By Jeremy Bash and others: We've sometimes told you that we liberals get "propagandized" when we watch MSNBC.
Last night, we watched a discussion of next month's scheduled congressional appearance by Robert Mueller. Speaking with Brian Williams, the perpetually glowering Jeremy Bash made the remarkable highlighted statements:
WILLIAMS (6/25/19): Jeremy Bash, a double question for you. How do the Democrats try to make [Mueller] their witness? And why have staff meet with staff—Mueller's staff, Hill staff—in off-camera executive session?To watch this exchange, click here, move to the 7-minute mark.
I think there is some new information that Mueller can explain which is, Why did he implicitly state, both in the report and his press conference or his press statement, that the president had committed obstruction of justice?
Now, he stated it as a double negative. You know, "I did not find that the president did not obstruct justice." But what was clearly meant by that is, "I did find that the President probably did obstruct justice, but I couldn't prosecute him because he's the president. Over to you, Congress."
If he just merely explains that in a clear, coherent way, I think he adds to the important record here.
In fairness to the glowering Bash, he did include such weasel words as "implicitly" and "probably." That said, has Mueller actually stated or said that President Trump "committed obstruction of justice?"
Well no, he actually hasn't.
Within the past week, we've seen various people make claims like Bash's on MSNBC's various programs. Tomorrow, we'll transcribe a set of remarks by Nicolle Wallace, remarks she made last week.
That said, has Mueller actually stated or said that Trump committed obstruction of justice?
We're sorry, but he actually hasn't. For example, here's a rather definitive statement from the start of Volume II of the Mueller report, the volume which deals with possible obstruction:
MUELLER REPORT (Volume II, page 8): CONCLUSIONWhich part of "this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime" doesn't the glowering Bash understand? Is it the part which says "not?"
Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President’s conduct. The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. At the same time, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.
We saw Joe Scarborough match Bash's statement this very morning. Wallace pleases viewers in this way on a regular basis, omitting the weasel words as she does.
As in the past, so too with this! We liberals are being deceived by our favorite stars on The One True Channel. Corporate news frequently functions this way, as does the "human" mind.
In late night visits to our chambers, anthropologists have repeatedly said that this is the best our species can do. Watching cable, we've started to think that these experts may even be right!
“Which part of "this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime" doesn't the glowering Bash understand? “ReplyDelete
And which part of “we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment” doesn’t Somerby understand?
Which part of “we are unable to reach that judgment [that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice]” does Somerby not understand?
What part of “it [this report] also does not exonerate him” does Somerby not understand?
What aspect of the wording "this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime" instead of “this report concluded that the President did not commit a crime” does Somerby not understand?
Bash is pointing out the tortured language in the report, suggesting the President’s guilt, without explicitly saying so. You don’t have to be propagandized to read the report and come to this reasonable conclusion on your own.
Is Somerby aware that a bipartisan group of 1000 former prosecutors have determined that the evidence in the report does show obstruction of justice?
We do all agree through the report does exonerate him from accusations of a conspiracy with Russia though, right? You can't prove a negative but the report found no evidence of a conspiracy and accordingly, issued no indictments etc.Delete
So we are punting the ball down the field hoping for an obstruction charge.
No, we can all agree that Donald J Chickenshit obstructed the investigation.Delete
Third, the investigation established that several individuals affiliated with the Trump Campaign lied to the Office, and to Congress, about their interactions with Russian-affiliated individuals and related matters. Those lies materially impaired the investigation of Russian election interference.
Successfully, I might add. And the obstruction continues to this day.
Who are the several individuals who impaired an investigation by lying?Delete
What are the charges against them? Are they in jail for this crime?
mm - the proof of the pudding is that none of these "several individuals" were charged by the Mueller team with lying to investigators or obstructing justice.Delete
mm - I guess you're one of those deadenders. The impairing was proof of guilt?Delete
Papadopoulas, Flynn, Stone.Delete
"Bash is pointing out the tortured language in the report, suggesting the President’s guilt, without explicitly saying so. You don’t have to be propagandized to read the report and come to this reasonable conclusion on your own."
You said it, bro.
"Bash is pointing out the tortured language in the report, suggesting the President’s guilt, without explicitly saying so. You don’t have to be propagandized to read the report and come to this reasonable conclusion on your own."Delete
And the reasonable conclusion is that the report suggests the president's guilt without explicitly saying so? Guilt on obstruction of justice? That was not explicitly called out because it wasn't their purview? But we agree it's not the president's guilt on conspiracy, right?
So, real quick, we're punting the conspiracy ball down the field and now making an obstruction play based on unexplicit, tortured language in the report that has a feeling of guilt but accuses or proves none? What body can follow through on this and make explicit these ambiguous thought experiments?Delete
It's not hard to conclude that someone *may be* *suggesting* something.Delete
That basically means nothing.
CNN. Although, I suppose congress believes its purview is thought experiments.Delete
So there is no evidence of a conspiracy and no indictments of anyone related to conspiracy and no, zero, remote hope there will be any kind of prosecution based on a Trump campaign/Russia conspiracy making all those thousands of hours MSNBC and CNN talked of one and speculated of one a waste of time not to mention gristle for the mill of Trump supporters that fuels the belief Trump was being unfairly treated and maligned here and, as other important issues like global warming, income inequality, nuclear weapons etc., remain sidelined, now we are soldiering on with the hopes that an obstruction charge will emerge from a reasonable conclusion we have drawn based on an ambiguous, unexplicit suggestion of guilt in a the Mueller report, are you all fucking insane? (I know mm is just naive but people! Find ass. Remove head.)Delete
What is gaslighting?
"So there is no evidence of a conspiracy ..."Delete
I love it, especially later in the Summer.
I find it upsetting that the Mueller investigation seemingly was out to get Trump, by hook or by crook. The original investigation involved two possible crimes:ReplyDelete
-- illegal collusion with Russia
-- firing Comey may have been obstruction of justice
They cleared Trump of both these. That would have been the end of an unbiased investigation.
However, they dredged up a new theory that Trump obstructed justice during the investigation itself. This charge is far-fetched, as pointed out by liberal Democrat Harvard Law Professor Dershowitz. Various comments show that many Americans favor impeaching Trump, period, regardless of what he might or might not have done. Sadly, the independent prosecutor acted in that way as well.
I wouldn't say it was dredged up. Trump has to be responsible for his own actions which were properly tied to the original intent of the investigation you mention.Delete
"liberal Democrat Harvard Law Professor Dershowitz."Delete
Even the Queen of Right-wingers, Rachel Maddow, thinks Trump is guilty as fuck.
"I find it upsetting that the Mueller investigation seemingly was out to get Trump, by hook or by crook."Delete
Mueller is a typical Republican. Is there anything those assholes won't politicize?
Democrats yank on about pee tapes that don't exist, actually enjoy causing children to die at the border, and hate whites and men. A truly bigoted evil force in America.ReplyDelete
I would call it more of a vertiginous moral and intellectual tailspin brought on by the very reason this blog exists: dumbfoundingly dense, derelict and corrupt leadership, particularly in the media.Delete
I'd call it some of both brought on by a widening chasm between left and liberalism.Delete
"As in the past, so too with this! We liberals are being deceived by our favorite stars on The One True Channel. Corporate news frequently functions this way, as does the "human" mind."ReplyDelete
Yes, the "human" mind. Or, rather, the zombie "mind". They're just feeding you, zombies, zombie food, the shit sandwiches you crave, that's all. And you take it, and ask for more.
The Mueller report said or implied that the President couldn't be prosecuted, so Mueller was barred from even expressing an opinion as to whether Trump had committed a crime. IMHO this is baloney. The excuse was designed to mask the fact that Mueller did NOT find enough evidence to prosecute Trump.ReplyDelete
History shows that a prior special prosecutor had no problem stating that the President had committed crimes. "Starr submitted his report to the House Judiciary Committee, saying that he had proof of eleven impeachable offenses. The House of Representatives approved two articles of impeachment, both regarding his relationship with Lewinsky. House prosecutors said that Clinton deserved to be convicted and removed from office because had committed perjury and obstruction of justice in the Jones investigation. Lying under oath is clearly a crime."
Why did you bring up history?Delete
Are you re-thinking your choice to be a Conservative?
I am so happy, i never believe i will be this happy again in life, I was working as an air-hoster ( cabby crew ) for 3years but early this year, i loose my job because of this deadly disease called Herpes virus (HSV), I never felt sick or have any symptom, till all workers were ask to bring their doctors report, that was how i got tested and i found out that am HSV positive that make me loose my job, because it was consider as an STD and is incurable disease, i was so depress was thinking of committing suicide, till i explain to a friend of mine, who always said to me a problem share is a problem solved, that was how she directed me to Dr Isibor, that was how i contacted him and get the medication from this doctor and i got cured for real, I just went back to my work and they also carry out the test to be real sure and i was negative. Please contact this doctor if you are herpes positive diseases his email is: firstname.lastname@example.org. or you can call or whatsApp his mobile number +2348107855231.ReplyDelete
Hello all my viewers, I am very happy for sharing this great testimonies,The best thing that has ever happened in my life is how I win the lottery euro million mega jackpot. I am a Woman who believe that one day I will win the lottery. finally my dreams came through when I email email@example.com and tell him I need the lottery numbers. I have spend so much money on ticket just to make sure I win. But I never know that winning was so easy until the day I meant the spell caster online which so many people has talked about that he is very great in casting lottery spell, . so I decide to give it a try.I contacted this great Dr Believe and he did a spell and he gave me the winning lottery numbers. But believe me when the draws were out I was among winners. I win 30,000 million Dollar. Dr Believe truly you are the best, all thanks to you forever