Persistent rumors that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia over the election became the catnip that drove reporting. [...]
But when the Mueller report found no credible evidence of collusion [...]
Aaaaand I stopped reading.
The Mueller Report absolutely found credible evidence of collusion, despite heavy-handled interference by Trump, Barr, and the rest of the GOP. It unfortunately failed to result in any prosecution (in no small part due to Barr), and failed to pressure Republicans to vote to remove Trump when he was impeached.
That is exactly where I bowed out. I have my own criticisms of NPR (as a contributor for decades), but this guys opinion is trash.
Literally every source says there was insufficient evidence to prove collusion, from the Mueller report specifically.
Insufficient evidence to prove a crime? Maybe. I disagree, but I'm neither a lawyer nor a judge.
But "collusion" itself isn't a crime, and the evidence clearly showed evidence of collusion between the GOP and Russia.
The number of connections between the GOP and Russia, financially and ideologically, and Russia's proven interference in 2016 and since (not to mention the GOP visit to Moscow on July 4th) are evidence enough to show there is "collusion".
The problem is our laws on campaign finance and foreign political influence are Swiss cheese.
And then they turn around and act like, "Well, he didn't get convicted of a crime, so clearly it was all a hoax."
No. It wasn't a hoax. There was evidence. Just not enough to do anythong about it, apparently. (And I still argue only because of the amount of interference run on the investigation.)
EDIT: And just in case you want to come back and obtusely repeat your argument, here's the report in full. After 181 pages of evidence, here's the conclusion.
IV. CONCLUSION
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 presents 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. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a
crime, it also does not exonerate him.
Its in black and white: they had already determined that they would not make a "prosecutorial judgment" (recommendation to charge Trump with a crime), since Barr said that should be left to the Impeachment process. But despite that, the report makes clear, in no unclear terms...
"It also does not exonerate him."
Obstruction of justice is a different accusation than collusion with Russians. The report states that there is insufficient evidence to prove collusion, but there may be a case to prove obstruction of justice if they decided to pursue it. But they aren't going to. Which means absolutely nothing, at the end of the day. You can't work with it, can't assume anything or draw any conclusions. It's not even a hypothesis let alone one that can be proven or not proven.
Hmm, I see, I see... But, pray tell...
WHAT JUSTICE WAS HE OBSTRUCTING?!
The GOP logic seems to go like this.
Get accused of crime.
Illegally block investigation into the original crime.
Because of your obstruction, insufficient evidence of your original crime is found to force prosecution.
Now that you blocked the original charges, you can claim it was all bogus. You can't "obstruct justice" if there was no crime in the first place, right?!
So, obstruction of justice is legal now, so long as you succeed. Got it. Thanks.
Also, fuck off. I'm not reading another reply. You are unwilling to discuss this topic in good faith, or you lack the brain cells to do so.
Lol ok
Read the thing.
Uhh.. no u?
I did when it came out.
So what did it conclude about trump colluding with Russians? And what actions have come from that conclusion?
Why are you asking these questions now after asserting falsehoods before and refusing to read the report?
Just curious what exactly you got from it, and how you reconcile that against what all of the news reported and concluded. Mueller report states 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". What does that mean to you?
Read the report and listen to what Mueller said he thought were the appropriate boundaries of his job. He refused to make judgments and focused on putting facts and evidence in the report. Fox and Republicans twisted that into the narrative that you are repeating. Mueller didn't find collusion because he refused to take that role, supposedly believing that the elected representatives were the ones that would take an honest look at the report and make that judgement. But you are asking those questions because you want to deflect away from you making claims about without having read it. All news didn't reach the same conclusion. All right-wing propaganda did though.
PBS, NPR, American Bar Association, etc are not what I would call right wing propaganda, but I guess it's relative. If I understand correctly though, your stance is that Mueller was simply getting the information out there for others to act on if they chose to. In that case, why have they not acted? My impression from legal summaries, including from the American bar association, is that they are not pursuing it because the Mueller report couldn't find enough evidence to build a case. I trust their assessment and summary of the report more than what I can get out of reading it myself in it's entirety.
So what really happened? Nobody knows for sure and there is not enough evidence to do anything about it. It's a non-topic.
How long until he gets jail time? How many continuous years of lawsuits and investigations before they get him? Is the system really that broken that he keeps getting away with it or are the charges simply weak to begin with? Tbh I don't really know, but I have serious Trump fatigue.
I think that an honest assessment of Trump's handling by the legal system shows that there is plenty to go after him for and that he has been given far too much leeway. The system is broken in the sense that it relies on being populated by good faith actors instead of loyalists to a demagogue.
I think that the motivation and the handling was different but I wonder if you feel that the decades a legal pursuit of the Clinton's similarly shows that it was unfounded?
I think they didn't take action against Trump because of a combination of cowardice, party loyalty, and overt obstruction from prominent Republican leadership.
I think it's the same as for the Clintons or Biden. There are probably shady things that they did, but we will never actually know or be able to prove anything. Their enemies certainly tried hard enough without success. Going after them was a political move for them as much as it is/was for Trump, and if you can't prove anything over years of investigation and legal actions then you need to let it go, even if you believe that they are probably guilty.
Just to reiterate, I personally think Trump easily could have colluded with Russians in their interference. I believe that he would do it if he knew he could get away with it, and maybe he did. but apparently nothing can be proven ("insufficient evidence" and all that) so we need to drop it and move on, effectively assuming innocence.
I disagree with the need to drop it and move on part. Conservatives thrive on that. They lie and deny until fatigue sets in and then are never held accountable. Then when we've all moved on they either rewrite history as needed or just act like nothing ever happened. Not dropping it makes their pattern of lies more obvious.
Aaaaand I stopped reading.
The Mueller Report absolutely found credible evidence of collusion, despite heavy-handled interference by Trump, Barr, and the rest of the GOP. It unfortunately failed to result in any prosecution (in no small part due to Barr), and failed to pressure Republicans to vote to remove Trump when he was impeached.
That is exactly where I bowed out. I have my own criticisms of NPR (as a contributor for decades), but this guys opinion is trash.
Literally every source says there was insufficient evidence to prove collusion, from the Mueller report specifically.
Insufficient evidence to prove a crime? Maybe. I disagree, but I'm neither a lawyer nor a judge.
But "collusion" itself isn't a crime, and the evidence clearly showed evidence of collusion between the GOP and Russia.
The number of connections between the GOP and Russia, financially and ideologically, and Russia's proven interference in 2016 and since (not to mention the GOP visit to Moscow on July 4th) are evidence enough to show there is "collusion".
The problem is our laws on campaign finance and foreign political influence are Swiss cheese.
And then they turn around and act like, "Well, he didn't get convicted of a crime, so clearly it was all a hoax."
No. It wasn't a hoax. There was evidence. Just not enough to do anythong about it, apparently. (And I still argue only because of the amount of interference run on the investigation.)
EDIT: And just in case you want to come back and obtusely repeat your argument, here's the report in full. After 181 pages of evidence, here's the conclusion.
Its in black and white: they had already determined that they would not make a "prosecutorial judgment" (recommendation to charge Trump with a crime), since Barr said that should be left to the Impeachment process. But despite that, the report makes clear, in no unclear terms...
"It also does not exonerate him."
Obstruction of justice is a different accusation than collusion with Russians. The report states that there is insufficient evidence to prove collusion, but there may be a case to prove obstruction of justice if they decided to pursue it. But they aren't going to. Which means absolutely nothing, at the end of the day. You can't work with it, can't assume anything or draw any conclusions. It's not even a hypothesis let alone one that can be proven or not proven.
Hmm, I see, I see... But, pray tell...
WHAT JUSTICE WAS HE OBSTRUCTING?!
The GOP logic seems to go like this.
So, obstruction of justice is legal now, so long as you succeed. Got it. Thanks.
Also, fuck off. I'm not reading another reply. You are unwilling to discuss this topic in good faith, or you lack the brain cells to do so.
Lol ok
Read the thing.
Uhh.. no u?
I did when it came out.
So what did it conclude about trump colluding with Russians? And what actions have come from that conclusion?
Why are you asking these questions now after asserting falsehoods before and refusing to read the report?
Just curious what exactly you got from it, and how you reconcile that against what all of the news reported and concluded. Mueller report states 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". What does that mean to you?
Read the report and listen to what Mueller said he thought were the appropriate boundaries of his job. He refused to make judgments and focused on putting facts and evidence in the report. Fox and Republicans twisted that into the narrative that you are repeating. Mueller didn't find collusion because he refused to take that role, supposedly believing that the elected representatives were the ones that would take an honest look at the report and make that judgement. But you are asking those questions because you want to deflect away from you making claims about without having read it. All news didn't reach the same conclusion. All right-wing propaganda did though.
PBS, NPR, American Bar Association, etc are not what I would call right wing propaganda, but I guess it's relative. If I understand correctly though, your stance is that Mueller was simply getting the information out there for others to act on if they chose to. In that case, why have they not acted? My impression from legal summaries, including from the American bar association, is that they are not pursuing it because the Mueller report couldn't find enough evidence to build a case. I trust their assessment and summary of the report more than what I can get out of reading it myself in it's entirety.
So what really happened? Nobody knows for sure and there is not enough evidence to do anything about it. It's a non-topic.
How long until he gets jail time? How many continuous years of lawsuits and investigations before they get him? Is the system really that broken that he keeps getting away with it or are the charges simply weak to begin with? Tbh I don't really know, but I have serious Trump fatigue.
I think that an honest assessment of Trump's handling by the legal system shows that there is plenty to go after him for and that he has been given far too much leeway. The system is broken in the sense that it relies on being populated by good faith actors instead of loyalists to a demagogue.
I think that the motivation and the handling was different but I wonder if you feel that the decades a legal pursuit of the Clinton's similarly shows that it was unfounded?
I think they didn't take action against Trump because of a combination of cowardice, party loyalty, and overt obstruction from prominent Republican leadership.
I think it's the same as for the Clintons or Biden. There are probably shady things that they did, but we will never actually know or be able to prove anything. Their enemies certainly tried hard enough without success. Going after them was a political move for them as much as it is/was for Trump, and if you can't prove anything over years of investigation and legal actions then you need to let it go, even if you believe that they are probably guilty.
Just to reiterate, I personally think Trump easily could have colluded with Russians in their interference. I believe that he would do it if he knew he could get away with it, and maybe he did. but apparently nothing can be proven ("insufficient evidence" and all that) so we need to drop it and move on, effectively assuming innocence.
I disagree with the need to drop it and move on part. Conservatives thrive on that. They lie and deny until fatigue sets in and then are never held accountable. Then when we've all moved on they either rewrite history as needed or just act like nothing ever happened. Not dropping it makes their pattern of lies more obvious.