Comrade Trump

[frank ryan]

You sure about that?

I’m not a lawyer but isn’t there a difference between turned up nothing and didn’t turn enough to charge with a crime? So many people seem to have already read the report.

[wapiti]

Yeah how dare they accuse of Trump approaching James Comey to curtail his investigation of Manafort and then firing him because of the "Russia thing."

Interesting how Trump is now on Team Mueller now that *phew* he didn't find anything. Why so nervous? Get this crazy person out of the White House is the takeaway here.

Trump played it perfectly. He forced the MSM and democrats to defend Mueller's credibility for two years. Now that the report exonerates him, they can't credibly attack Mueller or his investigation.

[Uncle Ted]

Trump played it perfectly. He forced the MSM and democrats to defend Mueller's credibility for two years. Now that the report exonerates him, they can't credibly attack Mueller or his investigation.

Embedded Tweet

[Uncle Ted]

I’m not a lawyer but isn’t there a difference between turned up nothing and didn’t turn enough to charge with a crime? So many people seem to have already read the report.

OMG!!! I bet that even Agent Strzok changed the report from saying "Grossly Negligent" to "Extremely Careless"! And that is why there is not enough to charge Drumpf with a crime.

[PaloAltoCougar]

Trump played it perfectly. He forced the MSM and democrats to defend Mueller's credibility for two years. Now that the report exonerates him, they can't credibly attack Mueller or his investigation.

Nor should they, and yet Trump is able to claim exoneration because of an investigation he described as a "witch hunt" >150 times while impugning Mueller's integrity for two years.

[frank ryan]

Is exoneration Mueller's term or Barr's? Let's see the report

[creekster]

Nor should they, and yet Trump is able to claim exoneration because of an investigation he described as a "witch hunt" >150 times while impugning Mueller's integrity for two years.

I’m not sure I understand your point here. On the basis for which mueller was originally retained it was closer to a witch hunt than a conclusion of criminal activity. Do you now agree that mueller lacked integrity? It would be very trumpian to do so, it seems to me.

I am also not sure why anyone thinks trump can assert exoneration at all. Mueller did not reach that conclusion, according to Barr, whose summary says it did NOT exonerate trump on obstruction. But even if that’s true, is it surprising?

[creekster]

Is exoneration Mueller's term or Barr's? Let's see the report

Barr’s, as he said trump was NOT exonerated in obstruction issues, but that’s not saying much.

[wapiti]

Is exoneration Mueller's term or Barr's? Let's see the report

I get it. It's hard to let this go. You should be frustrated by the sloppy reporting that led you to believe there was collusion.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I’m not sure I understand your point here. On the basis for which mueller was originally retained it was closer to a witch hunt than a conclusion of criminal activity. Do you now agree that mueller lacked integrity? It would be very trumpian to do so, it seems to me.

I am also not sure why anyone thinks trump can assert exoneration at all. Mueller did not reach that conclusion, according to Barr, whose summary says it did NOT exonerate trump on obstruction. But even if that’s true, is it surprising?

You are overthinking it. He is just saying that both sides are in an awkward position now regarding Mueller.

[BlueK]

Swish!

If Mueller wasn't able to establish criminal wrongdoing beyond a reasonable doubt, as is the standard in criminal proceedings, then so be it. That doesn't mean there aren't or can't still be legitimate questions. I mean people still have those about OJ despite what the jury concluded.

My post you referenced falls under the second paragraph below. I still want to know why this thing with Clinton and Russia and so many of his people lying about their contacts there happened if there was nothing to cover up. It honestly still doesn't make sense to me. Regardless of how I or others might feel about Trump and how great or terrible of a person or president he is, I think these are still fair questions.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/25/polit...ler/index.html

Did Mueller uncover any evidence of collusion?
Trump and his administration immediately seized on Barr's summation of the Mueller report by insisting his oft-repeated claims of "NO COLLUSION" had been proven. And he's likely right! But that's not exactly what Barr said. Barr quoted from the report saying "[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."
There is a difference between some strands of evidence that might suggest collusion and the ability to establish collusion beyond a reasonable doubt. In fact, there's a relatively wide chasm between those two things. So, did anything Mueller turned up fall into that gap? If so, what?

Why, if there was no collusion, were there SO many contacts between the Russians and Trump campaign. And why did so many of them lie about it?
This is the question that confounds me most in the wake of Barr's summation of the Mueller report. We know that at least 16 Trump associates had contact with Russians either during the 2016 campaign or in the presidential transition process. And we know that at least three of them -- national security adviser Michael Flynn, Trump fixer/lawyer Michael Cohen and foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos -- lied to either Congress or federal investigators about those interactions. And in each case, those lies led to criminal charges.
If they didn't lie to protect a broader collusion effort, why did they lie? Perhaps to keep investigators away from other crimes unrelated to Russia's interference efforts in the 2016 campaign -- Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort ended up being convicted with financial crimes related to his dealings with the Ukrainian government, for example.
Or maybe the people Trump attracted (and attracts) were simply as comfortable lying as telling the truth. Despite Trump's repeated assertions, his campaign (and his administration) was not exactly comprised of the best and brightest minds in the political and legal worlds.

[creekster]

You are overthinking it. He is just saying that both sides are in an awkward position now regarding Mueller.

Hard to argue with that. But that's not what he said.

[Commando]

Trump played it perfectly. He forced the MSM and democrats to defend Mueller's credibility for two years. Now that the report exonerates him, they can't credibly attack Mueller or his investigation.

See- you're going by Trump's characterization of what the report does. I don't think he knows what 'exhonerate' means. As for that 'long game' you credited to Trump-- lol. You could say Trump spent the past 2 years discrediting the investigation so now that it concludes there was no collusion, who cares since it's an ILLEGAL WITCH HUNT anyways.

[creekster]

If Mueller wasn't able to establish criminal wrongdoing beyond a reasonable doubt, as is the standard in criminal proceedings, then so be it. That doesn't mean there aren't or can't still be legitimate questions. I mean people still have those about OJ despite what the jury concluded.

My post you referenced falls under the second paragraph below. I still want to know why this thing with Clinton and Russia and so many of his people lying about their contacts happened if there was nothing to cover up. It honestly still doesn't make sense to me.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/25/polit...ler/index.html

Did Mueller uncover any evidence of collusion?
Trump and his administration immediately seized on Barr's summation of the Mueller report by insisting his oft-repeated claims of "NO COLLUSION" had been proven. And he's likely right! But that's not exactly what Barr said. Barr quoted from the report saying "[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."
There is a difference between some strands of evidence that might suggest collusion and the ability to establish collusion beyond a reasonable doubt. In fact, there's a relatively wide chasm between those two things. So, did anything Mueller turned up fall into that gap? If so, what?

Why, if there was no collusion, were there SO many contacts between the Russians and Trump campaign. And why did so many of them lie about it?
This is the question that confounds me most in the wake of Barr's summation of the Mueller report. We know that at least 16 Trump associates had contact with Russians either during the 2016 campaign or in the presidential transition process. And we know that at least three of them -- national security adviser Michael Flynn, Trump fixer/lawyer Michael Cohen and foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos -- lied to either Congress or federal investigators about those interactions. And in each case, those lies led to criminal charges.
If they didn't lie to protect a broader collusion effort, why did they lie? Perhaps to keep investigators away from other crimes unrelated to Russia's interference efforts in the 2016 campaign -- Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort ended up being convicted with financial crimes related to his dealings with the Ukrainian government, for example.
Or maybe the people Trump attracted (and attracts) were simply as comfortable lying as telling the truth. Despite Trump's repeated assertions, his campaign (and his administration) was not exactly comprised of the best and brightest minds in the political and legal worlds.

Just out of curiosity, do we know how many persons in Clinton's campaign had contact with Russians? How about Obama's campaign? And does this include contacts that were intiated by Russians? The lying thing is interesting. They know they were lying because they found the truth. Right? If you cant prove the truth then you cant prove the lie. But none of those admitted or proven lies constituted sufficient evidence of conspiracy to lead to prosecution. in fact, the lies were usually not germane to the core issue of Trump's collusion. That seems pretty straightforward.

Trump is awful. But this whole Russian thing has smelled bad from the beginning.

[wapiti]

If Mueller wasn't able to establish criminal wrongdoing beyond a reasonable doubt, as is the standard in criminal proceedings, then so be it. That doesn't mean there aren't or can't still be legitimate questions. I mean people still have those about OJ despite what the jury concluded.

My post you referenced falls under the second paragraph below. I still want to know why this thing with Clinton and Russia and so many of his people lying about their contacts there happened if there was nothing to cover up. It honestly still doesn't make sense to me. Regardless of how I or others might feel about Trump and how great or terrible of a person or president he is, I think these are still fair questions.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/25/polit...ler/index.html

Did Mueller uncover any evidence of collusion?
Trump and his administration immediately seized on Barr's summation of the Mueller report by insisting his oft-repeated claims of "NO COLLUSION" had been proven. And he's likely right! But that's not exactly what Barr said. Barr quoted from the report saying "[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."
There is a difference between some strands of evidence that might suggest collusion and the ability to establish collusion beyond a reasonable doubt. In fact, there's a relatively wide chasm between those two things. So, did anything Mueller turned up fall into that gap? If so, what?

Why, if there was no collusion, were there SO many contacts between the Russians and Trump campaign. And why did so many of them lie about it?
This is the question that confounds me most in the wake of Barr's summation of the Mueller report. We know that at least 16 Trump associates had contact with Russians either during the 2016 campaign or in the presidential transition process. And we know that at least three of them -- national security adviser Michael Flynn, Trump fixer/lawyer Michael Cohen and foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos -- lied to either Congress or federal investigators about those interactions. And in each case, those lies led to criminal charges.
If they didn't lie to protect a broader collusion effort, why did they lie? Perhaps to keep investigators away from other crimes unrelated to Russia's interference efforts in the 2016 campaign -- Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort ended up being convicted with financial crimes related to his dealings with the Ukrainian government, for example.
Or maybe the people Trump attracted (and attracts) were simply as comfortable lying as telling the truth. Despite Trump's repeated assertions, his campaign (and his administration) was not exactly comprised of the best and brightest minds in the political and legal worlds.

CNN is in CYA-mode. So is BK, FR, et al.