Mueller Delivers Report on Russia Investigation to Attorney General

[spurraider21]

uh huh.

and how did they conclude?

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

[RandomGuy]

mueller himself:

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

Criminal conspiracy is not "collusion". "not enough evidence to establish" does not equal "exonerated".

One hundred plus known of meetings or exchanges, destroyed evidence, people lying about who and when they met, unavailable witnesses, uncooperative witnesses, and witnesses that lied.

The overall pattern of coverups and sheer number of meetings and inroads made by various Russian government officials paints a pretty solid picture of the kind of "flood the zone" Russian effort.

To think that there was, in fact, no outright coordination, begs belief that this willingness to get information from, all the meetings and contacts, and the provision of information to, was simply innocent.

When one applies the filter of what the limitations and scope of the investigation was, the common meaning of hte word "collusion" is really easy to prove.

[spurraider21]

Criminal conspiracy is not "collusion". "not enough evidence to establish" does not equal "exonerated".

One hundred plus known of meetings or exchanges, destroyed evidence, people lying about who and when they met, unavailable witnesses, uncooperative witnesses, and witnesses that lied.

The overall pattern of coverups and sheer number of meetings and inroads made by various Russian government officials paints a pretty solid picture of the kind of "flood the zone" Russian effort.

To think that there was, in fact, no outright coordination, begs belief that this willingness to get information from, all the meetings and contacts, and the provision of information to, was simply innocent.

When one applies the filter of what the limitations and scope of the investigation was, the common meaning of hte word "collusion" is really easy to prove.

they took much stronger language on obstruction than they did with collusion. that wasn't by accident.

the term "collusion" is legally irrelevant. they said they could make no finding of coordination or conspiring.

[boutons_deux]

"this willingness to get information from, all the meetings and contacts, and the provision of information to, was simply innocent."

the giveaway is all the "forgetting", lying, obstruction, by ALL of them, for 2 years, none of which you do if innocent.

[RandomGuy]

uh huh.

and how did they conclude?

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

Uh huh, and what did Mueller say about that:

A statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of those facts.

In evaluating whether evidence about collective action of multiple individuals cons uted a crime, we applied the framework of conspiracy law, not the concept of “collusion.” In so doing, the Office recognized that the word “collud[e]” was used in communications with the Acting Attorney General confirming certain aspects of the investigation’s scope and that the term has frequently been invoked in public reporting about the investigation. But collusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the United States Code, nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law. For those reasons, the Office’s focus in analyzing questions of joint criminal liability was on conspiracy as defined in federal law. In connection with that analysis, we addressed the factual question whether members of the Trump Campaign “coordinat[ed]” — a term that appears in the appointment order — with Russian election interference activities. Like collusion, “coordination” does not have a settled definition in federal criminal law. We understood coordination to require an agreement — tacit or express — between the Trump Campaign and the Russian government on election interference. That requires more than the two parties taking actions that were informed by or responsive to the other’s actions or interests. We applied the term coordination in that sense when stating in the report that the investigation did not establish that the Trump Campaign coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.

The investigation did not always yield admissible information or testimony, or a complete picture of the activities undertaken by subjects of the investigation. Some individuals invoked their Fifth Amendment right against compelled self-incrimination and were not, in the Office’s judgment, appropriate candidates for grants of immunity. The Office limited its pursuit of other witnesses and information — such as information known to attorneys or individuals claiming to be members of the media — in light of internal Department of Justice policies. See, e.g., Justice Manual §§ 9-13.400, 13.410. Some of the information obtained via court process, moreover, was presumptively covered by legal privilege and was screened from investigators by a filter (or “taint”) team. Even when individuals testified or agreed to be interviewed, they sometimes provided information that was false or incomplete, leading to some of the false-statements charges described above. And the Office faced practical limits on its ability to access relevant evidence as well — numerous witnesses and subjects lived abroad, and do ents were held outside the United States.

Further, the Office learned that some of the individuals we interviewed or whose conduct we investigated — including some associated with the Trump Campaign — deleted relevant communications or communicated during the relevant period using applications that feature encryption or that do not provide for long-term retention of data or communications records. In such cases, the Office was not able to corroborate witness statements through comparison to contemporaneous communications or fully question witnesses about statements that appeared inconsistent with other known facts.

Accordingly, while this report embodies factual and legal determinations that the Office believes to be accurate and complete to the greatest extent possible, given these identified gaps, the Office cannot rule out the possibility that the unavailable information would shed additional light on (or cast in a new light) the events described in the report.

The caveats here are pretty substantial, and provide any reasonable person with some additional context to review the context under which Russia had so many contacts with Trumpworld.

[Spurtacular]

It's right there in the quote, derp.

Did you even read it?

SCOTUS cannot review impeachments.

SCOTUS said so.

Unanimously.

lol derp

I did. Which is why I know you're lying. Of course, you talking in the first place is often a tip-off.

[RandomGuy]

they took much stronger language on obstruction than they did with collusion. that wasn't by accident.

the term "collusion" is legally irrelevant. they said they could make no finding of coordination or conspiring.

Correct. As noted.

TSA though, applies the dictionary definition because he has to, for that reason.

secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others.

Seems like all the meetings and contacts meet the "secret conspiracy to cheat", especially when "cheating" involves being given dirt on your opponent by an en y that should not be doing so, i.e. a foreign government.

I understand, and acknowledge the legal limits here. I don't need to be a judge though, to be able to fill in the holes, especially given the open, obvious, and voluminous nature of the contacts, that took hundreds of pages to describe.

[RandomGuy]

TSA nevermind. RG is doing his own thing... i was going off the conversation started above

As was I. Focused on the obstruction part first because that was a lot easier to show.

[Spurtacular]

TSA this is where the discussion started tbh

What's your point, Lite?

[RandomGuy]

What's your point, Lite?

IRST FELONY
E. Efforts to fire Mueller
Obstructive act (p. 87): Former White House Counsel Don McGahn is a “credible witness” in providing evidence that Trump indeed attempted to fire Mueller. This “would qualify as an obstructive act” if the firing “would naturally obstruct the investigation and any grand jury proceedings that might flow from the inquiry.”
Nexus (p. 89): “Substantial evidence” indicates that, at this point, Trump was aware that “his conduct was under investigation by a federal prosecutor who could present any evidence of federal crimes to a grand jury.”
Intent (p. 89): “Substantial evidence indicates that the President’s attempts to remove the Special Counsel were linked to the Special Counsel’s oversight of investigations that involved the President’s conduct[.]”

SECOND FELONY
F. Efforts to curtail Mueller
Obstructive act (p. 97): Trump’s effort to force Sessions to confine the investigation to only investigating future election interference “would qualify as an obstructive act if it would naturally obstruct the investigation and any grand jury proceedings that might flow from the inquiry.” “Taken together, the President’s directives indicate that Sessions was being instructed to tell the Special Counsel to end the existing investigation into the President and his campaign[.]”
Nexus (p. 97): At the relevant point, “the existence of a grand jury investigation supervised by the Special Counsel was public knowledge.”
Intent (p. 97): “Substantial evidence” indicates that Trump’s efforts were “intended to prevent further investigative scrutiny of the President’s and his campaign’s conduct.”
THIRD FELONY
I. Order to McGahn to deny Trump’s order to fire Mueller
Obstructive act (p. 118): This effort “would qualify as an obstructive act if it had the natural tendency to constrain McGahn from testifying truthfully or to undermine his credibility as a potential witness[.]” There is “some evidence” that Trump genuinely believed press reports that he had ordered McGahn to fire Mueller were wrong. However, “[o]ther evidence cuts against that understanding of the president’s conduct”—and the special counsel lists a great deal more evidence on this latter point.
Nexus (p. 119): At this point “the Special Counsel’s use of a grand jury had been further confirmed by the return of several indictments.” Mueller’s office had indicated to Trump’s lawyers that it was investigating obstruction, and Trump knew that McGahn had already been interviewed by Mueller on the topic. “That evidence indicates the President’s awareness” that his efforts to fire Mueller were relevant to official proceedings. Trump “likely contemplated the ongoing investigation and any proceedings arising from it” in directing McGahn to create a false record of the earlier interaction.
Intent (p. 120): “Substantial evidence indicates that … the President acted for the purpose of influencing McGahn’s account in order to deflect or prevent further scrutiny” of Trump.

FOURTH FELONY
J. Conduct toward... Manafort
Obstructive act (p. 131): “The President’s actions toward witnesses … would qualify as obstructive if they had the natural tendency to prevent particular witnesses from testifying truthfully, or otherwise would have the probable effect of influencing, delaying, or preventing their testimony to law enforcement.” ...Regarding Manafort, “there is evidence that the President’s actions had the potential” to influence Manafort’s thinking on cooperation, and his public statements “had the potential to influence the trial jury.”
Nexus (p. 132): Trump’s actions toward [Manafort and others] “appear to have been connected to pending or anticipated official proceedings involving each individual.”
Intent (p. 132): “[e]vidence … indicates that the President intended to encourage Manafort not to cooperate with the government”.

[Pavlov]

I did. Which is why I know you're lying.

Oh?

"The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present."



What part is the lie?

Where is the part where SCOTUS can review impeachments?

Back up your claim.

[Spurtacular]

Oh?

"The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present."


What part is the lie?

How can you consistently be so stupid?

Go ahead and find the statement where I said House Of Reps does not have the sole power to impeach. You're not fit to do so much debating.

[Spurtacular]

IRST FELONY
E. Efforts to fire Mueller
Obstructive act (p. 87): Former White House Counsel Don McGahn is a “credible witness” in providing evidence that Trump indeed attempted to fire Mueller. This “would qualify as an obstructive act” if the firing “would naturally obstruct the investigation and any grand jury proceedings that might flow from the inquiry.”
Nexus (p. 89): “Substantial evidence” indicates that, at this point, Trump was aware that “his conduct was under investigation by a federal prosecutor who could present any evidence of federal crimes to a grand jury.”
Intent (p. 89): “Substantial evidence indicates that the President’s attempts to remove the Special Counsel were linked to the Special Counsel’s oversight of investigations that involved the President’s conduct[.]”

SECOND FELONY
F. Efforts to curtail Mueller
Obstructive act (p. 97): Trump’s effort to force Sessions to confine the investigation to only investigating future election interference “would qualify as an obstructive act if it would naturally obstruct the investigation and any grand jury proceedings that might flow from the inquiry.” “Taken together, the President’s directives indicate that Sessions was being instructed to tell the Special Counsel to end the existing investigation into the President and his campaign[.]”
Nexus (p. 97): At the relevant point, “the existence of a grand jury investigation supervised by the Special Counsel was public knowledge.”
Intent (p. 97): “Substantial evidence” indicates that Trump’s efforts were “intended to prevent further investigative scrutiny of the President’s and his campaign’s conduct.”
THIRD FELONY
I. Order to McGahn to deny Trump’s order to fire Mueller
Obstructive act (p. 118): This effort “would qualify as an obstructive act if it had the natural tendency to constrain McGahn from testifying truthfully or to undermine his credibility as a potential witness[.]” There is “some evidence” that Trump genuinely believed press reports that he had ordered McGahn to fire Mueller were wrong. However, “[o]ther evidence cuts against that understanding of the president’s conduct”—and the special counsel lists a great deal more evidence on this latter point.
Nexus (p. 119): At this point “the Special Counsel’s use of a grand jury had been further confirmed by the return of several indictments.” Mueller’s office had indicated to Trump’s lawyers that it was investigating obstruction, and Trump knew that McGahn had already been interviewed by Mueller on the topic. “That evidence indicates the President’s awareness” that his efforts to fire Mueller were relevant to official proceedings. Trump “likely contemplated the ongoing investigation and any proceedings arising from it” in directing McGahn to create a false record of the earlier interaction.
Intent (p. 120): “Substantial evidence indicates that … the President acted for the purpose of influencing McGahn’s account in order to deflect or prevent further scrutiny” of Trump.

FOURTH FELONY
J. Conduct toward... Manafort
Obstructive act (p. 131): “The President’s actions toward witnesses … would qualify as obstructive if they had the natural tendency to prevent particular witnesses from testifying truthfully, or otherwise would have the probable effect of influencing, delaying, or preventing their testimony to law enforcement.” ...Regarding Manafort, “there is evidence that the President’s actions had the potential” to influence Manafort’s thinking on cooperation, and his public statements “had the potential to influence the trial jury.”
Nexus (p. 132): Trump’s actions toward [Manafort and others] “appear to have been connected to pending or anticipated official proceedings involving each individual.”
Intent (p. 132): “[e]vidence … indicates that the President intended to encourage Manafort not to cooperate with the government”.

Kidnapper spam.

[Pavlov]

How can you consistently be so stupid?

Go ahead and find the statement where I said House Of Reps does not have the sole power to impeach. You're not fit to do so much debating.

Where is the part where SCOTUS can review impeachments?

Back up your claim.

It's been a day.

[Spurtacular]

Where is the part where SCOTUS can review impeachments?

Back up your claim.

It's been a day.

It's in the job description, dip .

SC can review the Cons utionality of anything.

[Pavlov]

It's in the job description, dip .

Let's see that job description.

I cited a case where they explicitly said they could not review any impeachment process.

Period.

Unanimously.

Post the job description where they can review impeachments.

[DarrinS]

At the end of the day, all of this is political bs. I understand that dems hate him, so or get off the pot and bring on impeachment proceedings. Do it.

[Pavlov]

At the end of the day, all of this is political bs. I understand that dems hate him, so or get off the pot and bring on impeachment proceedings. Do it.

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand Darrin changes det subject.

[spurraider21]

What's your point, Lite?

there's a discussion going on. you are free to read through it and pick up the context.

[Pavlov]

there's a discussion going on. you are free to read through it and pick up the context.

[DarrinS]

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand Darrin changes det subject.

Needs more aaaaaaaa's, tbh.

[Pavlov]

Needs more aaaaaaaa's, tbh.

As long as you don't have to defend or explain anything you have ever said here, it's fine with you.

[DarrinS]

As long as you don't have to defend or explain anything you have ever said here, it's fine with you.

Why did Mueller punt?

[RandomGuy]

At the end of the day, all of this is political bs. I understand that dems hate him, so or get off the pot and bring on impeachment proceedings. Do it.

Not going to happen until closer to the election. Be great if he gets removed after it is too late to replace him on the ballots in the red states. This is going to get strung out for as much damage to your piece of traitor party as possible. Honestly having this idiot still on the ballot in November of 2020 would be awesome too. Win for Democrats either way.

Plus we get to comb through his finances for all his other felonies, you brainwashed .

Your masters will need to give you a lot more more excuses to parrot in forums like this, asshole. Be ready to start learning them.

[RandomGuy]

Why did Mueller punt?

Read the ing report, waffle.