Quote (fender @ Jul 25 2019 03:22pm)

@RepTedLieu explains 3 elements of obstruction of justice, Mueller confirms Trump met all 3. Then:@tedlieu: "The reason... you did not indict Donald Trump is because of OLC opinion stating that you cannot indict a sitting president, correct?"

Mueller: "That is correct."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K459NBUK_GU

could it be any clearer? whoever claims trump is 'innocent' or 'exonerated by the report' is clearly delusional...

Quote (Black XistenZ @ Jul 26 2019 01:07am)

He simply has no clue about the term or concept of "probability". He confuses the observed realization/outcome of a random variable (which for the case of a binary variable is either 0 or 1, win or lose, 100% or 0%, etc.) with the probability that this random variable will take on a particular value before it is realized/before the "random experiment is carried out".

Simple example: A flipped (nonrigged) coin will either be heads or tails (or land on the side of the coin), but before you flip the coin, you dont know which outcome you will get.

Same story with elections: at the booth, each voter will vote for precisely one of the candidates on the ballot (if he doesnt fuck up...), but we as the bystanders dont know beforehand which candidate will receive how many votes/win the particular race. This obviously doesnt mean that we are entirely clueless about the outcome - for example, even in absence of further information, we know that the GOP candidate is more likely to win a race in rural Alabama than the Democratic candidate.

Probabilities are, in a certain sense, the language with which these differences are formalized and expressed.
And finally, statistical election models try to produce estimated probabilities which are as close to the underlying true but unknown probability as possible. They do so by looking at historical experience about how elections play out coupled with recent polling data for the particular race.

Quote (Black XistenZ @ 25 Jul 2019 17:49)

Quoted for added visibility. This statement from Mueller's testimony in the morning session was in direct contradiction to what his own, official report said, and he corrected this wrong testimony at the beginning of the 2nd session.
But nice to see how the bloodhounds immediately sunk their teeth in this accidental and wrong testimony.

Quote (Black XistenZ @ 25 Jul 2019 23:49)

Quoted for added visibility. This statement from Mueller's testimony in the morning session was in direct contradiction to what his own, official report said, and he corrected this wrong testimony at the beginning of the 2nd session.
But nice to see how the bloodhounds immediately sunk their teeth in this accidental and wrong testimony.

Quote (thesnipa @ 25 Jul 2019 23:56)

https://twitter.com/RepDougCollins/status/1154084655739670528

so mueller balked on that statement. any comment?

Quote (fender @ 25 Jul 2019 23:42)

wrong, he did what he already explained countless times during this whole probe, and what the hacks and the propaganda victims both misinterpret as 'proof positive of trump's innocence': he went with his 'that's not the correct way to SAY it, insisting that he personally did not draw a conclusion concerning crime or not in the report (again, he already explained multiple times that would seem like an indictment without indicting, and he thinks he's not allowed to do that due to the controversial OLC rule).

notice how he did NOT walk back the confirmation of trump fulfilling all three parts necessary for obstruction. so what republican hacks are spinning as 'walkback' of one of the most damning and obviously threatening parts to their narrative, is really just mueller getting back on message about his role, realising how putting all his findings in context can only lead to one logical conclusion.

it's so funny how you people immediately went to the official republican narrative without even questioning it. someone playing strictly by the rules, like mueller, apparently makes you completely blind to the nuances and logical conclusions of what they are saying. when they don't blurt it out in braindead, unsophisticated slogans at rallies, you don't really understand it, do you?

i mean it's not like the cases actually described in detail in part 2 of the report leave any doubt about trump's guilt - at least if you actually looked into it and didn't copy paste your 'opinion' directly from fox 'news'...

Quote (fender @ Jul 25 2019 05:42pm)

wrong, he did what he already explained countless times during this whole probe, and what the hacks and the propaganda victims both misinterpret as 'proof positive of trump's innocence': he went with his 'that's not the correct way to SAY it, insisting that he personally did not draw a conclusion concerning crime or not in the report (again, he already explained multiple times that would seem like an indictment without indicting, and he thinks he's not allowed to do that due to the controversial OLC rule).

notice how he did NOT walk back the confirmation of trump fulfilling all three parts necessary for obstruction. so what republican hacks are spinning as 'walkback' of one of the most damning and obviously threatening parts to their narrative, is really just mueller getting back on message about his role, realising how putting all his findings in context can only lead to one logical conclusion.

it's so funny how you people immediately went to the official republican narrative without even questioning it. someone playing strictly by the rules, like mueller, apparently makes you completely blind to the nuances and logical conclusions of what they are saying. when they don't blurt it out in braindead, unsophisticated slogans at rallies, you don't really understand it, do you?

i mean it's not like the cases actually described in detail in part 2 of the report leave any doubt about trump's guilt - at least if you actually looked into it and didn't copy paste your 'opinion' directly from fox 'news'...

Quote (bogie160 @ Jul 26 2019 12:19am)

Mueller stated specifically to the Attorney General that he was not reaching "no decision" because of OLC precedent.

That is just what he told the AG of the United States. Was he lying? No clue. If he was, he can hardly be trusted, if he wasn't, your argument falls apart at face value.

Ironic though that Mueller, to you, is beyond reproach. Every other word out of your mouth is about corrupt American officials trying to start criminal wars.

Quote (bogie160 @ 26 Jul 2019 06:19)

Mueller stated specifically to the Attorney General that he was not reaching "no decision" because of OLC precedent.

That is just what he told the AG of the United States. Was he lying? No clue. If he was, he can hardly be trusted, if he wasn't, your argument falls apart at face value.

Ironic though that Mueller, to you, is beyond reproach. Every other word out of your mouth is about corrupt American officials trying to start criminal wars.

Quote

Quote (fender @ Jul 26 2019 04:06am)

you might want to read my post again, because it does not contradict that at all. he doesn't officially reach a decision because that would be 'unfair' since he can't charge it.

he explained that in his press conference on june 29th:

and THAT'S what he clarified. that does NOT change the fact that he clearly laid out in his report (and confirmed during the hearings, not at all 'walked back' with his later clarification of his testimony) that trump' behaviour met all the required criteria for obstruction. all he's saying is that it's not HIS decision to make because he couldn't charge it anyway. he clearly hints that it's congress' task to make that determination.

i mean seriously, how daft can you be? is it that you just don't WANT to understand it? it's really not THAT complicated

Quote (Ghot @ Jul 26 2019 04:45am)

Dude, you need to seek help. You have put more energy into seeing trump hanged, than even the Dems have. Gotta ask yourself why.
I mean the Dems are seriously messed up at this point in history, but at least the have a horse in the race. You don't, yet still come unglued about this.