International Skeptics Forum

International Skeptics Forum (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumindex.php)
-   USA Politics (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=6)
-   -   Mueller Investigation pt 7 (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=338554)

The Great Zaganza 30th August 2019 02:00 AM

Mueller Investigation pt 7
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf (Post 12803283)
He didn't wash his hands of it, he gave a comprehensive report on the affair.

... and then wanted to be never asked about it again

But as a former Prosecutor and Director of the FBI, he should aim beyond the bare minimum of telling his superior about a problem that he himself identified as of National Security, i.e. election interference.

Mod InfoContinued from here. You can quote or reply to any (on topic) posts from that thread here.
Posted By:kmortis

PhantomWolf 30th August 2019 03:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza (Post 12803310)
... and then wanted to be never asked about it again

Because he gave a comprehensive report that answered all the questions and the only response he can give is, "It's in the report."

Quote:

But as a former Prosecutor and Director of the FBI, he should aim beyond the bare minimum of telling his superior about a problem that he himself identified as of National Security, i.e. election interference.
He's not acting as a former Prosecutor and Director of the FBI, he's acting as a Special Counsel, and as such he is bound by the laws that say he must give his report to the USAG, and anything else has to be done with consideration to "the generally applicable Departmental guidelines concerning public comment with respect to any criminal investigation, and relevant law."

This is the thing, he isn't bound to your expectations, but to what he was legally required and then able to do. He doesn't have the ability to go around talking about it even if he wanted to because of the legal issues in that when speaking about the Report and investigation he is representing the DoJ and is bound by their rules.

Just because you expect something doesn't make it correct for him to do, or even legal. The issue is your expectations, not his actions.

jadebox 30th August 2019 04:46 AM

Quote:

What else is he supposed to do? If he had anything else to say, he would have put it in the report. The report is his testimony and that's all anyone can compel him to give.
What he is supposed to do is to answer the questions. We don't know that anything else he would need to say would have been in the report. That's one reason to call him to testify.

As a prosecutor, I don't think Mueller would have let a suspect or witness decide that they were only going to give answers that they would read from a specific book.

smartcooky 30th August 2019 04:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim (Post 12803301)
No, I brought this up while I was watching the testimony live - this is how people interpreted what he said, but I think the more accurate interpretation of what he said was that a sitting president could be prosecuted for crimes committed during the presidency once they had left office.

There was quite lengthy conversation about it in this thread at the time, if you want to go back and look.

I saw that, I still disagree

NADLER: Is it correct that if you had concluded that the president committed the crime of obstruction, you could not publicly state that in your report or here today?

MUELLER: Well, I would say you could -- the statement would be to -- that you would not indict, and you would not indict because under the OLC opinion a sitting president -- excuse me -- cannot be indicted. It would be unconstitutional.

NADLER: So you could not state that because of the OLC opinion, if that would have been your conclusion.

MUELLER: OLC opinion was some guide, yes.

NADLER: But under DOJ -- under Department of Justice policy, the president could be prosecuted for obstruction of justice crimes after he leaves office, correct?

MUELLER: True.
"the president", NOT, "a sitting president"

The Great Zaganza 30th August 2019 04:55 AM

It's not just my expectations, Mueller himself has expressed his dismay at the level of Election Interference past and ongoing.
But it doesn't look like he is going to do something about it beyond kicking it up the Chain, where he knows nothing will be done about it as a matter of policy.

Belz... 30th August 2019 04:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza (Post 12803422)
It's not just my expectations, Mueller himself has expressed his dismay at the level of Election Interference past and ongoing.
But it doesn't look like he is going to do something about it beyond kicking it up the Chain, where he knows nothing will be done about it as a matter of policy.

What would you have him do?

PhantomWolf 30th August 2019 04:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jadebox (Post 12803410)
What he is supposed to do is to answer the questions.

He did answer the questions. You just don't like the answers

Quote:

We don't know that anything else he would need to say would have been in the report. That's one reason to call him to testify.
He stated multiple times that everything he had to say on the matter was in the report and that it should be considered his testimony. What is it you don't get about that?

Quote:

As a prosecutor, I don't think Mueller would have let a suspect or witness decide that they were only going to give answers that they would read from a specific book.
What exactly do you think he could have done about if a witness had referred back to a document in evidence as his testimony? Do you think that Prosecutors have some sort of magical power that make people say the things they want them too?

PhantomWolf 30th August 2019 05:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza (Post 12803422)
It's not just my expectations, Mueller himself has expressed his dismay at the level of Election Interference past and ongoing.
But it doesn't look like he is going to do something about it beyond kicking it up the Chain, where he knows nothing will be done about it as a matter of policy.

And what should he do? He's detailed the issue and sounded the alarm, he told the congressional hearing what the danger is. Should he put on his super tights and single handedly beat Moscow Mitch into submission until he is willing to let the legislation go to the floor for a vote?

This is the thing, you are creating expectations for him out of thin air and then lambasting him for failing to achieve those expectations. It's unfair and unskeptical.

The Great Zaganza 30th August 2019 05:12 AM

I don't think it's unfair or unskeptical - the job of an investigator isn't done once and for all when he hands in his report; he also has to be willing to assist investigations resulting from his work - something that required a subpoena for Mueller to do.
In all fairness, Mueller is doing less than the bare minimum.

Squeegee Beckenheim 30th August 2019 05:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 12803413)
I saw that, I still disagree

NADLER: Is it correct that if you had concluded that the president committed the crime of obstruction, you could not publicly state that in your report or here today?

MUELLER: Well, I would say you could -- the statement would be to -- that you would not indict, and you would not indict because under the OLC opinion a sitting president -- excuse me -- cannot be indicted. It would be unconstitutional.

NADLER: So you could not state that because of the OLC opinion, if that would have been your conclusion.

MUELLER: OLC opinion was some guide, yes.

NADLER: But under DOJ -- under Department of Justice policy, the president could be prosecuted for obstruction of justice crimes after he leaves office, correct?

MUELLER: True.
"the president", NOT, "a sitting president"

Yes, but it still doesn't imply what you're inferring from it. It's like being asked the question "could the president take a trip to England after he leaves office?" The answer can be "yes" without implying that he has the motivation to. Here I believe Mueller was saying that it would be within DOJ guidelines for the president to be prosecuted for obstruction of justice once he's left office, not giving a concession that those are crimes that he has committed. In other words, I think there's an implied "if he is found to have committed such crimes" in Mueller's "true".

This is borne out by the fact that several times during the testimony he said that he never reached a conclusion as to whether or not Trump had committed obstruction of justice - that he specifically declined to reach a conclusion about that. I think it's a mistake to take this one interpretation of this one statement in isolation and ignore everything else that he has ever said on the matter, including during the same testimony. Including, in fact, in the portion of the testimony that you posted.

The Great Zaganza 30th August 2019 05:26 AM

My core problem with Mueller is that he pretends to be non-political when clearly he is. I wouldn't mind so much if he didn't act like he had no choice but to avoid all litigation against the White House or Trump Campaign.

Belz... 30th August 2019 05:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf (Post 12803432)
And what should he do? He's detailed the issue and sounded the alarm, he told the congressional hearing what the danger is. Should he put on his super tights and single handedly beat Moscow Mitch into submission until he is willing to let the legislation go to the floor for a vote?

I'd pay to see that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza (Post 12803452)
My core problem with Mueller is that he pretends to be non-political when clearly he is.

Sorry, how is he political?

PhantomWolf 30th August 2019 06:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza (Post 12803439)
I don't think it's unfair or unskeptical - the job of an investigator isn't done once and for all when he hands in his report; he also has to be willing to assist investigations resulting from his work - something that required a subpoena for Mueller to do.
In all fairness, Mueller is doing less than the bare minimum.

You are just plain wrong here. A Special Counsel's job is over once the Report is handed over to the USAG. It's not the SC's job to prosecute or help with prosecution. That is the DoJ's job. You need to read up on the requirements and rules for the Special Counsel instead of making stuff up out of thin air.

wareyin 30th August 2019 06:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Belz...
Quote:

Originally Posted by wareyin
In this case, it did.

In this case the failure is yours. It's quite clear.

In this case, there are only 2-3 of you claiming it is clear, which is a minority among those of us on this forum that agree Trump committed perjury. We even have a lawyer (iirc?) being lectured by Squeegee (who doesn't practice law iirc) about how to parse this "clear" testimony by Mueller. Face it, Mueller was not anywhere near as clear as he could have been.

Belz... 30th August 2019 07:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wareyin (Post 12803510)
In this case, there are only 2-3 of you claiming it is clear, which is a minority among those of us on this forum that agree Trump committed perjury.

Do I need to remind you that appeal to popularity is a fallacy?

Quote:

Face it, Mueller was not anywhere near as clear as he could have been.
Sure, he could've shouted TRUMP IS A LIAR AND A TRAITOR while writing it on a chalkboard, but that's only for the benefit of people who can't reat the report and understand what it says.

wareyin 30th August 2019 07:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Belz... (Post 12803543)
Do I need to remind you that appeal to popularity is a fallacy?

Not when we are discussing how clear a description or communication is.

PhantomWolf 30th August 2019 07:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wareyin (Post 12803510)
In this case, there are only 2-3 of you claiming it is clear, which is a minority among those of us on this forum that agree Trump committed perjury. We even have a lawyer (iirc?) being lectured by Squeegee (who doesn't practice law iirc) about how to parse this "clear" testimony by Mueller. Face it, Mueller was not anywhere near as clear as he could have been.

He was exactly as clear as he should have been, He wasn't there to make conclusions about the facts, but to deliver the facts.

The facts are that some of Trump's answers under oath were not consistent with other evidence. But that doesn't mean that he committed Perjury.

Mueller saying that Trump committed perjury would have been his making a conclusion and accusing a sitting president of a crime that could not be defended in court. It simply was never going to happen, and nor should it have happened.

wareyin 30th August 2019 07:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf (Post 12803564)
He was exactly as clear as he should have been, He wasn't there to make conclusions about the facts, but to deliver the facts.

The facts are that some of Trump's answers under oath were not consistent with other evidence. But that doesn't mean that he committed Perjury.

Mueller saying that Trump committed perjury would have been his making a conclusion and accusing a sitting president of a crime that could not be defended in court. It simply was never going to happen, and nor should it have happened.

Thank you. I'll notch you down in the "Mueller did not clearly state Trump committed perjury" column. So this leaves us with Squeegee and Belz... as the only participants who seem to think Mueller did clearly state such.

Belz... 30th August 2019 07:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wareyin (Post 12803559)
Not when we are discussing how clear a description or communication is.

It's no less a fallacy here. Whether or not I am a minority is completely irrelevant unless we're taking a vote, which we're not, and were you in the minority you wouldn't think it relevant, either.

Belz... 30th August 2019 07:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wareyin (Post 12803571)
Thank you. I'll notch you down in the "Mueller did not clearly state Trump committed perjury" column. So this leaves us with Squeegee and Belz... as the only participants who seem to think Mueller did clearly state such.

I never said that he stated this. I said that he was being very clear where others said he was vague, including yourself.

The discussion is whether Mueller should have said more or whether he should say that Trump committed perjury. He was very clear about exactly what the facts are. I'm pretty much exactly where PhantomWolf is.

Squeegee Beckenheim 30th August 2019 08:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wareyin (Post 12803510)
We even have a lawyer (iirc?) being lectured by Squeegee (who doesn't practice law iirc) about how to parse this "clear" testimony by Mueller.

I have no idea what you're talking about, but I do wish you'd stop trying to start fights between me and other posters.

wareyin 30th August 2019 09:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Belz... (Post 12803585)
It's no less a fallacy here. Whether or not I am a minority is completely irrelevant unless we're taking a vote, which we're not, and were you in the minority you wouldn't think it relevant, either.

Bollocks. If one person out of 100 (for example) claims something is clear while the other 99 disagree, then that one doesn't get to tell everyone else that they're wrong. As you are attempting to do. At best, it's clear to you but as you go on to state later, it wasn't even clear to you. You're just arguing for the sake of arguing now.

wareyin 30th August 2019 09:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim (Post 12803621)
I have no idea what you're talking about, but I do wish you'd stop trying to start fights between me and other posters.

I'm not rising to your bait. If you can't figure out which poster you are lecturing this time, it's your own fault.

PhantomWolf 30th August 2019 04:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wareyin (Post 12803571)
Thank you. I'll notch you down in the "Mueller did not clearly state Trump committed perjury" column. So this leaves us with Squeegee and Belz... as the only participants who seem to think Mueller did clearly state such.

No you can just leave me out of it.

I think he was very clear in what he said as to the matter, and I understand Squeegee and Belz's position, that his being clear in giving the facts, it could very possibly lead to the conclusion that Trump committed perjury by being untruthful under oath in his written answers. In the same way Mueller didn't say that Trump had obstructed Justice, but the evidence he laid out does strongly lead to a conclusion of him having done so.

Now yes, because Mueller didn't take those facts and create a conclusion there is always the ability to say, well yeah there is evidence, but that doesn't mean he actually did it. But to do so really ignores the bulk of the evidence.

It's like saying we have the following facts:

(a) Bob told people that he hated Jeff and he was going to kill him.
(b) Bob purchased a gun and ammo
(c) Bob was seen by multiple people entering Jeff's office while carrying the gun
(d) Multiple people heard gunshots coming from Jeff's office after Bob entered
(e) Bob was then seen running from the office still holding the gun
(f) Jeff was found dead in his office
(g) The cause of Jeff's death was determined to be blood loss and trauma from multiple bullet wounds
(h) The rifling on bullets recovered from Jeff's body and office matched that on bullets later test fired from Bob's gun.

Did Bob kill Jeff?

Simply giving those facts clearly is not an accusation of murder, but taken together, the evidence if pretty overwhelming that Bob did indeed commit murder. Of course it is also microscopically possible that Bob took the gun into the office and handed to Jeff, who them used it to commit suicide, and Bob's defense and supporters might even argue that, but does that change that the facts for murder were clearly given?

Belz... 30th August 2019 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wareyin (Post 12803716)
Bollocks. If one person out of 100 (for example) claims something is clear while the other 99 disagree, then that one doesn't get to tell everyone else that they're wrong.

They absolutely do. Being numerous does not make someone correct. Maybe those 99 just don't understand the English language very well.

I suppose that's one meaning of "unclear", but then one that's on the listener.

Quote:

At best, it's clear to you but as you go on to state later, it wasn't even clear to you.
That's a lie. I never said that.

Quote:

You're just arguing for the sake of arguing now.
No, you're just wrong. I know it's a difficult concept to grasp, and not wanting to admit it, you want to find a way to blame it on me.

PhantomWolf 30th August 2019 06:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wareyin (Post 12803716)
Bollocks. If one person out of 100 (for example) claims something is clear while the other 99 disagree, then that one doesn't get to tell everyone else that they're wrong.

So if one person said that it was clear that the Earth was a globe, and the other 99 claimed that they were wrong, it's flat, then the one isn't right? I believe that there is a fallacy here somewhere....

Belz... 30th August 2019 06:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf (Post 12804154)
So if one person said that it was clear that the Earth was a globe, and the other 99 claimed that they were wrong, it's flat, then the one isn't right? I believe that there is a fallacy here somewhere....

I believe wareyin is saying that since it's a matter of understanding, and not of facts, popularity is not a fallacy.

However, I think we've amply demonstrated that the "unclearness" of Mueller's testimony is simply due to reality not matching these posters' expectations.

wareyin 30th August 2019 07:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf (Post 12804154)
So if one person said that it was clear that the Earth was a globe, and the other 99 claimed that they were wrong, it's flat, then the one isn't right? I believe that there is a fallacy here somewhere....

The claim was that when discussing how clear a description or communication is, numbers do matter.

Let's go back to the origin of this particular argument, shall we? Squeegee stated: "You don't have to "read between the lines" to recognise that Mueller accused Trump of perjury, or that he wasn't exonerated."

I responded that it wasn't as clear as that. Squeegee attempted to prove Mueller clearly accused Trump of perjury by quoted several back and forth exchanges from Mueller's testimony which do not amount to a clear accusation.

Lots of back and forth among many posters occurred, with the general consensus being that Mueller did not accuse Trump of perjury whether because he couldn't, he didn't want to appear partisan, or what-have you. Squeegee claims I was only making assertions and not arguments (as though proving the negative of his claims was my responsibility) and drops out.

At this point, Belz... jumps in to defend Squeegee that it was my mistake, and Mueller was clear in his accusation. At no point has anyone been able to provide a clear accusation or claim of perjury. Yet Belz... is quite adamant that Mueller was clear in his accusations, and the fault in not seeing that is mine. We have 2 posters who originally claimed the accusations were clear, and we have far more than 2 arguing that not only was there no clear accusation, Mueller was unable to give one. Of course at this point, Squeegee has stopped making the claim and Belz... is arguing for the sake of argument again.

So we do not even have one person out of all participants arguing that there was a clear accusation of perjury. We at best only had one, maybe 2 arguing that there was. If only 1 or 2 people out of a group can understand your description, you didn't provide a clear description.

wareyin 30th August 2019 07:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Belz... (Post 12804157)
I believe wareyin is saying that since it's a matter of understanding, and not of facts, popularity is not a fallacy.

However, I think we've amply demonstrated that the "unclearness" of Mueller's testimony is simply due to reality not matching these posters' expectations.

Which posters? The posters that I was arguing with who claimed there was a clear accusation of perjury? (that would be Squeegee originally, then you)
Or the general consensus now among posters (including you, apparently) that Mueller did not clearly accuse Trump of perjury?

Squeegee Beckenheim 31st August 2019 12:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wareyin (Post 12803717)
I'm not rising to your bait. If you can't figure out which poster you are lecturing this time, it's your own fault.

O..kay...

Belz... 31st August 2019 02:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wareyin (Post 12804198)
Which posters?

...the ones who expected Mueller to say Trump had committed perjury.

Dude, we were just talking about that. Pay attention, for pete's sake.

Quote:

The posters that I was arguing with who claimed there was a clear accusation of perjury? (that would be Squeegee originally, then you)
Quote me.

Quote:

Or the general consensus now among posters (including you, apparently) that Mueller did not clearly accuse Trump of perjury?
I suggest you go back and read the exchanges again because I think we lost you somewhere.

thaiboxerken 31st August 2019 08:33 PM

Mueller played within the rules he was given and also played the "be as non-partisan as can be" role too much. He was trying his best to not make this seem a witch-hunt, which is was not. Because of this, Mueller's investigation produced no immediate actions.
By doing this, he was unlike Ken Starr, who was on a witch-hunt and was partisan AF. Starr's tactics produced an impeachment for a process crime.

Belz... 1st September 2019 02:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken (Post 12804989)
Mueller played within the rules he was given and also played the "be as non-partisan as can be" role too much. He was trying his best to not make this seem a witch-hunt, which is was not. Because of this, Mueller's investigation produced no immediate actions.

That's on Congress, not Mueller.

I'm sorry that the special prosecutor wasn't the saviour of America that many would have wanted him to be, but it was never going to be the case that he would slay the dragon for us.

thaiboxerken 1st September 2019 03:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Belz... (Post 12805019)
That's on Congress, not Mueller.

I'm sorry that the special prosecutor wasn't the saviour of America that many would have wanted him to be, but it was never going to be the case that he would slay the dragon for us.

Congress shares the blame, yes. However, if Mueller wanted to, he could have gone full Ken Starr and made it very hard for Congress not to pursue impeachment.

quadraginta 1st September 2019 08:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken (Post 12805026)
Congress shares the blame, yes. However, if Mueller wanted to, he could have gone full Ken Starr and made it very hard for Congress not to pursue impeachment.


Starr got the job because he was an attack dog.

Mueller got the job because he wasn't.

PhantomWolf 1st September 2019 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken (Post 12805026)
Congress shares the blame, yes. However, if Mueller wanted to, he could have gone full Ken Starr and made it very hard for Congress not to pursue impeachment.

Not really, the rules got changed after Starr exactly because Starr did what he did.

thaiboxerken 1st September 2019 07:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf (Post 12805367)
Not really, the rules got changed after Starr exactly because Starr did what he did.

I don't think so. I think Mueller was hamstrung from the beginning because Republicans would only agree to an independent investigation as long as it had no teeth. I also still believe Mueller could have done more than he did.

PhantomWolf 1st September 2019 08:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken (Post 12805530)
I don't think so. I think Mueller was hamstrung from the beginning because Republicans would only agree to an independent investigation as long as it had no teeth. I also still believe Mueller could have done more than he did.

The report has plenty of teeth. It's up to Congress to use them, which they seem to be rather slow to do so, though a lot of the house are certainly talking towards that with well over half the Democrats now openly calling for impeachment.

thaiboxerken 1st September 2019 08:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf (Post 12805552)
The report has plenty of teeth. It's up to Congress to use them, which they seem to be rather slow to do so, though a lot of the house are certainly talking towards that with well over half the Democrats now openly calling for impeachment.

Enough teeth for reasonable people, but not enough to shame Trumpublicans into doing the right thing.

PhantomWolf 1st September 2019 11:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken (Post 12805555)
Enough teeth for reasonable people, but not enough to shame Trumpublicans into doing the right thing.

Nothing was going to be enough to that. Mueller testified that the Russians were attacking the US as he spoke, and that they were planning to interfere in the Elections in 2020, and other countries were developing the techniques to do the same. He couldn't have been more clear or forceful in his message. And the reaction of Moscow Mitch? The very next day, he blocked legislation that would have given Federal help to the States to combat any such attacks.

Mueller could have jumped on the table and screamed that Trump was as guilty as sin and the Trumpublicans would still being ignoring it. Blaming him because they refuse to accept the bleeding obvious is targeting the wrong person.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:51 AM.

Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2015-19, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.