d2jsp
Log InRegister
d2jsp Forums > Off-Topic > General Chat > Political & Religious Debate > The Mueller Report
Prev1159160161162163173Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll
Views: 19184Replies: 1723Track Topic
Member
Posts: 66,666
Joined: May 17 2005
Gold: 17,384.69
#1601
May 30 2019 06:45am
Mueller said he would indict Trump if he wasn't president, the end.
Member
Posts: 34,257
Joined: Jul 2 2007
Gold: 226.37
#1602
May 30 2019 06:48am
Quote (fender @ May 30 2019 02:28am)
it's absolutely hilarious what hoops our shills are willing to jump through to avoid the logical conclusion from mueller's repeated insistence that he simply was not allowed to charge the president with a crime due to OLC policy, while at the same time laying out in detail how trump actually did obstruct justice, and specifically pointing out that he would have stated if the president had not committed a crime.

tmw our cultists' mental gymnastics outperform even fox' spins... maybe you should actually read volume two.
well, hundreds of former federal prosecutors did, and signed an open letter explaining how every american citizen that is not the potus would definitely have been charged with obstruction of justice.


Mueller was asked specifically by Barr whether, if not for the OLC policy, he would have indicted the president.

Mueller repeatedly answered no. Was he just not sure whether he'd have indicted, after 2.5 years of investigating? Perhaps, but aside from seeming ludicrous from such an esteemed and seasoned prosecutor, it's beside the overarching point. "I can't definitively state the president did not commit a crime" is not "The President committed a crime." except in the eyes of Democratic fanatics who still can't come to grips with how badly they squandered the 2016 election.
Member
Posts: 53,598
Joined: Jun 5 2006
Gold: 5,388.33
#1603
May 30 2019 06:57am
Quote (Skinned @ May 30 2019 03:43am)
Oh you're jumping to conclusions you like using "logic" ie this thing o will interpret to be how I want.

Most people who seen this, reasonable people, know what Muller was saying and implying. Why would Barr say the report answers questions the writer of the report says it does not answer?

So much subterfuge. Way for the whole of the GOP to sell out for this one president to cucked them who is so far beneath the average American in terms of honor and ethics.





Am I the only one who watched the speech and not Fox highlights?

Mueller said there was no apparatus to charge the president and that this apparatus needed to be created for future cases like this.

Subterfuge.




OJ was able to be charged by the courts. Inability to be charged by courts due to them lacking jurisdiction isn't the same thing as being innocent.

You guys confirm the consequent and deny the antecedent and call it conclusive. You guys aren't thinking real logically. We know Trump support is more a passion thing though. Just believe strong enough and it doesn't matter what's true :)

what do you want to happen?
Member
Posts: 1,698
Joined: Mar 16 2009
Gold: 0.00
#1604
May 30 2019 06:58am
Quote (bogie160 @ May 30 2019 07:48am)
Mueller was asked specifically by Barr whether, if not for the OLC policy, he would have indicted the president.

Mueller repeatedly answered no. Was he just not sure whether he'd have indicted, after 2.5 years of investigating? Perhaps, but aside from seeming ludicrous from such an esteemed and seasoned prosecutor, it's beside the overarching point. "I can't definitively state the president did not commit a crime" is not "The President committed a crime." except in the eyes of Democratic fanatics who still can't come to grips with how badly they squandered the 2016 election.


There are instances of trump obstructing justice in the report and Warren went over the specific parts of this report during her 1 hour speech. Mueller cannot even accuse him of obstructing because he doesn't have the power to against a sitting President
Member
Posts: 34,257
Joined: Jul 2 2007
Gold: 226.37
#1605
May 30 2019 07:02am
Quote (GodSmiter @ May 30 2019 07:58am)
There are instances of trump obstructing justice in the report and Warren went over the specific parts of this report during her 1 hour speech. Mueller cannot even accuse him of obstructing because he doesn't have the power to against a sitting President


There are instances described that may or may not constitute obstruction of justice.

Mueller would have been the judge of that, but he declined to indict, which is why Barr was so interested to know if this was solely the result of Justice department precedent.
Member
Posts: 48,844
Joined: Jun 18 2006
Gold: 5,016.77
#1606
May 30 2019 07:11am
Quote (bogie160 @ May 29 2019 11:40pm)
Mueller saying "I can't clear the president" is inane. That's quite obviously not the role of the prosecutor. Not bringing charges is tantamount to there being insufficient evidence to substantiate those charges, and it is perfectly ok for Trump to consider that vindication in a vacuum.


That's simply not true. You guys are trying to pretend that this isn't a unique circumstance that requires a prosecutor to ditch the normal rules. Mueller compiled a ton of evidence that Trump potentially obstructed justice, and he hinted in his report(and his remarks yesterday) that the only way to hold the president accountable is impeachment.

What do you think he should have done? Recommend charges against a sitting president, knowing that DOJ wouldn't indict?
Member
Posts: 34,257
Joined: Jul 2 2007
Gold: 226.37
#1607
May 30 2019 07:29am
Quote (IceMage @ May 30 2019 08:11am)
That's simply not true. You guys are trying to pretend that this isn't a unique circumstance that requires a prosecutor to ditch the normal rules. Mueller compiled a ton of evidence that Trump potentially obstructed justice, and he hinted in his report(and his remarks yesterday) that the only way to hold the president accountable is impeachment.

What do you think he should have done? Recommend charges against a sitting president, knowing that DOJ wouldn't indict?


He could have answered "Yes, I would probably recommend an indictment if not for Justice Department precedent."

Does that seem so hard?

I don't see this as operating outside the traditional rules of prosecutorial conduct. Which is why I'm surprised that Mueller would say anything at all aside from "indict / not indict". As a prosecutor, it's not his job to ascertain guilt or innocence, but to make a recommendation as to whether to indict.

This makes the hysteria surrounding this worse. It is not Mueller's job to exonerate the president, so his failure to do so in writing should come as no surprise.

For Trump, however, this is "exoneration" in the same sense that anyone would feel exonerated if accused of a crime and it was dismissed / the prosecution declined to indict. We enjoy presumption of innocence, after all. Does anyone reasonably expect Trump, after declaring his innocence, to say, "Well, I believe I'm innocent, but because Mueller didn't so specifically declare, it's still up in the air."?

This post was edited by bogie160 on May 30 2019 07:32am
Member
Posts: 57,901
Joined: Dec 3 2008
Gold: 285.00
#1608
May 30 2019 07:36am
Quote (majorblood @ May 30 2019 07:57am)
what do you want to happen?


Not really personally invested. I honestly don't care. I don't want to be the guy who cheers for BJ impeachments.

Maybe I want Trump supporters here to acknowledge that their guy is truly a piece of shit so that I can address them as equals and men again.

This post was edited by Skinned on May 30 2019 07:37am
Member
Posts: 91,077
Joined: Dec 31 2007
Gold: 2,504.69
#1609
May 30 2019 07:40am
Quote (Skinned @ May 30 2019 07:36am)
Not really personally invested. I honestly don't care. I don't want to be the guy who cheers for BJ impeachments.

Maybe I want Trump supporters here to acknowledge that their guy is truly a piece of shit so that I can address them as equals and men again.


and they know it. they all know that all lefties want that. and that's why they withhold it. you have to trick Trump supporters. best strategy is to just say they support something bad Trump is doing without even mentioning Trump's name, then when they whine u can say they're arguing with Trump, not you.
Member
Posts: 34,257
Joined: Jul 2 2007
Gold: 226.37
#1610
May 30 2019 08:03am
Quote (Skinned @ May 30 2019 08:36am)
Not really personally invested. I honestly don't care. I don't want to be the guy who cheers for BJ impeachments.

Maybe I want Trump supporters here to acknowledge that their guy is truly a piece of shit so that I can address them as equals and men again.


Trump is a compulsive liar and narcissist who has lived a life that would make most of us blush.

But then again, Clinton is a well known rapist, and Hillary is every bit the narcissist (it was her turn!) who has spent a lifetime corrupting our political systems for personal profit. They're just better adjusted to social life.

I don't care about JFK's infidelity or Bill's crimes or Trump's narcissism. I care about trade, foreign policy, immigration, health-care, and the economy.
Go Back To Political & Religious Debate Topic List
Prev1159160161162163173Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll

© 2003-2024 d2jsp  Contact