(04-20-2019 07:39 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  In the Mueller Report, there are numerous instances that show there were issues with how Trump acted with respect to obstruction of justice and how the campaign acted with respect to Russian interference. It clearly shows there was sufficient evidence in both cases to warrant an investigation, but the evidence found fell short of proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, that crimes were committed in both cases.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but there is a wide gap between finding no evidence and finding insufficient evidence to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt.

Tanq did a really thorough job of explaining collusion/conspiracy. I'll take a shot at obstruction.

It's a very specific gap, however wide or not wide it may be. Mueller made it clear in his report (volume 2, starting at page 9) that to establish obstruction, you must prove three things:
1) An obstructive act
2) Nexus to a pending or contemplated official proceeding
3) Corrupt or criminal intent.

What has been alleged is a whole bunch of stuff that may or may not satisfy element 1), and very possibly element 2). But element 3) is the problem, and without that you don't get obstruction.

With the finding of no collusion/conspiracy with "the Russians," I think element 3) goes out the window. If there is no underlying crime, then Trump presumably knew there was no underlying crime, and thus could have acted because of frustration with what he reasonably considered to be a witch hunt that was interfering with his ability to govern. There's nothing corrupt or criminal about wanting an unjustified investigation to end.

This is easily distinguished from both Nixon with Watergate and Hillary with her server. With Watergate, there was an underlying crime, which Nixon clearly knew about, and therefore corrupt or criminal intent is easily shown. With Hillary, the crimes associated with mishandling classified information do not require criminal intent as an element, plus the conduct of Hillary and/or her team included destruction of evidence (wiping computers, "losing" emails, smashing cell phones) which would be primary indicia of intent.

The law is very specific in this and many other areas. If the elements of a crime are a, b, and c, then you must have exactly a AND b AND c to have a crime. No matter how much evidence you have of a and b (and in this case I don't think even that evidence is all that impressive), without c you have nothing.

(04-20-2019 09:01 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-20-2019 07:39 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  In the Mueller Report, there are numerous instances that show there were issues with how Trump acted with respect to obstruction of justice and how the campaign acted with respect to Russian interference. It clearly shows there was sufficient evidence in both cases to warrant an investigation, but the evidence found fell short of proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, that crimes were committed in both cases.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but there is a wide gap between finding no evidence and finding insufficient evidence to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt.

Tanq did a really thorough job of explaining collusion/conspiracy. I'll take a shot at obstruction.

It's a very specific gap, however wide or not wide it may be. Mueller made it clear in his report (volume 2, starting at page 9) that to establish obstruction, you must prove three things:
1) An obstructive act
2) Nexus to a pending or contemplated official proceeding
3) Corrupt or criminal intent.

What has been alleged is a whole bunch of stuff that may or may not satisfy element 1), and very possibly element 2). But element 3) is the problem, and without that you don't get obstruction.

With the finding of no collusion/conspiracy with "the Russians," I think element 3) goes out the window. If there is no underlying crime, then Trump presumably knew there was no underlying crime, and thus could have acted because of frustration with what he reasonably considered to be a witch hunt that was interfering with his ability to govern. There's nothing corrupt or criminal about wanting an unjustified investigation to end.

This is easily distinguished from both Nixon with Watergate and Hillary with her server. With Watergate, there was an underlying crime, which Nixon clearly knew about, and therefore corrupt or criminal intent is easily shown. With Hillary, the crimes associated with mishandling classified information do not require criminal intent as an element, plus the conduct of Hillary and/or her team included destruction of evidence (wiping computers, "losing" emails, smashing cell phones) which would be primary indicia of intent.

The law is very specific in this and many other areas. If the elements of a crime are a, b, and c, then you must have exactly a AND b AND c to have a crime. No matter how much evidence you have of a and b (and in this case I don't think even that evidence is all that impressive), without c you have nothing.

But the Mueller Report clearly states that Trump was afraid of the investigation uncovering potential crimes unrelated to the Russian interference, which gave him reason to want to obstruct the investigation so that those potential issues weren’t uncovered. So would it matter if the issues he didn’t want Mueller to investigate were unrelated to the topic that started the investigation, and was within the scope of the investigation?

(04-17-2019 10:58 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-17-2019 10:50 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(04-17-2019 07:27 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-16-2019 08:31 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  The point still stands if you substitute "stupid" for the verbatim "smart enough."

But if you substitute "stupid" for the verbatim "not smart enough," then you are substituting your interpretation of what she said for her words. You are restating what she said to what you heard, and the two are not necessarily the same. Not smart can mean stupid or it can mean ignorant.

Anybody who thinks that Trump's tax returns will show 1) collusion with "the Russians", or 2) some kind of tax fraud that has gone undetected by the IRS, or 3) some indication of his net worth, is quite frankly not smart enough to understand and analyze those returns. Anyone who knows enough about tax returns to make any sense of them at all will know that tax returns will not reveal any such things.

Now, I would suspect that the truth of what is going on here is not that they aren't smart enough, but that they know better but are deliberately and intentionally misleading. They know there is nothing there, but they just want to harass and obfuscate. They're not intelligence challenged, they're honesty challenged.

Really? You are criticizing people as "honesty challenged" while defending Trump? Wow.

Really number 2: Really, you guys are still arguing about the "smart enough" quote? Wow.

Question #1: What do you think of his second paragraph? Do you disagree with anything there? What do YOU think the value is in asking for his returns?

I don’t know what will be found. I don’t think anyone is thinking just his 1040 will reveal some deep dark secret. What we do know is that from Nixon on all nominees have disclosed their taxes, except Trump. (Ford, I believe, only released a summary.) Trump knew this when he decided to run for President. He could have said he refused on some principle. He didn’t, he said he couldn’t because he was being audited. A lie. (That he can’t release because of an audit.) Then he promised to release them after the election. Another lie. Now he is willing to go to court to avoid releasing them.

None of this is the behavior of someone who thinks his taxes will reveal nothing. Otherwise he would have revealed them before the election like everyone else. I’m assuming Trump knows something I don’t.

Quote:Question #2. Other than the propaganda from the anti-Trump networks, what makes you think Trump is that much different than any other politician? They all lie, just some more publicly than others. Is there any reason to prefer the the ones who lie privately, out of the spotlight on important things?

Trump lies constantly. To pretend he’s just like other politicians is absurd. This idea that somehow he’s so dishonest that it makes him more honest is even more absurd. Just as a comparison, Politifact has Obama at 70 Mostly False, 71 False and 9 Pants on Fire statements after 8 years, while in 2 years Trump is at 139, 227, and 99 respectively. At that rate Trump is on track to be an order of magnitude higher on those and is *already* there with the Pants on Fire ratings. Some of the other trackers have him saying over 20 false or misleading things per day. There is no way, shape or form that is acceptable. And I don't understand why so many people who should no better are rationalizing it.

Some of his lies more important than others: he flat out lied to the NATO Secretary General about where his father was born. Why? I have no idea. That lie itself is not that important, but it does reinforce the Europeans’ belief that he is a dishonest nut job. Maybe some are a joke like you can’t watch TV if the wind stops blowing and you use wind power. Or laughably stupid, like “windmill noise causes cancer”. But plenty are substantive and important, like about Puerto Rico aid, the child separation policy, millions of illegal votes for Hilary, and on and on. These sorts of lies are not defensible and are further poisoning our civic and political culture.

And that just gets in to his dishonesty, not even touching on the misogyny, racism, mocking the disabled, etc.

Quote:Question #3. Isn't "wow" a bit condescending? Sounds to me like you are saying "How stupid can you be"?

The first “wow” was more along the lines of “Wow, that takes some cojones!” and the second was an expression of bemusement.

(04-17-2019 11:38 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-17-2019 10:50 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  Really? You are criticizing people as "honesty challenged" while defending Trump? Wow.

I'm "defending Trump"? How, when, where? I'm attacking democrats, not defending Trump. I don't like Trump, but I don't dislike him as much as I dislike the commie/socialist/collectivist democrats.

And I'm sorry. but anybody who claims that Trump's tax returns will contain evidence of any of the things claimed is either ignorant or lying.

Really, you're claiming you don't defend Trump? OK.

(04-20-2019 11:28 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  But the Mueller Report clearly states that Trump was afraid of the investigation uncovering potential crimes unrelated to the Russian interference, which gave him reason to want to obstruct the investigation so that those potential issues weren’t uncovered. So would it matter if the issues he didn’t want Mueller to investigate were unrelated to the topic that started the investigation, and was within the scope of the investigation?

I think your paraphrase is overstating what Mueller actually said (or at least what I remember reading), but that aside, a couple of points.

Here you run into the nexus issue, for one. Mueller was engaged to investigate Russian influence on the election, and possible collusion/conspiracy with between Trump and "the Russians." And of course, he had the authority to go anywhere that evidence led him. But you get into some procedural and evidentiary issues about what are reasonable and unreasonable extensions of scope in those cases. If you take the position that Mueller had carte blanche to look and any and everything Trump had done since birth, then you might have a point. But that's generally not the way the law works.

And keep in mind, Mueller uncovered a number of things that might be personally embarrassing to Trump but have no legal significance. This is particularly important given the political climate, where democrats would love to find indications of even legal activities that they could use politically. If Trump was worried about embarrassing details, instead of criminal activities, coming to light, then there is a legitimate question whether that rises to criminal intent.

(04-20-2019 11:28 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  But the Mueller Report clearly states that Trump was afraid of the investigation uncovering potential crimes unrelated to the Russian interference, which gave him reason to want to obstruct the investigation so that those potential issues weren’t uncovered. So would it matter if the issues he didn’t want Mueller to investigate were unrelated to the topic that started the investigation, and was within the scope of the investigation?

I think your paraphrase is overstating what Mueller actually said (or at least what I remember reading), but that aside, a couple of points.

Here you run into the nexus issue, for one. Mueller was engaged to investigate Russian influence on the election, and possible collusion/conspiracy with between Trump and "the Russians." And of course, he had the authority to go anywhere that evidence led him. But you get into some procedural and evidentiary issues about what are reasonable and unreasonable extensions of scope in those cases. If you take the position that Mueller had carte blanche to look and any and everything Trump had done since birth, then you might have a point. But that's generally not the way the law works.

And keep in mind, Mueller uncovered a number of things that might be personally embarrassing to Trump but have no legal significance. This is particularly important given the political climate, where democrats would love to find indications of even legal activities that they could use politically. If Trump was worried about embarrassing details, instead of criminal activities, coming to light, then there is a legitimate question whether that rises to criminal intent.

My read is that Mueller was handing off obstruction to Congress.

I think at this point they have a constitutional duty to investigate Trump's possible obstruction and abuse of power. I don't know if it will lead to impeachment or not. Impeachment is not strictly a legal matter, at least not in the sense that a normal trial would be. I.e. if Trumps subordinates had carried out all his orders, he would be in much worse legal trouble. Congress can take that into account in a way a criminal court could not.

One thing that becomes clear from the report: While Trump opponents have long thought he was emotionally, psychologically, intellectually, and morally unfit for the presidency, it's now clear that many (most?) who work for him feel the same way.

And yet the majority of Republicans can't admit that publicly. My respect level for Republicans in general has dropped through the floor in the last 2.5 years, and I really don't expect it to return in my lifetime.

(04-20-2019 11:28 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-20-2019 09:01 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-20-2019 07:39 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  In the Mueller Report, there are numerous instances that show there were issues with how Trump acted with respect to obstruction of justice and how the campaign acted with respect to Russian interference. It clearly shows there was sufficient evidence in both cases to warrant an investigation, but the evidence found fell short of proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, that crimes were committed in both cases.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but there is a wide gap between finding no evidence and finding insufficient evidence to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt.

Tanq did a really thorough job of explaining collusion/conspiracy. I'll take a shot at obstruction.

It's a very specific gap, however wide or not wide it may be. Mueller made it clear in his report (volume 2, starting at page 9) that to establish obstruction, you must prove three things:
1) An obstructive act
2) Nexus to a pending or contemplated official proceeding
3) Corrupt or criminal intent.

What has been alleged is a whole bunch of stuff that may or may not satisfy element 1), and very possibly element 2). But element 3) is the problem, and without that you don't get obstruction.

With the finding of no collusion/conspiracy with "the Russians," I think element 3) goes out the window. If there is no underlying crime, then Trump presumably knew there was no underlying crime, and thus could have acted because of frustration with what he reasonably considered to be a witch hunt that was interfering with his ability to govern. There's nothing corrupt or criminal about wanting an unjustified investigation to end.

This is easily distinguished from both Nixon with Watergate and Hillary with her server. With Watergate, there was an underlying crime, which Nixon clearly knew about, and therefore corrupt or criminal intent is easily shown. With Hillary, the crimes associated with mishandling classified information do not require criminal intent as an element, plus the conduct of Hillary and/or her team included destruction of evidence (wiping computers, "losing" emails, smashing cell phones) which would be primary indicia of intent.

The law is very specific in this and many other areas. If the elements of a crime are a, b, and c, then you must have exactly a AND b AND c to have a crime. No matter how much evidence you have of a and b (and in this case I don't think even that evidence is all that impressive), without c you have nothing.

But the Mueller Report clearly states that Trump was afraid of the investigation uncovering potential crimes unrelated to the Russian interference, which gave him reason to want to obstruct the investigation so that those potential issues weren’t uncovered. So would it matter if the issues he didn’t want Mueller to investigate were unrelated to the topic that started the investigation, and was within the scope of the investigation?

Then the report should state those underlying 'potential crimes' to complete the circle. Without that one can play the 'just suppose x' all fing day --- and the specific portions that reference this topic do just this --- they say essentially 'let us suppose' when you actually read the thoroughly. The presence of them as an 'intent' was implied. But never stated.

And if Mueller had evidence of those 'potential crimes' Mueller: a) had a mandate to pursue them; b) had an obligation to pursue them; c) if there were actual evidence of such 'underlying crimes', had a both a mandate and an obligation to pursue them criminally; and d) had the evidence of the supposed underlying crimes been more than the wing flapping that takes place in the report, had both the mandate *and* *obligation* to pursue them criminally.

Just waving your hands and saying 'well *maybe* there are (unspecified) *other* crimes' doesnt even come close enough to the smell test to even laugh at. But considering that the 'let us just suppose with a lot of wing flapping' has been part and parcel of the standard that the entire investigation has taken in the eyes of the liberals, the democrats, and the media to this point, I am not surprised that this is still the last bastion of the Verdun perimeter here for that. And even flapping the wings as providing *specific* supposed 'underlying crimes' (using quotes here, because the allegations of Trump 'directing' Cohen's false testimony lack any sense of substance aside from one person with a high motive to state that are pretty much void) *still* doesnt meet the necessary standard.

As an example, one might, with the amount of evidence presented, state that Trump was trying to buy a jury for El Chapo, as that evidence. Same amount of evidentiary weight and level of supposition in both statements mind you.

(Heh, I seem to have delineated the media as somehow distinct and separate from 'liberals' and Democrats..... wow my head cold and ear infection has seemingly made me daffy.... pardon that terrible logical oversight....)

(04-20-2019 12:09 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(04-17-2019 11:38 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-17-2019 10:50 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  Really? You are criticizing people as "honesty challenged" while defending Trump? Wow.

I'm "defending Trump"? How, when, where? I'm attacking democrats, not defending Trump. I don't like Trump, but I don't dislike him as much as I dislike the commie/socialist/collectivist democrats.
And I'm sorry. but anybody who claims that Trump's tax returns will contain evidence of any of the things claimed is either ignorant or lying.

Really, you're claiming you don't defend Trump? OK.

Starting something which lies within my professional expertise (and within the expertise of others on here who have agreed with me at some point) is "defending" someone?

Let me be clear, I think Trump is a rude, arrogant a-hole who, by virtue of being in the casino and property development businesses in some of the most corrupt jurisdictions in the country (NY and NJ), has almost certainly engaged in activities necessary to those businesses that were sleazy. Why do you think he had somebody like Cohen on retainer? "Here, fix this, send me a bill, don't tell me what you did." You don't hire Clarence Darrow to do that stuff. I'm also fairly certain that he could afford and was advised by competent attorneys and accountants who structured things to 1) minimize taxes, and 2) insulate him personally from the sleazy stuff. If he ran everything through his 1040, I'd be astonished, and so would any even halfway competent tax accountant or attorney.

If you think I dislike Trump as a person, you think correctly. If you think I agree with him on all issues, you obviously are not aware of my positions on tariffs and the wall, among others.

But I don't agree with the democrats, whom I view as commies/socialists/collectivists, on anything. And I'm far more interested in issues than anything else when voting. So I prefer Donald Trump to any democrat currently in the presidential field.

I think Hillary belongs in prison for any of a number of reasons, but she would still be my favorite democrat, because at least I don't think she is a commie--or at least Bill isn't. I plan to register democrat in 2020 and vote for her in the primary, even if I have to write her in. I don't really see a lot to choose between Hillary and Trump.

(04-20-2019 12:23 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-20-2019 11:28 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-20-2019 09:01 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-20-2019 07:39 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  In the Mueller Report, there are numerous instances that show there were issues with how Trump acted with respect to obstruction of justice and how the campaign acted with respect to Russian interference. It clearly shows there was sufficient evidence in both cases to warrant an investigation, but the evidence found fell short of proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, that crimes were committed in both cases.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but there is a wide gap between finding no evidence and finding insufficient evidence to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt.

Tanq did a really thorough job of explaining collusion/conspiracy. I'll take a shot at obstruction.

It's a very specific gap, however wide or not wide it may be. Mueller made it clear in his report (volume 2, starting at page 9) that to establish obstruction, you must prove three things:
1) An obstructive act
2) Nexus to a pending or contemplated official proceeding
3) Corrupt or criminal intent.

What has been alleged is a whole bunch of stuff that may or may not satisfy element 1), and very possibly element 2). But element 3) is the problem, and without that you don't get obstruction.

With the finding of no collusion/conspiracy with "the Russians," I think element 3) goes out the window. If there is no underlying crime, then Trump presumably knew there was no underlying crime, and thus could have acted because of frustration with what he reasonably considered to be a witch hunt that was interfering with his ability to govern. There's nothing corrupt or criminal about wanting an unjustified investigation to end.

This is easily distinguished from both Nixon with Watergate and Hillary with her server. With Watergate, there was an underlying crime, which Nixon clearly knew about, and therefore corrupt or criminal intent is easily shown. With Hillary, the crimes associated with mishandling classified information do not require criminal intent as an element, plus the conduct of Hillary and/or her team included destruction of evidence (wiping computers, "losing" emails, smashing cell phones) which would be primary indicia of intent.

The law is very specific in this and many other areas. If the elements of a crime are a, b, and c, then you must have exactly a AND b AND c to have a crime. No matter how much evidence you have of a and b (and in this case I don't think even that evidence is all that impressive), without c you have nothing.

But the Mueller Report clearly states that Trump was afraid of the investigation uncovering potential crimes unrelated to the Russian interference, which gave him reason to want to obstruct the investigation so that those potential issues weren’t uncovered. So would it matter if the issues he didn’t want Mueller to investigate were unrelated to the topic that started the investigation, and was within the scope of the investigation?

Then the report should state those underlying 'potential crimes' to complete the circle. Without that one can play the 'just suppose x' all fing day --- and the specific portions that reference this topic do just this --- they say essentially 'let us suppose' when you actually read the thoroughly.

And if Mueller had evidence of those 'potential crimes' Mueller: a) had a mandate to pursue them; b) had an obligation to pursue them; and c) if there were actual evidence of such 'underlying crimes', had a both a mandate and an obligation to pursue them criminally.

Just waving your hands and saying 'well *maybe* there are (unspecified) *other* crimes' doesnt even come close enough to the smell test to even laugh at. But considering that the 'let us just suppose with a lot of wing flapping' has been part and parcel of the standard that the entire investigation has taken in the eyes of the liberals, the democrats, and the media to this point, I am not surprised that this is still the last bastion of the Verdun perimeter here for that.

(Heh, I seem to have delineated the media as somehow distinct and separate from 'liberals' and Democrats..... wow my head cold and ear infection has seemingly made me daffy.... pardon that terrible logical oversight....)

Don't we already know that Individual #1 is implicated in felony campaign violations? That his inauguration is being investigated? That he is being investigated for potential bank fraud? (Or is that the Trump Org? Hard to keep track.) And that there were 12(?) other investigations handed off, but we don't know the details because they were redacted?

(04-20-2019 12:23 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  My read is that Mueller was handing off obstruction to Congress.

I think at this point they have a constitutional duty to investigate Trump's possible obstruction and abuse of power. I don't know if it will lead to impeachment or not. Impeachment is not strictly a legal matter, at least not in the sense that a normal trial would be. I.e. if Trumps subordinates had carried out all his orders, he would be in much worse legal trouble. Congress can take that into account in a way a criminal court could not.

One thing that becomes clear from the report: While Trump opponents have long thought he was emotionally, psychologically, intellectually, and morally unfit for the presidency, it's now clear that many (most?) who work for him feel the same way.

And yet the majority of Republicans can't admit that publicly. My respect level for Republicans in general has dropped through the floor in the last 2.5 years, and I really don't expect it to return in my lifetime.

Much like my respect level for Democrats has done over the last 10.5 years. Funny that.

You guys (and the Trump admin and Congressional Republicans) keep trying to conflate the collusion and conspiracy. I'm 99% sure at no point does Mueller say "there was no collusion".

Here's his summary:

"The social media campaign and the GRU hacking operations coincided with a series of
contacts between Trump Campaign officials and individuals with ties to the Russian government.
The Office investigated whether those contacts reflected or resulted in the Campaign conspiring
or coordinating with Russia in its election-interference activities. Although the investigation
established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and
worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from
information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that
members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its
election interference activities ."

In layman's terms that seems pretty corrupt, sleazy, and yes, unpatriotic to me. Knowing a hostile foreign power is undermining American democracy on the Trump campaign's behalf, and not only doing nothing to stop it, but also thinking it's great and encouraging them ("I love it!") seems like collusion to me. McConnell too. I'm not sure Obama did the right thing either, frankly, but I think he may have done the least bad thing after McConnell made it clear he'd put party ahead of country. I'd welcome a bipartisan commission to look into it and see if we can set up institutions that can handle this sort of situation better.

(04-20-2019 12:29 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(04-20-2019 12:23 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-20-2019 11:28 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-20-2019 09:01 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-20-2019 07:39 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  In the Mueller Report, there are numerous instances that show there were issues with how Trump acted with respect to obstruction of justice and how the campaign acted with respect to Russian interference. It clearly shows there was sufficient evidence in both cases to warrant an investigation, but the evidence found fell short of proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, that crimes were committed in both cases.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but there is a wide gap between finding no evidence and finding insufficient evidence to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt.

Tanq did a really thorough job of explaining collusion/conspiracy. I'll take a shot at obstruction.

It's a very specific gap, however wide or not wide it may be. Mueller made it clear in his report (volume 2, starting at page 9) that to establish obstruction, you must prove three things:
1) An obstructive act
2) Nexus to a pending or contemplated official proceeding
3) Corrupt or criminal intent.

What has been alleged is a whole bunch of stuff that may or may not satisfy element 1), and very possibly element 2). But element 3) is the problem, and without that you don't get obstruction.

With the finding of no collusion/conspiracy with "the Russians," I think element 3) goes out the window. If there is no underlying crime, then Trump presumably knew there was no underlying crime, and thus could have acted because of frustration with what he reasonably considered to be a witch hunt that was interfering with his ability to govern. There's nothing corrupt or criminal about wanting an unjustified investigation to end.

This is easily distinguished from both Nixon with Watergate and Hillary with her server. With Watergate, there was an underlying crime, which Nixon clearly knew about, and therefore corrupt or criminal intent is easily shown. With Hillary, the crimes associated with mishandling classified information do not require criminal intent as an element, plus the conduct of Hillary and/or her team included destruction of evidence (wiping computers, "losing" emails, smashing cell phones) which would be primary indicia of intent.

The law is very specific in this and many other areas. If the elements of a crime are a, b, and c, then you must have exactly a AND b AND c to have a crime. No matter how much evidence you have of a and b (and in this case I don't think even that evidence is all that impressive), without c you have nothing.

But the Mueller Report clearly states that Trump was afraid of the investigation uncovering potential crimes unrelated to the Russian interference, which gave him reason to want to obstruct the investigation so that those potential issues weren’t uncovered. So would it matter if the issues he didn’t want Mueller to investigate were unrelated to the topic that started the investigation, and was within the scope of the investigation?

Then the report should state those underlying 'potential crimes' to complete the circle. Without that one can play the 'just suppose x' all fing day --- and the specific portions that reference this topic do just this --- they say essentially 'let us suppose' when you actually read the thoroughly.

And if Mueller had evidence of those 'potential crimes' Mueller: a) had a mandate to pursue them; b) had an obligation to pursue them; and c) if there were actual evidence of such 'underlying crimes', had a both a mandate and an obligation to pursue them criminally.

Just waving your hands and saying 'well *maybe* there are (unspecified) *other* crimes' doesnt even come close enough to the smell test to even laugh at. But considering that the 'let us just suppose with a lot of wing flapping' has been part and parcel of the standard that the entire investigation has taken in the eyes of the liberals, the democrats, and the media to this point, I am not surprised that this is still the last bastion of the Verdun perimeter here for that.

(Heh, I seem to have delineated the media as somehow distinct and separate from 'liberals' and Democrats..... wow my head cold and ear infection has seemingly made me daffy.... pardon that terrible logical oversight....)

Don't we already know that Individual #1 is implicated in felony campaign violations? That his inauguration is being investigated? That he is being investigated for potential bank fraud? (Or is that the Trump Org? Hard to keep track.) And that there were 12(?) other investigations handed off, but we don't know the details because they were redacted?

Individual #1 was only implicated because of a plea deal, and is in no legal jeopardy because of that unchallenged plea.

Again for any other item, Mueller had both the mandate and the obligation to ferret that out. Funny, I dont see those. Do you?

Quote: 12 other investigations handed off

Flap those wings faster there. I guess you have no fing clue between the idea of 'substantive proof' and fing wing flapping based on that laundry list.

(04-20-2019 12:23 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-20-2019 11:28 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-20-2019 09:01 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-20-2019 07:39 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  In the Mueller Report, there are numerous instances that show there were issues with how Trump acted with respect to obstruction of justice and how the campaign acted with respect to Russian interference. It clearly shows there was sufficient evidence in both cases to warrant an investigation, but the evidence found fell short of proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, that crimes were committed in both cases.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but there is a wide gap between finding no evidence and finding insufficient evidence to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt.

Tanq did a really thorough job of explaining collusion/conspiracy. I'll take a shot at obstruction.

It's a very specific gap, however wide or not wide it may be. Mueller made it clear in his report (volume 2, starting at page 9) that to establish obstruction, you must prove three things:
1) An obstructive act
2) Nexus to a pending or contemplated official proceeding
3) Corrupt or criminal intent.

What has been alleged is a whole bunch of stuff that may or may not satisfy element 1), and very possibly element 2). But element 3) is the problem, and without that you don't get obstruction.

With the finding of no collusion/conspiracy with "the Russians," I think element 3) goes out the window. If there is no underlying crime, then Trump presumably knew there was no underlying crime, and thus could have acted because of frustration with what he reasonably considered to be a witch hunt that was interfering with his ability to govern. There's nothing corrupt or criminal about wanting an unjustified investigation to end.

This is easily distinguished from both Nixon with Watergate and Hillary with her server. With Watergate, there was an underlying crime, which Nixon clearly knew about, and therefore corrupt or criminal intent is easily shown. With Hillary, the crimes associated with mishandling classified information do not require criminal intent as an element, plus the conduct of Hillary and/or her team included destruction of evidence (wiping computers, "losing" emails, smashing cell phones) which would be primary indicia of intent.

The law is very specific in this and many other areas. If the elements of a crime are a, b, and c, then you must have exactly a AND b AND c to have a crime. No matter how much evidence you have of a and b (and in this case I don't think even that evidence is all that impressive), without c you have nothing.

But the Mueller Report clearly states that Trump was afraid of the investigation uncovering potential crimes unrelated to the Russian interference, which gave him reason to want to obstruct the investigation so that those potential issues weren’t uncovered. So would it matter if the issues he didn’t want Mueller to investigate were unrelated to the topic that started the investigation, and was within the scope of the investigation?

Then the report should state those underlying 'potential crimes' to complete the circle. Without that one can play the 'just suppose x' all fing day --- and the specific portions that reference this topic do just this --- they say essentially 'let us suppose' when you actually read the thoroughly.

And if Mueller had evidence of those 'potential crimes' Mueller: a) had a mandate to pursue them; b) had an obligation to pursue them; and c) if there were actual evidence of such 'underlying crimes', had a both a mandate and an obligation to pursue them criminally.

Just waving your hands and saying 'well *maybe* there are (unspecified) *other* crimes' doesnt even come close enough to the smell test to even laugh at. But considering that the 'let us just suppose with a lot of wing flapping' has been part and parcel of the standard that the entire investigation has taken in the eyes of the liberals, the democrats, and the media to this point, I am not surprised that this is still the last bastion of the Verdun perimeter here for that.

(Heh, I seem to have delineated the media as somehow distinct and separate from 'liberals' and Democrats..... wow my head cold and ear infection has seemingly made me daffy.... pardon that terrible logical oversight....)

A few things - we know from the report there were 14 criminal referrals made by the Special Counsel’s Office. So we know that Mueller did find a number of activities they felt were prosecutable.

But it would seem weird to me for there to need to be definitive proof of a crime for obstruction of justice to be an issue, because if that definitive proof was known, then the investigation would be over. Let’s take a hypothetical - person A is accused of murdering person B. Person A is also the chief of police, but did not commit the crime, yet there is evidence that they did commit the murder. Why wouldn’t it be obstruction of justice if they attempted to stop the investigation? It’s not as if investigations only start if people are already known to be guilty...

This WashPo article outlines numerous cases where obstruction of justice charges were brought against individuals who did not commit a crime themselves.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2...0776952327

(04-20-2019 12:23 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  My read is that Mueller was handing off obstruction to Congress.
I think at this point they have a constitutional duty to investigate Trump's possible obstruction and abuse of power. I don't know if it will lead to impeachment or not. Impeachment is not strictly a legal matter, at least not in the sense that a normal trial would be. I.e. if Trumps subordinates had carried out all his orders, he would be in much worse legal trouble. Congress can take that into account in a way a criminal court could not.
One thing that becomes clear from the report: While Trump opponents have long thought he was emotionally, psychologically, intellectually, and morally unfit for the presidency, it's now clear that many (most?) who work for him feel the same way.
And yet the majority of Republicans can't admit that publicly. My respect level for Republicans in general has dropped through the floor in the last 2.5 years, and I really don't expect it to return in my lifetime.

Neither you nor I have suitable evidentiary basis (nor, do I imagine, professional skill) to make a competent evaluation of his fitness to serve. He has a style that rubs some people the wrong way, but I don't see much difference between the way he is running the white house and the person who said routinely, "You're fired."

The problem I see is proving that third leg of the required elements of obstruction--corrupt or criminal intent. Trump clearly did things that could be construed as possible obstruction if they were dome because of criminal intent. But there's nothing to show intent. The closest thing might be the, "I'm f-ed," comment, but even that does not clearly establish criminal intent.

I suspect where this ends up is you have a lot of people on the left talking about all sorts of terrible things that Trump or his team have done, but no ability to relate any of them to the requisite intent to constitute a crime. And you'll have a lot of people on the right saying that he has some questionable personal attributes, and has done plenty of things that they don't approve, but at least he is not a commie/socialist/collectivist.

If that leaves you hoping for something better from either side, join the club. The enemy of my enemy is my friend, but I so wish my enemies had better enemies.

(04-20-2019 12:38 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  You guys (and the Trump admin and Congressional Republicans) keep trying to conflate the collusion and conspiracy. I'm 99% sure at no point does Mueller say "there was no collusion".

Here's his summary:

"The social media campaign and the GRU hacking operations coincided with a series of
contacts between Trump Campaign officials and individuals with ties to the Russian government.
The Office investigated whether those contacts reflected or resulted in the Campaign conspiring
or coordinating with Russia in its election-interference activities. Although the investigation
established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and
worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from
information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that
members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its
election interference activities ."

In layman's terms that seems pretty corrupt, sleazy, and yes, unpatriotic to me. Knowing a hostile foreign power is undermining American democracy on the Trump campaign's behalf, and not only doing nothing to stop it, but also thinking it's great and encouraging them ("I love it!") seems like collusion to me. McConnell too. I'm not sure Obama did the right thing either, frankly, but I think he may have done the least bad thing after McConnell made it clear he'd put party ahead of country. I'd welcome a bipartisan commission to look into it and see if we can set up institutions that can handle this sort of situation better.

I guess you will stick your head into the sand when it comes to portraying the Democrats involvement with *several* levels of foreign powers in search of dirt, wont you? Par for the course, though, in my opinion.

One other question for the lawyers here. Let's look at this quote:

----
The President then asked , "What-about these notes? Why do you take
notes? Lawyers don ' t take note s. I never had a lawyer who took notes ." 824 McGahn responded
that he keeps notes because he is a "real lawyer " and explained that notes create a record and are
not a bad thing. 825 The President said , " I've had a lot of great lawyers , like Roy Cohn . He did not
take notes. " 826
----

Assuming you are "real lawyers," do you take notes? Trump says great lawyers don't do that. So if you want to be great, stop with the damn note taking already!

Do you consider Roy Cohn a "great lawyer"?

(04-20-2019 12:38 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-20-2019 12:29 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(04-20-2019 12:23 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-20-2019 11:28 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-20-2019 09:01 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Tanq did a really thorough job of explaining collusion/conspiracy. I'll take a shot at obstruction.

It's a very specific gap, however wide or not wide it may be. Mueller made it clear in his report (volume 2, starting at page 9) that to establish obstruction, you must prove three things:
1) An obstructive act
2) Nexus to a pending or contemplated official proceeding
3) Corrupt or criminal intent.

What has been alleged is a whole bunch of stuff that may or may not satisfy element 1), and very possibly element 2). But element 3) is the problem, and without that you don't get obstruction.

With the finding of no collusion/conspiracy with "the Russians," I think element 3) goes out the window. If there is no underlying crime, then Trump presumably knew there was no underlying crime, and thus could have acted because of frustration with what he reasonably considered to be a witch hunt that was interfering with his ability to govern. There's nothing corrupt or criminal about wanting an unjustified investigation to end.

This is easily distinguished from both Nixon with Watergate and Hillary with her server. With Watergate, there was an underlying crime, which Nixon clearly knew about, and therefore corrupt or criminal intent is easily shown. With Hillary, the crimes associated with mishandling classified information do not require criminal intent as an element, plus the conduct of Hillary and/or her team included destruction of evidence (wiping computers, "losing" emails, smashing cell phones) which would be primary indicia of intent.

The law is very specific in this and many other areas. If the elements of a crime are a, b, and c, then you must have exactly a AND b AND c to have a crime. No matter how much evidence you have of a and b (and in this case I don't think even that evidence is all that impressive), without c you have nothing.

But the Mueller Report clearly states that Trump was afraid of the investigation uncovering potential crimes unrelated to the Russian interference, which gave him reason to want to obstruct the investigation so that those potential issues weren’t uncovered. So would it matter if the issues he didn’t want Mueller to investigate were unrelated to the topic that started the investigation, and was within the scope of the investigation?

Then the report should state those underlying 'potential crimes' to complete the circle. Without that one can play the 'just suppose x' all fing day --- and the specific portions that reference this topic do just this --- they say essentially 'let us suppose' when you actually read the thoroughly.

And if Mueller had evidence of those 'potential crimes' Mueller: a) had a mandate to pursue them; b) had an obligation to pursue them; and c) if there were actual evidence of such 'underlying crimes', had a both a mandate and an obligation to pursue them criminally.

Just waving your hands and saying 'well *maybe* there are (unspecified) *other* crimes' doesnt even come close enough to the smell test to even laugh at. But considering that the 'let us just suppose with a lot of wing flapping' has been part and parcel of the standard that the entire investigation has taken in the eyes of the liberals, the democrats, and the media to this point, I am not surprised that this is still the last bastion of the Verdun perimeter here for that.

(Heh, I seem to have delineated the media as somehow distinct and separate from 'liberals' and Democrats..... wow my head cold and ear infection has seemingly made me daffy.... pardon that terrible logical oversight....)

Don't we already know that Individual #1 is implicated in felony campaign violations? That his inauguration is being investigated? That he is being investigated for potential bank fraud? (Or is that the Trump Org? Hard to keep track.) And that there were 12(?) other investigations handed off, but we don't know the details because they were redacted?

Individual #1 was only implicated because of a plea deal, and is in no legal jeopardy because of that unchallenged plea.

Again for any other item, Mueller had both the mandate and the obligation to ferret that out. Funny, I dont see those. Do you?

Quote: 12 other investigations handed off

Flap those wings faster there. I guess you have no fing clue between the idea of 'substantive proof' and fing wing flapping based on that laundry list.

Have you read the relevant quote from Appendix D of the report?

Quote:During the course of the investigation, the Office periodically identified evidence of potential criminal activity that was outside the scope of the Special Counsel’s jurisdiction established by the Acting Attorney General. After consultation with the Office of the Deputy Attorney General, the Office referred that evidence to appropriate law enforcement authorities, principally other components of the Department of Justice and the FBI. Those Referrals, listed alphabetically by subject, are listed below.”

What is your understanding of substantive evidence and how does that quote not meet that definition?

(04-20-2019 12:39 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  A few things - we know from the report there were 14 criminal referrals made by the Special Counsel’s Office. So we know that Mueller did find a number of activities they felt were prosecutable.
But it would seem weird to me for there to need to be definitive proof of a crime for obstruction of justice to be an issue, because if that definitive proof was known, then the investigation would be over. Let’s take a hypothetical - person A is accused of murdering person B. Person A is also the chief of police, but did not commit the crime, yet there is evidence that they did commit the murder. Why wouldn’t it be obstruction of justice if they attempted to stop the investigation? It’s not as if investigations only start if people are already known to be guilty...
This WashPo article outlines numerous cases where obstruction of justice charges were brought against individuals who did not commit a crime themselves.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2...0776952327

Article is behind firewall and I'm not going to pay WaPo, so I can't read it. Perhaps you could provide a brief synopsis of at least some of the "numerous cases."

No, you do not have to have definitive proof of a crime to establish obstruction, but you do need clear-cut proof of criminal intent. And that is clearly more difficult without an underlying crime. I was just thinking back to "Fargo." Maybe there was no compelling proof of murder; but running the dead body through a chipper comes pretty close to establishing intent.

What we have here is an affirmative statement that there was not a crime. In your hypo, if the Chief of Police could prove that he did not commit the crime, then it would not be obstruction to stop the investigation.

Obstruction is frequently pursued where we can't prove that you committed a crime, but we can prove criminal intent to obstruct. You'd have that with Hillary and the server, where there are actions to destroy evidence (wiping composers, "losing" emails, destroying cell phones, making false statements to congress) are themselves primary indicia of intent to obstruct.

Trump fired people that the constitution authorizes him to fire. To prove that exercise of a constitutional power amounts to obstruction requires a clear showing of criminal intent. That may not be impossible without an underlying crime, but it's damned difficult. With Watergate the intent part was easy. There was a crime, Nixon knew about it, and he tried to stop the investigation after he knew about it.

ETA: Thanks to Tanq, I was able to view the article. The Barr quote that the article attempts to refute was, “While not determinative, the absence of … evidence [of collusion] bears upon the President’s intent with respect to obstruction.” What it provides as apparent refutation are cases where the lack of a crime by the obstructor was not determinative. But that refutes nothing. Barr did not say the absence of a crime by the alleged obstructor was determinative. He said it bears on the issue of intent. In those cases there was a crime and it was by someone very close to the obstructor. For example, the navy officer obstructed an investigation into the death of someone with whose wife he was carrying on an affair. And in all the cases cited, the obstructor did something else that was criminal beyond the obstruction itself. I don't think anyone is saying that the absence of collusion/conspiracy means that we cannot have intent to obstruct. But it does make the proof a lot more difficult.

(04-20-2019 12:45 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Have you read the relevant quote from Appendix D of the report?

Quote:During the course of the investigation, the Office periodically identified evidence of potential criminal activity that was outside the scope of the Special Counsel’s jurisdiction established by the Acting Attorney General. After consultation with the Office of the Deputy Attorney General, the Office referred that evidence to appropriate law enforcement authorities, principally other components of the Department of Justice and the FBI. Those Referrals, listed alphabetically by subject, are listed below.”

What is your understanding of substantive evidence and how does that quote not meet that definition?

To be substantive evidence, it has to be substantive evidence of something, it has to tend to prove or disprove something. What does that tend to prove or disprove?

Are there any indicia of obstruction there? Collusion/conspiracy? Obviously not the latter, because Mueller said there was no evidence of such.

Are those comments fuel for supposition? Yes. Do they prove or disprove anything? No.

I think a lot of this discussion indicates some misunderstanding of how a crime is defined and proved. Any crime has specific elements which must all be proved to establish a crime. If a crime is defined to include A, B, and C as requisite elements, then those are exactly the elements that must be proved. And nailing A, or even overkilling A and B, does not get you C. And without C you have nothing. What I see here is a lot of overkill of A, possible proof of B, and nothing on C. That doesn't get you there.