Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mueller chose to not subpoena Trump because it would delay the investigation and they already had plenty of evidence.

This suggests that Mueller wanted to end the investigation so it could be sent to Congress since they are the ones with the power to act against Trump.

Or....
This suggests that he found there was no collusion or conspiracy, so why continue the investigation?

There is nowhere in the Mueller Report that says there was no collusion and no obstruction.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In over 400 pages of his report, at no point does Mueller assert that he could find probable cause to charge President Trump (or any of Trump's family members) with any crime.

That is the legal standard in America that governs all criminal prosecutions. The prosecution must show that probable cause exists to believe the defendant committed the crime. Probable cause is a very low level of evidence, it is just the minimum to bring criminal charges. Even if there is probable cause, the defendant is still presumed innocent until proved guilty by a jury of 12, beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Mueller report doesn't come close to making a finding of probable cause as to a single alleged "crime" by President Trump.

There is no such standard of "we were unable to prove the President did NOT commit a crime" in American jurisprudence. It is not a relevant statement by the Mueller team. Similar is "we did not exonerate him". That is an imaginary legal standard which simply does not exist.

Where did you go to law school?

Wikipedia. I wish Robert Mueller had gone there too:

Probable cause

In United States criminal law, probable cause is the standard by which police authorities have reason to obtain a warrant for the arrest of a suspected criminal or the issuing of a search warrant. It is also the standard by which grand juries issue criminal indictments. The principle behind the standard is to limit the power of authorities to perform random or abusive searches (unlawful search and seizure), and to promote lawful evidence gathering and procedural form during criminal arrest and prosecution. The standard also applies to personal or property searches.[1]

The term comes from the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The written Mueller Report as well as the presser he gave specifically addresses what you (falsely) claim. If you actually read it, you will see how banal your post is. And citing Wikipedia for a case that involved an investigation of the President of the United States is plain stupidity.

Read the report.

Exoneration. Read it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In over 400 pages of his report, at no point does Mueller assert that he could find probable cause to charge President Trump (or any of Trump's family members) with any crime.

That is the legal standard in America that governs all criminal prosecutions. The prosecution must show that probable cause exists to believe the defendant committed the crime. Probable cause is a very low level of evidence, it is just the minimum to bring criminal charges. Even if there is probable cause, the defendant is still presumed innocent until proved guilty by a jury of 12, beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Mueller report doesn't come close to making a finding of probable cause as to a single alleged "crime" by President Trump.

There is no such standard of "we were unable to prove the President did NOT commit a crime" in American jurisprudence. It is not a relevant statement by the Mueller team. Similar is "we did not exonerate him". That is an imaginary legal standard which simply does not exist.

Where did you go to law school?

Wikipedia. I wish Robert Mueller had gone there too:

Probable cause

In United States criminal law, probable cause is the standard by which police authorities have reason to obtain a warrant for the arrest of a suspected criminal or the issuing of a search warrant. It is also the standard by which grand juries issue criminal indictments. The principle behind the standard is to limit the power of authorities to perform random or abusive searches (unlawful search and seizure), and to promote lawful evidence gathering and procedural form during criminal arrest and prosecution. The standard also applies to personal or property searches.[1]

The term comes from the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The written Mueller Report as well as the presser he gave specifically addresses what you (falsely) claim. If you actually read it, you will see how banal your post is. And citing Wikipedia for a case that involved an investigation of the President of the United States is plain stupidity.

Read the report.

Exoneration. Read it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In over 400 pages of his report, at no point does Mueller assert that he could find probable cause to charge President Trump (or any of Trump's family members) with any crime.

That is the legal standard in America that governs all criminal prosecutions. The prosecution must show that probable cause exists to believe the defendant committed the crime. Probable cause is a very low level of evidence, it is just the minimum to bring criminal charges. Even if there is probable cause, the defendant is still presumed innocent until proved guilty by a jury of 12, beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Mueller report doesn't come close to making a finding of probable cause as to a single alleged "crime" by President Trump.

There is no such standard of "we were unable to prove the President did NOT commit a crime" in American jurisprudence. It is not a relevant statement by the Mueller team. Similar is "we did not exonerate him". That is an imaginary legal standard which simply does not exist.

Where did you go to law school?

Wikipedia. I wish Robert Mueller had gone there too:

Probable cause

In United States criminal law, probable cause is the standard by which police authorities have reason to obtain a warrant for the arrest of a suspected criminal or the issuing of a search warrant. It is also the standard by which grand juries issue criminal indictments. The principle behind the standard is to limit the power of authorities to perform random or abusive searches (unlawful search and seizure), and to promote lawful evidence gathering and procedural form during criminal arrest and prosecution. The standard also applies to personal or property searches.[1]

The term comes from the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The written Mueller Report as well as the presser he gave specifically addresses what you (falsely) claim. If you actually read it, you will see how banal your post is. And citing Wikipedia for a case that involved an investigation of the President of the United States is plain stupidity.

Read the report.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mueller chose to not subpoena Trump because it would delay the investigation and they already had plenty of evidence.

This suggests that Mueller wanted to end the investigation so it could be sent to Congress since they are the ones with the power to act against Trump.

Or....
This suggests that he found there was no collusion or conspiracy, so why continue the investigation?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In over 400 pages of his report, at no point does Mueller assert that he could find probable cause to charge President Trump (or any of Trump's family members) with any crime.

That is the legal standard in America that governs all criminal prosecutions. The prosecution must show that probable cause exists to believe the defendant committed the crime. Probable cause is a very low level of evidence, it is just the minimum to bring criminal charges. Even if there is probable cause, the defendant is still presumed innocent until proved guilty by a jury of 12, beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Mueller report doesn't come close to making a finding of probable cause as to a single alleged "crime" by President Trump.

There is no such standard of "we were unable to prove the President did NOT commit a crime" in American jurisprudence. It is not a relevant statement by the Mueller team. Similar is "we did not exonerate him". That is an imaginary legal standard which simply does not exist.

Where did you go to law school?

Wikipedia. I wish Robert Mueller had gone there too:

Probable cause

In United States criminal law, probable cause is the standard by which police authorities have reason to obtain a warrant for the arrest of a suspected criminal or the issuing of a search warrant. It is also the standard by which grand juries issue criminal indictments. The principle behind the standard is to limit the power of authorities to perform random or abusive searches (unlawful search and seizure), and to promote lawful evidence gathering and procedural form during criminal arrest and prosecution. The standard also applies to personal or property searches.[1]

The term comes from the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More curious omissions from Mueller's report.......

In a key finding of the Mueller report, Ukrainian businessman Konstantin Kilimnik, who worked for Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, is tied to Russian intelligence.

But hundreds of pages of government documents — which Mueller possessed since 2018 — describe Kilimnik as a “sensitive” intelligence source for the U.S. State Department who informed on Ukrainian and Russian matters.

Why special counsel Robert Mueller’s team omitted that part of the Kilimnik narrative from their report and related court filings is not known. But the revelation of it comes as the accuracy of Mueller’s Russia conclusions face increased scrutiny.

The incomplete portrayal of Kilimnik is so important to Mueller’s overall narrative that it is raised in the opening of his report. “The FBI assesses” Kilimnik “to have ties to Russian intelligence,” Mueller’s team wrote on page 6, putting a sinister light on every contact Kilimnik had with Manafort, the former Trump campaign chairman.

What it doesn’t state is that Kilimnik was a “sensitive” intelligence source for State going back to at least 2013 while he was still working for Manafort, according to FBI and State Department memos I reviewed.

Kilimnik was not just any run-of-the-mill source, either.

He interacted with the chief political officer at the U.S. embassy in Kiev, sometimes meeting several times a week to provide information on the Ukraine government. He relayed messages back to Ukraine’s leaders and delivered written reports to U.S. officials via emails that stretched on for thousands of words, the memos show.

The FBI knew all of this, well before the Mueller investigation concluded.

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/447394-key-figure-that-mueller-report-linked-to-russia-was-a-state-department

In that case, it's totally reasonable that Manafort provided campaign information to Kilimnik.

Oh wait...

Why did Mueller omit that Kilimnik was a sensitive intelligence source for the State Dept.?

Because it's not relevant. Manafort wasn't using Kilimnik to communicate with State.

Nor does it somehow make Manafort's actions okay. Think about it for a minute. A campaign manager of a presidential candidate is providing campaign information to a foreign national, a pro-Russia Ukrainian. Why? It's hard to think of any good reason for this. Can you?

Yet, Mueller claims this man has ties to Russian intelligence, but says nothing of his ties to US intelligence?
This is a problem. How much other information was omitted?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More curious omissions from Mueller's report.......

In a key finding of the Mueller report, Ukrainian businessman Konstantin Kilimnik, who worked for Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, is tied to Russian intelligence.

But hundreds of pages of government documents — which Mueller possessed since 2018 — describe Kilimnik as a “sensitive” intelligence source for the U.S. State Department who informed on Ukrainian and Russian matters.

Why special counsel Robert Mueller’s team omitted that part of the Kilimnik narrative from their report and related court filings is not known. But the revelation of it comes as the accuracy of Mueller’s Russia conclusions face increased scrutiny.

The incomplete portrayal of Kilimnik is so important to Mueller’s overall narrative that it is raised in the opening of his report. “The FBI assesses” Kilimnik “to have ties to Russian intelligence,” Mueller’s team wrote on page 6, putting a sinister light on every contact Kilimnik had with Manafort, the former Trump campaign chairman.

What it doesn’t state is that Kilimnik was a “sensitive” intelligence source for State going back to at least 2013 while he was still working for Manafort, according to FBI and State Department memos I reviewed.

Kilimnik was not just any run-of-the-mill source, either.

He interacted with the chief political officer at the U.S. embassy in Kiev, sometimes meeting several times a week to provide information on the Ukraine government. He relayed messages back to Ukraine’s leaders and delivered written reports to U.S. officials via emails that stretched on for thousands of words, the memos show.

The FBI knew all of this, well before the Mueller investigation concluded.

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/447394-key-figure-that-mueller-report-linked-to-russia-was-a-state-department

In that case, it's totally reasonable that Manafort provided campaign information to Kilimnik.

Oh wait...

Why did Mueller omit that Kilimnik was a sensitive intelligence source for the State Dept.?

Because it's not relevant. Manafort wasn't using Kilimnik to communicate with State.

Nor does it somehow make Manafort's actions okay. Think about it for a minute. A campaign manager of a presidential candidate is providing campaign information to a foreign national, a pro-Russia Ukrainian. Why? It's hard to think of any good reason for this. Can you?

Yet, Mueller claims this man has ties to Russian intelligence, but says nothing of his ties to US intelligence?
This is a problem. How much other information was omitted?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More curious omissions from Mueller's report.......

In a key finding of the Mueller report, Ukrainian businessman Konstantin Kilimnik, who worked for Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, is tied to Russian intelligence.

But hundreds of pages of government documents — which Mueller possessed since 2018 — describe Kilimnik as a “sensitive” intelligence source for the U.S. State Department who informed on Ukrainian and Russian matters.

Why special counsel Robert Mueller’s team omitted that part of the Kilimnik narrative from their report and related court filings is not known. But the revelation of it comes as the accuracy of Mueller’s Russia conclusions face increased scrutiny.

The incomplete portrayal of Kilimnik is so important to Mueller’s overall narrative that it is raised in the opening of his report. “The FBI assesses” Kilimnik “to have ties to Russian intelligence,” Mueller’s team wrote on page 6, putting a sinister light on every contact Kilimnik had with Manafort, the former Trump campaign chairman.

What it doesn’t state is that Kilimnik was a “sensitive” intelligence source for State going back to at least 2013 while he was still working for Manafort, according to FBI and State Department memos I reviewed.

Kilimnik was not just any run-of-the-mill source, either.

He interacted with the chief political officer at the U.S. embassy in Kiev, sometimes meeting several times a week to provide information on the Ukraine government. He relayed messages back to Ukraine’s leaders and delivered written reports to U.S. officials via emails that stretched on for thousands of words, the memos show.

The FBI knew all of this, well before the Mueller investigation concluded.

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/447394-key-figure-that-mueller-report-linked-to-russia-was-a-state-department

In that case, it's totally reasonable that Manafort provided campaign information to Kilimnik.

Oh wait...

Why did Mueller omit that Kilimnik was a sensitive intelligence source for the State Dept.?

Because it's not relevant. Manafort wasn't using Kilimnik to communicate with State.

Nor does it somehow make Manafort's actions okay. Think about it for a minute. A campaign manager of a presidential candidate is providing campaign information to a foreign national, a pro-Russia Ukrainian. Why? It's hard to think of any good reason for this. Can you?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More curious omissions from Mueller's report.......

In a key finding of the Mueller report, Ukrainian businessman Konstantin Kilimnik, who worked for Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, is tied to Russian intelligence.

But hundreds of pages of government documents — which Mueller possessed since 2018 — describe Kilimnik as a “sensitive” intelligence source for the U.S. State Department who informed on Ukrainian and Russian matters.

Why special counsel Robert Mueller’s team omitted that part of the Kilimnik narrative from their report and related court filings is not known. But the revelation of it comes as the accuracy of Mueller’s Russia conclusions face increased scrutiny.

The incomplete portrayal of Kilimnik is so important to Mueller’s overall narrative that it is raised in the opening of his report. “The FBI assesses” Kilimnik “to have ties to Russian intelligence,” Mueller’s team wrote on page 6, putting a sinister light on every contact Kilimnik had with Manafort, the former Trump campaign chairman.

What it doesn’t state is that Kilimnik was a “sensitive” intelligence source for State going back to at least 2013 while he was still working for Manafort, according to FBI and State Department memos I reviewed.

Kilimnik was not just any run-of-the-mill source, either.

He interacted with the chief political officer at the U.S. embassy in Kiev, sometimes meeting several times a week to provide information on the Ukraine government. He relayed messages back to Ukraine’s leaders and delivered written reports to U.S. officials via emails that stretched on for thousands of words, the memos show.

The FBI knew all of this, well before the Mueller investigation concluded.

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/447394-key-figure-that-mueller-report-linked-to-russia-was-a-state-department

In that case, it's totally reasonable that Manafort provided campaign information to Kilimnik.

Oh wait...

Why did Mueller omit that Kilimnik was a sensitive intelligence source for the State Dept.?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More curious omissions from Mueller's report.......

In a key finding of the Mueller report, Ukrainian businessman Konstantin Kilimnik, who worked for Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, is tied to Russian intelligence.

But hundreds of pages of government documents — which Mueller possessed since 2018 — describe Kilimnik as a “sensitive” intelligence source for the U.S. State Department who informed on Ukrainian and Russian matters.

Why special counsel Robert Mueller’s team omitted that part of the Kilimnik narrative from their report and related court filings is not known. But the revelation of it comes as the accuracy of Mueller’s Russia conclusions face increased scrutiny.

The incomplete portrayal of Kilimnik is so important to Mueller’s overall narrative that it is raised in the opening of his report. “The FBI assesses” Kilimnik “to have ties to Russian intelligence,” Mueller’s team wrote on page 6, putting a sinister light on every contact Kilimnik had with Manafort, the former Trump campaign chairman.

What it doesn’t state is that Kilimnik was a “sensitive” intelligence source for State going back to at least 2013 while he was still working for Manafort, according to FBI and State Department memos I reviewed.

Kilimnik was not just any run-of-the-mill source, either.

He interacted with the chief political officer at the U.S. embassy in Kiev, sometimes meeting several times a week to provide information on the Ukraine government. He relayed messages back to Ukraine’s leaders and delivered written reports to U.S. officials via emails that stretched on for thousands of words, the memos show.

The FBI knew all of this, well before the Mueller investigation concluded.

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/447394-key-figure-that-mueller-report-linked-to-russia-was-a-state-department

In that case, it's totally reasonable that Manafort provided campaign information to Kilimnik.

Oh wait...

Anonymous wrote:More curious omissions from Mueller's report.......

In a key finding of the Mueller report, Ukrainian businessman Konstantin Kilimnik, who worked for Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, is tied to Russian intelligence.

But hundreds of pages of government documents — which Mueller possessed since 2018 — describe Kilimnik as a “sensitive” intelligence source for the U.S. State Department who informed on Ukrainian and Russian matters.

Why special counsel Robert Mueller’s team omitted that part of the Kilimnik narrative from their report and related court filings is not known. But the revelation of it comes as the accuracy of Mueller’s Russia conclusions face increased scrutiny.

The incomplete portrayal of Kilimnik is so important to Mueller’s overall narrative that it is raised in the opening of his report. “The FBI assesses” Kilimnik “to have ties to Russian intelligence,” Mueller’s team wrote on page 6, putting a sinister light on every contact Kilimnik had with Manafort, the former Trump campaign chairman.

What it doesn’t state is that Kilimnik was a “sensitive” intelligence source for State going back to at least 2013 while he was still working for Manafort, according to FBI and State Department memos I reviewed.

Kilimnik was not just any run-of-the-mill source, either.

He interacted with the chief political officer at the U.S. embassy in Kiev, sometimes meeting several times a week to provide information on the Ukraine government. He relayed messages back to Ukraine’s leaders and delivered written reports to U.S. officials via emails that stretched on for thousands of words, the memos show.

The FBI knew all of this, well before the Mueller investigation concluded.

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/447394-key-figure-that-mueller-report-linked-to-russia-was-a-state-department