Mueller does not find Trump campaign knowingly conspired with Russia

[Anonymous]

I don’t see how democrats see a victory in this chart. Podesta and Manafort are the same guy.

California fake ID salesman who helped Mueller investigate Russians gets six months in jail

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2018/10/10/politics/pinedo-mueller-sentencing/index.html

Washington (CNN) Richard Pinedo, a California computer whiz caught by the special counsel's office selling fake online identities to Russians, was sentenced to six months in prison Wednesday by a federal judge in Washington.
He ran a website that sold dummy bank accounts to eBay, Facebook and other online service users having trouble with the transaction service PayPal. His service allowed people online to breeze through PayPal's financial verification steps and, in the case of the Russians, buy ads on Facebook. Pinedo had bought a few hundred bank accounts for $20 each and sold them for $40, generating him his sole income of about $40,000 over three years, according to prosecutors and his defense lawyer.
Two other defendants in the Mueller investigation, the Dutch lawyer Alex van der Zwaan and former Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos, received 30-day and 14-day prison sentences, respectively, and paid several thousand dollars in fines.

[Anonymous]

Spent over 30 MILLION DOLLARS!!!!!!!!!

And nothing.....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The key word is "knowingly". This conclusion just means they didn't "deliberately" conspire with Russia or there wasn't even enough evidence to show that they "intended" to do something unlawful.

The SC didn't say "knowingly." CNN did. A poster here did.

The SC said there was no collusion despite several attempts on the part of Russian-associated people to get them to.
That, my friend, is exoneration on the collusion/conspiracy allegation.

It certainly is.

I love it!

The Special counsel states that “while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”

That quote was in regard to obstruction, friend.
Read the report. Don't get your headlines from CNN.
And, the SC chose not to make decisions regarding obstruction. Likely because there was no underlying crime to obstruct.

More from the BARR letter: The Special Counsel did not draw a conclusion, "one way or the other," as to whether Trump's examined conduct constituted obstruction.

Nobody needs your speculation.

PP wasn't speculating. PP was quoting directly and paraphrasing. There was no inference in the PP's response.

I'll speculate. Trump 2020 . . . b/c the Ds have gone off the deep end

I say this as a former D, now I.

[Anonymous]

Mueller says he’s leaving the obstruction decision to Barr. And Barr decided two days later?!? How is that an objective look at things?

I’m happy that trumps people didn’t commit the crime of conspiracy but I do not feel their meetings with Russians and coverup lies were patriotic in the slightest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Spent over 30 MILLION DOLLARS!!!!!!!!!

And nothing.....

They got a guy who made 40k over 3 years (his sole income) for selling banks accounts for foreigners to use eBay and Facebook!

El Chapo of EBay. What a coup.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m a Democrat and I expected nothing more from this investigation, honestly. If you read things other than far left Twitter, it was pretty obvious. But there are still loads of investigations ongoing from the other federal courts, and financial crimes are still crimes. I’m quite sure the Trump org’s shady at best, illegal at worst, financial dealings would have never made public had he never run for president. As soon as he’s out of office, he’s done.

If 6 people in the Obama or Hillary Clinton campaigns were indicted and sentenced to years in prison, right-wingers would be foaming at the mouth. Don’t pretend like this is some “no big deal” thing when, if the shoe was on the other foot, Fox News and the rest of the right-wing media would be screaming about it.

It's March 2019 (almost April). This investigation didn't prove anything. It wasted taxpayers' money and investigators' time. Pelosi said it was a waste of time to impeach. Elections are around the corner. His base feels vindicated. No one to date is running against Trump. Hogan was a hopeful but said if Mueller's report proved nothing, he wouldn't throw his name in.

Either the Ds get their act together, or we have MAGA 2020. I live in an area that's MAGA. Trump did not disappoint many of my neighbors.

Ds better wake up b/c the Neo Ds have destroyed moderation.

There were 34 indictments. How is that nothing?

Here are the indictments - http://time.com/5556331/mueller-investigation-indictments-guilty-pleas/
Here Are All of the Indictments, Guilty Pleas and Convictions From Robert Mueller's Investigation

Unless these indictments are directly connected to a crime Trump committed, guess what???????

People around him have fallen. That's a smart way to run a crooked business. Create a fortress around you and watch everyone fall while you remain safe.

again - Who's pinning anything on Trump? This is a MAGA person's dream!

So MAGA people acknowledge that he is a criminal who runs criminal enterprises and watches while the criminals that work for him always take the fall and they are happy about this. He is no better than a mob boss and they love him for it.

This is why MAGA people are indeed deplorable.

I don't think MAGA folks think that at all. That was my interpretation. I agree with the mob analogy. People work for the mob boss out of fear, and they end up dying for the mob boss.

I think Trump is a criminal, but at the same time, I'm sick of the Ds who have gone off the deep end. They are two ends of the spectrum.

Anything goes vs. My way or the highway

I'm done with politics to be honest. But I still acknowledge that Trump's base is strong - and his chances at another term are stronger now. So the Ds need to get off their pedestals and stop using the f-ing term, which isn't a real word. The more it's used by condescending Ds, the bigger the wedge gets.

Both sides are to blame imo.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Mueller says he’s leaving the obstruction decision to Barr. And Barr decided two days later?!? How is that an objective look at things?

I’m happy that trumps people didn’t commit the crime of conspiracy but I do not feel their meetings with Russians and coverup lies were patriotic in the slightest.

You act like you thought Barr was supposed to do his own independent investigation. He just had to carefully read the full report.

[Anonymous]

There is no requirement that there be an underlying crime to have obstruction of justice. Eg Scooter Libby.

[Anonymous]

Why is Bart in charge of this when the whole reason for a special counsel was the need for an independent evaluation?

And if it was so tricky that murkler couldn’t decide (makes no sense), Barr shouldn’t have been able to decide so quickly. Unless his mind was made up when he wrote his long job audition memo for trump.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is actually a good day for America.

No American citizen conspired with Russia to sway the election.

If you are not happy about this, check your patriotism.

There is a difference between proof that someone is innocent and lack of proof to support a criminal charge/conviction. The latter does not mean that the person did not commit a crime, only that adequate proof could not be found that the person did commit the crime.

Take it out of the Trump/Mueller context for a moment. If law enforcement were investigating a mugging and trying to determine whether a particular person was responsible, video evidence that the suspect was elsewhere at the time of the mugging would exonerate him because it would prove that he could not have been the mugger. If the suspect's alibi couldn't be corroborated, though, but investigators also couldn't find sufficient evidence to prove the suspect did commit the mugging, that doesn't mean the suspect didn't do it, right? It just means that investigators can't prove that he did, and is different from them finding direct evidence that he didn't.

In this case, nothing has been released so far that suggests there is direct evidence Trump did not collude with Russia, only that there isn't evidence he did. Whether he actually did or not (as a separate question from whether it can be proven) is still an open question about which people will continue to form their own opinions. For those people who aren't convinced there was no collusion, today isn't a happy day because the report didn't prove that no one conspired with Russia, it only means that to the extent anyone may have colluded, they are going to get away with it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Mueller says he’s leaving the obstruction decision to Barr. And Barr decided two days later?!? How is that an objective look at things?

I’m happy that trumps people didn’t commit the crime of conspiracy but I do not feel their meetings with Russians and coverup lies were patriotic in the slightest.

Barr and Rod Rosenstein, and office of legal affairs, etc. together concluded that no obstruction of justice either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is actually a good day for America.

No American citizen conspired with Russia to sway the election.

If you are not happy about this, check your patriotism.

There is a difference between proof that someone is innocent and lack of proof to support a criminal charge/conviction. The latter does not mean that the person did not commit a crime, only that adequate proof could not be found that the person did commit the crime.

Take it out of the Trump/Mueller context for a moment. If law enforcement were investigating a mugging and trying to determine whether a particular person was responsible, video evidence that the suspect was elsewhere at the time of the mugging would exonerate him because it would prove that he could not have been the mugger. If the suspect's alibi couldn't be corroborated, though, but investigators also couldn't find sufficient evidence to prove the suspect did commit the mugging, that doesn't mean the suspect didn't do it, right? It just means that investigators can't prove that he did, and is different from them finding direct evidence that he didn't.

In this case, nothing has been released so far that suggests there is direct evidence Trump did not collude with Russia, only that there isn't evidence he did. Whether he actually did or not (as a separate question from whether it can be proven) is still an open question about which people will continue to form their own opinions. For those people who aren't convinced there was no collusion, today isn't a happy day because the report didn't prove that no one conspired with Russia, it only means that to the extent anyone may have colluded, they are going to get away with it.

Mueller does not find Trump campaign knowingly conspired with Russia

Reuters
Sunday, 24 March 2019 19:47 GMT
WASHINGTON, March 24 (Reuters) - Special Counsel Robert Mueller's report on Russian meddling in the 2016 election did not find that any U.S. or Trump campaign officials knowingly conspired with Russia, according to details released on Sunday.

Attorney General William Barr sent a summary of conclusions from the report to congressional leaders and the media on Sunday afternoon. Mueller concluded his investigation on Friday after nearly two years, turning in a report to the top U.S. law enforcement officer.

(Reporting by Sarah N. Lynch and Andy Sullivan; Editing by Leslie Adler)

http://news.trust.org/item/20190324193542-i87ff

[Anonymous]

Roger Stone worked with Fancy Bear and Assange, right? How is that not problematic for Trump followers?? Anything goes if you are sticking it to the liberals?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is no requirement that there be an underlying crime to have obstruction of justice. Eg Scooter Libby.

Technically you're right, but it's much harder to prove collusion when you can't prove an underlying corrupt motive. None of that means there wasn't collusion, though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no requirement that there be an underlying crime to have obstruction of justice. Eg Scooter Libby.

Technically you're right, but it's much harder to prove collusion when you can't prove an underlying corrupt motive. None of that means there wasn't collusion, though.

I meant to say obstruction there, not collusion.