President Trump: The NEW one and only politics thread

This investigation didn't yield "no evidence." The evidence that was yielded "did not establish that members of the XXXXX campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."

So that statement tells us we know Russia interfered with the election. The evidence that is available did not establish a relationship between the current President and Russians in this interference. That statement does not conclude there was "no evidence."

 

It established that Mueller was unable to find sufficient evidence to assure a successful prosecution. Trump dodged testifying, a number of others lied in theirs.

He had to have proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

I was just responding to Scout's post which said "no evidence" --- and which you felt was accurate enough to "like."

So if the "no evidence" analogy is wrong . . . take it up with Scout.

 

It's like hunting for pennies with a metal detector . . . after Al Capone's vault is shown to be empty.

"There just HAS to be something, somewhere. HAS to be!!!"

 

I was thinking a football team trying to plot out an improbable comeback from a 21-point deficit with 2 1/2 minutes left after they just committed a backbreaking turnover.

 

Scout's post specifically stated that "no evidence" is different from "the evidence 'did not establish.'"

You said, "Show me ANY comparable investigation that yields 'no evidence.'" There are very, very few "comparable" investigations. If there are any, yeah, it's unlikely any would find "no evidence," and that's only because most investigators don't take on this big of a task with zero evidence. That would be fucking stupid and probably career suicide.

What you are essentially acknowledging is that there was obviously "some evidence," though not enough to pursue an indictment.

It seems obvious to anyone not carrying the Administration's water that the statement "the evidence did not establish ..." is a polite way of saying, "we couldn't quite get 'beyond a reasonable doubt.'"

And, you know what, if Mueller couldn't get beyond a reasonable doubt, then the President shouldn't be charged with collusion. AND THAT'S A GOOD THING. That's the system succeeding. Mueller shouldn't push forward if he can't prove this stuff beyond a reasonable doubt.

We aren't (or shouldn't be) rooting for the President to have colluded with Russia. We want to know what the deal is with the 34 or so people surrounding the President who have been indicted or pleaded guilty to nefarious wrongdoings in connection with his election. We want to know what he knows about those 34 people and companies who have been indicted or pleaded guilty in connection to his election, and when he knew it.

And that's fair information to seek.

 

ATTY GEN KLEINDIENST: "I think the investigation that has just concluded itself has probably been one of the most intensive that the Department of Justice and the FBI has ever been involved in. Some 1,500 persons were interviewed, 1,800 leads were followed, 333 agents were involved, 14,000 man-hours. Fifty-one of the 59 FBI field officers were involved. ... And that, I think, is a great credit to justice in this country."

INTERVIEWER: "Did you know that documents had been destroyed?"

KLEINDIENST: "No, I did not."


"All the President's Men"

 

This is double speak for the time being.

And, perhaps the full report will prove it true, which is to say the summary is false. But if the summary is true, I'm not sure what else the above description could be.

 

There's an art to writing a precis for a book/document that runs hundreds of pages long, but there was really no need here to have it done in under 48 hours.
I think it's a good time to take a needed break from following the misadventures of this government.
The results themselves are not as disappointing as the horseshit games that get played to produce the results.

 

So, when do the pardons begin?