Mueller does not find Trump campaign knowingly conspired with Russia

[Anonymous]

What I heard is that Mueller did not make a conclusion in his report. He compiled the evidence and told Barr to reach his own conclusions. And Barr has decided his boss is not guilty. So once we read the report for ourselves (ahem) we can know if that's a reasonable, or a partisan conclusion on Barr's part. Correct?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What I heard is that Mueller did not make a conclusion in his report. He compiled the evidence and told Barr to reach his own conclusions. And Barr has decided his boss is not guilty. So once we read the report for ourselves (ahem) we can know if that's a reasonable, or a partisan conclusion on Barr's part. Correct?

Don't know where you heard that. It is likely wrong, as much of the MSM has been over the past two years........

Here is an excerpt from the letter:

The Special Counsel's investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election. As the report states: "[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."

Do you know what the quotations mean?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I heard is that Mueller did not make a conclusion in his report. He compiled the evidence and told Barr to reach his own conclusions. And Barr has decided his boss is not guilty. So once we read the report for ourselves (ahem) we can know if that's a reasonable, or a partisan conclusion on Barr's part. Correct?

Don't know where you heard that. It is likely wrong, as much of the MSM has been over the past two years........

Here is an excerpt from the letter:

The Special Counsel's investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election. As the report states: "[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."

Do you know what the quotations mean?

Words matter.
"Did not find that there was collusion" does not necessarily mean the same thing as "Found that there was no collusion"
"Did not find" could also mean that there was no conclusion offered around it. Whereas, "found that there was no collusion" is a lot more affirmative and means that there was a conclusion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is what I don’t get. I still don’t get how trump & others think it was a witch hunt. The things trump said & did ‘Russia- get the emails’ was enough to raise suspicion. There had to be an investigation. The fact that it didn’t find any collusion proves it was the opposite of a witch hunt. It proves they followed the facts.

And the fact that there were 34 criminal indictments and evidence that Russia did tamper with our election makes it anything but a witch hunt. Stupid how the one and only thing they care about is protecting Trump but don't care one whit about protecting America and turn a blind eye to all of the other crimes that were uncovered.

This needs to be repeated over and over and over again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is what I don’t get. I still don’t get how trump & others think it was a witch hunt. The things trump said & did ‘Russia- get the emails’ was enough to raise suspicion. There had to be an investigation. The fact that it didn’t find any collusion proves it was the opposite of a witch hunt. It proves they followed the facts.

And the fact that there were 34 criminal indictments and evidence that Russia did tamper with our election makes it anything but a witch hunt. Stupid how the one and only thing they care about is protecting Trump but don't care one whit about protecting America and turn a blind eye to all of the other crimes that were uncovered.

This needs to be repeated over and over and over again.

It has been. On this site. Over and over and over and over.
Remember that of those 34 people indicted, only 6 of them were associated with Trump. And the crimes for which they were convicted or pleaded guilty were mostly crimes committed years ago or process crimes such as lying to investigators - a crime that would not have happened without the investigations.

The vast majority of the indictments were for Russians who will never see the inside of an American prison. And, it did not take a special counsel to identify these people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I heard is that Mueller did not make a conclusion in his report. He compiled the evidence and told Barr to reach his own conclusions. And Barr has decided his boss is not guilty. So once we read the report for ourselves (ahem) we can know if that's a reasonable, or a partisan conclusion on Barr's part. Correct?

Don't know where you heard that. It is likely wrong, as much of the MSM has been over the past two years........

Here is an excerpt from the letter:

The Special Counsel's investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election. As the report states: "[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."

Do you know what the quotations mean?

Words matter.
"Did not find that there was collusion" does not necessarily mean the same thing as "Found that there was no collusion"
"Did not find" could also mean that there was no conclusion offered around it. Whereas, "found that there was no collusion" is a lot more affirmative and means that there was a conclusion.

So, I will pose a question similar to what we have heard from liberals over the past two years.......
When the bulk of Mueller's report is released (and most of it will be), will you be able to admit that Mueller found that neither Trump, his campaign, nor anyone associated with him colluded with Russia to influence the election?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I heard is that Mueller did not make a conclusion in his report. He compiled the evidence and told Barr to reach his own conclusions. And Barr has decided his boss is not guilty. So once we read the report for ourselves (ahem) we can know if that's a reasonable, or a partisan conclusion on Barr's part. Correct?

Don't know where you heard that. It is likely wrong, as much of the MSM has been over the past two years........

Here is an excerpt from the letter:

The Special Counsel's investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election. As the report states: "[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."

Do you know what the quotations mean?

And footnotes... The use of the phrase Russian "government" is very important. Much of the election meddling stuff we know about was done through private actors, not govt employees. Also that's some very interesting out of context phrasing

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is what I don’t get. I still don’t get how trump & others think it was a witch hunt. The things trump said & did ‘Russia- get the emails’ was enough to raise suspicion. There had to be an investigation. The fact that it didn’t find any collusion proves it was the opposite of a witch hunt. It proves they followed the facts.

And the fact that there were 34 criminal indictments and evidence that Russia did tamper with our election makes it anything but a witch hunt. Stupid how the one and only thing they care about is protecting Trump but don't care one whit about protecting America and turn a blind eye to all of the other crimes that were uncovered.

This needs to be repeated over and over and over again.

You all know Trump is far from careful with his words. When he calls it a witch hunt, he is referring to HIS involvement with Russia. Did anyone not know that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is what I don’t get. I still don’t get how trump & others think it was a witch hunt. The things trump said & did ‘Russia- get the emails’ was enough to raise suspicion. There had to be an investigation. The fact that it didn’t find any collusion proves it was the opposite of a witch hunt. It proves they followed the facts.

And the fact that there were 34 criminal indictments and evidence that Russia did tamper with our election makes it anything but a witch hunt. Stupid how the one and only thing they care about is protecting Trump but don't care one whit about protecting America and turn a blind eye to all of the other crimes that were uncovered.

This needs to be repeated over and over and over again.

You all know Trump is far from careful with his words. When he calls it a witch hunt, he is referring to HIS involvement with Russia. Did anyone not know that?

No, they don't know that. Or, they won't admit it. They are desperately trying to prove something that Mueller was unable to after two years and unlimited resources - that Trump colluded with Russia.
They won't let it go. And, it will be their downfall.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is what I don’t get. I still don’t get how trump & others think it was a witch hunt. The things trump said & did ‘Russia- get the emails’ was enough to raise suspicion. There had to be an investigation. The fact that it didn’t find any collusion proves it was the opposite of a witch hunt. It proves they followed the facts.

And the fact that there were 34 criminal indictments and evidence that Russia did tamper with our election makes it anything but a witch hunt. Stupid how the one and only thing they care about is protecting Trump but don't care one whit about protecting America and turn a blind eye to all of the other crimes that were uncovered.

This needs to be repeated over and over and over again.

You all know Trump is far from careful with his words. When he calls it a witch hunt, he is referring to HIS involvement with Russia. Did anyone not know that?

Why is he, personally, the only thing that matters? Serious crimes were committed, and brought to light by the Mueller investigation. Serious crimes involving Trump's inner circle. Serious crimes involving hostile foreign agents and the integrity of American democracy.

So Rover didn't get into the kitchen trash, what a good boy. But you're all willfully ignoring the big steaming, stinking turds on the livingroom carpet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I heard is that Mueller did not make a conclusion in his report. He compiled the evidence and told Barr to reach his own conclusions. And Barr has decided his boss is not guilty. So once we read the report for ourselves (ahem) we can know if that's a reasonable, or a partisan conclusion on Barr's part. Correct?

Don't know where you heard that. It is likely wrong, as much of the MSM has been over the past two years........

Here is an excerpt from the letter:

The Special Counsel's investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election. As the report states: "[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."

Do you know what the quotations mean?

You know the bolded is very specific. What about other Russians, the Israelis, the Saudi's and the Chinese?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I heard is that Mueller did not make a conclusion in his report. He compiled the evidence and told Barr to reach his own conclusions. And Barr has decided his boss is not guilty. So once we read the report for ourselves (ahem) we can know if that's a reasonable, or a partisan conclusion on Barr's part. Correct?

Don't know where you heard that. It is likely wrong, as much of the MSM has been over the past two years........

Here is an excerpt from the letter:

The Special Counsel's investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election. As the report states: "[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."

Do you know what the quotations mean?

Words matter.
"Did not find that there was collusion" does not necessarily mean the same thing as "Found that there was no collusion"
"Did not find" could also mean that there was no conclusion offered around it. Whereas, "found that there was no collusion" is a lot more affirmative and means that there was a conclusion.

So, I will pose a question similar to what we have heard from liberals over the past two years.......
When the bulk of Mueller's report is released (and most of it will be), will you be able to admit that Mueller found that neither Trump, his campaign, nor anyone associated with him colluded with Russia to influence the election?

DP, but that’s not what the reporting has said so far. I realize English grammar and logical reasoning may not be your strong suit, but there is a meaningful difference between “did not find evidence it happened” and “found evidence it didn’t happen.” You may not appreciate that, but Inassure you, Mueller does.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I heard is that Mueller did not make a conclusion in his report. He compiled the evidence and told Barr to reach his own conclusions. And Barr has decided his boss is not guilty. So once we read the report for ourselves (ahem) we can know if that's a reasonable, or a partisan conclusion on Barr's part. Correct?

Don't know where you heard that. It is likely wrong, as much of the MSM has been over the past two years........

Here is an excerpt from the letter:

The Special Counsel's investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election. As the report states: "[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."

Do you know what the quotations mean?

Words matter.
"Did not find that there was collusion" does not necessarily mean the same thing as "Found that there was no collusion"
"Did not find" could also mean that there was no conclusion offered around it. Whereas, "found that there was no collusion" is a lot more affirmative and means that there was a conclusion.

So, I will pose a question similar to what we have heard from liberals over the past two years.......
When the bulk of Mueller's report is released (and most of it will be), will you be able to admit that Mueller found that neither Trump, his campaign, nor anyone associated with him colluded with Russia to influence the election?

If that is what the Mueller report says, then sure, But unless or until that happens, there is still a cloud hanging out there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is what I don’t get. I still don’t get how trump & others think it was a witch hunt. The things trump said & did ‘Russia- get the emails’ was enough to raise suspicion. There had to be an investigation. The fact that it didn’t find any collusion proves it was the opposite of a witch hunt. It proves they followed the facts.

And the fact that there were 34 criminal indictments and evidence that Russia did tamper with our election makes it anything but a witch hunt. Stupid how the one and only thing they care about is protecting Trump but don't care one whit about protecting America and turn a blind eye to all of the other crimes that were uncovered.

This needs to be repeated over and over and over again.

You all know Trump is far from careful with his words. When he calls it a witch hunt, he is referring to HIS involvement with Russia. Did anyone not know that?

Why is he, personally, the only thing that matters? Serious crimes were committed, and brought to light by the Mueller investigation. Serious crimes involving Trump's inner circle. Serious crimes involving hostile foreign agents and the integrity of American democracy.

So Rover didn't get into the kitchen trash, what a good boy. But you're all willfully ignoring the big steaming, stinking turds on the livingroom carpet.

Seriously, every time a Trumpster wants to try and do a victory lap with the Mueller investigation they need to have their noses rubbed in that turd.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I heard is that Mueller did not make a conclusion in his report. He compiled the evidence and told Barr to reach his own conclusions. And Barr has decided his boss is not guilty. So once we read the report for ourselves (ahem) we can know if that's a reasonable, or a partisan conclusion on Barr's part. Correct?

Don't know where you heard that. It is likely wrong, as much of the MSM has been over the past two years........

Here is an excerpt from the letter:

The Special Counsel's investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election. As the report states: "[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."

Do you know what the quotations mean?

Words matter.
"Did not find that there was collusion" does not necessarily mean the same thing as "Found that there was no collusion"
"Did not find" could also mean that there was no conclusion offered around it. Whereas, "found that there was no collusion" is a lot more affirmative and means that there was a conclusion.

So, I will pose a question similar to what we have heard from liberals over the past two years.......
When the bulk of Mueller's report is released (and most of it will be), will you be able to admit that Mueller found that neither Trump, his campaign, nor anyone associated with him colluded with Russia to influence the election?

Jusst so you know there are some carefully chosen words in Barr's statement. "Establish" means something specific. So does the capitalization of 'Campaign" and "Russian Government". For instance, in plain English that sentence says, The report does not prove intent by paid Campaign officials to conspire with officials of the Russian government. Putting aside the intent portion, Rodger Stone and Guccifer2.0 are both not included in that statement.