The Thread of Democrats

Post Reply
User avatar
Brian Peacock
Tipping cows since 1946
Posts: 24097
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 May 03, 2019 4:00 pm

I didn't know I was driving over the speed limit, therefore no crime.
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: 1842
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2017 1:10 am
Location: The Hovel under the Mountain
Contact:

Re: The Thread of Democrats

Post by Joe » Fri May 03, 2019 7:17 pm

Forty Two wrote:
Fri May 03, 2019 12:48 pm
Joe wrote:
Thu May 02, 2019 2:55 pm
Forty Two wrote:
Thu May 02, 2019 11:57 am
Joe wrote:
Thu May 02, 2019 2:18 am

No, I won't, because the report doesn't support that overly broad assertion. Once again, as L'Emmerdeur pointed out, the report says;
A statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of those facts.
Go back and read your quotes:
  • "the investigation did not establish"
  • "The investigation did not, however, yield evidence sufficient to sustain any charge"
  • "the Office did not find evidence likely to prove beyond a reasonable doubt"
  • "The investigation did not identify evidence that any U.S. persons knowingly or intentionally coordinated"
Contrast them with what you've written
  • "found zero evidence of coordination or conspiracy"
  • "did not find any evidence of the Trump campaign coordinating/conspiring with Russia."
Do you see the difference?
I'm going to identify one point here so that you can begin to think clearly about this.

You said "go back and read your quotes." One of the things you wanted me to read was "The investigation did not identify evidence that any US person knowing or intentionally coordinated..."

Ok., then you think that is "contrasted" by my statements that the Mueller investigation "did not find any evidence of the Trump campaign coordinating or conspiring with Russia."

You ask if I see the difference.

No. I do not.
Because conspiracy is an intent crime. That means you CAN'T unintentionally conspire. So, if they do not find evidence of an intentional/knowing conspiracy, then they did not find evidence of a conspiracy at all. You can't conspire by accident. You can't conspire by mistake. A conspiracy is a secret plan between people to do something illegal. You can't accidentally have a plan to do something illegal. It's not plan then. Similarly to "coordinate" about the 2016 election or to do something requires intent - you can't "coordinate to interfere with the election" without intending to do so.

So, if you would like to explain the difference, I would appreciate it. Explain exactly how someone can be guilty of unintentionally or without knowledge "conspiring" or "coordinating" with Russia to interfere in the 2016 election.

If you can articulate a difference that makes any sense, I would be willing to change my mind.

Until then, if Mueller says that he did not find evidence of any US Person intentionally or knowningly conspiring or coordinating, then to me that means nobody was doing anything wrong in that regard - because if anyone was ACCIDENTALLY or UNINTENTIONALLY or UNKNOWINGLY conspiring or coordinating with Russia, then they weren't really conspiring or coordinating at all. They were unwitting dupes. An unwitting dupe is not a criminal is he? And if you disagree - then please explain how someone can accidentally or unintentionally or unknowingly "conspire" or "coordinate" with Russian persons to interfere in the US election?
As to the point that L'Emmerdeur made about "A statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of those fact." Yes, indeed, that's true. But, where the report says there was no evidence of something, that DOES mean that there was no evidence discovered by the investigation. And, in relation to the conspiracy/coordination quote you asked me to compare, Mueller DID say there was no evidence. It is NOT the case that "A statement that the investigation found no EVIDENCE of a particular fact does not mean that there was no EVIDENCE of that fact." Having no evidence is having no evidence.
Try and stay on topic. I know it can be hard for you, but we are talking about evidence in the report and your mistaken claims about it.

It seems you are down to one statement you feel you can defend, so let me help you see the difference between it and your claim.
Meuller: The investigation did not identify evidence that any U.S. persons knowingly or intentionally coordinated
Forty Two: did not find any evidence of the Trump campaign coordinating or conspiring with Russia.
I've highlighted the differences and they are profound. Meuller's statement is qualified by the words "knowingly or intentionally," which I highlighted in my last post, and he did not use the word "any" which you added. To see these as the same is a flawed reading.

Now, to the statement L'Emmerdeur shared:
A statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of those fact.
This a direct quote from the report (Volume I, page 2) that has been posted before, with context, in this thread, and it means exactly what it says and applies to the entire report.

You are entitled to your opinion, but you are pitting your credibility against Meuller's, and come up short in the comparison.
'
I addressed both of these points in my post above, to which you responded.

Look for the bit where I ask you to explain how someone can "unintentionally" or "unknowingly" conspire. Do you think a person can commit conspiracy by accident? Guilty of unintentional conspiracy? A person conspired to interfere in the election, but didn't know he was conspiring at the time? Do you see above where I have a section about that? That's what you're skipping... and I'll add a little insult toward you - I know it's hard for you to read and understand plain English, but please actually read the posts you're responding to before you go off half cocked and post bullshit.

Also, you have now posted L'Emmerdeur's point about "A statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of that fact." I explained that to you as well, and I know it's hard for you to understand, so I'll say it again, in short so your small brain can wrap around it. Saying "a statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of that fact," is not the same as the statement "a statement that the investigation did not find any evidence of a fact does not mean there was no evidence of that fact." That's because a statement in the report that says "there was no evidence" or "there was no evidence found..." means exactly that - there was no evidence or no evidence found. Likewise, where the report says there was "insufficient evidence of..." then there was insufficient evidence. To, until you acknowledge that my quotes from the report do not merely say "investigation did not establish..." but actually went further and referred to the lack of evidence, you still won't get it.

Here is an example:

identify evidence.jpg

See there? Mueller is not saying merely that the investigation did not establish. He is saying the investigation did not IDENTIFY EVIDENCE." When he says they didn't identify evidence, he means that they didn't identify evidence. Right? No evidence. NO EVIDENCE. I know you have trouble reading English, but that's what the Mueller report said.

See how annoying it is for someone to pepper the post with those kind of statements about what trouble we "know" an opponent in a discussion has? It's really annoying. And, I might even go so far as to say "I know you have trouble honestly addressing this issue...because you can't be so dumb that you don't understand the difference between the phrasing "investigation did not establish" versus "the investigation did not identify evidence" -- but, see, I don't think that kind of thing is very productive, or reasonable. And, I only put those comments here to illustrate how douchey it is to do it. So, if you don't mind - put a fucking sock in it, and let's discuss the topic like adults.

Now. now Forty Two, play nice. If you want to "discuss the topic like adults" my young friend, you should refrain from childish insults. :funny:

Now, how about we get back to the topic: the inaccuracy of your statement. I've demonstrated the differences between your statement and Meuller's, identifying the words he used and you didn't. I know you're enthusiastic about the criminal aspect of the investigation, but mine is a linguistic point, so criminality is not relevant to the discussion.

It's an interesting digression, but it did not address my points.

The key difference in your inaccurate representation of "did not find any evidence of the Trump campaign coordinating or conspiring with Russia" and "The investigation did not identify evidence that any U.S. persons knowingly or intentionally coordinated" is that Meuller limited the scope of his statement to persons who "knowing or intentionally coordinated," and you didn't in yours. That's significant because the investigation did identify evidence of coordination between the Trump campaign and Russian operatives. (Volume I, page 35)
Starting in June 2016, the IRA contacted different U.S. persons affiliated with the Trump Campaign in an effort to coordinate pro-Trump IRA-organized rallies inside the United States. In all cases, the IRA contacted the Campaign while claiming to be U.S. political activists working on behalf of a conservative grassroots organization. The IRA's contacts included requests for signs and other materials to use at rallies, as well as requests to promote the rallies and help coordinate Iogistics. While certain campaign volunteers agreed to provide the requested support (for example, agreeing to set aside a number of signs), the investigation has not identified evidence that any Trump Campaign official understood the requests were coming from foreign nationals.
This doesn't support your sweeping generalization, and neither do any of your other quotes, which Meuller qualified in one way or another and you didn't.

I've read the whole report, and found that Meuller took great pains to be careful and deliberate with his statements, and the caveat L'Emmerdeur shared deserves respect, because it reflects that care.
The report describes actions and events that the Special Counsel's Office found to be supported by the evidence collected in our investigation. In some instances, the report points out the absence of evidence or conflicts in the evidence about a particular fact or event. In other instances, when substantial, credible evidence enabled the Office to reach a conclusion with confidence, the report states that the investigation established that certain actions or events occurred. A statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of those facts.
This is right up front, on page 2 of Volume I, and the scope of the statement is "the report."

As I've said, you are welcome to disagree, but I value Meuller's guidance over your opinion. Try not to take it personally.
"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
Hermit
Posts: 20602
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:44 am
Contact:

Re: The Thread of Democrats

Post by Hermit » Sat May 04, 2019 3:03 am

Forty Two wrote:
Fri May 03, 2019 12:28 pm
Hermit wrote:
Thu May 02, 2019 12:20 pm
Forty Two wrote:
Thu May 02, 2019 11:31 am
[snip]
You're wasting your time defending your statement that "According to Mueller, not only did Trump and the Trump campaign not collude with the Russians, neither did any other American." It's a red herring you keep bringing up in your attempt to divert attention from the Mueller report explicitly and unequivocally refusing to exonerate Trump from any wrong-doing. According to Mueller, "...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." I'm not falling for your Gish gallops now, and and I won't fall for them any time soon, no matter how many more times you repeat the red herring strategy.
You keep confusing "not clearly commit OBSTRUCTION..." with "not clearly commit ANY WRONGDOING..." -- I'm not talking about "any wrongdoing." I'm talking about CONSPIRACY AND COORDINATION WITH THE RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE IN 2016 ELECTION. On THAT point, there was no evidence found to support the allegation that has been blasted from media loudspeakers for three years.
You know, no amount of typing in allcaps has ever been observed to change a red herring into something else. Contrary to your desire the statement "According to Mueller, not only did Trump and the Trump campaign not collude with the Russians, neither did any other American." does not make the fact that according to Mueller "...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 by diverting attention to it. Your use of the word "deflections" is particularly ironic because of it.

User avatar
Brian Peacock
Tipping cows since 1946
Posts: 24097
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 » Sat May 04, 2019 11:15 am

Forty Two,

This is a REMINDER to play nice and to avoid impugning the cognitive and intellectual capacities of your interlocutor.

Yer mods.
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: 1842
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2017 1:10 am
Location: The Hovel under the Mountain
Contact:

Re: The Thread of Democrats

Post by Joe » Sat May 04, 2019 12:59 pm

Hermit wrote:
Sat May 04, 2019 3:03 am
Forty Two wrote:
Fri May 03, 2019 12:28 pm
Hermit wrote:
Thu May 02, 2019 12:20 pm
Forty Two wrote:
Thu May 02, 2019 11:31 am
[snip]
You're wasting your time defending your statement that "According to Mueller, not only did Trump and the Trump campaign not collude with the Russians, neither did any other American." It's a red herring you keep bringing up in your attempt to divert attention from the Mueller report explicitly and unequivocally refusing to exonerate Trump from any wrong-doing. According to Mueller, "...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." I'm not falling for your Gish gallops now, and and I won't fall for them any time soon, no matter how many more times you repeat the red herring strategy.
You keep confusing "not clearly commit OBSTRUCTION..." with "not clearly commit ANY WRONGDOING..." -- I'm not talking about "any wrongdoing." I'm talking about CONSPIRACY AND COORDINATION WITH THE RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE IN 2016 ELECTION. On THAT point, there was no evidence found to support the allegation that has been blasted from media loudspeakers for three years.
You know, no amount of typing in allcaps has ever been observed to change a red herring into something else. Contrary to your desire the statement "According to Mueller, not only did Trump and the Trump campaign not collude with the Russians, neither did any other American." does not make the fact that according to Mueller "...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 by diverting attention to it. Your use of the word "deflections" is particularly ironic because of it.
I was traveling last weekend, and read Volume II of the report. Have you had a chance to go through it?

That is a whole lot of not exonerated, and it's overwhelmingly clear that Trump repeatedly committed obstructive acts. I can understand why our friend wants to stick to collusion, or more properly conspiracy or coordination.
"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
Hermit
Posts: 20602
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:44 am
Contact:

Re: The Thread of Democrats

Post by Hermit » Sat May 04, 2019 1:57 pm

Joe wrote:
Sat May 04, 2019 12:59 pm
I was traveling last weekend, and read Volume II of the report. Have you had a chance to go through it?

That is a whole lot of not exonerated, and it's overwhelmingly clear that Trump repeatedly committed obstructive acts. I can understand why our friend wants to stick to collusion, or more properly conspiracy or coordination.
I did not read all of either volume, but I read enough of the report to see why Coito Two insists on focusing on his red herring. It's his only avenue to attempt to steer us away from the report's statement that "...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."

User avatar
Joe
Posts: 1842
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2017 1:10 am
Location: The Hovel under the Mountain
Contact:

Re: The Thread of Democrats

Post by Joe » Sat May 04, 2019 2:16 pm

Hermit wrote:
Sat May 04, 2019 1:57 pm
Joe wrote:
Sat May 04, 2019 12:59 pm
I was traveling last weekend, and read Volume II of the report. Have you had a chance to go through it?

That is a whole lot of not exonerated, and it's overwhelmingly clear that Trump repeatedly committed obstructive acts. I can understand why our friend wants to stick to collusion, or more properly conspiracy or coordination.
I did not read all of either volume, but I read enough of the report to see why Coito Two insists on focusing on his red herring. It's his only avenue to attempt to steer us away from the report's statement that "...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."
Yeah, the conclusion is not an exoneration, but the details are damning. If Ken Starr had turned up this kind of evidence on Bill Clinton, I've got to think Al Gore would have become President. Sadly, our Congress isn't what it used to be.
"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: 24097
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 » Sat May 04, 2019 5:53 pm

Ah, but you guys are forgetting that attempting an act of wrong doing is not wrong if you fail to succeed at it. Therefore no obstruction.
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: 1842
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2017 1:10 am
Location: The Hovel under the Mountain
Contact:

Re: The Thread of Democrats

Post by Joe » Sat May 04, 2019 7:22 pm

Brian Peacock wrote:
Sat May 04, 2019 5:53 pm
Ah, but you guys are forgetting that attempting an act of wrong doing is not wrong if you fail to succeed at it. Therefore no obstruction.
Well, I'm not sure how you demonstrating the failure of Forty Two's argument applies to your premise generally, but I will gladly concede that there is no obstruction in his specific case.

I'm not a lawyer, or pretend to be one on the internet, so I don't know if your premise is correct. I did what I usually do in these cases and consulted with my avatar, who referred me to this bit of reasoning.
Personal criminal conduct can furnish strong evidence that the individual had an improper obstructive purpose, see, e.g., United States v. Willoughby, 860 F.2d 15, 24 (2d Cir. 1988), or that he contemplated an effect on an official proceeding , see, e.g., United States v. Binday, 804 F.3d 558, 591 (2d Cir . 2015). But proof of such a crime is not an element of an obstruction offense. See United States v. Greer, 872 F.3d 790, 798 (6th Cir . 2017) (stating , in applying the obstruction sentencing guideline, that "obstruction of a criminal investigation is punishable even if the prosecution is ultimately unsuccessful or even if the investigation ultimately reveals no underlying crime"). Obstruction of justice can be motivated by a desire to protect non-criminal personal interests, to protect against investigations where underlying criminal liability falls into a gray area, or to avoid personal embarrassment. The injury to the integrity of the justice system is the same regardless of whether a person committed an underlying wrong.

Meuller Report (Volume II, page 157)
You might say that's a Hand-off to Meuller.

I don't think it matters though. Trump succeeded in getting Cohen to lie to Congress about the Moscow project, didn't he? :thinks:
"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
Hermit
Posts: 20602
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:44 am
Contact:

Re: The Thread of Democrats

Post by Hermit » Sun May 05, 2019 12:23 am

Brian Peacock wrote:
Sat May 04, 2019 5:53 pm
Ah, but you guys are forgetting that attempting an act of wrong doing is not wrong if you fail to succeed at it. Therefore no obstruction.
Wherein you replied to two queries by Coito Two casting doubt on what you previously posted with two Youtube clips of trump himself confirming your assertions. Unsurprisingly, Coito Two responded with a deafening silence. Along with whataboutism, walls of words and distortions that is one of his chief debating techniques.

User avatar
JimC
The sentimental bloke
Posts: 61945
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:58 am
About me: To be serious about gin requires years of dedicated research.
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: The Thread of Democrats

Post by JimC » Sun May 05, 2019 12:24 am

The only defence is rapid scrolling...
Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!

User avatar
Joe
Posts: 1842
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2017 1:10 am
Location: The Hovel under the Mountain
Contact:

Re: The Thread of Democrats

Post by Joe » Sun May 05, 2019 4:21 pm

I'd love to see the site stop the display of a post after about a third of the screen and provide a "see more" button to show the full post.

I have no idea if phpBB supports such a feature, but I can dream, right? :cheers2:
"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
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 » Mon May 06, 2019 10:43 am

Joe wrote:
Fri May 03, 2019 7:17 pm


The key difference in your inaccurate representation of "did not find any evidence of the Trump campaign coordinating or conspiring with Russia" and "The investigation did not identify evidence that any U.S. persons knowingly or intentionally coordinated" is that Meuller limited the scope of his statement to persons who "knowing or intentionally coordinated," and you didn't in yours.
You keep ignoring the fact that the Mueller report does not merely limit itself to "knowingly or intentionally coordinated." I have quoted a different quote from the report where that qualification is not used.

Also, I'm not inaccurately representing the report. You are. When keep requoting, for example, the portion of the report that says that if they find that a given item was "established" it doesn't mean there wasn't any "evidence." Your quote is accurate, but you apply it to situations where the report actually says they didn't find or identify any "evidence."

Joe wrote:
Fri May 03, 2019 7:17 pm


That's significant because the investigation did identify evidence of coordination between the Trump campaign and Russian operatives. (Volume I, page 35)
Starting in June 2016, the IRA contacted different U.S. persons affiliated with the Trump Campaign in an effort to coordinate pro-Trump IRA-organized rallies inside the United States. In all cases, the IRA contacted the Campaign while claiming to be U.S. political activists working on behalf of a conservative grassroots organization. The IRA's contacts included requests for signs and other materials to use at rallies, as well as requests to promote the rallies and help coordinate Iogistics. While certain campaign volunteers agreed to provide the requested support (for example, agreeing to set aside a number of signs), the investigation has not identified evidence that any Trump Campaign official understood the requests were coming from foreign nationals.
This doesn't support your sweeping generalization, and neither do any of your other quotes, which Meuller qualified in one way or another and you didn't.
Of course it does - what that paragraph says is that the IRA contacted people "in an effort to coordinate." They claimed to be US activists - and they asked for signs and other materials to be used at rallies. Campaign volunteers agreed to provide the signs and other materials. And, the Mueller investigation did not "identify any evidence" that the requests for signs came from any foreign national (Russian or otherwise). That's not "did not establish...but there might still be evidence..." -- that's did not find any EVIDENCE at all. That is neither conspiracy, nor coordination - nor collusion.

That paragraph describes completely innocent, lawful activity.

Joe wrote:
Fri May 03, 2019 7:17 pm

I've read the whole report, and found that Meuller took great pains to be careful and deliberate with his statements, and the caveat L'Emmerdeur shared deserves respect, because it reflects that care.


It does - and that care extends to making sure we don't use it to suggest that where the Mueller report says, like above, that it "...did not identify evidence..." that it means just that - no evidence was found. It does NOT mean that it merely failed to establish the point, but there was some evidence identified, just insufficient to meat a given standard of proof.
Joe wrote:
Fri May 03, 2019 7:17 pm
The report describes actions and events that the Special Counsel's Office found to be supported by the evidence collected in our investigation. In some instances, the report points out the absence of evidence
In the example you just gave, it was "absence of evidence." Do you have any example of coordination or conspiracy or collusion where it was something other than absence of evidence?

Joe wrote:
Fri May 03, 2019 7:17 pm

or conflicts in the evidence about a particular fact or event. In other instances, when substantial, credible evidence enabled the Office to reach a conclusion with confidence, the report states that the investigation established that certain actions or events occurred. A statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of those facts.
[/quote]

And, in the example you just gave, the events that occurred were: Russians called Trump campaign workers and asked for signs and other materials to use at rallies, but they posed as US persons looking to get materials for rallies. Campaign workers said, sure we will set aside signs and such for you, but no evidence was identified that they were "foreign persons."

The important point had no evidence identified: coordination, collusion, conspiracy. None of that had any evidence identified.

If you were a campaign volunteer and a Mexican guy called you on the phone and asked for campaign materials to throw a rally in favor of your preferred candidate, and you had no idea he worked for Mexican intelligence, you aren't "coordinating" or "conspiring" or "colluding" with him by saying "sure, we'll set aside 100 signs for you to use at the rally."
Joe wrote:
Fri May 03, 2019 7:17 pm
This is right up front, on page 2 of Volume I, and the scope of the statement is "the report."

As I've said, you are welcome to disagree, but I value Meuller's guidance over your opinion. Try not to take it personally.
I haven't offered my opinion - I've taken Mueller's report at its word. Where I quoted -- imaged from the report - highlighted express language. It says what it says.

I assume if you had a better example of conspiracy or coordination, you''d have provided it. If a foreign person calling a campaign office (not identifying himself as foreign person) asking for signs and other materials to hold rallies, is in your mind of the nature of collusion, conspiracy or coordination, then I do disagree, and so did Mueller.
“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 » Mon May 06, 2019 10:49 am

Joe wrote:
Sat May 04, 2019 2:16 pm
Hermit wrote:
Sat May 04, 2019 1:57 pm
Joe wrote:
Sat May 04, 2019 12:59 pm
I was traveling last weekend, and read Volume II of the report. Have you had a chance to go through it?

That is a whole lot of not exonerated, and it's overwhelmingly clear that Trump repeatedly committed obstructive acts. I can understand why our friend wants to stick to collusion, or more properly conspiracy or coordination.
I did not read all of either volume, but I read enough of the report to see why Coito Two insists on focusing on his red herring. It's his only avenue to attempt to steer us away from the report's statement that "...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."
Yeah, the conclusion is not an exoneration, but the details are damning. If Ken Starr had turned up this kind of evidence on Bill Clinton, I've got to think Al Gore would have become President. Sadly, our Congress isn't what it used to be.
The details are "damning?" Provide a damning quote regarding collusion/coordination/conspiracy. What's the best you got?

I'm assuming it's not a person calling a campaign office asking for signs to use at a rally. If it is that, fine, but I can't imagine that would be the biggie. So, either confirm that you think that's "damning" in some way, or provide one that you do think is "damning."
“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
BarnettNewman
extemporaneous
Posts: 335
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2010 3:29 am
Contact:

Re: The Thread of Democrats

Post by BarnettNewman » Mon May 06, 2019 5:13 pm

Joe wrote:
Sun May 05, 2019 4:21 pm
I'd love to see the site stop the display of a post after about a third of the screen and provide a "see more" button to show the full post.

I have no idea if phpBB supports such a feature, but I can dream, right? :cheers2:
SAVE THE SCROLL WHEELS!!!!

:mob:

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests