Mueller could have concluded Trump committed crimes — NOS4A2

This is contrary to what Mueller has repeatedly said. See my previous post on the matter directly quoting him. This is also in Volume 2 of the Mueller report, which you claim to have read.

So what reason do you have to assume other reasons than those given in the report and repeated by him multiple times?

I made the same point yesterday. Either NOS is unable to understand it or chooses to ignore it because it undermines his argument. If it is the former than arguing with him will be as pointless as arguing with a child about things she is not able to comprehend. If the latter then the question is who NOS is trying to convince, him or herself or someone else.

They're not going to remove Trump from office, but the average American voter is going to be thoroughly confused about who the biggest criminal is: Trump or Biden. Yay 2020!

They're not going to remove Trump from office, but the average American voter is going to be thoroughly confused about who the biggest criminal is: Trump or Biden. Yay 2020! — frank

I reckon Bernie or Warren will be the Democrat nominee.

Neither will win.

This is contrary to what Mueller has repeatedly said. See my previous post on the matter directly quoting him. This is also in Volume 2 of the Mueller report, which you claim to have read.

So what reason do you have to assume other reasons than those given in the report and repeated by him multiple times?

But it’s thoroughly consistent with the Attorney general’s judgement on the matter, which I hope you’re aware of.

The Deputy Attorney General and I knew that we had to make this assessment because, as I previously explained, the prosecutorial judgment whether a crime has been established is an integral part of the Department’s criminal process. The Special Counsel regulations provide for the report to remain confidential. Given the extraordinary public interest in this investigation, however, I determined that it was necessary to make as much of it public as I could and committed the Department to being as transparent as possible. But it would not have been appropriate for me simply to release Volume II of the report without making a prosecutorial judgment.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/opening-statement-attorney-general-william-p-barr-senate-judiciary-committee

You referred to Mueller’s report to maintain that his reasoning was sound. I’m referring to the Attorney General and American law that shows that it’s quite the opposite. No, you cannot indict a sitting president, but the special prosecutor can conclude whether the president committed a crime.

I didn't know if you saw this, but I stumbled upon it reading your other thread. Since you didn't respond to me over there, I thought maybe the 'public' over here could offer some guidance on it. What happened here you think? Are you concerned about this?

A Secret Racist Code

The lawsuit—which Trump Management settled in 1975 with a consent decree, and which they noted at the time did not constitute an admission of wrongdoing—detailed numerous instances of a racial code that Trump-owned buildings allegedly used to indicate if an applicant was black or otherwise “undesirable.”

A super who worked for the Trumps, Thomas Miranda, allegedly told the DOJ that Trump Management staffers had instructed him to “attach a separate sheet of paper to every application submitted by a prospective ‘colored’ renter.”

“Miranda was to write a ‘C’ in order to indicate to management that the prospective renter was ‘colored,’” the DOJ noted in court documents.

Elyse Goldweber, an attorney on the case, claimed Miranda had been reluctant to talk to her and have his name disclosed because “he was afraid that the Trumps would have him ‘knocked off.’” Miranda was also allegedly afraid to reveal to the Trumps that he was Puerto Rican and instead told them he was South American because he thought they “did not want Puerto Ricans living or working in the building,” according to Goldweber’s documentation.

In another instance, Goldweber said, Miranda told another tenant that Trump’s central office did not want him to rent to an Indian man—and that they only agreed to rent to the individual after they found out he had United Nations connections and that a rejection “might cause an unnecessary confrontation.”

NOS, I believe this was settled out of court. It's a shame tax dollars were waisted to litigate it. Swamp in, swamp out I suppose.

Yeah, you’re pretty good at believing accusations without have bothered with the defense.

But it’s thoroughly consistent with the Attorney general’s judgement on the matter, which I hope you’re aware of. — NOS4A2

I am aware that Barr, a Trump appointee, claimed no crime was committed. But then I'm not the one on record in this thread misrepresenting Mueller countless times which was what we were talking about. Can we now agree that it is incorrect to conclude that Mueller established no crime was committed?

Then we can move unto Barr. Before going into the details, maybe you can tell me what you know so far.

Are you aware of the content of the Barr memo? Are you aware of Barr's letter to Congress and what it said? Are you aware of the material differences between his representation of the report in that letter and the facts described in the Mueller report? Are you aware what Mueller himself said about Barr's characterisation?

Once you are capable of answering yes to all those questions what is then your reason for maintaining that we should accept Barr's assessment on face value? And assuming for the sake of argument there are good reasons to accept his assessment (I think his assessment is wrong), why is it not possible and reasonable that other people can come to another assessment? And if that is indeed possible how then would you suggest we move from there to get to some agreement in this thread? (I think there's a straightforward way to move from there but I don't want to lead what should be a dialog too much).

No, you cannot indict a sitting president, but the special prosecutor can conclude whether the president committed a crime. — NOS4A2

But you do not have to. Barr's comments confirm that there is a binary choice to make - you indict, or you don't. Mueller made that choice - he declined to indict. The reason he gave for this were procedural, and procedural reasons are sufficient.

The idea that Mueller, or any other prosecutor, needs to make his assessment of the facts public when a case cannot proceed for procedural reasons seems to be invented out of whole cloth.

You referred to Mueller’s report to maintain that his reasoning was sound. I’m referring to the Attorney General and American law that shows that it’s quite the opposite. No, you cannot indict a sitting president, but the special prosecutor can conclude whether the president committed a crime. — NOS4A2

Barr's loyalty to Trump rather than the country and his deceit may bring his down along with Trump. But he is in a unique position and he may still be able to protect the president and himself. It may be that Barr's motivation is his vision of the unitary executive rather than allegiance to Trump the man but since Trump is the president it amounts to the same thing. Perhaps the allegiance only extends to a Republican or conservative president though. In any case, he has shown himself to be partisan rather than the impartial advocate for the United States that the position requires.

What I said was that Mueller was guided by precedent not law and that I understand the reasoning behind it, but by ignoring established custom and indicted Trump he would have been free to state allegations. Apparently such complexity is too much for the limits of your "Trump good those who oppose Trump bad" understanding.

I’ve never stated Mueller establish no crime was committed. I’ve only stated and implied that he did not prove guilt of any crime. But yes we can agree it is incorrect to state that proposition.

I am aware of all of the above.

The Mueller report is a report for the DOJ, the Attorney General William Barr, who had to determine whether the conduct described in the report constitutes a crime because Mueller refused to.

How did Barr show himself to be partisan? Just more breathless accusations.

Hey Nos, about his character viz racism, did you see this about his dad too? Seems like it's running in the family background.

BTW I'm starting a new thread about impeachment, so if you want to grow some balls, come on over LOL

The article:

Side-by-side photographs on Facebook of President Donald Trump and his father Fred Trump attempt to show a family pattern of white supremacy.

"Donald Trump: A white supremacist...just like dad," reads large text in a post shared by the group Anti-Trump USA on Feb. 25.

On Donald Trump's side, the post highlights his partial quote from a news conference that there were "fine people on both sides" after a white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Va.

Beneath a photo of Fred Trump, the text states he was "arrested participating in KKK riot" in 1927.

The post contains some elements of truth about Fred Trump: He was arrested that year in connection with a clash between the KKK and police amid a parade in Queens. But the post goes beyond what is known about his actions to say he was "participating."

The post was flagged as part of Facebook’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) A spokesman for the White House did not comment for the story.

The arrest
The story of Fred Trump’s arrest at a KKK rally has challenged reporters even before his son entered the 2016 presidential race.

The KKK riot broke out during the May 30, 1927, Memorial Day parade in Jamaica, Queens, N.Y., according to archives from The Brooklyn Daily Eagle.

A week prior, police commissioner Joseph Warren was warned that the Klan intended to parade in hoods and gowns. Warren said they were not issued a permit to have a parade, but a report later said the KKK had permission from the Grand Army of the Republic, a veterans’ organization that had charge of the parade arrangements.

However, on the day of the parade, police were unable to keep at least 1,000 Klansmen from participating. The New York Times stated that "1,000 Klansmen and 100 policemen staged a free-for-all battle in Jamaica."

Fred Trump, then 21, was arrested at the parade along with six others, according to the New York Times. (His address was listed as 175-25 Devonshire Road, Jamaica, which matched the 1930 Census.) However, unlike the other men arrested who faced various charges of assault and disorderly conduct, the Times reported that Trump "was discharged."

We checked other reports of the riot to find more information — and found some discrepancies. A May 31, 1927, Brooklyn Daily Eagle article named six prisoners and all but one, bystander Ralph Losee, were called "avowed Klansmen" by the police. But this article did not mention Trump's name.

No collusion. No obstruction. — NOS4A2

You’re just repeating Trump’s lies.

His truths, you mean. You’re lying to yourself.

How did Barr show himself to be partisan? Just more breathless accusations. — NOS4A2

Compare the Mueller report to Barr's summary.

Compare the Mueller report to Barr's summary.

If you don’t know why or are not willing to share why Barr is partisan, why make the claim?

Compare the Mueller report to Barr's summary.

If you don’t know why or are not willing to share why Barr is partisan, why make the claim? — NOS4A2

It is no secret and not hard to see, but if you are going to learn you need to do the work yourself.

It is no secret and not hard to see, but if you are going to learn you need to do the work yourself.

More breathless accusations. This is the going rate with anti-Trumpism.

Unsurprisingly, support for Trump's impeachment has increased since the Democrats announced the inquiry

Barr's loyalty to Trump rather than the country and his deceit may bring his down along with Trump. — Fooloso4

Let’s not forget that John Mitchell, who was AG under Nixon, went to jail.

The release of the 'rough transcript'

Recall that it hasn't been a week yet since the latest crisis blew up. Word got out about the supposed phone call between Trump and Zelensky. So the White House agreed to release a transcript of the call. And amazingly, Trump and others in the White House thought this would clear the matter up - like, 'when we publish this, everyone will see that it's all just a fake story'. When, in fact, it showed that Trump was saying exactly what he had been accused of, he acted surprised, baffled, hurt. 'It was a perfect phone call', he kept saying.

He can't see that he's committed a crime here. He actually doesn't comprehend that what he's done is wrong, even though it's obvious. Which is another reason his presidency is such a nightmare - he genuinely can't tell the difference between facts and lies, truth and fiction. He doesn't just pretend not to, he really can't tell. Scary.

The Mueller report is a report for the DOJ, the Attorney General William Barr, who had to determine whether the conduct described in the report constitutes a crime because Mueller refused to. — NOS4A2

Again a mischaracterisation. Mueller didn't refuse, he believed he was bound by department policy that he wasn't allowed to and that indeed Barr's assessment contravenes this policy. In any case, you didn't answer the question about why you (uncritically) accept Barr's assessment. Why is that?

You do this all the time and it's annoying. You never answer questions.

Trump told Russian officials in 2017 he wasn’t concerned about Moscow’s interference in U.S. election

President Trump told two senior Russian officials in a 2017 Oval Office meeting that he was unconcerned about Moscow’s interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election because the United States did the same in other countries, an assertion that prompted alarmed White House officials to limit access to the remarks to an unusually small number of people, according to three former officials with knowledge of the matter.

The comments, which have not been previously reported, were part of a now-infamous meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, in which Trump revealed highly classified information that exposed a source of intelligence on the Islamic State. He also said during the meeting that firing FBI Director James B. Comey the previous day had relieved “great pressure” on him.

How can you defend this guy?

How can you defend this guy? — Michael

Because Ginsberg is going to die and the Supreme court will lean heavily toward the right for generations with one more Trump pick.

You do this all the time and it's annoying. You never answer questions. — Benkei

Answering questions is not in the interest of spreading pro-Trump propaganda. If he'd answer questions, especially questions about his view on policy questions, his agenda would be obvious and he could no longer pretend to be a rational observer.

How can you defend this guy? — Michael

It's not necessarily about defending Trump, but about keeping Trump in office so he can destroy the political institutions that the alt-right detests. The Bannon strategy.

Answering questions is not in the interest of spreading pro-Trump propaganda. — Echarmion

That is done by making statements of fact. That's all NOS4A2 does, states "the facts" over and over again.

He can't see that he's committed a crime here. — Wayfarer

I think that part of the problem is that he runs the government in the same way he ran his business, where such "favors" are common practice. What is to his advantage is to the advantage of his business and so what is his advantage must be to the advantage of the country. As long as he could get money from somewhere, default on debts, declare multiple bankruptcies, and go to foreign countries when no one in the U.S. would lend him money everything was beautiful.

Compare the Mueller report to Barr's summary.

If you don’t know why or are not willing to share why Barr is partisan, why make the claim?
— NOS4A2

It is no secret and not hard to see, but if you are going to learn you need to do the work yourself. — Fooloso4

It is no secret and not hard to see, but if you are going to learn you need to do the work yourself.

More breathless accusations. This is the going rate with anti-Trumpism. — NOS4A2

Challenging you to compare the Mueller report to Barr's summary is not an accusation. To make it easier compare Mueller's own summary to Barr's and get back to us.