Basically Mueller said.."This could be obstruction if he had bad intent. I can't determine his intent, so I can't conclude that he's not guilty"
No, Mueller said "I cannot conclude he didn't commit obstruction." See the difference?
no, you don't know that. The conclusion could be A. We don't know the conclusion because there is no conclusion.
Yes we do. The conclusion is not A.
If A, not B.
If B, not A.
Not A.
Therefore, B.
The conclusion is not A.
How do you know? It still could be
NO. THIS IS WRONG
You see a field of berries. You don't know which berries are poisonous. But you know which berries are not poisonous.
So you only eat the berries that you know are fine.
Can you conclude that the berries you didn't eat are fine? no, you can't conclude that. You can't conclude that they are poisonous either. There is no conclusion. You just don't know. You just know that some berries exist.
But they still very well could be fine.
I really don't know why you're choosing to die on this hill. But the logic should be really simple.
If A, not B
If inconclusive, could be A or B
if you're using the word "therefore" then you are inferring information that is not in the Mueller report.
have a look at this:
https://thehill.com/opinion/white-ho...ump-obstructed
Investigation of obstruction of justice could still move ahead. "We conducted a thorough factual investigation in order to preserve the evidence when memories were fresh and documentary materials were available," the report stated. It notes that the president could still be prosecuted after leaving office through resignation or impeachment.
Fourth, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state," the report concluded. In other words, if the evidence had given the special counsel an opportunity to clear Trump of the charge of obstruction, Mueller would have taken it. "Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment." In other words, there is just too much evidence of obstruction.
Oh, and just because you keep going on about how it's ok to lie to the public
Few people remember this, but the obstruction-of-justice article against Nixon held the president accountable for lying to the American people — not when he was under oath, but when he made public statements about Watergate.
ruh roh!.jpg
PAAAAHHHH - FUCKING - THETIC
There isn't a single syllable in that entire thing that makes a case for obstruction. It just says "don't lose hope dems, it might still could maybe possibly somehow someway still happen if we're all really good boys and girls this year"
PS - Does this mean we are moving on from you retarded A/B game? Just because something is cannot be concluded to be A, doesn't mean it's not A.
Double ruh roh!
Mueller's team writes that its investigation "found multiple acts by the President that were capable of exerting undue influence over law enforcement investigations, including the Russian-interference and obstruction investigations." It says his "efforts to influence the investigation were mostly unsuccessful, but that is largely because the persons who surrounded the President declined to carry out orders or accede to his requests.
Edit: Don't think the law discriminates between 'attempted' and 'successful' obstruction. But hey I'm sure it'll be a new law by the time Trump goes to court.
It certainly suggests that it's B, but only if you have common sense.
No it doesn't. And if you have common sense, you wouldn't jump to conclude B, or even strongly suspect B without evidence.
There isn't a single syllable in that entire thing that makes a case for obstruction.
The article is not a legal document; that's not its purpose. It also doesn't say ice cream is yummy. But it is.
It just says "don't lose hope dems, it might still could maybe possibly somehow someway still happen if we're all really good boys and girls this year"
Where does it say that? I missed that part.
No but if there really was no evidence you would wonder why so much evidence was discussed, leading to the conclusion of not A.
The article is not a legal document;
It's not an article either.
I missed that part.
you missed this part too
BY KEN HUGHES, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR — 04/19/19 01:30 PM EDT 849 THE VIEWS EXPRESSED BY CONTRIBUTORS ARE THEIR OWN
No but if there really was no evidence you would wonder why so much evidence was discussed
How much evidence was discussed? Wanna try this again?
Already done. Why keep beating a dead banana?
No i saw it was an opinion. An opinion that quotes directly from the M.R.
weird, I couldn't find the quote you cited in post 4735
From the MR
"a criminal investigation during the President's term is permissible"
there was nothing stopping the report from concluding Trump had obstructed justice but that he could not be indicted as president. Instead the report declaratively says
"this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime"
Look harder.
lol, are you going back now to denying that Mueller couldn't conclude Trump was guilty?
A determination of guilt is a matter for a court and a jury. So I'm not denying that Mueller couldn't find Trump guilty. He could not.
Another thing he couldn't do....make a decision about indictment/charges.....that's the AG's job. So if Mueller had conclusive evidence of obstruction, he could have presented it as such. He would not be violating his vow to not indict a president, as that decision would not be his anyway.
Dont be as dumb as oskar thinking that only congress has the power to do anything about the findings in the MR
I tried searching the page for the word "accede". It's not there man.
In the passage quoted in post 4735, I'm wondering why the quotation marks don't close. Where are the closing quotes supposed to be?
He did present evidence. He did not say the president was innocent of OOJ. He operated under the principle that he couldn't even recommend indictment because of 'sitting president blahblahbah'.
Why are trying to make this into an argument again? you've already grudgingly accepted all of this.
Another thing I learned today, Mueller could have filed a sealed indictment to be opened after Trump left office.
That's what he would do if he had enough evidence to charge on obstruction.
He didn't do that
Lol, now Trump is saying he'd ask the Supreme Court to intervene if the Ds tried to impeach him.
Captain Retard at it again.
Sealed indictments are made public now? Do you know what a 'sealed indictment' is?
Edit: Oh ffs you are so desperate. He already said he can't indict the president, not even a sealed indictment. Ffs.
Poop, you do realize that Mueller could have said "Trump obstructed", right? There is nothing in the DOJ rules that says you can't accuse a President of a crime. There is nothing that says you can't present compelling evidence of a crime. You just can't indict
And again, he could have filed a sealed indictment for use after the president leaves office. That's totally allowed. That satisfies the DOJ rules. There's no public charge. The president isn't on trial. He doesn't have to defend himself. And he's not under indictment while in office.
The DOJ rules are not a smokescreen that lets the president do whatever he wants. It's not a license to commit crimes. It's not a protective blanket. Congress doesn't need to act. The DOJ can act on it's own. It just didn't, because there was no crime.
He can file a sealed indictment because it wouldn't be against a sitting president. It would only be opened after he's not sitting anymore.
And it would not be public. But it would also mean that justice was served. And shouldn't that be the end of it?
So can you not conclude that either A) No crime was committed or B) Sealed indictments were already filed and Trump can face the music in 2025. Are you not satisfied with either of those outcomes?
But if Mueller did file sealed indictments, the AG would know. And he probably wouldn't go out in public saying "NO OBSTRUCTION"
Once again....
In all of your tortuous attempts to talk yourself into Trump being innocent, do you forget he explicitly passed the OOJ issue to Congress? Do you forget that he said Trump could be charged once he was no longer president? Do you forget he explicitly said he could not even ACCUSE Trump of a crime?
Are you really so badly, desperately needing Trump to be innocent that you just pick the facts you like and discard the rest and go from the facts you like through a few more steps to the conclusion you want? Really?
Remember when Buzzfeed reported that they had proof that Trump ordered Cohen to lie to congress?
Remember how they said that they had sources in the Mueller investigation that told them that for sure.
Remember how Bob Mueller himself came out the very next day and shut that down. The story never proved to be even close to true.
Don't you think we would have heard from Mueller if Barr was materially misrepresenting his findings?
Once again, read my previous answers.
From now on, you only get each question answered once. Whether you like the answer or not.
In all of your tortuous attempts to talk yourself into Trump being innocent, do you forget he explicitly passed the OOJ issue to Congress?
False. This isn't even possible. Congress and the DOJ are in separate branches of government. They don't collaborate like that.
Do you forget that he said Trump could be charged once he was no longer president?
Right. And if that were going to happen, then the sealed indictments would already be filed. And if that were the case, would the AG be saying "no crimes"? Barr has been AG before. He doesn't need this job. He has nothing to gain by being a Trump toadie.
Do you forget he explicitly said he could not even ACCUSE Trump of a crime?
Citation? And define "accuse". Does that mean he could not present damning evidence without stating a conclusion?
Buzzfeed is not Mueller's boss. Barr is.
Try another excuse.
Your previous answer wasn't one of the 10 options listed.
Uh no. Mr. Mueller is very much unemployed.
Barr has been AG before. He doesn't need this job. He has nothing to gain by being a Trump toadie.
And yet he got the job by being a Trump toadie, and continues to be one.
How do you know how he got the job? How many other candidates were there? Who else was considered?
What were their views on Trump?
Whatever. he doesn't want to stir the pot. He's done his job he's out of the picture. he wants a vacation. take your pick.
How do you know how he got the job? How many other candidates were there? What were there views on Trump?
Wow you really are fascinated by what I think aren't you?
Like I said, whether you like the answer or not.
I'll add to that whether you believe it's an answer or not.
You had 10 choices, and rather than choose one, you invented an 11th out of thin air.
Just because ORANGE MAN BAD
Where did i say shut up. I offered some possible reasons why Mueller didn't want to make a stink over Barr's toadying. You want a few more?
Barr's wife and his wife are friends. Barr loaned him money when they were younger and Mueller owes him a favour. Mueller doesn't give a shit if someone else lies. Mueller had a stroke and can't talk. Mueller isn't answering his phone. Any of those work for you?
Did I? Oh ok sorry buddy.
I got nothing against Oranges. I don't like Criminal Retards though, that's true.
Hey Oskar....if you're ever unemployed, just remember you can do Cuomo's job.
https://twitter.com/charliekirk11/st...003215873?s=20
The replies to this offers a deep dive into the minds of Trump-conservatives.
https://twitter.com/HeadHam67/status...197056000?s=20
This one is a piece of art!
I don't understand how someone can cite this tweet and its replies as evidence that the right are lunatics, and not whoever the fuck it is peddling this crap that babies = cancer.
It's like tweeting something offensive is a shit ton worse than teaching students utter fucking drivel.
https://youtu.be/3fjQOn5_EUk?t=28
[enter "over my head" meme here]
Gotta love an argument that begins, "I can't imagine..."
As if the deficient imagination is evidence of anything.
As if the phrase "I can't imagine" is to be taken literally, as though the person using such a phrase is bereft of imagination.
It may or may not be fruitful to compare cancer to a fetus, but the parallels are there.
The reaction of 'zomg it's dehumanizing babies! arrrgggh!' is what is drivel, because the purpose is to understand cancer, not understand babies. The person behind the slide is not thinking 'here's a chance to promote abortion', they're thinking 'here's an interesting way of looking at cancer'
If this was shown at a pro-abortion rally rather than a biology lecture, the outrage would be more appropriate. You don't take a biology class to find out what the prof's views on abortion are, anymore than you go to a pro-abortion rally to find out whether the speaker has a good grasp of how cancer works.
The person behind the slide is not thinking 'here's a chance to promote abortion', they're thinking 'here's an interesting way of looking at cancer'
No, it's a deliberate attempt to cause yet more division between left and right minded people.
Students in a university studying biology do not need a patronising and piss poor analogy for cancer. You can just go right ahead and teach them what cancer actually is, rather than comparing it to something beautiful and essential to the survival of the species.
Yes that's why i said it.
So let me get this straight, in the middle of a lecture about cancer, the prof stops and says 'oh btw, look at how cancer is like a baby. Now all of you go out and have an abortion! And if you're a right-wing looney, please post this on twitter so all your friends can go 'arrrrghgh!''
First of all, babies aren't beautiful. They're ugly as fuck. I wouldn't wish any harm on one, but calling them beautiful is just silly.
Second, do you know what a parasite it? It's something that lives in your body and feeds off of it. Do you see the parallel between cancer and a parasite? Ok, then tell me why the parallel between cancer and a fetus is any different.
it's a deliberate attempt to cause yet more division between left and right minded people.
This is the kind of meandering-path-logic reaction that makes it so difficult to teach people in the Age of Outrage.
Taking 1 slide of a lecture out of context isn't really telling us much at all.
Not knowing what the presenter said to go along with that slide makes it very hard to know if the presenter was pressing an agenda or carefully skirting it.
I mean... if that professor was pressing a political agenda, I'm pretty confident that about half the students would be pretty pissed about it and convinced that that's not what they paid the college for when they signed up for a biology class.
One tweet of 1 slide from a presentation isn't giving any context to the situation.
Maybe the professor was pressing a political agenda. It's just not clear from a photo of a lecture slide without any further context.
FYI, if facts make you uncomfortable, that's not the fault of the facts. If facts change your mind, then congrats! Good adulting on your part.
This is all true. If the prof. actually did this to openly promote a political view they should stfu and stick to teaching biology.
But I doubt they did because common sense should tell them someone in the audience is going to hold the opposite view very strongly and complain very loudly.
Assuming their aims were innocent they nowadays still have to be careful because someone is likely going to misinterpret their slide and freak out anyways. This is why i say it's hard to teach in the Age of Outrage.
How amusing that poop is using "the Age of Outrage" in an argument against me.
Trump tweeted "blah blah blah".
OMFG *screeching noises*
Mojo makes a nice balanced post and is absolutely right, this could have been taken way out of context. But I think the concern is that universities have already become breeding grounds for left wing indoctrination.
Poop, question... do your students clap? Or is it that jazz hands bollocks? Is that actually a thing?
You're the only one making screeching noises here.
When Trump tweets something and i call him 'Captain Retard', that's expressing amusement, not outrage.
When someone puts up a slide showing the similarities between cancer and a fetus, or when someone refers to people in a church as 'Easter Worshippers', or when someone doesn't give fishermen their due respect in your eyes, you lose your shit like a total snowflake.
I don't know what you're talking about. There's nothing to clap about, it's a lecture not a play.
I clap when the professor says we need to topple the ruling class and hoist their lifeless bodies up in the public square.
Sounds like someone knows how to get a top mark.
My class doesn't clap when I say that. They did laugh when I pointed to the top of the IQ curve and said 'this is you', then pointed to the bottom of the curve and said 'this is people who voted for Donald Trump'.
I guess that's a form of applause.
I imagine you losing your shit like a total snowflake.
Oh, is that only reserved for performances? I thought it was standard after a good lecture.
Not afaik. I never clapped when I was a student. I had a group clap at the end of the year once but I think they were just happy it was finally over.
Also, I only give about a dozen lectures a year. Maybe if I had more practice I could get them to applaud.
I'll not take the opportunity to suggest that maybe your students just don't clap your lectures.
Shit, I just did, didn't I?
Sorry I'm sure you're great at your job, I'm just amusing myself.
I'm on a research-focused contract. At lecturing, I'm ok. Not great but not shit either.
At research, I'm pretty good. Not a superstar, but certainly above average.
The rest of my job is boring admin tasks, and you can only really be competent at them or incompetent; there's not really any way to shine at pencil pushing. So, I'm competent.
I never applauded a lecture, nor do I hear students applauding very often.
That said, today and yesterday were the last days of classes, and it's standard for the introphysics students to applaud at the end of the final lecture, and when I enter ('cause I know class is over due to the applause), I get applause as well.
Some professors actually invite me into the room and thank me, which always gets applause, but it's not the same when the professor basically said, "now everyone clap for Sean"
https://twitter.com/mehdirhasan/stat...429120005?s=20
I love the look on his face when he realizes he should have checked what show he's going on.