RockyTop85
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2011
- Messages
- 13,180
- Likes
- 7,128
What you said was, “Mueller found he wasn’t involved with Russia.” But what Mueller actually said was:
“Ultimately, the investigation did not establish that the Campaign coordinated or conspired with the Russian government in its election-interference activities.”
and, significantly,
“A statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of those facts.”
And
“In sum, the investigation established multiple links between Trump Campaign officials and individuals tied to the Russian government. Those links included Russian offers of assistance to the Campaign. In some instances, the Campaign was receptive to the offer, while in other instances the Campaign officials shied away.”
And
“Further, the Office learned that some of the individuals we interviewed or whose conduct we investigated-including some associated with the Trump Campaign deleted relevant communications or communicated during the relevant period using applications that feature encryption or that do not provide for long-term retention of data or communications records. In such cases, the Office was not able to corroborate witness statements through comparison to contemporaneous communications or fully question witnesses about statements that appeared inconsistent with other known facts. Accordingly, while this report embodies factual and legal determinations that the Office believes to be accurate and complete to the greatest extent possible, given these identified gaps, the Office cannot rule out the possibility that the unavailable information would shed additional light on (or cast in a new light) the events described in the report.”
The difference is like you admit you had unprotected sex with your baby mama, but you took a paternity test and it came back “inconclusive, altered sample.” Maybe you can’t be made to pay child support, but it doesn’t mean the test showed the child wasn’t yours.
What you said about Carrol: “Carroll wrote in a book in 2019 that he raped her. He called her bluff. He’s charged with defamation…” as part of a “pattern of accusation, followed by charging with obstruction, only to find the accusation was false.”
What NPR actually reported (it took me six seconds to find this):
“Jurors found former President Donald Trump liable for battery and defamation in the civil lawsuit brought by writer E. Jean Carroll, who says Trump raped her in a Manhattan department store.
While the jurors did not find that Trump raped Carroll, they agreed that he "sexually abused" her and that he defamed her when he denied her story.”
It was the second NPR article and the first was an analysis piece that also
referenced sexual assault in the title.
Here is the third article:
“BERNSTEIN: Just after 3 o'clock, the jury filed in. The forewoman stood up and told the judge the jury had reached a verdict. Even though there were only two counts to decide on, the jury sheet had 10 separate questions. So on the charge of battery, the jury had to choose between three parts based on the preponderance of the evidence. Did Trump rape E. Jean Carroll? Did he sexually abuse her? Did he forcibly touch her? The jury answered no to the question did he rape her, but yes to sexual abuse. The judge had defined that in his instructions as sexual contact without her consent, using compulsion for the purpose of gratifying Trump's sexual desires. Once the jury answered yes to the sexual abuse component, that meant he was liable for battery.”
The testimony at trial was that he bent her over in a dressing room and penetrated her vagina with an unknown object, which you tried to restate as an “unwanted peck on the cheek.” He didn’t even put on a defense, but if somebody testified that he gave her an “unwanted peck on the cheek” at trial that could have led the jury to that conclusion, could you please supply the transcript?
Same thing with the current case where you claimed he charged with obstruction but in fact there are 32 counts related to the substantive allegation of willful retention that will be tested if it goes to trial.
The Mueller thing is not a big deal. It’s an older, somewhat confusing report that has been consistently misrepresented and people consistently, belligerently get it wrong. The devil really is in the details.
But even if you get hung up on the jury finding that the tort of battery occurred as a sexual abuse, it’s still not consistent with what you originally claimed, which was that the substantive allegation was proved false with only some ancillary defamation/obstruction claim being sustained. And it would be hard not to know what he was indicted for on Thursday, which will test the substantive allegation.
We live in a time where this information is literally riding around in your pocket. I don’t know why you would even balk at the conclusion that you’re defending him when you consistently and favorably misrepresent his behavior and findings against him.
