No, this is a fine example of Liberal Logic...

For some reason this story reminds me of those TV shows that dramatize unsolved crimes. People normally wouldn't even think of turning to woo, turn to polygraph tests and psychics. People speculate that even though they couldn't put together enough evidence for a trial or a conviction, "the police probably know who did it but can't prove it". If you can't prove it, you don't know it. It's like it's hard for our human minds to accept we don't know. Maybe this is part of why some people who work in the criminal justice system get jaded. They say, "there's no clear alibi, but we can't prove she did it either." No matter how they say it, people parse their words and expression looking for clues at what the authorities really think happened because it's hard to accept "I don't know."

EPISTEMOLOGICAL PSYCHO-BABBLE...

Jackass Party logic.

It was not a required course at Troy State University but me dino took it anyway either 1973 or 1974.

Funny, how they did, apparently do exactly that in Volume 1.

"Although members of the IRA had contact with individuals affiliated with the Trump Campaign, the indictment does not charge any Trump Campaign official or any other U.S. person with participating in the conspiracy. That is because the investigation did not identify evidence that any U.S. person who coordinated or communicated with the IRA knew that he or she was speaking with Russian nationals engaged in the criminal conspiracy. The Office therefore determined that such persons did not have the knowledge or criminal purpose required to charge them in the conspiracy to defraud the United States (Count One) or in the separate count alleging a wire- and bank-fraud conspiracy involving the IRA and two individual Russian nationals (Count Two)."

They didn't have sufficient evidence for a charge, so they "determined" it never happened. Yet in Volume 2 they didn't have sufficient evidence for a charge, yet .... maybe.

It is as if Volumes 1 and 2 were written by different people at different times. What I'd like to know is when were they written? I wouldn't be surprised if Volume 1 was written a year or so ago.

"“The Special Counsel’s report and his statement today made clear that the office concluded it would not reach a determination – one way or the other – about whether the President committed a crime. "

Yes and no. On each "key event" they did put down whether what they found met the criteria for an actual charge. None of the them met their own criteria.

Which means conspiracy to overthrow the government elected by the voters. That’s probably a crime somebody could prove if they half tried. Barr needs to speed up his investigators before we lose our democracy

No 'criminal act' was being investigated.

IF there was no CRIME, there is NO GUILT!

And THAT is the way it should be stated by the White House.

FORCE THE MEDIA to PROVE there was a crime!

FORCE the politicians to PROVE there was a crime.

I hate mind games. If they can’t convict you as guilty. You are not guilty. That’s all u get in a courtroom. One or the other

Agreed. And if Mueller thinks he can just go off into retirement and be left alone with all the damage he has created and all the people he has hurt, he better think again!

That's because Mueller couldn't make the report say what he wanted - that Trump was guilty. And because the statute on obstruction requires an underlying criminal accusation, he couldn't indict on that either. It's sour grapes that real lawyers absolutely detest.

I found this humorous,
https://i2.wp.com/politicallyincorrec...

Just ran across this: Update: The Justice Department and Special Counsel’s office have released a joint statement insisting that there is “no conflict” between Mueller and Barr’s accounts of why the special counsel’s office didn’t consider charging President Trump with a crime.

“The Attorney General has previously stated that the Special Counsel repeatedly affirmed that he was not saying that, but for the [Office of Legal Counsel] opinion, he would have found the President obstructed justice,” said DOJ spokeswoman Kerri Kupec along with special counsel spokesman Peter Carr in a Wednesday evening statement.

“The Special Counsel’s report and his statement today made clear that the office concluded it would not reach a determination – one way or the other – about whether the President committed a crime. There is no conflict between these statements.”

https://rawconservativeopinions.com/2...

Churchill used logic. Patton used logic.

Their breed died out.

For what it's worth, Logic was a required course for a BSBA at Colorado State University in 1968. Perhaps that was not the norm.

Politics and Logic are rarely together in any form. When was the last time you met someone that actually studied logic?

Hadn't looked at it that way...so in actuality he couldn't prove he did and couldn't prove he didn't are essentially the same statement...No Crime committed...like a glass half full or half empty?

This has nothing to do with logic.

It is politics to unseat the president.