thread of Democrats

Post by Forty Two » Fri Apr 26, 2019 1:54 pm

THE TWO-PRONGED CONSPIRACY THEORY that has dominated U.S. political discourse for almost three years – that (1) Trump, his family and his campaign conspired or coordinated with Russia to interfere in the 2016 election, and (2) Trump is beholden to Russian President Vladimir Putin — was not merely rejected today by the final report of Special Counsel Robert Mueller. It was obliterated: in an undeniable and definitive manner.

The key fact is this: Mueller – contrary to weeks of false media claims – did not merely issue a narrow, cramped, legalistic finding that there was insufficient evidence to indict Trump associates for conspiring with Russia and then proving their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. That would have been devastating enough to those who spent the last two years or more misleading people to believe that conspiracy convictions of Trump’s closest aides and family members were inevitable. But his mandate was much broader than that: to state what did or did not happen.

That’s precisely what he did: Mueller, in addition to concluding that evidence was insufficient to charge any American with crimes relating to Russian election interference, also stated emphatically in numerous instances that there was no evidence – not merely that there was insufficient evidence to obtain a criminal conviction – that key prongs of this three-year-old conspiracy theory actually happened. As Mueller himself put it: “in some instances, the report points out the absence of evidence or conflicts in the evidence about a particular fact or event.”

With regard to Facebook ads and Twitter posts from the Russia-based Internet Research Agency, for example, Mueller could not have been more blunt: “The investigation did not identify evidence that any U.S. persons knowingly or intentionally coordinated with the IRA’s interference operation” (emphasis added). Note that this exoneration includes not only Trump campaign officials but all Americans:
https://theintercept.com/2019/04/18/rob ... ated-them/
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
Hermit
Posts: 25806
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:44 am
About me: Cantankerous grump
Location: Ignore lithpt
Contact:

Re: The Thread of Democrats

Post by Hermit » Fri Apr 26, 2019 1:55 pm

Forty Two wrote:
Fri Apr 26, 2019 1:44 pm
A special prosecutor's job is to "prosecute."
Indeed, but Mueller was not appointed as special prosecutor. He was appointed as special counsel. His task was not to prosecute. It was to investigate, then submit a report of his findings to whoever may decide to initiate a prosecution.

I might read the rest of your post once we got this issue sorted out.
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: The Thread of Democrats

Post by Forty Two » Fri Apr 26, 2019 1:58 pm

Svartalf wrote:
Fri Apr 26, 2019 1:52 pm
proof that obstruction of hiding of evidence prevented the inquest from properly bearing fruit.
There has not been a single allegation regarding hiding evidence.

Mueller neither stated nor implied that he was prevented from doing anything or getting anything he wanted.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
Hermit
Posts: 25806
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:44 am
About me: Cantankerous grump
Location: Ignore lithpt
Contact:

Re: The Thread of Democrats

Post by Hermit » Fri Apr 26, 2019 2:24 pm

Forty Two wrote:
Fri Apr 26, 2019 1:47 pm
Image
Forty Two wrote:
Fri Apr 26, 2019 1:49 pm
Image
Forty Two wrote:
Fri Apr 26, 2019 1:50 pm
Image
Forty Two wrote:
Fri Apr 26, 2019 1:51 pm
Image
Wonderful. How does any of that negate the following:
...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, however, we are unable to reach that judgment. The evidence we obtained about the President' s actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould

User avatar
L'Emmerdeur
Posts: 5700
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2011 11:04 pm
About me: Yuh wust nightmaya!
Contact:

Re: The Thread of Democrats

Post by L'Emmerdeur » Fri Apr 26, 2019 2:59 pm

There is an important point in page 2 of the report, a guideline on how to read subsequent statements:
A statement that the investigation did not establish certain facts does not mean that there was no evidence of those facts.

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: The Thread of Democrats

Post by Forty Two » Fri Apr 26, 2019 4:10 pm

Hermit wrote:
Fri Apr 26, 2019 2:24 pm
Forty Two wrote:
Fri Apr 26, 2019 1:47 pm
Image
Forty Two wrote:
Fri Apr 26, 2019 1:49 pm
Image
Forty Two wrote:
Fri Apr 26, 2019 1:50 pm
Image
Forty Two wrote:
Fri Apr 26, 2019 1:51 pm
Image
Wonderful. How does any of that negate the following:
...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, however, we are unable to reach that judgment. The evidence we obtained about the President' s actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.
I never said it did. YOU argued that the inability to conclude on the lack of obstruction issue negated the clear finding that there was no evidence of collusion/conspiracy.

I know Mueller did not find that the President "clearly" did not commit obstruction. However, Mueller also did not find even "probable cause" to believe that Trump HAD committed obstruction. What Mueller did find was that there was no evidence of collusion with Russia (see the above quotes). The lack of finding on obstruction doesn't change that.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests