Why Mueller did not exonerate POTUS on Obstruction Of Justice charge?

[enhanced_deficit]

The quoted part isn't a quote from Barr, it is Barr reporting what RM said.

Level of emotions by some remind me of Bush-Cheney supporters unnecessarily high dedication to their leaders when their approval in GOP used to be 90% before Iraqi Freedom war.

This is being discussed here:

The report Mueller wrote exonerated Trump, however, according to those who have read it.

Do you understand if this is referring to AG Barr, Deputy AG Rosenstein or someone else?

That was the question I had.
In the interest of repetition. If POTUS is saying that his appointed AG (or his lawyers, supporters or he himself) 'totally exonarated' him on charges of obstruction of justice, then there is nothing to argue over here.

[Swordsmyth]

Level of emotions by some remind me of Bush-Cheney supporters unnecessarily high dedication to their leaders when their approval in GOP used to be 90% before Iraqi Freedom war.

This is being discussed here:



Do you understand if this is referring to AG Barr, Deputy AG Rosenstein or someone else?

That was the question I had.
In the interest of repetition. If POTUS is saying that his appointed AG (or his lawyers, supporters or he himself) 'totally exonarated' him on charges of obstruction of justice, then there is nothing to argue over here.

Dannno told you that Barr exonerated Trump and you tried to use Barr reporting that RM didn't to refute Dannno.

[dannno]

In the interest of brevity, I just asked names of any readers of report you were referring to in your statement. Reading full subjective opinion of Barr will not help IMO since quoted part clearly contradicts your statement. Many in their subjective (or maybe in objective as well if they have full view of the facts) views could see him 'totally exonerated', only issues was who is making that assessment and how biased/unbiased is that verdict.
Participation in these discusssions is optional, no need to get all worked up if your interpretation of 'facts' is challenged in the course of a discussion.

It doesn't contradict it, you just don't understand the english language well enough.

Go back to my post about Colonel Mustard.

The details of the report exonerate Colonel Mustard, even though the person who wrote the report did not specifically exonerate them (hint: it is an issue of them not having the authority to do so). I don't understand why you can't just read the link I posted of the letter, which is the subject of the discussion. It's extremely clear, no need to watch CNN for the interpretation.

This is not my opinion or interpretation, this is just how it is. You are still spreading fake news. Please quit being fake news.

[dannno]

It's pretty $#@!ing simple. Mueller's report exonerates Trump. Mueller does not personally exonerate Trump in his report.

Both of those statements are factual, and neither are contradictory. If you don't know why, go back to my example of Colonel Mustard in the Billiard Room with the Candlestick.

The media is just using people who are too stupid to know the difference between these statements to make the claim that Trump said something incorrect, which, as usual, is fake news.

[enhanced_deficit]

LOL No worries, will read the linked PDF bit later.
Accurate unbiased legalistic determinations and their wording (after reading whole MR) vs your/mine/TV experts subjective assessments can also be different after reading a political AG's letter on things like OoJ.

Attorney Jeneral?

Damn Alex Jones Have fixed it.

[TheCount]

AJ=Alex Jones?

[enhanced_deficit]

AJ=Alex Jones?

No was a typo, meant AG. Was not Freudian slip, there are no similarities between current AG and AJ.

[TheCount]

No was a typo, meant AG. Was not Freudian slip, there are no similarities between current AG and AJ.

There are some similarities between AJ and Congress.

[ghengis86]

His letter said:




We're splitting hairs now.
Reminded me of this old video of Ken Starr ( whose report on Clinton lie about Monica romance led to Clinton's impeachment by the GOP led House and who is also being rehabilitated at Foxnews these day like various other neocons):


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3ycYsehbHU



Un-Related


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tE2XHYxkJgw
CBS: Trump says he didn't know about Stormy Daniels payment



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXQFPY0JMLA


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHp4g44nd8k

No, his letter said RM said it.

In the interest of brevity, I just asked names of any readers of report you were referring to in your statement. Reading full subjective opinion of Barr will not help IMO since quoted part clearly contradicts your statement. Many in their subjective (or maybe in objective as well if they have full view of the facts) views could see him 'totally exonerated', only issues was who is making that assessment and how biased/unbiased is that verdict.
Participation in these discusssions is optional, no need to get all worked up if your interpretation of 'facts' is challenged in the course of a discussion.

The quoted part isn't a quote from Barr, it is Barr reporting what RM said.

I already pointed that out, are you being dishonest on purpose?

“The Special Counsel states that, ‘while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.’

“The Special Counsel states that, ‘...it does not exonerate him.’

The Special Counsel states

The Special Counsel states


Pretty clear Barr was quoting Mueller.

[enhanced_deficit]

Dems are raising the 'bias' issue again, this time their top leadership. There had been bias noise before but not at this level.

Pelosi, Schumer: AG William Barr Is Not a ‘Neutral Observer’ of Mueller Report

Congressional leaders Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Chuck Schumer (D-NY) released a statement Sunday slamming Attorney General William Barr for his “public record of bias” against Robert Mueller’s investigation, arguing that Barr is the wrong person to decide if President Trump tried to obstruct justice. The statement comes just hours after Barr released a memo on Mueller’s report, in which he stated that there’s “not sufficient” evidence to charge the president with obstructing investigations into his dealings. “Attorney General Barr’s letter raises as many questions as it answers,” the pair wrote, urging that the full report be made public “without any further delay.” “Given Mr. Barr’s public record of bias against the Special Counsel’s inquiry, he is not a neutral observer and is not in a position to make objective determinations about the report,” Pelosi and Schumer wrote. The pair also tore into Trump for saying the report completely exonerated him, noting that his claim “directly contradicts the words of Mr. Mueller and is not to be taken with any degree of credibility.”

https://www.thedailybeast.com/pelosi...mueller-report



'Mexican Judge' Bias Mindset
Although some from liberal side while back had brought up bias question with jewish appointments at DOJ leadership and POTUS with help of his Jewish son-in-law's bold leadership positioning himself as the 'most pro Isreal President ever' as reknowned foreign policy expert Deniel Pipes also claimed. But Dems top leadership has not raised such bias objection based on ethnic hertiage of AG Barr and Deputy AG Rosenstein, their argument is based on record of Barr's 'public opposition' to this investigation.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKwps5fjjCY


Expert reverses course, says Trump's ‘most pro-Israel president ever’
On January 30, in the aftermath of his discussion on the Wall Street Journal column with Ambassador to Israel David Friedman, Pipes wrote that Trump is “the most pro-Israel president ever".
By Meyer Shimon
February 3, 2019
Jerusalem Post

Pretty clear Barr was quoting Mueller.

Yep.

It's pretty $#@!ing simple. Mueller's report exonerates Trump. Mueller does not personally exonerate Trump in his report.

On review, I was replying without reading all the previous comments in the chain.

You're right, it's pretty simple.

Mueller in Mueller Report does not exonerate MAGA.

MAGA appointed AG Barr (who in 2018 before reading full MR had already said 'there's no obstruction.') says same after reading report.

"Bill Barr should not have decided that jump ball because ... he already determined that the possession arrow should go in favor of Donald Trump," Rossi said. "In June of 2018, he already said 'there's no obstruction.' So I have to criticize the attorney general — for whom I was very complimentary — that was a bad decision, and it taints this letter."

[dude58677]

Ya, I don't see where Trump said Mueller personally exonerated him anywhere in there.

The report Mueller wrote exonerated Trump, however, according to those who have read it.

If you are still confused, let me put this in some language you might understand.

If the claim is that it was Colonel Mustard in the Billiard Room with the Candlestick, and Mueller wrote a report about it - Mueller's report said that Colonel Mustard was never in the Billiard Room nor did he have a candlestick. However, Mueller never said that it wasn't Colonel Mustard who did "it"... so if in fact it was done in the Billiard Room with a Candlestick, we can deduce it was not Colonel Mustard based on Mueller's report, even if Mueller did not make the specific claim that Colonel Mustard has been exonerated.

This is the logical fallacy known as Appeal to Ignorance. Just because you can’t prove something didn’t occur. It is a logical fallacy to assume that something did occur.

[dannno]

This is the logical fallacy known as Appeal to Ignorance. Just because you can’t prove something didn’t occur. It is a logical fallacy to assume that something did occur.

No it isn't. Like I said, those who read the document said that the evidence in the report indicates that the President is exonerated from obstruction of justice. Mueller didn't personally exonerate him, but the evidence in the report he wrote did.

Did you read the letter? That is precisely what it says.

Don't be fake news.

[enhanced_deficit]

'Barr is wrong' media attacks on one of America's most respected AGs have already begun:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlo...erlying-crime/

[dude58677]

No it isn't. Like I said, those who read the document said that the evidence in the report indicates that the President is exonerated from obstruction of justice. Mueller didn't personally exonerate him, but the evidence in the report he wrote did.

Did you read the letter? That is precisely what it says.

Don't be fake news.

Enhanced_deficit and Democrats were making the logical fallacy.

[dannno]

Enhanced_deficit and Democrats were making the logical fallacy.

Ohhhh

[Superfluous Man]

Enhanced_deficit and Democrats were making the logical fallacy.

AG Barr is a Republican, not a Democrat.

[enhanced_deficit]

This is the logical fallacy known as Appeal to Ignorance. Just because you can’t prove something didn’t occur. It is a logical fallacy to assume that something did occur.

No it isn't. Like I said, those who read the document said that the evidence in the report indicates that the President is exonerated from obstruction of justice. Mueller didn't personally exonerate him, but the evidence in the report he wrote did.

Did you read the letter? That is precisely what it says.

Don't be fake news.

Opinions/interpretations technically can't be 'fakenews' as those are subjective.
But seems like one issue here is misunderstanding/communication of views here, I know I misread some partial views earlier by skipping some posts hurridly.

Having read all the views, following is my understanding of situation that I believe no one disagrees with. There are not verdicts being made and it is key summary of events, so any logical fallacy issue should not come into play unless folks start making additional deductions from these events.



Key Summary:

1. Mueller in Mueller Report does not exonerate MAGA on obstruction charge.

2. MAGA appointed AG Barr (who in 2018 even before reading full MR had already said 'there's no obstruction.') alongwith MAGA appointed Deputy AG Rosenstein read the report over a weekend and determined there was not sufficient evidence for OoJ charge to be looked into further.

3. Dems are alleging AG Barr is not an unbiased party





If anyone finds any statement in this summary inaccurate, feel free to correct.
If any one claims there 'was/was not obstruction' based on these events, that's a deduction and can be debated.

[dude58677]

Opinions/interpretations technically can't be 'fakenews' as those are subjective.
But seems like one issue here is misunderstanding/communication of views here, I know I misread some partial views earlier by skipping some posts hurridly.

Having read all the views, following is my understanding of situation that I believe no one disagrees with. There are not verdicts being made and it is key summary of events, so any logical fallacy issue should not come into play unless folks start making additional deductions from these events.



Key Summary:

1. Mueller in Mueller Report does not exonerate MAGA on obstruction charge.

2. MAGA appointed AG Barr (who in 2018 even before reading full MR had already said 'there's no obstruction.') alongwith MAGA appointed Deputy AG Rosenstein read the report over a weekend and determined there was not sufficient evidence for OoJ charge to be looked into further.

3. Dems are alleging AG Barr is not an unbiased party





If anyone finds this summary inaccurate, feel free to correct.

“1. Mueller in Mueller Report does not exonerate MAGA on obstruction charge.”

This is the logical fallacy I mentioned above.

[dude58677]

AG Barr is a Republican, not a Democrat.

The Democrats interpretation of the obstruction claiming it doesn’t exonerate Donald Trump and his associates as well as family. Arguing that it doesn’t exonerate anyone is the appeal to logic fallacy and if you knew what I meant then this is a straw man fallacy.

[enhanced_deficit]

“1. Mueller in Mueller Report does not exonerate MAGA on obstruction charge.”

This is the logical fallacy I mentioned above.

That statement ( or rather restatement of Mueller Report) was made by AG Barr, that's best information we have since MR has not been made public yet.
So were you saying that AG Barr used fallacious logic when he wrote this letter or Mueller did ?
Both Barr and Mueller are Republicans.

Quote:
Barr’s letter said this: “The Special Counsel . . . did not draw a conclusion—one way or another—as to whether the examined conduct constituted obstruction.” The letter went on, “The Special Counsel states that, ‘while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.’


Using common logic, author of a report is generally considered a bigger authority on the reports findings than a reader of the report but that's a separate topic.

[dude58677]

That statement ( or rather restatement of Mueller Report) was made by AG Barr, that's best information we have since MR has not been made public yet.
So were you saying that AG Barr used fallacious logic when he wrote this letter or Mueller did ?
Both Barr and Mueller are Republicans.



Quote:
Barr’s letter said this: “The Special Counsel . . . did not draw a conclusion—one way or another—as to whether the examined conduct constituted obstruction.” The letter went on, “The Special Counsel states that, ‘while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.’

Barr, Mueller, CNN, and you are making this fallacious argument. It doesn’t matter if it done deliberately or not or by whom because the fallacy is still being used.

[enhanced_deficit]

Barr, Mueller, CNN, and you are making this fallacious argument. It doesn’t matter if it done deliberately or not or by whom because the fallacy is still being used.

Ok, I can't speak for Barr and Mueller, they might soon have opportunity to defend their logic in Congressional hearings.


But I tried to separate statements of events from any opinios/arguments in above post with final summary, if you can specify which fallacious argument I made, would try to defend it or correct the logic.

[dude58677]

Ok, I can't speak for Barr and Mueller, they might soon have opportunity to defend their logic in Congressional hearings.


But I tried to separate statements of events from any opinios/arguments in above post with final summary, if you can specify which fallacious argument I made, would try to defend it or correct the logic.

If you are simply stating what they said then you are not using the fallacy. However, if you were to agree with their view then you would be.

[dannno]

Opinions/interpretations technically can't be 'fakenews' as those are subjective.
But seems like one issue here is misunderstanding/communication of views here, I know I misread some partial views earlier by skipping some posts hurridly.

Having read all the views, following is my understanding of situation that I believe no one disagrees with. There are not verdicts being made and it is key summary of events, so any logical fallacy issue should not come into play unless folks start making additional deductions from these events.



Key Summary:

1. Mueller in Mueller Report does not exonerate MAGA on obstruction charge.

2. MAGA appointed AG Barr (who in 2018 even before reading full MR had already said 'there's no obstruction.') alongwith MAGA appointed Deputy AG Rosenstein read the report over a weekend and determined there was not sufficient evidence for OoJ charge to be looked into further.

3. Dems are alleging AG Barr is not an unbiased party





If anyone finds any statement in this summary inaccurate, feel free to correct.
If any one claims there 'was/was not obstruction' based on these events, that's a deduction and can be debated.

The issue was the fake news media saying Trump's statement that he was exonerated by the report was inaccurate because the report specifically said Mueller did not exonerate him. It is true that Mueller did not exonerate him, but he also didn't do the opposite of exonerate, he simply laid out evidence on both sides. The two folks who gave a summary of the report indicated that the evidence in the report exonerated him.

[dannno]

It's really sad that Democrats are so obsessed with charging the President for obstruction of justice on a case where he has been found innocent.

When Nixon obstructed Justice, he, or at minimum people in his administration were guilty of the charges.

Saying Trump obstructed justice is like saying a guy who put out his tobacco cigarette and threw it away while the cops came up from behind him is guilty of obstructing justice or destruction of evidence because the cops thought it was a joint... well it wasn't a joint, if there is no crime, except for the fact that they are harassing you.. how can you obstruct justice?

[Superfluous Man]

The Democrats interpretation of the obstruction claiming it doesn’t exonerate Donald Trump and his associates as well as family. Arguing that it doesn’t exonerate anyone is the appeal to logic fallacy and if you knew what I meant then this is a straw man fallacy.

But it's not just Democrats. It's Barr, Trump's own AG. And it's not just arguing that it doesn't exonerate Trump, but quoting the report itself, which explicitly refrains from exonerating him. It's not a logical fallacy, just a factual claim about something the Mueller report says in it.

[Swordsmyth]

But it's not just Democrats. It's Barr, Trump's own AG. And it's not just arguing that it doesn't exonerate Trump, but quoting the report itself, which explicitly refrains from exonerating him. It's not a logical fallacy, just a factual claim about something the Mueller report says in it.

It's NOT Barr.
That is Fake News.

[Swordsmyth]

[Superfluous Man]

It's NOT Barr.
That is Fake News.

It's Barr referring to what the Mueller report says.

[Swordsmyth]

It's Barr referring to what the Mueller report says.

Barr reported what RM said, he didn't concur.