The Right Side of the News

Can we remove this absurd "censoring" now? It really seems a bit petty and kind of annoying even to some people who aren't Faith.

All the questions have been answered. There was lots of evidence for collusion but not enough to prosecute(in no small part because of the administration's intransigence). Trump obstructed justice at least ten times but wasn't indicted because of DoJ policy. No matter how the investigation originated.We know how it originated. There are two ongoing investigations on that already. But Republicans like nothing more than superfluous investigations into long-settled questions.

Testimony under oath responding to targeted questions is not innuendo or gossip.Look at what I posted and identify the innuendo or gossip. Even if you could conquer your dread of facts you couldn't find any. There is none.You grab any stupid excuse for running from reality. Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

The report said there was no collusion. Amazing how Trump's enemies just ignore the truth about all that. Also, Trump was more open and transparent than any other President has ever been. He turned over thousands of documents for instance that he didn't have to turn over.But I'm talking into a brick wall so I want to leave this to the investigators who I hope will get to the bottom of all the phony stuff.

I have other sources than yours. You are the one who just believes what your side tells you.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Thank you, but I think Percy enjoys it. I try to avoid it and many times I can but sometimes I can't find a suitable substitute word.

What are those sources? Why is what they say preferable to quotes from the Mueller report itself?

They won't find anything that contradicts the report. They aren't looking into the content of the report.The three investigations are supposedly looking into the origin of the FBI's investigation. Which we know. But it doesn't fit the right-wing story.No matter how the investigation originated the evidence Mueller collected is what it is.Why are three separate simultaneous investigations needed?

I like it. It's fun trying to figure out the riddle of what the **** Faith is trying to say.

Can you show us the quote from the report?

That is a damned lie and you know it!Here is everything that the Mueller Report says about collusion: INTRODUCTION TO VOLUME I, page 2 (PDF page 10)

quote:

---

In evaluating whether evidence about collective action of multiple individuals constituted 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.

---

So the investigation was looking into the commission of a crime. Collusion is not a crime and so was not part of the investigation. Instead, the investigation looked into criminal conspiracy. This paragraph does not state that there was no collusion. VOLUME I, C. Russian Government Outreach and Contacts, 1. Potential Coordination: Conspiracy and Collusion, pp 180-181 (PDF pp 188-189):

quote:

---

As an initial matter , this Office evaluated potentially criminal conduct that involved the collective action of multiple individuals not under the rubric of "collusion," but through the lens of conspiracy law. In so doing, the Office recognized that the word "collud[ e ]" appears in the Acting Attorney General's August 2, 2017 memorandum; it has frequently been invoked in public reporting; and it is sometimes referenced in antitrust law, see, e.g., Brooke Group v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 509 U.S. 209, 227 (1993). But collusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the U.S. Code; nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law. To the contrary, even as defined in legal dictionaries, collusion is largely synonymous with conspiracy as that crime is set forth in the general federal conspiracy statute , 18 U.S.C. 371. See Black 's Law Dictionary 321 (10th ed. 2014) (collusion is "[a]n agreement to defraud another or to do or obtain something forbidden by law"); 1 Alexander Burrill , A Law Dictionary and Glossary 311 (1871) ("An agreement between two or more persons to defraud another by the forms of law, or to employ such forms as means of accomplishing some unlawful object."); 1 Bouvier's Law Dictionary 352 (1897) ("An agreement between two or more persons to defraud a person of his rights by the forms of law, or to obtain an object forbidden by law.").

​

For that reason, this Office 's focus in resolving the question of joint criminal liability was on conspiracy as defined in federal law, not the commonly discussed term "collusion." The Office considered in particular whether contacts between Trump Campaign officials and Russia-linked individuals could trigger liability for the crime of conspiracy-either under statutes that have their own conspiracy language (e.g., 18 U.S.C. 1349, 195l(a)) , or under the general conspiracy statute (18 U.S .C. 371). The investigation did not establish that the contacts described in Volume I, Section IV, supra, amounted to an agreement to commit any substantive violation of federal criminal law- including foreign-fnfluence and campaign-finance laws , both of which are discussed further below. The Office therefore did not charge any individual associated with the Trump Campaign with conspiracy to commit a federal offense arising from Russia contacts, either under a specific statute or under Section 371 's offenses clause.

​

The Office also did not charge any campaign official or associate with a conspiracy under Section 371 's defraud clause. That clause criminalizes participating in an agreement to obstruct a lawful function of the U.S. government or its agencies through deceitful or dishonest means. See Dennis v. United States, 384 U.S. 855, 861 (1966); Hammerschmidt v. United States, 265 U.S. 182, 188 (1924); see also United States v. Concord Mgmt. & Consulting LLC, 34 7 F. Supp. 3d 38, 46 (D.D .C.2018). The investigation did not establish any agreement among Campaign officials or between such officials and Russia-linked individuals-to interfere with or obstruct a lawful function of a government agency during the campaign or transition period. And, as discussed in Volume I, Section V.A , supra, the investigation did not identify evidence that any Campaign official or associate knowingly and intentionally participated in the conspiracy to defraud that the Office charged , namely, the active-measures conspiracy described in Volume I, Section II, supra. Accordingly, the Office did not charge any Campaign associate or other U.S. person with conspiracy to defraud the United States based on the Russia-related contact s described in Section IV above.

---

Again an explicit statement that the investigation did not deal with collusion, but rather with conspiracy. Again, not any kind of statement that there was "no collusion".VOLUME II, C. The President's Reaction to Public Confirmation of the FBl's Russia Investigation, 3. The President Asks Intelligence Community Leaders to Make Public Statements that he had No Connection to Russia, page 57 (PDF page 269):

quote:

---

In addition to the specific comments made to Coats, Pompeo, and Rogers , the President spoke on other occasions in the presence of intelligence community officials about the Russia investigation and stated that it interfered with his ability to conduct foreign relations. On at least two occasions, the President began Presidential Daily Briefings by stating that there was no collusion with Russia and he hoped a press statement to that effect could be issued. Pompeo recalled that the President vented about the investigation on multiple occasions, complaining that there was no evidence against him and that nobody would publicly defend him.357 Rogers recalled a private conversation with the President in which he "vent[ ed]" about the investigation , said he had done nothing wrong , and said something like the "Russia thing has got to go away." Coats recalled the President bringing up the Russia investigation several times, and Coats said he finally told the President that Coats's job was to provide intelligence and not get involved in investigations.

---

From this point on (including this paragraph), the only mention of collusion that I have found was in Trump's own claims of "no collusion". In fact, every single mention of collusion after this point was contained in direct quotations of Trump's multitude of tweets -- guess that makes Trump the Twit-in-Chief.Faith, if you truly believe that "{t}he report said there was no collusion", then you are perfectly free to present the text within the report that supports your claim.We all, you included, have access to the complete, albeit redacted Mueller Report as a searchable PDF at https://cdn.cnn.com/...s/04/18/mueller-report-searchable.pdf. We have searched it and quoted directly from it. So can you!The final arbiter of what the Mueller Report actually says is the Mueller Report itself! Not that liar Bill Barr. Not that liar Donald Trump. Not all the liars at the Fake News Network, including Fakes and Friends. But rather, the Mueller Report itself. Obviously, it does not such thing. If you want to support your claim, then quote where you believe that the Mueller Report does support your claim. Until you can do that, stop your damnable lying!

The Executive Summary of volume 1 is also relevant:

quote:

---

As set forth in detail in this report, the Special Counsel's investigation established that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election principally through two operations. First, a Russian entity carried out a social media campaign that favored presidential candidate Donald J.Trump and disparaged presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. Second , a Russian intelligence service conducted computer-intrusion operations against entities, employees, and volunteers working on the Clinton Campaign and then released stolen documents. The investigation also identified numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump Campaign. Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.

---

Fundies are binary. Black or white. Collusion or no collusion. But in this case and most cases there is at least one alternative. "Not determined".They think that "did not establish collusion" means "established no collusion", which is false. "Did not establish collusion" could mean "didn’t determine one way or another" and pretty certainly does. If they had established "no collusion" they would have written "no collusion" (expanded into appropriate legalese). They wrote exactly what they meant.In order to claim the report said no collusion they have to ignore the most plain reading. Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

That's all deceitful talk. Did not establish collusion means found no collusion. But this kind of twistedness is why want to leave the whole thing to further investigation.

No matter how often you complain, it is possible for an investigation to reach no conclusion. And it's clear that's what the report says and means.Lawyers, especially top-flight ones like Mueller, write what they mean and exactly what they mean. No more, no less. If Mueller had established no conclusion, he would have stated so explicitly. The undeniable fact that he did not state that leads inexorably to the conclusion that he meant "did not establish one way or the other".

Ah well. I'm not persuaded, going to wait.