A sober reminder of what insufficient evidence actually means

[oxmixmudd]

Except Mueller says quite plainly that he couldn't reach that conclusion. That's a lot different than your example of pulling something out of context to imply that it says the opposite of what it actually says.

"Could not conclude he committed a crime" != "There is not evidence he committed a crime".

The reality is (as regards obstruction) the evidence presented in the report implies he most likely did.

What is happening here is that you keep trying to take a very limited scope statement and expand it into a statement of complete vindication. It simply can't be extended in that way. And what makes that absolutely clear is that Mueller also said that while he could not, Congress could. He in fact said a good bit more:



To give any sort of fair, real accounting of what the Mueller report ACTUALLY says, you MUST include this statement as well. Your quote alone is simply out of context and deceptive when used in isolation.

Taking the two TOGETHER, what Mueller is ACTUALLY saying is that the president has corruptly exercised his powers, and that while he[Mueller] can't for reasons related to process and procedure conclude the president committed a crime, there is enough evidence that Congress could conclude that he did. And they are, after all, the only Federal governmental body authorized to take action if that is the case.


Jim

[Mountain Man]

If you are referring to the Steele dossier and its interactions with the early phases of the FBI's investigation, What you indicate above is not a fair characterization of the content of the report, nor of how elements of it entered into the investigation. It is not a 'totally fake' document, in fact it is far from that in that a non-trivial amount of its content has been validated. And the portions that could not be validated have not been shown false.

In the high points of a CNN summary of what is true, false, or unverified, the Steele dossier looks like this:

Source: cnn

Steele's memos lay out specific meetings that haven't been corroborated. But his claim that there was regular contact between Trump's campaign and Russians has held up over time. When he wrote his memos in 2016, hardly any of these contacts were publicly known. They have since been revealed in Mueller's court filings, countless news reports and testimony on Capitol Hill.

...

much of Steele's memos focused on Russia's role interfering in the 2016 election. Steele's intelligence memos detail a pattern and preference for Trump that have since been confirmed by the US intelligence community and indictments against Russians brought by Mueller's investigation.

...

The dossier claimed that the Russians tried to influence Trump by offering him "sweetener" real estate deals, in hopes of drawing him closer to Moscow. The specific details about these purported deals haven't been corroborated, but the dossier said Trump declined these offers.
Throughout the campaign, Trump said he had "nothing to do with Russia." When the dossier was first published, there wasn't any indication that Trump's company was involved in Russia beyond the Miss Universe pageant that he hosted in Moscow in 2013.
But it recently became public knowledge that Trump pursued a lucrative project in Moscow deep into the 2016 campaign, and that his then-attorney Michael Cohen sought help from the Kremlin to move the project along. Cohen admitted these shocking details when he pleaded guilty to lying to Congress about the Trump Tower Moscow proposal, which never came to fruition.
Steele's sources were right that Trump had recently explored business dealings in Russia. And his suggestion that it could be linked to the election has also been made by Mueller's team. In court fillings, the special counsel said that the proposal "likely required" help from the Kremlin and highlighted how it overlapped with "sustained efforts" by the Russians to influence the election.

© Copyright Original Source

I'm skimming a bit, and trying to keep the post modest in length. What I see in there that turned to be partially true is some of the claims about Carter Page. Now page was apparently targeted for recruitment by the Russians, which is in large part where the investigation of Him began (as far back as 2013) and why it raised red flags when he joined the Trump team.

Source: cnn

No public evidence has emerged to support these allegations, and Page has denied meeting with the president of Rosneft in dozens of interviews. But under questioning by the House Intelligence Committee behind closed doors, Page admitted that he met a different official from Rosneft during the trip.
Page said he spoke with Andrey Baranov, Rosneft's head of investor relations. But he said he doesn't recall any conversation with Baranov about sanctions. They made plans to meet up, Page said, because they were friends when he worked in Russia as an energy consultant.
The Russian government owns a majority stake in Rosneft. The US Treasury Department sanctioned the company and its president after Russia annexed Crimea in 2014. Trump hasn't eased sanctions on Rosneft, and his administration has placed new sanctions on Russians.

© Copyright Original Source

There is still a lot going on there. And a lot that can't be corroborated, but that also can't be shown false.

In fact, lawfare has this to say about it:

Source: above

The dossier holds up well over time, and none of it, to our knowledge, has been disproven.

© Copyright Original Source

and

Source: above

As we noted, our interest is in assessing the Steele dossier as a raw intelligence document, not a finished piece of analysis. The Mueller investigation has clearly produced public records that confirm pieces of the dossier. And even where the details are not exact, the general thrust of Steele’s reporting seems credible in light of what we now know about extensive contacts between numerous individuals associated with the Trump campaign and Russian government officials.

However, there is also a good deal in the dossier that has not been corroborated in the official record and perhaps never will be—whether because it’s untrue, unimportant or too sensitive. As a raw intelligence document, the Steele dossier, we believe, holds up well so far. But surely there is more to come from Mueller’s team. We will return to it as the public record develops.

© Copyright Original Source

The lawfare article is in fact far more detailed than the CNN article.

wikipedia also has an extensive look at the Dossier content, and again we see that while it can't all be shown true, little to nothing in it has actually be shown to be false.



Jim

You do know who Lawfare is, don't you? Unbiased they are not.

As for Carter Page, he was a trusted FBI asset working to bring down Russian agents, until the FBI needed an excuse to start a counter intelligence operation against the Trump campaign, and then he all of a sudden became a suspect.

Source: In March 2016 Carter Page Was an FBI Employee - In October 2016 FBI Told FISA Court He�s a Spy�

flat-out LIED.

https://theconservativetreehouse.com...urt-hes-a-spy/

© Copyright Original Source

(Emphasis in the original.)

As usual for The Last Refuge, this is not speculation, guesswork, or conspiracy theorizing but factual reporting based on hard evidence.

Now about the dossier, that gets complicated. Part of Christopher Steele's job was to "launder" intelligence information that was illegally extracted from the NSA database.

Source: The Nellie Ohr Dossier�

https://theconservativetreehouse.com...e-ohr-dossier/

© Copyright Original Source

A curious bit of evidence was the story that former Trump attorney Michael Cohen had traveled to Prague. This gets very interesting...

Source: Horsepucky, Narratives, Political Suppositions and The ATOMIC HAMMER OF TRUTH: Occam�s Razor

It was the wrong Michael Cohenhttps://theconservativetreehouse.com...-occams-razor/

© Copyright Original Source

This is why Trump's best strategy right now is to peel back the layers and expose the genesis of this whole thing, because it's sketchy as all get out.

[seer]

This is why Trump's best strategy right now is to peel back the layers and expose the genesis of this whole thing, because it's sketchy as all get out.

I think that is what the leftists here and in general are terrified of. If what we believe happened is the case that will only vindicate Trump more, it will put him in a very good light and their sins will be driving the narrative until the next election.

[oxmixmudd]

You do know who Lawfare is, don't you? Unbiased they are not.

It you don't like the source, regardless of history or reputation, just call it 'biased' and you get to ignore the entire content! Nice little trick.

We do need to base our arguments on reputable sources with a real history outside a very closed niche. That is why I gave you some variety - all three are saying basically the same thing, and there are more sources I could cite.

The problem we are going to run into is that you eschew all legitimate news sources with a history and gravitate to the extreme backwoods sources that support your leanings. So we probably won't get very far. In this day and age, it is not hard to find a source somewhere that will back up almost any idea, anywhere.

As for Carter Page, he was a trusted FBI asset working to bring down Russian agents, until the FBI needed an excuse to start a counter intelligence operation against the Trump campaign, and then he all of a sudden became a suspect.

Source: In March 2016 Carter Page Was an FBI Employee - In October 2016 FBI Told FISA Court He�s a Spy�

flat-out LIED.

https://theconservativetreehouse.com...urt-hes-a-spy/

© Copyright Original Source

(Emphasis in the original.)

As usual for The Last Refuge, this is not speculation, guesswork, or conspiracy theorizing but factual reporting based on hard evidence.

Summmary: The FBI is corrupt ... sorry, you'll need a lot more than one obscure source to support that conclusion.

Now about the dossier, that gets complicated. Part of Christopher Steele's job was to "launder" intelligence information that was illegally extracted from the NSA database.

This phrase only shows up on websites that look like they could create problems for me if I try to access them from work - which is enough said.



Jim

[Mountain Man]

"Could not conclude he committed a crime" != "There is not evidence he committed a crime".

The reality is (as regards obstruction) the evidence presented in the report implies he most likely did.

What is happening here is that you keep trying to take a very limited scope statement and expand it into a statement of complete vindication. It simply can't be extended in that way. And what makes that absolutely clear is that Mueller also said that while he could not, Congress could. He in fact said a good bit more:



To give any sort of fair, real accounting of what the Mueller report ACTUALLY says, you MUST include this statement as well. Your quote alone is simply out of context and deceptive when used in isolation. It's a perfectly factual statement saying what Congress can. What it doesn't say is that Trump is actually guilty of "corrupt exercise of the powers of office", but never mind, you reached exactly the conclusion the dirty cop intended you reach.

Taking the two TOGETHER, what Mueller is ACTUALLY saying is that the president has corruptly exercised his powers, and that while he[Mueller] can't for reasons related to process and procedure conclude the president committed a crime, there is enough evidence that Congress could conclude that he did. And they are, after all, the only Federal governmental body authorized to take action if that is the case.

Boy, you're an easy mark, aren't you? Look at the Mueller statement you quoted here. No, don't just assume that it validates your preconceptions but actually take the time to read it and understand what is actually being said, because what Mueller says is perfectly factual, that Congress may apply obstruction laws to a president who engages in corrupt exercise of power, but what Mueller doesn't say, despite your assumption that he did, is that Trump is actually guilty of corrupt exercise of power. On the contrary, Mueller said quite plainly that "this report does not conclude that the President committed any crimes" with regards to obstruction. But, of course, you cluelessly jumped to exactly the conclusion that Mueller wanted you to jump to.

Really, man, try not to be so gullible.

[Mountain Man]

...you'll need a lot more than one obscure source to support that conclusion.

Follow the link. Everything is clearly sourced with many references to official government documents.

[oxmixmudd]

Boy, you're an easy mark, aren't you? Look at the Mueller statement you quoted here. No, don't just assume that it validates your preconceptions but actually take the time to read it and understand what is actually being said, because what Mueller says is perfectly factual, that Congress may apply obstruction laws to a president who engages in corrupt exercise of power, but what Mueller doesn't say, despite your assumption that he did, is that Trump is actually guilty of corrupt exercise of power. On the contrary, Mueller said quite plainly that "this report does not conclude that the President committed any crimes" with regards to obstruction. But, of course, you cluelessly jumped to exactly the conclusion that Mueller wanted you to jump to.

Really, man, try not to be so gullible.

Ripping it out of context I suppose you could bend it to mean what you have just said.

To interpret this:

"that Congress may apply obstruction laws of office accords"

as not saying the president IS corruptly exercising his power is absurd, given the detailed list of times when he does exactly that in the report by trying to fire people associated with the investigation for the express purpose of stopping or otherwise interfering with the investigation.

And as I showed previously in another thread, obstruction is not nullified just because the obstructive act is legal. Rather it is the inverse. Legal acts become illegal if they are part of an attempt to obstuct. This is why Trump tried to get McGahn to do the dirty work for him.



Jim

[Mountain Man]

And yet Mueller plainly said that he could not conclude that Trump committed any crimes, and Barr, Rosenstein, and other DOJ officials concurred.

[Cow Poke]

And yet Mueller plainly said that he could not conclude that Trump committed any crimes, and Barr, Rosenstein, and other DOJ officials concurred.

And when did Mueller know there was no collusion?

Trump-Russia special counsel Robert Mueller was appointed May 17, 2017. Twenty-two months later, on March 22, 2019, Mueller sent his report to the Justice Department.

Some special counsel investigations have taken longer; it is the nature of such probes to drag on and on. But why did Mueller need nearly two years to determine whether the Trump campaign and Russia conspired or coordinated to fix the 2016 election?

He didn't, it appears. In the wake of the release of Mueller's report, there are indications that

Some of our less literate leftists have tried to morph from "collusion" to "conspiracy", but note that those [bolded] words are used above.

[oxmixmudd]

And yet Mueller plainly said that he could not conclude that Trump committed any crimes, and Barr, Rosenstein, and other DOJ officials concurred.

Which could simply mean he was not ALLOWED to reach any conclusions about whether he committed crimes because of the DOJ policy not to indict a sitting president.

Now what would be nice would be to have Mueller sit in front of some congressmen and senators and let them ask him all these questions about what he meant. I'd be willing to accept his answers to these kinds of questions about what he meant by all this things as the final word on it as long as both the questions and the answers were direct. But since the statements in the report appear to have enough ambiguity as to allow two completely different possible interpretations depending on what you tend to believe about Trump himself, there really needs to be some 'straight from the horses mouth' clarification. Mueller needs to look some people in the eye and say - "no I didn't mean that" or "yes I did mean that".

Jim

[Mountain Man]

Which could simply mean he was not ALLOWED to reach any conclusions about whether he committed crimes because of the DOJ policy not to indict a sitting president.

That's the liberal talking point at any rate, but it doesn't fly because there are no DOJ rules that would have prevented Mueller from saying if the President broke the law and recommending indictment, which would have put the ball in Barr's court to act on or reject the recommendation.

[Mountain Man]

And when did Mueller know there was no collusion?

Trump-Russia special counsel Robert Mueller was appointed May 17, 2017. Twenty-two months later, on March 22, 2019, Mueller sent his report to the Justice Department.

Some special counsel investigations have taken longer; it is the nature of such probes to drag on and on. But why did Mueller need nearly two years to determine whether the Trump campaign and Russia conspired or coordinated to fix the 2016 election?

He didn't, it appears. In the wake of the release of Mueller's report, there are indications that

Some of our less literate leftists have tried to morph from "collusion" to "conspiracy", but note that those [bolded] words are used above.

I think he knew before he even took the assignment that there was no "there" there.

[oxmixmudd]

And when did Mueller know there was no collusion?

Trump-Russia special counsel Robert Mueller was appointed May 17, 2017. Twenty-two months later, on March 22, 2019, Mueller sent his report to the Justice Department.

Some special counsel investigations have taken longer; it is the nature of such probes to drag on and on. But why did Mueller need nearly two years to determine whether the Trump campaign and Russia conspired or coordinated to fix the 2016 election?

He didn't, it appears. In the wake of the release of Mueller's report, there are indications that

Some of our less literate leftists have tried to morph from "collusion" to "conspiracy", but note that those [bolded] words are used above.

collusion: secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others.

There was collusion in that Trump cooperated with Putin's attempts to help him. He even called out to the Russians to find the Clinton emails at a time when he KNEW they were trying to help him (the 'oops i'm just kidding' excuse does NOT fly, but does align with him trying to make the request covertly). But there was no evidence found of actual efforts to directly enlist the Russians help(conspiracy) (then again in hindsight, why should they, they already had it and they knew they already had it). I think it is clear from the kind and number of contacts detailed in the report that they knew and approved of what the Russians were doing. And while that may not rise to the level of criminal activity, it is unacceptable for ANY leader of our country to willingly cooperate (collude) with an enemy in that way during the election process.

And it is not something I would have expected any republican leader or voter to sign on to prior to 2016. That alone disqualifies Trump from being president of this country. And in a different time, he'd already be gone because of it.

And it is that underlying reality that you and others seem to have lost sight of in all the gamesmanship that is the politics of it. And it is the fact of what that underlying reality implies that is the subject of this thread. The legal system failed to protect Sri-Lanka, because the underlying reality was that terrorist was going to kill people. And the legal system could not stop him. There is an underlying reality that is as plain as day in the mueller report as it relates to trump, and that is that he is willing to accept help from the Russians to win an election. He is willing to sacrifice others to protect himself. He is willing to violate the law if necessary to protect himself from the consequences of his actions. And he has a lot to hide that was not uncovered - otherwise why did he try to stop it and limit its scope so many times. And that underlying reality, just like with the terrorist, is a threat to the well being of this nation.




Jim

[oxmixmudd]

That's the liberal talking point at any rate, but it doesn't fly because there are no DOJ rules that would have prevented Mueller from saying if the President broke the law and recommending indictment, which would have put the ball in Barr's court to act on or reject the recommendation.

There don't have to be explicit rules MM for him to realize he had to leave it to congress. But we can argue about it till the cows come home. Mueller is the only one that can clarify that point.

Jim

[Mountain Man]

There don't have to be explicit rules MM for him to realize he had to leave it to congress. But we can argue about it till the cows come home. Mueller is the only one that can clarify that point.

Jim

It's not up to Congress, it's up to the AG whether or not to act on a recommendation to indict, and Mueller quite conspicuously did not recommend it.

Anyway, Mueller will have his day in Congress in about a month (funny how Democrats don't seem particularly eager to have him testify), and then Democrats can ask, "So when you said that you couldn't conclude that the President commited any crimes, does that mean the President is actually guilty?"