transporter
Well-Known Member
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:
and then two paragraphs later on page 2 is this more specific comment:
and the next paragraph:
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.
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.