Trump campaign chief Paul Manafort employee Kilimnik gave Russia election data

Manafort, who was convicted at one trial and who pleaded guilty before another trial of crimes related to his work in Ukraine, was pardoned last December by Trump, a month before the ex-president left office.

well, he was obviously guilty of inn know sense, as about all who Trump associated with. And the gOP still claims big nothing burger... 

And the gOP still claims big nothing burger...

That's their main style of operation.  Manafort?  Manafort who?  Pretty soon it will be Trump?  Trump who?

gOP still claims big nothing burger

Your big gotcha is the sharing of polling data. 

Whooo!  

It's not like the GOP took information from a man kicked out of America for being a Russian spy and used it  combined it with lies and misled a Court into allowing the feds to spy on Democrats, did they? 

There's a reason no one was indicted by Mueller for colluding with Russia. Can you guess what it was?

There's a reason no one was indicted by Mueller for colluding with Russia. Can you guess what it was?

yea, cause collusion is a political term, not a law term. [Deleted] Trump and the GOP are GUILTY as SHIT !   Or, do you Sean, believe Trump did everything on the up and up ...?

Especially the Fck the US Constitution finale ! A putin Wet Dresam come true, eh [Deleted !@!!]

There's a reason no one was indicted by Mueller for colluding with Russia. Can you guess what it was?

What igknorantzrulz said.  So nanner boo-boo.

Also, see comment thenewstalkers

llusion is a political term, not a law term. Stop being foolish. Trump and the GOP are GUILTY as SHIT !   Or, do you Sean, believe Trump did everything on the up and up ...?

Don't be dishonest. IF he had colluded, he would be guilty of criminal conspiracy. Again, read the damn Mueller report.  Ask questions if you need to. But stop spreading false information. 

you wish to open season on parsing of words.....i believe something you will regret with me. Mueller's report could not prove collusion, as that was not Mueller's Capacity or objective in his report. H e was employed to investigate if Russia had played a hand in helping Trump get elected, and if so, were they working in concert. Mueller refused to make a determination, but did state his report found No evidence of exoneration, as Trump had claimed. His report wound up inconclusive to some, while many in Trumps' inner circle wound up indicted. So carry on in denial all you wish, but know, i do not believe you are THAT ignorant, but i DO NJOY the PARSING of words ! This shall be FUN Sean, cause i'm about sick up and Fed with all the bullSHIT Spread, and i just may, be able to parse a word or too said, cause on the outside, you can't always tell who's in bred , on a roll, probably dead, or dancing round a pole positioning for the next best thing to hand you the phone till it's the real deal, and may not appeal from the thick skinned alive jive , known as your new spiel, cause i like to break open and seal till it feels unreal and not fresh as a summers eve on the odd day you even should deal me and a Trump card like a joker from the deck, cause my favorite ship to sail, is a shipwreckless and abandonmeant for you, cause it previously, was about all i could due, sea if it can't be set sale 3 yellow sheets to the juantis winds a blowin US closer, cause higher pressure to lower barometrix are four kidds herd of  egging ewe on often....if so, were the intent a two man, cuz don't fly that way but not unhappy about not being gay, just have some pent up cheer to spray everybody's way

Mueller's report could not prove collusion, as that was not Mueller's Capacity or objective in his report

Yes it was. Read his instructions. He's specifically directed to investigate and prosecute collusion.. 

tomatoe 

President Donald Trump is right about one thing — he may never be charged with “collusion.” Despite its current use as a sort of catchall term for the Trump administration’s alleged ties to Russian meddling, “collusion” is only a federal crime in the area of antitrust law. In this legal context, collusion occurs when two or more people or entities decide to gain an unfair market advantage and/or secretly limit open competition.

One of the quintessential examples of collusion is an agreement to engage in price-fixing. Or put another way, collusion has nothing to do with the Trump campaign and the Russian government.

So if you’ve been talking about whether or not the Trump campaign colluded with the Russian government in the 2016 presidential election, you’ve been saying it wrong. But you’re also in good company. The vast majority of the public and the press routinely, and erroneously, use the word collusion to refer to a host of potential federal crimes. This does not mean the investigation is fake news, but it does mean we have been using the wrong term to describe it. toomottow

I think when the average person discusses collusion in this case they are doing so according to the dictionary definition not the legal one

 collude   :  cooperate in a secret or unlawful way in order to deceive or gain an advantage over others.

(1) collude - Bing

By this definition the Trump Tower meeting with the Russians by Trump Jr and Kushner, the transfer of the polling data to a Russian spy, and Stone's contacts with wikileaks could all be described as collusion

Nothingberder

But stop spreading false information. 

the declassified and unredacted mueller report needs to be released in it's entirety to the media.

It was clear that Mueller knew.  But he was adamant that a sitting president should not be indicted.  For crying out loud, he did everything but supply a verbal blueprint.  I hope someone backs a paddy wagon up to Mar a Lago.  Since Manafort cannot be tried, his ass needs to be sent back home to Russia.

Since Manafort cannot be tried, his ass needs to be sent back home to Russia.

He cannot be tried for the crime he received the pardon for.  They should just get him for something else.  They never charge a person like that with every single crime they are guilty of.

Since Manafort cannot be tried, his ass needs to be sent back home to Russia.

he's already being investigated for something else that wasn't covered by his pardon, so is flynn.

I hope you are right.  What would be fabulous is if there is some kind of law that says pardons given by a criminally liable president will not be honored.  All of Trump's pals would go back to prison.

Why?

the declassified and unredacted mueller report needs to be released in it's entirety to the media

Even if it was released, and STILL no wrongdoing was found, you and yours will continue to allege collusion was committed, and probably call Mueller a liar.

THAT is the leftist loon MO.

But Hillary...

I know, right?  But I'm certain 'they' are not through saying it...

Maybe someone can appoint John Durham or Bill Barr to get to the bottom of all this .

-

Russia interfered with the 2016 US presidential election, by promoting and pinpointing fake news state by state on US social media. Trump knew about it and encouraged it. 

Haven't heard much from Bill Barr these days.  That's a man who deserves whatever shit storm is headed his way.  His little about face in the last 5 minutes of his public service will not save him.

Before this conspiracy mongering gets out of hand and more insanity gets spread, remember what Bob Mueller declared   in the Mueller report:

"The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in it's election interference activities." 

"The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in it's election interference activities." 

did not establish, due to Mueller's view of indicting a sitting potUS.

did not establish, due to Mueller's view of indicting a sitting potUS.

You are speaking gibberish now. That's a very dishonest distortion of what Mueller wrote, because his conclusion was not qualified by Trump being a sitting President. Please stop spreading misinformation. 

Please stop spreading misinformation.

Says a Trump defender/supporter attempting to spread disinformation cause i never actually miss information.

Mueller’s report on the Trump campaign’s contacts with Russia includes a 200-page volume chronicling Trump’s repeated efforts to thwart his investigation. He documented 10 episodes of potential obstruction of justice by Trump, describing in detail the president’s persistent efforts to derail Mueller’s work and constrain the scope of his probe.

But Mueller noted at the outset that he faced significant constraints on his ability to investigate Trump — chief among them a long-standing Justice Department policy that prohibits the criminal indictment of a sitting president.

politico.eu

What point do you think you are making? That the policy exists isn't in question. Mueller's conclusion that "the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in it's election interference activities" was not effected by that policy. Read the report. It's very clear.

It's truly amazing how warped people's perception of the report is.  But instead of cherry picking out of context claims, why don't you simply find where Mueller claimed he would have indicted Trump for conspiring with Russia but for that policy. Should be really easy to find that in the report if it's true that's what stopped him from indicting Trump for conspiracy. 

Good luck with that. 

I pasted this already but here ya go...

Mueller’s report on the Trump campaign’s contacts with Russia includes a 200-page volume chronicling Trump’s repeated efforts to thwart his investigation. He documented 10 episodes of potential obstruction of justice by Trump, describing in detail the president’s persistent efforts to derail Mueller’s work and constrain the scope of his probe.

But Mueller noted at the outset that he faced significant constraints on his ability to investigate Trump — chief among them a long-standing Justice Department policy that prohibits the criminal indictment of a sitting president.

That's about as plain as you can get. If you're blind to that I have nothing else to say.

Should be really easy to find that in the report if it's true that's what stopped him from indicting Trump for conspiracy.

How about straight from Mueller's lips? The following (in bold) is from a televised statement he made upon completion of the investigation.

And as set forth in the report, after that investigation, if we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so. We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the president did commit a crime.

The introduction to the Volume 2 of our report explains that decision. It explains that under long-standing department policy, a president cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. That is unconstitutional. Even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view, that, too, is prohibited.

Here is his statement in its entirety...and please, do yourself a favor and read it.  All of it.  If you would rather watch his statement, you can find it at the same source linked at the bottom of this page. 

Good morning, everyone, and thank you for being here. Two years ago, the acting attorney general asked me to serve as special counsel and he created the special counsel's office. The appointment order directed the office to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. This included investigating any links or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump campaign.

Now, I have not spoken publicly during our investigation. I am speaking out today because our investigation is complete. The attorney general has made the report on our investigation largely public. And we are formally closing the special counsel's office and as well, I'm resigning from the Department of Justice to return to private life.

I'll make a few remarks about the results of our work. But beyond these few remarks, it is important that the office's written work speak for itself.

Let me begin where the appointment order begins, and that is interference in the 2016 presidential election. As alleged by the grand jury in an indictment, Russian intelligence officers who are part of the Russian military launched a concerted attack on our political system.

The indictment alleges that they used sophisticated cyber-techniques to hack into computers and networks used by the Clinton campaign. They stole private information and then released that information through fake online identities and through the organization WikiLeaks. The releases were designed and timed to interfere with our election and to damage a presidential candidate. And at the same time as the grand jury alleged in a separate indictment, a private Russian entity engaged in a social media operation where Russian citizens posed as Americans in order to influence an election.

These indictments contain allegations and we are not commenting on the guilt or the innocence of any specific defendant. Every defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.

The indictments allege and the other activities in our report describe efforts to interfere in our political system. They needed to be investigated and understood. And that is among the reasons why the Department of Justice established our office.

That is also a reason we investigated efforts to obstruct the investigation. The matters we investigated were of paramount importance. It was critical for us to obtain full and accurate information from every person we questioned. When a subject of an investigation obstructs that investigation or lies to investigators, it strikes at the core of their government's effort to find the truth and hold wrongdoers accountable.

Let me say a word about the report. The report has two parts, addressing the two main issues we were asked to investigate.

The first volume of the report details numerous efforts emanating from Russia to influence the election. This volume includes a discussion of the Trump campaign's response to this activity as well as our conclusion that there was insufficient evidence to charge a broader conspiracy.

And in the second volume, the report describes the results and analysis of our obstruction of justice investigation involving the president. The order appointing me special counsel authorized us to investigate actions that could obstruct the investigation. We conducted that investigation and we kept the office of the acting attorney general apprised of the progress of our work.

And as set forth in the report, after that investigation, if we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so. We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the president did commit a crime.

The introduction to the Volume 2 of our report explains that decision. It explains that under long-standing department policy, a president cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. That is unconstitutional. Even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view, that, too, is prohibited.

A special counsel's office is part of the Department of Justice, and by regulation, it was bound by that department policy. Charging the president with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider. The department's written opinion explaining the policy makes several important points that further informed our handling of the obstruction investigation. Those points are summarized in our report and I will describe two of them for you.

First, the opinion explicitly permits the investigation of a sitting president because it is important to preserve evidence while memories are fresh and documents available. Among other things, that evidence could be used if there were co-conspirators who could be charged now.

And second, the opinion says that the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing.

And beyond department policy, we were guided by principles of fairness. It would be unfair to potentially — it would be unfair to potentially accuse somebody of a crime when there can be no court resolution of the actual charge.

So that was Justice Department policy. Those were the principles under which we operated. And from them, we concluded that we would not reach a determination one way or the other about whether the president committed a crime. That is the office's final position and we will not comment on any other conclusions or hypotheticals about the president.

We conducted an independent criminal investigation and reported the results to the attorney general, as required by department regulations. The attorney general then concluded that it was appropriate to provide our report to Congress and to the American people. At one point in time, I requested that certain portions of the report be released and the attorney general preferred to make — preferred to make the entire report public all at once and we appreciate that the attorney general made the report largely public. And I certainly do not question the attorney general's good faith in that decision.

Now, I hope and expect this to be the only time that I will speak to you in this manner. I am making that decision myself. No one has told me whether I can or should testify or speak further about this matter.

There has been discussion about an appearance before Congress. Any testimony from this office would not go beyond our report. It contains our findings and analysis and the reasons for the decisions we made. We chose those words carefully and the work speaks for itself. And the report is my testimony. I would not provide information beyond that which is already public in any appearance before Congress.

In addition, access to our underlying work product is being decided in a process that does not involve our office.

So, beyond what I've said here today and what is contained in our written work, I do not believe it is appropriate for me to speak further about the investigation or to comment on the actions of the Justice Department or Congress. And it's for that reason I will not be taking questions today, as well.

Now, before I step away, I want to thank the attorneys, the FBI agents, the analysts, the professional staff who helped us conduct this investigation in a fair and independent manner.

These individuals who spent nearly two years with the special counsel's office were of the highest integrity. And I will close by reiterating the central allegation of our indictments, that there were multiple systemic efforts to interfere in our election.  And that allegation deserves the attention of every American.

Thank you. Thank you for being here today.

Source

A valiant effort Sister but there are none so blind as those who will not read.

A valiant effort Sister but there are none so blind as those who will not read.

!!!

Here's all supporters of the former occupant of the White House regarding the truth

Please stop spreading misinformation. 

Good lord. Let me make this as simple as I can for you to understand.

There were two reports. One on collusion/conspiracy/coordination between Americans and Russia in the election. One on possible obstruction of the investifation after the election.  with me so far? apparently this is hard for many to grasp. 

The issue we were discussing is the FIRST REPORT.  Quoting conclusions from  the second report should be a rather obvious  hint to you that you are on wrong track.

In the First Report, as I've said time and time and time again,  Mueller  concluded the the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in it's election interference activities."  I mean, for fucks sake, you just linked to another statement where he explicitly said "The first volume of the report details numerous efforts emanating from Russia to influence the election. This volume includes a discussion of the Trump campaign's response to this activity as well as our conclusion that there was insufficient evidence to charge a broader conspiracy."

This is your own link. The language is plain as fucking day. It's directly on point. How can it be any more plain?  He literally uses the word conclusion on the direct point of contention. 

Unfortunately, critical thinking has gone out of the window.  So general quotes from the SECOND report get thrown around  to muddy the water about the issue being discussed. But to an honest person, the specific on point language always triumphs general verbiage. That's how the English language works!

So, if you've read the reports, you'd know that Mueller concluded there was no crime. You literally just linked to that conclusion in your "gotcha" without apparently either reading it or understanding what you linked to. .

In the second report Mueller said there MIGHT be enough evidence to charge Trump with obstruction.   S

Report  one "the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in it's election interference activities"..

 Report two: "These ten actions by Trump (listed in detail) may constitute obstruction pf justice, but we never made a determination because of justice department policy.

ee the difference yet?  It can be more clear.  With regards to collusion conspiracy:  charges against ANYONE for collusion can't supported by the evidence 

With regards to post election obstruction of the Mueller investigation, Mueller said there MIGHT be enough evidence that Trump obstructed the investigation to support criminal charges. 

If you stop conflating Report 1 and Report 2, read what was written and simply use common sense (the bar against PRESIDENTIAL prosecutions would only have applied  to Trump and no longer does, yet no one was prosecuted.  There was no barrier to prosecuting any other American if they colluded with Russia, you'll see how ridiculous your claims are. 

conspiracy mongering

Oy.

More liberal pissing into wind!.

Getting wet yet?

Looks like you are, lol.

A lot of these conservatives are just mad that trump lost. 

Yep. I think NT lost a few members over it.

fortunately it's a lot easier for them to flee to south america now...

You ought to read the Wiki page on Viktor Yanukovych when you get the time.  It's like he and Trump are brothers from another mother with the whining and bragging and lying and the grift, etc.  Even Paul Manafort's contributions are identical in getting them both elected to an office for which neither of them are even the slightest bit qualified.  

I put it on my list of things to read.

So the former guy was/is a russian asset....something we have known since 2016. 

So the former guy was/is a russian asset....something we have known since 2016. 

But isn't it lovely for the current administration to confirm what most knew?

The man is a fing traitor and should be prosecuted as such.  Then send him to Gitmo and waterboard his ass daily.

He's been sticking it to the US for years and years.  Bill S. said it best:  One may smile and smile and be a villain.