Mueller Delivers Report on Russia Investigation to Attorney General

[Spurs Homer]

The White House Will Fight McGahn Subpoena Because His Public Testimony Could Be a Knockout Blow


https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...er-bullet.html

obstruction of justice in plain sight all over again

no republicans will make a stand


and

trump white house cannot claim exec privilege now
mcgahn already was allowed (as were all other witnesses) to testify

the exec privilege boat sailed already

[boutons_deux]

Trump is putting himself in even more legal jeopardy by retaliating against witnesses: Ex-Nixon lawyer

now the president could be putting himself in even greater legal jeopardy by retaliating against witnesses in the probe.

Trump’s post-Mueller strategy of seeking revenge against people who cooperated with the probe seems “risky” and could put him in further legal jeopardy.

“I find it surprising because he’s taking these shots at witnesses who gave information to Mueller, and I think he’s got to be careful because

there’s an explicit federal statute punishing retaliation against witnesses,”

Trump so far has publicly attacked former White House counsel Don McGahn over his testimony in the Mueller probe, and

he has also tried to intimidate former “fixer” Michael Cohen by suggesting that his father-in-law should be prosecuted for crimes.

https://www.rawstory.com/2019/04/trump-putting-even-legal-jeopardy-retaliating-witnesses-ex-nixon-lawyer/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaig n=Feed%3A+TheRawStory+%28The+Raw+Story%29

[RandomGuy]

From what Mueller's investigators, who no longer have to keep silent, have to say, you are not going to like what comes out of the final report.

I thought you would have learned something after finding out you fell for two years worth of bull , there is still time though. Out of all the Russiagate pushers I believe you will be the first to admit you were wrong the entire time. All the others will just pretend it didn't happen or just stop posting all together.

Be wary of anonymous reports alleging Mueller's team is unhappy

"Members of special counsel Robert Mueller’s team say Attorney General William Barr has soft-pedaled their investigation into whether the Trump campaign conspired with Russia during the 2016 election and whether the president committed an obstruction-of-justice offense, according to the New York Times and the Washington Post.

Be wary of these reports. We have spent the last two years watching similarly momentous Russian collusion “scoops” fall apart and from the exact same newsrooms."

"Like the Times, the Post’s article doesn’t directly quote or even paraphrase members of Mueller's team. Rather, the article attributes its findings to “people familiar with the matter,” “two people familiar with their reactions,” and “people familiar with their responses.”

You’ll forgive my skepticism. I’m going to wait until someone goes on the record or provides evidence to back up what these unnamed “government officials” suggest. That's based on the track record of such anonymous Mueller bombs s, which previously guaranteed prosecutions or even impeachment."

"The “familiar” sources declined to elaborate what, specifically, Barr downplayed. We don’t even know how many members of the special counsel’s team allegedly feel this way. There’s also nothing in either report indicating that the sources have even glimpsed the Mueller report. All we know is that “government officials” who are “familiar” with other people’s thinking claim certain members of the special counsel’s team are supposedly upset with Barr’s assessment of their work. Upset about what, exactly, we don’t know.

Meanwhile, Mueller himself has not disputed Barr's assessment. And Mueller has gone on the record before to refute mischaracterizations of his team’s findings. If Barr has undersold the special counsel’s investigation, Mueller has picked a funny time to go silent."

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/o...r-team-members

Barr distorted what was in the report, and glossed over the worst of it.

Let me know when you actually read the whole thing.

[spurraider21]

Barr distorted what was in the report, and glossed over the worst of it.

Let me know when you actually read the whole thing.

see post #1903

https://www.spurstalk.com/forums/sho...=1#post9782553

what are your thoughts TSA?

[RandomGuy]

... he tried to obstruct but luckily the people around him were ethical enough not to ge along with it

The thing is that people outright had to REFUSE to break the law as Trump ORDERED them to do.

Even so, you rightly point out where Trump broke the law all by himself, multiple times.

[pgardn]

Wallace is basically average.

Relatively speaking though - on FOX news - he stands out because everyone else is basically a certified Trump cult member. Wallace is also in the Cult - but he is 80-90% invested in the Cult - not 100% - yet.

Or

He has started to see what a piece of criminal Trump is and is wrestling himself over it.

So you would rather see Diane Sawyer get her ass run over just because she leans more left rather than having a real interviewer, good for you

You don’t have an Fn clue you are so blinded by your ideology.

You didn’t even watch.... piece of

[pgardn]

You’re still trying so hard to pretend you’re not partisan

You need to try harder to show that you’re a true radical asshole.
I know you can do it Ive seen it before.

[boutons_deux]

Victor or Victim? Trump’s Changing Response to Mueller Report

The day after the special counsel delivered his report to the Justice Department, President Trump was ecstatic. He claimed vindication

A month later, the president’s view of the report by the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, has grown darker.

he has spent the last few days assailing it as a “total ‘hit job’” produced by “true Trump Haters, including highly conflicted Bob Mueller himself.”

His bitterness rarely seems far from the surface.

When Mr. Trump showed up in Atlanta later in the day to deliver a speech on opioid abuse, he diverted from the script at a line about stopping the drug industry from “rigging the system.”

He grew animated.

“I know all about the rigging the system because I had the system rigged on me,” he said. “I think you know what I’m talking about.”

In Mr. Trump’s world, there is a fine line between victor and victim.

The president often veers back and forth,

When the report says investigators established no conspiracy between Mr. Trump’s campaign and Russia in 2016 and makes no allegation of obstruction of justice by the president, it is right on the money.

When it offers unflattering descriptions of the president’s actions and refuses to exonerate him on obstruction, the report is dead wrong.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/24/us/politics/mueller-report-trump-administration.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

Trash is full of bull from head to toe, and spontaneously, unreflectively bull s non-stop

[Spurs Homer]

So you would rather see Diane Sawyer get her ass run over just because she leans more left rather than having a real interviewer, good for you

You don’t have an Fn clue you are so blinded by your ideology.

You didn’t even watch.... piece of

GFY

I watched it - and Wallace is ok - he was good with Mulvaney - but he could have nailed him but didn't because he is also a trumper (wallace)

He was not that good with Schiff - Schiff is consistently on point and all the "collusion evidence" in plain sight that Schiff has been pointing out - was also illustrated in the Mueller report - which confirms everything Schiff has publicly stated.

I watch Wallace every sunday and my comments were actually high praise for someone who works for FOX news.

[pgardn]

GFY

I watched it - and Wallace is ok - he was good with Mulvaney - but he could have nailed him but didn't because he is also a trumper (wallace)

He was not that good with Schiff - Schiff is consistently on point and all the "collusion evidence" in plain sight that Schiff has been pointing out - was also illustrated in the Mueller report - which confirms everything Schiff has publicly stated.

I watch Wallace every sunday and my comments were actually high praise for someone who works for FOX news.

Mulvaney was NOT on the Sunday morning show
And if you did watch this you would have commented on the actual sweat Giuliani had forming on his for head ... was amazing. Nixon like.
I only watched him on the Sunday morning show
You don’t like how he was with Schiff because Schiff is on your team.

OK is a relative term.
Who’s better?

[Spurs Homer]

Mulvaney was NOT on the Sunday morning show
And if you did watch this you would have commented on the actual sweat Giuliani had forming on his for head ... was amazing. Nixon like.
I only watched him on the Sunday morning show
You don’t like how he was with Schiff because Schiff is on your team.

OK is a relative term.
Who’s better?

yes
you are right

i tape the wallace show so i was thinking of a previous segment

yes i did catch the julie-yanni one lol

julie- yanni hit like 3 shows that day and he sweated more on meet the press

julie- yanni got more animated and more ridiculous as the day went on

chuck todd is better and jake tapper and wallace are about even

and i dont have a team you piece of

my team is “the truth”

[boutons_deux]

Laurence Tribe Says The Impeachment Process Is Already Under Way Against Trump

After the Mueller report came out with all after its astonishing revelations about the systemic and sustained Russian attack on our democracy, and

the president’s sustained efforts to obstruct inquiry into that attack,

even inquiry of a counter investigation type that would enable us better protect ourselves from going on attack in 2020,

it game clear there was no time to lose.

So that’s why I’m very much in favor of the kinds of hearings that Representative Nadler already as chairman of the judiciary is engaged in now.

They’re not called impeachment hearings

but the impeachment process for anyone

who understands what’s going on is it’s under way

but they don’t have the bumper sticker yet.

They’re looking into all of the evidence connecting the dots and as you’re earlier guests said,

putting live witnesses on the air.

So that people can see for themselves through people like Don McGahn,

just how corrupt and fundamentally criminal this president was. AND IS STILL!

And we cannot assume that public opinion will be completely impervious to that demonstration.

That’s why the president is trying to shut them all up,

trying to stonewall in this unprecedented way,

not invoking real legal privileges

but just saying I’m the president.

And I say I don’t want any of you to cooperate with Congress.
Whose congress anyway?

A bunch of pols.

It’s an astonishing exercise in arrogant obstruction of justice,

very much like but much worse than what Nixon did leading to article 3 of his articles of impeachment the article about contempt of Congress.

That’s what we’re witnessing,

we’re witnessing contempt of Congress,

contempt of law and

contempt for the American people.

https://www.politicususa.com/2019/04...nst-trump.html

[RandomGuy]

Amazing that Doug Collins didn’t read the thing yet cites it extensively showing how Nadler fed his base bull and you ate it up.

Still waiting on you to actually read it.

[boutons_deux]

“TRUMP’S FURIOUS WITH DON”: INSIDE THE PRESIDENT’S MAR-A-LAGO MELTDOWN

The president is raging against his former staff and wants to sue Don McGahn—but staff think he and his lawyers blew it.

Backstage, Trump realizes the damage the report has done, and has taken a much darker view of the post-Mueller landscape.

Trump is lashing out at former West Wing officials whom he blames for providing the lion’s share of damaging information in Mueller’s 448-page report.

The former officials Trump has vented about, sources told me, are a group known as “the notetakers” that includes former White House counsel

Don McGahn,

McGahn’s deputy Annie Donaldson, and

staff secretary Rob Porter.

“The thing that pisses him off is the note-taking,”

a former West Wing official interviewed by Mueller told me.

“Trump thinks they could have cooperated with Mueller without all the note-taking.”

Of all Trump’s former staff members,

McGahn is receiving the brunt of Trump’s post-Mueller rage.

McGahn reportedly spoke to prosecutors for 30 hours during at least three voluntary interviews.

He was cited 157 times in the report—more than any witness—and provided vivid examples of Trump’s efforts to obstruct justice,

while presenting himself as an ethical actor, a cir stance that’s always been galling for the president.

“Trump’s furious with Don,”

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/04/trump-mar-a-lago-meltdown?mbid=nl_th_5cbf936280902d6636dc52e5&CNDID =43758549&utm_source=nl&utm_brand=vf&utm_mailing=V F_Hive_032419&utm_medium=email&bxid=5bd6795524c17c 1048022fcc&user_id=43758549&hasha=992d608214b50500 3aa04bf10a595031&hashb=542eb31d958e85ddd5a4c3ccf3f aae18526a77bd&hashc=54b3612ab970ce13a64a16665b1987 080ca5b72e2ee762b722fbba6ab378f2f5&esrc=bounceX&ut m_campaign=VF_Hive_032419&utm_term=VYF_Hive

[boutons_deux]

Is Murdoch Jr letting Fox non-opinion people run looser?

Fox Analyst Napolitano Slams Trump Obstruction As ‘Criminal’ And ‘Immoral’

Napolitano on Wednesday night bashed President Donald Trump’s attempted obstruction outlined in the Mueller report, and

said that Attorney General Bill Barr was “wrong” to determine Trump didn’t obstruct justice.

Napolitano outlined special counsel Robert Mueller’s findings on the numerous attempts Trump made to impede the investigation into Russian interference,

which Napolitano called a “serious allegation of criminal activity.”

“If [Trump] had ordered his aides to violate federal law to save a human life or to preserve human freedom,

he would at least have a moral defense to his behavior,”

“But ordering them to break federal law to save him from the consequences of his own behavior?

That is immoral, that is criminal, that is defenseless, and that is condemnable.”

“On obstruction, Barr is wrong,”

“The essence of obstruction is deception or diversion — to prevent the government from finding the truth,”

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/fox-napolitano-trump-obstruction-criminal-immoral-mueller?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_ campaign=Feed%3A+tpm-news+%28TPMNews%29

[pgardn]

yes
you are right

i tape the wallace show so i was thinking of a previous segment

yes i did catch the julie-yanni one lol

julie- yanni hit like 3 shows that day and he sweated more on meet the press

julie- yanni got more animated and more ridiculous as the day went on

chuck todd is better and jake tapper and wallace are about even

and i dont have a team you piece of

my team is “the truth”

BS

You are a member of the blue team.
Lie or not

[boutons_deux]

The Press Didn’t Just Report Accurately on Trump-Russia Corruption.

It Prevented the Corruption From Being Worse.

Russia conspiracy skeptics like the Intercept’s Glenn Greenwaldand President Donald Trump are not done gloating/ranting about how “the media” allegedly embarrassed itself by reporting on seemingly improper relationships between Trump advisers and the Russian government in 2016 and 2017.

I keep reading parts of the Mueller report and finding

examples of potential Trump-Russia deals that were very likely called off because of accurate media reports.

Here are three of them!

Trump Tower Moscow.

According to the special counsel’s report, “After the media began questioning Trump’s connections to Russia, Cohen promoted a ‘party line’ that publicly distanced Trump from Russia and asserted he had no business there.”

Sanctions.

After the Washington Post broke the news of Flynn’s conversation with Kislyak, he was eventually forced out of office—and more broadly, as the New Yorker has reported, the administration’s efforts to strike a sanctions-easing agreement with Russia died because of “the looming Mueller investigation” and because “members of Congress were pushing at the time to expand sanctions against Russia, not reduce them.”

Michael Flynn’s nuclear deal.

According to Newsweek’s coverage, ACU’s breakup took place in the context of “reports … that the FBI was investigating possible collusion between the Russians and the Trump campaign.

The picture the Mueller report creates of Trump World in 2016 and early 2017 is one in which

Russia-connected figures were swarming around trying to squeeze concessions out of the campaign and administration.

And,

repeatedly, Trump’s advisers were receptive to hearing about and pursuing these plans

until being caught in the spotlight of press scrutiny and related political pressure.

No wonder he hates the media!

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...orruption.html

[boutons_deux]

Fordham Law Professor: Mueller Revealed Trump-Russia Conspiracy

Fordham University Law Professor Jed Shugerman argued that, despite the headline conclusions of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report on the Russia investigation,

the evidence shows there really was illegal conspiracy and coordination between the Trump campaign and the hostile foreign power.

He makes two clever analytical moves.

First, he points to Mueller’s implicit standard of evidence: proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

As a prosecutor who would be called upon to demonstrate his conclusions in a court of law, the former FBI director held himself to a rigorous standard for his claims: just below certainty.

Shugerman’s second analytical move comes in, arguing that

Mueller’s standards for assessing conspiracy and coordination may have been too stringent:

Even without knowing what is redacted, the report offers “substantial and credible information” of the Trump campaign conspiring or coordinating with the Russian government.

Under federal criminal law, “conspiracy” does not require direct proof or explicit words of agreement.

It can be proven by action and cir stantial evidence from which the agreement may be inferred.

And on campaign “coordination,”

the Mueller report made a significant omission or oversight on this question when it stated that “‘coordination’ does not have a settled definition in federal criminal law.

We understood coordination to require an agreement — tacit or express.”

As the election law expert Paul Seamus Ryan noted, Congress in its 2002 campaign finance law rejected that view:

Federal law “shall not require agreement or formal collaboration to establish coordination.”

The federal regulations followed this command:

“Coordinated means

made in cooperation, consultation or concert with, or

at the request or suggestion of, a candidate,”

with no need to show any kind of agreement.

Expenditures for coordinated communications are considered in-kind contributions, and foreign contributions — public or private — are illegal.

With these less demanding interpretations of the charges,

Shugerman argues that at least three events from the Mueller report could be seen as evidence of conspiracy and coordination:

Campaign Chair Paul Manafort’s sending of internal polling data to a man believed to be a Russian spy;

Roger Stone’s interactions with WikiLeaks, which could directly implicate Trump (though much of these sections are redacted); and

Donald Trump Jr.’s communications with WikiLeaks.

“This conduct by President Trump, his son and his campaign manager and deputy campaign manager are probably civil violations of coordination for enforcement by the F.E.C.,

it does rise to the level of proof “by a preponderance of the evidence,” wrote Shugerman.

This is an acceptable standard for civil violations not punishable by prison time.

Congress gets to decide what counts as a “high crime or misdemeanor” —

and there’s no reason these acts couldn’t qualify.

Congress also gets to decide what standard of proof it needs.

There’s no reason to insist on knowing “beyond a reasonable doubt” when the integrity of the presidency is involved.

https://www.nationalmemo.com/fordham-law-professor-mueller-revealed-trump-russia-conspiracy/

[TSA]

Fordham Law Professor: Mueller Revealed Trump-Russia Conspiracy

Fordham University Law Professor Jed Shugerman argued that, despite the headline conclusions of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report on the Russia investigation,

the evidence shows there really was illegal conspiracy and coordination between the Trump campaign and the hostile foreign power.

He makes two clever analytical moves.

First, he points to Mueller’s implicit standard of evidence: proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

As a prosecutor who would be called upon to demonstrate his conclusions in a court of law, the former FBI director held himself to a rigorous standard for his claims: just below certainty.

Shugerman’s second analytical move comes in, arguing that

Mueller’s standards for assessing conspiracy and coordination may have been too stringent:

Even without knowing what is redacted, the report offers “substantial and credible information” of the Trump campaign conspiring or coordinating with the Russian government.

Under federal criminal law, “conspiracy” does not require direct proof or explicit words of agreement.

It can be proven by action and cir stantial evidence from which the agreement may be inferred.

And on campaign “coordination,”

the Mueller report made a significant omission or oversight on this question when it stated that “‘coordination’ does not have a settled definition in federal criminal law.

We understood coordination to require an agreement — tacit or express.”

As the election law expert Paul Seamus Ryan noted, Congress in its 2002 campaign finance law rejected that view:

Federal law “shall not require agreement or formal collaboration to establish coordination.”

The federal regulations followed this command:

“Coordinated means

made in cooperation, consultation or concert with, or

at the request or suggestion of, a candidate,”

with no need to show any kind of agreement.

Expenditures for coordinated communications are considered in-kind contributions, and foreign contributions — public or private — are illegal.

With these less demanding interpretations of the charges,

Shugerman argues that at least three events from the Mueller report could be seen as evidence of conspiracy and coordination:

Campaign Chair Paul Manafort’s sending of internal polling data to a man believed to be a Russian spy;

Roger Stone’s interactions with WikiLeaks, which could directly implicate Trump (though much of these sections are redacted); and

Donald Trump Jr.’s communications with WikiLeaks.

“This conduct by President Trump, his son and his campaign manager and deputy campaign manager are probably civil violations of coordination for enforcement by the F.E.C.,

it does rise to the level of proof “by a preponderance of the evidence,” wrote Shugerman.

This is an acceptable standard for civil violations not punishable by prison time.

Congress gets to decide what counts as a “high crime or misdemeanor” —

and there’s no reason these acts couldn’t qualify.

Congress also gets to decide what standard of proof it needs.

There’s no reason to insist on knowing “beyond a reasonable doubt” when the integrity of the presidency is involved.

https://www.nationalmemo.com/fordham-law-professor-mueller-revealed-trump-russia-conspiracy/

1. "The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."

2. "The investigation examined whether [contacts between Russia and Trump figures] involved or resulted in coordination or a conspiracy with the Trump Campaign and Russia, including with respect to Russia providing assistance to the Campaign in exchange for any sort of favorable treatment in the future. Based on the available information, the investigation did not establish such coordination."

3. "The investigation did not establish that [Carter] Page coordinated with the Russian government in its efforts to interfere with the 2016 election."

4. "The Office did not identify evidence in those [contacts between Russians and people around Trump after the GOP convention] of coordination between the Campaign and the Russian government."

5. "The Office did not identify evidence of a connection between Manafort's sharing polling data and Russia's interference in the election ... [and] the investigation did not establish that Manafort otherwise coordinated with the Russian government on its election-interference efforts."

6. "The investigation did not establish that these [contacts between Russians and people around Trump during the transition] reflected or cons uted coordination between the Trump Campaign and Russia in its election interference activities."

7. "The investigation did not identify evidence that any U.S. persons conspired or coordinated with the [Russian disinformation campaign]."

[boutons_deux]

The Fordham lawyer makes a solid case of collusion sufficient for Dems to impeach as they define "crimes and misdemeanors"

I'd say Trash insulting 17 US IC agencies as Nazis, and saying their findings were a hoax, believing Pootin over his own IC, as a misdemeanor

I'd say Trash holding secret talks with Pootin after he was elected was NatSec misdemeanor.

If Trash is so innocent. why his two years of lying and obstruction?

[boutons_deux]

Here’s why Trump’s abuse of ‘executive privilege’ could lead to impeachment proceedings

Trump is angrily resisting Democratic subpoenas from the U.S. House of Representatives, vowing that he will fight every last one of them

the “ultimate irony” is that Trump will “keep making it harder for Democrats to avoid impeachment proceedings.”

Trump, vowing to fight all subpoenas from Congress, has been claiming executive privilege.

The executive privilege concept for U.S. presidents, Zelizer explains,

can be justified by “the interests of national security or

the need to allow staffers to have conversations free of the fear they will be on the front pages….

in July 1974, the month before President Richard Nixon’s resignation because of the Watergate scandal,

the U.S. Supreme Court upheld executive privilege as “a legitimate principle”

but ruled that “in Nixon’s case, it could not be used”

because “the right of the public to know the truth in an investigation

outweighed the president’s right to block” recordings of White House conversations.

Trump is “making a much bolder claim” by

vowing to “defy all subpoenas because he does not believe the investigations are legitimate.”

Pelosi is furious over Trump’s abuse of executive privilege, saying,

“President Trump and his administration are engaged in unprecedented stonewalling and

once again using the legal system to conceal every area of his life

as well as his wrongdoing and improprieties from the American people.”

if Trump continues to abuse executive privilege and resist congressional oversight,

more Democrats might decide that impeachment proceedings are unavoidable.

Trump ...

“keeps forcing the nation’s hand in considering how far it is willing to let a president go before finally saying that enough is enough.”

https://www.rawstory.com/2019/04/heres-trumps-abuse-executive-privilege-lead-impeachment-proceedings-2/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaig n=Feed%3A+TheRawStory+%28The+Raw+Story%29

[Winehole23]

If Trash is so innocent. why his two years of lying and obstruction?

DJT's contumaceous disregard for whatever you think is a sign of his vitality and the signature of his vengeance. Part of the "charisma."

Frank presidential contemptuousness toward judges and the law was startling at first, but seems more commonplace now, wouldn't you agree?

[RandomGuy]

1. "The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."

2. "The investigation examined whether [contacts between Russia and Trump figures] involved or resulted in coordination or a conspiracy with the Trump Campaign and Russia, including with respect to Russia providing assistance to the Campaign in exchange for any sort of favorable treatment in the future. Based on the available information, the investigation did not establish such coordination."

3. "The investigation did not establish that [Carter] Page coordinated with the Russian government in its efforts to interfere with the 2016 election."

4. "The Office did not identify evidence in those [contacts between Russians and people around Trump after the GOP convention] of coordination between the Campaign and the Russian government."

5. "The Office did not identify evidence of a connection between Manafort's sharing polling data and Russia's interference in the election ... [and] the investigation did not establish that Manafort otherwise coordinated with the Russian government on its election-interference efforts."

6. "The investigation did not establish that these [contacts between Russians and people around Trump during the transition] reflected or cons uted coordination between the Trump Campaign and Russia in its election interference activities."

7. "The investigation did not identify evidence that any U.S. persons conspired or coordinated with the [Russian disinformation campaign]."

You didn't read the full report, did you?

[RandomGuy]

1. "The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."

2. "The investigation examined whether [contacts between Russia and Trump figures] involved or resulted in coordination or a conspiracy with the Trump Campaign and Russia, including with respect to Russia providing assistance to the Campaign in exchange for any sort of favorable treatment in the future. Based on the available information, the investigation did not establish such coordination."

3. "The investigation did not establish that [Carter] Page coordinated with the Russian government in its efforts to interfere with the 2016 election."

4. "The Office did not identify evidence in those [contacts between Russians and people around Trump after the GOP convention] of coordination between the Campaign and the Russian government."

5. "The Office did not identify evidence of a connection between Manafort's sharing polling data and Russia's interference in the election ... [and] the investigation did not establish that Manafort otherwise coordinated with the Russian government on its election-interference efforts."

6. "The investigation did not establish that these [contacts between Russians and people around Trump during the transition] reflected or cons uted coordination between the Trump Campaign and Russia in its election interference activities."

7. "The investigation did not identify evidence that any U.S. persons conspired or coordinated with the [Russian disinformation campaign]."

I can tell you didn't read the full report, because all you did was copy and paste someone else's cherry picked summary.

HERE IS THE LINK TO YOUR SOURCE, SINCE YOU WERE TOO LAZY TO PROVIDE ONE.

1. "The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."

2. "The investigation examined whether [contacts between Russia and Trump figures] involved or resulted in coordination or a conspiracy with the Trump Campaign and Russia, including with respect to Russia providing assistance to the Campaign in exchange for any sort of favorable treatment in the future. Based on the available information, the investigation did not establish such coordination."

3. "The investigation did not establish that [Carter] Page coordinated with the Russian government in its efforts to interfere with the 2016 election."

4. "The Office did not identify evidence in those [contacts between Russians and people around Trump after the GOP convention] of coordination between the Campaign and the Russian government."

5. "The Office did not identify evidence of a connection between Manafort's sharing polling data and Russia's interference in the election ... [and] the investigation did not establish that Manafort otherwise coordinated with the Russian government on its election-interference efforts."

6. "The investigation did not establish that these [contacts between Russians and people around Trump during the transition] reflected or cons uted coordination between the Trump Campaign and Russia in its election interference activities."

7. "The investigation did not identify evidence that any U.S. persons conspired or coordinated with the [Russian disinformation campaign]."

[Pavlov]

Byron