Let the record reflect that Mueller wasted little time debunking the feigned electoral love affair between Vladimir Putin and Donald Trumpthat so many Democrats and their allies in the news media sang to life.
With little equivocation, the prosecutor declared that Russia did interfere in the 2016 election, including by hacking presidential nominee Hillary Clinton and Democratic National Committee documents, but there was no evidence, none, that the president or his campaign — or any American, for that matter — engaged in the conspiracy.
To The New York Times, The Washington Post, CNN, MSNBC and other media outlets that fanned the Russia collusion narrative — and to congressional Democrats such as Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) who insisted there was secret evidence to support it — I refer you to this declaration in Mueller’s report:
“In sum, the investigation established multiple links between Trump Campaign officials and individuals tied to the Russia government. Those links included Russian offers of assistance to the Campaign. In some instances the Campaign was receptive to the offers, while in other instances the Campaign officials shied away. Ultimately, the investigation did not establish that the Campaign coordinated or conspired with the Russian government in its election-interference activities.”
[clip]
But, as Volume 1 of the Mueller report made clear, Trump committed no crime that he was trying to cover up.
That makes a motive for some of his ill-advised temper tantrums unclear and, from a prosecutorial perspective, makes his state of mind conflicted.
Because Trump refused an interview with Mueller, on the advice of his attorneys, the only state-of-mind evidence that prosecutors had directly from him came from the president’s interview with NBC News’s Lester Holt, just a few days after the president fired then-FBI Director James Comey.
In that interview, Trump made clear that he did not want to stop the Russia investigation and actually expected his actions would elongate it.
https://thehill.com/opinion/white-h...-innocent-mans-defense-can-look-like-a-guilty
With little equivocation, the prosecutor declared that Russia did interfere in the 2016 election, including by hacking presidential nominee Hillary Clinton and Democratic National Committee documents, but there was no evidence, none, that the president or his campaign — or any American, for that matter — engaged in the conspiracy.
To The New York Times, The Washington Post, CNN, MSNBC and other media outlets that fanned the Russia collusion narrative — and to congressional Democrats such as Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) who insisted there was secret evidence to support it — I refer you to this declaration in Mueller’s report:
“In sum, the investigation established multiple links between Trump Campaign officials and individuals tied to the Russia government. Those links included Russian offers of assistance to the Campaign. In some instances the Campaign was receptive to the offers, while in other instances the Campaign officials shied away. Ultimately, the investigation did not establish that the Campaign coordinated or conspired with the Russian government in its election-interference activities.”
[clip]
But, as Volume 1 of the Mueller report made clear, Trump committed no crime that he was trying to cover up.
That makes a motive for some of his ill-advised temper tantrums unclear and, from a prosecutorial perspective, makes his state of mind conflicted.
Because Trump refused an interview with Mueller, on the advice of his attorneys, the only state-of-mind evidence that prosecutors had directly from him came from the president’s interview with NBC News’s Lester Holt, just a few days after the president fired then-FBI Director James Comey.
In that interview, Trump made clear that he did not want to stop the Russia investigation and actually expected his actions would elongate it.
https://thehill.com/opinion/white-h...-innocent-mans-defense-can-look-like-a-guilty
