Mueller report thread - Mueller testimony July 24

[Nyvin]

Atlas liberals (indeed, most of the anti-Trump left coailition) is disappointed that the Mueller report concluded that Trump and his campaign didn't "collude" with Russia.  They wanted it to be true.  They wanted sham indictments, even if they were baseless.  

When a prosecutor indicts someone, they are saying, at the time of an indictment, or of an information filed, that they are able, at trial, to prove their allegation beyond a reasonable doubt.  The idea that a prosecutor indicts someone to see what sticks is reprehensible in jurisprudence.  It's not OK just because people see examples of this on fictional TV, and the fact that it's done in real life doesn't make it right.  That's what people wanted here, even though the facts of the report say otherwise.

The special council didn't conclude there was no collusion with Russia.   The OLC made the determination that they couldn't indict a sitting president, so the special council made no statement declaring collusion.   That doesn't mean it didn't happen,  if they determined that it didn't happen they would've said so, they didn't.

Mueller went far beyond what a Prosecutor is supposed to do in a report like this.  Either charges are levied, or they are not.  Prosecutors are not to say things such as "Maybe he did, maybe he didn't, but we can't meet the standard of Probable Cause, so we'll leave it at that."  Mueller was NEVER an unbiased Special Prosecutor, and he had prosecutors on his staff whose view, in their minds was to "Get Trump".  Now this is not remarkable; Ken Starr had his "Get Clinton" brigade, and Jaworski had his "Get Nixon" brigade.  It's the nature of this particular beast.

If people want to conclude that Donald Trump's conduct was unacceptable, based on the Mueller Report, they are free to do that.  Trump certainly failed to avoid the appearance of impropriety in many instances.  But facts have also been brought forth to suggest that this entire investigation was illegitimately conceived, and anything in it that is unflattering to Trump is, indeed, "the fruit of the poisoned tree" just as evidence gathered from an illegal search would be in a Court.  There is no reason to impeach Trump.  There is no reason to consider any investigations of the matters in the Mueller Report by any committee of Congress.  No reason at all.  Vote against him.  Campaign against him.  Make the case, by all means.  But there needs to be some acknowledgement of the horrible precedent this whole process has set; it was far more of a witch hunt even I thought it was, and something that should never have to happen to any future President, just because people don't like him personally.  (And the motivation here was personal, as well as partisan, and that, too, is unjustified.) 

They didn't say "Maybe he did, maybe he didnt"  they said "The office of legal council has informed us we cannot indict a sitting president, therefore the report is classified as inconclusive."

If there was no criminal activity on the part of Trump they would've said so, they didn't, so obviously there is more to the story than "We got nothin!"

[ProudModerate2]

... But there needs to be some acknowledgement of the horrible precedent this whole process has set; it was far more of a witch hunt even I thought it was, and something that should never have to happen to any future President, just because people don't like him personally.  (And the motivation here was personal, as well as partisan, and that, too, is unjustified.) 

Are you nuts.
There were many indictments and many who are going to jail.
Mueller provided further evidence of Russian interference and even indicted 25 Russians who were intelligence agents for Russia’s GRU (or other Russians involved with conspiracy to defraud the US) and 3 affiliated companies.
This was not a "witch hunt" as you are saying.
Stop acting like a complete partisan, trumpist hack.

[SteveRogers]

when the investigation doesn't even meet the standard of probable cause, is a dangerous concept that I believe many here lack the ability to appreciate.  

Fuzzy, you keep asserting this without explanation and it’s very clear that you don’t understand what that term means.

Oh, I understand full well what the term means.  It is a standard of proof needed to charge someone with a crime where there is reason to believe that (A) a particular act was committed by someone that rises to the level of a criminal offense, and (B) that a particular person (or particular persons) committed that particular act as specified.  It's as simple as that.

"Probable cause" is the standard for an indictment.  It's the standard to name someone an unindicted co-conspirator.  It is NOT the "Reasonable Doubt: standard of proving guilt.  It is not the standard of "Clear and Convincing Evidence".  It is not even the standard of a "Preponderance of Evidence" which indicates that more evidence (as low as 51%) shows that a person committed an act than does the evidence indicating that the person may not have.  "Probable Cause" is a low standard.  And, indeed, when a Prosecutor seeks an indictment, or files an Information (in Florida) saying that they are going to bring forth charges, they are stating at that time that the Prosecution WILL be able to prove their case Beyond A Reasonable Doubt at Jury Trial (if the case comes to that).  Again:  They can't just indict or charge someone with a weak case and then hope to get enough so that enough sticks at jury trial.  A Prosecutor that does this is subject to discipline for Prosecutorial Misconduct.

I know what it means.  Quite frankly, you do to, and are resorting to the cheap trick of a personal attack to insinuate that I don't.  That's YOUR character on display, friend.

Probable cause is the standard that law enforcement must meet for searches and arrests. You don’t need probable cause to start an investigation, so to say that “ an investigation wasn’t supported by probable cause” is a nonsense statement that has no basis in the law.

But clearly there was ample probable cause to investigate Trump’s role in the Russian scheme to interfere in the election. If a cop pulls over a car of four people and smells marijuana, he has probable cause to search each passenger to see which ones are actually in possession of illegal substances. Here, Mueller clearly uncovered proof that various crimes had been committed and he indeed indicted various Russian nationals. You can keep calling that a witch hunt, but the evidence indisputably shows that Russian operatives were committing witchcraft. Under the circumstances, there was ample reason to investigate Trump’s inner circle to see whether or not anyone associated in the campaign was conspiring with those Russian operatives. Mueller’s investigation found no evidence that could prove such involvement beyond a reasonable doubt, and I accept that conclusion. None of that changes the fact that the investigation was in the best interest of our national security. It’s important to keep pointing out that Trump didn’t even want the Russians to be investigated, period.

On the obstruction of justice question, what basis do you have for saying that the evidence doesn’t amount to probable cause that a crime was committed. Mueller has identified the specific actions that he believes the evidence shows Trump took. In fact, there’s not much disagreement about the fact that Trump took most of those actions. Mueller has laid out the legal theory arguing that those actions are covered by the federal obstruction statutes. However, Mueller has acknowledged that the facts of the case are unique enough that any potential prosecution of Trump’s actions would be bogged down in legal battles for years, so he believes it would be better for the country for congress to take action instead. But to say that the investigation found no evidence of obstruction is flat out wrong.

[Slander and/or Libel]

Reminder: in the obstruction section, at the end of each of the eleven sections on different potentially obstructive acts, Mueller lays out a three part analysis: obstructive act, nexus to a proceeding, and intent. In more than half of the sections, he pretty clearly concludes that there was an obstructive act, there was a nexus to a proceeding, and there was sufficient evidence of intent. What that means is that if Mueller has concluded he was able to indict, he almost certainly would have indicted for several counts of obstruction.

[Fuzzy Bear]

when the investigation doesn't even meet the standard of probable cause, is a dangerous concept that I believe many here lack the ability to appreciate.  

Fuzzy, you keep asserting this without explanation and it’s very clear that you don’t understand what that term means.

Oh, I understand full well what the term means.  It is a standard of proof needed to charge someone with a crime where there is reason to believe that (A) a particular act was committed by someone that rises to the level of a criminal offense, and (B) that a particular person (or particular persons) committed that particular act as specified.  It's as simple as that.

"Probable cause" is the standard for an indictment.  It's the standard to name someone an unindicted co-conspirator.  It is NOT the "Reasonable Doubt: standard of proving guilt.  It is not the standard of "Clear and Convincing Evidence".  It is not even the standard of a "Preponderance of Evidence" which indicates that more evidence (as low as 51%) shows that a person committed an act than does the evidence indicating that the person may not have.  "Probable Cause" is a low standard.  And, indeed, when a Prosecutor seeks an indictment, or files an Information (in Florida) saying that they are going to bring forth charges, they are stating at that time that the Prosecution WILL be able to prove their case Beyond A Reasonable Doubt at Jury Trial (if the case comes to that).  Again:  They can't just indict or charge someone with a weak case and then hope to get enough so that enough sticks at jury trial.  A Prosecutor that does this is subject to discipline for Prosecutorial Misconduct.

I know what it means.  Quite frankly, you do to, and are resorting to the cheap trick of a personal attack to insinuate that I don't.  That's YOUR character on display, friend.

Probable cause is the standard that law enforcement must meet for searches and arrests. You don’t need probable cause to start an investigation, so to say that “ an investigation wasn’t supported by probable cause” is a nonsense statement that has no basis in the law.

But clearly there was ample probable cause to investigate Trump’s role in the Russian scheme to interfere in the election. If a cop pulls over a car of four people and smells marijuana, he has probable cause to search each passenger to see which ones are actually in possession of illegal substances. Here, Mueller clearly uncovered proof that various crimes had been committed and he indeed indicted various Russian nationals. You can keep calling that a witch hunt, but the evidence indisputably shows that Russian operatives were committing witchcraft. Under the circumstances, there was ample reason to investigate Trump’s inner circle to see whether or not anyone associated in the campaign was conspiring with those Russian operatives. Mueller’s investigation found no evidence that could prove such involvement beyond a reasonable doubt, and I accept that conclusion. None of that changes the fact that the investigation was in the best interest of our national security. It’s important to keep pointing out that Trump didn’t even want the Russians to be investigated, period.

On the obstruction of justice question, what basis do you have for saying that the evidence doesn’t amount to probable cause that a crime was committed. Mueller has identified the specific actions that he believes the evidence shows Trump took. In fact, there’s not much disagreement about the fact that Trump took most of those actions. Mueller has laid out the legal theory arguing that those actions are covered by the federal obstruction statutes. However, Mueller has acknowledged that the facts of the case are unique enough that any potential prosecution of Trump’s actions would be bogged down in legal battles for years, so he believes it would be better for the country for congress to take action instead. But to say that the investigation found no evidence of obstruction is flat out wrong.

There was not Probable Cause.  There MAY have been "Reasonable Suspicion", and investigations can begin on the basis of Reasonable Suspicion (which is a higher standard than MERE Suspicion), but much of that Reasonable Suspicion hinged on a Dossier that has been thoroughly discredited.

Here's a towelette.  Wipe the egg off your face and get down to the hard work of convincing them why they should not vote for Trump in 2020, if seeing him out of office is that important to you.  I suspect that America is tiring of False Narratives that seem ever so real, only to implode under close inspection.

[Hindsight was 2020]

when the investigation doesn't even meet the standard of probable cause, is a dangerous concept that I believe many here lack the ability to appreciate.  

Fuzzy, you keep asserting this without explanation and it’s very clear that you don’t understand what that term means.

Oh, I understand full well what the term means.  It is a standard of proof needed to charge someone with a crime where there is reason to believe that (A) a particular act was committed by someone that rises to the level of a criminal offense, and (B) that a particular person (or particular persons) committed that particular act as specified.  It's as simple as that.

"Probable cause" is the standard for an indictment.  It's the standard to name someone an unindicted co-conspirator.  It is NOT the "Reasonable Doubt: standard of proving guilt.  It is not the standard of "Clear and Convincing Evidence".  It is not even the standard of a "Preponderance of Evidence" which indicates that more evidence (as low as 51%) shows that a person committed an act than does the evidence indicating that the person may not have.  "Probable Cause" is a low standard.  And, indeed, when a Prosecutor seeks an indictment, or files an Information (in Florida) saying that they are going to bring forth charges, they are stating at that time that the Prosecution WILL be able to prove their case Beyond A Reasonable Doubt at Jury Trial (if the case comes to that).  Again:  They can't just indict or charge someone with a weak case and then hope to get enough so that enough sticks at jury trial.  A Prosecutor that does this is subject to discipline for Prosecutorial Misconduct.

I know what it means.  Quite frankly, you do to, and are resorting to the cheap trick of a personal attack to insinuate that I don't.  That's YOUR character on display, friend.

Probable cause is the standard that law enforcement must meet for searches and arrests. You don’t need probable cause to start an investigation, so to say that “ an investigation wasn’t supported by probable cause” is a nonsense statement that has no basis in the law.

But clearly there was ample probable cause to investigate Trump’s role in the Russian scheme to interfere in the election. If a cop pulls over a car of four people and smells marijuana, he has probable cause to search each passenger to see which ones are actually in possession of illegal substances. Here, Mueller clearly uncovered proof that various crimes had been committed and he indeed indicted various Russian nationals. You can keep calling that a witch hunt, but the evidence indisputably shows that Russian operatives were committing witchcraft. Under the circumstances, there was ample reason to investigate Trump’s inner circle to see whether or not anyone associated in the campaign was conspiring with those Russian operatives. Mueller’s investigation found no evidence that could prove such involvement beyond a reasonable doubt, and I accept that conclusion. None of that changes the fact that the investigation was in the best interest of our national security. It’s important to keep pointing out that Trump didn’t even want the Russians to be investigated, period.

On the obstruction of justice question, what basis do you have for saying that the evidence doesn’t amount to probable cause that a crime was committed. Mueller has identified the specific actions that he believes the evidence shows Trump took. In fact, there’s not much disagreement about the fact that Trump took most of those actions. Mueller has laid out the legal theory arguing that those actions are covered by the federal obstruction statutes. However, Mueller has acknowledged that the facts of the case are unique enough that any potential prosecution of Trump’s actions would be bogged down in legal battles for years, so he believes it would be better for the country for congress to take action instead. But to say that the investigation found no evidence of obstruction is flat out wrong.

There was not Probable Cause.  There MAY have been "Reasonable Suspicion", and investigations can begin on the basis of Reasonable Suspicion (which is a higher standard than MERE Suspicion), but much of that Reasonable Suspicion hinged on a Dossier that has been thoroughly discredited.

Here's a towelette.  Wipe the egg off your face and get down to the hard work of convincing them why they should not vote for Trump in 2020, if seeing him out of office is that important to you.  I suspect that America is tiring of False Narratives that seem ever so real, only to implode under close inspection.

No it wasn’t and no it hasn’t

[Sestak]

when the investigation doesn't even meet the standard of probable cause, is a dangerous concept that I believe many here lack the ability to appreciate. 

Fuzzy, you keep asserting this without explanation and it’s very clear that you don’t understand what that term means.

Oh, I understand full well what the term means.  It is a standard of proof needed to charge someone with a crime where there is reason to believe that (A) a particular act was committed by someone that rises to the level of a criminal offense, and (B) that a particular person (or particular persons) committed that particular act as specified.  It's as simple as that.

"Probable cause" is the standard for an indictment.  It's the standard to name someone an unindicted co-conspirator.  It is NOT the "Reasonable Doubt: standard of proving guilt.  It is not the standard of "Clear and Convincing Evidence".  It is not even the standard of a "Preponderance of Evidence" which indicates that more evidence (as low as 51%) shows that a person committed an act than does the evidence indicating that the person may not have.  "Probable Cause" is a low standard.  And, indeed, when a Prosecutor seeks an indictment, or files an Information (in Florida) saying that they are going to bring forth charges, they are stating at that time that the Prosecution WILL be able to prove their case Beyond A Reasonable Doubt at Jury Trial (if the case comes to that).  Again:  They can't just indict or charge someone with a weak case and then hope to get enough so that enough sticks at jury trial.  A Prosecutor that does this is subject to discipline for Prosecutorial Misconduct.

I know what it means.  Quite frankly, you do to, and are resorting to the cheap trick of a personal attack to insinuate that I don't.  That's YOUR character on display, friend.

Probable cause is the standard that law enforcement must meet for searches and arrests. You don’t need probable cause to start an investigation, so to say that “ an investigation wasn’t supported by probable cause” is a nonsense statement that has no basis in the law.

But clearly there was ample probable cause to investigate Trump’s role in the Russian scheme to interfere in the election. If a cop pulls over a car of four people and smells marijuana, he has probable cause to search each passenger to see which ones are actually in possession of illegal substances. Here, Mueller clearly uncovered proof that various crimes had been committed and he indeed indicted various Russian nationals. You can keep calling that a witch hunt, but the evidence indisputably shows that Russian operatives were committing witchcraft. Under the circumstances, there was ample reason to investigate Trump’s inner circle to see whether or not anyone associated in the campaign was conspiring with those Russian operatives. Mueller’s investigation found no evidence that could prove such involvement beyond a reasonable doubt, and I accept that conclusion. None of that changes the fact that the investigation was in the best interest of our national security. It’s important to keep pointing out that Trump didn’t even want the Russians to be investigated, period.

On the obstruction of justice question, what basis do you have for saying that the evidence doesn’t amount to probable cause that a crime was committed. Mueller has identified the specific actions that he believes the evidence shows Trump took. In fact, there’s not much disagreement about the fact that Trump took most of those actions. Mueller has laid out the legal theory arguing that those actions are covered by the federal obstruction statutes. However, Mueller has acknowledged that the facts of the case are unique enough that any potential prosecution of Trump’s actions would be bogged down in legal battles for years, so he believes it would be better for the country for congress to take action instead. But to say that the investigation found no evidence of obstruction is flat out wrong.

There was not Probable Cause.  There MAY have been "Reasonable Suspicion", and investigations can begin on the basis of Reasonable Suspicion (which is a higher standard than MERE Suspicion), but much of that Reasonable Suspicion hinged on a Dossier that has been thoroughly discredited.

Here's a towelette.  Wipe the egg off your face and get down to the hard work of convincing them why they should not vote for Trump in 2020, if seeing him out of office is that important to you.  I suspect that America is tiring of False Narratives that seem ever so real, only to implode under close inspection.

Lmao. We've already known this before, and the report has only made this eve more clear - the reasons for starting the investigation did not rely on the dossier.

[SteveRogers]

when the investigation doesn't even meet the standard of probable cause, is a dangerous concept that I believe many here lack the ability to appreciate.  

Fuzzy, you keep asserting this without explanation and it’s very clear that you don’t understand what that term means.

Oh, I understand full well what the term means.  It is a standard of proof needed to charge someone with a crime where there is reason to believe that (A) a particular act was committed by someone that rises to the level of a criminal offense, and (B) that a particular person (or particular persons) committed that particular act as specified.  It's as simple as that.

"Probable cause" is the standard for an indictment.  It's the standard to name someone an unindicted co-conspirator.  It is NOT the "Reasonable Doubt: standard of proving guilt.  It is not the standard of "Clear and Convincing Evidence".  It is not even the standard of a "Preponderance of Evidence" which indicates that more evidence (as low as 51%) shows that a person committed an act than does the evidence indicating that the person may not have.  "Probable Cause" is a low standard.  And, indeed, when a Prosecutor seeks an indictment, or files an Information (in Florida) saying that they are going to bring forth charges, they are stating at that time that the Prosecution WILL be able to prove their case Beyond A Reasonable Doubt at Jury Trial (if the case comes to that).  Again:  They can't just indict or charge someone with a weak case and then hope to get enough so that enough sticks at jury trial.  A Prosecutor that does this is subject to discipline for Prosecutorial Misconduct.

I know what it means.  Quite frankly, you do to, and are resorting to the cheap trick of a personal attack to insinuate that I don't.  That's YOUR character on display, friend.

Probable cause is the standard that law enforcement must meet for searches and arrests. You don’t need probable cause to start an investigation, so to say that “ an investigation wasn’t supported by probable cause” is a nonsense statement that has no basis in the law.

But clearly there was ample probable cause to investigate Trump’s role in the Russian scheme to interfere in the election. If a cop pulls over a car of four people and smells marijuana, he has probable cause to search each passenger to see which ones are actually in possession of illegal substances. Here, Mueller clearly uncovered proof that various crimes had been committed and he indeed indicted various Russian nationals. You can keep calling that a witch hunt, but the evidence indisputably shows that Russian operatives were committing witchcraft. Under the circumstances, there was ample reason to investigate Trump’s inner circle to see whether or not anyone associated in the campaign was conspiring with those Russian operatives. Mueller’s investigation found no evidence that could prove such involvement beyond a reasonable doubt, and I accept that conclusion. None of that changes the fact that the investigation was in the best interest of our national security. It’s important to keep pointing out that Trump didn’t even want the Russians to be investigated, period.

On the obstruction of justice question, what basis do you have for saying that the evidence doesn’t amount to probable cause that a crime was committed. Mueller has identified the specific actions that he believes the evidence shows Trump took. In fact, there’s not much disagreement about the fact that Trump took most of those actions. Mueller has laid out the legal theory arguing that those actions are covered by the federal obstruction statutes. However, Mueller has acknowledged that the facts of the case are unique enough that any potential prosecution of Trump’s actions would be bogged down in legal battles for years, so he believes it would be better for the country for congress to take action instead. But to say that the investigation found no evidence of obstruction is flat out wrong.

There was not Probable Cause. 

As I said before, you keep asserting this statement without explanation. You can keep repeating that mantra if you want, but can you explain what you're basing that conclusion on? The report is out. The report details the events and the evidence that lead up to the investigation, and it details the specific crimes that were committed by various people involved. Are you still trying to argue that there is no evidence that Russian nationals committed any crimes?

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

Fuzzy's bad arguments are like some hydra in that every time somebody chops off one of its heads it manages to regrow in another thread (or often in the same thread). You'd think that after some of his arguments get debunked and he gets totally owned that he'd learn a thing or two.

[GeorgiaModerate]

when the investigation doesn't even meet the standard of probable cause, is a dangerous concept that I believe many here lack the ability to appreciate. 

Fuzzy, you keep asserting this without explanation and it’s very clear that you don’t understand what that term means.

Oh, I understand full well what the term means.  It is a standard of proof needed to charge someone with a crime where there is reason to believe that (A) a particular act was committed by someone that rises to the level of a criminal offense, and (B) that a particular person (or particular persons) committed that particular act as specified.  It's as simple as that.

"Probable cause" is the standard for an indictment.  It's the standard to name someone an unindicted co-conspirator.  It is NOT the "Reasonable Doubt: standard of proving guilt.  It is not the standard of "Clear and Convincing Evidence".  It is not even the standard of a "Preponderance of Evidence" which indicates that more evidence (as low as 51%) shows that a person committed an act than does the evidence indicating that the person may not have.  "Probable Cause" is a low standard.  And, indeed, when a Prosecutor seeks an indictment, or files an Information (in Florida) saying that they are going to bring forth charges, they are stating at that time that the Prosecution WILL be able to prove their case Beyond A Reasonable Doubt at Jury Trial (if the case comes to that).  Again:  They can't just indict or charge someone with a weak case and then hope to get enough so that enough sticks at jury trial.  A Prosecutor that does this is subject to discipline for Prosecutorial Misconduct.

I know what it means.  Quite frankly, you do to, and are resorting to the cheap trick of a personal attack to insinuate that I don't.  That's YOUR character on display, friend.

Probable cause is the standard that law enforcement must meet for searches and arrests. You don’t need probable cause to start an investigation, so to say that “ an investigation wasn’t supported by probable cause” is a nonsense statement that has no basis in the law.

But clearly there was ample probable cause to investigate Trump’s role in the Russian scheme to interfere in the election. If a cop pulls over a car of four people and smells marijuana, he has probable cause to search each passenger to see which ones are actually in possession of illegal substances. Here, Mueller clearly uncovered proof that various crimes had been committed and he indeed indicted various Russian nationals. You can keep calling that a witch hunt, but the evidence indisputably shows that Russian operatives were committing witchcraft. Under the circumstances, there was ample reason to investigate Trump’s inner circle to see whether or not anyone associated in the campaign was conspiring with those Russian operatives. Mueller’s investigation found no evidence that could prove such involvement beyond a reasonable doubt, and I accept that conclusion. None of that changes the fact that the investigation was in the best interest of our national security. It’s important to keep pointing out that Trump didn’t even want the Russians to be investigated, period.

On the obstruction of justice question, what basis do you have for saying that the evidence doesn’t amount to probable cause that a crime was committed. Mueller has identified the specific actions that he believes the evidence shows Trump took. In fact, there’s not much disagreement about the fact that Trump took most of those actions. Mueller has laid out the legal theory arguing that those actions are covered by the federal obstruction statutes. However, Mueller has acknowledged that the facts of the case are unique enough that any potential prosecution of Trump’s actions would be bogged down in legal battles for years, so he believes it would be better for the country for congress to take action instead. But to say that the investigation found no evidence of obstruction is flat out wrong.

There was not Probable Cause.  There MAY have been "Reasonable Suspicion", and investigations can begin on the basis of Reasonable Suspicion (which is a higher standard than MERE Suspicion), but much of that Reasonable Suspicion hinged on a Dossier that has been thoroughly discredited.

Here's a towelette.  Wipe the egg off your face and get down to the hard work of convincing them why they should not vote for Trump in 2020, if seeing him out of office is that important to you.  I suspect that America is tiring of False Narratives that seem ever so real, only to implode under close inspection.

Lmao. We've already known this before, and the report has only made this eve more clear - the reasons for starting the investigation did not rely on the dossier.

It's not very kind to trouble Fuzzy with inconvenient facts. 

But it's the right thing to do.

[Nyvin]

There was not Probable Cause.  There MAY have been "Reasonable Suspicion", and investigations can begin on the basis of Reasonable Suspicion (which is a higher standard than MERE Suspicion), but much of that Reasonable Suspicion hinged on a Dossier that has been thoroughly discredited.

No part of the Steele Dossier has ever been discredited or proven wrong at any time by anyone.   Every statement made in it remains 100% factual to date.

[ProudModerate2]

when the investigation doesn't even meet the standard of probable cause, is a dangerous concept that I believe many here lack the ability to appreciate. 

Fuzzy, you keep asserting this without explanation and it’s very clear that you don’t understand what that term means.

Oh, I understand full well what the term means.  It is a standard of proof needed to charge someone with a crime where there is reason to believe that (A) a particular act was committed by someone that rises to the level of a criminal offense, and (B) that a particular person (or particular persons) committed that particular act as specified.  It's as simple as that.

"Probable cause" is the standard for an indictment.  It's the standard to name someone an unindicted co-conspirator.  It is NOT the "Reasonable Doubt: standard of proving guilt.  It is not the standard of "Clear and Convincing Evidence".  It is not even the standard of a "Preponderance of Evidence" which indicates that more evidence (as low as 51%) shows that a person committed an act than does the evidence indicating that the person may not have.  "Probable Cause" is a low standard.  And, indeed, when a Prosecutor seeks an indictment, or files an Information (in Florida) saying that they are going to bring forth charges, they are stating at that time that the Prosecution WILL be able to prove their case Beyond A Reasonable Doubt at Jury Trial (if the case comes to that).  Again:  They can't just indict or charge someone with a weak case and then hope to get enough so that enough sticks at jury trial.  A Prosecutor that does this is subject to discipline for Prosecutorial Misconduct.

I know what it means.  Quite frankly, you do to, and are resorting to the cheap trick of a personal attack to insinuate that I don't.  That's YOUR character on display, friend.

Probable cause is the standard that law enforcement must meet for searches and arrests. You don’t need probable cause to start an investigation, so to say that “ an investigation wasn’t supported by probable cause” is a nonsense statement that has no basis in the law.

But clearly there was ample probable cause to investigate Trump’s role in the Russian scheme to interfere in the election. If a cop pulls over a car of four people and smells marijuana, he has probable cause to search each passenger to see which ones are actually in possession of illegal substances. Here, Mueller clearly uncovered proof that various crimes had been committed and he indeed indicted various Russian nationals. You can keep calling that a witch hunt, but the evidence indisputably shows that Russian operatives were committing witchcraft. Under the circumstances, there was ample reason to investigate Trump’s inner circle to see whether or not anyone associated in the campaign was conspiring with those Russian operatives. Mueller’s investigation found no evidence that could prove such involvement beyond a reasonable doubt, and I accept that conclusion. None of that changes the fact that the investigation was in the best interest of our national security. It’s important to keep pointing out that Trump didn’t even want the Russians to be investigated, period.

On the obstruction of justice question, what basis do you have for saying that the evidence doesn’t amount to probable cause that a crime was committed. Mueller has identified the specific actions that he believes the evidence shows Trump took. In fact, there’s not much disagreement about the fact that Trump took most of those actions. Mueller has laid out the legal theory arguing that those actions are covered by the federal obstruction statutes. However, Mueller has acknowledged that the facts of the case are unique enough that any potential prosecution of Trump’s actions would be bogged down in legal battles for years, so he believes it would be better for the country for congress to take action instead. But to say that the investigation found no evidence of obstruction is flat out wrong.

There was not Probable Cause.  There MAY have been "Reasonable Suspicion", and investigations can begin on the basis of Reasonable Suspicion (which is a higher standard than MERE Suspicion), but much of that Reasonable Suspicion hinged on a Dossier that has been thoroughly discredited.

Here's a towelette.  Wipe the egg off your face and get down to the hard work of convincing them why they should not vote for Trump in 2020, if seeing him out of office is that important to you.  I suspect that America is tiring of False Narratives that seem ever so real, only to implode under close inspection.

Lmao. We've already known this before, and the report has only made this eve more clear - the reasons for starting the investigation did not rely on the dossier.

It's not very kind to trouble Fuzzy with inconvenient facts. 
But it's the right thing to do.

It's laughable ignorance.
Why would Fuzzy even go down the road of blaming "The Dossier."
Uggggg!

[Slander and/or Libel]

This performance by Fuzzy is maybe his most embarrassing I’ve ever seen, which is saying something.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

There was not Probable Cause.  There MAY have been "Reasonable Suspicion", and investigations can begin on the basis of Reasonable Suspicion (which is a higher standard than MERE Suspicion), but much of that Reasonable Suspicion hinged on a Dossier that has been thoroughly discredited.

No part of the Steele Dossier has ever been discredited or proven wrong at any time by anyone.   Every statement made in it remains 100% factual to date.

Don't get too hung up on the Dossier. (Although Trumpers would really like you to.) It was a raw intelligence summary (or series of such summaries), put together with limited resources, under a time limit. It's a hasty map of Trump's potential compromise and conspiracies, not a hi-rez image of the terrain.

[GeorgiaModerate]

There was not Probable Cause.  There MAY have been "Reasonable Suspicion", and investigations can begin on the basis of Reasonable Suspicion (which is a higher standard than MERE Suspicion), but much of that Reasonable Suspicion hinged on a Dossier that has been thoroughly discredited.

No part of the Steele Dossier has ever been discredited or proven wrong at any time by anyone.   Every statement made in it remains 100% factual to date.

Don't get too hung up on the Dossier. (Although Trumpers would really like you to.) It was a raw intelligence summary (or series of such summaries), put together with limited resources, under a time limit. It's a hasty map of Trump's potential compromise and conspiracies, not a hi-rez image of the terrain.

Well put.

[emailking]

There was not Probable Cause.  There MAY have been "Reasonable Suspicion", and investigations can begin on the basis of Reasonable Suspicion (which is a higher standard than MERE Suspicion), but much of that Reasonable Suspicion hinged on a Dossier that has been thoroughly discredited.

No part of the Steele Dossier has ever been discredited or proven wrong at any time by anyone.   Every statement made in it remains 100% factual to date.

I'm pretty sure that's not true. There are some names or dates or something that have been shown incorrect, even if inconsequential.

Also, Mueller's report says Cohen didn't go to Prague so there's that.

[Badger]

Fuzzy, what is the alternative universe that you've apparently just emerged from like? I would dearly like to know all the major differences between the Mueller report issued in that world which apparently largely exonerates Trump, and the report issued in this timeline which really really REALLY doesn't.

But seriously though, man. You have got to quit being so damned stubborn about simple facts. You keep repeating things that are just simply factually untrue. This is not a matter for debate or any of it. This is not a liberal vs conservative. This is two plus two equals four not five level facts.

I strongly suggest you go back and re-read excerpts of the report and what it actually found. I would start with the concluding paragraph switch or simply a page long. That one succinct statement alone literally disproves most of the bunk you have been trying to convince yourself of.

Somehow somewhere somebody you admire told you that this was an exoneration. I know you were not one of those types to buy into what Fox News reports on hesitatingly, even if you do buy into complete crap websites warning about the Muslim danger with mostly crap stories and butchered statistics. Whatever its source, you really need to stop, reassess this from Ground Zero, and above all learn what the report actually says.

It's much easier to go on a narrative, sure. But you're better than that I think. There are certain folks on this website like Sanchez who are such died in the wall Trump supporters that he would back Trump to the nines if Jesus himself came down from heaven and told us all that Trump had colluded with Putin in person and did everything possible just like Miller reported to cover up the investigation. Heck, I'm pretty sure that's the reason he and some of his ilk DO support Trump so much. It's the Spiro Agnew and Patrick Buchanan G Gordon Liddy, attitude of " the world is a tough place so you got to have a thug in charge" neo-fascist mindset. Again, I think you're better than that, but your habitual rampant stubbornness has kind of painted yourself into a corner here. Please try to stop Andre review the reports findings with a truly open mind. You are not a literate, so I can't believe that if you do so it won't substantially change your mind.

[GeorgiaModerate]

...There are certain folks on this website like Sanchez who are such died in the wall Trump supporters ...

I take back all the things I've ever said about your app.  This is brilliant!

[Badger]

...There are certain folks on this website like Sanchez who are such died in the wall Trump supporters ...

I take back all the things I've ever said about your app.  This is brilliant!

Lol! My app and over-reliance on it both suck, but something about even a broken clock being right twice a day....

[GeorgiaModerate]

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1123365718664327173

[GeorgiaModerate]

https://twitter.com/BradMossEsq/status/1123585355490447361

[The Dowager Mod]

Fun fact.....All three people who have served in Donald Trump's Attorney General role – Jeff Sessions, Matt Whitaker, and William Barr – have now been caught committing perjury on his behalf.

[Crumpets]

Barr is not going anywhere. He has proven his loyalty to Trump, which is tantamount to doing your job well in today's DC.

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

The Mueller's highly damning report has BEEN out for 2 weeks now (and Mueller WILL testify).

Stil, the BIG STORY is somehow 4 pages memo (which by the way Mueller was given the opportunity to review, but has declined to do that)...
_{Former BIG STORIES were that the report would not be released at all, then that it would be damaged by redactions. And before that COLlUSION...}


Is the report really so damning that MSM&Resistance told ya (still saying) it would be?   

[GeorgiaModerate]

The Mueller's highly damning report has BEEN out for 2 weeks now (and Mueller WILL testify).

Stil, the BIG STORY is somehow 4 pages memo (which by the way Mueller was given the opportunity to review, but has declined to do that)...
_{Former BIG STORIES were that the report would not be released at all, then that it would be damaged by redactions. And before that COLlUSION...}


Is the report really so damning that MSM&Resistance told ya (still saying) it would be?   

Well, it lays out clear evidence of obstruction of justice.  Enough evidence so that some experts in the field (former prosecutors and DoJ officials, for example) are on record saying that if Trump weren't the currently sitting president, he would have been indicted for it.  Yeah, I'd call that pretty damning.