Mueller does not find Trump campaign knowingly conspired with Russia

[Anonymous]

The Roger Stone / Wikileaks trial is only just starting. We don't have Guccifer, Fancy Bear, et cetera. Some of this could take years and years to finally learn all of the truth of it.

[Anonymous]

Barr would have made this conclusion no matter what the report has in it...

He telegraphed his conclusion when he applied for the job...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So, you are saying that Trump is a master mind along with those on his campaign. They were able to collude with Russia and manage to keep this hidden from the person who led a 2-year investigation with 19 high-power lawyers and 40 hand-picked FBI agents.
Good to know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Barr would have made this conclusion no matter what the report has in it...

He telegraphed his conclusion when he applied for the job...

Yep, he already had the letter written before he even got Mueller's report.

[Anonymous]

Which personality got it the MOST embarrassingly wrong?

Make your pick now!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Not only do they not want to acknowledge the gross criminal wrongdoing they somehow think that all that history has somehow been reversed. They are out there saying "poor Mike Flynn" - Mike Flynn plead GUILTY. He admitted guilt. End of story.

[Anonymous]

I know some of you poo-poo this, but for those with an open mind, this shows how Barr may have conflated and parsed to the extreme to come to the conclusion that exonerates Trump:

https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/1110266463506567168

Is it 100% accurate? None of us will know unless or until the Mueller report is made public, but it makes enough sense to leave doubt over Barr's very partisan objectives. The fact that Barr and McConnell are now fighting to keep the Mueller report out of public light leaves enough doubt that further exacerbates divisiveness in our country. The only way to address that is through transparency. Why won't McConnell and Barr be transparent?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So, you are saying that Trump is a master mind along with those on his campaign. They were able to collude with Russia and manage to keep this hidden from the person who led a 2-year investigation with 19 high-power lawyers and 40 hand-picked FBI agents.
Good to know.

No, I think he was too stupid (we know he isn't ethical) to collude. I'm just pointing out that Barr's statement isn't as expansive as you claim it is and finding evidence of collusion is not the same as proving intent to conspire.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I know some of you poo-poo this, but for those with an open mind, this shows how Barr may have conflated and parsed to the extreme to come to the conclusion that exonerates Trump:

https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/1110266463506567168

Is it 100% accurate? None of us will know unless or until the Mueller report is made public, but it makes enough sense to leave doubt over Barr's very partisan objectives. The fact that Barr and McConnell are now fighting to keep the Mueller report out of public light leaves enough doubt that further exacerbates divisiveness in our country. The only way to address that is through transparency. Why won't McConnell and Barr be transparent?

We "poo-poo" it because it's Seth Abramson - a huge conspiracy theorist. He attempts to connect dots where none exist.
I can't believe after all that has come out that people still read what he writes.

[Anonymous]

Ok folks, now we know no one in Trump's campaign colluded with Russia.

But there are hundreds of other countries out there, and millions of other planets and galaxies, so I say we keep the funny conspiracy theories going on until Mueller can investigate each rock in the universe.

It's only fair. What if Trump conspired with some Jupiter Martians?

Investigate we must.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know some of you poo-poo this, but for those with an open mind, this shows how Barr may have conflated and parsed to the extreme to come to the conclusion that exonerates Trump:

https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/1110266463506567168

Is it 100% accurate? None of us will know unless or until the Mueller report is made public, but it makes enough sense to leave doubt over Barr's very partisan objectives. The fact that Barr and McConnell are now fighting to keep the Mueller report out of public light leaves enough doubt that further exacerbates divisiveness in our country. The only way to address that is through transparency. Why won't McConnell and Barr be transparent?

We "poo-poo" it because it's Seth Abramson - a huge conspiracy theorist. He attempts to connect dots where none exist.
I can't believe after all that has come out that people still read what he writes.

So you fully support the transparency required to know if his conspiracy read of Barr's letter is accurate or not?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ok folks, now we know no one in Trump's campaign colluded with Russia.

But there are hundreds of other countries out there, and millions of other planets and galaxies, so I say we keep the funny conspiracy theories going on until Mueller can investigate each rock in the universe.

It's only fair. What if Trump conspired with some Jupiter Martians?

Investigate we must.

That isn't what Barr's letter said. He said "Russian Government." There are other Russians whose names have come up in the investigation who are not technically part of the government. How about we see the report so we can fully understand what was, or was not, discovered.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know some of you poo-poo this, but for those with an open mind, this shows how Barr may have conflated and parsed to the extreme to come to the conclusion that exonerates Trump:

https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/1110266463506567168

Is it 100% accurate? None of us will know unless or until the Mueller report is made public, but it makes enough sense to leave doubt over Barr's very partisan objectives. The fact that Barr and McConnell are now fighting to keep the Mueller report out of public light leaves enough doubt that further exacerbates divisiveness in our country. The only way to address that is through transparency. Why won't McConnell and Barr be transparent?

We "poo-poo" it because it's Seth Abramson - a huge conspiracy theorist. He attempts to connect dots where none exist.
I can't believe after all that has come out that people still read what he writes.

So you fully support the transparency required to know if his conspiracy read of Barr's letter is accurate or not?

I fully support the release of Mueller's report as allowed by law. Some things cannot be released.
Who doesn't support this?

[Anonymous]

Trump was saved by his stupidity and arrogance. He and his campaign and White House were deemed to be too disorganized and impulsive to commit to and execute a conspiracy. On obstruction of justice, Trump was saved by being such a fool that he said it and tweeted it all publicly, which proves he is too much of a buffoon to execute a criminal conspiracy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Trump was saved by his stupidity and arrogance. He and his campaign and White House were deemed to be too disorganized and impulsive to commit to and execute a conspiracy. On obstruction of justice, Trump was saved by being such a fool that he said it and tweeted it all publicly, which proves he is too much of a buffoon to execute a criminal conspiracy.

Inform your fellow liberals of your views.
Some of them seem to think that he is such a master mind that he has pulled the wool over Mueller's eyes. In their view - he colluded but Mueller couldn't prove it.

The liberal take on this whole investigation is hysterical!