Muellar clears Trump of collusion Watch

ChaoticButterfly
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 4 weeks ago
#1
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ifcation-small

Hear that? That is the sound of every liberal crying out in anguish. The US state is not going to make the bad man go away.
0
reply
Joep95
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#2
Report 4 weeks ago
#2
Snufkin what’s happened you said mueller would prove collusion?
Last edited by Joep95; 4 weeks ago
4
reply
JohanGRK
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#3
Report 4 weeks ago
#3
but ebil orange man needs to go to jail :-((((
2
reply
MrDystopia
  • Volunteer Section Leader
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#4
Report 4 weeks ago
#4
(Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ifcation-small

Hear that? That is the sound of every liberal crying out in anguish. The US state is not going to make the bad man go away.
Title is inaccurate given the report blatantly says he's not exonerated. Worth changing it to something less sensational.

I guess the next step now is to see what the actual full report says, rather than the summary by the Attorney General. There's some inconsistencies in the statement, and it seems that Mueller has not decided either way whether or not to prosecute, rather, he's left it up to others. Summary also doesn't conclude whether there was any obstruction of justice.

If anything this raises more questions regarding the whole thing.
Last edited by MrDystopia; 4 weeks ago
1
reply
username521617
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#5
Report 4 weeks ago
#5
(Original post by MrDystopia)
Title is inaccurate given the report blatantly says he's not exonerated. Worth changing it to something less sensational.

I guess the next step now is to see what the actual full report says, rather than the summary by the Attorney General. There's some inconsistencies in the statement, and it seems that Mueller has not decided either way whether or not to prosecute, rather, he's left it up to others. Summary also doesn't conclude whether there was any obstruction of justice.

If anything this raises more questions regarding the whole thing.
The fact is an intensive two-year investigation did not find that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia, despite all the media conspiracy theories and constant accusations. He's in the clear.

It's also inferred there isn't enough evidence indicating obstruction of justice, so Mueller won't prosecute and it's unlikely anyone else will.

It's over. There is no good evidence Trump colluded with Russia (and there never was.)

Edit: Look at all the denial and desperation on this thread. Lol.

Edit 2: Modified choice of words based on feedback.
Last edited by username521617; 3 weeks ago
1
reply
username521617
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#6
Report 4 weeks ago
#6
(Original post by JohanGRK)
but ebil orange man needs to go to jail :-((((
0
reply
AngeryPenguin
Badges: 17
#7
Report 4 weeks ago
#7
Release the report. Not a ******** cover-up from a guy that Trump fired two people to get installed in charge of the investigation.

They've lied and obstructed at every level, it won't stop now.

But the Democratic leaders in Congress slammed Barr's decision, saying he was not 'neutral' in the investigation, and called for Mueller's full report and its supporting documentation to be made public.
'Attorney General Barr’s letter raises as many questions as it answers. The fact that Special Counsel Mueller’s report does not exonerate the president on a charge as serious as obstruction of justice demonstrates how urgent it is that the full report and underlying documentation be made public without any further delay. Given Mr. Barr’s public record of bias against the Special Counsel’s inquiry, he is not a neutral observer and is not in a position to make objective determinations about the report,' Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer and Speaker Nancy Pelosi said in a joint statement.
'And most obviously, for the president to say he is completely exonerated directly contradicts the words of Mr. Mueller and is not to be taken with any degree of credibility,' the two leaders added.
reply
ChaoticButterfly
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#8
Report Thread starter 4 weeks ago
#8
(Original post by MrDystopia)
Title is inaccurate given the report blatantly says he's not exonerated. Worth changing it to something less sensational.
Look, either way trump gets screwed or the liberals with their precious "norms" get a lesson in how liberalism is ****. Win win.
0
reply
Snufkin
  • Volunteer Team
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#9
Report 3 weeks ago
#9
(Original post by Joep95)
Snufkin what’s happened you said mueller would prove collusion?
Naturally Trump and his base will try to use this headline to exonerate him and I daresay it might work with many voters - most people unfortunately won't look beyond this one headline. There are however a few things to note.

1) The Attorney General is not without bias, we should wait to see the full report before making any judgement. As Nancy Pelosi says, "given Mr. Barr’s public record of bias against the Special Counsel's inquiry, he is not a neutral observer and is not in a position to make objective determinations about the report."

2) Barr does not say the President didn't obstruct the investigation.

3) It's not clear that there was no collusion, despite Barr's claims. Indeed, as this article shows, we already know of several instances where Trump/his team directly benefited from Russian help and lied about their involvement with Russia.

"If neither Trump nor a Trump emissary communicated explicitly with the Russians about the specifics of the operation, that is not the end of this scandal. Trump knew the attack was happening, and he helped. So, too, did Donald Trump Jr. and Manafort—and probably others within the campaign. This is the core of the Trump-Russia scandal.

By asserting that the issue is only whether or not he directly colluded with the Kremlin plot, Trump has diverted attention from the fact that he facilitated an assault on his own country. Mueller’s job was to seek out possible crimes to prosecute. It was not to evaluate actions that did not rise to the level of criminality. Nor was it his charge to tell the public the whole truth."

4) Mueller was tasked with investigating Russian interference into our 2016 elections. And now we know they did interfere to help Trump. Trump and his supporters have falsely claimed for more than two years that Russia did nothing. Will they now accept they were wrong?

5) Mueller's is not the only investigation. There are others (the SDNY, Eastern District of NY, Eastern District of VA, USDC-DC, NYC DA, New York AG, New Jersey AG, Maryland AG, District of Columbia AG, FBI, CIA, and the House of Representatives are all investigating Trump), and many of these are potentially more serious for Trump. Trump supporters would be well advised not to crow too loudly, the Donald is by no-means in the clear.
0
reply
anarchism101
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#10
Report 3 weeks ago
#10
(Original post by Dandaman1)
The fact is an intensive two-year investigation turned up no evidence indicating that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia, despite all the media conspiracy theories and constant accusations. He's in the clear.

It's also stated there isn't enough evidence to pursue a prosecution for obstruction of justice, so Mueller won't and it's unlikely anyone else will.
Neither of those things are what Barr's summary says. In the conspiracy/co-operation (not "collusion", which was always a dodgy choice of term) question, Mueller didn't find enough evidence to justify prosecution, i.e. that he thought proved lawbreaking beyond reasonable doubt. That could theoretically mean a whole range of possibilities. On one end, yes it could mean literally nothing, but it on the other end it could mean Mueller was 90% sure the campaign did conspire, but was just missing that one piece of evidence that would remove reasonable doubt. In practice neither are likely, and he probably fell somewhere in between - he probably found some evidence but not nearly enough to conclusively prove anything.

(As an aside, I've noticed that this is a weird thing people often tend to do when debating legal cases - assert that there was "no evidence" for something when really there was merely insufficient evidence. I don't know why, whether it's misunderstanding of how law works, or bad faith attempts to exaggerate the strength of their position, or something else entirely)

On the (more significant) question of obstruction, Mueller didn't conclude there wasn't enough evidence - indeed, he didn't make a conclusion either way. He either couldn't decide if there was enough, or didn't think it was his place to decide (or some combination of the two).

Also worth bearing in mind a couple of other comparable cases. The Starr investigation lasted for twice as long as Mueller's, and ultimately ended up completely clearing Bill Clinton of its initial remit on the Whitewater scandal and Travelgate - but in the course of doing so it ended up discovering taped phone conversations from a certain Monica Lewinsky, and we all know where things went from there. Going back further, the Watergate special investigation ultimately never found close to sufficient evidence that Nixon ordered or approved the initial Watergate hotel break-in (indeed, most historians now think he genuinely didn't know about it until after the event) - but it was all the other things that came to light in the process of trying to answer that question that did for him.

Now, I don't think it's likely that we'll see a similar situation now, even anything the more limited and inevitably unsuccessful attempt to force out Clinton. The environment in terms of partisan/media attitudes, good/bad faith, and spin, is too different (and indeed, this is likely to be an inevitably understated and ignored conclusion). But focusing only on the quite narrow initial remit remains pretty short-sighted.
0
reply
anarchism101
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#11
Report 3 weeks ago
#11
(Original post by Snufkin)
Naturally Trump and his base will try to use this headline to exonerate him and I daresay it might work with many voters - most people unfortunately won't look beyond this one headline.
Yup, media and partisan spin will play a big role. An instructive comparison is the reaction to Comey's conclusions regarding Clinton's emails - despite clearing her, it was immediately bigged-up into a major media "controversy". Somehow I'm not expecting a similar reaction this time...

Though at the same time, it depends quite a bit in any subsequent developments. If ultimately there aren't any major ones, for whatever reason, then it will probably be well in the rear-view mirror by election day anyway considering there's over 19 months to go and the Trump administration generates a new scandal pretty much every week.
Last edited by anarchism101; 3 weeks ago
0
reply
username521617
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#12
Report 3 weeks ago
#12
(Original post by anarchism101)
Neither of those things are what Barr's summary says. In the conspiracy/co-operation (not "collusion", which was always a dodgy choice of term) question, Mueller didn't find enough evidence to justify prosecution, i.e. that he thought proved lawbreaking beyond reasonable doubt. That could theoretically mean a whole range of possibilities. On one end, yes it could mean literally nothing, but it on the other end it could mean Mueller was 90% sure the campaign did conspire, but was just missing that one piece of evidence that would remove reasonable doubt. In practice neither are likely, and he probably fell somewhere in between - he probably found some evidence but not nearly enough to conclusively prove anything.

(As an aside, I've noticed that this is a weird thing people often tend to do when debating legal cases - assert that there was "no evidence" for something when really there was merely insufficient evidence. I don't know why, whether it's misunderstanding of how law works, or bad faith attempts to exaggerate the strength of their position, or something else entirely)

On the (more significant) question of obstruction, Mueller didn't conclude there wasn't enough evidence - indeed, he didn't make a conclusion either way. He either couldn't decide if there was enough, or didn't think it was his place to decide (or some combination of the two).

Also worth bearing in mind a couple of other comparable cases. The Starr investigation lasted for twice as long as Mueller's, and ultimately ended up completely clearing Bill Clinton of its initial remit on the Whitewater scandal and Travelgate - but in the course of doing so it ended up discovering taped phone conversations from a certain Monica Lewinsky, and we all know where things went from there. Going back further, the Watergate special investigation ultimately never found close to sufficient evidence that Nixon ordered or approved the initial Watergate hotel break-in (indeed, most historians now think he genuinely didn't know about it until after the event) - but it was all the other things that came to light in the process of trying to answer that question that did for him.

Now, I don't think it's likely that we'll see a similar situation now, even anything the more limited and inevitably unsuccessful attempt to force out Clinton. The environment in terms of partisan/media attitudes, good/bad faith, and spin, is too different (and indeed, this is likely to be an inevitably understated and ignored conclusion). But focusing only on the quite narrow initial remit remains pretty short-sighted.
"The Special Counsel's investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election."

That would indicate they had little or no evidence of it. You're just splitting hairs. Regardless, my point still stands - they didn't find that he conspired/colluded/plotted with Russia and Trump is in the clear.

Collude(verb): cooperate in a secret or unlawful way in order to deceive or gain an advantage over others.

'Conspire' is a synonym. My choice of words is fine. You're being a pedant (which more or less sums up your whole post).

I'll give you the second one, however (where I said it stated they didn't have enough evidence to pursue a prosecution for obstruction of justice - 'inferred' might have been a better word), but again, it still says that the report did not conclude Trump commited obstruction of justice, and that the special council won't prosecute. This would infer they probably don't have enough evidence to make a successful prosecution, because if they did, it would have said something a bit more damning than essentially: "The report couldn't/didn't draw a conclusion, they aren't pursuing a prosecution, it's up to the Attorney General if he wants to." In other words, they didn't have enough to say Trump did anything illegal, but the AG can have a stab at it if he wants. Honestly it doesn't sound like they had enough on him.

You can cling to the fantasy that they will miraculously find the evidence they need later on, but I very much doubt they will.
0
reply
username521617
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#13
Report 3 weeks ago
#13
(Original post by anarchism101)
(As an aside, I've noticed that this is a weird thing people often tend to do when debating legal cases - assert that there was "no evidence" for something when really there was merely insufficient evidence. I don't know why, whether it's misunderstanding of how law works, or bad faith attempts to exaggerate the strength of their position, or something else entirely).
Just adding to my reply here.

When I say "no evidence indicating" I more or less mean they just didn't have enough. It is a careless choice of words, yes, but I am aware there may have been some evidence given against him - just nothing definitive that actually proved anything. I'm not doing this in bad faith or through misunderstanding of the law (I know how it works); it's just careless, lazy writing. This might be true with other people as well.
0
reply
anarchism101
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#14
Report 2 weeks ago
#14
(Original post by username521617)
"The Special Counsel's investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election."

That would indicate they had little or no evidence of it.
Nope, that's merely one possibility. Not enough to warrant prosecution could mean anything from "no evidence whatsoever" to "just one shred of evidence shy of being beyond reasonable doubt". In reality, it's probably somewhere in the middle - significant evidence, but not close to warranting prosecution.

You're just splitting hairs. Regardless, my point still stands - they didn't find that he conspired/colluded/plotted with Russia and Trump is in the clear.

Collude(verb): cooperate in a secret or unlawful way in order to deceive or gain an advantage over others.

'Conspire' is a synonym. My choice of words is fine. You're being a pedant (which more or less sums up your whole post).
"Conspiracy" is a crime with a specific legal meaning. "Collusion" is an informal and subjective term. It's like the difference between "intellectual property theft" and "stealing someone else's idea". They sound more or less the same to a lay observer, but only the former is a strictly legal offence. People will often have their own subjective understandings of the latter which differ from the formal legal standard set out for the former.

I'll give you the second one, however (where I said it stated they didn't have enough evidence to pursue a prosecution for obstruction of justice - 'inferred' might have been a better word), but again, it still says that the report did not conclude Trump commited obstruction of justice, and that the special council won't prosecute. This would infer they probably don't have enough evidence to make a successful prosecution, because if they did, it would have said something a bit more damning than essentially: "The report couldn't/didn't draw a conclusion, they aren't pursuing a prosecution, it's up to the Attorney General if he wants to." In other words, they didn't have enough to say Trump did anything illegal, but the AG can have a stab at it if he wants. Honestly it doesn't sound like they had enough on him.
Except that very point - "it's up to the Attorney General" is precisely one of the issues being contested. The Democratic House leaders claim, with some justification, that it is actually up to Congress, not the AG.

You can cling to the fantasy that they will miraculously find the evidence they need later on, but I very much doubt they will.
I always thought it was unlikely that there would be evidence to prosecute for conspiracy. I thought it more likely that, as with Nixon and Clinton, the investigations into the initial question would end up turning up other questions and scandals, including the obstruction issue. And that, frankly, has already happened - there's a decent chance now that Trump will face criminal charges more or less as soon as he leaves office. Impeachment was always going to be difficult proposition which had more to do with whether the Dems could retake the Senate than exactly what evidence came out.
0
reply
HucktheForde
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#15
Report 2 days ago
#15
Full Mueller report is out. let me summarized this for you all

1. Trump did not actively collude with the russians but members of his campaign knew and did not take the necessary steps to stop it as per norm.
2. Trump believed that the investigation will find out shady stuff he did in the past which he believes to be crimes and on 11 occasions tried to obstruct justice.
3. The special counsel could not recommend an indictment of Trump on the basis of obstruction of justice because it would "add burden to the president's capacity of ruling" and hence just left it hanging ( left it to congress to impeach him?? )
4. The investigation spilled into 14 ongoing investigations at state level of Trump's past crimes that are not related to russia collusion.
Last edited by HucktheForde; 2 days ago
0
reply
Just my opinion
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#16
Report 2 days ago
#16
What happend to him ( or was it paid prozzies) Pi$$ing on the bed?
0
reply
anarchism101
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#17
Report 2 days ago
#17
Good summary, just adding my own comments:

(Original post by HucktheForde)
Full Mueller report is out. let me summarized this for you all

1. Trump did not actively collude with the russians but members of his campaign knew and did not take the necessary steps to stop it as per norm.
Basically they didn't collude because they were incompetent at doing so, not because they didn't try.

2. Trump believed that the investigation will find out shady stuff he did in the past which he believes to be crimes and on 11 occasions tried to obstruct justice.
Yup, and it was largely his own staff who prevented (and thus, essentially protected) him.

3. The special counsel could not recommend an indictment of Trump on the basis of obstruction of justice because it would "add burden to the president's capacity of ruling" and hence just left it hanging ( left it to congress to impeach him?? )
This one surprised me, because Barr claimed in his summary that this wasn't why Mueller didn't choose to indict. I didn't expect Barr to just straight-up lie, but apparently he did on this.

4. The investigation spilled into 14 ongoing investigations at state level of Trump's past crimes that are not related to russia collusion.
In short, he's basically ****ed whenever he leaves office.
2
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#18
Report 1 day ago
#18
In what possible way did this report exonerate him? It said nothing of the sort.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Have you registered to vote?

Yes! (312)
37.68%
No - but I will (64)
7.73%
No - I don't want to (62)
7.49%
No - I can't vote (<18, not in UK, etc) (390)
47.1%

Watched Threads

View All