Mueller report thread - Mueller testimony July 24

[GoTfan]

Jesus Christ. Democrats you literally have a wealth of issues to attack him on. His odious economic policies, his trade war, his tax cuts for the rich, his f***ing wall, his obsession with keeping the minimum wage low.

Why do you need to attack him on Russia when you can literally attack him on any of these?

Because he's guilty.

And I would prefer to live in a nation where rule of law exists.

(Not that anyone should let up on any of the others. And don't forget his racism and bigotry, his attempted autocracy, his gross incompetence and unfitness, his pathetic self-dealing, etc.)

Even thought the report literally says they found no evidence of collusion, he's guilty? That's dangerously arbitrary.

[Sestak]

Jesus Christ. Democrats you literally have a wealth of issues to attack him on. His odious economic policies, his trade war, his tax cuts for the rich, his f***ing wall, his obsession with keeping the minimum wage low.

Why do you need to attack him on Russia when you can literally attack him on any of these?

To be fair, most 2020 candidates are attacking him more on those things.

[ProudModerate2]

Jesus Christ. Democrats you literally have a wealth of issues to attack him on. His odious economic policies, his trade war, his tax cuts for the rich, his f***ing wall, his obsession with keeping the minimum wage low.
Why do you need to attack him on Russia when you can literally attack him on any of these?

Because he's guilty.
And I would prefer to live in a nation where rule of law exists.
(Not that anyone should let up on any of the others. And don't forget his racism and bigotry, his attempted autocracy, his gross incompetence and unfitness, his pathetic self-dealing, etc.)

Even thought the report literally says they found no evidence of collusion, he's guilty? That's dangerously arbitrary.

We can attack him on your list, plus Ghost's list, plus other topics and Russia.
Why not continue to attack him, Jr, and his cohorts that were indicted on Russia?
The GOP continued to talk about/attack Hillary on issues where there was "no evidence."
Look at what they did with Benghazi.

[ProudModerate2]

Jesus Christ. Democrats you literally have a wealth of issues to attack him on. His odious economic policies, his trade war, his tax cuts for the rich, his f***ing wall, his obsession with keeping the minimum wage low.

Why do you need to attack him on Russia when you can literally attack him on any of these?

To be fair, most 2020 candidates are attacking him more on those things.

Exactly.
Let the candidates concentrate on the "real issues," and let the House Committees irritate trump.
What's wrong with that?

[Hindsight was 2020]

Jesus Christ. Democrats you literally have a wealth of issues to attack him on. His odious economic policies, his trade war, his tax cuts for the rich, his f***ing wall, his obsession with keeping the minimum wage low.

Why do you need to attack him on Russia when you can literally attack him on any of these?

Can dark red atlas stop parroting the blue atlas tactic of equating what people say her, on Twitter, and pundits on tv with “the Democrats”? The democrats as an official party have not been attacking him on Russia as hard as republicans would of done had this shoe been on the other foot. This reminds me of when people attacked the Democrats in 2018 for being Trump obsessed when statistically he was mentioned less in attack ads then Obama was in either 10 or 14

[GoTfan]

Jesus Christ. Democrats you literally have a wealth of issues to attack him on. His odious economic policies, his trade war, his tax cuts for the rich, his f***ing wall, his obsession with keeping the minimum wage low.

Why do you need to attack him on Russia when you can literally attack him on any of these?

Can dark red atlas stop parroting the blue atlas tactic of equating what people say her, on Twitter, and pundits on tv with “the Democrats”? The democrats as an official party have not been attacking him on Russia as hard as republicans would of done had this shoe been on the other foot. This reminds me of when people attacked the Democrats in 2018 for being Trump obsessed when statistically he was mentioned less in attack ads then Obama was in either 10 or 14

That's fair. There are just so many Democrats on this forum carrying on about how Trump should be indicted for treason, or some such s**t. I'm really tired of it.

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

Jesus Christ. Democrats you literally have a wealth of issues to attack him on. His odious economic policies, his trade war, his tax cuts for the rich, his f***ing wall, his obsession with keeping the minimum wage low.

Why do you need to attack him on Russia when you can literally attack him on any of these?

Can dark red atlas stop parroting the blue atlas tactic of equating what people say her, on Twitter, and pundits on tv with “the Democrats”? The democrats as an official party have not been attacking him on Russia as hard as republicans would of done had this shoe been on the other foot. This reminds me of when people attacked the Democrats in 2018 for being Trump obsessed when statistically he was mentioned less in attack ads then Obama was in either 10 or 14

This. Good god what a dumb and tired argument.

The only elected Democrats who breathe any fire into this issue are Nadler, Schiff, Swalwell, etc. That is, Democrats who are on committees directly relevant to the investigation. No other Democrats are making this a cornerstone of their political identity. ZERO. The idea that the national party (rather than unaffiliated news media) is pushing this into a national media rather than a handful of individuals who are directly involved in investigations is demonstrably false (note that I linked several actual research articles saying as much and OP, predictably, ignored them).
 
It's morons like Greenwald who peddle these theories to make themselves feel better so they can continue to be angry about the 2016 primaries. It's rather transparent and people who spend enough time on a politics forum to have over 1000 posts should be informed enough to see that.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

You know, the worst part of the whole Trump/Mueller/Barr/Russia kabuki play is that a discussion about possible rapprochement with Russia would be one well worth having if this were a sane political environment domestically. I wouldn't necessarily support such a rapprochement, but it's a legitimate issue with serious implications for the United States and our alliances either way. But it can't be discussed, because neither party can touch it without being seen to be covering for a grotesque con man who's surrounded himself with loathsome sycophants.

[Frodo]

You know, the worst part of the whole Trump/Mueller/Barr/Russia kabuki play is that a discussion about possible rapprochement with Russia would be one well worth having if this were a sane political environment domestically. I wouldn't necessarily support such a rapprochement, but it's a legitimate issue with serious implications for the United States and our alliances either way. But it can't be discussed, because neither party can touch it without being seen to be covering for a grotesque con man who's surrounded himself with loathsome sycophants.

How on earth can we even begin to consider rapprochment with Russia after it was just confirmed by Special Counsel Robert Mueller that their government had interfered in the 2016 election, and tried to do so again last year?  You don't reward such behavior by reaching out to them.  If relations between Russia and the United States are the worst they have been since the darkest days of the Cold War, they have themselves to blame. 

[Joe Republic]

Why are Republicans acting like there isn't still at least a dozen other investigations and lawsuits aimed at Trump's myriad misdeeds and acts of corruption?  You guys are taking a victory lap half-way through the race!

Besides, the fact remains that Russia did indeed meddle with our election process with the goal of boosting their preferred candidate: Donald Trump.  Their cyber warfare campaign against our democracy is still ongoing.  Collusion or no collusion, it is still a tad perplexing that Trump doesn't seem to believe these facts though, huh?

[Pouring Rain and Blairing Music]

Why are Republicans acting like there isn't still at least a dozen other investigations and lawsuits aimed at Trump's myriad misdeeds and acts of corruption?  You guys are taking a victory lap half-way through the race!

Besides, the fact remains that Russia did indeed meddle with our election process with the goal of boosting their preferred candidate: Donald Trump.  Their cyber warfare campaign against our democracy is still ongoing.  Collusion or no collusion, it is still a tad perplexing that Trump doesn't seem to believe these facts though, huh?

I guess Trump being named as individual 1 in Cohen’s case was meaningless. 🤷🏻‍♂️

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

You know, the worst part of the whole Trump/Mueller/Barr/Russia kabuki play is that a discussion about possible rapprochement with Russia would be one well worth having if this were a sane political environment domestically. I wouldn't necessarily support such a rapprochement, but it's a legitimate issue with serious implications for the United States and our alliances either way. But it can't be discussed, because neither party can touch it without being seen to be covering for a grotesque con man who's surrounded himself with loathsome sycophants.

How on earth can we even begin to consider rapprochment with Russia after it was just confirmed by Special Counsel Robert Mueller that their government had interfered in the 2016 election, and tried to do so again last year?  You don't reward such behavior by reaching out to them.  If relations between Russia and the United States are the worst they have been since the darkest days of the Cold War, they have themselves to blame. 

I said that it would in a sane political environment (implicit in which concept, in my opinion, is more or less honest and transparent elections) be a debate worth having, not that it would be a good idea.

[Frodo]

I'm ROFL right now, watching the Echo Chamber explode in frustration.  It really is amazing.

The Mueller investigation wasn't about investigating a crime.  It was about investigating Trump, personally, and individuals close to him.  This would be great if you had reasonable suspicion that Trump committed an actual crime, but that was not the case.

I have, for a long time, stated that I was waiting for the Mueller Report to come in before I drew any conclusions as to what Trump did or didn't do.  Well the report is in, and not only did the report not indicate an indictment for Trump, it indicated that (A) there would be no recommendations for further indictments, (B) there was no indication that Trump would have been indicted if he were not President, and (C) neither Trump, nor anyone else, was named as unindicted co-conspirators.  There was no "collusion" (whatever that means) and any interference in our elections by Russia was done by Russians, and not in conjunction with Trump's campaign.

The Democrats, of course, could accept this and go forward with actually allowing the government to function.  They are showing themselves as no better than the GOP and its endless investigations of Hillary, who WAS being investigated for a specific crime.  (That's a difference between Hillary and Trump that cries out for recognition.)  There is no evidence that Donald Trump, nor anyone else "obstructed justice".  And it's a little hard to say this when you can't point to a specific crime that was covered up.

How Donald Trump has conducted himself as President involves a number of relevant issues.  His Tweets are often indefensible in terms of taste and level of pettiness.  His policies are a matter for debate as he ran as a different kind of Republican and turned out to be pretty much a standard GOP conservative, with some shifts away from free trade and internationalism.  Let the politics begin, by all means.  Let the case against Trump's record in office, in terms of he actions and accomplishments as President be examined and discussed.  But let the political judgment also be rendered against a mindless Democratic Party that opts to investigate the investigation, and investigate the investigators investigating the investigation.  They are continuing the "investigation" solely to find some juicy tidbits that will serve their campaign well, and there is something very wrong with that, no matter who is doing it.

The specific crime is the hacking of a Presidential campaign and political party. The 21st century version of the Watergate break-in. That was a major crime with huge impacts, unlike whatever happened with Hillary's e-mails which literally had zero impact.

Well, yes, and those individuals (most of the Russian Nationals) have been charged.

And it’s still illegal to cover up other people’s crimes.

And there's no probable cause to believe that Trump, or anyone on his campaign staff or current staff did so.  That's why there's no indictments; there's no probable cause.  No indictments.  No unindicted co-conspirators.  

Donald Trump is not, and should not. be above the law.  But he shouldn't be below the law, either.  The latter is something you and folks like you here seem to think is OK.  It's not, and his being Trump doesn't make it so.

And while I feel for the American people and the American taxpayers that have had to endure this, I am, quite frankly, celebrating the intense, wrenching angst that the intellectually dishonest Echo Chamber Posse are going through now.  Not everyone here, mind you.  Just the Echo Chamber Posse.  You know who you are. 

Did you have similar emotions with the endless Benghazi investigations that ultimately found nothing to incriminate Hillary Clinton? 

Of course, the Russia and Benghazi investigations are not exactly the same -even if Mueller ultimately found no evidence of collusion or conspiracy by Trump or his campaign with the Russian government, he found enough instances of corruption and underhanded dealings to warrant further investigations.  Consider the indictments and prison sentences already handed down.  And you cannot blame us for believing that there was something there.  Trump acted like he was guilty of something.  It looked like a duck, acted like a duck, and quacked like a duck. Surely you can forgive us for thinking it was a duck. 

[Pouring Rain and Blairing Music]

I'm ROFL right now, watching the Echo Chamber explode in frustration.  It really is amazing.

The Mueller investigation wasn't about investigating a crime.  It was about investigating Trump, personally, and individuals close to him.  This would be great if you had reasonable suspicion that Trump committed an actual crime, but that was not the case.

I have, for a long time, stated that I was waiting for the Mueller Report to come in before I drew any conclusions as to what Trump did or didn't do.  Well the report is in, and not only did the report not indicate an indictment for Trump, it indicated that (A) there would be no recommendations for further indictments, (B) there was no indication that Trump would have been indicted if he were not President, and (C) neither Trump, nor anyone else, was named as unindicted co-conspirators.  There was no "collusion" (whatever that means) and any interference in our elections by Russia was done by Russians, and not in conjunction with Trump's campaign.

The Democrats, of course, could accept this and go forward with actually allowing the government to function.  They are showing themselves as no better than the GOP and its endless investigations of Hillary, who WAS being investigated for a specific crime.  (That's a difference between Hillary and Trump that cries out for recognition.)  There is no evidence that Donald Trump, nor anyone else "obstructed justice".  And it's a little hard to say this when you can't point to a specific crime that was covered up.

How Donald Trump has conducted himself as President involves a number of relevant issues.  His Tweets are often indefensible in terms of taste and level of pettiness.  His policies are a matter for debate as he ran as a different kind of Republican and turned out to be pretty much a standard GOP conservative, with some shifts away from free trade and internationalism.  Let the politics begin, by all means.  Let the case against Trump's record in office, in terms of he actions and accomplishments as President be examined and discussed.  But let the political judgment also be rendered against a mindless Democratic Party that opts to investigate the investigation, and investigate the investigators investigating the investigation.  They are continuing the "investigation" solely to find some juicy tidbits that will serve their campaign well, and there is something very wrong with that, no matter who is doing it.

The specific crime is the hacking of a Presidential campaign and political party. The 21st century version of the Watergate break-in. That was a major crime with huge impacts, unlike whatever happened with Hillary's e-mails which literally had zero impact.

Well, yes, and those individuals (most of the Russian Nationals) have been charged.

And it’s still illegal to cover up other people’s crimes.

And there's no probable cause to believe that Trump, or anyone on his campaign staff or current staff did so.  That's why there's no indictments; there's no probable cause.  No indictments.  No unindicted co-conspirators.  

Donald Trump is not, and should not. be above the law.  But he shouldn't be below the law, either.  The latter is something you and folks like you here seem to think is OK.  It's not, and his being Trump doesn't make it so.

And while I feel for the American people and the American taxpayers that have had to endure this, I am, quite frankly, celebrating the intense, wrenching angst that the intellectually dishonest Echo Chamber Posse are going through now.  Not everyone here, mind you.  Just the Echo Chamber Posse.  You know who you are. 

Did you have similar emotions with the endless Benghazi investigations that ultimately found nothing to incriminate Hillary Clinton? 

Of course, the Russia and Benghazi investigations are not exactly the same -even if Mueller ultimately found no evidence of collusion or conspiracy by Trump or his campaign with the Russian government, he found enough instances of corruption and underhanded dealings to warrant further investigations.  Consider the indictments and prison sentences already handed down.  And you cannot blame us for believing that there was something there.  Trump acted like he was guilty of something.  It looked like a duck, acted like a duck, and quacked like a duck. Surely you can forgive us for thinking it was a duck. 

I believe that you’ll find it to be the Finanical Crimes Goose (Branta cashii). Definitely not a duck. How dare you!

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

Jesus Christ. Democrats you literally have a wealth of issues to attack him on. His odious economic policies, his trade war, his tax cuts for the rich, his f***ing wall, his obsession with keeping the minimum wage low.

Why do you need to attack him on Russia when you can literally attack him on any of these?

Because he's guilty.

And I would prefer to live in a nation where rule of law exists.

(Not that anyone should let up on any of the others. And don't forget his racism and bigotry, his attempted autocracy, his gross incompetence and unfitness, his pathetic self-dealing, etc.)

Even thought the report literally says they found no evidence of collusion, he's guilty? That's dangerously arbitrary.

Trump went on national TV, asked for Russian help, and immediately got it.

But setting that aside and focusing on the SC investigation, you haven't seen the report. Neither have I.

We've read a letter from Trump's handpicked Attorney General.  That letter claims* to be referencing Mueller's report when it says:

The Special Counsel's investigation determined that there were two main Russian efforts to influence the 2016 election. The first involved attempts by a Russian organization, the Internet Research Agency (IRA), to conduct disinformation and social media operations in the United States designed to sow social discord, eventually with the aim of interfering with the election. As noted above, the Special Counsel did not find that any U.S. person or Trump campaign official or associate conspired or knowingly coordinated with the IRA in its efforts, although the Special Counsel brought criminal charges against a number of Russian nationals and entities in connection with these activities.

The second element involved the Russian government's efforts to conduct computer hacking operations designed to gather and disseminate information to influence the election. The Special Counsel found that Russian government actors successfully hacked into computers and obtained emails from persons affiliated with the Clinton campaign and Democratic Party organizations, and publicly disseminated those materials through various intermediaries, including WikiLeaks. Based on these activities, the Special Counsel brought criminal charges against a number of Russian military officers for conspiring to hack into computers in the United States for purposes of influencing the election. But as noted above, the Special Counsel did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in these efforts, despite multiple offers from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign.

What's missing from this picture? Any mention of the actual quid pro quos that were offered to the Trump campaign. We know, from documents and statements already made public, that Trump & co were offered help winning the election and a apparently Trump Tower Moscow deal in return for sanctions relief. Trump and Co delivered the quid, asked for the quo (publicly) and received it, in abundance.

It doesn't matter if Trump & Manafort didn't personally directed the Russians on how to fulfill their side of the bargain. Yet that is what Barr is very carefully outlining here. Note that everything in the letter refers to direct coordination or conspiracy with either the Russian government or the Internet Research Agency. This carefully ignores any indirect coordination or conspiracy - which is how we know Trump-Russia contacts took place, using parties with existing connections to Trump and his campaign on the one hand, and to the Russian government on the other. Again, this carefully ignores the details of the quid pro quo offered to Trump and his campaign. And it carefully ignores obstruction related to those details, because otherwise the whole "we can't prove obstruction because we can't prove conspiracy" load of fertilizer goes 'poof'.

It's like giving up on a murder case against a mob boss, because the hitman didn't speak with the boss, and he didn't get his gun from the boss, so don't worry about the guy who had meetings with both of them. And certainly don't tell us what they talked about.

* Given that Barr listed a bunch of things Trump has done as criminal obstruction during his hearing, and spends this letter squirming away from them, I don't think he can be trusted to be 100% reliable.


TwoThree other points:

First, if you want to be taken seriously,  please stop saying "collusion". It's a Trumpian weasel word.  The terms in question - and used by the Attorney General - are conspiracy and coordination.

Second, and I think it's important not to forget this, the AG's letter (not the report, which we haven't seen), takes it for granted that the Russian government assisted (and as documented elsewhere, was essential) in getting Trump elected President.  In other words, Trump's defense has now been reduced to, "Russia helped me get elected, but I didn't know about it."

Third, Barr's babbling about nexus and obstruction is a load of bull. It's still obstruction even if - maybe especially if - you succeed to the point where you're not charged. That would never stand up in court if the defense tried it. It's just covering his rear for not indicting his boss. Which in turn implies whatever is in there vis a vis obstruction must be pretty bad, because otherwise he could just quote DoJ policy on presidential indictments - the way he did at his confirmation hearing -  and toss the whole thing in Congress' lap.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I'm ROFL right now, watching the Echo Chamber explode in frustration.  It really is amazing.

The Mueller investigation wasn't about investigating a crime.  It was about investigating Trump, personally, and individuals close to him.  This would be great if you had reasonable suspicion that Trump committed an actual crime, but that was not the case.

I have, for a long time, stated that I was waiting for the Mueller Report to come in before I drew any conclusions as to what Trump did or didn't do.  Well the report is in, and not only did the report not indicate an indictment for Trump, it indicated that (A) there would be no recommendations for further indictments, (B) there was no indication that Trump would have been indicted if he were not President, and (C) neither Trump, nor anyone else, was named as unindicted co-conspirators.  There was no "collusion" (whatever that means) and any interference in our elections by Russia was done by Russians, and not in conjunction with Trump's campaign.

The Democrats, of course, could accept this and go forward with actually allowing the government to function.  They are showing themselves as no better than the GOP and its endless investigations of Hillary, who WAS being investigated for a specific crime.  (That's a difference between Hillary and Trump that cries out for recognition.)  There is no evidence that Donald Trump, nor anyone else "obstructed justice".  And it's a little hard to say this when you can't point to a specific crime that was covered up.

How Donald Trump has conducted himself as President involves a number of relevant issues.  His Tweets are often indefensible in terms of taste and level of pettiness.  His policies are a matter for debate as he ran as a different kind of Republican and turned out to be pretty much a standard GOP conservative, with some shifts away from free trade and internationalism.  Let the politics begin, by all means.  Let the case against Trump's record in office, in terms of he actions and accomplishments as President be examined and discussed.  But let the political judgment also be rendered against a mindless Democratic Party that opts to investigate the investigation, and investigate the investigators investigating the investigation.  They are continuing the "investigation" solely to find some juicy tidbits that will serve their campaign well, and there is something very wrong with that, no matter who is doing it.

The specific crime is the hacking of a Presidential campaign and political party. The 21st century version of the Watergate break-in. That was a major crime with huge impacts, unlike whatever happened with Hillary's e-mails which literally had zero impact.

Well, yes, and those individuals (most of the Russian Nationals) have been charged.

And it’s still illegal to cover up other people’s crimes.

And there's no probable cause to believe that Trump, or anyone on his campaign staff or current staff did so.  That's why there's no indictments; there's no probable cause.  No indictments.  No unindicted co-conspirators.  

Donald Trump is not, and should not. be above the law.  But he shouldn't be below the law, either.  The latter is something you and folks like you here seem to think is OK.  It's not, and his being Trump doesn't make it so.

And while I feel for the American people and the American taxpayers that have had to endure this, I am, quite frankly, celebrating the intense, wrenching angst that the intellectually dishonest Echo Chamber Posse are going through now.  Not everyone here, mind you.  Just the Echo Chamber Posse.  You know who you are. 

Did you have similar emotions with the endless Benghazi investigations that ultimately found nothing to incriminate Hillary Clinton? 

Of course, the Russia and Benghazi investigations are not exactly the same -even if Mueller ultimately found no evidence of collusion or conspiracy by Trump or his campaign with the Russian government, he found enough instances of corruption and underhanded dealings to warrant further investigations.  Consider the indictments and prison sentences already handed down.  And you cannot blame us for believing that there was something there.  Trump acted like he was guilty of something.  It looked like a duck, acted like a duck, and quacked like a duck. Surely you can forgive us for thinking it was a duck. 

The Republicans yelling Benghazi were batsh**t crazy lunatics beating a dead horse, but the Democrats outdid them with their Russian nonsense.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

the Democrats outdid them with their Russian nonsense.

No, they really didn't.

[gerritcole]

I'm ROFL right now, watching the Echo Chamber explode in frustration.  It really is amazing.

The Mueller investigation wasn't about investigating a crime.  It was about investigating Trump, personally, and individuals close to him.  This would be great if you had reasonable suspicion that Trump committed an actual crime, but that was not the case.

I have, for a long time, stated that I was waiting for the Mueller Report to come in before I drew any conclusions as to what Trump did or didn't do.  Well the report is in, and not only did the report not indicate an indictment for Trump, it indicated that (A) there would be no recommendations for further indictments, (B) there was no indication that Trump would have been indicted if he were not President, and (C) neither Trump, nor anyone else, was named as unindicted co-conspirators.  There was no "collusion" (whatever that means) and any interference in our elections by Russia was done by Russians, and not in conjunction with Trump's campaign.

The Democrats, of course, could accept this and go forward with actually allowing the government to function.  They are showing themselves as no better than the GOP and its endless investigations of Hillary, who WAS being investigated for a specific crime.  (That's a difference between Hillary and Trump that cries out for recognition.)  There is no evidence that Donald Trump, nor anyone else "obstructed justice".  And it's a little hard to say this when you can't point to a specific crime that was covered up.

How Donald Trump has conducted himself as President involves a number of relevant issues.  His Tweets are often indefensible in terms of taste and level of pettiness.  His policies are a matter for debate as he ran as a different kind of Republican and turned out to be pretty much a standard GOP conservative, with some shifts away from free trade and internationalism.  Let the politics begin, by all means.  Let the case against Trump's record in office, in terms of he actions and accomplishments as President be examined and discussed.  But let the political judgment also be rendered against a mindless Democratic Party that opts to investigate the investigation, and investigate the investigators investigating the investigation.  They are continuing the "investigation" solely to find some juicy tidbits that will serve their campaign well, and there is something very wrong with that, no matter who is doing it.

The specific crime is the hacking of a Presidential campaign and political party. The 21st century version of the Watergate break-in. That was a major crime with huge impacts, unlike whatever happened with Hillary's e-mails which literally had zero impact.

Well, yes, and those individuals (most of the Russian Nationals) have been charged.

And it’s still illegal to cover up other people’s crimes.

And there's no probable cause to believe that Trump, or anyone on his campaign staff or current staff did so.  That's why there's no indictments; there's no probable cause.  No indictments.  No unindicted co-conspirators.  

Donald Trump is not, and should not. be above the law.  But he shouldn't be below the law, either.  The latter is something you and folks like you here seem to think is OK.  It's not, and his being Trump doesn't make it so.

And while I feel for the American people and the American taxpayers that have had to endure this, I am, quite frankly, celebrating the intense, wrenching angst that the intellectually dishonest Echo Chamber Posse are going through now.  Not everyone here, mind you.  Just the Echo Chamber Posse.  You know who you are. 

Did you have similar emotions with the endless Benghazi investigations that ultimately found nothing to incriminate Hillary Clinton? 

Of course, the Russia and Benghazi investigations are not exactly the same -even if Mueller ultimately found no evidence of collusion or conspiracy by Trump or his campaign with the Russian government, he found enough instances of corruption and underhanded dealings to warrant further investigations.  Consider the indictments and prison sentences already handed down.  And you cannot blame us for believing that there was something there.  Trump acted like he was guilty of something.  It looked like a duck, acted like a duck, and quacked like a duck. Surely you can forgive us for thinking it was a duck. 

The Republicans yelling Benghazi were batsh**t crazy lunatics beating a dead horse, but the Democrats outdid them with their Russian nonsense.

Don’t forget fast and furious

[QAnonKelly]

Jesus Christ. Democrats you literally have a wealth of issues to attack him on. His odious economic policies, his trade war, his tax cuts for the rich, his f***ing wall, his obsession with keeping the minimum wage low.

Why do you need to attack him on Russia when you can literally attack him on any of these?

Because he's guilty.

And I would prefer to live in a nation where rule of law exists.

(Not that anyone should let up on any of the others. And don't forget his racism and bigotry, his attempted autocracy, his gross incompetence and unfitness, his pathetic self-dealing, etc.)

Even thought the report literally says they found no evidence of collusion, he's guilty? That's dangerously arbitrary.

We don’t know what the report does or doesn’t literally say other than what Barr directly quotes Mueller on. Besides Mueller was looking to see if there was a conspiracy, not if there was collusion. Collusion is only a crime in anti-trust matters. It’s not a crime in this sense. To prove a conspiracy, you have to have a quid pro quo which is a really high bar in this case. I don’t think there’s a video anywhere or some emails where Trump tells Putin , “Hey bro if you help me win, I’ll remove sanctions”.  Sure the Trump campaign was at least open to the idea but there was never really something proveable here. Prosecutors don’t usually go around saying people committed crimes that don’t exist even if they do in a colloquial sense.

[pbrower2a]

Barr's cover letter is itself a cover-up. Maybe it is just his biased interpretation. Yeah, sure, the Russians did it all on behalf of Trump, but Trump had nothing to do with it. Nice kitty, nice kitty -- wouldn't hurt a mouse. 

How were the federal courts able to get so many convictions out of this investigation if there were nothing behind it?

You would actually need half a brain to understand that those convictions had nothing to do with collusion.

One does not do such crimes as money laundering, perjury, or obstruction of justice for the fun of doing them. Let us find out what lies beneath the vague and potentially-absurd summary. Deceit is the norm with anyone associated with Donald Trump for long unless in a menial role.

Yeah, sure -- Vladimir Putin manipulated the 2016 election out of charity toward Donald Trump and the GOP. Sure -- and winter clothes are a necessity for July travel to Florida.

[136or142]

Trump has definitely won the 'framing game.'  The media is repeatedly saying 'no evidence' of collusion found.  But, that's not what the Mueller report states.  William Barr quotes from the Mueller report in his summary:

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.”

Is that 'no evidence', 'no proof' or somewhere in between?  It certainly doesn't sound like 'no evidence' to me.  "Did not establish" sounds like there was no concrete proof or 'smoking gun.' 

Of course, I'm biased on this just as the idiot Trump cultists are biased, however, the summary at no time uses the phrase 'no evidence.'

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

I'm ROFL right now, watching the Echo Chamber explode in frustration.  It really is amazing.

The Mueller investigation wasn't about investigating a crime.  It was about investigating Trump, personally, and individuals close to him.  This would be great if you had reasonable suspicion that Trump committed an actual crime, but that was not the case.

I have, for a long time, stated that I was waiting for the Mueller Report to come in before I drew any conclusions as to what Trump did or didn't do.  Well the report is in, and not only did the report not indicate an indictment for Trump, it indicated that (A) there would be no recommendations for further indictments, (B) there was no indication that Trump would have been indicted if he were not President, and (C) neither Trump, nor anyone else, was named as unindicted co-conspirators.  There was no "collusion" (whatever that means) and any interference in our elections by Russia was done by Russians, and not in conjunction with Trump's campaign.

The Democrats, of course, could accept this and go forward with actually allowing the government to function.  They are showing themselves as no better than the GOP and its endless investigations of Hillary, who WAS being investigated for a specific crime.  (That's a difference between Hillary and Trump that cries out for recognition.)  There is no evidence that Donald Trump, nor anyone else "obstructed justice".  And it's a little hard to say this when you can't point to a specific crime that was covered up.

How Donald Trump has conducted himself as President involves a number of relevant issues.  His Tweets are often indefensible in terms of taste and level of pettiness.  His policies are a matter for debate as he ran as a different kind of Republican and turned out to be pretty much a standard GOP conservative, with some shifts away from free trade and internationalism.  Let the politics begin, by all means.  Let the case against Trump's record in office, in terms of he actions and accomplishments as President be examined and discussed.  But let the political judgment also be rendered against a mindless Democratic Party that opts to investigate the investigation, and investigate the investigators investigating the investigation.  They are continuing the "investigation" solely to find some juicy tidbits that will serve their campaign well, and there is something very wrong with that, no matter who is doing it.

The specific crime is the hacking of a Presidential campaign and political party. The 21st century version of the Watergate break-in. That was a major crime with huge impacts, unlike whatever happened with Hillary's e-mails which literally had zero impact.

Well, yes, and those individuals (most of the Russian Nationals) have been charged.

And it’s still illegal to cover up other people’s crimes.

And there's no probable cause to believe that Trump, or anyone on his campaign staff or current staff did so.  That's why there's no indictments; there's no probable cause.  No indictments.  No unindicted co-conspirators.  

Donald Trump is not, and should not. be above the law.  But he shouldn't be below the law, either.  The latter is something you and folks like you here seem to think is OK.  It's not, and his being Trump doesn't make it so.

And while I feel for the American people and the American taxpayers that have had to endure this, I am, quite frankly, celebrating the intense, wrenching angst that the intellectually dishonest Echo Chamber Posse are going through now.  Not everyone here, mind you.  Just the Echo Chamber Posse.  You know who you are. 

Did you have similar emotions with the endless Benghazi investigations that ultimately found nothing to incriminate Hillary Clinton? 

Of course, the Russia and Benghazi investigations are not exactly the same -even if Mueller ultimately found no evidence of collusion or conspiracy by Trump or his campaign with the Russian government, he found enough instances of corruption and underhanded dealings to warrant further investigations.  Consider the indictments and prison sentences already handed down.  And you cannot blame us for believing that there was something there.  Trump acted like he was guilty of something.  It looked like a duck, acted like a duck, and quacked like a duck. Surely you can forgive us for thinking it was a duck. 

I don't believe that the Echo Chamber was interested in the facts, no.  I believe the Echo Chamber just wants to drive Trump from office by any means.  Primaries and GEs exist for that purpose; to get rid of an incumbent people no longer want, regardless of the reason.

I was never a big fan of the Congressional investigation of Hillary Clinton on Benghazi.  It was a politicized spectacle that deserved the criticism it got.  It was designed to achieve a politically negative result for Ms. Clinton, and it achieved its purpose.  The investigation stunk of rank politics, but it DID bring to light confirmation that the Obama Administration, with HRC at the top of the State Department, attempted to blame an attack on our Embassy in Benghazi on spontaneous anger over the showing of a movie Fundamentalist Muslims found offensive and not the work of organized Islamist Terrorist groups that the Obama Administration was claiming that they were controlling.  The upshot of all of that was that Hillary Clinton made a series of decisions that, basically, left people at that Embassy to die.  She could have taken steps to get them out, and she did not.  I personally believe that her inaction was to preserve the "movie" narrative as insurance of (A) Obama's re-election and (B) her viability for 2016.  (I don't believe Hillary made a single decision as SoS without taking 2016 into account.)

I DO think that "Government Oversight" of the Executive Branch by Congress has progressed to the point where every matter is unfairly politicized and checks and balances are upset.  We have gone too far, IMO, in the direction of "Oversight" to where everything is politicized.  The Army-McCarthy Hearings have become the norm.  There is something wrong with this in general.  If good people are less willing than ever to serve in government, perhaps this factor should be looked at.

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

Jesus Christ. Democrats you literally have a wealth of issues to attack him on. His odious economic policies, his trade war, his tax cuts for the rich, his f***ing wall, his obsession with keeping the minimum wage low.

Why do you need to attack him on Russia when you can literally attack him on any of these?

Because he's guilty.

And I would prefer to live in a nation where rule of law exists.

(Not that anyone should let up on any of the others. And don't forget his racism and bigotry, his attempted autocracy, his gross incompetence and unfitness, his pathetic self-dealing, etc.)

A nation where the Rule of Law exists doesn't operate as you point out here.  Perhaps you want the Napoleonic Code for Trump, while reserving "Innocent until proven guilty" for yourself, but we can't bifurcate justice in the manner you wish.

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

Trump has definitely won the 'framing game.'  The media is repeatedly saying 'no evidence' of collusion found.  But, that's not what the Mueller report states.  William Barr quotes from the Mueller report in his summary:

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.”

Is that 'no evidence', 'no proof' or somewhere in between?  It certainly doesn't sound like 'no evidence' to me.  "Did not establish" sounds like there was no concrete proof or 'smoking gun.' 

Of course, I'm biased on this just as the idiot Trump cultists are biased, however, the summary at no time uses the phrase 'no evidence.'

There is not enough evidence to conclude that there is probable cause that Trump, or anyone in the Trump Administration, committed a crime.  That's a fact, according to even Mueller.  If that were the case, Trump could have been named by Mueller as an unindicted co-conspirator.  Nixon was so named in the indictments of Haldeman and Ehrlichmann, long before the "Smoking Gun" of the release of the actual tapes. 

As for the 2020 GE, have at it!  That's what General Elections are for.  If people wish to make a political case against Trump on the campaign trail, well, fine and good!  That's what the political process is about.  But stop the advocacy of issue positions that suggest that Trump is Below the Law.  He's not Below the Law any more than he's Above the Law, but the Echo Chamber is very much in denial of that.  (Although I have been encouraged by a few cracks on that particular point, which is a good thing.)

[136or142]

Trump has definitely won the 'framing game.'  The media is repeatedly saying 'no evidence' of collusion found.  But, that's not what the Mueller report states.  William Barr quotes from the Mueller report in his summary:

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.”

Is that 'no evidence', 'no proof' or somewhere in between?  It certainly doesn't sound like 'no evidence' to me.  "Did not establish" sounds like there was no concrete proof or 'smoking gun.' 

Of course, I'm biased on this just as the idiot Trump cultists are biased, however, the summary at no time uses the phrase 'no evidence.'

There is not enough evidence to conclude that there is probable cause that Trump, or anyone in the Trump Administration, committed a crime.  That's a fact, according to even Mueller.  If that were the case, Trump could have been named by Mueller as an unindicted co-conspirator.  Nixon was so named in the indictments of Haldeman and Ehrlichmann, long before the "Smoking Gun" of the release of the actual tapes. 

As for the 2020 GE, have at it!  That's what General Elections are for.  If people wish to make a political case against Trump on the campaign trail, well, fine and good!  That's what the political process is about.  But stop the advocacy of issue positions that suggest that Trump is Below the Law.  He's not Below the Law any more than he's Above the Law, but the Echo Chamber is very much in denial of that.  (Although I have been encouraged by a few cracks on that particular point, which is a good thing.)

No proof of a crime on the matter of conspiracy. Mueller had no opinion on obstruction of justice, and other matters have been handed off to other prosecutors.