Did Mueller Ever Take a Basic Logic or Critical Thinking Course?

[mikegriffith1]

Anyone who knows anything about basic logic and/or critical thinking will recognize what pitiful, flimsy arguments Mueller made at his press conference the other day.

To paraphrase one of Mueller's statements: "We didn't find evidence that he colluded, but we didn't evidence that he did not collude either." How do you prove that someone did not collude? How do you prove a negative? It is very hard, and often impossible, to prove a negative. So to say that "we could not prove he didn't do it" is to use the flimsy argument of citing the failure to prove a negative. This is Logic 101.

Think about it. Suppose a hostile neighbor accuses you of beating your wife. The police detective says, "I found no evidence that you beat your wife; however, I found no evidence that you did not beat your wife. Therefore, I am recommending that the DA indict you for wife beating."

To paraphrase another one of Mueller's arguments: "If I had found clear evidence that Trump did not commit a crime, I would have said so." Okay, and the obvious logical corollary to this is that if Mueller had found clear evidence that Trump did commit a crime, he would have said so. Again, this is basic logic, stuff that college students are taught in an introductory logic or critical thinking course.

What is equally pitiful, if not more so, is that Democrats are using Mueller's statements as their basis for renewed calls for impeachment.

 

[ColonelAngus]

Mueller is a corrupt piece of garbage, who couldn’t find his dick with 2 maps and a flashlight while sitting on a mirror.

2 years, nothing

 

[MarathonMike]

Mueller looked and sounded like a beaten man. He was obviously under enormous pressure from the Democrats to say SOMETHING, even if it was meaningless and made no legal or logical sense.

 

[ColonelAngus]

You gotta love how a transcribed voicemail from Trumps lawyer was redacted to look as bad as possible by the Mueller team.

They were not pursuing facts, they were trying everything they could to get impeachment.

Corrupt as hell.

 

[Third Party]

He has things to hide-he does not want his own investigation to open up a can of worms for him.

 

[Moonglow]

Did Mueller Ever Take a Basic Logic or Critical Thinking Course?

probably but politics is not about being logical. Look at our president he did take a class on bowling instead of logic...

 

[Moonglow]

He has things to hide-he does not want his own investigation to open up a can of worms for him.

Politics is a very dangerous game...

 

[Uncensored2008]

Anyone who knows anything about basic logic and/or critical thinking will recognize what pitiful, flimsy arguments Mueller made at his press conference the other day.

To paraphrase one of Mueller's statements: "We didn't find evidence that he colluded, but we didn't evidence that he did not collude either." How do you prove that someone did not collude? How do you prove a negative? It is very hard, and often impossible, to prove a negative. So to say that "we could not prove he didn't do it" is to use the flimsy argument of citing the failure to prove a negative. This is Logic 101.

Think about it. Suppose a hostile neighbor accuses you of beating your wife. The police detective says, "I found no evidence that you beat your wife; however, I found no evidence that you did not beat your wife. Therefore, I am recommending that the DA indict you for wife beating."

To paraphrase another one of Mueller's arguments: "If I had found clear evidence that Trump did not commit a crime, I would have said so." Okay, and the obvious logical corollary to this is that if Mueller had found clear evidence that Trump did commit a crime, he would have said so. Again, this is basic logic, stuff that college students are taught in an introductory logic or critical thinking course.

What is equally pitiful, if not more so, is that Democrats are using Mueller's statements as their basis for renewed calls for impeachment.

Mueller is a hack.

He had fully intended to claim guilt by Trump until Sessions was fired and Barr brought on. FEAR of prosecution caused him to roll back. Even so he allow Andrew Weissman to pen the editorial know as volume II on behalf of Soros.

Mueller failed in the hit he spent 2 years setting up. His pathetic conference was a desperate attempt to aid his democrat cohorts.

That too failed.

 

[Dragonlady]

Anyone who knows anything about basic logic and/or critical thinking will recognize what pitiful, flimsy arguments Mueller made at his press conference the other day.

To paraphrase one of Mueller's statements: "We didn't find evidence that he colluded, but we didn't evidence that he did not collude either." How do you prove that someone did not collude? How do you prove a negative? It is very hard, and often impossible, to prove a negative. So to say that "we could not prove he didn't do it" is to use the flimsy argument of citing the failure to prove a negative. This is Logic 101.

Think about it. Suppose a hostile neighbor accuses you of beating your wife. The police detective says, "I found no evidence that you beat your wife; however, I found no evidence that you did not beat your wife. Therefore, I am recommending that the DA indict you for wife beating."

To paraphrase another one of Mueller's arguments: "If I had found clear evidence that Trump did not commit a crime, I would have said so." Okay, and the obvious logical corollary to this is that if Mueller had found clear evidence that Trump did commit a crime, he would have said so. Again, this is basic logic, stuff that college students are taught in an introductory logic or critical thinking course.

What is equally pitiful, if not more so, is that Democrats are using Mueller's statements as their basis for renewed calls for impeachment.

Mueller did not say ANYTHING about “collusion”, not in his report or his press conference. He talked about “criminal conspiracy” which is a crime. Trump and Barr talk about “collusion” because it’s not a crime. It’s a deflection and a type of lie, one of the many “small lies” Trump tells that don’t matter to groom you to believe the big lies that he tells later that really do matter.

Trump has tried desperately to control the language around the Mueller Report because if you control the language, you control the narrative.

Notice how one written statement read aloud by Robert Mueller has changed the narrative. Because Mueller basically denied everything Barr has said about findings contained the Mueller Report and called on Congress to impeach the President, people are no longer saying the Democrats need to move on.

I look forward to Congress getting Trump’s financial records. And Trump losing more court battles on his unconstitutional attempts at stonewalling Congress.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Anyone who knows anything about basic logic and/or critical thinking will recognize what pitiful, flimsy arguments Mueller made at his press conference the other day.

To paraphrase one of Mueller's statements: "We didn't find evidence that he colluded, but we didn't evidence that he did not collude either." How do you prove that someone did not collude? How do you prove a negative? It is very hard, and often impossible, to prove a negative. So to say that "we could not prove he didn't do it" is to use the flimsy argument of citing the failure to prove a negative. This is Logic 101.

Think about it. Suppose a hostile neighbor accuses you of beating your wife. The police detective says, "I found no evidence that you beat your wife; however, I found no evidence that you did not beat your wife. Therefore, I am recommending that the DA indict you for wife beating."

To paraphrase another one of Mueller's arguments: "If I had found clear evidence that Trump did not commit a crime, I would have said so." Okay, and the obvious logical corollary to this is that if Mueller had found clear evidence that Trump did commit a crime, he would have said so. Again, this is basic logic, stuff that college students are taught in an introductory logic or critical thinking course.

What is equally pitiful, if not more so, is that Democrats are using Mueller's statements as their basis for renewed calls for impeachment.

Mueller did not say ANYTHING about “collusion”, not in his report or his press conference. He talked about “criminal conspiracy” which is a crime. Trump and Barr talk about “collusion” because it’s not a crime. It’s a deflection and a type of lie, one of the many “small lies” Trump tells that don’t matter to groom you to believe the big lies that he tells later that really do matter.

Trump has tried desperately to control the language around the Mueller Report because if you control the language, you control the narrative.

Notice how one written statement read aloud by Robert Mueller has changed the narrative. Because Mueller basically denied everything Barr has said about findings contained the Mueller Report and called on Congress to impeach the President, people are no longer saying the Democrats need to move on.

I look forward to Congress getting Trump’s financial records. And Trump losing more court battles on his unconstitutional attempts at stonewalling Congress.

You are a fucking liar, as Communists tend to be.

{
{1. Potential Coordination: Conspiracy and Collusion


As an initial matter, this Office evaluated potentially criminal conduct that involved the

collective action of multiple individuals not under the rubric of "collusion," but through the lens

of conspiracy law. In so doing, the Office recognized that the word "collud[e]" appears in the

Acting Attorney General's August 2, 2017 memorandum; it has frequently been invoked in public

reporting; and it is sometimes referenced in antitrust law, see, cg, Brooke Group 12. Brown

Williamson Tobacco Corp, 509 US. 209, 227 (1993). But collusion is not a specific offense or

theory of liability found in the US. Code; nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law. To the

contrary, even as defined in legal dictionaries, collusion is largely synonymous with conspiracy as

that crime is set forth in the general federal conspiracy statute, 18 U.S.C. 371. See Black ?3 Law

Dictionary 321. (10th ed. 2014) (collusion is agreement to defraud another or to do or obtain

something forbidden by law?); 1 Alexander Burrill, A Law Dictionary and Glossary 31 (1871)

(?An agreement between two or more persons to defraud another by the forms of law, or to employ

such forms as means of accomplishing some unlawful object?); 1 Bouvier's Law Dictionary 352}}

https://apps.npr.org/documents/document.html?id=5955997-Muellerreport

 

[HappyJoy]

Anyone who knows anything about basic logic and/or critical thinking will recognize what pitiful, flimsy arguments Mueller made at his press conference the other day.

To paraphrase one of Mueller's statements: "We didn't find evidence that he colluded, but we didn't evidence that he did not collude either." How do you prove that someone did not collude? How do you prove a negative? It is very hard, and often impossible, to prove a negative. So to say that "we could not prove he didn't do it" is to use the flimsy argument of citing the failure to prove a negative. This is Logic 101.

Think about it. Suppose a hostile neighbor accuses you of beating your wife. The police detective says, "I found no evidence that you beat your wife; however, I found no evidence that you did not beat your wife. Therefore, I am recommending that the DA indict you for wife beating."

To paraphrase another one of Mueller's arguments: "If I had found clear evidence that Trump did not commit a crime, I would have said so." Okay, and the obvious logical corollary to this is that if Mueller had found clear evidence that Trump did commit a crime, he would have said so. Again, this is basic logic, stuff that college students are taught in an introductory logic or critical thinking course.

What is equally pitiful, if not more so, is that Democrats are using Mueller's statements as their basis for renewed calls for impeachment.

Mueller did not say ANYTHING about “collusion”, not in his report or his press conference. He talked about “criminal conspiracy” which is a crime. Trump and Barr talk about “collusion” because it’s not a crime. It’s a deflection and a type of lie, one of the many “small lies” Trump tells that don’t matter to groom you to believe the big lies that he tells later that really do matter.

Trump has tried desperately to control the language around the Mueller Report because if you control the language, you control the narrative.

Notice how one written statement read aloud by Robert Mueller has changed the narrative. Because Mueller basically denied everything Barr has said about findings contained the Mueller Report and called on Congress to impeach the President, people are no longer saying the Democrats need to move on.

I look forward to Congress getting Trump’s financial records. And Trump losing more court battles on his unconstitutional attempts at stonewalling Congress.

You are a fucking liar, as Communists tend to be.

{
{1. Potential Coordination: Conspiracy and Collusion


As an initial matter, this Office evaluated potentially criminal conduct that involved the

collective action of multiple individuals not under the rubric of "collusion," but through the lens

of conspiracy law. In so doing, the Office recognized that the word "collud[e]" appears in the

Acting Attorney General's August 2, 2017 memorandum; it has frequently been invoked in public

reporting; and it is sometimes referenced in antitrust law, see, cg, Brooke Group 12. Brown

Williamson Tobacco Corp, 509 US. 209, 227 (1993). But collusion is not a specific offense or

theory of liability found in the US. Code; nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law. To the

contrary, even as defined in legal dictionaries, collusion is largely synonymous with conspiracy as

that crime is set forth in the general federal conspiracy statute, 18 U.S.C. 371. See Black ?3 Law

Dictionary 321. (10th ed. 2014) (collusion is agreement to defraud another or to do or obtain

something forbidden by law?); 1 Alexander Burrill, A Law Dictionary and Glossary 31 (1871)

(?An agreement between two or more persons to defraud another by the forms of law, or to employ

such forms as means of accomplishing some unlawful object?); 1 Bouvier's Law Dictionary 352}}

https://apps.npr.org/documents/document.html?id=5955997-Muellerreport

You're getting hung up on the wrong word.

In evaluating whether evidence about collective action of multiple individuals constituted a crime, we applied the framework of conspiracy law, not the concept of "collusion." In so doing, the Office recognized that the word "collud[ e ]" was used in communications with the Acting Attorney General confirming certain aspects of the investigation's scope and that the term has frequently been invoked in public reporting about the investigation. But collusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the United States Code, nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law. For those reasons, the Office's focus in analyzing questions of joint criminal liability was on conspiracy as defined in federal law.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Anyone who knows anything about basic logic and/or critical thinking will recognize what pitiful, flimsy arguments Mueller made at his press conference the other day.

To paraphrase one of Mueller's statements: "We didn't find evidence that he colluded, but we didn't evidence that he did not collude either." How do you prove that someone did not collude? How do you prove a negative? It is very hard, and often impossible, to prove a negative. So to say that "we could not prove he didn't do it" is to use the flimsy argument of citing the failure to prove a negative. This is Logic 101.

Think about it. Suppose a hostile neighbor accuses you of beating your wife. The police detective says, "I found no evidence that you beat your wife; however, I found no evidence that you did not beat your wife. Therefore, I am recommending that the DA indict you for wife beating."

To paraphrase another one of Mueller's arguments: "If I had found clear evidence that Trump did not commit a crime, I would have said so." Okay, and the obvious logical corollary to this is that if Mueller had found clear evidence that Trump did commit a crime, he would have said so. Again, this is basic logic, stuff that college students are taught in an introductory logic or critical thinking course.

What is equally pitiful, if not more so, is that Democrats are using Mueller's statements as their basis for renewed calls for impeachment.

Mueller did not say ANYTHING about “collusion”, not in his report or his press conference. He talked about “criminal conspiracy” which is a crime. Trump and Barr talk about “collusion” because it’s not a crime. It’s a deflection and a type of lie, one of the many “small lies” Trump tells that don’t matter to groom you to believe the big lies that he tells later that really do matter.

Trump has tried desperately to control the language around the Mueller Report because if you control the language, you control the narrative.

Notice how one written statement read aloud by Robert Mueller has changed the narrative. Because Mueller basically denied everything Barr has said about findings contained the Mueller Report and called on Congress to impeach the President, people are no longer saying the Democrats need to move on.

I look forward to Congress getting Trump’s financial records. And Trump losing more court battles on his unconstitutional attempts at stonewalling Congress.

You are a fucking liar, as Communists tend to be.

{
{1. Potential Coordination: Conspiracy and Collusion


As an initial matter, this Office evaluated potentially criminal conduct that involved the

collective action of multiple individuals not under the rubric of "collusion," but through the lens

of conspiracy law. In so doing, the Office recognized that the word "collud[e]" appears in the

Acting Attorney General's August 2, 2017 memorandum; it has frequently been invoked in public

reporting; and it is sometimes referenced in antitrust law, see, cg, Brooke Group 12. Brown

Williamson Tobacco Corp, 509 US. 209, 227 (1993). But collusion is not a specific offense or

theory of liability found in the US. Code; nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law. To the

contrary, even as defined in legal dictionaries, collusion is largely synonymous with conspiracy as

that crime is set forth in the general federal conspiracy statute, 18 U.S.C. 371. See Black ?3 Law

Dictionary 321. (10th ed. 2014) (collusion is agreement to defraud another or to do or obtain

something forbidden by law?); 1 Alexander Burrill, A Law Dictionary and Glossary 31 (1871)

(?An agreement between two or more persons to defraud another by the forms of law, or to employ

such forms as means of accomplishing some unlawful object?); 1 Bouvier's Law Dictionary 352}}

https://apps.npr.org/documents/document.html?id=5955997-Muellerreport

You're getting hung up on the wrong word.

In evaluating whether evidence about collective action of multiple individuals constituted a crime, we applied the framework of conspiracy law, not the concept of "collusion." In so doing, the Office recognized that the word "collud[ e ]" was used in communications with the Acting Attorney General confirming certain aspects of the investigation's scope and that the term has frequently been invoked in public reporting about the investigation. But collusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the United States Code, nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law. For those reasons, the Office's focus in analyzing questions of joint criminal liability was on conspiracy as defined in federal law.

I've read the report, so when Marxists like Dragonlady begin lying on behalf of the party, it is incumbent upon me to show her for what she is, a liar.

Collusion is a term invented by the DNC propaganda corps media to slander the president, Mueller was pointing this out. The crime had it occured would be conspiracy, which the president and all participants were cleared of.

 

[Dragonlady]

Anyone who knows anything about basic logic and/or critical thinking will recognize what pitiful, flimsy arguments Mueller made at his press conference the other day.

To paraphrase one of Mueller's statements: "We didn't find evidence that he colluded, but we didn't evidence that he did not collude either." How do you prove that someone did not collude? How do you prove a negative? It is very hard, and often impossible, to prove a negative. So to say that "we could not prove he didn't do it" is to use the flimsy argument of citing the failure to prove a negative. This is Logic 101.

Think about it. Suppose a hostile neighbor accuses you of beating your wife. The police detective says, "I found no evidence that you beat your wife; however, I found no evidence that you did not beat your wife. Therefore, I am recommending that the DA indict you for wife beating."

To paraphrase another one of Mueller's arguments: "If I had found clear evidence that Trump did not commit a crime, I would have said so." Okay, and the obvious logical corollary to this is that if Mueller had found clear evidence that Trump did commit a crime, he would have said so. Again, this is basic logic, stuff that college students are taught in an introductory logic or critical thinking course.

What is equally pitiful, if not more so, is that Democrats are using Mueller's statements as their basis for renewed calls for impeachment.

Mueller did not say ANYTHING about “collusion”, not in his report or his press conference. He talked about “criminal conspiracy” which is a crime. Trump and Barr talk about “collusion” because it’s not a crime. It’s a deflection and a type of lie, one of the many “small lies” Trump tells that don’t matter to groom you to believe the big lies that he tells later that really do matter.

Trump has tried desperately to control the language around the Mueller Report because if you control the language, you control the narrative.

Notice how one written statement read aloud by Robert Mueller has changed the narrative. Because Mueller basically denied everything Barr has said about findings contained the Mueller Report and called on Congress to impeach the President, people are no longer saying the Democrats need to move on.

I look forward to Congress getting Trump’s financial records. And Trump losing more court battles on his unconstitutional attempts at stonewalling Congress.

You are a fucking liar, as Communists tend to be.

{
{1. Potential Coordination: Conspiracy and Collusion


As an initial matter, this Office evaluated potentially criminal conduct that involved the

collective action of multiple individuals not under the rubric of "collusion," but through the lens

of conspiracy law. In so doing, the Office recognized that the word "collud[e]" appears in the

Acting Attorney General's August 2, 2017 memorandum; it has frequently been invoked in public

reporting; and it is sometimes referenced in antitrust law, see, cg, Brooke Group 12. Brown

Williamson Tobacco Corp, 509 US. 209, 227 (1993). But collusion is not a specific offense or

theory of liability found in the US. Code; nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law. To the

contrary, even as defined in legal dictionaries, collusion is largely synonymous with conspiracy as

that crime is set forth in the general federal conspiracy statute, 18 U.S.C. 371. See Black ?3 Law

Dictionary 321. (10th ed. 2014) (collusion is agreement to defraud another or to do or obtain

something forbidden by law?); 1 Alexander Burrill, A Law Dictionary and Glossary 31 (1871)

(?An agreement between two or more persons to defraud another by the forms of law, or to employ

such forms as means of accomplishing some unlawful object?); 1 Bouvier's Law Dictionary 352}}

https://apps.npr.org/documents/document.html?id=5955997-Muellerreport

Did you actually READ the paragraph you quoted? I've bolded the parts you seem to have missed:

"As an initial matter, this Office evaluated potentially criminal conduct that involved the collective action of multiple individuals not under the rubric of "collusion," but through the lens of conspiracy law. . . . But collusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the US. Code; nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law."

The passage you quote CONFIRMED WHAT I SAID ABOUT COLLUSION, YOU FOOL.

 

[GreenAndBlue]

Meuller is a high treason traitor at the highest level

Right out of the box mueller commited this crime front and center

Getting all prosecutors as Hillary supporters to investigate the leader of
The opposite party and then letting this leak to the media

That was nothing but to scare trump to stop him from going after the real crimes and criminals of the deep state

Then this supposedly private investigation became much more public with his team leaking like crazy and big swat team raids of trumps connections and making even more public with having CNN set to watch
And film the big raid

This was nothing but scare trump the president of the United States to stay in line with the crooked deep state

Mueller is trying to run like a rat

Barr must take his passport

 

[Crepitus]

To paraphrase one of Mueller's statements: "We didn't find evidence that he colluded, but we didn't evidence that he did not collude either."

That's not an accurate representation of what was said.

 

[HappyJoy]

Meuller is a high treason traitor at the highest level

Maybe have a look-see as to how the Constitution defines treason.

 

[GreenAndBlue]

Meuller is a high treason traitor at the highest level

Maybe have a look-see as to how the Constitution defines treason.

Yes it's about helping our enemies

And by weakening America that is helping our enemies big time

 

[HappyJoy]

Meuller is a high treason traitor at the highest level

Maybe have a look-see as to how the Constitution defines treason.

Yes it's about helping our enemies

And by weakening America that is helping our enemies big time

No, it's more specific, go back and read it some more.

 

[GreenAndBlue]

Meuller is a high treason traitor at the highest level

Maybe have a look-see as to how the Constitution defines treason.

Yes it's about helping our enemies

And by weakening America that is helping our enemies big time

No, it's more specific, go back and read it some more.

That is what it says


Anyone helping our enemies by weakening the nation. Are traitors

Both Russia and China promotes liberalism in America in order to weaken the nation and that then makes them stronger and helps them gain on the nation

Traitors and high treason criminals for sure

 

[HappyJoy]

Meuller is a high treason traitor at the highest level

Maybe have a look-see as to how the Constitution defines treason.

Yes it's about helping our enemies

And by weakening America that is helping our enemies big time

No, it's more specific, go back and read it some more.

That is what it says


Anyone helping our enemies by weakening the nation. Are traitors

Both Russia and China promotes liberalism in America in order to weaken the nation and that then makes them stronger and helps them gain on the nation

Traitors and high treason criminals for sure

Mueller didn't promote liberalism to begin with and there was no working relationship between Mueller and our enemies unlike Trump. So, by your standards Trump should be hanging soon I guess, right? I mean, I'm not for that but apparently your standard was met.