Mega-Thread: Mueller investigation

[zorkuus]

I'll post this again just because you were someone I was discussing with.

"I think I got it now. So we don't even bother to determine if someone committed a crime because we can't try them (bring charges) for said crime. Is that the gist of it?

In other words, we can't say someone committed a crime but not charge them for said crime."

There is evidence of crimes and they are outlined in the report. What is so difficult to understand about this? The report doesn't need to say "THIS IS A CRIME!" for it to be a crime.

[Orbitus]

No, like I said I think I'm realizing (sorry guys, didn't mean for it to take 5 pages!) *why* he didn't "determine" whether or not he committed a crime. It's because he can't then bring charges for said crime. Still a rather silly aspect of things but anyway.

So now, the onus is on the house and senate to impeach him and/or bring charges for this.

BECAUSE HE FUCKING COULDN'T. It was the OLC guideline that states that he couldn't. Mueller is a by the book guy, not a guy that wants to further his political career.

[Fugus]

How was the Mueller thing today? And anything new?

[Methodd]

And Mueller clarified this point TWICE! But hey...these TDS folks will ignore it...as they now have their sound bite and will dishonestly spin it and cling to it until the cows come home.

That said, I hope they do move to impeach after this hearing...as it will destroy any hopes they have for 2020.

Careful where you tread, theres a lot of people here trying to get another high on the collusion crackpipe. It's best not to get in the way of a junkie and their fix.

[alturic]

There is evidence of crimes and they are outlined in the report. What is so difficult to understand about this? The report doesn't need to say "THIS IS A CRIME!" for it to be a crime.

I never meant it should say something was a crime. Clearly we know things that are crimes. What I expected (however was later explained to that you can't legally determine this without the ability to bring charges) was an actually "Yes, the evidence shows he committed these crimes" or "No, the evidence did not show he committed these crimes".

Like I said though, apparently the word "determine" means you would have to inherently bring charges, since since Mueller couldn't... yea.

[Moonstream]

Fox cut their live feed......and is now back up. It was right when Castro was talking about Russia, now that he's done speaking it's back up.

What did I miss?

[Orbitus]

Careful where you tread, theres a lot of people here trying to get another high on the collusion crackpipe. It's best not to get in the way of a junkie and their fix.

Except, as Mueller has stated in his fucking report, there is collusion there. Specifically the Trump Tower meeting, and Manafort giving internal polling data to Konstantin Kilimnik.

- - - Updated - - -

Fox cut their live feed......

Still on TV, must be their internet feed?

[Noxx79]

Careful where you tread, theres a lot of people here trying to get another high on the collusion crackpipe. It's best not to get in the way of a junkie and their fix.

I know, those republicans looked insane. They actually threw out a “but Hillary”

Nunez conspiracy seemed to be that the Russians Met with Hillary so they could frame trump for collusion after the Russians helped him win.

A junkie couldn’t come up a more bizarre scenario.

[Moonstream]

Except, as Mueller has stated in his fucking report, there is collusion there. Specifically the Trump Tower meeting, and Manafort giving internal polling data to Konstantin Kilimnik.

- - - Updated - - -



Still on TV, must be their internet feed?

Probably just an internet issue.

[Machismo]

I'll let the legal minds and investigators determine if someone committed a crime and should be charged. They do this for a living.

So, why are you unwilling to read the report?

[SirBeef]

It's been reported to moderators before but they keep claiming it's not the same person even with verbatim arguments with the same spelling errors.

Your best bets at this point will be to simply ignore him.

I do. I just haven't added the script to mobile.

[DarkTZeratul]

I never meant it should say something was a crime. Clearly we know things that are crimes. What I expected (however was later explained to that you can't legally determine this without the ability to bring charges) was an actually "Yes, the evidence shows he committed these crimes" or "No, the evidence did not show he committed these crimes".

Like I said though, apparently the word "determine" means you would have to inherently bring charges, since since Mueller couldn't... yea.

That's essentially the gist of it, yes. If he can't charge him with a crime, then he is similarly prevented from saying "he committed a crime but I can't charge him with it." All he can do is say "here's the evidence" and let Congress act on it.

[alturic]

Oh good. Then you should refer to the legal mind who investigated the situation and has said he could charge Trump with obstruction the minute he leaves office.

Oh shit, for real? Can you point to that, because I thought he couldn't make a determination.

- - - Updated - - -

That's essentially the gist of it, yes. If he can't charge him with a crime, then he is similarly prevented from saying "he committed a crime but I can't charge him with it." All he can do is say "here's the evidence" and let Congress act on it.

Right, which is why I said the onus is now on congress to act, since... apparently he committed a crime.

[DocSavageFan]

Careful where you tread, theres a lot of people here trying to get another high on the collusion crackpipe. It's best not to get in the way of a junkie and their fix.

They certainly don't like their bubbles threatened.

[Themius]

weird how republicans keep saying that the report conclusively said there was no crime when the report itself explicitly says if that are the case they would say so.

[DocSavageFan]

has TJ ever argued in good faith?

You're delusional. I'm not TJ.

[Endus]

Ok, so now that you're potentially helping me understand the legal wording here, I'll have a discussion based on that.

So, in our hypothetical example, they have all the evidence that he did murder his wife. It's apparently and he even admitted it. They can't determine* he should be charged (indicted) because there's a DOJ policy that says a sitting president can't be charged (indicted.)

Are you saying we can't determine however that he did commit the crime and *should* be charged, but legally can't?

*Is "determine" a legal meaning when deciding whether someone should be charged or not? Can't you... determine whether or not someone should be charged with a crime without actually... bringing the charges? That's my whole holdup with this. It surely can't be a legal wording because Mueller doesn't actually decide if the person is guilty (that's a judge/juror duh), he's deciding if charges should be brought.

Then you're still not understanding some pretty basic concepts, for some reason. It's hard to think you're being honest, here.

Mueller could present the evidence of obstruction. He was not procedurally entitled to make a determination about what that evidence meant as to whether to indict or not. That's what "could not reach a determination" means. That there's a process, where you collect evidence, analyse evidence, establish what the facts of the situation are based on those analyses, and then determine whether the evidence warrants indictment. Mueller was able to pursue that process except for that final step, when it came to the President. That's all "was not able to reach a determination" means. That there was a procedural restriction that halted the process.

Not that there was insufficient evidence; that would mean they could reach a determination, to not indict.
Not that the evidence exonerated the President. They could have reached that determination; no procedural issues there.
They could only provide the analysis that otherwise would inform an indictment, and present that evidence to Congress, because Congress are the ones who had to make that determination, via impeachment proceedings.

[PACOX]

KFC should reintroduce the Double Down, Republicans love to double down!

sorry, not sorry

[Orbitus]

They certainly don't like their bubbles threatened.

Yours in particular. But then again, we have popped your Trump support bubble so many times, and yet, here you are, still defending him with your ardent support.

- - - Updated - - -

You're delusional. I'm not TJ.

Who is TJ? Do you know who he is?

[zenkai]

This thread was just like the the investigation, a shitfest with both sides claiming victory.