AFTiger 282 Posted April 20, 2019 Share Posted April 20, 2019 Quote THE TWO-PRONGED CONSPIRACY THEORY that has dominated U.S. political discourse for almost three years – that (1) Trump, his family and his campaign conspired or coordinated with Russia to interfere in the 2016 election, and (2) Trump is beholden to Russian President Vladimir Putin — was not merely rejected today by the final report of Special Counsel Robert Mueller. It was obliterated: in an undeniable and definitive manner. The key fact is this: Mueller – contrary to weeks of false media claims – did not merely issue a narrow, cramped, legalistic finding that there was insufficient evidence to indict Trump associates for conspiring with Russia and then proving their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. That would have been devastating enough to those who spent the last two years or more misleading people to believe that conspiracy convictions of Trump’s closest aides and family members were inevitable. But his mandate was much broader than that: to state what did or did not happen. That’s precisely what he did: Mueller, in addition to concluding that evidence was insufficient to charge any American with crimes relating to Russian election interference, also stated emphatically in numerous instances that there was no evidence – not merely that there was insufficient evidence to obtain a criminal conviction – that key prongs of this three-year-old conspiracy theory actually happened. As Mueller himself put it: “in some instances, the report points out the absence of evidence or conflicts in the evidence about a particular fact or event.” With regard to Facebook ads and Twitter posts from the Russia-based Internet Research Agency, for example, Mueller could not have been more blunt: “The investigation did not identify evidence that any U.S. persons knowingly or intentionally coordinated with the IRA’s interference operation” (emphasis added). Note that this exoneration includes not only Trump campaign officials but all Americans: To get a further sense for how definitive the Report’s rejection is of the key elements of the alleged conspiracy theory, consider Mueller’s discussion of efforts by George Papadopoulos, Joseph Misfud and and “two Russian nationals” whereby they tried “to arrange a meeting between the Campaign and Russian officials” to talk about how the two sides could work together to disseminate information about Hillary Clinton. As Mueller puts it: “No meeting took place.” Several of the media’s most breathless and hyped “bombshells” were dismissed completely by Mueller. Regarding various Trump officials’ 2016 meetings with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, Mueller said they were “brief, public and nonsubstantive.” Concerning the much-hyped change to GOP platform regarding Ukraine, Mueller wrote that the “evidence does not establish that one campaign official’s efforts to dilute a portion of the Republican platform was undertaken at the behest of candidate Trump or Russia,” and further noted that such a change was consistent with Trump’s publicly stated foreign policy view (one shared by Obama) to avoid provoking gratuitous conflict with the Kremlin over arming Ukrainians. Mueller also characterized a widely hyped “meeting” between then-Senator Jeff Sessions and Kislyak as one that did not “include any more than a passing mention of the presidential campaign.” More: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUDub 11,246 Posted April 20, 2019 Share Posted April 20, 2019 Greenwald has had a bad few days. Russian interference and individuals withing Trump campaign's interaction with them is well documented in the report. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aubiefifty 17,332 Posted April 20, 2019 Share Posted April 20, 2019 lol. yep. ol don jr met wid dem russian agents to adopt an orphan..............and i am pretty sure mueller said while no proof of collusion was found he would NOT exonerate the president. now since you do not seem very bright let me post this. : exonerate ·. to clear, as of an accusation; free from guilt or blame; exculpate: He was exonerated from the accusation of cheating. to relieve, as from an obligation, duty, or task. does that help? i would prefer to think maybe you misunderstood other than just flat out lying. and lets not forget the wiki leaks thing which will be coming up. and also trump at his campaign rally uttered the famous "russia if you are listening" statement it was less than five hours later russia was hacking hillary's emails. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AFTiger 282 Posted April 20, 2019 Author Share Posted April 20, 2019 The Russians wanted to disrupt the election and spread dissent among the American voters. It would appear that they succeeded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,619 Posted April 20, 2019 Share Posted April 20, 2019 Just now, AFTiger said: The Russians wanted to disrupt the election and spread dissent among the American voters. It would appear that they succeeded. Beyond Putin's wildest dreams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DKW 86 7,499 Posted April 20, 2019 Share Posted April 20, 2019 IOW, it was just like what DiFi, Maxine Waters, Van Jones et al were saying from day one: "There is nothing there." Amazing what you can find out when you have an open, intellectually curious mind, and can listen to both sides and not jump to some wild ass crazy conspiracy theory. And my comments above go both ways. Pizzagate, Collusion, etc are all failings of intellect on both sides. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUDub 11,246 Posted April 20, 2019 Share Posted April 20, 2019 16 minutes ago, DKW 86 said: IOW, it was just like what DiFi, Maxine Waters, Van Jones et al were saying from day one: "There is nothing there." Amazing what you can find out when you have an open, intellectually curious mind, and can listen to both sides and not jump to some wild ass crazy conspiracy theory. And my comments above go both ways. Pizzagate, Collusion, etc are all failings of intellect on both sides. If you read that report and can away with "nothing," I don't know what to say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DKW 86 7,499 Posted April 20, 2019 Share Posted April 20, 2019 2 minutes ago, AUDub said: If you read that report and can away with "nothing," I don't know what to say. Then let me elucidate for you Sir: What was the Mueller Investigation primarily about? Collusion. Did Mueller find any Collusion? Oh.Hell.No. Because there was never anything there. And if you listened, like I and many more did, you knew that several days in that insiders knew that the Collusion Story was a sham. I fully expected the money laundering etc, and I hope the SDNY rip him a new one. I fully accept that trump was unfit for office and that his "handlers" were the ones being the grownups in the room. Would Trump have committed crimes if it werent for his handlers? OH.Hell.Yes. Was one of those crimes "COLLUSION with the Russians!!!!!!!!"? Nope. That never happened. And THAT is what I am talking about here. We had a 23 month investigation into something that never occurred and the MSM made it Story #1 for 30 Months. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,619 Posted April 20, 2019 Share Posted April 20, 2019 There is no such thing as the crime of "collusion". There is such a thing as "criminal conspiracy". The Mueller report found inadequate evidence for a charge of criminal conspiracy. That is not the same as finding there was "no collusion". The evidence for collusion has been in the public realm before the release of the Mueller report. The Trump administration asked for Russian assistance, accepted a meeting to discuss Russian assistance and then lied to cover-up the purpose of that meeting. All of this is contained in the Mueller report. Therefore, to say there was "no evidence of collusion" is factually - and legally - in error. Furthermore, to insist there is "nothing there" in the Mueller report is absurd. Such a statement is pure political (MAGA) spin, nothing else. What is important about the Mueller report is not the finding of a lack of evidence for criminal conspiracy - which is very difficult to prove at any rate - but all the information that reveals the willingness of the Trump administration to gladly accept campaign assistance aid from a hostile foreign government and try to cover it up. Of course, on the matter of obstruction of justice, there is also plenty of evidence. Mueller declined to indict Trump on those charges for internal policy reasons, not for lack of evidence. He reported on the facts and it's up to Congress to decide on whether or not to impeach. I expect they won't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUFAN78 3,952 Posted April 20, 2019 Share Posted April 20, 2019 6 hours ago, AFTiger said: The Russians wanted to disrupt the election and spread dissent among the American voters. It would appear that they succeeded. Some haven't figured out how they accomplished this yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DKW 86 7,499 Posted April 21, 2019 Share Posted April 21, 2019 6 12 minutes ago, homersapien said: There is no such thing as the crime of "collusion". There is such a thing as "criminal conspiracy". Then why on earth did you and the MSM spend 2+ years screaming RUSSIAN COLLUSION!!!!!!? It strikes everyone as odd that after 30 months of RUSSIANS!!! COLLUSION!!! that in an instant suddenly no one in the MSM now even utters the word. The Mueller report found inadequate evidence for a charge of criminal conspiracy. That is not the same as finding there was "no collusion". Sounds like a Bait-n-Switch to the rest of us. So, you want to pivot to "Conspiracy" but there is really nothing or almost nothing there. So you must then pivot back to the original charge of COLLUSION!!! but still, have to admit that that isnt even a crime...Yea, your point is what then? That there isnt evidence for either? Good, then we agree. The evidence for collusion has been in the public realm before the release of the Mueller report. The Trump administration asked for Russian assistance, accepted a meeting to discuss Russian assistance and then lied to cover-up the purpose of that meeting. All of this is contained in the Mueller report. Nothing happened at the meeting you are so sure meant something. The meeting, in reality, meant nothing. Nothing was exchanged or even talked about. Nothing happened afterward. Therefore, to say there was "no evidence of collusion" is factually - and legally - in error. So Mueller is in error? The FBI is in Error? Furthermore, to insist there is "nothing there" in the Mueller report is absurd. Such a statement is pure political (MAGA) spin, nothing else. If you had read anything, the comment "Nothing There" was from DEMOCRAT Leadership. Not me. Of course you misquote and then shove words in people's mouths. SSDD... What is important about the Mueller report is not the finding of a lack of evidence for criminal conspiracy - which is very difficult to prove at any rate - but all the information that reveals the willingness of the Trump administration to gladly accept campaign assistance aid from a hostile foreign government and try to cover it up. They didnt accept anything. THIS IS WHERE YOU ARE SO WRONG. The FBI/Mueller state unequivocally that at no point was there ever any American Citizen aware that they were acting positively with the Russian Govt. NONE.They have said this for months and indeed Mueller came out early on this to debunk it. Of course, on the matter of obstruction of justice, there is also plenty of evidence. Mueller declined to indict Trump on those charges for internal policy reasons, not for lack of evidence. He reported on the facts and it's up to Congress to decide on whether or not to impeach. I expect they won't. Now here, there is a valid point. If Trump's Administration had not stepped in, Trump would be gone here. That is beyond obvious. But infact they did step in and saved his ass. Trump is a sadly flawed guy. Flawed in 100s of ways. The fact that he is not proveably flawed as your Collusion Truther Delusion says is just...hilarious. Just more time wasted on Collusion Truther Delusion. I am moving on and looking forward to Trump gone because he is defeated at the ballot box. Now, if the Corporate Dems would get out of the way... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AFTiger 282 Posted April 21, 2019 Author Share Posted April 21, 2019 It is time to understand how this started from a contrived "dossier", fed to a corrupt FBI, resulting in a 30 million dollar waste of time. We need to clean up the DOJ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AU64 10,122 Posted April 21, 2019 Share Posted April 21, 2019 55 minutes ago, AFTiger said: It is time to understand how this started from a contrived "dossier", fed to a corrupt FBI, resulting in a 30 million dollar waste of time. We need to clean up the DOJ. All that was the work of democrats in Washington and the Congress sure does not want to deal with that issue. A great plan that did not quite work out...so hoping they will just move on but looks like Nadler and cohorts are gonna keep this alive ….to their detriment in my view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,619 Posted April 21, 2019 Share Posted April 21, 2019 7 hours ago, DKW 86 said: Just more time wasted on Collusion Truther Delusion. I am moving on and looking forward to Trump gone because he is defeated at the ballot box. Now, if the Corporate Dems would get out of the way... Stop lying about my positions David. I have explained many, many times what my opinions are regarding collusion and criminal conspiracy (two different things). You are deliberately misrepresenting my argument, which is very dishonest on your part. Please ignore my posts if they upset you so much. You are completely incapable of having a calm reasoned discussion without ranting, hysterics and basing responses on your inferences instead of what I actually said. You never ask for clarification of what I meant, you just take your inferences and run with them. That really doesn't interest me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,619 Posted April 21, 2019 Share Posted April 21, 2019 Oh and BTW David, Mueller never said there was no "collusion". Barr did, but not Mueller. Mueller only addressed conspiracy. (Again, they aren't necessarily the same.) So you are the one who is WRONG on this and I was literally correct in what I posted. Why Trump AG said “no collusion” when Mueller found no conspiracy https://www.msnbc.com/the-beat-with-ari/watch/trump-a-g-busted-mueller-report-reveals-barr-misled-public-1499263555778 Attorney General Barr echoed Donald Trump’s mantra of “no collusion” at his press conference, breaking with Mueller, whose report tackles “conspiracy” rather than “collusion”. But the Mueller Report offers details of possible conspiracies and more episodes about Trump associates’ connections with WikiLeaks and Russia – including a never-reported second offer from Russia with dirt on Clinton. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,619 Posted April 21, 2019 Share Posted April 21, 2019 The following article summarizes nicely what I have been saying regarding "collusion" and what the Mueller report found. Words matter. Especially in law. To insist the Mueller report determined there was no "collusion" is WRONG. It's simple-minded at best. https://www.vox.com/2019/4/18/18484965/mueller-report-trump-no-collusion The Mueller report’s collusion section is much worse than you think Special counsel Robert Mueller’s report on Donald Trump and Russia establishes a damning series of facts about the Trump campaign’s connections to the Kremlin. We learned that two Trump campaign officials, campaign manager Paul Manafort and Manafort’s deputy Rick Gates, were regularly providing polling information to a Russian national whom Gates believed to be a “spy.” We learned that, after Trump publicly called on Russia to find Hillary Clinton’s emails, he privately ordered future National Security Adviser Michael Flynn to find them. Flynn reached out to a man named Peter Smith who (apparently falsely) told a number of people that he was in contact with Russian agents. We learned that Trump foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos attempted to arrange meetings between Trump and Putin, and that Trump personally approved Papadopoulos’s work on this front. The report is very clear that Mueller’s investigation did not establish that the Trump campaign criminally conspired on illegal Russian election interference, or that it coordinated with Russia through either an active or tacit agreement. But the report, combined with other publicly known facts — that Donald Trump Jr. arranged a meeting with the express purpose of obtaining Russian “dirt” on Clinton, and that Papadopoulos was offered similar dirt from a Russian agent, among others — paints a damning picture of the campaign. It was both actively seeking to cultivate a relationship with the Russian government and willing to work with it to acquire damaging information about its political opponents. That willingness included explicitly sharing information with or soliciting information from Russian operatives. As the report takes pains to point out, “collusion” has no legal definition and is not a federal crime. So while the report did not establish conspiracy or coordination, it does not make a determination on “collusion” — and in fact, it strongly suggests that there was at least an attempt to collude by Trump’s campaign and agents of the Russian government. The fact that it did not rise to the level of criminal activity does not mean it was not a serious breach of trust and a damning indictment of the president’s commitment to the health of the American legal and political system. The section of the report focusing on Russian interference in the election is not an exoneration of Trump’s innocence. It’s a devastating portrayal of his approach to politics. The strong evidence of (something like) collusion Although Attorney General William Barr said that there was “no collusion” in his press conference before the report’s release, Mueller is actually quite explicit that he did not address the question of “collusion.” This is because, to his mind, the term is not precise enough, nor does it fall within the ambit of what was essentially a criminal investigation. “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,” Mueller writes. “For those reasons, the Office’s focus in analyzing questions of joint criminal liability was on conspiracy as defined in federal law.” So when Mueller concludes that he “did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities,” he is not saying that there is no evidence of “collusion” at all, in any sense. What he is saying is that there is insufficient evidence to prove that the Trump administration was directly involved in Russian crimes like stealing Clinton’s emails. But did the Trump campaign actively work with the Russian government to improve its electoral chances? If that’s the standard, then the report provides plenty of evidence to suggest the answer is yes. First, Russia repeatedly reached out to the Trump campaign to establish a connection to the Kremlin. “The Russian contacts consisted of business connections, offers of assistance to the Campaign, invitations for candidate Trump and Putin to meet in person, invitations for Campaign officials and representatives of the Russian government to meet, and policy positions seeking improved U.S.-Russian relations,” Mueller writes. Second, the Trump campaign was receptive — sometimes going beyond what was on offer from the Kremlin. Some of the examples of this are egregious. Take Manafort’s meetings with Konstantin Kilimnik, a Russian political consultant with a history of connections to the GRU intelligence agency. The FBI believed had links to the Kremlin, a view shared by Manafort’s right-hand man Gates. “Gates suspected that Kilimnik was a ‘spy,’ a view that he shared with Manafort,” Mueller writes. Yet despite Gates’s suspicions, Manafort repeatedly met with Kilimnik, worked with him to develop a pro-Russian Ukraine policy that Trump could implement if elected, and regularly shared polling data with him: On August 2, 2016, Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort met in New York City with his long-time business associate Konstantin Kilimnik, who the FBI assesses to have ties to Russian intelligence. Kilimnik requested the meeting to deliver in person a peace plan for Ukraine that Manafort acknowledged to the Special Counsel’s Office was a “backdoor” way for Russia to control part of eastern Ukraine; both men believed the plan would require candidate Trump’s assent to succeed (were he to be elected President). They also discussed the status of the Trump Campaign and Manafort’s strategy for winning Democratic votes in Midwestern states. Months before that meeting, Manafort had caused internal polling data to be shared with Kilimnik, and the sharing continued for some period of time after their August meeting. It’s possible Paul Manafort was acting without the candidate’s knowledge, and you could argue that this shouldn’t really reflect on Trump. But it’s clear from the report that the president openly encouraged his campaign to reach out to Russians and work with them. During a late March meeting of Trump’s foreign policy advisers, Papadopoulos told Trump about his attempts to set up a meeting with Putin. This, per Mueller, went over quite well. “Papadopoulos and Campaign advisor J.D. Gordon — who told investigators in an interview that he had a ‘crystal clear’ recollection of the meeting — have stated that Trump was interested in and receptive to the idea of a meeting with Putin,” per the report. Papadopoulos worked diligently afterwards to try to set up such a meeting, but was foiled largely by scheduling issues. At times, Trump was clear about his interest in Russian electoral involvement. This passage about email hacking, for example, in which Trump calls on Russia to get Clinton’s emails, then tells his campaign to acquire them. After candidate Trump stated on July 27, 2016, that he hoped Russia would ‘find the 30,000 emails that are missing,’ Trump asked individuals affiliated with his Campaign to find the deleted Clinton emails. Michael Flynn — who would later serve as National Security Advisor in the Trump Administration — recalled that Trump made this request repeatedly, and Flynn subsequently contacted multiple people in an effort to obtain the emails. Russia had, in fact, already stolen the text of many Clinton campaign private emails by then — so Trump couldn’t be involved in that particular criminal conspiracy. But the fact that Trump signaled that he was open to working with the Russians is nonetheless telling. What “no collusion” gets wrong The report is littered with evidence Trump and his staff were open to Russian interference in the election. Mueller explicitly concludes that “the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian effort.” And there may very well be more evidence in the sections that are redacted. For example, Gates told Mueller about a conversation with Trump during a late summer 2016 car ride to LaGuardia in which “candidate Trump told Gates that more releases of damaging information would be coming” from WikiLeaks. Was Trump speculating? Or did he know that for sure, because of some kind of coordination with WikiLeaks (who was working with Russian agents to disseminate hacked Clinton material)? The section is heavily redacted, making it difficult to assess what’s actually going on. I want to be clear: I am not disputing Mueller’s conclusions on whether a crime was committed. Criminal conspiracy has a very particular legal definition, and Mueller is persuasive on why none of the activities detailed in the report constituted illegal “coordination” in a way that would run afoul of the statute. “We understood coordination to require an agreement — tacit or express — between the Trump Campaign and the Russian government on election interference. That requires more than the two parties taking actions that were informed by or responsive to the other’s actions or interests,” Mueller writes. “We applied the term coordination in that sense when stating in the report that the investigation did not establish that the Trump Campaign coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.” What the report finds is not clear-cut evidence of a quid-pro-quo. Instead, what we see is a series of bungled and abortive attempts to create ties between the two sides, a situation in which the Trump team and Russia worked to reach out to each other (and vice versa) without ever developing a formal arrangement to coordinate. Does that rise to the level of “collusion?” It’s a slippery term. But if “collusion” refers to a willingness to cooperate with Russian interference in the 2016 US election and actively taking steps to abet it, it seems to me that the Mueller report does in fact establish that it took place. But even if you find that definition too loose, the report’s message is not that there was nothing to worry about on the Trump-Russia front in 2016. Instead, it confirms that there were multiple shady connections between Trump and Russia, and that the president’s “no collusion” line is quite misleading. And at worst, the way it’s been presented suggests that the president and his attorney general are still actively trying to deceive the American people about what happened in 2016. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AU64 10,122 Posted April 21, 2019 Share Posted April 21, 2019 Sorry Homey...that thing is basically BS.....considering that the guy reached different conclusions than the guy/team that spent two years interviewing witnesses, studying the issue, etc. Yet this writer who apparently was not part of the investigation, in about three days, draws different conclusions and gives preferential credibility to known and discredited liars. He knows infinitely less than Mueller about what RM observed, heard, read and generally uncovered....and yet seem to think his re-interpretation of Mueller's commentary is correct. Pandering the tin hat progressives who are eager to believe anything negative about DT. Another site that is about clicks and money I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,619 Posted April 21, 2019 Share Posted April 21, 2019 17 hours ago, AU64 said: Sorry Homey...that thing is basically BS.....considering that the guy reached different conclusions than the guy/team that spent two years interviewing witnesses, studying the issue, etc. Yet this writer who apparently was not part of the investigation, in about three days, draws different conclusions and gives preferential credibility to known and discredited liars. He knows infinitely less than Mueller about what RM observed, heard, read and generally uncovered....and yet seem to think his re-interpretation of Mueller's commentary is correct. Pandering the tin hat progressives who are eager to believe anything negative about DT. Another site that is about clicks and money I guess. First, I don't see where the writer is reaching "different conclusions" than Mueller. He basically sites the actual report findings. Now Barr, that's a different story. He did not accurately represent the report. Maybe when Mueller testifies to the house judiciary committee we can clear this up to everyone's satisfaction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AFTiger 282 Posted April 21, 2019 Author Share Posted April 21, 2019 Let clear this up. NO COLLUSION, NO OBSTRUCTION. nuff said, move on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DKW 86 7,499 Posted April 22, 2019 Share Posted April 22, 2019 Homey, you and apparently some of the Collusion Truthers are missing the joke. While the Sierra Foxtrots now known as the "Collusion Truthers" spent 23-30 months breathlessly masturbating over every "Collusion Bombshell" report from every "Collusion Thruther" Reporter or Talking Head in American Media those of us with brains knew there was no such thing as Collusion or for that matter Conspiracy without it being tied to another crime. IOW, there has to be a "Conspiracy to Commit _________." Collusion was just a SF Fantasy that the rest of the intelligent world had to endure until the rest finally could not deny what the rest of us knew 2 years ago. We heard ad nauseum for 30 months about "RUSSIANS!!!!!!! & Collusion!!!!!!" Some of us are just ready to move on and let it go. Now, no one and mean no one will barely utter the word Collusion. Well sorry. We are going to keep bringing it up over and over and over and over and over again just to remind the rest of the world to quit listening to idiots that have got egg on their face from getting the 2016 Election So Wrong and now are buried in eggs over "RUSSIANS!!!!!!! & Collusion!!!!!!" So, excuse me and the rest of the civilized people in the world that dont give a damn about your latest conspiracy theory du jour. Some of us are wwwaaayyy beyond tired of hearing about the latest "Black Helicopter Invasion of the Body Snatchers Hidden the Contrails of your Mind..." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DKW 86 7,499 Posted April 23, 2019 Share Posted April 23, 2019 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.