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 » Fri Apr 26, 2019 4:11 pm

L'Emmerdeur wrote:
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.
Yes, but that doesn't change the fact that that Mueller did say "there was no evidence." Saying they found no evidence means that there was no evidence.
No evidence.jpg
No evidence
No evidence.jpg (23.48 KiB) Viewed 856 times
“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
Joe
Posts: 2825
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2017 1:10 am
Location: The Hovel under the Mountain
Contact:

Re: The Thread of Democrats

Post by Joe » Fri Apr 26, 2019 4:19 pm

Forty Two wrote:
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.
Well, there were those indictments for lying, which some people regard as hiding evidence. :ask:
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
"as far as strong, i am hard as a rock and tough as a nail. no one will bring me down. no one. i am the debonator. the tnt. and jesus has my back door pal!" - D. C. Bockemehl
"If you vote for idiots, idiots will run the country." - Dr. Kori Schake

User avatar
Brian Peacock
Tipping cows since 1946
Posts: 29585
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:44 am
About me: Ablate me:
Location: Location: Location:
Contact:

Re: The Thread of Democrats

Post by Brian Peacock » Fri Apr 26, 2019 4:29 pm

It is Trump and his PR that have sought to define the Mueller investigation in terms of an enquiry into the President's supposed 'collusion' with Russia. And, as intended, the fact that Mueller did not pronounce on the collusion charge is now taken as a de facto exoneration of that charge.
Rationalia relies on voluntary donations. There is no obligation of course, but if you value this place and want to see it continue please consider making a small donation towards the forum's running costs.
Details on how to do that can be found here.

.

"It isn't necessary to imagine the world ending in fire or ice.
There are two other possibilities: one is paperwork, and the other is nostalgia."

Frank Zappa

"This is how humanity ends; bickering over the irrelevant."
Clinton Huxley » 21 Jun 2012 » 14:10:36 GMT
.

User avatar
Hermit
Posts: 22486
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:44 am
Contact:

Re: The Thread of Democrats

Post by Hermit » Fri Apr 26, 2019 4:34 pm

Brian Peacock wrote:
Fri Apr 26, 2019 4:29 pm
It is Trump and his PR that have sought to define the Mueller investigation in terms of an enquiry into the President's supposed 'collusion' with Russia. And, as intended, the fact that Mueller did not pronounce on the collusion charge is now taken as a de facto exoneration of that charge.
Which the report explicitly denies to have done.
...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.
See?
So you talk about mobs and the working classes as if they were the question. You've got that eternal idiotic idea that if anarchy came it would come from the poor. Why should it? The poor have been rebels, but they have never been anarchists; they have more interest than anyone else in there being some decent government. The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all. Aristocrats were always anarchists. - G.K. Chesterton

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 5:39 pm

Hermit wrote:
Fri Apr 26, 2019 4:34 pm
Brian Peacock wrote:
Fri Apr 26, 2019 4:29 pm
It is Trump and his PR that have sought to define the Mueller investigation in terms of an enquiry into the President's supposed 'collusion' with Russia. And, as intended, the fact that Mueller did not pronounce on the collusion charge is now taken as a de facto exoneration of that charge.
Which the report explicitly denies to have done.
...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.
See?
You are making the mistake of confusing the statement "the facts that the President clearly did not commit OBSTRUCTION...." with the fact that the report specifically states that there was no evidence found of collusion. The comment that they could not say that he "clearly" did not commit obstruction does NOT mean Mueller didn't conclude that there was no collusion. There wasn't. At least, Mueller found no evidence of it. And, when there isn't evidence for collusion, there isn't collusion. That's the most anyone can say about anything. Nobody can say "42 didn't kidnap Jimmy Hoffa" - all they can say is that there is no evidence that I did it. That's the same thing as being exonerated in this context.
“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 5:40 pm

Joe wrote:
Fri Apr 26, 2019 4:19 pm
Forty Two wrote:
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.
Well, there were those indictments for lying, which some people regard as hiding evidence. :ask:
Damning evidence. We're under Russian control. :funny:
“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
Brian Peacock
Tipping cows since 1946
Posts: 29585
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:44 am
About me: Ablate me:
Location: Location: Location:
Contact:

Re: The Thread of Democrats

Post by Brian Peacock » Fri Apr 26, 2019 7:53 pm

Forty Two wrote:
Fri Apr 26, 2019 5:39 pm
Hermit wrote:
Fri Apr 26, 2019 4:34 pm
Brian Peacock wrote:
Fri Apr 26, 2019 4:29 pm
It is Trump and his PR that have sought to define the Mueller investigation in terms of an enquiry into the President's supposed 'collusion' with Russia. And, as intended, the fact that Mueller did not pronounce on the collusion charge is now taken as a de facto exoneration of that charge.
Which the report explicitly denies to have done.
...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.
See?
You are making the mistake of confusing the statement "the facts that the President clearly did not commit OBSTRUCTION...." with the fact that the report specifically states that there was no evidence found of collusion. The comment that they could not say that he "clearly" did not commit obstruction does NOT mean Mueller didn't conclude that there was no collusion. There wasn't. At least, Mueller found no evidence of it. And, when there isn't evidence for collusion, there isn't collusion. That's the most anyone can say about anything. Nobody can say "42 didn't kidnap Jimmy Hoffa" - all they can say is that there is no evidence that I did it. That's the same thing as being exonerated in this context.
I'm not confused. I stated that the so called 'collusion' charge is an attempt to steal the narrative of the investigation: to turn the investigation into a challenge to the Trump presidency in order to discredit it on political grounds regardless of what it eventually concluded. Apparently the only outcome the president, or his supporters, are interested in is the one regarding his exoneration on a charge which they promoted themselves.
Rationalia relies on voluntary donations. There is no obligation of course, but if you value this place and want to see it continue please consider making a small donation towards the forum's running costs.
Details on how to do that can be found here.

.

"It isn't necessary to imagine the world ending in fire or ice.
There are two other possibilities: one is paperwork, and the other is nostalgia."

Frank Zappa

"This is how humanity ends; bickering over the irrelevant."
Clinton Huxley » 21 Jun 2012 » 14:10:36 GMT
.

User avatar
Joe
Posts: 2825
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2017 1:10 am
Location: The Hovel under the Mountain
Contact:

Re: The Thread of Democrats

Post by Joe » Fri Apr 26, 2019 11:43 pm

Forty Two wrote:
Fri Apr 26, 2019 5:40 pm
Joe wrote:
Fri Apr 26, 2019 4:19 pm
Forty Two wrote:
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.
Well, there were those indictments for lying, which some people regard as hiding evidence. :ask:
Damning evidence. We're under Russian control. :funny:
Speak for yourself, Comrade. :coffee:

Obviously, you're wrong again..
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
"as far as strong, i am hard as a rock and tough as a nail. no one will bring me down. no one. i am the debonator. the tnt. and jesus has my back door pal!" - D. C. Bockemehl
"If you vote for idiots, idiots will run the country." - Dr. Kori Schake

User avatar
L'Emmerdeur
Posts: 3426
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2011 11:04 pm
About me: Yuh wust nightmaya!
Contact:

Re: The Thread of Democrats

Post by L'Emmerdeur » Sat Apr 27, 2019 1:32 am

Forty Two wrote:
Fri Apr 26, 2019 4:11 pm
L'Emmerdeur wrote:
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.
Yes, but that doesn't change the fact that that Mueller did say "there was no evidence." Saying they found no evidence means that there was no evidence. No evidence.jpg
That you were able to cite a single instance reporting no evidence is all very well, but your other images don't say that. The report makes an important distinction in the sentence that I quoted, one which Trump and those who parrot his lies would like to ignore. The image you posted refers to findings on a narrow question--whether there was coordination between the IRA troll farm and US persons.

The broader question of coordination or conspiracy with Russian interference is not disposed of thereby--we know that the interference was not limited to the operations of the troll farm. The report does not say that no evidence was found of coordination or a conspiracy. What it does say is that the Mueller team was unable to establish such coordination or conspiracy. Logically, if the investigators had found no evidence of coordination or conspiracy the report would say so, as it does in regard to the specific question of coordination with the troll farm.

User avatar
Hermit
Posts: 22486
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:44 am
Contact:

Re: The Thread of Democrats

Post by Hermit » Sat Apr 27, 2019 1:59 am

Forty Two wrote:
Fri Apr 26, 2019 5:39 pm
Hermit wrote:
Fri Apr 26, 2019 4:34 pm
Brian Peacock wrote:
Fri Apr 26, 2019 4:29 pm
It is Trump and his PR that have sought to define the Mueller investigation in terms of an enquiry into the President's supposed 'collusion' with Russia. And, as intended, the fact that Mueller did not pronounce on the collusion charge is now taken as a de facto exoneration of that charge.
Which the report explicitly denies to have done.
...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.
See?
You are making the mistake of confusing the statement "the facts that the President clearly did not commit OBSTRUCTION...." with the fact that the report specifically states that there was no evidence found of collusion.
I made no such mistake, and you are misquoting. The nearest to your alleged quote, You are trying to convince us that "the facts that the President clearly did not commit OBSTRUCTION...." is "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". Furthermore, nowhere does the report specifically state that there was no evidence found of collusion. The closest to that is: "the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities." The difference in the wording is important.

I would like to think you are making a mistake, but the seemingly subtle changes you make within the quote marks suggest that you are intentionally falsifying them. Be it as it may, nothing you said or quoted succeeds in any way of making "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" and "while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him" disappear from the report. The more you attempt to ignore those statements or argue them out of existence, the more dishonest you look. It adds to your wilful description of Mueller's role as a Special Prosecutor after it has been pointed out to you that he was appointed as Special Counsel and the title pages of both volumes of the report mention their authorship as "Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller, III". And you keep treating the result as a verdict when in fact it is a report. Your stream of dishonesty makes any debate with you more unpleasant than it needs to be.

And again: It's not a fucking court case. It's an investigation. That is why the report is free to state that "while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him." Deal with it already.
So you talk about mobs and the working classes as if they were the question. You've got that eternal idiotic idea that if anarchy came it would come from the poor. Why should it? The poor have been rebels, but they have never been anarchists; they have more interest than anyone else in there being some decent government. The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all. Aristocrats were always anarchists. - G.K. Chesterton

User avatar
Tero
Just saying
Posts: 34690
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 9:50 pm
About me: Something something birds
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: The Thread of Democrats

Post by Tero » Sun Apr 28, 2019 8:46 pm


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 May 01, 2019 11:31 am

Hermit wrote:
Sat Apr 27, 2019 1:59 am
Forty Two wrote:
Fri Apr 26, 2019 5:39 pm
Hermit wrote:
Fri Apr 26, 2019 4:34 pm
Brian Peacock wrote:
Fri Apr 26, 2019 4:29 pm
It is Trump and his PR that have sought to define the Mueller investigation in terms of an enquiry into the President's supposed 'collusion' with Russia. And, as intended, the fact that Mueller did not pronounce on the collusion charge is now taken as a de facto exoneration of that charge.
Which the report explicitly denies to have done.
...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.
See?
You are making the mistake of confusing the statement "the facts that the President clearly did not commit OBSTRUCTION...." with the fact that the report specifically states that there was no evidence found of collusion.
I made no such mistake, and you are misquoting. The nearest to your alleged quote, You are trying to convince us that "the facts that the President clearly did not commit OBSTRUCTION...." is "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". Furthermore, nowhere does the report specifically state that there was no evidence found of collusion. The closest to that is: "the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities." The difference in the wording is important.

I would like to think you are making a mistake, but the seemingly subtle changes you make within the quote marks suggest that you are intentionally falsifying them. Be it as it may, nothing you said or quoted succeeds in any way of making "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" and "while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him" disappear from the report. The more you attempt to ignore those statements or argue them out of existence, the more dishonest you look. It adds to your wilful description of Mueller's role as a Special Prosecutor after it has been pointed out to you that he was appointed as Special Counsel and the title pages of both volumes of the report mention their authorship as "Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller, III". And you keep treating the result as a verdict when in fact it is a report. Your stream of dishonesty makes any debate with you more unpleasant than it needs to be.

And again: It's not a fucking court case. It's an investigation. That is why the report is free to state that "while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him." Deal with it already.
Please define "collusion."
No evidence.jpg
No evidence.jpg (23.48 KiB) Viewed 1210 times
Mueller 6.jpg
No coordination - not under direction or control.

How would one be guilty of "collusion" without "coordinating?"
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 » Wed May 01, 2019 11:34 am

Mueller 4.jpg
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 » Wed May 01, 2019 11:39 am

So, they did not establish that the members of the Trump campaign "conspired or coordinated" -- but, you think they might have established that Trump campaign "colluded" but didn't conspire or coordinate?

A special counsel is a special prosecutor. If they are asked to look into a potential crime, they are looking for evidence to establish it. if they don't find evidence to establish it, it doesn't mean it couldn't possibly have happened. In every investigation, all you can say is "we haven't found evidence..." There is no way for everyone in the Trump campaign to have a proved alibi for 24 hours a day 7 days a week to irrefutably defeat a claim that they might somewhere, somehow have done something or talked to someone.

Can you at least say that if Mueller had found evidence of "collusion" (as distinct from coordination or conspiring), they would have said so? If not, why not?
“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 » Wed May 01, 2019 11:46 am

Biden.jpg
Sleepy Joe
Biden.jpg (14.45 KiB) Viewed 1204 times
“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 13 guests