Mueller does not find Trump campaign knowingly conspired with Russia

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.)

But 6 nonetheless! OMG! If this was Obama and Hilary, the GOP would have had them in front of a firing squad by now. For me the most troubling thing about Trump is how far the GOP has lost their moral compass and sense of ethics. They will keep perpetuating the great income divide while blaming others for their destruction.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Wow! They spun that fantasy quickly!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Wow! They spun that fantasy quickly!

Can you refute this? Please post sourced info to the contrary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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!

God bless America.

[Anonymous]

In the American judicial system, the investigators investigate and the prosecutors assess and recommend. It is not up to the prosecutors to "establish" or "determine." That is up to a jury or in the case of President, the Congress.

If the Trump Administration is so clear of exoneration, then there should be no issue with releasing the full report, unredacted (except for release of intel or other sensitive issues). Let's see all of Barr's use of phrases in full context.

The rest of this is just spin an noise.

[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.

Donald Trump must be the most honest man in the world. I'm thankful America had such a great person as president.

[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.

-except there was STILL no collusion.

Getting tripped up by FBI investigators isn't difficult at all.

[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.

Donald Trump must be the most honest man in the world. I'm thankful America had such a great person as president.

+1.

Finally, a true patriot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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!

God bless America.

+1000!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In the American judicial system, the investigators investigate and the prosecutors assess and recommend. It is not up to the prosecutors to "establish" or "determine." That is up to a jury or in the case of President, the Congress.

If the Trump Administration is so clear of exoneration, then there should be no issue with releasing the full report, unredacted (except for release of intel or other sensitive issues). Let's see all of Barr's use of phrases in full context.

The rest of this is just spin an noise.

You must have missed his statement that he is working with Mueller to determine what can be released and what needs to be held back. Like, Grand Jury information from a current sitting grand jury and classified information, etc.

You all are so funny. For months, no, actually years, you all screamed and whined about Trump firing Mueller. It never happened. Now, it seems you are whining about Barr releasing the full report. He has always said he believes in transparency and thinks that as much as possible should be released.

You all seem to like to whine about things that haven't happened.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In the American judicial system, the investigators investigate and the prosecutors assess and recommend. It is not up to the prosecutors to "establish" or "determine." That is up to a jury or in the case of President, the Congress.

If the Trump Administration is so clear of exoneration, then there should be no issue with releasing the full report, unredacted (except for release of intel or other sensitive issues). Let's see all of Barr's use of phrases in full context.

The rest of this is just spin an noise.

You must have missed his statement that he is working with Mueller to determine what can be released and what needs to be held back. Like, Grand Jury information from a current sitting grand jury and classified information, etc.

You all are so funny. For months, no, actually years, you all screamed and whined about Trump firing Mueller. It never happened. Now, it seems you are whining about Barr releasing the full report. He has always said he believes in transparency and thinks that as much as possible should be released.

You all seem to like to whine about things that haven't happened.

Terrific, I will look forward to a substantial release of the report then.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Wow! They spun that fantasy quickly!

To the winner goes the spoils

Let’s be clear. This is OVER. The AG has reported as much as he legally can on the Mueller investigation, and the DAG backed him up.

To Adam Schitt and the other Democrat partisans: you get NOTHING. The Mueller investigation is CONFIDENTIAL by LAW. It doesn’t matter what you want to see. You’re not the Deciders.

This is such a huge victory for the President. He should double down and go full bore and lock down the Imperial Presidency. Jam the Citizenship question through. Go after Islamic and Hispanic terrorism. Clean out DOJ, DHS, the CIA and especially FBI of Democrat Fifth Columnists. Seize any opportunity to bring up Hillary, AOC, Pelosi, and anyone else up on charges. Make it very clear what happens when you cross this President.

[Anonymous]

So, everyone lied about their meetings with Russians and Trump castigated Mueller because?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Wow! They spun that fantasy quickly!

To the winner goes the spoils

Let’s be clear. This is OVER. The AG has reported as much as he legally can on the Mueller investigation, and the DAG backed him up.

To Adam Schitt and the other Democrat partisans: you get NOTHING. The Mueller investigation is CONFIDENTIAL by LAW. It doesn’t matter what you want to see. You’re not the Deciders.

This is such a huge victory for the President. He should double down and go full bore and lock down the Imperial Presidency. Jam the Citizenship question through. Go after Islamic and Hispanic terrorism. Clean out DOJ, DHS, the CIA and especially FBI of Democrat Fifth Columnists. Seize any opportunity to bring up Hillary, AOC, Pelosi, and anyone else up on charges. Make it very clear what happens when you cross this President.

+1000!