On Thursday, April 18, 2019 at 8:16:18 PM UTC-4, Dene wrote:
> On Thursday, April 18, 2019 at 4:55:30 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
> > On Thursday, April 18, 2019 at 6:22:15 PM UTC-4, Dene wrote:
> > > > > I'm tabling the obstruction discussion for now. Here is why...
> > > > >
> > > > > The Mueller investigation was primarily about Russia's attempts
> > > > > to interfere with the US election and whether Trump or any American
> > > > > colluded with these attempts. Despite Russian attempts to entice
> > > > > the Trump Campaign, Mueller concludes that no American ate this
> > > > > forbidden fruit. Do you agree with Mueller's conclusions?
> > > >
> > > > I've not read enough to know for sure just what Mueller found and
> > > > concluded to draw a conclusion like you already have.
> > >
> > > You're dodging, HH.
> >
> > Quite the opposite: you've criticized that there's been rampant speculation
> > and here, I'm explicitly saying that I'm not going to speculate, for which
> > you're immediately flip-flopping.
>
> I look forward to your answer to the first question.
>
> > > I'll make it easy for you with a direct quote from the Muller report.
> > >
> > > "The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired
> > > or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”
> >
> > Note that your quote directly and unambiguously documents that Russia did
> > indeed interfered with our election system. What is the POTUS going to do to
> > defend the USA and punish Russia for their actions? Just ignore it?
>
> Trump has been much tougher on Putin than his predecessors.
No, the Republican Party has been doing most of the current actions; they're
definitely not being lead by Trump.
> What do you propose he do?
First step would be for Trump to say "I was wrong, we were attacked by Russia".
> > > > What we know right now is just the summary top level that there was
> > > > no recommendation to pursue charges. That isn't proof that "no one
> > > > ate". Between the DoJ policy to not indict sitting Presidents and
> > > > the potential for inadequate evidence (which could have been because
> > > > of obstruction) to make strong case, there's just too much ambiguity
> > > > and reasons to not assume anything yet, particularly the "lily white"
> > > > slam dunk clarity of innocence that some shameless parties are
> > > > duplicitously trying to posture for.
> > > >
> > > > TL;DR: need the smoke to clear to see how dark the shade of grey really is.
> > >
> > > There is nothing grey about the citation above. Do you need the page number?
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> > Plus do keep in mind that 'conspiracy' wasn't the sole element being investigated.
>
> Of course...you have volume 1 and 2. I would like for you to acknowledge that
> volume 1 (collusion) is a dead horse.
What's been evident for quite awhile is that the Trump campaign was dancing way
too close to the fire on potential collusion (your volume 1), which even if it wasn't
literally illegal, was clearly a bad practice and ethically questionable: activity which
did exist but which fell short of the legal textbook definition of conspiracy, at least
within the evidence available which was deliberately limited. YMMV, but IMO, the
public deserves better than leaders whose qualifications are "I avoided being indicted".
For obstruction (apparently volume 2), the Mueller conclusions appear to be
that there definitely were attempts to obstruct and deflect. The question seems
to be if where they crossed the the legal definition's threshold to be illegal, just
what other considerations preempted charges. Specifically, this is referring to
current DoJ Policy that a sitting President is not to be indicted. The ramifications
of this are what happens on January 21, 2021 (or 2025 at the latest), when Trump
can no longer legally avoid being subpoenaed, etc.
"if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the
President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state.
Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable
to reach that judgment. The evidence we obtained about the President's actions
and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining
that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude
that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."
Limited context from here:
<
https://www.npr.org/2019/04/18/708965026/highlights-from-the-mueller-report>
> Use the search function on the pdf and get back to me. The statement is clear
> and compelling. What remains is your affirmation.
>
> > > > Similarly, you've attempted to label me as a liberal Democrat which
> > > > is of itself shameful and over-the-top speculation. By doing so,
> > > > you've revealed yourself as guilty of partisan posturing and duplicity.
> > >
> > > I've never seen you defend Trump or any Republican. Given my experience
> > > with you in this room, is my assumption incorrect?
> >
> > Yes, because you're forgetting how I recently defended McCain from Trump's
> > BS, plus my comments in this very thread are to not jump to conclusions.
>
> Yeah...where was your support for McCain when he was running for POTUS?
There's probably public comments in RSG on that too. Frankly, I was very much
supportive of McCain, but his choice of Palin for VP torpedoed that.
> > > > > Last question. I just saw Schiffy's presser.
> > > >
> > > > But its not Sunday night, so what the hell is he doing on TV?
> > >
> > > Hahaha.
> >
> > Sad but true in the greater NYC Metro area TV Market. Virtually every
> > damn Sunday night, he gets his FaceTime on some inane topic or another.
>
> Ugh... I'd lose 10 lbs if I put that weasel on my frig door.
> Try Game of Thrones or the Walking Dead.
I don't watch that crap either.
> Sometimes 60 Minutes is good.
Wish its start time was more reliable - this time of year it can be golf which
pushes it back; other times its football, etc.
> > > > > Clearly he is not
> > > > > accepting Mueller's conclusions but leading the charge toward
> > > > > impeachment. Sadly, other Dem chairmans are pursuing this course
> > > > > too. Are you in agreement with the course?
> > > >
> > > > I trust & defer to what Mueller said on that topic, quoted above.
> > > > Why aren't you doing the same?
> > >
> > > I will ask the 3rd question again.
> > >
> > > "Clearly he is not accepting Mueller's conclusions but leading the charge toward
> > > impeachment. Sadly, other Dem chairmans are pursuing this course
> > > too. Are you in agreement with the course?"
> >
> > Because you're now trying to dodge yourself, because when I said that I'm
> > trusting and deferring to Mueller, what I'm pointing out is that Mueller said
> > that Congress DOES have the legal authority ... and also the obligation.
>
> Agree...Congress has the choice to use Mueller's report to pursue impeachment
> ...or just accept the report and lead the country in moving forward. Which option
> do you prefer?
The moral principle is: "no man is above the law". However, Congress is very
much a political animal, so it is all too likely that partisanship will preempt equal
application of the law. Or, as I mentioned earlier, the legal charges may have to
wait until Trump leaves office in 2021 or 2025.
> > So then, you're making it clear that you don't support Mueller's statement.
>
> I believe every word of it.
Saying that you believe it isn't saying that you support it.
-hh