What favor did President Trump request of Ukraine President Zekensky?

Author: fauxlaw

Posts

Total: 102
#31
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,006
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@dustryder
 Zelensky to investigate the Bidens and this is a favour, explicit or not.

Also, you are assuming Zelensky had something to gain from not investigating the corruption from Burisma. Another myopic assumption.
Zelensky had plenty of reason to do it with or without Trump's help or encouragement. There may have been notable pressure to keep the corruption investigations censored by the people involved in the corruption (such as Biden). That's a far more likely possibility. That would make Trump's greenlight more politically helpful to Zelensky than Trump, considering Zelensky's political capital revolves around kicking the scum out of Burisma.

It's like saying "AOC asked Bernie for a favor" by asking Bernie to pledge free healthcare for illegal immigrants. What a laughable favor for AOC to "ask" for that kind of favor when Bernie would gladly do it without any prodding whatsoever, with or without AOC.

The whole "Zelensky was a battered abused child" fake news narrative is one of the most laughable concepts from the perspective of any Ukrainian.

#32
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@fauxlaw
What off course? The origin of this string is to identify what favor Trump was asking for in discussion with Ukraine's Zelensky. You maintain it was a Biden investigation, and can see no other possibility. I disagree, and it appears neither will convince the other. No off course, at all, just an inability to convince. 
Not at all. I maintain that the favour was composed of multiple parts. I'm not denying in the slightest that he asked for an investigation into crowdstrike as a favour.

#33
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@Greyparrot
Your diatribe assumes Ukraine does not need or want aid from the EU.

With so many unreal assumptions, I think we can just stop here. The American lens is myopic indeed. 
I actually spent a lot of time reading Ukrainian press and reading their social media. Your assumptions about Ukraine and Zelensky have very little basis in reality. The things you think are worth dying for are not the things Ukraine cares about.
Not at all. My diatribe assumes that Ukraine has not been extorted for military aid, which I think is not a reasonable assumption given that the leaders of the EU have not quite shown the signs of moral depravity that Trump has.

Also, you are assuming Zelensky had something to gain from not investigating the corruption from Burisma. Another myopic assumption.
Zelensky had plenty of reason to do it with or without Trump's help or encouragement. There may have been notable pressure to keep the corruption investigations censored by the people involved in the corruption (such as Biden). That's a far more likely possibility. That would make Trump's greenlight more politically helpful to Zelensky than Trump, considering Zelensky's political capital revolves around kicking the scum out of Burisma.

It's like saying "AOC asked Bernie for a favor" by asking Bernie to pledge free healthcare for illegal immigrants. What a laughable favor for AOC to "ask" for that kind of favor when Bernie would gladly do it without any prodding whatsoever, with or without AOC.

The whole "Zelensky was a battered abused child" fake news narrative is one of the most laughable concepts from the perspective of any Ukrainian.
I'm sorry, but this is wishy washy horseshit. I do not trust anyone who says that they know something. I trust people that show they know something. And my confidence in you being able to produce anything tangible went right down that moment you apparently claimed to be able to represent the views of an entire country by "reading Ukrainian press and reading social media".
#34
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,006
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@dustryder
given that the leaders of the EU have not quite shown the signs of moral depravity that Trump has.

What the fuck is this supposed to mean? The EU does not care at all about aiding Ukraine. Your moral compass is all fucked up from the viewpoint of a Ukrainian with your unfounded praise of the EU.

Your EU assumptions are typical pontifications of armchair fanboys, ignorant of what's actually going on over there.
#35
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@Greyparrot
What the fuck is this supposed to mean? The EU does not care at all about aiding Ukraine. Your moral compass is all fucked up from the viewpoint of a Ukrainian with your unfounded praise of the EU.
Well it's quite simple. Trump has shown himself to be morally depraved, and extorting another country leader seems to be a bar that only he falls under among other first world free country leaders. Since the bar is so low, being better than that is hardly unfounded praise.

Your EU assumptions are typical pontifications of armchair fanboys, ignorant of what's actually going on over there.
Since you've thus far been unable to substantiate what you've been claiming past vague allusions, I'm going to go ahead and assume you're full of shit.
Topic's author
#36
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@dustryder
I maintain that the favour was composed of multiple parts. 
Using your suggested "multiple parts" - "Do us a favor. Buy some apples for me at the store. Apples are wonderful to eat fresh, they're great in pies, and sauté well with salmon. You saw yesterday a very poor effort to use apples in a cake, and the guy who did that ended with a very poor recipe. But, they say the idea came from your kitchen. What ever you can do, like suggesting oranges, instead, would be great. Why don't you get some oranges, and try it. We need a good dessert tonight."

There's just two examples of eight from the 7/25 transcript that demonstrate that Trump was not following a compounded string of related parts, leading to a favor of several parts, all dealing with a singular request to investigate Biden. Simply put, yes, they are discussing, in my parody, different recipes in which apples can be enhancing, but, yesterday, in a completely different exercise, in a completely different kitchen, cake and apples were combined resulting in a failed recipe. It was not a single composition of multiple parts, but different compositions employing separate parts.


#37
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@Greyparrot
I didn't pull up the transcript or anything but I seem to recall President Trump asked him to do US a favor, meaning the country, not him personally.  The media didn't really attack that either.
#38
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@dustryder
Since you've thus far been unable to substantiate what you've been claiming past vague allusions, I'm going to go ahead and assume you're full of shit.
Can you?

You place your assumptive interpretation on what Trump did, and this in itself is fine, but then you proceed to treat your assumption as if it is fact. That is not fine.

Can you not see that the claim that Trump was asking for an investigation on Biden is YOUR INTERPRETATION of his intent, and not necessarily his intent?

The "crime" is in your head. And your head is full of something too.
#39
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,006
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
The problem with Orangemanbad philosophy is that it ends up creating exponentially ridiculous caricatures of other people to support the narrative.

Such as Zelensky being a "frightened abused child." "deplorables" etc...

Traditionally, educators tried to train students to not view people as convenient static labels with book reports on "To Kill a Mockingbird"....but public education is total dogshit these days.
#40
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@fauxlaw
The key point in the transcript which is not expressed in your parody is that you've deliberately made a distinction between what is done with the apples and what is done with the oranges when this is not the case in the transcript. 

In a corrected version of your parody, the favor can be summed up to going to the store and buying apples and oranges.
Topic's author
#41
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@dustryder
In a corrected version of your parody,
Correct according to whom? By what perspective? I'll throw ethang's argument to you, even though not directed to you:

You place your assumptive interpretation on what Trump did, and this in itself is fine, but then you proceed to treat your assumption as if it is fact.
Have you allowed Trump to crawl deep into your head such that you know his intentions? If that, then why are you not using his name? And allowing his intent to be in your head, rent-free? It'd either, or, my friend.
#42
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@ethang5
Can you?
Probably. It depends on what claim I've made that you have a problem with. But for me, the greater the claim, the greater the burden of proof. So if Greyparrot is going to sit there and go "LOLLLLLLLLLLL YOU'RE WRONG. I READ UKRAINIAN SOCIAL MEDIA. I KNOW THE VIEW POINTS OF UKRAINIANS. YOU ARE WRONG". He better damn well better be able to backup his argument with solid stats that are from a representative sample of Ukrainians.

You place your assumptive interpretation on what Trump did, and this in itself is fine, but then you proceed to treat your assumption as if it is fact. That is not fine.

Can you not see that the claim that Trump was asking for an investigation on Biden is YOUR INTERPRETATION of his intent, and not necessarily his intent?
Oh in that case, your interpretation of my intent towards my interpretation of his intent is not necessarily my intent. And at the same time, my interpretation of your intent towards your interpretation of my intent towards my interpretation of his intent may not necessarily be your intent. Since we've established that neither of our interpretations of our intents are reliable interpretations of intent, we both simultaneously agree and disagree with each other on all accounts because given any confirmation of our intents, such confirmations are also subject to interpretations of intent when parsing said confirmations.

#43
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@fauxlaw
Correct according to whom? By what perspective?
I'm happy to discuss the merits of my correction

Have you allowed Trump to crawl deep into your head such that you know his intentions? If that, then why are you not using his name? And allowing his intent to be in your head, rent-free? It'd either, or, my friend.
I'm happy to say I take intentions and statements at face value. It must be a very confusing for you to read a statement and then be completely perplexed as to the intent behind that statement.
#44
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,006
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@dustryder
"LOLLLLLLLLLLL YOU'RE WRONG. I READ UKRAINIAN SOCIAL MEDIA. I KNOW THE VIEW POINTS OF UKRAINIANS. YOU ARE WRONG".

I didn't say you were necessarily wrong, just myopic and shallow in your observations by simplifying the Ukrainian side of things when they are far more complicated than what fits the American Orangemanbad narrative. They really do not share the level of your love and enthusiasm for the Bidens in Burisma. Neither does Zelensky.
#45
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@dustryder
Since you've thus far been unable to substantiate what you've been claiming past vague allusions
Can you?

Probably. It depends on what claim I've made that you have a problem with.
Well, thus far you've been unable to substantiate what you've been claiming past vague assumptions. Did President Trump ask for Biden to be investigated using the threat of withholding aid so as to smear Biden?

Sorry, stupidity is a poor shield. None of those things is in the text. You assume them. You assume them because you are biased. And you think your assumptions are fact because you are unable to differentiate between reality, and what passes for thought between your ears.

It makes a difference on condemning and convicting someone whether we use facts, or our assumptions. This is America, to convict someone, facts are required, not biased assumptions.

I can bet right now you thought Dr. Ford was telling the truth and that Judge Kavenaugh was guilty. And you think this dispute the fact that there was not one shred of evidence against the Judge.

Thank God there are still enough sane people with integrity in America that this type of jackbooted atrocity doesn't prevail.

You are unable to tell the difference between your feelings and reality, a common liberal ailment.

And every time someone tries to give you some help, you run and hide behind silly humor.

If I ask you, like the OP does, "What  favor did President Trump request of Ukraine President Zekensky?"

Your answer will not be what actually transpired, but will be assumptions you made based on your bias.

Kavenaugh was seated on the SCOTUS. Trump was not removed from office.
There was no quid pro quo with Ukraine.

That those things happened should tell you how ludicrous your beliefs are.
#46
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,006
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ethang5
We already know the timing of the call coincided with the recent election of Zelensky. Trump purportedly wanted to see if Zelensky was actually serious about rooting out American corruption in Ukraine, which Trump viewed Crowdstrike and Burisma as being likely offenders. He might have used the words "do us a favor" but given the timing that coincided with the regime change that Trump was most likely testing the waters on whether Zelensky was a swamp creature or not like his predecessor was.

Prior to the call, we have evidence of Trump being skeptical about the intentions of Zelensky and whether or not Zelensky was serious about reducing corruption and waste given Ukraine's long documented history of laundering American taxpayer money to D.C. politicians. He was looking for an agreement of policies on corruption, not a quid-pro-quo. The American MSM's Orangemanbad position is that Biden was innocent and there was no corruption in Burisma. It's absolutely laughable to assume Zelensky's default position was that Biden was innocent and there was no corruption in Burisma when Zelensky campaigned saying the exact opposite. Zelensky and every one of his staff said they knew nothing of a delay in the aid, and not one shred of 1st hand evidence has been procured to date. This is what Trump likely meant by "I want nothing, Do the right thing Zelensky."

Confirmation of agreement, not coercion.  And even if it was coercion as the Orangemanbad tribe insists, it would be justifiable coercion had Zelensky laughably defended the ongoing corruption.

Topic's author
#47
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@dustryder
I'm happy to discuss the merits of my correction
Then make your case and stop ragging on mine. I've explained the merit of my case, and why it is merited. Time you started yours.
#48
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@ethang5
Well, thus far you've been unable to substantiate what you've been claiming past vague assumptions. Did President Trump ask for Biden to be investigated using the threat of withholding aid so as to smear Biden?
Your biases are showing, when you claim I've claimed something that I haven't

Sorry, stupidity is a poor shield. None of those things is in the text. You assume them. You assume them because you are biased. And you think your assumptions are fact because you are unable to differentiate between reality, and what passes for thought between your ears.
Rather, a reasonable inference is made, drawn from several points of evidence. The fact is, you are biased for Trump, and you are interpreting anything to do with him in the most charitable light possible, which is ridiculous. If we were to follow your standard of evidence, no one would be convicted of anything short of sworn tape recordings admitting guilt.
#49
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@fauxlaw
A favour can be composed of multiple actions and expositions related to the favour. The key indicator is whether those actions or expositions stand on their own merit as a favour.

For example, 
"The server, they say Ukraine has it." obviously is related to CrowdStrike. It means nothing on its own - exposition related to the favour.
"I would like to have the Attorney General call you, or your people...". Again, means nothing on its own. It clearly an action related to the favour

More specifically, the language "The other thing" is meaningless on its own. It is an "other thing" to something else previously mentioned. Since the "other thing" previously mentioned was the favour, from my perspective it is reasonable to interpret the request into an investigation into Biden as being a secondary request in the overall favour of investigation into ukraine-us dealings.

Finally, it should be noted that favours need not be explicitly expressed to be considered favours. It is clear that Trump has requested an investigation into Biden and whether or not you decide to bundle that under the "I would like you to do us a favor", taken on its own it is a favour of its own accord.


#50
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@dustryder
Rather, a reasonable inference is made, drawn from several points of evidence.
For some reason, you operate under the belief that your inferences are reasonable, and that your bias can be evidence. Reality keeps proving you wrong, but you just keep pretending you're right.

Is everyone in the Senate wrong? Is more than half of America unable to make a reasonable inference? Any yokel call himself reasonable. How come most reasonable people didn't see your inference?

The fact is, you are biased for Trump, and you are interpreting anything to do with him in the most charitable light possible, which is ridiculous.
That is ridiculous. Which is why again, it is yet another one of your "reasonable" inferences. Because I won't convict a person based on inference, I'm biased?

If we were to follow your standard of evidence, no one would be convicted of anything short of sworn tape recordings admitting guilt.
Not MY standard Clem, the standard set by the constitution and bill of rights of your own country.

Trump has been tried in the FBI with Meuller, He has been tried in Congress with impeachment, He has been taken to the SCOTUS several times, and has been tried in the court of public opinion in a national election, and today he remains conviction free.

Which of is is biased? You can't even answer questions about Kavenaugh, but you're supposed to be objective and virtually the rest of the country biased and wrong?

It least you admit to making inferences. You aren't completely under TDS yet. Hopefully one sober day you'll understand that making inferences is your right, but convicting people on just your inference is fascist. This is America, not 1941 Germany. And thank God that the Senate, the Supreme Court, and over 52% of Americans still know this.
#51
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,006
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ethang5
Trump has been tried in the FBI with Meuller.

This event is now a historical Obama Administration scandal. However, the only fall guys to date are Comey and Peter Strzok. Obama gets to skate clear.

#52
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Greyparrot
According to Dustryder, history is biased for Trump. He inferred it.
#53
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,006
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ethang5
History is revised by coastal elites. Just read a few wiki articles if you are not convinced.
#54
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@ethang5
For some reason, you operate under the belief that your inferences are reasonable, and that your bias can be evidence. Reality keeps proving you wrong, but you just keep pretending you're right.

Is everyone in the Senate wrong? Is more than half of America unable to make a reasonable inference? Any yokel call himself reasonable. How come most reasonable people didn't see your inference?
To be clear, about half of the senate agrees with the general direction of this inference. More than half of the American populace also agree. You are in the minority here. Or in otherwords, if the majority are of the reasonable sort, you must then be unreasonable. I believe that's your logic right there.

That is ridiculous. Which is why again, it is yet another one of your "reasonable" inferences. Because I won't convict a person based on inference, I'm biased?
No, you're biased because of your systematic rejection of reality despite the evidence otherwise. And while I might accept your extraordinarily high threshold of evidence as some sort of extreme bone-headedness, it's clear that you do not apply this standard consistently. Hence bias.

Not MY standard Clem, the standard set by the constitution and bill of rights of your own country.
Actually no. The standard is lower. Funnily enough, murderers don't often confess their deeds and yet are regardless convicted

Trump has been tried in the FBI with Meuller, He has been tried in Congress with impeachment, He has been taken to the SCOTUS several times, and has been tried in the court of public opinion in a national election, and today he remains conviction free.

Which of is is biased? You can't even answer questions about Kavenaugh, but you're supposed to be objective and virtually the rest of the country biased and wrong?
You are. Because you clearly haven't examined the facts or refuse to honestly apply the facts, and yet you are so obviously inclined to bend over for Trump regardless.


#55
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@dustryder
To be clear, about half of the senate agrees with the general direction of this inference.
Yet they threw out the impeachment. Reality matters dustryder.

More than half of the American populace also agree.
Untrue. Most people disagreed that Trump should be impeached, and that number grew AFTER the dems laid out their case.

You are in the minority here. 
Yet Trump is President, still in office, and remains unconvicted of any crime. Reality matters dustryder.

I believe that's your logic right there.
You are biased. If a majority of the country believed as you claim, Trump would have been impeached, Kavenaugh would not be a supreme court juror, and Meuller would have found a crime. Reality matters dustryder.

No, you're biased because of your systematic rejection of reality despite the evidence otherwise.
Sorry. Your inferences are not evidence.

...it's clear that you do not apply this standard consistently.
Where have I applied this standard inconsistently? The standard is not mine. We do not convict people on accusations and inferences alone. This does not change no matter how much you hate Trump.

Actually no. The standard is lower.
Untrue. The standard is written down and codified. It is not lower.

Funnily enough, murderers don't often confess their deeds and yet are regardless convicted
No murderer is convicted on accusation alone, not since 1957 in the deep south anyway. Without confessions, murderers get convicted on evidence, not inference.

Because you clearly haven't examined the facts or refuse to honestly apply the facts, and yet you are so obviously inclined to bend over for Trump regardless.
Yes, me, the United States Senate, the Supreme Court, Robert Mueller, and the Attorney General, and a majority of Americans are all biased, and you alone see clearly.

Reality matters Dustryder.
#56
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@ethang5
Yet they threw out the impeachment. Reality matters dustryder.
I mean... about half of them still agree with the interpretation that Trump did something wrong.

Untrue. Most people disagreed that Trump should be impeached, and that number grew AFTER the dems laid out their case.
I'm not sure about what figures you're talking about, but in the polls I've looked at, the majority of the American populace agree that Trump did something wrong.

Yet Trump is President, still in office, and remains unconvicted of any crime. Reality matters dustryder.
The reality is the Trump did something wrong, judging by your quality of argument.

You are biased. If a majority of the country believed as you claim, Trump would have been impeached, Kavenaugh would not be a supreme court juror, and Meuller would have found a crime. Reality matters dustryder.
1. Trump was impeached
2. Mueller did find crimes
3. The senate does not represent the majority of the country
4. The chambers of congress follow their own agenda. While this agenda is often lead by their constituents desires, quite often it is not.

Sorry. Your inferences are not evidence.
Correct. But they are based upon evidence

Where have I applied this standard inconsistently? The standard is not mine. We do not convict people on accusations and inferences alone. This does not change no matter how much you hate Trump.
I vaguely recall that you bash other politicians from time to time?

Correct. You convict people based on evidence from which inferences are made. Which implies that you are convicted based upon evidence.

Untrue. The standard is written down and codified. It is not lower.
Tell where me in the books of law does it state that a person must make a sworn tape confession in order to be convicted.

No murderer is convicted on accusation alone, not since 1957 in the deep south anyway. Without confessions, murderers get convicted on evidence, not inference.
You seem to have a misunderstanding of what an inference is. An inference is a conclusion reached upon considering evidence or facts. In other words, a thumbprint found in the scene of the crime belonging to the thief is the evidence. The conclusion that the thief must've been at the scene of the crime is the inference.

So yes, murderers are convicted upon inferences.

Yes, me, the United States Senate, the Supreme Court, Robert Mueller, and the Attorney General, and a majority of Americans are all biased, and you alone see clearly.
People are biased on a case by case basis. I have no idea if the entities mentioned are biased. For example, a large amount of Americans just aren't well informed enough. That said, as previously mentioned, you're actually in a minority in this matter, and your views are incredibly extreme despite having access to all the facts of the matter. Hence you are biased.
Topic's author
#57
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@dustryder
2. Mueller did find crimes
"Further, the evidence was not sufficient to charge that any member of the Trump Campaign conspired with representatives of the Russian government to interfere in the 2016 election." - Mueller Report, "Executive Summary to Vol 1," pg. 9

"…this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime"  - Mueller Report, "Conclusion," Vol. 2, pg 182

Yes, Mueller ended with 30+ indictments, and some convictions, but the target of the Mueller investigation was Trump, and not a single indictment names anyone wearing the Trump name. Other targets do not count as none had a farthing of relation to the subject of a favor requested by Trump on 7/25 to President Zelensky. You cannot broaden the scope of this string just to justify your opinion. As its instigator, I declare your entire commentary in this post as superfluous. Stay on point. I'll allow you discussion of Mueller as relevant, because the president mentioned Mueller in the 7/25 conversation, but your conclusion about the Report is demonstrably wrong. Mueller did mention several areas of concern, but defined none of them as indictable crimes, and he did not indict on their suggestion.

#58
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@fauxlaw
"…this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime"  - Mueller Report, "Conclusion," Vol. 2, pg 182
"..., it also does not exonerate him" - Mueller Report, "Conclusion," Vol. 2, pg 182

#59
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,167
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@dustryder
If there’s not enough evidence, a person cannot be convicted, hence he’s innocent. Any logical person would say he’s innocent. The not exonerated talking point is stupid and only serves as a base for more investigation in the hopes they get Trump the next time.
Topic's author
#60
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@dustryder
From the OED: Exoneration "The action of disburdening or relieving, or the state of being relieved from a duty, office, obligation, payment, etc.; also, from blame or reproach; an instance of this, a formal discharge. Const. of. In Scots Law: "

2. Mueller did find crimes
According to the above definition, if Mueller found crime, why didn't he indict? He didn't need DOJ to do it for him. Therefore, as he stated unequivocally that

"…this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime"
the statement

"..., it also does not exonerate him" - Mueller Report, "Conclusion," Vol. 2, pg 182
is a legal and syntactic faux pas by virtue of the previous claim of a non-crime. The latter statement is, as is your argument, superfluous by non sequitur. By concluding there is no crime, it does not follow that there is no exoneration. What precedes, moreover, is that Mueller found himself at the end of a two-year, $30M-plus investigation of having to inflate a bozone-filled wish balloon of what might have been. Sorry.