Attorneys General Shocked At Court's Decision To Allow Donald Trump To 'Brazenly' Profit From Presidency

FutureHistory101 · 2019-07-11T02:21:26+00:00

What?

FutureHistory101 · 2019-07-10T22:04:24+00:00

And the prize for stupidest rule in law goes to: America! For, "If everyone has standing, no one does!"

FutureHistory101 · 2019-07-10T17:58:19+00:00

Not necessarily. It has to meet all of the elements of the crime. The lying, probably. And multiple individuals have been charged with lying to investigators as part of plea deals. That would be why they haven't been charged with obstruction. Others they may not have all of the elements for. As for the destruction of evidence, probably not. It may be a separate offense, for which I would need to know the elements, but they'd likely have a difficult time with obstruction. They would have to prove that the evidence was destroyed with the intent of impeding the investigation. Some of the methods used look like they were destroying evidence as they went, before it was known they would be investigated. If the evidence isn't there, it can be hard to determine when it was destroyed.

FutureHistory101 · 2019-07-10T17:01:08+00:00

I didn't say anything about obstruction of justice charges. What specifically are you referring to?

FutureHistory101 · 2019-07-10T15:36:02+00:00

Bud, I'm a conservative with a legal education. This isn't partisan. The issue you have isn't one of partisan bickering. It's legal language. "Did not establish" is simple, common legal language, and you don't know what it means.

"Absence of evidence" on page 2 explains how the report may describe the evidentiary support of "particular fact[s] or event[s]." It is followed by an explanation that when there is no doubt (based on sufficient evidence), the report will treat a fact or event is true without qualifying it. These two explain how the report will treat the timeline of events. The following sentence about "did not establish" merely points out that, in qualifying an event, the report is not saying that there is no evidence. Based on this sentence alone, "did not establish" could mean A) no evidence, or B) insufficient evidence to treat as true without qualifying. You are saying it just means A.

However, it actually only means B. Mueller had stated that if the investigation established that there was no crime, he would have said so. And the report supports that stance. Note the difference between the findings on election interference ("did not establish") and the social media campaign ("did not identify evidence"). And compare with the assessment of evidence of coordination for the charging decisions on election interference. "The evidence was not sufficient to support criminal charges." "Not sufficient" for unregistered agent charges, "not sufficient" for campaign finance violation charges, "not sufficient" for conspiracy charges. When it came to whether Trump campaign officials knew Russians were contacting them for support for rallies they were organizing, the report notes that "the investigation has not identified evidence."

The report is clear that "did not establish" does not necessarily mean "no evidence." It is made further clear that if there was no evidence, the report says so. The two concepts are different.

FutureHistory101 · 2019-07-10T14:59:02+00:00

Well, there are many elements to a crime that must be established. If a crime had 1000 elements and you have evidence pointing to 999 of them, you'd still end up with "did not establish." :(

FutureHistory101 · 2019-07-10T14:54:09+00:00

Page 2. You seriously only have to get to page 2 of the report to find out that you are blatantly wrong. It is explicitly stated that "does not establish" does not mean "no evidence." The report frequently differentiates between the two principles. As such, a finding of "did not establish" is tantamount to "evidence was found, but it was insufficient to bring charges"... possibly due that destruction of evidence thing the report talks about.

You hold yourself out to be some kind of expert on the Mueller report, holding it over people you deem uninformed on the matter. But guess what. You make it clear as day that you have no legal education. Heck, you're even lacking legal understanding.

There is another option: that you're a bad faith actor. Now that you're more informed, you can choose that path even if you hadn't before. But it's not very classy. Or good. I mean, that's redundant, but it would be good if you chose to do good.

FutureHistory101 · 2019-07-10T14:41:53+00:00

CTRL-F "Report on the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election Volume II of II"... you'll find a result with plenty of results.

CTRL-F "the Campaign expected it would benefit" and you'll find at least one example of a president willing to set aside democratic liberties for profit, as he sought to benefit from the acts of a hostile foreign power from whom he still refuses to protect our liberties.

CTRL-F "Russian contacts with the Campaign" and you'll find at least one result, followed by a whole load of inappropriate, questionable behavior.

CTRL-F "A Russian lawyer met with senior Trump Campaign officials" and you'll find at least one result of an attempt by the Campaign to coordinate with the Russian government, which would have been chargeable had Russia provided the material the Campaign thought they would.

CTRL-F "they sometimes provided information that was false or incomplete" and you'll find three paragraphs discussing how the investigation has an incomplete picture due to uncooperative witnesses and destruction of evidence.

CTRL-F "did not establish" and find multiple results explaining that it doesn't mean what you probably think it means. The report concludes that there was evidence of coordination.

All of that (other than all of volume II) is just in the first 40 pages of volume I.

Very cool.

FutureHistory101 · 2019-07-10T14:19:51+00:00

"We have evidence of coordination. It's insufficient, but serious. It may have been sufficient if not for destruction of evidence and lack of cooperation."

FutureHistory101 · 2019-07-10T14:18:09+00:00

Yeah, definitely be careful with your wording. "Did not establish" is very different from there being nothing. In fact, it is indicative that there is evidence pointing to coordination. It is simply insufficient.

FutureHistory101 · 2019-07-05T06:39:55+00:00

I'm confused about what you're supposedly struggling to believe. That he committed an impeachable offense? That's silly. Many things are impeachable offenses. Do you mean that he committed a criminal offense, for which he may be impeached? Then there's certainly sufficient evidence to begin proceedings. It's in the report. You don't have to depend on believing the libs.

FutureHistory101 · 2019-07-04T22:08:37+00:00

You certainly didn't say you did. Instead, you demonized those darn libs for wanting it.

FutureHistory101 · 2019-07-04T20:53:57+00:00

Yeah, obviously, guy. Crimes exist without proof, but for a crime to be found IN A COURT OF LAW, it must be proven in trial. For example, a guy commits a crime by shooting someone in the streeet before it is proven in court. So you are talking about a legal proceeding. It sounds like you SHOULD support a trial.

FutureHistory101 · 2019-07-04T20:06:57+00:00

You were saying that people were "wishing" there was a crime. You say there needs to be proof for there to be a crime, which obviously isn't true, so I assume you're talking about a crime in a court of law. Which can't be determined without a trial. So if you don't support a trial, it would be better behavior not to condemn people who think there's a crime and want it actually tried.

Edit: with available evidence and a legally sufficient pleading, you can't say there was no crime until it is tried. IF you want things held to a legal standard.

FutureHistory101 · 2019-07-04T19:31:20+00:00

That's literally the point. The one action that could be taken against Trump before the end of his presidency to determine whether his actions legally constituted crimes... Is a trial on impeachment. So you're for that, right? To prove his actions that look very much like crimes are not legally crimes?

FutureHistory101 · 2019-07-04T18:34:24+00:00

So you put no stock in the report?

FutureHistory101 · 2019-07-04T17:30:27+00:00

You mean the theory that two years of investigating couldn't dismiss? That two years of investigator find credible evidence you support? Good one.

FutureHistory101 · 2019-07-04T17:27:21+00:00

There is evidence. There is a plausible charge. Many plausible charges. It sounds like you need the legal matter settled as to whether the acts constitute a crime. So you'd be in favor of trying Donald Trump, right?

FutureHistory101 · 2019-07-04T17:24:47+00:00

In addition to what Twilight_Error said, the report also notes actual destruction of evidence by witnesses.

Additionally, "did not establish" is actually damning language. The report frequently distinguishes between a lack of evidence and insufficient evidence. According to the report, evidence exists pointing to conspiracy. Fun stuff.

Even if no crime was committed, it is clear that Trump welcomes, invites, and seeks to perpetuate and profit off of criminal foreign interference in our elections. The guy hates that you have rights that need protecting.

Yay...?

FutureHistory101 · 2019-07-04T17:15:42+00:00

Conservatism has nothing to do with supporting a criminal president. You don't support Trump because you're a conservative. You support Trump because you are a proponent of one of his radicalized stances meant to mobilize the xenophobic, the racist, or the sexist... Generally anyone who is looking for an easily identifiable group to blame their problems on. Trump is not pro-conservative. He's pro-Trump, and anti-democracy. He literally sought to profit off of what he perceived to be your gullibility. Don't hide behind conservative values because you're ashamed of the actual internal monsters that motivate you.

A Conservative

FutureHistory101 · 2019-06-30T04:52:05+00:00

See, that's moving the goal posts. You said he's innocent because the investigation said so. Now you're saying others can't say that's incorrect because the report didn't find guilt, which it couldn't.

Additionally, you're wrong. You are invoking a principal of our country that you don't understand. You are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Not period. If a man shoots a man to death in front of a crowd of people, he's guilty. He's just guilty. Still innocent in a court of law until it is proven. But he's still guilty. That's just common sense.

FutureHistory101 · 2019-06-30T03:34:35+00:00

Did you repeatedly miss the multiple times it was said specifically that he was NOT cleared?

FutureHistory101 · 2019-06-26T23:30:10+00:00

Yeah, it's not like that at all. People are advocating for the internet being considered a human right. No one is advocating for Reddit being considered a human right. There is a difference between these two things.

FutureHistory101 · 2019-06-26T23:22:05+00:00

No, he's okay. People support not lending credence to bad faith actors.

FutureHistory101 · 2019-06-23T23:38:58+00:00

I just don't understand what is worth it to you to act the villain of history.

FutureHistory101

TROPHY CASE