Does the Mueller report exonerate Trump? 12 legal experts weigh in
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
“If this is what a complete and total exoneration looks like, I’d hate to see a damning report.”Attorney General Bill Barr finally released Robert Mueller’s Trump-Russia report on Thursday, reasserting his position that the special counsel found no evidence of collusion or the basis for an obstruction of justice charge.But the actual report is quite damning. It establishes, among other things, a clear fact pattern showing repeated connections between the Trump campaign and Russia. It also outlines 10 potential instances of obstruction of justice that suggest, at the very least, that President Trump actively sought to undermine Mueller’s investigation.Despite Barr’s statements, top legal thinkers aren’t so sure that the conclusion should be so cut and dried.
I asked 12 legal experts to examine what the report had to say about collusion and obstruction of justice. Specifically, I wanted to know if Barr’s decision not to pursue obstruction charges was justified, and if the evidence of coordination between Russia and the Trump campaign amounted to criminal conspiracy.There was a near-consensus on both questions. While Mueller may not have had sufficient evidence to charge anyone with conspiracy, the experts agree that plenty of evidence exists. The same is true of the obstruction question. As one expert put it, “the Mueller report provides a road map for prosecuting Trump for obstruction of justice, but stops short of this finding because of legal doubts about indicting a sitting president.”You can read their full responses, lightly edited for clarity, below.
Jessica Levinson, law professor, Loyola Law School
If we were talking about Mr. Trump, not President Trump, we’d be talking about an indictment for obstruction of justice. Today we know that Attorney General Barr put a highly positive (for Trump) gloss on the report. Today we know that Mueller found substantial wrongdoing that would plague, and perhaps end, any other presidency in American history. Today we know that perhaps the difference between a suggestion that Trump be prosecuted for obstruction of justice and a suggestion that he not be was 1) Mueller’s inability to sit down and speak with the Trump without subpoenaing him and Mueller’s decision not to subpoena Trump, and 2) actions by Trump’s staffers that may have protected the president from legal liability.The headline of the report is helpful to Trump. The actual substance of the report is damning.
Miriam Baer, law professor, Brooklyn Law School
The special counsel’s report breaks into two volumes. Whereas the first volume, which focuses on Russia’s interference in the presidential election, contains quite a few redactions, the second volume, which focuses on the obstruction of justice questions, contains very few redactions. Presumably, this was intentional on the special counsel’s part, and one cannot help but wonder whether Attorney General Barr could and should have released the second volume several weeks ago, particularly because of the damning nature of the information contained in that volume.Even if each of the events described and analyzed by the special counsel independently falls short of establishing obstruction as a legal matter (and that’s a debatable proposition), viewed in the aggregate, they indicate a stunning willingness to ignore and subvert the rule of law. President Trump’s supporters can call it an exoneration, but his opponents may well view it as a road map for impeachment.“It’s not a crime for any citizen to associate with criminals and spies, nor to enjoy their favors, but that is surely too low a standard for a president of the United States”
Stephen Legomsky, law professor, Washington University
Ever since Attorney General William Barr released his purported “summary” of the Mueller report’s conclusions, most media accounts have assumed that Mr. Mueller ultimately decided there was no conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Russians. We have been told that the Mueller report had thus “exonerated” President Trump of conspiracy charges, though not on charges that he obstructed justice. Some media reports went further, stating that Mr. Mueller had found “no evidence” of a conspiracy. The Democrats, some said, had now been proved wrong even for supporting the special counsel’s independent investigation into the matter.Those accounts gave the president an undeserved free pass, for even Mr. Barr’s cherry-picked quotes had made no such claims. We can now see that all Mr. Mueller decided on that issue was that “the investigation did not establish” such a conspiracy. To non-lawyers this might seem like splitting hairs, but lawyers understand how important that difference is. “Establish” is prosecutor talk that simply means “I won’t bring an indictment because I don’t think a jury would find the proof of conspiracy to be ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’” — an extremely high standard of proof. As the Mueller report emphasizes in the introduction, “A statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of those facts.”To the contrary, we now know that Mr. Mueller found abundant evidence of precisely such a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Russians.
The section titled “Trump Campaign and the Dissemination of Hacked Materials” was very heavily redacted, but even the non-redacted evidence of conspiracy was substantial: campaign chairman Paul Manafort’s “periodically” sharing internal polling data and other campaign updates with the Russians; the campaign’s promotion of “dozens of tweets, posts, and other political content created by” the Russian hacking operation; Trump publicly urging Russia to search for Hillary Clinton’s “missing” emails; the campaign’s successful effort to tone down the anti-Russian language in the Republican Party platform at the nominating convention; the president’s bizarre support for Putin, resistance to sanctions, and corresponding antagonism toward our NATO allies; the multiple meetings between top campaign officials and Russians with Kremlin ties, including their famous meeting at the New York Trump hotel for the express, albeit ultimately unsuccessful, purpose of getting dirt on Hillary Clinton; and the lies they were caught in when they tried to deny either the meetings themselves or their content.Whether or not that pile of evidence rises to the level of “proof beyond a reasonable doubt,” it is of grave concern.
There is thus ample reason for Congress — which is not subject to the same standard of proof as a criminal prosecutor — to continue investigating this issue, as well as the obstruction of justice question and all the other disturbing allegations surrounding President Trump and his associates. There are also the continuing, very legitimate investigations by various US attorneys’ offices and state attorney general offices. And, of course, there is still hope that at least Congress, and perhaps the public, will find a way to see the crucial information that Mr. Barr has redacted from the Mueller report. So there is much more to come.
Peter Margulies, law professor, Roger Williams University School of Law
The Mueller report paints a disturbing picture of President Trump trying to undermine investigations with a more reassuring portrayal of lawyers and aides seeking to preserve the rule of law. According to Mueller, ex-White House counsel Don McGahn and others “declined to carry out orders or accede to his requests.” The president’s directive to FBI Director Jim Comey to go easy on National Security Adviser Michael Flynn for lying to the FBI met the legal test for obstruction of justice. But Comey refused Trump’s request, just as McGahn shrugged off Trump’s order to fire Mueller.The Mueller report provides a road map for prosecuting Trump for obstruction of justice but stops short of this finding because of legal doubts about indicting a sitting president. Trump could be charged after he has left the White House, although Attorney General William Barr’s refusal to charge Trump now might make future prosecution seem imprudent or vindictive. In addition, Congress could start impeachment based on Mueller’s road map, although political factors might weigh against that move.The Mueller report also prompts a mixed verdict on Attorney General Barr.
Given the disturbing evidence of Trump’s obstruction in the report, both today’s Barr press conference and the letter Barr released almost four weeks ago seem like exercises in spin. But Barr also released the Mueller report with far fewer redactions than many feared. It’s up to Congress, the media, and the public to read the entire report to get a full picture of the president’s repeated efforts to undermine the justice system and the concerted attempts by government lawyers and other aides to pull him back from the precipice.Keith Whittington, politics professor, Princeton UniversityIf this is what a complete and total exoneration looks like, I’d hate to see a damning report. We have often been cautioned not to rush to judgment because we did not know what the Mueller team knows. It turns out that the broad contours of the investigation’s findings had largely found their way into the public sphere, but the report collects all that information in a single place and provides new details that do not put the president in a favorable light.The good news for the White House is that Mueller could not prove a criminal conspiracy involving the Trump campaign to have Russia influence the 2016 elections and that Mueller did not recommend obstruction of justice charges.
The bad news is that the campaign demonstrated an unseemly willingness to benefit from Russian interference and that Russia made lots of efforts to interfere in the election.Moreover, the president has behaved remarkably badly in regard to the investigation into the 2016 campaign. Mueller was appropriately cautious about reaching legal conclusions regarding obstruction of justice given the aggressive legal interpretation that would be needed to pursue a case against some of the president’s actions and given that Justice Department policies would preclude those legal conclusions from being translated into indictments of a sitting president.The president might have an innocent explanation for some of his actions, or at least a credible claim of mixed motives, but he repeatedly took actions that he was strongly advised would be highly inappropriate and was saved from more damaging consequences by the willingness of others to ignore the president’s preferences. The courtroom is probably not the right venue for calling the president to account for his actions, but the report leaves little doubt that the president does not appreciate the responsibilities of his office.
Victoria Nourse, law professor, Georgetown University
“Putin has won.” Election Day 2016, an intercepted message to Kirill Dmitriev, a Russian national “closely connected to Putin.” (On page 149 of the Mueller report.) This line says everything that the American public should remember about the Mueller investigation. Russian interference in the election has been established beyond doubt. Worse, Mueller found that the Trump campaign “expected to benefit” from criminal actions by Russians who successfully targeted the American election. It is not a crime for any citizen to associate with criminals and spies, nor to enjoy their favors, but that is surely too low a standard for a president of the United States.Viewing this case through the lens of criminal law is a mistake. The president takes an oath “to take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” Few constitutionalists believe that the special counsel would indict a sitting president for an ordinary crime. The constitutional power to judge a president is left to Congress. Congress must determine whether there has been a constitutional offense.We now know that, contrary to his oath to “take care” that the laws be faithfully executed, the president tried to fire the special counsel, and he fired the head of the FBI, among other acts to thwart the investigation of criminal election interference by our enemies. These are not the acts of one faithful to the law. They are acts of one who would put his own election above the integrity of America’s democracy.
Ric Simmons, law professor, Ohio State University
After reading the full report, it is much harder to understand why Mueller determined that there was insufficient evidence to believe that the president was guilty of obstruction of justice. The primary reason seems to be lack of evidence that the president had a “corrupt intent.” But in reviewing the 10 episodes in which the president may have obstructed justice, the report concludes numerous times that there is “substantial evidence” that the president acted with the intent to impede ongoing criminal investigations, or that a “reasonable inference” is that the president acted with such an intent.Furthermore, the report noted that the president refused to cooperate with the investigation with regard to answering questions on potential obstruction of justice charges, and that the Mueller team declined to issue a subpoena in order to pursue the issue. But if the question of the president’s intent was unresolved, and thus the question of whether the president was guilty of obstruction remained unresolved, a subpoena of the president would be a critical next step in the investigation.While there may have been good reasons not to pursue a subpoena against the president, this omission in the investigation leaves open a very significant question regarding whether the president is guilty of obstruction charges.“If we were talking about Mr. Trump, not President Trump, we’d be talking about an indictment for obstruction of justice
”Ilya Somin, law professor, George Mason University
The redacted version of the Mueller report released today paints an unflattering picture of President Trump, particularly on the question of obstruction of justice. Although special counsel Robert Mueller did not reach any conclusion on whether the president should be prosecuted for obstruction, he did conclude that “Our investigation found multiple acts by the president that were capable of exerting undue influence over law enforcement investigations, including the Russia-interference and obstruction investigations.”Trump’s efforts to hamstring the investigation mostly failed. But that was “largely because the persons who surrounded the president declined to carry out orders and accede to his requests.”
The fact that White House counsel Donald McGahn and other legally sophisticated officials refused to carry out the president’s orders is a strong sign they considered them improper and likely illegal.The report also includes a compelling response to claims that the president could not have committed obstruction of justice, if he did not commit any underlying crime related to Russia. As the report notes, “obstruction of justice can be motivated by a desire to protect non-criminal personal interests, to protect against investigations where underlying criminal liability falls into a grey area, or to avoid personal embarrassment.”All of these motives were very plausibly present in the case of Trump.
Trump had a strong incentive to impede the investigation in order to prevent its revelations from “calling into question the legitimacy of his election,” and because of “potential uncertainty” about whether some of the information revealed “could be seen as criminal activity by the President, his campaign, or his family.”An additional possible motive was preventing revelation of crimes by his close associates that were not directly related to “collusion.” The Mueller investigation did in fact reveal many such crimes, and several close associates of Trump’s have been convicted of various offenses.On the question of collusion, the report is largely good news for Trump. The investigation did not find enough evidence to justify filing charges. But the report documents extensive contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian agents. The latter sought to help the former, and the campaign hoped to benefit from Russia’s actions. The fact that a hostile authoritarian regime believed Trump’s victory would advance their interests, and made extensive efforts to secure that outcome, is highly damning, even if Trump and his associates did not commit any crimes in the process.In the short run, Trump is unlikely to face legal liability. Justice Department policy forbids prosecution of a sitting president. Impeachment is not so constrained. But successful impeachment leading to removal requires the support of numerous Republican senators, which seems unlikely. Trump does, however, face potential prosecution after he leaves office. The political impact of the report also remains to be seen.
Ciara Torres-Spelliscy, law professor, Stetson University
If the DOJ was a law firm, it would be the largest law firm in the world. Honorable men don’t always run the DOJ. For instance, Nixon’s Attorney General John Mitchell authorized the Watergate break-in when he was still at DOJ. Mitchell served 19 months in prison for his Watergate-related crimes including obstruction of justice. William Barr may be on Mitchell’s path to ignominy.Barr’s cursory four-page summary was deeply misleading compared to even the redacted version of the Mueller report that has been released to the public. The redacted Mueller report provides what will surely be a first draft of history of the Trump campaign and Trump presidency, and the report does so in damning detail that was absent from Barr’s initial memo, including the multiple contacts between the Trump 2016 campaign, the Trump Organization, and the Trump transition with various Russians.Barr’s initial characterization of Mueller’s decision not to pursue obstruction of justice seemed to indicate that there was insufficient evidence. But the actual Mueller report seems to indicate that part of why the special counsel declined to make a decision on prosecuting obstruction was because of the DOJ’s longstanding policy that a president cannot be indicted.Indeed, the report states, “given [that the President cannot be indicted under OLC policy], the facts known to us, and the strong public interest in safeguarding the integrity of the criminal justice system, we conducted a thorough and factual investigation in order to preserve the evidence when memories were fresh and documentary materials were available.” This seems to indicate that the special counsel was trying to preserve evidence of potential obstruction crimes for possible future prosecution when Trump was no longer president or for use by Congress.
The Mueller report in Volume I indicates that the special counsel did not decide to pursue potential campaign finance violations including the long-term ban on receipt of things of value from foreign nationals by American political campaigns because of uncertainty about information provided by members of the Trump campaign such as Don Jr. and [Jared] Kushner. In other words, they may not have known that they were breaking the law when they allegedly broke the law. And without that knowledge, it would be impossible to charge them with a knowing violation of the law.The Mueller report on Volume II, page eight is clear that “Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President’s conduct. The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent present difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment.
At the same time, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state.” In other words, the Mueller report does not exonerate President Trump on the matter of obstruction of justice.The report also reminds the president that under the United States Constitution, he must “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” And that “the concept of ‘faithful execution’ connotes the use of power in the interest of the public, not the office holder’s personal interests.” (Vol II at 177). And the report ends thusly: “the protection of the criminal justice system from corrupt acts by any person — including the President — accords with the fundamental principle of our government that ‘[n]o [person] in this country is so high that he is above the law.’”This report gives Congress multiple avenues of investigation to pursue. Accusations of obstruction of justice were counts of impeachment against both Presidents Clinton and Nixon. The open question is whether the Congress will have the stomach to peruse the 10 instances of potential obstruction of justice laid bare in the redacted Mueller report against President Trump now. Moreover, from the redactions that refer to “on-going matters,” clearly other legal shoes are yet to drop.“If this is what a complete and total exoneration looks like, I’d hate to see a damning report”
Jens David Ohlin, law professor, Cornell University
First, the report concludes that Trump personally exerted “undue influence” over law enforcement investigations. Whether that’s a crime or not, it’s certainly intolerable and something that the House of Representatives should take action on. There can be a debate about whether that action should be impeachment or censure, but that political debate has to happen now.Second, the Mueller report focuses almost exclusively on conspiracy law while ignoring the crime of solicitation under Florida state penal law. In his July 2016 speech in Florida, Trump requested that Russia commit computer hacking to find Clinton’s emails. That may not be a conspiracy, but it is a criminal solicitation under state penal law. It’s also wrong and unacceptable.The report concludes that Trump tried to have Mueller fired. The Nixon “precedent” is that removing a special counsel constitutes obstruction of justice. If Trump’s attempt to fire Mueller isn’t obstruction of justice, then the new “rule” will be that it’s okay to fire a special counsel investigating the president. That’s completely antithetical to the rule of law.
Frances Hill, law professor, University of Miami
The Mueller report, with redactions and without appendices, does not exonerate President Trump. Instead, it raises more questions about more forms of culpability. The one I find most concerning is the cyberwar launched by Russia against the United States around the 2016 campaign and election. These sections of the report documented the scope of the hostile activities aimed at the heart of our democracy. What was missing was a recounting of the president’s refusal to acknowledge the attack and to take reasonable steps to prevent a recurrence in 2020.If there were to be impeachment proceedings, articles of impeachments under the “take care” clause and the “commander in chief” should be included in the case against Trump, whose budget cuts and failures to act in the national interest of the United States should not be overlooked or excused. These failures need to be explained to all of us so that we can decide in the 2020 election whether Trump is acting in the interest of the United States.Finally, the analysis of obstruction of justice efficiently destroys many of the arguments made by the current attorney general in his job application memorandum of June 2018. It appears to provide sufficient evidence for a strong case that Trump obstructed justice in multiple ways. There are instances where the language of the Mueller report appears to be inconsistent with the spin offered this morning by the attorney general.The paths forward are becoming clearer. Congress should continue to investigate the financial connections between Trump and Russia. But the issue of Trump’s conduct will be in the hands of the voters. This is no time for us to become weary of the betrayals and dysfunctions of this administration. Removing Trump from our national life by defeating him at the polls in 2020 may be the best way to preserve our republic. He can always be tried for his crimes when he is out of office.
Renato Mariotti, former federal prosecutor, 2007 to 2016, and host of the On Topic podcast
The report indicates that there is overwhelming evidence that Trump took extraordinary efforts to try and undermine Mueller’s investigation. Just one quick example: Trump told his White House counsel to fire Mueller, then he told him to lie about it. Similarly, he tried to reverse the impact of his attorney general’s decision to recuse himself from the investigation. And on and on and on. There are just so many instances of Trump seeking to undermine the investigation.The report also indicates that Mueller did not reach an obstruction conclusion due to concerns arising from the Justice Department’s policy against indicting a sitting president. Mueller concluded that Congress could enforce the obstruction of justice statute when Trump acted corruptly to undermine an investigation. Barr’s suggestions to the contrary were false.
Tags
Who is online
51 visitors
No "no collusion" , and no "no obstruction".
We may have to get rid of our trash president* through the ballot box, but what today's revelation of the "Mueller Report" did do besides implicate the president in unethical personal behavior, was to largely vindicate the overall effort by the mainstream media to report this story. And the Mueller Report gives lie to the right wing talking point that the Russia investigation was a "hoax".
Trump WAS vindicated, AND exonerated in one fell swoop.
No there, there. No burger in that bun. No birdie in that tree.
Yep, absolutely NO collusion, and NO obstruction!
It's over for the Dems, time to give up and go home.
Every day the left keeps trying to "get" Trump will lessen their chances in the coming elections...
So keep after it, we're counting on ya.
... remember if you lie, the boogie man will get you, and your nose is gonna grow
So remember if you lie everyone will know.
No he wasn't, I can tell you haven't even taken a look at the Mueller report, Trump was neither vindicated nor, exonerated.
Read for yourself,
We better have a drawn out Trial then.
oh …. wait….we have had that drawn out trial...……... for 2 years.
Now what do we do ?
Have another one ?
When did Trump go on trial for obstruction? Oh wait, he hasn't yet. Now, if you want to be informed read the report, here let me help you,
Since January 20, 2017. Haven't you been watching the News ?
According You? Didn't read the article did you Greg.
Yes we know that NOT exonerated means exonerated on Earth 2.
What court of law was that in? I've been watching the news and, still haven't seen anything on Trump being on trial, I've seen news on his campaign and, business being investigated but, not any trials were he is the defendant.
Where was it said it was in an actual "Court of Law" ?
Have you NEVER heard of "The Court of Public(Liberal) OPINION" ?
Oh you mean like "The Court of Public (Conservative) OPINION" that has been trying Hillary Clinton and, Barack Obama of the past 10 years for imagined crimes? Yeah, I don't pay attention to those, except to call them out on their lies. In this case we have the Mueller report and, the evidence collected that show that there was Russian interference in our elections with the express purpose of electing Donald Trump and, Trumps attempts to obstruct that investigation into the Russia probe.
So, nothing but, hyperbole from you, got it.
Oh No....the Big words are coming out.
Stumped ya huh !
And Here I thought this was about Trump.
Who new it wasn't ?
Today's ...... a GREAT DAY ....ain't it ?
My choice would be the guy running who speaks like 7 languages and from all reports is a total Renascence Man. He is well spoken, intelligent, and knowledgeable about world affairs, Trump sorely lacking in all three arenas. Where Trump, whose solution to the fire at Notre Dame, would have leveled what is left of this historical church, this guy spoke to the people of France fluently about the loss to them and the world. No way will he ever pull a covfefe or forget how to spell both his wife's and his mistress's names in tweets. Trump needs to take his "smocking gun" and just fade away.
Better title:
Far left website asks trump critics to criticize trump.
No witch hunt, no hoax. Trump needs to either resign or announce he is not running for re-election. We cannot have someone with this sort of cloud hanging over him run in the next presidential election.
You're kidding of course.
For Trump, from here on, there's nothing but blue skies, calm seas, and following winds....
Good luck to those Democrat fools continuing this farce.
Why should we win elections, when can overturn one....
Oh wait!
I told Hillary the same thing. Even though I think she would make a fine president, there is just too much republican generated baggage that she will never be able to shed.
We have to first question the concept in that title.
ex·on·er·ate
/iɡˈzänəˌrāt/
verb
I think Mueller is a little confused about American law. Everyone is regarded as innocent until proven otherwise. That also applies to Donald Trump.
Why would Mueller even say Trump is not exonerated if he wasn't ever even charged with anything?
What Mueller has done here is to have others continue investigating Trump. He can't bring a charge, but instead smears the President as someone who is not entitled to the presumption of innocence.
That is the whole reason he used that phrase, Mueller concluded he wasn't allowed to charge the President with obstruction even though there was clear evidence of it, not just once but at least 10 clearly defined times the President obstructed or attempted to obstruct. Mueller lays out the case for each one but decided that since a sitting President can't be indicted, he would not charge the President with any crime but refer it to Congress and the AG to decide how to proceed.
Yes, in our system of justice you are innocent until proven guilty. In this case the Mueller report is simply laying out the facts of the case, not coming to a conclusion on criminality. From what I've read so far, there is clearly enough evidence to warrant at minimum a censure by the congress if not full impeachment proceedings. The report shows an unhinged narcissist who was only saved from criminal conspiracy and criminal obstruction because those around him refused to follow through on his orders. The report clearly shows Trump to be an ignorant mob boss constantly trying to cover his own ass by throwing other people under the bus. Trump is the largest, fattest, greasiest turd we've ever had in our political punch bowl, bigger even than Nixon, and should be kicked out of office as soon as possible, whether by the vast majority of voters who despise the piece of trash embarrassment or by congress starting impeachment and Republicans in the Senate waking up to reality.
Aside from all the progressive talking points, it is the AG's decision whether to indict etc and that also goes for allowing the entire report to be read. Under the old law such a report went directly to congress, now it must go to the AG. Redactions have to be made.
Why, you ask?
"Mr. Starr in his transmittal letter to the speaker and the minority leader made it clear that much of this material is Federal Rule 6(e) material, that is material that by law unless contravened by a vote of the House, must be kept secret. It’s grand jury material. It represents statements which may or may not be true by various witnesses, salacious material, all kinds of material that it would be unfair to release. So, I assume what’s going to have to happen before anything else happens is that somebody — the staff of the Judiciary Committee, perhaps the chairman and ranking minority member — is going to have to go over this material, at least the 400 or 500 pages in the report to determine what is fit for release and what is, as a matter of decency and protecting people’s privacy rights, people who may be totally innocent third parties, what must not be released at all."...Jerrold Nadler
Why? He didn't recommend charges?
there is clearly enough evidence to warrant at minimum a censure by the congress if not full impeachment proceedings.
If that is so, there will be bipartisan support for impeachment. If it's only democrats calling for impeachment, it will be seen for what it is. I hope democrats pull that trigger. There will be a major fight between democratic leaders and some of the extremist members first. The consequences will be come in 2020.
As for the usual vindictive Trump rant, I will write that off for what it is
In my system of justice you are guilty until proven innocent (Nobody is innocent).
Never happened Vic. Read all 400 pages, would you like a link to it
Spot on ...
Trump is 'exonerated'. He's in Mar a Largo on our dime. Again.
I have no idea who the chosen 12 law experts are. what their politics is, or their leanings. I would like to know what Alan Dershowitz would opine - I trust his judgment.
In fact what he has said is to wait for the response from the Trump legal team, rather than a rush to judgment on seeing only one side of a story, which is an opinion one would expect from an unbiased brilliant jurist.
Me too. I always defer to those who've ridden on that Lysergic Acid Diethylamide train.
Well, you want to know something? Back in the late 60s and early 70s I did a few rides on that train myself, and it didn't turn me into a looney-toon. It's so easy to be ignorant about something yet critical of it if you've never been there.
Of course.
Did you even glance at the article Buzz? The names and positions of the 12 "experts" are given.
I guess they are not Dershowitz, but that doesnt make their opinions invalid.
Many people disagree with Dershowitz.
Don't put words in my mouth - I never said their opinions were invalid.
Well, I know you disagree with him because he had the incredible and unforgivable chutzpah to defend Trump on something where he was legally correct NOTWITHSTANDING that Dershowitz is an avowed liberal Democrat who never voted for Trump. I would say he follows the biblical saying "Justice, justice shall you pursue" and put partisan politics elsewhere than in the courts of law.
Whatever Dershowitz is, I rarely agree with him. He has been all over the place and I haven't respected his opinions for a very long time. That's why I don't belong to any party, easier to stay focused on the message and behavior. The Dersh ain't all that.
Doubtful
I don't, or didn't until the gop went batshit extreme. You really should try not belonging to a party and see how freeing it is to look at the issues and proposed solutions instead of blindly following naked emperors and liars and Russian trolls.
LMAO everything you post is a leftwing talking point.
No collusion, period.
Winning.
So you're saying the left has a better relationship with actual facts? Got it.
Mueller made it perfectly clear why he never even addressed collusion, btw. And made it clear that Trump did attempt to obstruct justice. Why do you refuse to accept that Trump did something wrong? Why do you only care about lack of ethics or truth when it's someone on the left who's doing things they shouldn't? That's the very definition of hypocrisy.
I never said that.
He didn't? WTF was the whole investigation about then?
Are you telling me that they spent multi millions of dollars on the collusion investigation and never addressed it? Well that explains why I am anti big government.
Just because President Trump floated out a idea without the understanding that he can't do that I am okay with that. that is what he has advisers for.
The rest of your rambling is a bunch of "you's". You sound like the lady that got kicked off the plane harassing a passenger over President Trump.
They come from the Stalinist school of historical interpretation....They just pretend inconvenient facts never existed.
He will, just stay tuned.
And i agree. He a reasonable legal voice is a sea of biased legal voices.
Screw the experts, they need to talk to the people, and the people are becoming more disgusted with the Democrats as the sage goes on.
you should read more and stay off fox
That's what google is for look them up
Special counsel Robert Mueller’s report on Donald Trump and Russia establishes a damning series of facts about the Trump campaign’s connections to the Kremlin.
We learned that two Trump campaign officials, campaign manager Paul Manafort and Manafort’s deputy Rick Gates, were regularly providing polling information to a Russian national whom Gates believed to be a “spy.”
We learned that, after Trump publicly called on Russia to find Hillary Clinton’s emails, he privately ordered future National Security Adviser Michael Flynn to find them. Flynn reached out to a man named Peter Smith who (apparently falsely) told a number of people that he was in contact with Russian agents.
We learned that Trump foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos attempted to arrange meetings between Trump and Putin, and that Trump personally approved Papadopoulos’s work on this front.
The report is very clear that Mueller’s investigation did not establish that the Trump campaign criminally conspired on illegal Russian election interference, or that it coordinated with Russia through either an active or tacit agreement.
But the report, combined with other publicly known facts — that Donald Trump Jr. arranged a meeting with the express purpose of obtaining Russian “dirt” on Clinton, and that Papadopoulos was offered similar dirt from a Russian agent, among others — paints a damning picture of the campaign. It was both actively seeking to cultivate a relationship with the Russian government and willing to work with it to acquire damaging information about its political opponents. That willingness included explicitly sharing information with or soliciting information from Russian operatives.
As the report takes pains to point out, “collusion” has no legal definition and is not a federal crime. So while the report did not establish conspiracy or coordination, it does not make a determination on “collusion” — and in fact, it strongly suggests that there was at least an attempt to collude by Trump’s campaign and agents of the Russian government.
The fact that it did not rise to the level of criminal activity does not mean it was not a serious breach of trust and a damning indictment of the president’s commitment to the health of the American legal and political system. The section of the report focusing on Russian interference in the election is not an exoneration of Trump’s innocence. It’s a devastating portrayal of his approach to politics.
The strong evidence of (something like) collusion
Although Attorney General William Barr said that there was “no collusion” in his press conference before the report’s release, Mueller is actually quite explicit that he did not address the question of “collusion.” This is because, to his mind, the term is not precise enough, nor does it fall within the ambit of what was essentially a criminal investigation.
“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,” Mueller writes. “For those reasons, the Office’s focus in analyzing questions of joint criminal liability was on conspiracy as defined in federal law.”
So when Mueller concludes that he “did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities,” he is not saying that there is no evidence of “collusion” at all, in any sense. What he is saying is that there is insufficient evidence to prove that the Trump administration was directly involved in Russian crimes like stealing Clinton’s emails.
But did the Trump campaign actively work with the Russian government to improve its electoral chances? If that’s the standard, then the report provides plenty of evidence to suggest the answer is yes.
First, Russia repeatedly reached out to the Trump campaign to establish a connection to the Kremlin. “The Russian contacts consisted of business connections, offers of assistance to the Campaign, invitations for candidate Trump and Putin to meet in person, invitations for Campaign officials and representatives of the Russian government to meet, and policy positions seeking improved U.S.-Russian relations,” Mueller writes.
Second, the Trump campaign was receptive — sometimes going beyond what was on offer from the Kremlin. Some of the examples of this are egregious.
Take Manafort’s meetings with Konstantin Kilimnik, a Russian political consultant with a history of connections to the GRU intelligence agency. The FBI believed had links to the Kremlin, a view shared by Manafort’s right-hand man Gates. “Gates suspected that Kilimnik was a ‘spy,’ a view that he shared with Manafort,” Mueller writes.
Yet despite Gates’s suspicions, Manafort repeatedly met with Kilimnik, worked with him to develop a pro-Russian Ukraine policy that Trump could implement if elected, and regularly shared polling data with him:
It’s possible Paul Manafort was acting without the candidate’s knowledge, and you could argue that this shouldn’t really reflect on Trump. But it’s clear from the report that the president openly encouraged his campaign to reach out to Russians and work with them.
During a late March meeting of Trump’s foreign policy advisers, Papadopoulos told Trump about his attempts to set up a meeting with Putin. This, per Mueller, went over quite well.
“Papadopoulos and Campaign advisor J.D. Gordon — who told investigators in an interview that he had a ‘crystal clear’ recollection of the meeting — have stated that Trump was interested in and receptive to the idea of a meeting with Putin,” per the report. Papadopoulos worked diligently afterwards to try to set up such a meeting, but was foiled largely by scheduling issues.
At times, Trump was clear about his interest in Russian electoral involvement. This passage about email hacking, for example, in which Trump calls on Russia to get Clinton’s emails, then tells his campaign to acquire them.
Russia had, in fact, already stolen the text of many Clinton campaign private emails by then — so Trump couldn’t be involved in that particular criminal conspiracy. But the fact that Trump signaled that he was open to working with the Russians is nonetheless telling.
What “no collusion” gets wrong
The report is littered with evidence Trump and his staff were open to Russian interference in the election. Mueller explicitly concludes that “the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian effort.”
And there may very well be more evidence in the sections that are redacted.
For example, Gates told Mueller about a conversation with Trump during a late summer 2016 car ride to LaGuardia in which “candidate Trump told Gates that more releases of damaging information would be coming” from WikiLeaks.
Was Trump speculating? Or did he know that for sure, because of some kind of coordination with WikiLeaks (who was working with Russian agents to disseminate hacked Clinton material)? The section is heavily redacted, making it difficult to assess what’s actually going on.
I want to be clear: I am not disputing Mueller’s conclusions on whether a crime was committed. Criminal conspiracy has a very particular legal definition, and Mueller is persuasive on why none of the activities detailed in the report constituted illegal “coordination” in a way that would run afoul of the statute.
“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,” Mueller writes. “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.”
What the report finds is not clear-cut evidence of a quid-pro-quo. Instead, what we see is a series of bungled and abortive attempts to create ties between the two sides, a situation in which the Trump team and Russia worked to reach out to each other (and vice versa) without ever developing a formal arrangement to coordinate.
Does that rise to the level of “collusion?” It’s a slippery term. But if “collusion” refers to a willingness to cooperate with Russian interference in the 2016 US election and actively taking steps to abet it, it seems to me that the Mueller report does in fact establish that it took place.
But even if you find that definition too loose, the report’s message is not that there was nothing to worry about on the Trump-Russia front in 2016. Instead, it confirms that there were multiple shady connections between Trump and Russia, and that the president’s “no collusion” line is quite misleading. And at worst, the way it’s been presented suggests that the president and his attorney general are still actively trying to deceive the American people about what happened in 2016.
There were even shadier contacts and collusion between Obama's Democrats and the Russians, the likes of which are going to be investigated.
Yeah, right. You need to read the report, not the spin. We know who the Russians worked against, with the cooperation of Trump. It's in the report, unredacted. Also need to find out why Trump changed the party platform to benefit Putin over Ukraine. But Hilary! But Obama! No, its Trump and we are focused on his corruption and lies and strange relationship with Putin and other autocrats.
No, Putin only helped Trump. Hillary Clinton and The DNC were victim of Putin's Hackers and Putin's Troll Army. It is all in the report...
The report clearly states that the Obama administration was in contact with the Russians even before Trump was elected. And the evidence shows that Obama knew the Russians were trying to influence the elections and did nothing about t.
Except that Obama was President then and Trump was just a candidate.,.
Fairy tales again and again, ho humm
So what? It says right there that it's the Russians making the effort. That doesn't make anything Trump did a criminal act, or even unethical. If the Russians stole information and Wikileaks published it to the whole world, are we all just supposed to ignore the content?
Access Hollywood recorded Trump without his knowledge and the recording was released to the public. I would say that was unfair to Trump (and maybe even illegal), but Hillary Clinton, Democrats and the media had no qualms at all about trying to "benefit" from that information.
The whole "flap" over stolen Democrat emails is BECAUSE THEY WERE STOLEN BY AN ENEMY FOREIGN GOVERNMENT AND SELECTIVELY RELEASED IN THE MIDDLE OF A US ELECTION IN AN EFFORT TO AID ONE OF THE CANDIDATES! It was a crime to steal them, it was a crime to release them. It was the SAME crime as occurred in Watergate where Republican operatives hired by Nixon broke in and stole DNC correspondence (equivalent of emails back then if some are too dense to understand this) in an effort to find dirt on Democrats that could help Nixon in an election. The only difference today is that it was an enemy foreign government who broke in and stole the documents to help the Republican candidate. How Republicans reason that somehow makes it okay is mind boggling.
Why so many conservatives seem unbothered by this is truly amazing to me. I know they would be screaming in rage and foaming at the mouth if they had been the victims of the same. If the Russians had hacked GOP emails (actually they did) and released them during the campaign (which they intentionally didn't do because of their evil agenda) with the specific intent of helping Hillary win the election Republicans would have gone nuclear. Instead, they passively sit by as our election process, free and fair election, and Democracy itself is threatened by an enemy foreign government who, from all indications, wants to completely annihilate western Democracy and American freedoms.
If any one of Trumps supporters had even an ounce of integrity they would admit that if they read this report and replaced every time it says "Trump" with "Clinton" and "Republican" with "Democrat", they would be demanding their immediate impeachment. Sadly, honesty and integrity don't seem to be something conservative Republicans cherish any longer.
Lol, yeah and the 30,000+ emails she deleted were all only personal emails right?
If you believe that nonsense i've got a slightly used bridge i can sell you that connects our two peninsula's here in Michigan.
It's a beauty!
So if there was some embarrassing correspondence in the stolen Watergate documents, that should be all that matters? If there was truth in them then it's okay to steal and release them during an election? If you were running for local election, it would be okay to hack your phone and steal the dick pics and send them to all the networks? I mean, they would contain "the truth" would they not?
I don't even have a cell phone so I wouldn't know, but obviously you missed the point. Whether "dick" pics or some other sensitive, personal information or correspondence that could be used by an opponent to embarrass you, stealing it and then releasing it is a crime regardless of whether the embarrassing things are "true" or not.
It seems like most conservative Republicans would rather reward the Russians than prosecute them. Congratulations for not being like that and at least accepting the fact that the Russians did illegally interfere with our elections which were far from free and fair in 2016, they were sabotaged by an enemy with an agenda and the more we dismiss and obfuscate that fact the more likely it is to happen again.
You leftists have obviously conviced yourselves that this ridiculous charge is truth.
it assumes that the 30 states Trump carried prefer the Democrat ideology of taxpayer funding of abortions, increased taxation and control over our lives, more regulations over every aspect of our lives (except for sex), more leftist justices on the courts, and the rest of the leftist ideology.
the next election will be the judgment of the American people on this contrast. I believe 2020 may be the last election to preserve our Constitutional Republic. The ignorance of Americans about the Constitution and the willingness of young people to embrace enslavement to the state, will likely prevail in the not distant future. I weep for my children and grandchildren who will have to try and survive in that environment. But fortunately for myself I can survive outside of society in an isolated rural environment for the time remaining in my life where totalitarian government is less likely to impact me.
Receiving stolen property is a crime as well.
Donald Trump says Hillary Clinton deleted 33,000 emails after getting a subpoena
By Lauren Carroll on Sunday, October 9th, 2016 at 11:14 p.m.
The FBI concluded that Hillary Clinton should not be prosecuted over her decision to conduct State Department business exclusively over a private email server, but Donald Trump pledged to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the matter if he becomes president.
At the second debate between the two presidential nominees, Trump criticized Clinton for turning over half her emails held on her server to the State Department and deleting the rest. He said Clinton should be "ashamed" of herself for deleting 33,000 emails.
"There has never been anything like this," Trump said at the Oct. 9 event in St. Louis. "You get a subpoena, and after getting the subpoena you delete 33,000 emails."
Clinton and her campaign don’t dispute that she deleted these 33,000 emails. They argue that these were personal in nature, rather than work-related, and therefore were not necessary to turn over.
However, they have denied that they deleted the emails after receiving a congressional subpoena from the House Select Committee on Benghazi on March 4, 2015. But an August 2016 FBI report on its investigation shows that Trump’s claim has some merit.
Let’s take a look at the timeline of relevant events, according to the FBI report. (The most pertinent information is on pages 15-19 of this document .)
Feb. 1, 2013: Clinton serves her last day as secretary of state.
July 23, 2014: The State Department reaches an agreement with the Benghazi committee about producing records for its investigation into the 2012 attack on a U.S. embassy in the Libyan city.
Oct. 28, 2014: The State Department sends an official letter to Clinton’s staff requesting "emails related to their government work." Clinton’s lawyer, David Kendall, and aide Cheryl Mills oversaw the review of Clinton’s email archives to produce work-related documents to the department.
Dec. 5, 2014: Clinton’s team provides 55,000 pages of emails, or about 30,000 individual emails, to the State Department. Mills tells an employee at Platte River Networks, which managed the server, that Clinton does not need to retain any emails older than 60 days.
March 2, 2015: The New York Times breaks the story that Clinton used a personal email account while secretary of state.
March 4, 2015: The Benghazi committee issues a subpoena requiring Clinton to turn over all emails from her private server related to the incident in Libya.
Between March 25-31, 2015: The Platte River Networks employee has what he calls an "oh s---" moment, realizing he did not delete Clinton’s email archive, per Mills’ December 2014 request. The employee deletes the email archive using a software called BleachBit.
March 27, 2015: Clinton’s lawyers send a letter to the Benghazi committee saying that the State Department already has the relevant emails, as they were included in the Dec. 5, 2014, turnover.
Trump’s timeline is correct. The congressional subpoena came on March 4, 2015, and an employee deleted the emails sometime after March 25, 2015, three weeks later.
However, the implication — that Clinton deleted emails relevant to the subpoena in order to avoid scrutiny — is unprovable if not flat wrong.
The FBI’s investigation did find several thousand emails among those deleted that were work-related and should have been turned over to the State Department. However, FBI Director James Comey said in a July 2016 statement that the FBI investigation "found no evidence that any of the additional work-related emails were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them."
Comey added in a later congressional hearing that the FBI learned no one on Clinton’s staff specifically asked the employee to delete the emails following the New York Times story and subpoena. Rather, the employee made that decision on his own.
Clinton told the FBI that she did was not involved in deciding whether individual emails should be sent to State Department, nor "did she instruct anyone to delete her emails to avoid complying with FOIA, State or FBI requests for information."
Our ruling
Trump said, "You (Hillary Clinton) get a subpoena, and after getting the subpoena you delete 33,000 emails."
Clinton’s staff received a subpoena for Benghazi-related emails March 4. An employee managing her server deleted 33,000 of Clinton’s emails three weeks later.
The FBI found no evidence that the emails were deleted deliberately to avoid the subpoena or other requests. Clinton’s team requested for the emails to be deleted months before the subpoena came. They also argued that all the emails that would be relevant to the subpoena had already been turned over to the State Department.
We rate Trump’s claim Half True.
The "Special Council" investigation was intense too !
John
This remark may be a bit off topic, but after taking a quick look at comment #6, (which is extremely long for a comment on a social media site) I would like to point out that the vast majority of people in these discussions will not read a comment of that length.
In my experience its more effective to post shorter comments. (In fact many people won't even read a one paragraph comment).
(And this coming from me-- someone who is usually excessively wordy!
You got that right...scroll right past them.
I wonder if these experts were chosen at random.
One thing I know for sure: If you're hell bent on finding wrongdoing, you'll find it - whether it's really there or not.
So true... righties are still asking for more investigations on Clinton even though she's been the most investigated politician so far this century.
To the subject of the seed - It's telling that some people under Trump quit rather than follow unethical and illegal orders. It's also telling that many people in the Trump campaign did talk to Russian officials hoping for an edge. I think Jr should be charged for lying to Congress about the Trump Tower meeting. I also believe, as Trumps attorneys probably do, that if Trump actually talked to the Special Council he too would have perjured himself. He can't help not lying. I'm 80% sure once Trump leaves office the 2nd District of NY will indict him as Co-conspirator #1 on criminal campaign fraud charges.
There's no need to wait if that's true. The FEC could pursue that right now. They did it with the Obama campaign while he was president. Most of the time, these things are resolved with a fine. And from what I have seen with Trump, the amount in question is so petty as to warrant nothing more than that.
It's time to admit that the main concern everyone had - that Trump conspired with Russia to steal the election - just didn't happen. Why can't you be happy about that?
Yes it was. The special counsel was tasked with investigating Russian interference in the election (he found some) and with determining if anyone in the Trump campaign was working with them (he found that no one was).
So, you should be pissed at Russia and glad that Trump and his people had no part in it.
I don't support a lying con who cares more about his personal gain and life than that of the country. One who tries to get others to break the law. One who uses hate to keep his base happy. They love the hate the most, listen to the reaction of the crowds at his rallies. The worse he acts the more they like it. That is not loving country. That is wanting to win and keep power no matter what gets sacrificed.
Yeah, but that's years away....and nothing incriminating seems to have been uncovered.
The dislike of the orange lier are for reasons like:
Editorial: Mueller report shows Trump’s contempt for truth and law
The long-awaited release of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report thoroughly debunked President Trump’s claim of “complete and total exoneration” by the two-year investigation. Attorney General William Barr’s ludicrously rose-colored and misleading characterization of the Mueller report, from his initial four-page summary to his Thursday news conference, seriously undermined his stature as the nation’s chief law enforcement officer.
While Mueller did not conclude Trump committed a crime, the special counsel’s 448-page report laid out a detailed, damning portrayal of a truth-challenged president with open contempt for the American ideal that law enforcement should be free to do its work without political interference.
If justice was not obstructed, the report showed beyond a doubt, it was not for lack of trying by Donald J. Trump.
For supposed SMART "Law" people, they sure had a hard time sighting "ACTUAL LAW" to back up their "Opinions" !
In "FACT", they didn't sight "ONE LAW" Trump Broke !
NOT ONE !
Are they actually "Dentists" ?
If you read the report you will know that Mueller didn't move forward under the presumption you don't indict a sitting president. He laid it out as a job for congress to carry on, not Barr, by the way. Barr LIED about that at his little presser. I personally find it really telling that the party of anti-everything-illegal has no standard for themselves or their leaders. No standards for character and ethics. No standards for truth. No standards for a leader that thinks he is above the law and a party that agrees and goes balls to the wall to protect and lie for him, not caring what laws were flaunted and broken. That is still not facing the Russian involvement in our election, past and future.
Muellers report said that ?
Yes...
Where ?
Are you doing the "Innuendo and Conjecture" thingy again ?
I haven't read it (I have a life, after all) but my understanding is that it wasn't that specific, but rather more vague - something about matters of fact and law. I don't recall hearing that Mueller thought he had a strong case for obstruction but refused to say so because you don't indict a president. That's what you're implying.
I'm a little surprised you are defending Trump and commenting if you haven't read enough to know what is in the report. For this purpose lets look at a section of the intro to Vol II. It also states implicitly that it is congresses job to further investigate because it is part of their constitutional duty.
Nobody could possibly read that report and think it exonerates Trump - Mueller specifically states that it doesn't. This willful ignorance of Trump supporters is astonishing. And it's very disappointing that a large segment of our citizens don't give a crap that our corrupt President is spitting on the Constitution, has no ethics, and constantly lies. He and his toadies think they own the country, rather than working for us.
No facts can intrude on minds that are determined to continue worshiping their corrupt hero.
Funny.... Mueller was able to prosecute EVERYONE but Trump.
Nothing to see, even in your little paste…...at all !
Did Mueller hold back ?
Was Mueller in cahoots with Trump ?
Was Barr in cahoots with mueller ?
Evidently still not willing to read what the report does say. Here's a hint: Relying on the Barrspin means you don't know what you are talking about, he is working for Trump, not the USA. I made it so easy to read why Mueller didn't indict Trump. We've even told you why in plain English, yet you still don't understand. Try again. And go over Trump's behavior while your at it, Mueller gives examples. He did NOT exhonorate Trump and put the ball in congresses court, as their constitutional job to oversee the executive branch.
And your interpretation of the report is ?
Funny word ...……. Interpretation !
You can make "Anything" be whatever one wants it to be.
In my realm of "Interpreting", your comment was a bit biased......just a bit though !
Didn't read it did ya it
I acknowledge honest journalism even from the left when it occurs. Glenn Greenwood is certainly someone with solid leftist credentials. But he has been at the vanguard of honest commentary on this Russian hoax of a charge against President Trump and those around him. Greenwood again castigated the dishonest Democrats and media for perpetuating this Russia hoax which Mueller found baseless
“Robert Mueller Did Not Merely Reject the Trump-Russia Conspiracy Theories. He Obliterated Them.
Glenn Greenwald
April 18 2019, 2:01 p.m.
Mueller completely debunked the leftist hoax of Trump and his people conspiring with the Russians
Several of the media’s most breathless and hyped “bombshells” were dismissed completely by Mueller. Regarding various Trump officials’ 2016 meetings with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, Mueller said they were “brief, public and nonsubstantive.” Concerning the much-hyped change to GOP platform regarding Ukraine, Mueller wrote that the “evidence does not establish that one campaign official’s efforts to dilute a portion of the Republican platform was undertaken at the behest of candidate Trump or Russia,” and further noted that such a change was consistent with Trump’s publicly stated foreign policy view ( one shared by Obama ) to avoid provoking gratuitous conflict with the Kremlin over arming Ukrainians. Mueller also characterized a widely hyped “meeting” between then-Senator Jeff Sessions and Kislyak as one that did not “include any more than a passing mention of the presidential campaign.”
Regarding one of the most-cited pieces of evidence by Trump/Russia conspiracists – that Russia tried once Trump was nominated to shape his foreign policy posture toward Russia – Mueller concluded that there is simply no evidence to support it:
And Mueller’s examination of all the so-called “links” between Trump campaign officials and Russia that the U.S. media has spent almost three years depicting as “bombshell” evidence of criminality met the same fate: the evidence could not, and did not, establish that any such links constituted “coordination” or “conspiracy” between Trump and Russia:
lol. You dont even know your new hero's name.
Glenn Greenwald is a pal of Assange. It is no surprise whatsoever that he would take this position. I don't know any liberals who approve of Greenwald.
It was thanks to autocorrect that I didn’t notice. I’ve read Greenwood who used to be highly quoted by the left until the Trump haters suddenly no longer respected his honesty.
your ad hominem attack on Greenwald was your weak attempt to ignore his honestly reporting the facts of the Mueller report that completely refute the conspiracy or collusion with Russia hoax.
If you see the report, Trump and his team were more than willing to get as much benefit from Russia as they could. The report basically showed lots of Russian outreach to the Trump team, and both worked it without ever coming to criminal conspiracy, but Trump worked with Russia and Russians worked with Trump. So to say there was nothing there would be untrue. Plenty of Russian connections that didn't meet that criminal standard. There are just so many ways this report shows the disgrace of Trump and how he conducts himself.
Glenn Greenwald is one of the few people in the media who has always had an open and skeptical mind on this issue. Here is an interview he did on CNN back when it was still just President- Elect Trump. He said then that people should neither blindly accept nor reflexively reject what the intelligence agencies were claiming about Russia and Trump. That's how journalism should be done.
Does The Mueller Report Exonerate Trump? 12 Legal Experts Weigh In
You don't have to be a legal expert to know which way the wind blows!
The Mueller report did not exonerate Trump-- nor did it find him guilty.
Because that was not the purpose of the investigation.
(Rather, the purpose was merely to uncover the facts-- is was not Mueller's job to determine whether to indict or not)
It showed that he committed no crimes, and that the public is getting weary of witch hunts for political purposes.
nor did it find him guilty
Oh, Krishna, now you did it. For making that remark the progressive "geniuses" on this site are now going to declare you to be a Trump toady, a lover of the worst man to ever walk the Earth, a defender of criminals.
The comments on this article have made it pretty clear to me that the attitude of a lot of members here is that they do not believe in the rule of law, and anyone who even suggests that the rule of law should prevail is the scum of the earth. However, a caveat to that is that I'm sure they support the SPLC lawyers, otherwise they would have been in absolute agreement with Shakespeare, when he wrote: "The first thing we do - let's kill all the lawyers." I sure as hell am a target for having the fucking gall to say that a person is not guilty of a crime until they have been convicted of it in a court of law, and believe that trial by newspaper is similar to the Salem witch drownings (or was that burnings?).
I have a lot of nerve to question the attitude of members who have not only made themselves the "unbiased" judges of something, but have chosen their jury of 12 who are committed to the same bias as they are, no opportunity for anyone to question the "jurors" about their personal bias.
Let me TRY (in the face of their pre-judgment) to make myself clear. I am not defending Trump. I am defending the Rule of Law that my critics on this article have disparaged. Of course we should ignore that fact that they have never studied law or graduated as lawyers. so I guess that ignorance of the law is understandable.
Horseshit. The report didn't clear Trump of misdeeds, and Trump has broken more than one law and probably more financial laws that one can imagine. Everything he does, conservatives HERE defend, you are currently part of that. Now you can ignore Trump's actual behavior and pretend to believe the Barrspin, but I won't and most people won't. Pretend to care about law and order and question those who don't keep their head up Trump's ass? I think not. You are defending Trump and you do it pretty regularly these days, and his supporters make it very clear there is no limit to their support, no matter how low he goes or how many laws he breaks.
I never said the report cleared Trump of misdeeds. I said he wasn't convicted of them in a court of law, and there's no way you can prove me wrong in that so your "horseshit" comment is your OWN horseshit comment.
Your comments smearing me are fucking filthy lies - I've described people who make those kind of comments pretty accurately. So at what university did you get YOUR law degree?
My apologies for insulting you, but I haven't lied at all and conservatives believe a liar, so there's that. Maybe your comments show something different than you intend, I don't know. But its telling that suddenly we hear 'innocent until proven guilty' when that has not been conservative MO for decades now. Innocent until proven guilty in a legal case. Mueller said up front he was not going there and confronting the possibility of indicting a sitting president. That doesn't mean Trump is free from judgement from Americans, his behavior is laid out in the report and its not that of a patriotic American and we can judge him on his words and actions outside legal confines. Next time conservatives want to use 'rule of law' as a reason, it would help to really care, as opposed to current hypocrisy of 'only the other side'. Not being charged and innocent are not the same.
On the contrary, it's "lock her up" - the hypocrisy is disgusting. Extreme partisanship clearly destroys brain cells.
It's a shame that so many people only care about ethics and honesty when it's the other party, and they'll accept anything from their orange hero.
Let me make this perfectly clear. The only thing about Trump that I support, the only thing I have said that I support, is HIS support of Israel, and it should be pretty obvious to anyone why I do. He is not MY President for an equally obvious reason, and I would not have voted for him even if I could because what is negative about him representing America IMO does outweigh the positive. However, just as Dershowitz, an avowed liberal Democrat, who never would have voted for Trump defends the legal rights he has because of his being POTUS, I would do the same because that's what the law requires and what I was trained to do. I cannot blame you for feeling as you do, but do not label me a Trump toady for my attitude. When you agree with that, I will accept your apology.
My attitude about the "Lock her up" catcalls from Republicans/conservatives is no different than it is for Trump. I am not a hypocrite. IMO it's a carryover with Americans from the days they were hanging innocent African-Americans from trees. Even Adolph Eichmann was tried and found guilty in a proper court of law.
I don't really care what Dershowitz is or isn't politically, I never agree with him and haven't for decades. I'm liberal, not democrat, but he is no liberal in my book. I will take back a portion of the Trump toady. You aren't as bad as most of his defenders, but you certainly don't bring out that other side of yourself very often. That's why you get lumped in. But I'll be more discerning next time, and sorry for previous lumping.
And there is a big part of your problem ..... an apparent need to lump people on a very narrow viewpoint.
Yeah, you can kick me in the ass because I even respect your flag and your anthem, even though I'm not an American, and I favour stringent gun controls and universal health care and women's rights to abortion, and I even spell words like "favour" with a "u". Besides, I'm so RACIST I married a Chinese Buddhist. So I DESERVE to be "lumped in" eh?
When it comes to support for Trump, that's what you get. He is absolutely the worst example of humanity to lead this country. This goes beyond tax cuts and appointing judges. And the racism goes with him too. When someone defends his behavior consistently, you are lumped in because of your own words and actions.
Nah, when it comes to your actions, put the reasons right where they belong. Squarely on your own shoulders
Accountability .... just do it!
Ok this is going to sound crazy. I explained to Sparty how lumping occurs. I admit I tend to do it on this site (I don't in my real life because I know too many people with various (strong) opinions. But here certain folk always defend the indefensible. Things that they couldn't stand yesterday are great today because....trump...winning...all about get the liberals/gays/blacks/immigrants( from the south). I'm surprised you can tolerate the racism because Trump's deplorable character and racism is a reason he is unacceptable as a leader. There is nothing he does good for this country, and when you said he was better than the alternative it was a lump moment. (I've lived overseas where they spell favour with a u and know people from all over the world. Not many share your acceptance of Trump.) But you are off my lump list now. (You thought I kicked your ass?)
I did? Please show me where. The only possibility I can think of is if I were comparing his support for Israel as compared to any other POTUS or candidate for 2020. And I don't deny that. Even Harry Truman, who supported Partition and I think was the first to vote in favour then declared an embargo on weapons to Israel when it was under attack by all the Arab armies.
Honestly too tired to look for it, but I do remember it had to do with Israel now that you mention it. I don't like Bibi so we probably disagree on a lot there, but that is another subject worthy of its own seed.
Maybe your memory is confusing Trump with Bibi. I do consider Bibi to be the best PM for Israel because he is a strong leader who is not going to get bamboozled by the forces that want to destroy Israel, but that doesn't mean that I, too, realize that there are a lot of negatives about him as well. For that reason I consider him better than the alternatives that were running against him - to me, the security of Israel is more important than the corruption charges brought against him and his relying on the Haradim to make up his coalition. I have no love for the ultra-Orthodox. However, he is NOT a warmonger - unless you can tell me what war he has started.