• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Conservatives Stunned by Mueller Suggesting Trump Is Not Innocent

BarcaDeac said:
How could a report that totally exonerates the president be a total fraud?
Click to expand...

You are confusing exoneration (Trump fanatics) with not able to prosecute (Conservatives who don't like Trump, but also understand how our judicial system works). Our system of laws does not require someone to be proven innocent. Instead we require that a person be proven guilty to face the penalty of the action. Not sure what that is so difficult to understand. Ill try to make it easier. If my car is stolen and I think my ex girlfriend stole it, I cannot just accuse her because I feel pretty confident about it. I actually have to be able to prove it. If she cannot prove her innocence (she has no alibi), that does not mean she is guilty. I have to actually have the proper evidence to convict her of the crime.

Fortunately impeachment does not fall under these rules. It is a congressional opinion. Mueller and Barr have both stated that by the rules put in place, Trump will not be indicted. Mueller pretty much passed the ball to Congress and said 'but you have no such restrictions....if you want to try and take him down, go for it'.
 
Wrangor said:
You are confusing exoneration (Trump fanatics) with not able to prosecute (Conservatives who don't like Trump, but also understand how our judicial system works). Our system of laws does not require someone to be proven innocent. Instead we require that a person be proven guilty to face the penalty of the action. Not sure what that is so difficult to understand. Ill try to make it easier. If my car is stolen and I think my ex girlfriend stole it, I cannot just accuse her because I feel pretty confident about it. I actually have to be able to prove it. If she cannot prove her innocence (she has no alibi), that does not mean she is guilty. I have to actually have the proper evidence to convict her of the crime.

Fortunately impeachment does not fall under these rules. It is a congressional opinion. Mueller and Barr have both stated that by the rules put in place, Trump will not be indicted. Mueller pretty much passed the ball to Congress and said 'but you have no such restrictions....if you want to try and take him down, go for it'.
Click to expand...

Seems like you are ignoring the evidence for obstruction, which is also a crime.
 
birdman said:
Seems like you are ignoring the evidence for obstruction, which is also a crime.
Click to expand...

That is what Barr testified to regarding Mueller. His testimony is that Mueller stated that if the evidence was enough to indict, then the OLC ruling could be challenged but that this case did not warrant challenging the OLC. I am not ignoring it at all, obstruction is the only thing on the table. Mueller didn't exonerate Trump for colluding with Russia, but he also clearly stated that the case wasn't there to indict. Obstruction is where Mueller was more obtuse. He stated a bunch of bad stuff but then failed to reach a determination. This puts the onus on Barr, and unless refuted by Mueller, Barr's testimony will stand.

Obstruction seems very difficult to prove judicially (as a not-lawyer). Intent is a requirement for conviction, and the court of public opinion isn't enough for say that the person had intent to obstruct. That is where this case gets in the weeds it seems. Trump said/did a lot of things that could very easily be obstruction, but you have to prove intent. Common sense simply isn't enough.

Just because it makes sense that an action would be obstruction: Trump "I want to fire Mueller"

Doesn't mean it is obstruction...could just be Trump is erratic and fires people and says stupid stuff all the time.

I mean Trump recently took sides with psychopath Kim Jong-un to criticize Joe Biden. It is an almost impossible task to try and determine what Trump's intentions are. He is a complete loose cannon at all times. That is why this proves to be a difficult judicial case, and that is why impeachment is the obvious answer, but the House leaders don't have the stones to do it because it will in all likelihood backfire on them politically.

ETA - thank you for not throwing a needless insult my way when making a comment. It was downright refreshing.
 
Last edited:
Muller's statement makes it crystal clear. He felt he was NOT able to charge a sitting president AND therefore he felt is ALSO not PROPER to ACCUSE a sitting president from within the purview of the DOJ. Volume 2 of his report clearly indicates Trump engaged in all the elements necessary for the crime of obstruction. As those thousand + prosecutors all say.

Barr clearly DISAGREES with Mueller as Barr has plainly stated. He agrees that DOJ policy prohibits indicting a sitting president. But seems to feel it would nonetheless be OK to ACCUSE the president of a crime for which you (the DOJ) is not enable to allow the accused access within the justice system to be tried and convicted or not. Mueller clearly feels it's not fair to make an explicit ACCUSATION without being able to offer a fair trial within the justice system.

Barr clearly supplanted the SC work by breezily dismissing and misstating their concerns about obstruction. And has lied about this.
 
birdman said:
In 6-7 days!!
Click to expand...

Washington moves slow and lots of pushback

Apparently Brennan still has clearance months after trump
Stripped it

The deep state is far more dangerous than trump
 
Last edited:
marquee moon said:
Washington moves slow and lots of pushback

Apparently Brennan still has clearance months after trump
Stripped it

The deep state is far more dangerous than trump
Click to expand...
Moonz is setting up his out for when nothing happens it'll all be the power of the deep state
 
It takes some serious mental gymnatics to conclude that Barr's testimoney that Mueller says he wouldn't indict for obstruction of justice are consistent with any of Mueller statements or the report.

I think it reasonable to conclude from the report and his statement that he wouldn't indict for collusion/conspiracy, but he went to great lengths to separate this from his obstruction considerations.
 
Last edited:
Trump is the POTUS in the modern era who taken the security clearance away from ANY CIA Director. It was a petty, childish, un-American act that injured our nation's national security for years to come. Allies around the world won't trust to give us data because of this and other dangerous acts by Trump.
 
warak said:
Republicans, enough said.
Click to expand...

Somehow they are the party of Lincoln while flying the Confederate flag. Their inconsistency is consistent.
 
Wrangor said:
That is what Barr testified to regarding Mueller. His testimony is that Mueller stated that if the evidence was enough to indict, then the OLC ruling could be challenged but that this case did not warrant challenging the OLC. I am not ignoring it at all, obstruction is the only thing on the table. Mueller didn't exonerate Trump for colluding with Russia, but he also clearly stated that the case wasn't there to indict. Obstruction is where Mueller was more obtuse. He stated a bunch of bad stuff but then failed to reach a determination. This puts the onus on Barr, and unless refuted by Mueller, Barr's testimony will stand.

Obstruction seems very difficult to prove judicially (as a not-lawyer). Intent is a requirement for conviction, and the court of public opinion isn't enough for say that the person had intent to obstruct. That is where this case gets in the weeds it seems. Trump said/did a lot of things that could very easily be obstruction, but you have to prove intent. Common sense simply isn't enough.

Just because it makes sense that an action would be obstruction: Trump "I want to fire Mueller"

Doesn't mean it is obstruction...could just be Trump is erratic and fires people and says stupid stuff all the time.

I mean Trump recently took sides with psychopath Kim Jong-un to criticize Joe Biden. It is an almost impossible task to try and determine what Trump's intentions are. He is a complete loose cannon at all times. That is why this proves to be a difficult judicial case, and that is why impeachment is the obvious answer, but the House leaders don't have the stones to do it because it will in all likelihood backfire on them politically.

ETA - thank you for not throwing a needless insult my way when making a comment. It was downright refreshing.
Click to expand...

I haven’t read the report, but it seems like Mueller’s public statement and Barr’s testimony are contradictory. He specifically said we would have said so if we thought Trump was not guilty of a crime and we did not say so. This whole thing really is a mess.
 
It’s only a mess because Barr and Rosenstein shitclouded it. Which was the whole purpose.

Wrangor, it’s pretty simple. There are two outcomes here. Let’s say A = Trump is guilty and B = Trump is innocent.

Mueller clearly said the following:

I am forbidden from saying A.

If I could say B, I would.

There’s a way to say A but it’s up to Congress.
 
^

Pretty close.

Mueller said it isn’t fair or proper for me to say A, even though my report clearly lays out the case for A, since I can’t initiate a legal process to allow a prosecution or defense. [Mueller is an honorable guy]

Barr disagrees, though acknowledges Mueller’s scruples. [Barr is not an honorable guy] And says it doesn’t matter anyhow because he (Barr) has breezily dismissed the reasoning of Mueller’s team and determined “B”.
 
Then Mueller immediately lets Barr know that Barr’s summary report to Congress was horribly bad at capturing the substance and context of Mueller’s (team) report.

And Barr says (lying) to Congress...what? Nah...don’t know nothing ‘bout Mueller’s team being unhappy with my breezy exoneration of Trump.
 
It’s legitimately terrifying how many people believe in made up things like the “deep state”. One would assume that real conservatives understand how much of a fucking plague Trump is on their party and move to install someone with legitimate credentials who is not a mentally ill lunatic. But alas this is the hand we have been dealt I suppose.
 
PhDeac said:
It’s only a mess because Barr and Rosenstein shitclouded it. Which was the whole purpose.

Wrangor, it’s pretty simple. There are two outcomes here. Let’s say A = Trump is guilty and B = Trump is innocent.

Mueller clearly said the following:

I am forbidden from saying A.

If I could say B, I would.

There’s a way to say A but it’s up to Congress.
Click to expand...

It’s also a mess because Trump, his team and congressional Republicans obstructed the investigation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top