Please cite the parts of the report where, as you claim, "collusion definitely happened," then. And, while you are at it, let us know whether you have actually read the report.
I have. I don't have a good enough memory to tell you which part does not indicate that, again as you claimed, "collusion definitely happened," but fortunately for me, it's logically impossible to prove a negative.
The finding of the report, to my recollection, do not state that collusion happened. Instead, they state that Trump *could* be charged with collusion. There is a lot of discussion of what that term means...but let's set this aside; if your claim is true...then why hasn't Trump been charged with "collusion?"
FFS I've posted multiple examples of collusion between the trump campaign and russia. listed in the mueller report.
As orwell said, the hardest thing in the world to see is what is right in front of your eyes. That's you 'conservatives.'
You don't have to convince *you.* it's been established that you believe what you believe. Let's leave F's sake out of this. Substitute my sake: again, someone who read the report and gave you a summary of my understanding. You didn't answer my question, either. Should I assume you haven't read the report? Because your reliance on summary suggests that.
FFS I've posted multiple examples of collusion between the trump campaign and russia. listed in the mueller report.
As orwell said, the hardest thing in the world to see is what is right in front of your eyes. That's you 'conservatives.'
You don't have to convince *you.* it's been established that you believe what you believe. Let's leave F's sake out of this. Substitute my sake: again, someone who read the report and gave you a summary of my understanding. You didn't answer my question, either. Should I assume you haven't read the report? Because your reliance on summary suggests that.
The Mueller Report did not find any evidence of collusion, but did find two main efforts by the Russians to interfere in the 2016 presidential campaign.
NPR, PBS et al are sources that have a healthy, and perhaps unhealthy liberal bias. You didn't read the report, did you? Anyone can read it. Why not you?
You don't have to convince *you.* it's been established that you believe what you believe. Let's leave F's sake out of this. Substitute my sake: again, someone who read the report and gave you a summary of my understanding. You didn't answer my question, either. Should I assume you haven't read the report? Because your reliance on summary suggests that.
Did all you Libs take some crazy pills??? We can cite 100 instances from different news sources saying no Russian collusion took place and Fat Hurts and Agip will continue to insist that there were many instances of Russian collusion. Come on!
FFS I've posted multiple examples of collusion between the trump campaign and russia. listed in the mueller report.
As orwell said, the hardest thing in the world to see is what is right in front of your eyes. That's you 'conservatives.'
You don't have to convince *you.* it's been established that you believe what you believe. Let's leave F's sake out of this. Substitute my sake: again, someone who read the report and gave you a summary of my understanding. You didn't answer my question, either. Should I assume you haven't read the report? Because your reliance on summary suggests that.
ok doke. To answer your question:
'collusion' isn't a crime
some form of conspiracy is a crime but it looks like the DOJ has decided that might not be worthy of prosecuting. Mueller left it to the DOJ to decide on these things.
You don't have to convince *you.* it's been established that you believe what you believe. Let's leave F's sake out of this. Substitute my sake: again, someone who read the report and gave you a summary of my understanding. You didn't answer my question, either. Should I assume you haven't read the report? Because your reliance on summary suggests that.
ok doke. To answer your question:
'collusion' isn't a crime
some form of conspiracy is a crime but it looks like the DOJ has decided that might not be worthy of prosecuting. Mueller left it to the DOJ to decide on these things.
(I did not read the report)
now you explain why the many, many examples of collusion between the trump campaign and the Russians...is NOT collusion.
I answered your question. you answer mine.
here, for review:
I. Summary of Major Findings The redacted Mueller Report documents a series of activities that show strong evidence of collusion. Or, more precisely, it provides significant evidence that Trump Campaign associates coordinated with, cooperated with, encouraged, or gave support to the Russia/WikiLeaks election interference activities. The Report documents the following actions (each of which is analyzed in detail in Part II): 1. Trump was receptive to a Campaign national security adviser’s (George Papadopoulos) pursuit of a back channel to Putin. 2. Kremlin operatives provided the Campaign a preview of the Russian plan to distribute stolen emails. 3. The Trump Campaign chairman and deputy chairman (Paul Manafort and Rick Gates) knowingly shared internal polling data and information on battleground states with a Russian spy; and the Campaign chairman worked with the Russian spy on a pro-Russia “peace” plan for Ukraine. 4. The Trump Campaign chairman periodically shared internal polling data with the Russian spy with the expectation it would be shared with Putin-linked oligarch, Oleg Deripaska. 5. Trump Campaign chairman Manafort expected Trump’s winning the presidency would mean Deripaska would want to use Manafort to advance Deripaska’s interests in the United States and elsewhere. 6. Trump Tower meeting: (1) On receiving an email offering derogatory information on Clinton coming from a Russian government official, Donald Trump Jr. “appears to have accepted that offer;” (2) members of the Campaign discussed the Trump Tower meeting beforehand; (3) Donald Trump Jr. told the Russians during the meeting that Trump could revisit the issue of the Magnitsky Act if elected. 7. A Trump Campaign official told the Special Counsel he “felt obliged to object” to a GOP Platform change on Ukraine because it contradicted Trump’s wishes; however, the investigation did not establish that Gordon was directed by Trump. 8. Russian military hackers may have followed Trump’s July 27, 2016 public statement “Russia if you’re listening …” within hours by targeting Clinton’s personal office for the first time. 9. Trump requested campaign affiliates to get Clinton’s emails, which resulted in an individual apparently acting in coordination with the Campaign claiming to have successfully contacted Russian hackers. 10. The Trump Campaign—and Trump personally—appeared to have advanced knowledge of future WikiLeaks releases. 11. The Trump Campaign coordinated campaign-related public communications based on future WikiLeaks releases. 12. Michael Cohen, on behalf of the Trump Organization, brokered a secret deal for a Trump Tower Moscow project directly involving Putin’s inner circle, at least until June 2016. 13. During the presidential transition, Jared Kushner and Eric Prince engaged in secret back channel communications with Russian agents. (1) Kushner suggested to the Russian Ambassador that they use a secure communication line from within the Russian Embassy to speak with Russian Generals; and (2) Prince and Kushner’s friend Rick Gerson conducted secret back channel meetings with a Putin agent to develop a plan for U.S.-Russian relations. 14. During the presidential transition, in coordination with other members of the Transition Team, Michael Flynn spoke with the Russian Ambassador to prevent a tit for tat Russian response to the Obama administration’s imposition of sanctions for election interference; the Russians agreed not to retaliate saying they wanted a good relationship with the incoming administration.
NPR, PBS et al are sources that have a healthy, and perhaps unhealthy liberal bias. You didn't read the report, did you? Anyone can read it. Why not you?
I've read the report previously. In fact I have the report open now. I was skimming through it now but I not going to spend an hour going through its 440 pages now.
Thank you for answering my question. The report is long, boring, and extremely dry. Part 2 is less of a snooze-fest than Part 1...but I'm of the opinion that "Again to Catharge" is an absolute masterpiece in comparison.
I think everyone here has picked the wrong argument and is just shouting at each other. This is a Biden thread, right?
Revenons a nos moutons!! (That's Frenchie for "Let's get back to the point!") Did anyone else see this:
When the Grey Lady no longer has your back...you are indeed in a bad place if you are on the left. I have the very strong opinion that the only thing that can save Biden right now is to become a wartime President. The Culture War doesn't count.
Thank you for answering my question. The report is long, boring, and extremely dry. Part 2 is less of a snooze-fest than Part 1...but I'm of the opinion that "Again to Catharge" is an absolute masterpiece in comparison.
I think everyone here has picked the wrong argument and is just shouting at each other. This is a Biden thread, right?
Revenons a nos moutons!! (That's Frenchie for "Let's get back to the point!") Did anyone else see this:
When the Grey Lady no longer has your back...you are indeed in a bad place if you are on the left. I have the very strong opinion that the only thing that can save Biden right now is to become a wartime President. The Culture War doesn't count.
aaaaaaaaaaand there we have it again, folks.
thinking an opinion piece somehow has the backing of its publisher.
you'd think adults who follow the news would understand this, but no, they do not.
Please cite the parts of the report where, as you claim, "collusion definitely happened," then. And, while you are at it, let us know whether you have actually read the report.
I have. I don't have a good enough memory to tell you which part does not indicate that, again as you claimed, "collusion definitely happened," but fortunately for me, it's logically impossible to prove a negative.
The finding of the report, to my recollection, do not state that collusion happened. Instead, they state that Trump *could* be charged with collusion. There is a lot of discussion of what that term means...but let's set this aside; if your claim is true...then why hasn't Trump been charged with "collusion?"
Just another reminder of how pointless it is to discuss this stuff with Trumpers. A deaf and blind toddler could see that Trump is a horrendous human being and public official with zero respect for the law or other human beings.
And yet tens of millions of Americans pretend that he hasn't said and done all of the things he's said and done. And in cases where there isn't a direct quote or single clear action from him - or things are a bit more involved or complicated - these idi*** give ALL of the benefit of the doubt to HIM, rather than mostly responsible professional journalists who mostly lean left.
NOT TO MENTION the great number of instances where the people impugning Trump AREN'T journalists, but rather elected and un-elected government officials (many Republican), judges, prosecutors, former direct-report staff, etc., etc., etc.
Just plain tribal idiocy. Worthy of nothing but derision and mocking.
An agency believed to be the CIA concluded the data underpinning certain Trump-Russia collusion allegations was not “technically plausible” by early 2017, casting further doubt on claims pushed by the Clinton campaign before...
13. During the presidential transition, Jared Kushner and Eric Prince engaged in secret back channel communications with Russian agents. (1) Kushner suggested to the Russian Ambassador that they use a secure communication line from within the Russian Embassy to speak with Russian Generals; and (2) Prince and Kushner’s friend Rick Gerson conducted secret back channel meetings with a Putin agent to develop a plan for U.S.-Russian relations.
Please cite the parts of the report where, as you claim, "collusion definitely happened," then. And, while you are at it, let us know whether you have actually read the report.
I have. I don't have a good enough memory to tell you which part does not indicate that, again as you claimed, "collusion definitely happened," but fortunately for me, it's logically impossible to prove a negative.
The finding of the report, to my recollection, do not state that collusion happened. Instead, they state that Trump *could* be charged with collusion. There is a lot of discussion of what that term means...but let's set this aside; if your claim is true...then why hasn't Trump been charged with "collusion?"
FFS I've posted multiple examples of collusion between the trump campaign and russia. listed in the mueller report.
As orwell said, the hardest thing in the world to see is what is right in front of your eyes. That's you 'conservatives.'
The Mueller report documents many instances of collusion.
They were unable to prove criminal conspiracy. But Mueller showed that collusion with the Russians definitely happened.
From the AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION, Fat hurts:
"Mueller finds NO collusion with Russia, leaves obstruction question open"
That was not a conclusion drawn by the ABA .
You are merely quoting a headline of a short news article on the ABA web site. It reported what Barr and Trump had said, rather than what the full Mueller report said. This was before the full report had been released to the public.
Liberals have no idea that Russians always meddle in US elections. Just like they think the Ukraine situation started 2 months ago when it his their Twitter feed, they think Russian meddling never happened until 2016. If the media doesn't tell them to pretend to be upset about something they won't know anything about it.
The swamp put the full might of the federal government into attack mode to take Down Trump and they couldn't find anything criminal. If Biden or Clinton got the same level of scrutiny they would die in prison.
The Mueller report could prove ZERO criminal activity.
Meanwhile, Comey admitted on live TV that Clinton committed multiple felonies and then shrugged his shoulders.
for the record. here's a summary of what the mueller report found. Maybe you think this stuff is ok and fine and dandy but that's a ridiculous stance to take and suggests you are a traitor and wish hostile nations would interfere in US politics and elections. (Which would make you a total sicko. )
I. Summary of Major Findings The redacted Mueller Report documents a series of activities that show strong evidence of collusion. Or, more precisely, it provides significant evidence that Trump Campaign associates coordinated with, cooperated with, encouraged, or gave support to the Russia/WikiLeaks election interference activities. The Report documents the following actions (each of which is analyzed in detail in Part II):
1. Trump was receptive to a Campaign national security adviser’s (George Papadopoulos) pursuit of a back channel to Putin. 2. Kremlin operatives provided the Campaign a preview of the Russian plan to distribute stolen emails. 3. The Trump Campaign chairman and deputy chairman (Paul Manafort and Rick Gates) knowingly shared internal polling data and information on battleground states with a Russian spy; and the Campaign chairman worked with the Russian spy on a pro-Russia “peace” plan for Ukraine. 4. The Trump Campaign chairman periodically shared internal polling data with the Russian spy with the expectation it would be shared with Putin-linked oligarch, Oleg Deripaska. 5. Trump Campaign chairman Manafort expected Trump’s winning the presidency would mean Deripaska would want to use Manafort to advance Deripaska’s interests in the United States and elsewhere. 6. Trump Tower meeting: (1) On receiving an email offering derogatory information on Clinton coming from a Russian government official, Donald Trump Jr. “appears to have accepted that offer;” (2) members of the Campaign discussed the Trump Tower meeting beforehand; (3) Donald Trump Jr. told the Russians during the meeting that Trump could revisit the issue of the Magnitsky Act if elected. 7. A Trump Campaign official told the Special Counsel he “felt obliged to object” to a GOP Platform change on Ukraine because it contradicted Trump’s wishes; however, the investigation did not establish that Gordon was directed by Trump. 8. Russian military hackers may have followed Trump’s July 27, 2016 public statement “Russia if you’re listening …” within hours by targeting Clinton’s personal office for the first time. 9. Trump requested campaign affiliates to get Clinton’s emails, which resulted in an individual apparently acting in coordination with the Campaign claiming to have successfully contacted Russian hackers. 10. The Trump Campaign—and Trump personally—appeared to have advanced knowledge of future WikiLeaks releases. 11. The Trump Campaign coordinated campaign-related public communications based on future WikiLeaks releases. 12. Michael Cohen, on behalf of the Trump Organization, brokered a secret deal for a Trump Tower Moscow project directly involving Putin’s inner circle, at least until June 2016. 13. During the presidential transition, Jared Kushner and Eric Prince engaged in secret back channel communications with Russian agents. (1) Kushner suggested to the Russian Ambassador that they use a secure communication line from within the Russian Embassy to speak with Russian Generals; and (2) Prince and Kushner’s friend Rick Gerson conducted secret back channel meetings with a Putin agent to develop a plan for U.S.-Russian relations. 14. During the presidential transition, in coordination with other members of the Transition Team, Michael Flynn spoke with the Russian Ambassador to prevent a tit for tat Russian response to the Obama administration’s imposition of sanctions for election interference; the Russians agreed not to retaliate saying they wanted a good relationship with the incoming administration.