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:

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.

Even more important, Trump campaign official, not Trump. Any U.S. person. The knowingly coordinated part is going to be important when Manafort is pardoned. And NY will not go after him after this devastating blow. They know how it will be viewed.

[Anonymous]

Based on a report no one has seen? I don’t think so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Huh? I'm pretty sure a direct quote meets any legal code's standards of evidence. But I'm not really sure why you're talking about standards of evidence.

To refresh your memory. 1) I said Trump did not knowingly 2) you said, prove where it says not knowingly because blah blah implications 3) so I did 4) crickets

So you tell me me, what does the insertion of the word "knowingly" imply?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Huh? I'm pretty sure a direct quote meets any legal code's standards of evidence. But I'm not really sure why you're talking about standards of evidence.

To refresh your memory. 1) I said Trump did not knowingly 2) you said, prove where it says not knowingly because blah blah implications 3) so I did 4) crickets

So you tell me me, what does the insertion of the word "knowingly" imply?

DP. The distinction is in whether Mueller found affirmative proof Trump did not do these things, or simply did not find proof that he did do them. See the earlier discussion/comparisons to a mugging or someone saying something to their friend. That you can’t prove something did happen doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Trump is the one destroying our economy with record deficits thanks to his stupid tax cuts for the rich and thanks to his stupid trade war.

[Anonymous]

Republicans are idiots to try and go on a victory lap.

NO, you are NOT cleared.

Russians meddled with our elections, regardless of whether they had direct engagement with Trump or not, and Trump did nothing and continues to do nothing about it.

NO, this DOES NOT vindicate Flynn, Manafort, Gates, Cohen or Roger Stone or anyone else. They committed serious criminal acts and it is disturbing that so many people in Trump's direct circle are so corrupt and again, Trump does nothing about it. Either he knew he was surrounded by criminals and didn't care or he didn't know and is incompetent and in either case it makes him unfit to serve.

There is so much yet to come out and more than half the cases are barely even in the courts yet and many additional investigations and hearings haven't even started yet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Huh? I'm pretty sure a direct quote meets any legal code's standards of evidence. But I'm not really sure why you're talking about standards of evidence.

To refresh your memory. 1) I said Trump did not knowingly 2) you said, prove where it says not knowingly because blah blah implications 3) so I did 4) crickets

So you tell me me, what does the insertion of the word "knowingly" imply?

DP. The distinction is in whether Mueller found affirmative proof Trump did not do these things, or simply did not find proof that he did do them. See the earlier discussion/comparisons to a mugging or someone saying something to their friend. That you can’t prove something did happen doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.

LOL.
19 lawyers
40 FBI agents,
More than $25,000,000 spent
2800 subpoenas
500 witnesses
500 search warrants
230 communications records
50 phone taps
13 foreign govt intel requests

And, Mueller's team just couldn't find the proof that he conspired with Russia.

Trump is a genius. He was able to evade getting snared in Mueller's net. He really is diabolical.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Republicans are idiots to try and go on a victory lap.

NO, you are NOT cleared.

Russians meddled with our elections, regardless of whether they had direct engagement with Trump or not, and Trump did nothing and continues to do nothing about it.

NO, this DOES NOT vindicate Flynn, Manafort, Gates, Cohen or Roger Stone or anyone else. They committed serious criminal acts and it is disturbing that so many people in Trump's direct circle are so corrupt and again, Trump does nothing about it. Either he knew he was surrounded by criminals and didn't care or he didn't know and is incompetent and in either case it makes him unfit to serve.

There is so much yet to come out and more than half the cases are barely even in the courts yet and many additional investigations and hearings haven't even started yet.

Hope springs eternal.

[Anonymous]

All Americans can celebrate the fact that our president did not colluded with a foreign government to win the election.

An investigation with no crime is a bogus investigation. Nevertheless, president Trump has been vindicated of all wrong doing. Not even enough evidence for Mueller to subpoena him.

Great day for America!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Republicans are idiots to try and go on a victory lap.

NO, you are NOT cleared.

Russians meddled with our elections, regardless of whether they had direct engagement with Trump or not, and Trump did nothing and continues to do nothing about it.

NO, this DOES NOT vindicate Flynn, Manafort, Gates, Cohen or Roger Stone or anyone else. They committed serious criminal acts and it is disturbing that so many people in Trump's direct circle are so corrupt and again, Trump does nothing about it. Either he knew he was surrounded by criminals and didn't care or he didn't know and is incompetent and in either case it makes him unfit to serve.

There is so much yet to come out and more than half the cases are barely even in the courts yet and many additional investigations and hearings haven't even started yet.

Obama was president when Russia did these things. Where are the questions for him?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Huh? I'm pretty sure a direct quote meets any legal code's standards of evidence. But I'm not really sure why you're talking about standards of evidence.

To refresh your memory. 1) I said Trump did not knowingly 2) you said, prove where it says not knowingly because blah blah implications 3) so I did 4) crickets

So you tell me me, what does the insertion of the word "knowingly" imply?

DP. The distinction is in whether Mueller found affirmative proof Trump did not do these things, or simply did not find proof that he did do them. See the earlier discussion/comparisons to a mugging or someone saying something to their friend. That you can’t prove something did happen doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.

Indeed, even more importantly it gets to the single issue of whether intent could be proven.

[Anonymous]

I’m so freaking confused. Trump is still an ethically challenged moron right? That’s what I need to know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Republicans are idiots to try and go on a victory lap.

NO, you are NOT cleared.

Russians meddled with our elections, regardless of whether they had direct engagement with Trump or not, and Trump did nothing and continues to do nothing about it.

NO, this DOES NOT vindicate Flynn, Manafort, Gates, Cohen or Roger Stone or anyone else. They committed serious criminal acts and it is disturbing that so many people in Trump's direct circle are so corrupt and again, Trump does nothing about it. Either he knew he was surrounded by criminals and didn't care or he didn't know and is incompetent and in either case it makes him unfit to serve.

There is so much yet to come out and more than half the cases are barely even in the courts yet and many additional investigations and hearings haven't even started yet.

Obama was president when Russia did these things. Where are the questions for him?

Ask Mitch.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Huh? I'm pretty sure a direct quote meets any legal code's standards of evidence. But I'm not really sure why you're talking about standards of evidence.

To refresh your memory. 1) I said Trump did not knowingly 2) you said, prove where it says not knowingly because blah blah implications 3) so I did 4) crickets

So you tell me me, what does the insertion of the word "knowingly" imply?

DP. The distinction is in whether Mueller found affirmative proof Trump did not do these things, or simply did not find proof that he did do them. See the earlier discussion/comparisons to a mugging or someone saying something to their friend. That you can’t prove something did happen doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.

LOL.
19 lawyers
40 FBI agents,
More than $25,000,000 spent
2800 subpoenas
500 witnesses
500 search warrants
230 communications records
50 phone taps
13 foreign govt intel requests

And, Mueller's team just couldn't find the proof that he conspired with Russia.

Trump is a genius. He was able to evade getting snared in Mueller's net. He really is diabolical.

You forgot: 34 indictments. Guilty pleas from his campaign workers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Huh? I'm pretty sure a direct quote meets any legal code's standards of evidence. But I'm not really sure why you're talking about standards of evidence.

To refresh your memory. 1) I said Trump did not knowingly 2) you said, prove where it says not knowingly because blah blah implications 3) so I did 4) crickets

So you tell me me, what does the insertion of the word "knowingly" imply?

DP. The distinction is in whether Mueller found affirmative proof Trump did not do these things, or simply did not find proof that he did do them. See the earlier discussion/comparisons to a mugging or someone saying something to their friend. That you can’t prove something did happen doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.

LOL.
19 lawyers
40 FBI agents,
More than $25,000,000 spent
2800 subpoenas
500 witnesses
500 search warrants
230 communications records
50 phone taps
13 foreign govt intel requests

And, Mueller's team just couldn't find the proof that he conspired with Russia.

Trump is a genius. He was able to evade getting snared in Mueller's net. He really is diabolical.

You forgot: 34 indictments. Guilty pleas from his campaign workers.

And, still, no collusion. No conspiring. Go figure.

(BTW - of those 34, only 6 were associated with Trump or his campaign.)