The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Videos / Stefan MolyneuxP
🔊 Listen RSS
Stefan Molyneux Channel

The Truth About the Mueller Investigation
The hidden purpose of the Mueller investigation. Nothing will ever be the same. At 2:35, the year should read 2017, my apologies. ▷ Donate Now: ...
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks
(Video Hosted on YouTube )
Most Popular Videos from This Channel

Subscribe to the channel for much much more: https://www.youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=stefbot We can only be...

Get more from Stefan Molyneux and Freedomain Radio including books, podcasts and other info at:...
Hide 2 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Corvinus says:

    Stefan simply does not have the acumen to comprehend the differences between legal terms. I will explain it in terms that hopefully he can understand.

    Barr concluded that Mueller:

    1. did not have enough proof of obstruction to convict.

    2. did not find enough proof of conspiracy to convict, but does not offer judgement on the proof of obstruction he found.

    PROOF is defined as any evidence that tends to make your position on a matter in a dispute more likely. INDICTMENTS require a certain amount of PROOF on whether a defendant is guilty or innocent. The level of PROOF required for a prosecutor to get an INDICTMENT of a defendant–the amount of evidence on the question whether a suspect is guilty that a prosecutor must have to move a case into the criminal justice system–is set at the level of PROBABLE CAUSE.

    When a prosecutor says “I do not have enough proof to bring an indictment”, it means there is “insufficient proof” on a matter of dispute–the suspect’s guilt–to reach the “probable cause” standard of proof required for indictment. Trump’s defenders say there is “no evidence/no proof” of collusion. Except there was PROOF. Mueller has tons of it in his report after nearly two years of investigating. Mueller MET the PROBABLE CAUSE standard.

    The issue is that Mueller needed to have PROOF at a much higher level than PROBABLE CAUSE to secure a conviction. To secure a CONVICTION means a prosecutor must have PROOF that is BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT–a term meaning a decision by a judge or jury that a given defendant is in fact guilty.

    Under the ethical guidelines governing Mueller’s work, he is not supposed to seek an INDICTMENT of a defendant unless and until he believed he had enough PROOF to secure a CONVICTION as well. He had enough PROOF at the PROBABLE CAUSE level to get an INDICTMENT–it is detailed in his report–but he believes a jury will not CONVICT the defendant because there is not PROOF BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.

    There are two standards here–the media is mixing up the terms really badly.

    Mueller could proceed with the case–he could INDICT the defendant since there is enough PROOF, but he chose not to because he cannot CONVICT him. Why? The standard for BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT is that the PROOF must be at a 90% level to secure a CONVICTION. Mueller in his report provided the percentages of his PROOF. PROBABLE CAUSE is 25% of PROOF that someone committed a crime, while BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT is 90%.

    You need to distinguish EVIDENCE and PROOF. In short, PROOF is a *type* of EVIDENCE. When Trump defenders say “no EVIDENCE” what they actually mean is “no PROOF”—though they are ridiculously misstating their case in both instances. Mueller had PROOF of conspiracy enough to INDICT (at the level of PROBABLE CAUSE). But he did not have the PROOF that was BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT (necessary for a CONVICTION). Remember, Mueller was conducting a narrow scope of the overall collusion question (which there are almost two dozen ongoing investigations on this and other matters)–whether Trump was engaged in a “conspiracy” with two Russian entities, the IRA or the GRU.

    Since one can collude through obstruction of justice, and because Mueller did say he found PROOF of that crime, we know he found PROOF of COLLUSION…just not enough to secure a CONVICTION. Moreover, Congress does NOT require PROOF that is BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT to deem someone a national security threat. That is up to each member of Congress.

    Mueller performed honorably. More than likely, he farmed out several cases to other jurisdictions because it was not under his purview to delver further into those matters. But he did find PROOF in several other areas during the course of his investigation that has resulted in other jurisdictions looking into Trump and his associated.

  2. ATTENTION, COLLUSION PROOF SEEKERS!…
    .
    Question for America’s CIA:…
    .
    Have you sought to ensure that the said 750 bureaucrats who were mysteriously let go by Putin afterupon a call to investigate potential collusion between Putin/ Russia and Trump during the 2016 U.S. Election (and who could have provided HARD EVIDENCE regarding potential Putin/ Russian and Trump collusion) HAVEN’T SINCE BECOME VULNERABLE PUTIN TARGETS? Thanks!
    .
    Question for Mueller’s team:…
    .
    Have you examined the backgrounds of the said 750 bureaucrats that Putin mysteriously let go afterupon a call for an investigation into potential Putin/ Russian Trump collusion in the 2016 U.S. Election?… and, have any of these said 750 Russian bureaucrats fired by Putin, shown up missing, or dead? And does your team have any CIA documentation that suggests suspicious findings with regard to the said 750 bureaucrats that Putin fired? Thanks!
    .
    Please!… no emails!

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Stefan Molyneux Comments via RSS