Mueller Investigation pt5

Status
Not open for further replies.
phiwum said:
The letter comes as close to clearing him of collusion as one could expect. They couldn't find evidence of a conspiracy.

That's not just not indicting him. That's saying the evidence was not there, not that it was a close call but they decided not to. (The obstruction issue is, of course, a closer call.)

Assuming the letter is an accurate representation of Mueller's findings, I don't think that it's too inaccurate to say he was cleared of collusion.
Click to expand...

It has been stated many times in this forum that, in the US, collusion is not a crime. If we accept that this is true then what purpose would there be to clear Trump of it?
 
In short, no smoking gun in legal terms.

I saw Trump and heard what he said in Helsinki. I also know for a fact that little to nothing was done immediately after the election to protect the country against a factual, evidenced cyberattack. A real attack; not defended against. May not be a crime in any books, but there's that oath of office. Openly aiding and abetting a sworn, deadly enemy of the country is treason, not collusion. Guilty.

The rest is technicalities for whine boys to hide behind.
 
If Donny Dirt's creatures can maintain implausible deniability, that's good enough for him. Hell, any shabby rag is good enough for a quisling to hide his junk.
 
phiwum said:
The letter comes as close to clearing him of collusion as one could expect. They couldn't find evidence of a conspiracy.

That's not just not indicting him. That's saying the evidence was not there, not that it was a close call but they decided not to. (The obstruction issue is, of course, a closer call.)

Assuming the letter is an accurate representation of Mueller's findings, I don't think that it's too inaccurate to say he was cleared of collusion.
Click to expand...

They had a meeting after receiving this email from Rob Goldstone. The meeting waa attended by Paul Manafort, Trump Campaign Manager, Rick Gates, Trump Deputy Campaign Manager and Don Jr. A meeting that Trump Jr and Trump Sr lied about

Rob Goldstone to Don Jr.
The Crown prosecutor of Russia met with his father Aras this morning and in their meeting offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father.

This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump - helped along by Aras and Emin.

What do you think is the best way to handle this information and would you be able to speak to Emin about it directly?


How is this not evidence of a conspiracy? That it is not enough to convict is a different bar. What you're saying is akin to saying that the multiple occasions where John Gotti wasn't convicted or charged with crimes meant that he was innocent.

Also, you should keep in mind that this was a letter from Barr, Trump's toadie.
 
Last edited:
Steve said:
It has been stated many times in this forum that, in the US, collusion is not a crime.
Click to expand...

Why would it be? "Collusion" is a method. Just like conspiring is a method. What you're colluding or conspiring to do is what makes the crime.

If we accept that this is true then what purpose would there be to clear Trump of it?
Click to expand...

Trump was accused of colluding with the Russians to illegally influence the election. That would be a crime. But no real evidence of that has been found.
 
phiwum said:
The letter comes as close to clearing him of collusion as one could expect. They couldn't find evidence of a conspiracy.
Click to expand...
Of a very specific interpretation of the term "conspiracy" that no one was actually accusing him of. You know the joke that it would take a signed contract between Trump and Putin to get the GOP to admit to any shenanigans? That's literally all that's being "exonerated" here.
 
dejudge said:
Based on Barr's i letter to Congress it would appear Americans can now publicly ask a foreign adversary for help to win an election " Russia if you're listening can you give us all the dirt you have on all the Presidential candidates. You will be greatly rewarded"
Click to expand...

Who publicly asked a foreign adversary for help to win an election?

What is the EVIDENCE that Russia actually and materially altered the outcome of the 2016 election?
 
2 years of investigation and we're right back at square one, the same square we would have been at if the Mueller report showed incontrovertible evidence of wrong doing on Trump's part.

Nobody was waiting on the Mueller report to tell them if Trump was guilty or not. Everybody's already made their mind up about that. Everyone was just waiting for the results so they can either go "See I told you!" if the results agreed with him or play the already preformatted "Here's why the results don't matter" card they already had ready to put down.
 
phiwum said:
The letter comes as close to clearing him of collusion as one could expect. They couldn't find evidence of a conspiracy.

That's not just not indicting him. That's saying the evidence was not there, not that it was a close call but they decided not to. (The obstruction issue is, of course, a closer call.)

Assuming the letter is an accurate representation of Mueller's findings, I don't think that it's too inaccurate to say he was cleared of collusion.
Click to expand...

I think it would be more accurate to say that Barr's letter comes as close to clearing Trump of collusion as trumpers are going to get, and that only by "assuming the letter is an accurate representation of Mueller's findings." It isn't; it's Barr's opinion of the "main conclusions" of the report. We need to know what he actdually did or didn't find.
 
JoeMorgue said:
Nobody was waiting on the Mueller report to tell them if Trump was guilty or not. Everybody's already made their mind up about that. Everyone was just waiting for the results so they can either go "See I told you!" if the results agreed with him or play the already preformatted "Here's why the results don't matter" card they already had ready to put down.
Click to expand...


Actually it was just you.
 
Iamafalser said:
Who publicly asked a foreign adversary for help to win an election?

What is the EVIDENCE that Russia actually and materially altered the outcome of the 2016 election?
Click to expand...

You should hilite the part of your post I hilited and right click Search Google. Like this.
 
Ziggurat said:
Why would it be? "Collusion" is a method. Just like conspiring is a method. What you're colluding or conspiring to do is what makes the crime.



Trump was accused of colluding with the Russians to illegally influence the election. That would be a crime. But no real evidence of that has been found.
Click to expand...

I can accept that.

Except rather than "But no real evidence of that has been found." I prefer, insufficient evidence to prosecute has been found.

FWIW - I am no fan of Trump but I think that at this point it is important for your country to accept the results of this investigation as valid and move on.
 
Steve said:
I can accept that.

Except rather than "But no real evidence of that has been found." I prefer, insufficient evidence to prosecute has been found.

FWIW - I am no fan of Trump but I think that at this point it is important for your country to accept the results of this investigation as valid and move on.
Click to expand...

I'm sure we will be able to move on. The PDJT won't. I'm sure he's preparing his "I punch back 10 times harder!" retaliation strategy at this very moment.
 
Steve said:
It has been stated many times in this forum that, in the US, collusion is not a crime. If we accept that this is true then what purpose would there be to clear Trump of it?
Click to expand...

In this context, when we say "cleared of collusion", we mean that they have not found sufficient evidence of conspiracy with the Russians or similar crimes involving unlawful coordination.

That seems to be the gist of Barr's letter, obstruction aside. I think that it is fairly described as being cleared of collusion.

Of course, it is possible that I'll revisit this conclusion once we know more. But I trust Mueller's judgment in these matters, at least thus far, so if Barr is accurately representing the report, I'll stick with the above most likely.
 
alfaniner said:
I'm sure we will be able to move on. The PDJT won't. I'm sure he's preparing his "I punch back 10 times harder!" retaliation strategy at this very moment.
Click to expand...

It also gift wrapped him a "Winner" narrative for his 2020 campaign.

"The Dems tried to get me with a 2 year investigation and I came out clean!" is going to be one of his damn slogans.
 
Last edited:
Drewbot said:
So you're saying the media overblew this a bit?
Click to expand...

Are you asking me?

No, I don't think it's been overblown by the media. There are lots of odd events that happened, including but not limited to the Trump Tower meeting, which I thought and still think is good evidence of a willingness to accept Russian help. And the administration has a remarkable knack for appearing guilty as well.

This was and is a newsworthy story. That's not to say that every article was newsworthy or well-researched, but this story deserved considerable ink.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom