Page 1...already a different story

[transporter]

For the ignorati types who won't read (you listening Yooper???) the report:

This is the bottom of the very first page of the Mueller report:

The investigation also identified numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump Campaign. Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit
electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities

and then two paragraphs later on page 2 is this more specific comment:

The report describes actions and events that the Special Counsel's Office found to be supported by the evidence collected in our investigation. In some instances, the report points out the absence of evidence or conflicts in the evidence about a particular fact or event. In other instances, when substantial, credible evidence enabled the Office to reach a conclusion with confidence, the report states that the investigation established that certain actions or events occurred. A statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of those facts.

and the next paragraph:

In evaluating whether evidence about collective action of multiple individuals constituted a crime, we applied the framework of conspiracy law, not the concept of "collusion." In so doing, the Office recognized that the word "collud[e]" was used in communications with the Acting Attorney General confirming certain aspects of the investigation's scope and that the term has frequently been invoked in public reporting about the investigation. But collusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the United States Code, nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law. For those reasons, the Office's focus in analyzing questions of joint criminal liability was on conspiracy as defined in federal law. In connection with that analysis, we addressed the factual question whether members of the Trump Campaign "coordinat[ed]" —a term that appears in the appointment order—with Russian election interference activities. Like collusion, "coordination" does not have a settled definition in federal criminal law. We understood coordination to require an agreement—tacit or express—between the Trump Campaign and the Russian government on election interference. That requires more than the two parties taking actions that were informed by or responsive to the other's actions or interests. We applied the term coordination in that sense when stating in the report that the investigation did not establish that the Trump Campaign coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.

https://tmsnrt.rs/2DlvCui

This is a completely different perspective than Mr. Barr has presented. Barr presented a picture that completely exonerated Trump (the job Barr was hired to do in the first place). The reality of the text of the report is that each side knew what the other was doing and understood their benefit from the actions of the other side...in other words....wink...wink...nod...nod.

That is page 1 and page 2. The rest should be a really interesting read.

 

[TCROW]

Here’s an OCR’d copy which is searchable with ctrl-f:

https://viewfromll2.files.wordpress.com/2019/04/mueller-report.pdf

 

[glhs837]

So, nothing illegal happened? Lets move on....

 

[Yooper]

For the ignorati types who won't read (you listening Yooper???) the report:

I'm honored you did all this work for me. Thank you. But I still prefer to wait for Mr. Schiff's take.

Har har aside, what's your point?

Because, in the end, none of the stuff you so painstakingly snipped matters. If it did - if there was some high crime & misdemeanor - Mueller would have referred his findings to Congress so they could jump on the Impeachment Express. (Which the Dems still might do; if only to relieve their blue balls.)

But "collusion is not a specific offense..." and suspicion of collusion even less so (which means the following is such utter tripe: "A statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of those facts." BFD & SFW?).

As you're obviously campaigning for the position of Chief of the Pre-Crime unit of the FBI (a ref to "The Minority Report" by P.K. Dick; I assume you knew that, but for our more ignorant readers..., right?), you're going a different way....

Your take seems to be this: if I see you walk into a store and YOU do things that make ME believe YOU might be considering shoplifting then I can claim that's what YOU did? That YOU, for all intents and purposes, are guilty of the crime of shoplifting? Or, at the very least, the CRIME of THINKING about shoplifting? And if I see YOU and some friends doing things that lead ME to believe that YOU & YOUR FRIENDS are considering shoplifting then, YOU & YOUR FRIENDS are guilty of, at a minimum, colluding to shoplift?

Ridiculous.

Go back down to the basement and try again.

--- End of line (MCP)

 

[This_person]

For the ignorati types who won't read (you listening Yooper???) the report:

This is the bottom of the very first page of the Mueller report:

the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities

and then two paragraphs later on page 2 is this more specific comment:

the report points out the absence of evidence or conflicts in the evidence about a particular fact or event.

and the next paragraph:

collusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the United States Code, nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law. For those reasons, the Office's focus in analyzing questions of joint criminal liability was on conspiracy as defined in federal law. In connection with that analysis, we addressed the factual question whether members of the Trump Campaign "coordinat[ed]" —a term that appears in the appointment order—with Russian election interference activities. Like collusion, "coordination" does not have a settled definition in federal criminal law. We understood coordination to require an agreement—tacit or express—between the Trump Campaign and the Russian government on election interference. That requires more than the two parties taking actions that were informed by or responsive to the other's actions or interests. We applied the term coordination in that sense when stating in the report that the investigation did not establish that the Trump Campaign coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.

This is a completely different perspective than Mr. Barr has presented. Barr presented a picture that completely exonerated Trump (the job Barr was hired to do in the first place). The reality of the text of the report is that each side knew what the other was doing and understood their benefit from the actions of the other side...in other words....wink...wink...nod...nod.

That is page 1 and page 2. The rest should be a really interesting read.

Interesting indeed. What you point out is that there is a complete absence of evidence, or conflicting evidence, of any crime.

Very well done.

You can find evidence that there is conflict in the Trump White House, which makes it like the preceding 43 men who held the preceding 44 administrations. You can find evidence that Trump's campaign sought damaging information against it's political opponents, making it like the preceding 43 men who held the preceding 44 administrations, and all of their opponents.

Very well done. Certainly worth the money to find out Trump is a politician, like every other politician who has held the position of president. And, that his opposition is mentally unstable to the point of thinking a politician like Mueller would prove differently.

 

[Kyle]

 

[TCROW]

Certainly worth the money to find out Trump is a politician, like every other politician who has held the position of president. And, that his opposition is mentally unstable to the point of thinking a politician like Mueller would prove differently.

And here I thought he was hired specifically because he wasn't a politician and wasn't going to become a politician.

Whoops.

 

[This_person]

And here I thought he was hired specifically because he wasn't a politician and wasn't going to become a politician.

Whoops.

You thought right. But, we were wrong in that assessment.

He's still far less politician than, say, a Pelosi or a McConnell, and it shows. He still works more for the American people than political parties (another part of the reason he was hired); but, alas, he is a politician after all.

 

[TCROW]

But, we were wrong in that assessment.

Not the first time, nor will it be the last.

 

[This_person]

Not the first time, nor will it be the last.

Imagine that, just like every other president ever.

Remember when Obama made the Bush tax cuts permanent, then did a troop surge? Remember how leftists were all upset about Obama over that?

Remember when Trump signed the last appropriations bill that is a complete abomination to fiscal responsibility, and conservatives were all upset over that?

Every president pisses off his base, and does things people who voted for him don't like. Are you really unaware of that simple fact? Do you think conservatives are unaware of that simple, obvious, time-tested, repeated and indisputable fact?

We're not.