|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
30th August 2019, 02:00 AM | #1 | ||
Maledictorian
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 22,557
|
Mueller Investigation pt 7
... 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.
|
||
__________________
“Don’t blame me. I voted for Kodos.” |
|||
30th August 2019, 03:03 AM | #2 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 21,203
|
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:
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. |
__________________
It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871) |
|
30th August 2019, 04:46 AM | #3 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 2,870
|
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. |
30th August 2019, 04:47 AM | #4 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 25,305
|
I saw that, I still disagree
"the president", NOT, "a sitting president" |
__________________
If you're not a scientist but you think you've destroyed the foundation of a vast scientific edifice with 10 minutes of Googling, you might want to consider the possibility that you're wrong. Its TRE45ON season... convict the F45CIST!! |
|
30th August 2019, 04:55 AM | #5 |
Maledictorian
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 22,557
|
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. |
__________________
“Don’t blame me. I voted for Kodos.” |
|
30th August 2019, 04:58 AM | #6 |
Fiend God
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 96,875
|
|
30th August 2019, 04:59 AM | #7 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 21,203
|
He did answer the questions. You just don't like the answers
Quote:
Quote:
|
__________________
It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871) |
|
30th August 2019, 05:03 AM | #8 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 21,203
|
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. |
__________________
It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871) |
|
30th August 2019, 05:12 AM | #9 |
Maledictorian
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 22,557
|
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. |
__________________
“Don’t blame me. I voted for Kodos.” |
|
30th August 2019, 05:15 AM | #10 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 32,124
|
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. |
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything. |
|
30th August 2019, 05:26 AM | #11 |
Maledictorian
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 22,557
|
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.
|
__________________
“Don’t blame me. I voted for Kodos.” |
|
30th August 2019, 05:42 AM | #12 |
Fiend God
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 96,875
|
|
30th August 2019, 06:09 AM | #13 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 21,203
|
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.
|
__________________
It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871) |
|
30th August 2019, 06:36 AM | #14 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 11,828
|
Originally Posted by Belz...
|
30th August 2019, 07:11 AM | #15 |
Fiend God
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 96,875
|
|
30th August 2019, 07:18 AM | #16 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 11,828
|
|
30th August 2019, 07:21 AM | #17 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 21,203
|
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. |
__________________
It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871) |
|
30th August 2019, 07:29 AM | #18 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 11,828
|
|
30th August 2019, 07:42 AM | #19 |
Fiend God
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 96,875
|
|
30th August 2019, 07:45 AM | #20 |
Fiend God
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 96,875
|
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. |
30th August 2019, 08:03 AM | #21 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 32,124
|
|
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything. |
|
30th August 2019, 09:22 AM | #22 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 11,828
|
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.
|
30th August 2019, 09:25 AM | #23 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 11,828
|
|
30th August 2019, 04:20 PM | #24 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 21,203
|
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? |
__________________
It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871) |
|
30th August 2019, 05:39 PM | #25 |
Fiend God
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 96,875
|
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:
Quote:
|
30th August 2019, 06:15 PM | #26 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 21,203
|
|
__________________
It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871) |
|
30th August 2019, 06:23 PM | #27 |
Fiend God
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 96,875
|
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. |
30th August 2019, 07:34 PM | #28 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 11,828
|
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. |
30th August 2019, 07:36 PM | #29 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 11,828
|
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? |
31st August 2019, 12:53 AM | #30 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 32,124
|
|
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything. |
|
31st August 2019, 02:26 AM | #31 |
Fiend God
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 96,875
|
|
31st August 2019, 08:33 PM | #32 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 32,635
|
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. |
__________________
1. He'd never do that. 2. Okay but he's not currently doing it. 3. Okay but he's not currently technically doing it. 4. Okay but everyone does it. 5. He's doing it, we can't stop him, no point in complaining about it. 6. We all knew he was going to do it which... makes it okay somehow. 7. It's perfectly fine that's he's doing it. |
|
1st September 2019, 02:22 AM | #33 |
Fiend God
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 96,875
|
|
1st September 2019, 03:24 AM | #34 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 32,635
|
|
__________________
1. He'd never do that. 2. Okay but he's not currently doing it. 3. Okay but he's not currently technically doing it. 4. Okay but everyone does it. 5. He's doing it, we can't stop him, no point in complaining about it. 6. We all knew he was going to do it which... makes it okay somehow. 7. It's perfectly fine that's he's doing it. |
|
1st September 2019, 08:59 AM | #35 |
Becoming Beth
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility (USA, sort of)
Posts: 27,292
|
|
__________________
"A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep." "Ninety percent of the politicians give the other ten percent a bad reputation." |
|
1st September 2019, 02:48 PM | #36 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 21,203
|
|
__________________
It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871) |
|
1st September 2019, 07:07 PM | #37 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 32,635
|
|
__________________
1. He'd never do that. 2. Okay but he's not currently doing it. 3. Okay but he's not currently technically doing it. 4. Okay but everyone does it. 5. He's doing it, we can't stop him, no point in complaining about it. 6. We all knew he was going to do it which... makes it okay somehow. 7. It's perfectly fine that's he's doing it. |
|
1st September 2019, 08:10 PM | #38 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 21,203
|
|
__________________
It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871) |
|
1st September 2019, 08:20 PM | #39 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 32,635
|
|
__________________
1. He'd never do that. 2. Okay but he's not currently doing it. 3. Okay but he's not currently technically doing it. 4. Okay but everyone does it. 5. He's doing it, we can't stop him, no point in complaining about it. 6. We all knew he was going to do it which... makes it okay somehow. 7. It's perfectly fine that's he's doing it. |
|
1st September 2019, 11:23 PM | #40 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 21,203
|
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. |
__________________
It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871) |
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|