Oldbear83 said:

---

There is a critical error in the OP. Our justice system is predicated on innocent until proven guilty.

---

codyorr said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

There is a critical error in the OP. Our justice system is predicated on innocent until proven guilty.

---

Yes, but you aren't the legal system, and I'm not asking judges for their opinion. People can form opinions on innocence or guilt on their own based on whatever standard they choose (and if this forum is any indication, that standard changes frequently to suit their argument).

So is your answer there is nothing Mueller could present tomorrow that would make you believe Trump committed a crime?

---

codyorr said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

There is a critical error in the OP. Our justice system is predicated on innocent until proven guilty.

---

Yes, but you aren't the legal system, and I'm not asking judges for their opinion. People can form opinions on innocence or guilt on their own based on whatever standard they choose (and if this forum is any indication, that standard changes frequently to suit their argument).

So is your answer there is nothing Mueller could present tomorrow that would make you believe Trump committed a crime?

---

witchmo said:

---

Mueller would have to mea culpa either way to alter my conviction about that mess. He's going to stick to what's in the report...he has no choice unless he wants to loose the hounds of hell on either himself and his team or on Trump and the administration. Absolute worst situation is that he could roll over on the Clinton-Obama group and its Pandora's box of actions. Dems aren't going to allow that to happen. Hobson's Choice. It will be a lot of sound and fury with no real significance.

---

• "His report stated that ``coordination' does not have a settled definition in federal criminal law. We understood coordination to require an agreementtacit or express.' However, Congress explicitly aimed to avoid such a permissive interpretation. In 2002, Congress passed a statute declaring that campaign finance regulations `shall not require agreement or formal collaboration to establish coordination,' and any knowing and willful violations are criminal."
• "Mueller made other legal errors that opened up loopholes for 2020 and beyond: suggesting that all `opposition research' might be protected by the First Amendment"
• "Mueller team's indictments of the Russian hackers showed a remarkable coincidence in dates between Trump campaign signals and Russian hacking and leaking efforts, often on the same day or even within hours. But the report itself either failed to note or failed to emphasize most of these"
• "... even if Mueller couldn't indict Trump under OLC policy, why did this policy have a double-whammy of not even being able to make legal conclusions and deliberately writing cryptically and sometimes incomprehensibly?"

codyorr said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

There is a critical error in the OP. Our justice system is predicated on innocent until proven guilty.

---

Yes, but you aren't the legal system, and I'm not asking judges for their opinion. People can form opinions on innocence or guilt on their own based on whatever standard they choose (and if this forum is any indication, that standard changes frequently to suit their argument).

So is your answer there is nothing Mueller could present tomorrow that would make you believe Trump committed a crime?

---

GolemIII said:

---

codyorr said:

---

I'll go first. I think Trump is innocent of collusion but guilty of obstruction.

If Mueller provides evidence that the Trump campaign accepted or proposed an explicit quid pro quo with the Russian government in exchange for information on Clinton / interference in the election, I would change my mind. Seeking negative information on Clinton doesn't equate to collusion in my book.

If Mueller testifies that, had his understanding NOT been that a sitting President cannot be convicted of obstruction, and if there were no issues of executive privilege, he STILL would not have recommended obstruction charges, I would change my mind.

---

---

GolemIII said:

---

codyorr said:

---

GolemIII said:

---

codyorr said:

---

I'll go first. I think Trump is innocent of collusion but guilty of obstruction.

If Mueller provides evidence that the Trump campaign accepted or proposed an explicit quid pro quo with the Russian government in exchange for information on Clinton / interference in the election, I would change my mind. Seeking negative information on Clinton doesn't equate to collusion in my book.

If Mueller testifies that, had his understanding NOT been that a sitting President cannot be convicted of obstruction, and if there were no issues of executive privilege, he STILL would not have recommended obstruction charges, I would change my mind.

---

---

Grasping at straws to find him guilty of collusion or innocent of obstruction?

---

Remind me which party is holding this hearing? Don't be obtuse.

---

codyorr said:

---

GolemIII said:

---

codyorr said:

---

GolemIII said:

---

codyorr said:

---

I'll go first. I think Trump is innocent of collusion but guilty of obstruction.

If Mueller provides evidence that the Trump campaign accepted or proposed an explicit quid pro quo with the Russian government in exchange for information on Clinton / interference in the election, I would change my mind. Seeking negative information on Clinton doesn't equate to collusion in my book.

If Mueller testifies that, had his understanding NOT been that a sitting President cannot be convicted of obstruction, and if there were no issues of executive privilege, he STILL would not have recommended obstruction charges, I would change my mind.

---

---

Grasping at straws to find him guilty of collusion or innocent of obstruction?

---

Remind me which party is holding this hearing? Don't be obtuse.

---

That shouldn't be relevant to my question; unless you're saying that you're such a partisan that nothing could be damning enough to overcome who wanted the hearing. Which is fine, as long as you recognize it. Thanks for sharing.

---

FormerFlash said:

---

OldBear makes some very valid arguments here. There are obviously things that could come to light that should be able to persuade 90% of people, no matter which side of the argument they are on, to change their mind. The other 10% on either side are the people who won't even change their mind for ironclad evidence.

The problem is that Mueller's report tipped his hand to show his bias toward the President. He went beyond his mandate and left certain things intentionally vague to try and paint Trump in a bad light. His job was to root out illegal activity and recommend criminal prosecution if he found it. He didn't find it and couldn't recommend prosecution so he basically highlighted bad behavior and handed the thing over to the Democrats to bolster an impeachment effort.

If Mueller had any real evidence to support prosecution, it would be in the report. Anything he says tomorrow will likely just be more fodder for the Democrats to harp on about what a bad guy Trump is without anything to base any real legal recourse on. No one on the right is prepared to take Mueller's word in good faith after that hatchet job of a report. What can be said that wasn't in the report already?

---

witchmo said:

---

ALL errorseither in "the facts", reporting or interpretation, or in Mueller's comments always have "leverage", hoss.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

codyorr said:

---

FormerFlash, to follow-up, this is the paragraph I'm referring to. It's the conclusion of the executive summary to Volume II.

"Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President 's conduct. The evidence we obtained about the President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. At the same time, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."

My question: are these two statements related? If Mueller's team was making a traditional prosecutorial judgement, would they still fail to conclude that POTUS committed a crime?

To me, that is the most important question Mueller can answer. If "yes", they would still fail to conclude POTUS committed a crime, that would change my mind. If "no", they would then conclude that POTUS committed a crime, that would confirm my beliefs.

Would his answer to that question change anyone's opinion?

---

This statement from Mueller's spokesman is probably the closest we'll get to an answer: "The Attorney General has previously stated that the Special Counsel repeatedly affirmed that he was not saying that, but for the OLC opinion, he would have found the President obstructed justice. The Special Counsel's report and his statement today made clear that the office concluded it would not reach a determination - one way or the other - about whether the President committed a crime. There is no conflict between these statements."

---

codyorr said:

---

witchmo said:

---

ALL errorseither in "the facts", reporting or interpretation, or in Mueller's comments always have "leverage", hoss.

---

I wish you were right, but I think your overestimate how reasonable the average person is!

---

FormerFlash said:

---

codyorr said:

---

FormerFlash said:

---

OldBear makes some very valid arguments here. There are obviously things that could come to light that should be able to persuade 90% of people, no matter which side of the argument they are on, to change their mind. The other 10% on either side are the people who won't even change their mind for ironclad evidence.

The problem is that Mueller's report tipped his hand to show his bias toward the President. He went beyond his mandate and left certain things intentionally vague to try and paint Trump in a bad light. His job was to root out illegal activity and recommend criminal prosecution if he found it. He didn't find it and couldn't recommend prosecution so he basically highlighted bad behavior and handed the thing over to the Democrats to bolster an impeachment effort.

If Mueller had any real evidence to support prosecution, it would be in the report. Anything he says tomorrow will likely just be more fodder for the Democrats to harp on about what a bad guy Trump is without anything to base any real legal recourse on. No one on the right is prepared to take Mueller's word in good faith after that hatchet job of a report. What can be said that wasn't in the report already?

---

Thanks for the post. Part of the reason for my OP was to see what those "obvious things" were that would "persuade 90% of people". So far, no one has shared anything that could persuade them.

I appreciate your second point, and it relates to my original criterion on obstruction. Volume II states up front that Mueller's team could not make a criminal accusation against a sitting President due to an OLC opinion. Without that justification, I don't think it's obvious that, "he couldn't recommend prosecution" is due to "he didn't find [any criminal activity]".

I haven't read the entire report, and I'm going to guess you didn't either (probably just the introduction and executive summaries, right?). So if Mueller is asked, "would you have recommended prosecution if Trump were not the sitting President", would his answer have any weight to you?

---

AG Barr has stated publicly that Mueller told him in the absence of the OLC opinion he still would not recommending charges. Up to this point in time, I have found Barr to be highly credible and to the point. If proof came out that he was lying about this, that would certainly persuade me substantially.

At this point in time I think the second half of Mueller's report overstepped his mandate in much the same way Comey did with Hillary during the last campaign. Given his background, Mueller should absolutely know better which is why, in my opinion, the tenor of the report reflects so poorly on him (Mueller).

---