• 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!

Do you believe Mueller's findings about the Trump admin/Russia?

Do you believe Mueller's findings about the Trump admin/Russia?

  • Total voters
    80
haymarket said:
It is too early to tell. We must read the final Mueller Report.
Click to expand...

The summary includes direct quotes from your hero Mueller. No collusion, obstruction charges. What else do you want to know?
 
I don't have any reason not to believe it at this point. If evidence comes out that calls it into question I'll re-evaluate.

And it's not at all illogical that Russia independently decided to interfere with the election to help the candidate that they thought would benefit them the most.
 
So far I see no reason to not believe whatever comes out in his report. I believed in Muller's integrity and professionalism from the beginning, and am more than willing to accept his findings. So no, I am not going to attack the man for doing his due diligence, I am a firm believer in Facts. Never said otherwise.
 
Josie said:
Mueller Finds No Trump-Russia Conspiracy but Stops Short of Exonerating President on Obstruction of Justice - The New York Times

WASHINGTON — The investigation led by Robert S. Mueller III found that neither President Trump nor any of his aides conspired or coordinated with the Russian government’s 2016 election interference, according to a summary of the special counsel’s findings made public on Sunday by Attorney General William P. Barr.

Are you surprised that no evidence was found that the Trump administration conspired with the Russians to interfere with the 2016 election? Do you believe it?
Click to expand...

Well, Josie, I believe you have your answer. Contrary to popular claims, the majority well accept what he says.
 
Casper said:
Well, Josie, I believe you have your answer. Contrary to popular claims, the majority well accept what he says.
Click to expand...

What "popular claims"?

And, if you hadn't noticed, there are many people here who aren't believing it, but they have chosen to not vote in the poll.
 
ObamacareFail said:
The summary includes direct quotes from your hero Mueller. No collusion, obstruction charges. What else do you want to know?
Click to expand...

I want to read the report to see if the Barr summary is accurate. Do you have a link to it?
 
I believe that the Trump campaign conspired as much as the Clinton one did. I don't hear any clamoring from the left to find out if they did, so that must mean they don't believe there was any conspiracy either.
 
Excon said:
So clearly you did not read the report, or if you did, did not understand what was said.

Again.

The report makes it clear that you would need an underlying crime to form the intent to obstruct an investigation into it.​

Do you also not understand that the above speaks to the requisite intent that was pointed to in the report?

There was no evidence of an underlying crime. What your reply is suggesting is that he was trying to obstruct for the sole reason to simply obstruct? That is nonsense.
Click to expand...

That is not quite true. You obviously missed a key phrase "and while not determinative". What they were saying was that in this particular case, it had a bearing. However, generally, there does not need to be an underlying crime to be guilty of obstruction.

Obstruction of Justice | Harvey & Binnall, PLLC

The United States judicial system was built on strict standards of ethics and transparency. Obstruction of justice refers to acts that violate those standards. The government aggressively prosecutes obstruction of justice cases, even when it lacks evidence of an underlying crime.
 
We have not seen it so how can anyone know?
 
ObamacareFail said:
You need to read the summary. Mueller did not make any conclusions on obstruction and left that to the Justice Dept. Barr and Rosentstein have already concluded that there is not suffecient evidence to pursue obstruction. It's over. Okay?
Click to expand...

I was not being specific to this case, but for obstruction of justice in general.

Obstruction of Justice | Harvey & Binnall, PLLC

The United States judicial system was built on strict standards of ethics and transparency. Obstruction of justice refers to acts that violate those standards. The government aggressively prosecutes obstruction of justice cases, even when it lacks evidence of an underlying crime.
 
Airyaman said:
That is not quite true. You obviously missed a key phrase "and while not determinative". What they were saying was that in this particular case, it had a bearing. However, generally, there does not need to be an underlying crime to be guilty of obstruction.

Obstruction of Justice | Harvey & Binnall, PLLC

The United States judicial system was built on strict standards of ethics and transparency. Obstruction of justice refers to acts that violate those standards. The government aggressively prosecutes obstruction of justice cases, even when it lacks evidence of an underlying crime.
Click to expand...
:lamo:doh

No I haven't missed any relevant phrase.

All you are doing is showing you do not understand what was written in the report. They even lay it out for you.

As pointed out to another.

Excon said:
All that means is that Mueller was not able to determine if a crime had been committed.
[...]
Maybe you should take off the partisan blinders and read the below part to get a better understanding.


The Special Counsel's decision to describe the facts of his obstruction investigation without reaching any legal conclusions leaves it the Attorney General to determine whether the conduct described in the report constitutes a crime. Over the course of the investigation, the Special Counsel's office engaged in discussions with certain Department officials regarding many of the legal and factual matters at issue in the Special Counsel's obstruction investigation. After reviewing the Special Counsel's final report on these issues; consulting with Department officials, including the Office of Legal Counsel; and applying the principles of federal prosecution that guide our charging decisions. Deputy Attorney Rod Rosenstein and I have concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel's investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense. Our determination was made without regard to, and is not based on, the constitutional considerations that surround the indictment and criminal prosecution of a a sitting president.[SUP]2[/SUP]

In making this determination, we noted that the Special Counsel recognized that "the evidence does not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference," and that, while not determinative, the absence of such evidence bears upon the President's intent with respect to obstruction. Generally speaking, to obtain and sustain an obstruction conviction, the government would need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a person, actin with corrupt intent, engaged in obstructive conduct with a sufficient nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding. In cataloguing the President's actions, many of which took place in public view, the report identifies no actions that, in our judgement, constitute obstructive conduct, had a nexus to to a pending or contemplated proceeding, and were done with corrupt intent, each of which, under the Department's principles of federal prosecution guiding charging decisions, would need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to establish an obstruction-of-justice offense.

Link​
Click to expand...
 
Josie said:
Mueller Finds No Trump-Russia Conspiracy but Stops Short of Exonerating President on Obstruction of Justice - The New York Times

WASHINGTON — The investigation led by Robert S. Mueller III found that neither President Trump nor any of his aides conspired or coordinated with the Russian government’s 2016 election interference, according to a summary of the special counsel’s findings made public on Sunday by Attorney General William P. Barr.

Are you surprised that no evidence was found that the Trump administration conspired with the Russians to interfere with the 2016 election? Do you believe it?
Click to expand...

????? How can anyone possibly answer that question without having seen it? You're jumping the gun by a long shot.
 
Atomic Kid said:
????? How can anyone possibly answer that question without having seen it? You're jumping the gun by a long shot.
Click to expand...

It's a direct quote from Mueller's report (last sentence):

Screenshot (134).jpg
 
ObamacareFail said:
You need to read the summary. Mueller did not make any conclusions on obstruction and left that to the Justice Dept. Barr and Rosentstein have already concluded that there is not suffecient evidence to pursue obstruction. It's over. Okay?
Click to expand...

Did Mueller explicitly say that he would be leaving that to Barr and Rosenstein? Maybe he intended that question to be adjudicated by Congress and the American people.
 
haymarket said:
I want to read the report.
Click to expand...

You can't. And even if you could, you'd find a reason to not believe it. It's over, haymarket. Trump won the 2016 election legitimately.
 
Atomic Kid said:
That's not Mueller's report. Let us see the report and then we can answer the question. Capish?
Click to expand...

"Capish"? LOL!

You can't see Mueller's report. Now what? You're just going to refuse to believe anything in Barr's report because it's not the outcome you wanted?
 
Josie said:
What "popular claims"?

And, if you hadn't noticed, there are many people here who aren't believing it, but they have chosen to not vote in the poll.
Click to expand...

If one does not voice their opinion.....it does not count.
The popular claims are obvious, open your own eyes, what do the two sides claim as to the opinion of the People? Does either sides agenda drive you, do you do your own due diligence and discover the facts as they are and form your own Opinion? Food for Thought before I move on, it is harder to chose ones own path than just follow the herd, but it can be far more satisfying. Life is choices, one after another, only you can truly make them, the paths you follow are all your choice as is to whom you are. Chose to have a Great Day tomorrow, you probably will, long as you demand it.
Moving on....
 
Last edited:
Of course I believe it. When he was appointed he was touted as the ultimate, impartial, dedicated public servant. To even question his appointment brought tsunamis of criticism from the dedicated leftists on line. We were PROMISED Mueller would cut through the bull****, find the truth and punish the guilty (meaning Trump, of course).
 
Excon said:
:lamo:doh

No I haven't missed any relevant phrase.

All you are doing is showing you do not understand what was written in the report. They even lay it out for you.

As pointed out to another.

​
Click to expand...

You just quoted it:

In making this determination, we noted that the Special Counsel recognized that "the evidence does not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference," and that, while not determinative, the absence of such evidence bears upon the President's intent with respect to obstruction.

In other words, by itself, the lack of an underlying crime in and of itself was not determinative. However, they appear to have felt that it was a part of the reason they decided not to charge him, in conjunction with the other reasons they laid out.
 
Josie said:
"Capish"? LOL!

You can't see Mueller's report. Now what? You're just going to refuse to believe anything in Barr's report because it's not the outcome you wanted?
Click to expand...

That's what you think. The American people want to see the report. After all they payed for it in more ways than one. Congress voted 420 to 0 to release. I think AG Barr is smart and politically astute enough to jump out of the way of the train that is coming down the track straight at him. One way or another this report is going to have to come out or there will be hell to pay.
 
Josie said:
Mueller Finds No Trump-Russia Conspiracy but Stops Short of Exonerating President on Obstruction of Justice - The New York Times

WASHINGTON — The investigation led by Robert S. Mueller III found that neither President Trump nor any of his aides conspired or coordinated with the Russian government’s 2016 election interference, according to a summary of the special counsel’s findings made public on Sunday by Attorney General William P. Barr.

Are you surprised that no evidence was found that the Trump administration conspired with the Russians to interfere with the 2016 election? Do you believe it?
Click to expand...

Yes, I believe the bolded.

No, I don't believe Barr's summary is sufficient. I still have a lot of unanswered questions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom