• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

[W:914,1223] Robert Mueller's report is out

Mr Person said:
That's actually what some people call a logical fallacy.

"No evidence" does NOT mean something did not happen. "No evidence" means you do not have the evidence to prove something happened or even support the idea. But not being able to support a proposition does not logically entail the truth of its opposite.



Example: if A then B.

That means if you find A, B necessarily happens.

It does not mean that if you do not find A, B does not happen. There could be "if X then B" and you don't know about it.





That said, nobody has cause to rely on a statement that there is "no evidence" for a thing in order to prove the proposition that the thing did happen, either. "No evidence" just means "I can't establish the following proposition". I haven't read your exchange. Is one or both of you not playing clean?
Click to expand...

Alright, I will concede that. But continuing to believe A when an exhaustive search turned up no evidence of the existence of A, means you defending an arbitrary assertion. The likelihood that some sort of criminal activity took place between Trump an/or his campaign and the Russians, and Mueller wasnt able to find it, is zero. If I accuse you of a crime for which I have no evidence. That crime is investigated and they find no evidence of your envolvement or even that the crime itself even happened, do you not get to declare yourself innocent of the charge?
 
Mongidig said:
I'm happy for Trump! No President should have to go through this. It's time to start rounding up all those responsible for this failed coup!
Click to expand...

I wouldn't mind the next Democratic President going through the same thing.It would delight me very much.
 
Atomic Kid said:
What if you were protected from being criminally charged with molestation because you happen to be President?
Click to expand...

But thats not the reason Trump wasnt charged. Trump wasnt charged with collusion because Mueller found no evidence of it. As for obstruction, Mueller said “while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.” Everyone is focused on the latter half of that statement and are ignoring the first which is " this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime" Had they made the judgement that Trump obstructed, they would not have written it that way.
 
Fletch said:
But thats not the reason Trump wasnt charged. Trump wasnt charged with collusion because Mueller found no evidence of it. As for obstruction, Mueller said “while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.” Everyone is focused on the latter half of that statement and are ignoring the first which is " this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime" Had they made the judgement that Trump obstructed, they would not have written it that way.
Click to expand...
That is not why Mueller decided to not issue a judgement.

Special Counsel's Report said:
Given the role of the Special Counsel as an attorney in the Department of Justice and the framework of the Special Counsel regulations, see 28 U.S.C. § 515; 28 C.F.R. § 600.7(a), this Office accepted OLC’s legal conclusion for the purpose of exercising prosecutorial jurisdiction. And apart from OLC’s constitutional view, we recognized that a federal criminal accusation against a sitting President would place burdens on the President’s capacity to govern and potentially preempt constitutional processes for addressing presidential misconduct.
Click to expand...

Special Counsel's Report said:
As discussed above, applying obstruction-of-justice statutes to presidential conduct that does not involve the President’s conduct of office—such as influencing the testimony of witnesses—is constitutionally unproblematic.
Click to expand...

They go on to say that it's Congresses job to interpret the presidents conduct, not theirs.
Special Counsel's report said:
... we concluded that in the rare case in which a criminal investigation of the President’s conduct is justified, inquiries to determine whether the President acted for a corrupt motive should not impermissibly chill his performance of his constitutionally assigned duties. The conclusion that Congress may apply the obstruction laws to the President’s corrupt exercise of the powers of office accords with our constitutional system of checks and balances and the principle that no person is above the law.
Click to expand...
 
gulfman said:
I wouldn't mind the next Democratic President going through the same thing.It would delight me very much.
Click to expand...
I hope the next Democratic president does everything that Trump did, only for liberal causes, and absolutely tortures conservatives with their precedents.
 
MovingPictures said:
I hope the next Democratic president does everything that Trump did, only for liberal causes, and absolutely tortures conservatives with their precedents.
Click to expand...

You'd actually need to define what you're trying to interpret as liberal causes. Because there are some pretty terrible possibilities for personal rights violations in that precedence alone.
 
MovingPictures said:
That is not why Mueller decided to not issue a judgement.





They go on to say that it's Congresses job to interpret the presidents conduct, not theirs.
Click to expand...

As the middle cite indicated, there would be no problem applying obstruction of justice to acts that did not fit the president's conduct of office.
In other words, Mueller found nothing.
 
tres borrachos said:
I'm still registered as a Republican so I'm voting for Weld in the NH primary.

The general will be complicated, but if it means casting a vote for the Democrat opposing Trump, at this point I'm going to do it.
Click to expand...

I'd vote for a dead body before I'd vote for Trump.
 
MovingPictures said:
That is not why Mueller decided to not issue a judgement.





They go on to say that it's Congresses job to interpret the presidents conduct, not theirs.
Click to expand...

So If I am in power and ASK you to do something you believe is illegal yet never demand that you do it, what crime have I committed?

A threat is a communicated intent to inflict harm or loss on another person
Click to expand...

What harm was inflicted on those people ASKED to do something?
 
foolardi said:
Absolutely and totally wronged about his Medicare for all health plan.
That would mean those already in Medicare would truly suffer.There would never
be enough money to care for ALL.On it's face,it's almost an Insane approach.
Almost akin to Social Security for all no matter age.
Click to expand...

Total and complete incoherent nonsense. You're clueless and spewing vapid nothings for no real reason.

Go back to PF.
 
ludin said:
show us the criminal charges. one can only be a criminal if charged and convicted.
i will await your evidence and proof.

please try. ol i hope they try.
this report gave them a big goose egg.
Click to expand...

Trump was a criminal before he was elected. You lot don't accept proof, so there's no point providing it.

Sorry.
 
Everyone on both sides are going off of the deep-end,

People on the left had their minds made up before this report, AS did people on the right, and nothing, ANYONE says about ANYTHING is going to change that....ie (Saladin is gonna be Saladin, and Moindig is gonna be Moindig)

But if you objectively look at those 10 instances where Mueller felt there MIGHT be Obstruction,

1. PRESSURE ON COMEY TO END PROBE OF MICHAEL FLYNN - Has anyone OTHER than Comey corroborated this? If not, then it's a matter of interpretation of WHAT was said, and the meaning behind it.

2. RESIDENT’S REACTION TO THE CONTINUING RUSSIA INVESTIGATION - He was angry because he felt nothing warranted it, (he was right in the end, he did nothing wrong, but he was wrong in that nothing warranted it) but to be angry at an investigation you don't think is warranted and to get sniped in the press over everything you do or say, pretty normal.

3. FIRING OF COMEY AND AFTERMATH - Well within his Presidential right, and even the reason HE GAVE, is up for interpretation.

4. APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COUNSEL AND EFFORTS TO REMOVE HIM - This might be legit considering McGann's testimony, but WANTING to be rid of someone and actually doing it, two different things...

5. FURTHER EFFORTS TO CURTAIL THE SPECIAL COUNSEL’s INVESTIGATION - This goes to Lewandoski's testimony about Trump wanting Sessions to say Mueller had conflicts etc, again, wanting, and doing, two different things.

6. EFFORTS TO PREVENT PUBLIC DISCLOSURE OF EVIDENCE - Again, this has merit in the deleting of a line, lying by omission first of all, but again, WANTING stuff to stay private, and it staying, are two different things.

7. ADDITIONAL EFFORTS TO HAVE SESSIONS TAKE CONTROL OF INVESTIGATION - Well ok, yes, he wanted his AG to control the investigation, again, WANTING and DOING separate things.

8. TRUMP ORDERS WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL TO DENY THAT PRESIDENT TRIED TO FIRE MUELLER - Goes back to # 4, they seem to be borne of the same circumstance, probably legit

9. TRUMP’S ACTIONS TOWARD, FLYNN, MANAFORT AND OTHER POSSIBLE WITNESSES - This seems, arbitrary at best, he reached out to Flynn, a guy he liked, and said, he still had warm feelings, that's extremely insidious, right?

10. TRUMP ACTIONS TOWARD MICHAEL COHEN - That's a can of worms, praise to castigation, personal relationships etc, Trump felt betrayed (I am assuming) so he lashed out, kinda human I suppose...


At the end of the day, a lot of #1-#10 is based on WANTING and not ACTIONS......and like I said to begin, people who hate Trump, will look at that list and go OMG he's evil, people who like Trump, will look at that list, and go, meh, nothing there....and the truth is somewhere in the middle...

And nothing will change.
 
Athanasius68 said:
As the middle cite indicated, there would be no problem applying obstruction of justice to acts that did not fit the president's conduct of office.
In other words, Mueller found nothing.
Click to expand...

In other words, you missed the first quote which shows that Mueller accepted the OLC's position that a sitting President may not be prosecuted, which shows that there WOULD be a problem for Mueller to charge a sitting president with obstruction of Justice

this Office accepted OLC’s legal conclusion for the purpose of exercising prosecutorial jurisdiction.

and you missed the third quote which shows the "but"

Congress may apply the obstruction laws to the President’s corrupt exercise of the powers of office accords with our constitutional system of checks and balances and the principle that no person is above the law.
 
Last edited:
Well well well…
No Collusion. Never was...never will be.
No charges of obstruction either. Never happened...never will.

Now the Lefties are clinging to bread crumbs and a waning hope that congress can do something to remove the president that beat Queen Hillary. And who really thought these whiny mobsters were gonna accept defeat? They love to pontify about "morality" and "ethics", while exhibiting the most childish display poor sportsmanship the political ring has ever seen. They are what they appear to be. Spoiled little brats who didn't get their trophy...for losing.

And now for act 2. Saddle up Libbies because it looks like Barr is now coming for your heroes.
 
sjmay said:
Everyone on both sides are going off of the deep-end,

People on the left had their minds made up before this report, AS did people on the right, and nothing, ANYONE says about ANYTHING is going to change that....ie (Saladin is gonna be Saladin, and Moindig is gonna be Moindig)

But if you objectively look at those 10 instances where Mueller felt there MIGHT be Obstruction,

1. PRESSURE ON COMEY TO END PROBE OF MICHAEL FLYNN - Has anyone OTHER than Comey corroborated this? If not, then it's a matter of interpretation of WHAT was said, and the meaning behind it.

2. RESIDENT’S REACTION TO THE CONTINUING RUSSIA INVESTIGATION - He was angry because he felt nothing warranted it, (he was right in the end, he did nothing wrong, but he was wrong in that nothing warranted it) but to be angry at an investigation you don't think is warranted and to get sniped in the press over everything you do or say, pretty normal.

3. FIRING OF COMEY AND AFTERMATH - Well within his Presidential right, and even the reason HE GAVE, is up for interpretation.

4. APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COUNSEL AND EFFORTS TO REMOVE HIM - This might be legit considering McGann's testimony, but WANTING to be rid of someone and actually doing it, two different things...

5. FURTHER EFFORTS TO CURTAIL THE SPECIAL COUNSEL’s INVESTIGATION - This goes to Lewandoski's testimony about Trump wanting Sessions to say Mueller had conflicts etc, again, wanting, and doing, two different things.

6. EFFORTS TO PREVENT PUBLIC DISCLOSURE OF EVIDENCE - Again, this has merit in the deleting of a line, lying by omission first of all, but again, WANTING stuff to stay private, and it staying, are two different things.

7. ADDITIONAL EFFORTS TO HAVE SESSIONS TAKE CONTROL OF INVESTIGATION - Well ok, yes, he wanted his AG to control the investigation, again, WANTING and DOING separate things.

8. TRUMP ORDERS WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL TO DENY THAT PRESIDENT TRIED TO FIRE MUELLER - Goes back to # 4, they seem to be borne of the same circumstance, probably legit

9. TRUMP’S ACTIONS TOWARD, FLYNN, MANAFORT AND OTHER POSSIBLE WITNESSES - This seems, arbitrary at best, he reached out to Flynn, a guy he liked, and said, he still had warm feelings, that's extremely insidious, right?

10. TRUMP ACTIONS TOWARD MICHAEL COHEN - That's a can of worms, praise to castigation, personal relationships etc, Trump felt betrayed (I am assuming) so he lashed out, kinda human I suppose...


At the end of the day, a lot of #1-#10 is based on WANTING and not ACTIONS......and like I said to begin, people who hate Trump, will look at that list and go OMG he's evil, people who like Trump, will look at that list, and go, meh, nothing there....and the truth is somewhere in the middle...

And nothing will change.
Click to expand...

A problem with construing #1-10 as obstruction, is that it exposes all executives, whether it be presidents. governors, mayors, district attornies, who have law enforcement responsibilities, to obstruction of justice claims while exercising their lawful responsibilities.
It's not in the interest of justice for this occur.
 
pamak said:
In other words, you missed the first quote which shows that Mueller accepted the OLC's position that a sitting President may not be prosecuted, which shows that there WOULD be a problem for Mueller to charge a sitting president with obstruction of Justice

this Office accepted OLC’s legal conclusion for the purpose of exercising prosecutorial jurisdiction.

and you missed the third quote which shows the "but"

Congress may apply the obstruction laws to the President’s corrupt exercise of the powers of office accords with our constitutional system of checks and balances and the principle that no person is above the law.
Click to expand...

The problem Mueller had with charging obstruction is that there wss nothing to obstruct. There was no crime, Trump had said this for two years. And he was right.
The president is thus exercising his lawful authority.
No obstruction.
 
tres borrachos said:
But you agree he was not exonerated. And Mueller wanted Congress to decide.

Waste time? You must have been crawling out of your skin with all the time wasted by the Republicans on the Benghazi investigations instead of legislating.

By the way, are you speaking on behalf of all Americans?
Click to expand...

The Benghazi investigation revealed thay even though the embassy and annex had repeatedly requested additional security, they were denied. Revealed that during the attack, those able to render assistance were told not to do so. Revealed that the attack wasnt a protest that got out of hand and was instead a terrorist attack, and that the Obama administration lied to the American people when he sent out his spokespeople to the media to repeat the lie. Pretty much everyhing that was suspected
 
Obscurity said:
Trump was a criminal before he was elected. You lot don't accept proof, so there's no point providing it.

Sorry.
Click to expand...

you have provided 0 evidence where is his conviction and trial as a criminal.
if you want to throw arguments around expect to back them up with required to.

if you can't back up your argument then you seriously don't have one.

you said he was a criminal i asked for proof of conviction.
of a criminal crime.
 
dixon01767 said:
The Benghazi investigation revealed thay even though the embassy and annex had repeatedly requested additional security, they were denied. Revealed that during the attack, those able to render assistance were told not to do so. Revealed that the attack wasnt a protest that got out of hand and was instead a terrorist attack, and that the Obama administration lied to the American people when he sent out his spokespeople to the media to repeat the lie. Pretty much everyhing that was suspected
Click to expand...

They needed 10 investigations to figure that out? LOL

What happened is that the Republicans did not get the results they wanted and tried and failed 10 times. And you think the Muller report was a witch hunt? Hey should the Dems try 9 more times to hopefully sick a collusion charge?
 
Athanasius68 said:
A problem with construing #1-10 as obstruction, is that it exposes all executives, whether it be presidents. governors, mayors, district attornies, who have law enforcement responsibilities, to obstruction of justice claims while exercising their lawful responsibilities.
It's not in the interest of justice for this occur.
Click to expand...

Not true at all, #6 has NOTHING to do with exercising their lawful responsibilities.
 
bomberfox said:
You should learn more about positive claims. Where is the DOJ’s claim? The report itself is what i am concerned with, not your argument from authority fallacy. We just now got the full report.
Click to expand...
Yes you should learn more about positive claims. You are making the claim that a person is not innocent (even though) they have not been convicted.
YOu have provided 0 evidence to support that argument and there are a ton of counters to that argument.

the first counter is

1. You are Innocentt until proven guilty not guilty until your prove yourself innocent.
2. if you are not convicted in a trial then you are "free to go" IE you didn't commit the crime you were accused of.

you seriously do not understand our justice system and how it works.
The full report says excatly what barr said.

there is no evidence that anyone from the trump campaign colluded with Russia.
 
Middleground said:
They needed 10 investigations to figure that out? LOL

What happened is that the Republicans did not get the results they wanted and tried and failed 10 times. And you think the Muller report was a witch hunt? Hey should the Dems try 9 more times to hopefully sick a collusion charge?
Click to expand...

I have no problem wqith investigations seeking the truth. Here we have illigitimate CRIMINAL investigations and covert surveillance of Americans under the ruse of a foreign intelligence investigation.
 
ludin said:
you have provided 0 evidence where is his conviction and trial as a criminal.
if you want to throw arguments around expect to back them up with required to.

if you can't back up your argument then you seriously don't have one.

you said he was a criminal i asked for proof of conviction.
of a criminal crime.
Click to expand...

Trump illegally hired immigrant workers to build Trump Tower. The sole reason he was not criminally tried is because of the statute of limitations. He also illegally refused payments to multiple contractors throughout the construction of many and various buildings he built.

Again. It's all out there for you to see, but we know you won't look.
 
sjmay said:
Everyone on both sides are going off of the deep-end,

People on the left had their minds made up before this report, AS did people on the right, and nothing, ANYONE says about ANYTHING is going to change that....ie (Saladin is gonna be Saladin, and Moindig is gonna be Moindig)

But if you objectively look at those 10 instances where Mueller felt there MIGHT be Obstruction,

1. PRESSURE ON COMEY TO END PROBE OF MICHAEL FLYNN - Has anyone OTHER than Comey corroborated this? If not, then it's a matter of interpretation of WHAT was said, and the meaning behind it..
Click to expand...

??? Comey corroborated the incident AND stated he doesnt believe it was obstruction.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom