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:
- 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
