The Muller Investigation

lol turns out there was no collusion after all wut a surpise! So you libtards have been lying the whole time? i can't believe who would've known btw lemme guess mueller is prolly a russian agent too

can we plz get that 2 year invest. into hillary's emails now? thx go back to ur pillow crying libtard tears lmao

7.) Just look at the WaPo excerpt one more time. Trust me. The "multiple potential crimes" is literally them saying people have been indicted/plead-guilty. The other and single crime being something you yourself noted PRO dropped.

8) This is a pretty nuanced issue that I really should have explained a lot better in hindsight. Here's the general idea though: A Principal Officer must be confirmed by the Senate. An inferior officer can be appointed directly by a Principal Officer, provided the inferior officer is supervised and directed by the Principal Officer and subservient thereto. My argument here is that Mueller is inferior officer in name only, has not been supervised and directed by the Principal Officer (Rosenstein, due to Sessions' conflicting himself) and has not been subservenient (due to exercising powers on par with, if not beyond that of the Principal Officer, such as nationwide jurisdiction, his indictment of foreign citizens and business entities and his breach of Attorney-client privilege is a threat to civil liberties unlike any that has been attempted in this country since Senator Joe McCarthy’s red scares).

9) I guess I can give heads/tails on this, but in the debate, I had made the point that Mueller had investigated Manafort on things that occurred and happened over a decade prior to the existence of the Trump campaign, much less any notion of Russia collusion. PRO said financial records are relevant while simultaneously saying Trump University would be out-of-bounds. I just don't see how one can salvage both statements.

Anyways, don't take it personally! This is a debate site and I like to debate! Thanks for reading!

Don't take it personal, Ram, but this is a debate site after all and you just so happened to comment on something I'm quite interested in! I won't relitigate the debate. And hell, I'll probably agree to disagree after this latest exchange.

By your own admission, you aren't a pure TR voter, so I don't see any issue in discussing any implicit presumption that influenced your rendering of the debate.

1) Why is it that you think I was only referencing a general ability of prosecutors to be malfesant as opposed to questioning the reliability of the entire plea/indictment process?

2) I'm willing to give heads/tails on this one as I honestly did not give it any thought until you pointed out and since boils down to the difference between a pure TR and non-pure TR voter.

3) The harm was fair and free of any suggestion of impropriety.

4) Why? I raised a specific argument that the ethics investigation did not address. Logically, why should that argument be swept under the rug just because some ethics investigation has determined Rob is a good dude?

5) Do you believe that it is a valid default position that someone having an alternative party affiliation to the degree of donating massive sums of money, breaking their oaths of office and engaging in malfeasance is indicative of "a set of circumstances that creates a risk that professional judgement or actions regarding a primary interest will be unduly influenced by a secondary interest?"

6) I'm willing to give heads/tails on this one. Had I seen the "federal judge is more credible" argument in the debate, I would have rebutted by citing the federal judge in my source. I probably should have done that regardless. My thing here is that I was making the point A. Dershowitz was making in his article which is that Mueller shouldn't be anywhere near the POTUS until this stuff gets investigated.

7.) The WaPo link, and how pro was using it was talking about multiple potential crimes not just the single one you referenced. Even the single one being mentioned in that link is not quite the same as what you or your link described which you claimed isn’t a crime.

8.) Pro showed independent counsels
are considered inferior officers by the Supreme Court, as far as I could tell, and as argued: these only differ from a special counsel in method of appointment rather than power.

9.) If you have evidence or argument that the crimes you mentioned can’t have been the result of the original investigation remit - you should have included that in the debate. Otherwise pro points must stand.

I am happy to explain or clarify the thinking of my vote, or provide you what you could have done to win a given point. I don’t want this to turn into relitigating the debate, as more discussion here about what you meant is normally additional information and separate to what I specifically voted on. If you’re asking because you disagree with me, your not going to end up being happy.

1.) The indictments that pro referenced were being used to show justice is being done. To refute this, it is your burden to show the specific indictments are unjust - otherwise the burden would be unfairly stacked against pro. As you referenced only that there is a general ability of prosecutors to be malfeasant, your rebuttal fell short of showing these examples are unjust.

2.) As neither side contest the definition of the investigation or its purpose that was included in the debate information - I used that definition.

3.) With regards for conflict of interest; in the debate you established the appearance of a conflict - but do not show or demonstrate a specific harm that was done. However this point went your way anyway.

4.) Pro referencing an ethics investigation finding that Mueller has no conflicts MUST be taken as evidence in support of the position that Mueller has no direct conflicts of interest. You can’t simply dismiss it as an appeal to authority.

5.) I do not believe that it is a valid default position that someone simply having an alternative party affiliation is grounds to believe they are being systematically dishonest and unethical against Trump, or Russia - that would give Pro an unreasonable BoP.

6.) Your argument on Boston set up a he-said she said between a “very credible witness”, and a federal judge who said mueller was not involved. I have to weigh the federal judge more credible, as you offered me little additional reason within the debate.

"Con argues that mueller has gone beyond his scope. Pro argues that the additional scope is warranted if the crimes were discovered in the process of investigating other matters - In my view this constitutes an explanation of how the crimes are related to the Russian interference and the campaign. Con has to provide a justification to refute pros position as to why Mueller should ignore crimes if he discovers them. Con provided no rebuttal here."

He discovered them in a way he could not have discovered them purely by investigating potential Russian collusion (i.e. investigating information a decade before the 2016 elections even occurred). I think PRO's admission that Trump University would be out-of-bounds is devastating here as Mueller could easily investigate that if carte blanche investigation into financial records is truly fair game.

"Con argues with a link that WaPo did it with Snowden, and didn’t get charged, but pro doesn’t respond! However while I’m forced to accept that Trump doing something with the stolen data would not be illegal (as pro drops this), con drops the rest of the point - that there were multiple crimes, and other unknown possibilities for individuals in the campaign to assist with those crimes - of which cons rebuttal forms only part."

PRO's WaPo source cites articulates no other crimes. Instead, it makes mention of the fact that numerous indictments/guilty pleas have been obtained on this case, hence why it says: "The argument that such coordination would be lawful is striking, including the fact that it follows 191 charges against 35 individuals and companies brought by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III, which have yielded five guilty pleas. Taken together, that work spells out the many crimes Russia committed to attempt to affect the outcome of the 2016 election."

"Con argues that it can’t be considered constitutional due to his power and thus is not an inferior office. I feel the power aspect is clearly addressed into pros Supreme Court portion - the independent counsel seems to be very similar: With the only aspect being difference in appointment. I also find the argument that repeated appointments since 1875 to be pretty compelling."

The issue wasn't whether someone could be appointed though. The issue was how much power an inferior officer could have and how much supervision he could avoid and my source went to great lengths of demonstrating how Mueller is on par with a full fledged U.S. Attorney.

"Pro rebuts that Mueller was not appointed by a democrat, that there is no conflict of interest with regards to donations as they are expressly allowed.
Con argues this is an appeal to authority - I reject this as pro clearly states that mueller underwent an ethics review, not just that he was appointed by a Republican."

Citing the ethics review board on its face is also an appeal to authority. The point is that when someone gives a specific objection, we shouldn't presume that just because X authority generally says otherwise (without addressing the specific objection, the authority figure is correct.

"Con is asking me to accept that there is a substantial chance that one or more of the prosecutors are acting unfairly against Trump, that the whole group is allowing it to occur (including Mueller), and I must accept this on its face because they have ties to a political opponent of someone being investigated. Con implies the motive is simply pay back."

Why do you think payback is a weak motivation in a field as slimy and underhanded as politics?

"Con lists a number of reasons why Mueller is corrupt revolving around a case in Boston. Pro outlines the judge citing categorically that there was nothing implicating Mueller, and pointed out vetting and ethics investigations."

And as Alan Dershowitz indicated in my source, this has yet to be investigated and the Judge simply saying she "didn't see anything" in the FBI's files is ludicrous when the FBI itself is being accused of corruption (see my Washington Examiner source about the numerous irregularities in the files on that case, also noted by a Federal Judge mind you) and when we have a credible eye witness who says otherwise.

"5.) Conflict of interest.
Pro points to a single example of personal conflicts of Mueller (knowledge of Comey), and a number of examples of individual members of the investigation having ties to Hilary.
This is less an argument from conflict of interest - and at worse poor judgement but that’s semantics."

Refer back to my article from the national review. Maybe if this kind of thing happened once or twice, you could dismiss it as poor judgment, but when it's happening over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again, it's intentional.

"3.) Troll farms.
Pro argues that we know that there were Russian troll farms, and as we do not know the true extent - the investigation should continue. In the definitions and opening the investigation is not just an investigation into Trump, but also Russian interference. Cons rebuttal on this point in my view is insufficient - pro rightly points out, that he should not need to produce proof of Trumps guilt to indicate whether the investigation as a whole should continue.
I found cons final rebuttal wholly unwarranted, firstly, it didn’t address the key point that pro made. Secondly, the definition of the investigation, and pros argument appears to be not that there are necessarily any specific crimes the Russian Troll farms have committed - but their actions must be understood."

First, my reading of the special appointment order was that Mueller was tasked to investigate any link/role between the Russian government and the Trump campaign, any matters that directly arose as a result of that and all within the scope of existing law. That's why Mueller was appointed in the first place. The investigation revolved around subject matter that the previous USAG could not involve himself in due to a conflict of interest. In R4, PRO even says "The resolution is whether or not the Trump investigation should be continued." And so I would reject any interpretation of the topic that allows the investigation to go beyond the Trump campaign working with Russia.

Second, I admittedly didn't go into this "must be understood" element of PRO's argument you're mentioning. Granted, even in hindsight, I don't think I needed to and think my points on political/criminal conduct speak for themselves.

"Cons main rebuttal is that just because someone was indicted, or plead guilty, doesn’t mean that it is justice or is warranted. Pro is correct in his response that merely implying that they could have been dishonestly indicted or pled, or found guilty doesn’t mean they were.
On this point I mostly side with pro: If con is arguing that the indictments MAY be spurious, then it cons duty to convince me that they are spurious. Without this, con hasn’t shown me warrant to believe that these indictments are spurious - only that indictments In general can be serious."

Massively disagree. My point here is that an indictment and a guilty plea on its own is meaningless. It does not tell us anything. Prosecutors can indict just about anybody and the vast majority of people (innocent or guilty) do NOT want to roll the dice and spend a ridiculously large portion of their lives in jail due to the prosecutor's ability to overcharge. It's not a matter of whether indictments and guilty pleas MAY be spurious. They ARE spurious. As such, we would need information beyond the fact the fact that Mueller has secured various indictments/pleas to determine that the investigation has bore legitimate fruit.

Saying otherwise is flipping the BOP. Imagine Steve walks into a bar and shouts "Ghosts exist!" and citing a message on his "Ouija board app" as proof. Now imagine Robert responding to Steve by telling him that "Ouija board apps" aren't reliable since its just a program designed to input random messages and cash in on suckers." If Steve tells Robert to prove that this particular message was in fact random and NOT the doings of some apparition, is it your position that Robert should do just that or else submit to Steve's position?

I'm generally ambivalent about who votes for what in these debates and probably won't say much even if it's a vote against me. However, in this case, we have some subject matter I'm pretty PASSIONATE about, so it's a different story. Granted, I'm not asking you to change your vote (in fact, I'd ask you to keep it the same even if you somehow end up agreeing with me) and note that you are entitled to opinion regardless of what I am inclined to say. With that being said . . .

I honestly could go either way - so will score this as a draw.

Conduct: While pro didn’t technically forfeit a round, the outcome was much the same. I see little difference between a small post without arguments a few minutes before the deadline, and a forefeit. - so will award conduct the same way.

Con argues that it can’t be considered constitutional due to his power and thus is not an inferior office. I feel the power aspect is clearly addressed into pros Supreme Court portion - the independent counsel seems to be very similar: With the only aspect being difference in appointment. I also find the argument that repeated appointments since 1875 to be pretty compelling.

9.) scope

Con argues that mueller has gone beyond his scope. Pro argues that the additional scope is warranted if the crimes were discovered in the process of investigating other matters - In my view this constitutes an explanation of how the crimes are related to the Russian interference and the campaign. Con has to provide a justification to refute pros position as to why Mueller should ignore crimes if he discovers them. Con provided no rebuttal here.

Conclusion.

Ugh. I feel neither side covered themselves in glory. I feel both side missed key facts and information, and could have done better.

In general, I feel that on balance pro offered a reasonable explanation of what is to be gained by continuing the investigation.

I feel con offered mostly insinuated the issues and harms that continuing the investigation would produce. I felt that pro did fairly well knocking down the majority of cons harms. With me accepting only one point - that the prosecutors have the appearance of a conflict.

In general - I felt pro missed a lot of oppenings, whilst con failed to justify much of his point and really did not fully exploit cons missed round. But at the end I feel that what I was presented with was a choice between continuing with an investigation that has an appearance of a conflict, that is investigating something that should be investigated, or not.

While I want necessarily feel these clear Mueller on all points, I feel con does not offer a substantial reason not to believe the federal judge here. I feel con attempts to argue by implication rather than specific evidence: if he had offered a reason as to why it’s unlikely the judge would have not seen evidence - I may make another decision here, but I find this argument more of an insinuation than a claim with warrant in light of the federal judge quote.

7.) Getting help From the Russians isn’t a crime.

Pro points out that the resolution is not that crimes were committed, but that the investigation needs to continue. He provides a link that justifies why aspects of known interaction could potentially constitute criminal behaviour.

This is the best part of pros argument thus far. Con argues that pro should provide grounds for continuing the investigation: pro did just that. Con has to provide a good reason why he can discount the potential crime outlines as possible.

Con argues with a link that WaPo did it with Snowden, and didn’t get charged, but pro doesn’t respond! However while I’m forced to accept that Trump doing something with the stolen data would not be illegal (as pro drops this), con drops the rest of the point - that there were multiple crimes, and other unknown possibilities for individuals in the campaign to assist with those crimes - of which cons rebuttal forms only part.

8.) Unconstitutional.

Con argues the appointment was unconstitutional. Pro cites a Supreme Court ruling that the independent counsel is an inferior officer. Pro argues the appointment is similar, and thus should be deemed constitutional.

Pro rebuts that Mueller was not appointed by a democrat, that there is no conflict of interest with regards to donations as they are expressly allowed.

Con argues this is an appeal to authority - I reject this as pro clearly states that mueller underwent an ethics review, not just that he was appointed by a Republican.

Con argues that pro must give reasons not to accept pros specific issues. In my view the ethics review that Mueller passes is clearly a reason.

Con does better with pointing out that the contributions imply that there may be a secondary interest in the part of prosecutors.

What I find difficult to square here is that con only implies that the individuals behave malfeasently. I find the connection here very tenuous.

Con is asking me to accept that there is a substantial chance that one or more of the prosecutors are acting unfairly against Trump, that the whole group is allowing it to occur (including Mueller), and I must accept this on its face because they have ties to a political opponent of someone being investigated. Con implies the motive is simply pay back.

I find cons support here very weak. But I have to accept it as pro offers no refutation to this point.

Both sides are implying a lot of their argument, and I’m finding that hard to score arguments better.

6.) corruption.

Con lists a number of reasons why Mueller is corrupt revolving around a case in Boston. Pro outlines the judge citing categorically that there was nothing implicating Mueller, and pointed out vetting and ethics investigations.

3.) Troll farms.

Pro argues that we know that there were Russian troll farms, and as we do not know the true extent - the investigation should continue. In the definitions and opening the investigation is not just an investigation into Trump, but also Russian interference. Cons rebuttal on this point in my view is insufficient - pro rightly points out, that he should not need to produce proof of Trumps guilt to indicate whether the investigation as a whole should continue.

I found cons final rebuttal wholly unwarranted, firstly, it didn’t address the key point that pro made. Secondly, the definition of the investigation, and pros argument appears to be not that there are necessarily any specific crimes the Russian Troll farms have committed - but their actions must be understood.

4.) Corruption Of Donald Trump

Pro points out that Donald Trump appears corrupt, and there are enough dubious links to warrant investigation.

In his conclusion, pro sets up the necessity of the investigation being based on information we don’t know.

Con argues that whether Trump talked to the Russians about anything is irrelevant.

I agree with Con on the part of golfing, and other non Russia related aspects pro brings up.

But I find cons contention that Trump talking to Russians about dirt to not to be relevant to the investigation about Russian election interference to be wholly without justification .

5.) Conflict of interest.

Pro points to a single example of personal conflicts of Mueller (knowledge of Comey), and a number of examples of individual members of the investigation having ties to Hilary.

This is less an argument from conflict of interest - and at worse poor judgement but that’s semantics.

Arguments:

1.) scope.

Pro argues that Mueller hasn’t been straying outside of his scope. In my view, it is not clear to me as a voter what this argument is intending to support or not. I can’t view this initial argument from pro as supporting his position, as I can’t tell what it means.

2.) Indictments.

Pro argues that the Mueller probe has a number of guilty please and indictments. Though pro doesn’t not argue why this specifically means the Mueller probe has to continue?

My reading of pros argument is that it is yielding results so should continue.

Cons main rebuttal is that just because someone was indicted, or plead guilty, doesn’t mean that it is justice or is warranted. Pro is correct in his response that merely implying that they could have been dishonestly indicted or pled, or found guilty doesn’t mean they were.

On this point I mostly side with pro: If con is arguing that the indictments MAY be spurious, then it cons duty to convince me that they are spurious. Without this, con hasn’t shown me warrant to believe that these indictments are spurious - only that indictments In general can be serious.

Would love a vote please

Bump

=)

I had an unusual amount of free time over the Holidays, so I got to play a good chunk of Persona 5!

Thanks!

According to your profile pic, you like:
1. Ace Attorney
2. Persona
...
Friended

Forgot to source the vacation together bit. https://www.lifezette.com/2017/06/fmr-fbi-agent-mueller-should-step-down-over-comey-conflict/

Lol nope typo

Thought he misspelled Mueller as some kind of trap.

Virt is going to get rekt.