A sober reminder of what insufficient evidence actually means

[oxmixmudd]

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.

It is not conspicuous. Why recommend that which it is the DOJ policy not to do. He could not conclude the president did not commit a crime. Any other language would be an implicit indictment, and it is against current DOJ policy to do so.

Secondarily, given how it went for Comey - who stepped outside policy out of a sense of conscience - you can be guaranteed that if Mueller had used stronger language, and congress had proceeded and the senate refused to follow through, the noose would be hung squarely around Mueller's neck. Mueller did what he could in an environment like we have right now to recommend the Congress act, but left his own head off the chopping block.

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?"

That will be an interesting interview. And hopefully it can end the speculation. But again, Mueller's head will be on the chopping block if he says anything that puts responsibility for a decision to attempt impeachment on him, so he may be a bit non-committal in that hearing. I'll be very curious to see how that goes.

Jim

[JimL]

Ok... but Mueller didn't say he had insufficient evidence. It's not even matter of there being evidence but reasonable doubt. Rather, Mueller said quite definitively "this investigation does not conclude that the President committed a crime".

Apparently you don't understand what "does not conclude" means. It doesns't mean innocence, it means they didn't come to a conclusion, and since he can not indict the conclusion is left to Congress and the American people to decide. You always leave out the part where he says, though it doesn't conclude the president commited a crime, but it doesn't exonerate him either. It also doesn't say that members of his staff didn't commit crimes, and unbeknownst to you, the investigation itself into many aspects of alledged crimes is still ongoing.

And besides, I think ox is misreading the Prime Minister's statement. He says they were monitoring the group prior to the attack but couldn't take legal action because, presumably, they had not broken any laws. Of course now that they actually have committed crimes, they have been arrested and charged. That's how the law works.

No, it didn't say that they hadn't commited any crimes, it said they didn't have sufficient enough evidence to take them into custody. This is different, this is the gathering of evidence, for which there is mountains of evidence, but it is up to Congress to decide if it is sufficient enough to impeach or not. To any one with a brain, the evidence is more than sufficient to establish high crimes and misdemeaners on its face, but the public needs to see it first. What are you afraid of?

[oxmixmudd]

Apparently you don't understand what "does not conclude" means. It doesns't mean innocence, it means they didn't come to a conclusion, and since he can not indict the conclusion is left to Congress and the American people to decide. You always leave out the part where he says, though it doesn't conclude the president commited a crime, but it doesn't exonerate him either. It also doesn't say that members of his staff didn't commit crimes, and unbeknownst to you, the investigation itself into many aspects of alledged crimes is still ongoing.

No, it didn't say that they hadn't commited any crimes, it said they didn't have sufficient enough evidence to take them into custody. This is different, this is the gathering of evidence, for which there is mountains of evidence, but it is up to Congress to decide if it is sufficient enough to impeach or not. To any one with a brain, the evidence is more than sufficient to establish high crimes and misdemeaners on its face, but the public needs to see it first. What are you afraid of?

Actually, for the specific case this thread is based on, they took him in for questioning but did not have enough evidence to hold him.

Jim

[Mountain Man]

Actually, for the specific case this thread is based on, they took him in for questioning but did not have enough evidence to hold him.

Jim

In Trump's case, Mueller didn't even have enough to compel Trump to sit for an interview.

[NorrinRadd]

In Trump's case, Mueller didn't even have enough to compel Trump to sit for an interview.

I think one of the rules is that he can't compel to sit for an interview if the desired info can be gotten by other means. So it might be more precise to say that he already *had* access to all relevant info, and was only interested in setting up a perjury trap.

[Mountain Man]

I think one of the rules is that he can't compel to sit for an interview if the desired info can be gotten by other means. So it might be more precise to say that he already *had* access to all relevant info, and was only interested in setting up a perjury trap.

I don't know about there being a rule, but it usually goes like this:

"Here's what we know, and here's how screwed you are if you don't talk to us."

The only thing Mueller could do was impotently whine that Trump's wholly voluntary written answers were insufficient. He had no leverage to compel Trump to do more. That's how weak his case was, and he knew it.

[oxmixmudd]

In Trump's case, Mueller didn't even have enough to compel Trump to sit for an interview.

Oh - this is rich. You are rejoicing in the similarity of a terrorist not being able to be held and Trump not being able to be forced to interview. Wow!

So the case I'm talking about here in this thread is the case of a fellow that eventually went on to participate in killing hundreds of people because the authorities could not hold him.

And now you rejoice that a similar technicality has let Trump get away with his own abuses of power.

And given that Trump has sidled up to and encouraged several dictators in the world, telling them how much he admires them, and given that Trump continues to stand behind and encourage the Nazi/White Nationalist rhetoric surrounding Charlottesville, I wonder how many people will owe their loss of life to Trump slipping through the fingers of legal technicality.

It truly is sobering to realize we are looking at two situations that are far more similar than many are willing to admit.

Jim

[Mountain Man]

Oh - this is rich. You are rejoicing in the similarity of a terrorist not being able to be held and Trump not being able to be forced to interview. Wow!

What's "rich" is your irrational attempt to draw a parallel between Trump and a terrorist group that murdered 300 people.

[oxmixmudd]

What's "rich" is your irrational attempt to draw a parallel between Trump and a terrorist group that murdered 300 people.

I didnt draw the parallel, you did. I just commented on the parallel you tried to make.

Hiwever, Trump's continued attempts to justify what happened in Charlottesville is and encourages the sort of thinking that produced this terrorist

Jim

[Mountain Man]

I didnt draw the parallel, you did.

You can't even be honest with yourself, huh? Here's the first post in the thread:

So many claim trump is vindicated by the Mueller report because sufficient evidence could not be found to prove collusion.

Well, here is what insufficient evidence means in the context of this weekends sri lanken bombings

Source: cnn

In an interview with CNN, Sri Lanka's Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe said the suspected bombers were upper and middle class, well-educated and educated abroad, a profile he described as "surprising." He added that several of them were under surveillance ahead of the attacks, but that there had not been "sufficient" evidence to take them into custody.

© Copyright Original Source

Jim

This is YOUR attempt at a parallel.

[oxmixmudd]

You can't even be honest with yourself, huh? Here's the first post in the thread:


This is YOUR attempt at a parallel.

No mm. This thread is not about a parallel between the character or other moral markers of a terrorist and Trump. This thread is about the fact that being unable to prove something legally is not a valid measure of the actual guilt associated with the person in question and the potential danger of assuming falsely that it does.


It was motivated by the fact you and others repeatedly have claimed the lack of an indictment means trump did not do anything wrong as relates to the subject matter of the investigation.


You, OTOH, are seen a few posts back drawing direct comparison to the fact a lack of evidence let this terrorist go free and then rejoicing in the fact enough evidence could not be found to indict trump.

Tasteless at best.

Jim

[Mountain Man]

This thread is about the fact that being unable to prove something legally is not a valid measure of the actual guilt associated with the person in question and the potential danger of assuming falsely that it does.

Right... you're trying to draw a parallel between President Trump, and a terrorist group that murdered several hundred people.

As you said, "Tasteless at best."