The Mueller Report thread

[Dill]

(04-22-2019, 02:52 PM)bfine32 Wrote:
As I thought you are unable to show me where I have taken one expert's opinion over another. Yes, I accept the DOJ's findings. Didn't he actually says Trump could not say yes or no to obstruction by Trump? I did read his report (does that count?) Now it's up to congress to determine if they accept the findings and it seems they did as they wanted to know more about possible obstruction.

Please share with me what insight you gained from reading the full report. Then maybe we can see if someone were being lazy or prioritized the implicit cost of their time and efforts. 

Only in PnR can being called lazy not be considered a slur. But of course it does matter who is doing the slurring. Can we at least agree that the reply was more and the person posting it than the subject at hand? I've heard we're not big fans of that, but of course with given earlier disclaimer.

The "DOJ's Findings"?  Are you refering to Barr's letter--not the Mueller Report?? Since you have made such a show of not reading the actual report, I am assuming the former.  And since you are representing Barr's position, not Mueller's, you are indeed taking "one expert's opinion over another"--the short, easy-to-read opinion that exonerates Trump.

Barr's "summary" claims the SC Report "identifies no actions that, in our judgment, constitute obstructive conduct, had a nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding, and were done with corrupt intent, each of which, under the Departments principles of federal prosecution guiding charging decisions, would need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to establish an obstruction-of-justice offense."

The insight I gained from the sections of Vol II I have so far read is that the Special Counsel was

1) definitely NOT saying he and his office could exonerate Trump of obstruction. That is the very last line of his conclusion on page 182,

2) and definitely WAS saying that the president's status as president complicates the process of charging him.  So long as it is the DOJ's view that a sitting president should not be indicted, then the SC would be out of line doing so--but NOT because the president had not committed obstruction.

3) And the SC further DOCUMENTS repeated attempts on Trump's part to interfere with the investigation--to shut it down, to restrict its scope, to fire people running it, to replace people who respected law and procedure with people less likely to.  Trump repeatedly REJECTED lessons on rule of law.  He was not "set straight by counsel"; his underlings refused to carry out his orders. There was no change of mind on Trump's part, only efforts to resist Trump's illegal orders from underlings within the DOJ. (From this I also learned that all the points Hollo made to you in post #542 were valid--and instead of checking or disputing them straight up, you set about arguing why one need not do the work of looking at primary documents, which would settle who was right.)

4) The MSM seems to have laid Mueller's legal argument very clearly, where Barr and Fox have not.  So I get corroboration by reading the actual Report. 

You, on the other hand, "prioritizing time and costs," find yourself unreflexively repeating Barr (and defending Trump--yet again), and complaining of "slurs" and "personal attacks" when you are tagged "lazy" and "biased."

LOL Where else is it a slur to call someone "lazy" for being lazy?--i.e., "prioritizing time and costs" by letting the President's man read/think for you?