Why aren't we talking about how Mueller said Trump committed a crime?

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,266
126
Here I always thought that in this country people were innocent until proven guilty. Either way if the Democrats think President Trump committed a crime they should impeach him, it's pretty simple and the ball is in their court.

Shit or get off the fucking impeachment pot.

Actually, people are innocent or guilty based on their actions. The justice system is designed to determine if guilt can be legally ascertained and then punishment to fit the crime if the verdict is in favor of the prosecution, and release in the prosecution fails to convict. Don't feel bad, Trump and too many others do not understand basic civics either. Yes, Dems need to impeach and soon. Soon IMO would be after they view Trump's financials. My sense of things is in about 60 to 90 days regardless of financials because people will soon forget the impact of Mueller's presser. The iron cannot go cold.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hal2kilo

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,266
126
This is a flatly, provably false statement. Mueller explicitly stated that he would not make a statement that Trump obstructed justice, regardless of the evidence, because he could not indict Trump. He did lay out large quantities of evidence that show Trump did commit obstruction of justice though.

Can you read the article I linked above and tell us your thoughts about the multiple felonies it establishes for Trump? How do you feel about them? Do you think Trump should be prosecuted when he leaves office? I think most people would agree the answer is yes, that he needs to be prosecuted and sent to prison.


Does that really matter? I submit it's more a matter of psychology, that there is no deed that can be done that would make Trump guilty, no statement of fact disregarded or twisted. It has to be that way and nothing will change that. No fervent religious believer could be more resistant than these types.
 

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
14,698
1,909
126
So what you're saying is that it's the Democrats' fault that the Republicans voted for, and continue to support, a criminal?
No, but I do blame you.

Congress has the power to hold Trump accountable. End of discussion.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,336
136
Here I always thought that in this country people were innocent until proven guilty. Either way if the Democrats think President Trump committed a crime they should impeach him, it's pretty simple and the ball is in their court.

Shit or get off the fucking impeachment pot.

One would think that law and order loving conservatives would be more supportive of Democrats' efforts to enforce the law here, rather than hiding behind adages like 'innocent until proven guilty' in order to justify their continuing support of a President who demonstrates no respect for the law.
And if you're not clear as to what I'm saying, I'll be more blunt. Why should it be only the Democrats' responsibility to enforce the law? If the President continues to flout the law, and the Republicans continue to do nothing about that, why would that be only the Democrats' fault?
The answer, of course, is that the Republicans' hyper-partisanship has diseased their minds. They would rather a criminal, or even a tyrant, be in the White House, than a Democrat.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,637
50,864
136
One would think that law and order loving conservatives would be more supportive of Democrats' efforts to enforce the law here, rather than hiding behind adages like 'innocent until proven guilty' in order to justify their continuing support of a President who demonstrates no respect for the law.
And if you're clear as to what I'm saying, I'll be more blunt. Why should it be only the Democrats' responsibility to enforce the law? If the President continues to flout the law, and the Republicans continue to do nothing about that, why would that be only the Democrats' fault?
The answer, of course, is that the Republicans' hyper-partisanship has diseased their minds. They would rather a criminal, or even a tyrant, be in the White House, than a Democrat.

It's deeply disturbing that even in the news media investigating and impeaching Trump or even attempting to hold him accountable for his criminal activity is framed as something Democrats must do because it's taken as a given that Republicans won't do their duty to the country and uphold their oaths of office. In that way the media helps frame this as a partisan issue instead of a 'protect the country' issue.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie and Vic

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,637
50,864
136
Does that really matter? I submit it's more a matter of psychology, that there is no deed that can be done that would make Trump guilty, no statement of fact disregarded or twisted. It has to be that way and nothing will change that. No fervent religious believer could be more resistant than these types.

I mean in some ways I know that people like brandonbull are either so brainwashed or so dishonest that there's nothing that will change his mind. I hope that someone else who might be on the fence though could read this and not go down the crazy path.

It is very troubling that such a large percentage of our population places tribal loyalty above reality though. Very, very troubling.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
Easiest way to wrap this up is to put Mueller under oath in front of Congress and ask him "Do you think if Trump was prosecuted criminally that a conviction would be obtained, yes or no." No ambiguity, not "could you indict him if you were allowed" (since the bar for indictment is way lower than the standards of proof for a trial conviction), no "if we could have exonerated him we would have," just a simple straightforward answer about whether Mueller could prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" or whatever standard applied for the crime he would theoretically be charged with. If the answer is yes then impeach away, if it's no then I guess Dems and Pelosi will have to make a purely political calculation about whether to impeach for 'bad behavior' that Mueller doesn't believe rose to the level of criminality.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sunburn74

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,637
50,864
136
Easiest way to wrap this up is to put Mueller under oath in front of Congress and ask him "Do you think if Trump was prosecuted criminally that a conviction would be obtained, yes or no." No ambiguity, not "could you indict him if you were allowed" (since the bar for indictment is way lower than the standards of proof for a trial conviction), no "if we could have exonerated him we would have," just a simple straightforward answer about whether Mueller could prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" or whatever standard applied for the crime he would theoretically be charged with. If the answer is yes then impeach away, if it's no then I guess Dems and Pelosi will have to make a purely political calculation about whether to impeach for 'bad behavior' that Mueller doesn't believe rose to the level of criminality.

He would just not answer and there's no legal standard where you can force a witness to speculate.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,266
126
if it's no then I guess Dems and Pelosi will have to make a purely political calculation about whether to impeach for 'bad behavior' that Mueller doesn't believe rose to the level of criminality.

Well that would be what I very generously call a willful misrepresentation. Naturally you can find where Mueller said that there was no criminality? No, but you can find obstruction in the report.

All you can do is say he didn't charge Trump, omit that he could not, and claim something Mueller never said or implied.
 

umbrella39

Lifer
Jun 11, 2004
13,816
1,126
126
That is a bad statement to make public. What is the bar for a prosecutor to feel confident that the someone didn't commit a crime? So you make the leap from insufficient evidence to guilty?

Nah, the bad statements made in public were all made by Barr (among others but him specifically) pretending to be the POTUS private council...
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,266
126
Nah, the bad statements made in public were all made by Barr (among others but him specifically) pretending to be the POTUS private council...

Also as already pointed out, Mueller was hired to investigate and it was left to others to prosecute. We see consistent attempts to misrepresents the working of the American system of justice, almost always in the favor of Trump. Why? Because screw the Constitution, we have one lord and master in Trump.
 

umbrella39

Lifer
Jun 11, 2004
13,816
1,126
126
Here I always thought that in this country people were innocent until proven guilty. Either way if the Democrats think President Trump committed a crime they should impeach him, it's pretty simple and the ball is in their court.

Shit or get off the fucking impeachment pot.

I hope veryone blocks you for this collosal shit post. You deserve to be shunned. PLONK
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
16,189
14,114
136
He would just not answer and there's no legal standard where you can force a witness to speculate.

He could be asked directly, if there was no DoJ policy of not prosecuting a sitting POTUS, would you have recommended prosecution. That isn't calling for speculation.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,637
50,864
136
He could be asked directly, if there was no DoJ policy of not prosecuting a sitting POTUS, would you have recommended prosecution. That isn't calling for speculation.

How is it not speculation when you’re asking someone how they would act in a hypothetical scenario?
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,637
50,864
136
I’m not saying Congress shouldn’t ask him that question, I’m just saying there’s no way they can make him answer it if he doesn’t want to. The dodges he could use are endless.
 

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
16,189
14,114
136
How is it not speculation when you’re asking someone how they would act in a hypothetical scenario?

Asking someone a hypothetical isn't necessarily asking them to speculate. It would be an improper hypothetical if answering involved speculation. In Glenn's example, Mueller would be asked about the decision of a third party (i.e. a jury) in some hypothetical scenario. That is speculation. If asked what Mueller's own decision would have been in a hypothetical situation, it isn't speculation. Mueller knows precisely what he would have done. He undoubtedly discussed with his own people what he would have done had the policy not been in place.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,637
50,864
136
Asking someone a hypothetical isn't necessarily asking them to speculate. It would be an improper hypothetical if answering involved speculation. In Glenn's example, Mueller would be asked about the decision of a third party (i.e. a jury) in some hypothetical scenario. That is speculation. If asked what Mueller's own decision would have been in a hypothetical situation, it isn't speculation. Mueller knows precisely what he would have done. He undoubtedly discussed with his own people what he would have done had the policy not been in place.

I agree with you that Mueller knows exactly what he would have done, but I see absolutely no way that Congress could compel him to say it. In your case here he could just say 'if I was operating in a world where the president could be indicted it would have been a fundamentally different investigation so who knows what I would have determined'.

You would surely know better than me - is there any precedent for a court compelling testimony about a hypothetical scenario?
 

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
16,189
14,114
136
I agree with you that Mueller knows exactly what he would have done, but I see absolutely no way that Congress could compel him to say it. In your case here he could just say 'if I was operating in a world where the president could be indicted it would have been a fundamentally different investigation so who knows what I would have determined'.

You would surely know better than me - is there any precedent for a court compelling testimony about a hypothetical scenario?

A witness can be compelled to answer any appropriate question. Ordinarily hypothetical questions are confined to expert witnesses, which is essentially what Mueller is here.

That said, Mueller could answer in exactly the way you suggest and I doubt there would be repercussions because it's Congress. Whether Mueller would resist answering the question is, however, a separate issue. I see nothing wrong with the question itself.
 

Sunburn74

Diamond Member
Oct 5, 2009
5,037
2,615
136
Easiest way to wrap this up is to put Mueller under oath in front of Congress and ask him "Do you think if Trump was prosecuted criminally that a conviction would be obtained, yes or no." No ambiguity, not "could you indict him if you were allowed" (since the bar for indictment is way lower than the standards of proof for a trial conviction), no "if we could have exonerated him we would have," just a simple straightforward answer about whether Mueller could prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" or whatever standard applied for the crime he would theoretically be charged with. If the answer is yes then impeach away, if it's no then I guess Dems and Pelosi will have to make a purely political calculation about whether to impeach for 'bad behavior' that Mueller doesn't believe rose to the level of criminality.
That could be done but he could also dodge the question by giving a vague non judgemental response.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,136
30,086
146

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
36,129
30,521
136
Until McConnell is bound at his wrists and ankles, a ball-gag sealing his mouth, and very publicly carted out of Congress lashed to one of those Hannibal Lecter S&M stretchers, this country will never be well.
There are 50 other GOP senators that would take his place in a heartbeat.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Mueller declined to answer the question of Trump committing crimes because that judgement isn't his or Barr's to make. He did provide evidence to be used in the proper venue of impeachment by the HOR & trial by the Senate.
 
Nov 25, 2013
32,083
11,718
136
Here I always thought that in this country people were innocent until proven guilty. Either way if the Democrats think President Trump committed a crime they should impeach him, it's pretty simple and the ball is in their court.

Shit or get off the fucking impeachment pot.

#fuckofftroll