Mueller does not find Trump campaign knowingly conspired with Russia

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Excellent thread by Kimberley Strassel:

1) On the #NoCollusion findings of Mueller's report. It's worth recognizing that this is more than an exoneration. It's a searing indictment of the FBI.

2) If you are going to investigate a presidential campaign, and on a charge as grave as collusion, and with the heavy-handed tactics the FBI employed--you'd better have a highly convincing reason to act. The Mueller report is a judgment that never was any real evidence.

3) The Papadopoulos conversation was always thin gruel. And the Mueller findings now prove the dossier was a fabrication. The country now deserves a full accounting of how the FBI blew this so badly--so that it doesn't happen again.

4) If Mueller has done his job, he will address some of this. But the real accounting needs to come from a full declassification of FBI/DOJ probe docs. Mueller report is only half the story. Time to go back to the beginning, to how we got a special counsel in first place.

Time to remind people: the FBI operates without a legal charter. It was hatched by Teddy Roosevelt to pursue his agenda. It's time we re-examine the frightening powers we give to law enforcement and the intelligence agencies.

In early 2016, Peter Strozk was just a section chief, and Andy McCabe the head of a FBI field office. The fact that they could start an investigation against a presidential candidate of a major party during an election year, largely based on the opposing party's "research", shows the enormous unchecked power of unelected buracrats.

People will lose faith in our institutions if John Brennan, James Comey, Andy McCabe and Peter Strozk are not investigated. The same rigor from Mueller needs to apply here.

Except the report says that Russia did try and get Trump collude. His only saving Grace was that he (and Jr.) we're too stupid and ignorant of world affairs to pick up on the efforts. This doesn't exonerate Trump it just says he was too.stupid to realize what was going on. How was the FBI supposed to know that the president elect was dumber than a sophmore pol sci undergrad? Without an investigation we'd have never known whether he was stupid or evil. Turns out he's just stupid. Congratulations! Yeah America

That is NOT what the report says.
Did it ever occur to you that they had no interest in working with Russia?
I know you don't want to admit it....... This report absolutely exonerates Trump.

No it doesn't. It says that Russia did try but that Trump did not KNOWINGLY cooperate. It exonerates Trump colluding with Russia but NOT Russia interfering in the election.

Can you quote the part where he uses the word KNOWINGLY? I don’t see it.

I'm assuming you missed the word "not" placed in front of knowingly, because otherwise it would get kinda weird. You know,.demanding I prove a negative I suggested while somehow arguing that I was wrong but the thing I saiid doesn't exist doesn't exist.

No, I didn't miss the word "not." What I'm missing in Barr's letter is the word "knowingly." Nowhere do I see where he says "did not knowingly cooperate." I only see that he says he "did not cooperate." There is a difference.

"T]he Special Counsel did not find that any U.S. person or Trump campaign official or associate conspired or knowingly coordinated with the IRA in its efforts" page 2 para 3

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Excellent thread by Kimberley Strassel:

1) On the #NoCollusion findings of Mueller's report. It's worth recognizing that this is more than an exoneration. It's a searing indictment of the FBI.

2) If you are going to investigate a presidential campaign, and on a charge as grave as collusion, and with the heavy-handed tactics the FBI employed--you'd better have a highly convincing reason to act. The Mueller report is a judgment that never was any real evidence.

3) The Papadopoulos conversation was always thin gruel. And the Mueller findings now prove the dossier was a fabrication. The country now deserves a full accounting of how the FBI blew this so badly--so that it doesn't happen again.

4) If Mueller has done his job, he will address some of this. But the real accounting needs to come from a full declassification of FBI/DOJ probe docs. Mueller report is only half the story. Time to go back to the beginning, to how we got a special counsel in first place.

Time to remind people: the FBI operates without a legal charter. It was hatched by Teddy Roosevelt to pursue his agenda. It's time we re-examine the frightening powers we give to law enforcement and the intelligence agencies.

In early 2016, Peter Strozk was just a section chief, and Andy McCabe the head of a FBI field office. The fact that they could start an investigation against a presidential candidate of a major party during an election year, largely based on the opposing party's "research", shows the enormous unchecked power of unelected buracrats.

People will lose faith in our institutions if John Brennan, James Comey, Andy McCabe and Peter Strozk are not investigated. The same rigor from Mueller needs to apply here.

Except the report says that Russia did try and get Trump collude. His only saving Grace was that he (and Jr.) we're too stupid and ignorant of world affairs to pick up on the efforts. This doesn't exonerate Trump it just says he was too.stupid to realize what was going on. How was the FBI supposed to know that the president elect was dumber than a sophmore pol sci undergrad? Without an investigation we'd have never known whether he was stupid or evil. Turns out he's just stupid. Congratulations! Yeah America

That is NOT what the report says.
Did it ever occur to you that they had no interest in working with Russia?
I know you don't want to admit it....... This report absolutely exonerates Trump.

No it doesn't. It says that Russia did try but that Trump did not KNOWINGLY cooperate. It exonerates Trump colluding with Russia but NOT Russia interfering in the election.

Can you quote the part where he uses the word KNOWINGLY? I don’t see it.

I'm assuming you missed the word "not" placed in front of knowingly, because otherwise it would get kinda weird. You know,.demanding I prove a negative I suggested while somehow arguing that I was wrong but the thing I saiid doesn't exist doesn't exist.

No, I didn't miss the word "not." What I'm missing in Barr's letter is the word "knowingly." Nowhere do I see where he says "did not knowingly cooperate." I only see that he says he "did not cooperate." There is a difference.

I don't know what to tell you dude, the indictments have already revealed that the same groups and places were targeted by both, that campaign data was shared, that the DNC hack was done by Russia, and that WikiLeaks deliberately timed their releases.

The question has always been whether, what would, in common usage, be called cooperation,
it was done intentionally or unintentionally.

How about telling me, dude, where you got this line from your post above:

It says that Russia did try but that Trump did not KNOWINGLY cooperate.

Because you've inserted an important word in that is not there. You know exactly what I'm saying and don't want to own it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Excellent thread by Kimberley Strassel:

1) On the #NoCollusion findings of Mueller's report. It's worth recognizing that this is more than an exoneration. It's a searing indictment of the FBI.

2) If you are going to investigate a presidential campaign, and on a charge as grave as collusion, and with the heavy-handed tactics the FBI employed--you'd better have a highly convincing reason to act. The Mueller report is a judgment that never was any real evidence.

3) The Papadopoulos conversation was always thin gruel. And the Mueller findings now prove the dossier was a fabrication. The country now deserves a full accounting of how the FBI blew this so badly--so that it doesn't happen again.

4) If Mueller has done his job, he will address some of this. But the real accounting needs to come from a full declassification of FBI/DOJ probe docs. Mueller report is only half the story. Time to go back to the beginning, to how we got a special counsel in first place.

Time to remind people: the FBI operates without a legal charter. It was hatched by Teddy Roosevelt to pursue his agenda. It's time we re-examine the frightening powers we give to law enforcement and the intelligence agencies.

In early 2016, Peter Strozk was just a section chief, and Andy McCabe the head of a FBI field office. The fact that they could start an investigation against a presidential candidate of a major party during an election year, largely based on the opposing party's "research", shows the enormous unchecked power of unelected buracrats.

People will lose faith in our institutions if John Brennan, James Comey, Andy McCabe and Peter Strozk are not investigated. The same rigor from Mueller needs to apply here.

Except the report says that Russia did try and get Trump collude. His only saving Grace was that he (and Jr.) we're too stupid and ignorant of world affairs to pick up on the efforts. This doesn't exonerate Trump it just says he was too.stupid to realize what was going on. How was the FBI supposed to know that the president elect was dumber than a sophmore pol sci undergrad? Without an investigation we'd have never known whether he was stupid or evil. Turns out he's just stupid. Congratulations! Yeah America

That is NOT what the report says.
Did it ever occur to you that they had no interest in working with Russia?
I know you don't want to admit it....... This report absolutely exonerates Trump.

No it doesn't. It says that Russia did try but that Trump did not KNOWINGLY cooperate. It exonerates Trump colluding with Russia but NOT Russia interfering in the election.

Can you quote the part where he uses the word KNOWINGLY? I don’t see it.

I'm assuming you missed the word "not" placed in front of knowingly, because otherwise it would get kinda weird. You know,.demanding I prove a negative I suggested while somehow arguing that I was wrong but the thing I saiid doesn't exist doesn't exist.

No, I didn't miss the word "not." What I'm missing in Barr's letter is the word "knowingly." Nowhere do I see where he says "did not knowingly cooperate." I only see that he says he "did not cooperate." There is a difference.

I don't know what to tell you dude, the indictments have already revealed that the same groups and places were targeted by both, that campaign data was shared, that the DNC hack was done by Russia, and that WikiLeaks deliberately timed their releases.

The question has always been whether, what would, in common usage, be called cooperation,
it was done intentionally or unintentionally.

How about telling me, dude, where you got this line from your post above:

It says that Russia did try but that Trump did not KNOWINGLY cooperate.

Because you've inserted an important word in that is not there. You know exactly what I'm saying and don't want to own it.

"T]he Special Counsel did not find that any U.S. person or Trump campaign official or associate conspired or KNOWINGLY coordinated with the IRA in its efforts" page 2 para 3

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not shocked or surprised. Disappointed but not surprised. White mediocrity has always won in this country. Good nugtb y’all.

Wow, what a racist!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not shocked or surprised. Disappointed but not surprised. White mediocrity has always won in this country. Good nugtb y’all.

CONSERVATIVE white mediocrity has won - and it wins because of $$$$$.

Attorneys are a good example - the vast majority of those who get high scores on the LSAT are liberals. But somehow half the judges and half the clerkships are conservative. Which means the average conservative clerk or judge is just by construction less qualified than the average liberal clerk or judge. And all the cons sit around and pat each other on the back about how they've gotten so far in life. Yes, most of them are white.

Conservatives: mediocrities propped up by billionaire dollars. Just like the president: wealth all inherited.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Excellent thread by Kimberley Strassel:

1) On the #NoCollusion findings of Mueller's report. It's worth recognizing that this is more than an exoneration. It's a searing indictment of the FBI.

2) If you are going to investigate a presidential campaign, and on a charge as grave as collusion, and with the heavy-handed tactics the FBI employed--you'd better have a highly convincing reason to act. The Mueller report is a judgment that never was any real evidence.

3) The Papadopoulos conversation was always thin gruel. And the Mueller findings now prove the dossier was a fabrication. The country now deserves a full accounting of how the FBI blew this so badly--so that it doesn't happen again.

4) If Mueller has done his job, he will address some of this. But the real accounting needs to come from a full declassification of FBI/DOJ probe docs. Mueller report is only half the story. Time to go back to the beginning, to how we got a special counsel in first place.

Time to remind people: the FBI operates without a legal charter. It was hatched by Teddy Roosevelt to pursue his agenda. It's time we re-examine the frightening powers we give to law enforcement and the intelligence agencies.

In early 2016, Peter Strozk was just a section chief, and Andy McCabe the head of a FBI field office. The fact that they could start an investigation against a presidential candidate of a major party during an election year, largely based on the opposing party's "research", shows the enormous unchecked power of unelected buracrats.

People will lose faith in our institutions if John Brennan, James Comey, Andy McCabe and Peter Strozk are not investigated. The same rigor from Mueller needs to apply here.

Except the report says that Russia did try and get Trump collude. His only saving Grace was that he (and Jr.) we're too stupid and ignorant of world affairs to pick up on the efforts. This doesn't exonerate Trump it just says he was too.stupid to realize what was going on. How was the FBI supposed to know that the president elect was dumber than a sophmore pol sci undergrad? Without an investigation we'd have never known whether he was stupid or evil. Turns out he's just stupid. Congratulations! Yeah America

That is NOT what the report says.
Did it ever occur to you that they had no interest in working with Russia?
I know you don't want to admit it....... This report absolutely exonerates Trump.

No it doesn't. It says that Russia did try but that Trump did not KNOWINGLY cooperate. It exonerates Trump colluding with Russia but NOT Russia interfering in the election.

Can you quote the part where he uses the word KNOWINGLY? I don’t see it.

I'm assuming you missed the word "not" placed in front of knowingly, because otherwise it would get kinda weird. You know,.demanding I prove a negative I suggested while somehow arguing that I was wrong but the thing I saiid doesn't exist doesn't exist.

No, I didn't miss the word "not." What I'm missing in Barr's letter is the word "knowingly." Nowhere do I see where he says "did not knowingly cooperate." I only see that he says he "did not cooperate." There is a difference.

I don't know what to tell you dude, the indictments have already revealed that the same groups and places were targeted by both, that campaign data was shared, that the DNC hack was done by Russia, and that WikiLeaks deliberately timed their releases.

The question has always been whether, what would, in common usage, be called cooperation,
it was done intentionally or unintentionally.

How about telling me, dude, where you got this line from your post above:

It says that Russia did try but that Trump did not KNOWINGLY cooperate.

Because you've inserted an important word in that is not there. You know exactly what I'm saying and don't want to own it.

"T]he Special Counsel did not find that any U.S. person or Trump campaign official or associate conspired or KNOWINGLY coordinated with the IRA in its efforts" page 2 para 3

"Did not find"

please read about legal standards of evidence, then check back in.

[Anonymous]

the economic crash cannot come fast enough. inverted yield curve last week, bring it on for 2019-2020.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have mixed feelings about this whole investigation. I am so angry at the division that has resulted from it - and it began with a stupid dossier from Hillary and the DNC.
I am also angry that it implicated so many innocent people whose reputations have been ruined and whose financial futures have been put in peril.

But, if this investigation had never happened, there would remain a cloud over his presidency forever. Thanks, Hillary!!! This is the legacy you have left.
So, now that the investigation - with its dozens of lawyers and agents, and countless numbers of subpoenas and millions of pieces of evidence, and bottomless financial resources - has proven that he did NOT conspire with Russia, for that I am happy.

So now that he's dead, you've moved McCain from RINO status to being a member of the DNC.

Nice.

I have mixed feelings too. I never thought Trump had a quid pro quo with the Russian government to help him win the election. I always thought it was kind words and cooperation w/Russia to make money for Trump and his family. Trump wanted a tower in Moscow, Russians continuing to overpay for Trump properties, and Russian money pouring into his golf clubs. It was ALWAYS about the Benjamins for Trump and still is. Mueller didn’t look into that for his report. There’s plenty of reported evidence on the money issues in plain sight. That should be troubling to every American irrespective of party. It’s also why Trump kept acting like someone w/consciousness of guilt. He was selling out America for his own enrichment. Still is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have mixed feelings about this whole investigation. I am so angry at the division that has resulted from it - and it began with a stupid dossier from Hillary and the DNC.
I am also angry that it implicated so many innocent people whose reputations have been ruined and whose financial futures have been put in peril.

But, if this investigation had never happened, there would remain a cloud over his presidency forever. Thanks, Hillary!!! This is the legacy you have left.
So, now that the investigation - with its dozens of lawyers and agents, and countless numbers of subpoenas and millions of pieces of evidence, and bottomless financial resources - has proven that he did NOT conspire with Russia, for that I am happy.

So now that he's dead, you've moved McCain from RINO status to being a member of the DNC.

Nice.

I have mixed feelings too. I never thought Trump had a quid pro quo with the Russian government to help him win the election. I always thought it was kind words and cooperation w/Russia to make money for Trump and his family. Trump wanted a tower in Moscow, Russians continuing to overpay for Trump properties, and Russian money pouring into his golf clubs. It was ALWAYS about the Benjamins for Trump and still is. Mueller didn’t look into that for his report. There’s plenty of reported evidence on the money issues in plain sight. That should be troubling to every American irrespective of party. It’s also why Trump kept acting like someone w/consciousness of guilt. He was selling out America for his own enrichment. Still is.

You don't give Mueller enough credit. He looked at things you have no clue about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:the economic crash cannot come fast enough. inverted yield curve last week, bring it on for 2019-2020.

Let me understand you: you want our economy to crash and are disappointed our President didn’t collude with Russia?

Because you want your political party to always have the presidency?

That’s insanity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:the economic crash cannot come fast enough. inverted yield curve last week, bring it on for 2019-2020.

Let me understand you: you want our economy to crash and are disappointed our President didn’t collude with Russia?

Because you want your political party to always have the presidency?

That’s insanity.

Russia isn’t as much of a threat as the liberals that want our economy to be destroyed so Trump can look bad.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:the economic crash cannot come fast enough. inverted yield curve last week, bring it on for 2019-2020.

Let me understand you: you want our economy to crash and are disappointed our President didn’t collude with Russia?

Because you want your political party to always have the presidency?

That’s insanity.

Some people can't bear being wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

This is fantastic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:even if trump did obstruct, since there was no collusion, then there is nothing to obstruct, CASE closed (50 million tax payer dollars saved)

It was only $25m and it made more money than that for us by catching Manafort etc's serial wrongdoing

Catching or deciding to prosecute, hoping he'd 'rat Trump out?'