The Mueller Probe is Complete - Longer OP Edition

[Shofercia]

If you're talking about the FISA warrant, then I should note that the presentation of facts to the FISC Court was improper, and should probably be investigated by AG Barr. That said, based on the poorly presented facts that the FISC Court had, the warrant was properly issued. In a Court Room, or when applying for a warrant, you're supposed to tell the Truth, the Whole Truth, and nothing but the Truth. Ergo, it is reasonable for the Court to presume that you are, in fact, telling the Whole Truth. So if you lie, you can be punished.

I'm talking about the fact that Mueller had sufficient evidence to get a warrant from the FISC court, and that he later didn't reject that evidence. I bring it up as a clear example in the report that evidence existed.

To get a FISA Warrant, you don't need evidence that can stand up on cross-examination. When I was referring to evidence of conspiracy/collusion, I was referring to actual evidence, not "some butthurt at Russia guy who was an intelligence agent failing to do his job, said so" - if you truly want to be pedantic, and use the broadest term for evidence possible, that's one thing; but that's not what I am saying.

There was plenty of evidence found and verified against OJ. There was no evidence found and verified against President Trump on that one issue - conspiracy/collusion. If you're talking about obstruction - then yes, there's evidence there. I never denied that.

I'm still talking about conspiracy.

The following is a long analysis from the Lawfare blog written by Benjamin Wittes. He argues why the conclusion Mueller came to concerning conspiracy is the correct one, and goes through the main points. I don't dispute his arguments, but for the purpose of this argument I will highlight some parts:

First, Mueller makes clear that when the report concludes that “the investigation did not establish particular facts” this “does not mean there was no evidence of those facts.”

Mueller made clear early on that he knows perfectly well how to “point[] out the absence of evidence” when the investigation refutes something; the phrase “did not establish,” he noted specifically, “does not mean there was no evidence” of the facts in question. It means, rather, that the investigation could not prove something adequately for criminal purposes. Coordination, meanwhile, he interprets in light of conspiracy law, which requires a meeting of the minds between conspirators in an agreement to pursue an illegal end. So let’s start by noting the narrowness of the inquiry here and the fact that Mueller chose to use the phrase that he had specifically said earlier did not signify the absence of evidence.

The first point to make, therefore, is that Mueller did not conclude either that coordination between the Russians and the Trump campaign did not happen through some or all of these contacts. He concluded, rather, that he had insufficient evidence to allege criminally that it did happen. This is notably different from his conclusions about the IRA operation, where he affirmatively reported an absence of evidence: the “investigation did not identify evidence that any U.S. persons knowingly and intentionally coordinated with the IRA interference operations.”

It is not hard to see how he came to the conclusion that charges for conspiracy would not be plausible based on the contacts reported here. For starters, a number of the individual incidents that looked deeply suspicious when they first came to light do look more innocent after investigation. These include the change in the Republican Party platform on Ukraine at the Republican Convention, for example, and the various encounters between Jeff Sessions and other campaign officials, on the one hand, and the omnipresent former Russian ambassador, Sergey Kislyak, on the other. On these matters, Mueller does seem to have found that nothing untoward happened.

Even those incidents that don’t look innocent after investigation don’t look like criminal conspiracy either. So, for example, George Papadopoulos found out about the Russians having “dirt” on Clinton in the form of “thousands of emails,” but he does not appear to have reported this to the campaign—though he was trying to arrange a Trump-Putin meeting at the time. Even if he had reported it to the campaign, it doesn’t constitute conspiracy for the Trump campaign to be aware of Russian possession of hacked Clinton emails. The campaign, even if it did learn of what Papadopoulos had heard, never did anything about it.

The Trump Tower meeting is one of the most damning single episodes discussed, since the campaign’s senior staff took a meeting with Russian representatives having been promised disparaging information on Clinton as part of the Russian government’s support of Trump. Yet even here, while the campaign showed eagerness to benefit from Russian activity, the meeting was unproductive and nothing came of it. Where exactly is the conspiracy supposed to be?

Ditto the extended negotiations over Trump Tower Moscow. The investigation here makes clear that Trump—who spent the campaign insisting he had “nothing to do with Russia”—was lying through his teeth the whole time he was, in fact, seeking Russian presidential support for his business deal. But it’s not illegal to have contacts with Russians, including Putin’s immediate staff, to try to build a building. And it’s not obvious how this sort of “collusion” with the Russian government could amount to coordination or conspiracy on concurrent Russian electoral interference. Tellingly, Mueller notes that Michael Cohen couldn’t recall any discussion of the “political implications of the Trump Moscow project,” though he did recall “conversations with Trump in which the candidate suggested that his campaign would be a significant ‘infomercial’ for Trump-branded properties.”

The problem with imagining this series of contacts as a conspiracy law problem is that neither any one of them individually nor any group of them together reflects what Mueller described as his threshold definition of “coordination,” which “require[s] 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.”

But if that’s the case, then why is Mueller so reticent about a stronger “no collusion” conclusion? Mueller actually doesn’t answer this question. But I think there are likely two major factors that lead him to be circumspect in his conclusion on this score.

The first is the sheer volume of contacts. It really is breathtaking. These contacts were taking place even as it was publicly revealed that the Russians had been behind the Democratic Party hacks, even as the releases of emails took place, even as the incumbent administration was publicly attributing the attacks to Russia, even as—through the transition—the outgoing administration was sanctioning Russia for them. The brazen quality of meeting serially with an adversary power while it is attacking the country and lying about it constantly militates against a stronger conclusion that there is no evidence of conspiracy—at least not in the absence of solid answers to every question.

This brings me to the second factor, which is that there were not solid answers to every question—and some of the loose ends are weird. The Mueller team was clearly left unsatisfied that it understood all of Carter Page’s activities while he was in Moscow in July 2016, for example. While redactions encumber the reading of this portion of the discussion, Page had referred in an email to the campaign to “feedback from a diverse array of other sources close to the [Russian] Presidential Administration.” Mueller’s team was apparently unable to figure out what this reference to a "diverse array" of government "sources" meant. “The Office was unable to obtain additional evidence or testimony about who Page may have met or communicated with in Moscow; thus, Page’s activities in Russia—as described in his emails with the Campaign—were not fully explained,” Mueller writes.

Similarly, Donald Trump Jr., the office reports in its discussion of the Trump Tower meeting, “declined to be voluntarily interviewed by the Office.” This line is followed by a redaction for grand jury information. Given that a subpoena would normally resolve the problem of such a refusal of an interview, the redaction raises the question of whether Trump Jr. may have asserted his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination or indicated an intent to do so (prosecutors typically will not force someone to appear before a grand jury once they have been informed he or she intends to assert the Fifth). In any event, Mueller’s team was left without a full account of the conduct of the president's son.

The biggest problem in this regard was Paul Manafort. Mueller is candid that he was unable to determine why Manafort was having campaign polling data shared with his long-time employee, Konstantin Kilimnik; Mueller specifically cites evidence tending to support the FBI’s determination that Kilimnik has ties to Russian intelligence. Mueller was also unable to determine what to make of repeated conversations between Kilimnik and Manafort about a Ukrainian peace plan highly favorable to Russia. And while Mueller could not find evidence of Manafort’s passing the peace plan along to other people in the campaign, he notes that the office was unable “to gain access to all of Manafort’s electronic communications” because “messages were sent using encryption applications” and that Manafort lied to the office about the peace plan. As to the polling data, “the Office could not assess what Kilimink (or others he may have given it to) did with it.” So while the office did not establish coordination in this area, it was clearly left with residual suspicions—and with unanswered questions.

So there you are, on the legal side. The evidence arising out of links or contacts isn’t all that close to establishing coordination in the sense that conspiracy law would recognize. But the volume of contacts, the lies and the open questions make it impossible to say that there’s no evidence of it—much less that there’s positive evidence falsifying it.

Claiming that Mueller says there's 'no evidence' for conspiracy, when he actually says the evidence was not sufficient to support criminal charges, is simply wrong.

First, Mueller makes clear that when the report concludes that “the investigation did not establish particular facts” this “does not mean there was no evidence of those facts.”

And me saying that all NSGers can add 1 + 1, does not mean that there is no evidence showing that a single NSGer cannot add 1 + 1. Under the Presumption of Innocence, which American Citizens have, you are not guilty until evidence is found to prove that you are guilty. Thus a prosecutor being unable to find evidence is the equivalent of no evidence existing for legal purposes. Claiming that just because a two year investigation failed to find any facts, doesn't mean that those facts didn't exist, is like a kid claiming that just because he cannot find evidence that a giant spider ate the cookie from the cookie jar, doesn't mean that such evidence doesn't exist.

What actual evidence of collusion/conspiracy did Mueller find? None. Here's something that's suspicious: the change in the Republican Party platform on Ukraine at the Republican Convention, except it's not for the foreign policy analysts with at least half a brain. Ukraine treated Trump like a thug, so after Trump became the Republican nominee, the Republican position on Ukraine changed, sending Kiev a clear message: "Trump is now the Republican nominee, respect that, or you can fuck off!"

Another one: Even if he had reported it to the campaign, it doesn’t constitute conspiracy for the Trump campaign to be aware of Russian possession of hacked Clinton emails. The campaign, even if it did learn of what Papadopoulos had heard, never did anything about it.

Speaks for itself. Also: Yet even here, while the campaign showed eagerness to benefit from Russian activity, the meeting was unproductive and nothing came of it. Where exactly is the conspiracy supposed to be?

What a great question! The article does mention a serious of meetings, but as long as said meetings were public knowledge, or as long as no private conspiracy came from them, I don't view the mere existence of them as evidence. Zero a thousand is still zero. Regarding the Fifth Amendment - I have no issues with it. Claiming Fifth Amendment Protection is not evidence of a crime. In fact, I think that if the Trump Team claimed the Fifth Amendment more often, they would've come out stronger. I should note that claiming a Fifth Amendment Right does not mean that one should intervene with the investigation, perhaps by actions such as the Comey Firing.

Then there's the issue of the Ukrainian Peace Plan - but that has nothing to do with the election. Would the Russians have acted any differently if Trump rejected the peace plan? I doubt it. I think that it was wrong for Kilimnik and Manafort to even consider it, and that any peace plan regarding Ukraine should be publicly discussed, but the mere presentation of a peace plan is again, not evidence of collusion/conspiracy. What we have here is zero times a thousand. That's still zero. And that's my point.

[The Black Forrest]

It exonerates Trump on the issue of conspiracy/collusion, which you equated to people making a pizza. Making a pizza is not a criminal act. I did not say that it fully exonerated Trump.

Exonerate is the wrong word. donnies people chose it as it implies innocence. Doubt donnie came up with it as he doesn't seem to be a 4 syllable word kind of guy.

All Mueller did on the area is say he couldn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt donnie and co. committed criminal conspiracy.

[Tmutarakhan]

He didn't ask Russia to hack Clinton

I'm not the only one who took him to be asking Russia to hack Clinton: the Russians took it that way too, initiating an attempt to hack Clinton in immediate response.

[Shofercia]

It exonerates Trump on the issue of conspiracy/collusion, which you equated to people making a pizza. Making a pizza is not a criminal act. I did not say that it fully exonerated Trump.

Exonerate is the wrong word. donnies people chose it as it implies innocence. Doubt donnie came up with it as he doesn't seem to be a 4 syllable word kind of guy.

All Mueller did on the area is say he couldn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt donnie and co. committed criminal conspiracy.

Here's what Mueller said: the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government

That's good enough from me to move on from this chapter, if that's what the parties want.

[The Black Forrest]

Exonerate is the wrong word. donnies people chose it as it implies innocence. Doubt donnie came up with it as he doesn't seem to be a 4 syllable word kind of guy.

All Mueller did on the area is say he couldn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt donnie and co. committed criminal conspiracy.

Here's what Mueller said: the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government

That's good enough from me to move on from this chapter, if that's what the parties want.

Right. Beyond a reasonable doubt. I don't think criminal conspiracy was in play here. They can get him or cause him much pain on obstruction. Heard talk about possible witness intimidation.

Probably the best punishment on him would be to imprison Ivanka and her husband.

[Rogue Hyperpower]

I have no intention of stopping you from making a fool of yourself. I'll just keep pointing it out.

I'm not the one who's unable to tell the difference between the numbers "1" and "2" - that'd be you, since you're quoting things from Volume II, while failing to address the issue of Volume I.

But you are the one making a concerted effort to drive away any suspicions that you have some intelligent point to grasp. I quoted the Mueller Report. There is only one Mueller Report. It has two volumes. One volume documents what investigation was able to find despite being obstructed , the other documents the obstruction itself. Do try to keep up.

[Rogue Hyperpower]

Collusion. You can have collusion without having a criminal conspiracy, but you can't have a criminal conspiracy without some sort of collusion. Mueller did not find conspiracy. He found plenty of collusion and attempts to collude.

.

I would like to offer my own take on the distinction that Hyperpower is drawing here. And therefore I am.

I am reminded of an idiotic series of posts that I couldn't avoid during a brief flirtation with Medium by one Caitlin Johnstone or something like that. I can't remember if it was a point in her posts or the comments attached to them but you'd often here the refrain that "collusion is not a criminal charge". This is a deeply problematic conflation because what Mueller was asked to investigate... broadly speaking... was the presence of criminal activities but the popular discussion was about collusion. That newspapers and so on used the term "collusion" to describe the idea of what Mueller was up to did not and could not* affect the nature of what Mueller was doing. Now that Mueller's finished his investigation, his commentary are not and cannot be seen as comments about collusion because that's not what he was looking into.

Collusion is a broader, looser and generally much more nebulous concept than, say, criminal conspiracy. This is not a nice proposition to disagree with since it's naturally very fluid or difficult to operationalise. That latter point should immediately serve as a clue that anyone charged with investigating collusion isn't actually investigating collusion but rather something with a similar essential idea. If you look at this from the other angle though... the fluidity of collusion makes it a great reason to object to something since, after all, how can you judge someone fairly by an unfair and unoperationalisable concept? You can't really. But, as I said, this is a clue that no-one tried to.

People talk about semantics like it doesn't matter, but it does. This explains the footnote incidentally. Deconstructionists... I may have forgotten the technical name but if the name Hayden White means anything to you or the Linguistic Turn, this is what I'm talking about... are quite correct to point out that what we call something affects its meaning. On the other hand, they're wrong to believe that this implies a linguistic construction of reality. Ours is a dual world. There is what happened or is... e.g. a Mueller investigation, a river or a shadow on the wall of a cave... but there is also an actual thing that is/was. The folk wisdom is completely correct: a rose by any other name does smell as sweet... the difference is, you just might not be able to buy it when you walk into a shop. If someone says "it's all semantics" that usually means it's time to pay much closer attention.

If you can convince someone that something doesn't matter... then it really does become that... but this is not a process that people have to take lying down. It is something people carefully work to achieve. Or accidentally create by not stopping to think about the underlying reality. The part of the world I'm from has an idea called "the fair go" (NZ actually has/d a TV show called Fair Go). It's unfair to give phenomena meanings that do not reflect their true nature: to call sweetly smelling roses foul flowers isn't fair. And, yeah, you might say calling something unfair sounds childish, but that doesn't mean it is fair, right or even that unfairness is something we shouldn't care about. All it means is that you have thought of a way of dismissing an inconvenient truth. Whether people let you succeed in that dismissal... that largely brings us back to the starting point about semantics.

I'm not sure if conflating "did not establish" with "no evidence" is a semantic no-no or a formal logical fallacy. But semantics is a field of logic and linguistics so maybe it's necessarily both. On the logical end.. an easy analogy: "not bad" and "good" are not the same statement.

*If you're a deconstructionist, know that your premises are correct but your conclusions are wrong.

In the context that "you can have collusion without criminal conspiracy, but you can't have criminal conspiracy without collusion" coupled with the context that Mueller used the approach he was confined to by law (he cannot indict the President) he was left with documenting the facts that his team was able to establish, which were that yes there was collusion with the Russians, and obstruction by the Trump administration leaves open the question of whether or not the collusion was part of a criminal conspiracy.

Now that (potentially) gets to be decided by Congress with and by their lower standard of evidence for removing Trump from office.

[Shofercia]

I'm not the one who's unable to tell the difference between the numbers "1" and "2" - that'd be you, since you're quoting things from Volume II, while failing to address the issue of Volume I.

But you are the one making a concerted effort to drive away any suspicions that you have some intelligent point to grasp. I quoted the Mueller Report. There is only one Mueller Report. It has two volumes. One volume documents what investigation was able to find despite being obstructed , the other documents the obstruction itself. Do try to keep up.

Again, you're projecting. You're the one who's failing to keep up. The first Volume, also known as Volume I, clearly stated that the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government. For some odd reason, you were claiming that if Volume I was redacted, it would magically establish that. Volume II was about obstruction, an issue that is different from conspiracy/collusion.

[Shofercia]

He didn't ask Russia to hack Clinton

I'm not the only one who took him to be asking Russia to hack Clinton: the Russians took it that way too, initiating an attempt to hack Clinton in immediate response.

Fairly certain that the Russians were going to hack the active files of a Secretary of State, or former Secretary of State, as part of trying to figure out America's Foreign Policy. If the US had a chance to hack Lavrov's account, do you think the US would need an extra incentive to do that?

[Diarcesia]

But you are the one making a concerted effort to drive away any suspicions that you have some intelligent point to grasp. I quoted the Mueller Report. There is only one Mueller Report. It has two volumes. One volume documents what investigation was able to find despite being obstructed , the other documents the obstruction itself. Do try to keep up.

Again, you're projecting. You're the one who's failing to keep up. The first Volume, also known as Volume I, clearly stated that the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government. For some odd reason, you were claiming that if Volume I was redacted, it would magically establish that. Volume II was about obstruction, an issue that is different from conspiracy/collusion.

RH does seem to believe that since Trump tried to obstruct the investigation, it means that he conspired with Russia. For all we know, he might've tried to do that so Mueller doesn't find out that he likes Justin Bieber.

[Rogue Hyperpower]

Again, you're projecting. You're the one who's failing to keep up. The first Volume, also known as Volume I, clearly stated that the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government. For some odd reason, you were claiming that if Volume I was redacted, it would magically establish that. Volume II was about obstruction, an issue that is different from conspiracy/collusion.

RH does seem to believe that since Trump tried to obstruct the investigation, it means that he conspired with Russia. For all we know, he might've tried to do that so Mueller doesn't find out that he likes Justin Bieber.

"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." - Mueller Report

Given that this was a criminal investigation rather than a counter-intelligence probe, that evidence is very likely going to come out in pending trials, like Roger Stone's (for example)

It's a pretty safe bet that things falling in this gray area between established facts and totally ruled out matters are things the investigation were unable to verify due to the furtive and obstructive behavior by the Trump administration..stuff like deleted and / or encrypted text messages, etc.

It's probably a safe bet that Donnie Jr. wanted a secure back channel communication with the Kremlin for something other than streaming torrents of Metallica albums.

[Diarcesia]

RH does seem to believe that since Trump tried to obstruct the investigation, it means that he conspired with Russia. For all we know, he might've tried to do that so Mueller doesn't find out that he likes Justin Bieber.

"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." - Mueller Report

Given that this was a criminal investigation rather than a counter-intelligence probe, that evidence is very likely going to come out in pending trials, like Roger Stone's (for example)

It's a pretty safe bet that things falling in this gray area between established facts and totally ruled out matters are things the investigation were unable to verify due to the furtive and obstructive behavior by the Trump administration..stuff like deleted and / or encrypted text messages, etc.

It's probably a safe bet that Donnie Jr. wanted a secure back channel communication with the Kremlin for something other than streaming torrents of Metallica albums.

Yes I agree with that with the context at hand. It still doesn't mean that whatever illegal Trump did was the collusion. Not 100% probability; maybe he wants to hide tax evasion, for instance.

Edit: I think this is what Shofercia was trying to say. We can't use Mueller's report as evidence to keep on repeating that Trump colluded with Russia even if the event happened. Want something beyond reasonable doubt? Follow the future cases.

[Shofercia]

Again, you're projecting. You're the one who's failing to keep up. The first Volume, also known as Volume I, clearly stated that the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government. For some odd reason, you were claiming that if Volume I was redacted, it would magically establish that. Volume II was about obstruction, an issue that is different from conspiracy/collusion.

RH does seem to believe that since Trump tried to obstruct the investigation, it means that he conspired with Russia. For all we know, he might've tried to do that so Mueller doesn't find out that he likes Justin Bieber.

I completely agree, he does, because he wants President Trump to collude/conspire with Russia. Trump can only be impeached for conspiracy/collusion. He cannot be impeached for obstruction, or for tax evasion, or financial machinations, or vanity. So that's why, even though there might be proof of obstruction, (and I'm not arguing either way on obstruction, merely pointing out that it's a separate charge from collusion/conspiracy,) he wants to talk about collusion/conspiracy.

[Diarcesia]

RH does seem to believe that since Trump tried to obstruct the investigation, it means that he conspired with Russia. For all we know, he might've tried to do that so Mueller doesn't find out that he likes Justin Bieber.

I completely agree, he does, because he wants President Trump to collude/conspire with Russia. Trump can only be impeached for conspiracy/collusion. He cannot be impeached for obstruction, or for tax evasion, or financial machinations, or vanity. So that's why, even though there might be proof of obstruction, (and I'm not arguing either way on obstruction, merely pointing out that it's a separate charge from collusion/conspiracy,) he wants to talk about collusion/conspiracy.

Emphasis on the underlined. Obstruction was one of the charges on Nixon's impeachment. A president can be impeached for obstruction, among others. For good reason. The president is not above the law.

[Forsher]

Yes I agree with that with the context at hand. It still doesn't mean that whatever illegal Trump did was the collusion. Not 100% probability; maybe he wants to hide tax evasion, for instance.

Yes, but Trump still represents the Report like so:

No Collusion, No Obstruction, Complete and Total EXONERATION.

Trump's representation, in other words, claims exoneration for something that clearly is demonstrated by the Mueller report (collusion) and something which no-one in the last few pages of this thread claims to believe (that Trump's been exonerated on the charge of obstruction). Trump's initial response, to be clear, is to see one solid accusation that can now be laid to rest. Of course, we know that what Trump was responding to did draw a distinction between (the legal operationalisations of) collusion and obstruction. This leaves us with three main options:

• Trump's an idiot who didn't realise there was a distinction being drawn (idiot theory),
• Trump's deceitful and knows that there was a distinction but is conflating them to make himself look good (deceit theory), and
• Trump's fingers are faster than his brain and this is a confession that the obstruction (which he believes did not exist) and the collusion (again, non-existent) are the same thing (outrage theory).

When you look at it further, take these remarks:

“He accepts the ultimate conclusion, in which there is no evidence of criminality or evidence sufficient to draw a conclusion,” Rudolph W. Giuliani, one of the president’s lawyers, said in an interview.

“However, we don’t accept — he doesn’t, I don’t, Jay doesn’t — a lot of the factual statements made, inferences, questionable material that’s put out there,” he added, referring to Jay Sekulow, another lawyer for Mr. Trump. “We don’t accept that’s by any means all true and we certainly don’t accept that it’s correctly interpreted. That’s what he’s objecting to.”

In other words, "We're pleased that they've reached acceptable conclusions, but we're not going to stand idly by and let the errors, inaccuracies and misrepresentations which the acceptable conclusions were made in spite of stay out there." This is, much more consistent with the third of those options I present than either of the first two.

I mean, sure, Trump could be an idiot and still hire someone clever enough to distinguish between the conclusions and the process but would an idiot really see these as unrelated ideas? In my experience, it is people who insist that conclusions are tied to the process that need further education. Getting the process right implies the correct conclusions but getting the conclusion right does not imply the correct process. It certainly doesn't suggest being satisfied with the process... a point the author of that article doesn't seem to grasp:

As a result, Mr. Trump’s message about Mr. Mueller’s findings has turned increasingly incongruous: When the report says investigators established no conspiracy between Mr. Trump’s campaign and Russia in 2016 and makes no allegation of obstruction of justice by the president, it is right on the money. When it offers unflattering descriptions of the president’s actions and refuses to exonerate him on obstruction, the report is dead wrong.

Now this brings us to that second idea. Maybe Trump's deceitful. He's completely aware that believing that there are clear process failures means the Mueller's conclusions aren't credible. Therefore, to crow about the conclusions and condemn the process failures is deceitful. The problem is, if you're deceitful why bother representing the Mueller report's conclusions accurately? Just stick with TOTAL EXONERATION? And, yeah, I've got Guilani here not Trump. Maybe Trump's claims are much more conflationary...

“‘A very exculpatory section of the Mueller Report: NO CONSPIRACY, COORDINATION or COLLUSION with the Trump Campaign and the Russians. You can’t be more clear than that!’”

Notice that Trump's got more words in here than he needs: collusion would be sufficient. That Trump includes the technical words indicates that he wanted to have a lot of accusations to talk about (and be offended by). He doesn't need the
"with the Trump Campaign" bit either. In this sense that obstruction doesn't feature is critical.

I'm sure some would say that maybe that's because the people Trump was linking to weren't talking about obstruction in that section but remember we're trying to show deceit. We want to see Trump introducing obstruction where it doesn't belong. We're not seeing it. But we are seeing a litany of accusations to take outrage against. That's why the deceit theory is less consistent with what we're seeing than the outrage theory.

Trump's behaviour suggests, reasonably strongly, that obstruction and "collusion" are related.

Edit: I think this is what Shofercia was trying to say. We can't use Mueller's report as evidence to keep on repeating that Trump colluded with Russia even if the event happened. Want something beyond reasonable doubt? Follow the future cases.

Collusion/Conspiracy is really Collusion or Collusion & Conspiracy. They're not equivalent statements and never have been. Technically I think it's actually Collusion & Co-ordination or possibly Collusion & at least one of Conspiracy or Co-ordination ("coordinated or conspired with the Russian government in its election-interference activities").

Co-ordination/Conspiracy could be defensible in the sense of "delete whichever you're not talking about right now" or using the slash to convey and/or. That is, Co-ordination/Conspiracy is how the Mueller investigation operationalised the lay concept of collusion. However, that should definitely be and/or when you look at what dictionaries have to say about collusion:

Secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy in order to deceive others.

secret agreement or cooperation especially for an illegal or deceitful purpose

secret or illegal co-operation, especially between countries or organizations; secret agreement for a fraudulent purpose (connivance; conspiracy); a secret agreement for fraudulent or illegal purpose (conspiracy)

Dictionaries are indicative of the stable meaning of the word. (That is, they do not prescribe meanings but capture generally understood definitions, i.e. understandings that are stable across different people.)

The Mueller report... as quoted in this very thread... explicitly demonstrates collusion. It has been established far beyond the standard of reasonable doubt. Collusion is just a fact. But, again, it's just not what Mueller was investigating.

This is why the Mueller report... again as quoted in this very thread... explicitly claims to have not established the existence of any of the technical crimes that Mueller was actually investigating.

The Mueller report isn't friendly to wanting to bang on about Co-ordination or Conspiracy but it is friendly to continuing to insist Trump (or the Trump Campaign or individuals associated with it) colluded. Conspiracy/Collusion is a wholly inappropriate formulation. Perhaps its biggest issue is that it makes the two ideas look like the same thing when they're not.

[Shofercia]

I completely agree, he does, because he wants President Trump to collude/conspire with Russia. Trump can only be impeached for conspiracy/collusion. He cannot be impeached for obstruction, or for tax evasion, or financial machinations, or vanity. So that's why, even though there might be proof of obstruction, (and I'm not arguing either way on obstruction, merely pointing out that it's a separate charge from collusion/conspiracy,) he wants to talk about collusion/conspiracy.

Emphasis on the underlined. Obstruction was one of the charges on Nixon's impeachment. A president can be impeached for obstruction, among others. For good reason. The president is not above the law.

When I say that Trump cannot be impeached for obstruction, I am referring to reality, rather than fiction, or legal hypotheticals. It's unrealistic for the Democrats to impeach Trump if all he can be charged with is obstruction, and I highly doubt that Nixon would've been impeached on obstruction alone. Obstruction was one of the three charges, but the main charge was Abuse of Power, going back to Nixon's Watergate Hotel activities.

There are some posters on NSG that want to spend all day focusing on precise definition down to the minutia of detail, and technically we can talk about legal definition all day long, but I'm not writing a legal book; I'm talking about reality in Washington, and considering that I called all but one Senate Race in the previous election, I know what I'm doing.

Mueller is not a politician. He prosecuted white collar crime, assisted lying to America about the urgency of invading Iraq, spoke out against "enhanced" interrogation, and defended NSA's surveillance program. He is your average Bush/McCain Republican, who reviles Trump for Trump pwning the establishment, but he didn't want to stretch precedent beyond the breaking point, so he split his report into two volumes, the first talking about conspiracy/collusion with the Russians, which failed to generate a single indictment thus far, and the second dealing with obstruction, which might serve as a roadmap for attacking Trump.

In doing so, Mueller further divided the nation, as the Republican Party shifted to Trump's side after Trump's win in 2016, and the Kavanaugh Hearings. It's also what Ukraine failed to comprehend; prior to Trump being the Republican nominee - attack away; after that, kindly fuck off, you're Ukraine. If the Republicans take a stand against Trump, they risk losing their Senate Majority, their primary seat of power, and as the Democrats showed in 2018, they can put on a show for the House of Representatives.

But now we have a Democratic House, and a Republican Senate, something that's unlikely to change in 2020. The voters are getting tired of stalemate; Senators are elected every six years - House members - every two. That matters, as it means that the Senate is more immune to stalemate than the House. Let's say that the House impeaches Trump, the Senate says "fuck off" and doesn't even provide 51 votes, (not even close to the 67 needed,) and Trump gets reelected. That's a huge risk to take, as that could lead to the Democrats being out of Government from 2022 to 2024.

As a result, Trump's impeachable charge must be so damning, that it makes him unelectable. Collusion/conspiracy does that; alleged obstruction doesn't, unless it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in the eyes of a Republican Senator. And that's the reality. That's my point. And that's also why the Left's partisans are going to be working overtime pretending that Volume I is actually Volume II.

[Gravlen]

I'm talking about the fact that Mueller had sufficient evidence to get a warrant from the FISC court, and that he later didn't reject that evidence. I bring it up as a clear example in the report that evidence existed.

To get a FISA Warrant, you don't need evidence that can stand up on cross-examination. When I was referring to evidence of conspiracy/collusion, I was referring to actual evidence, not "some butthurt at Russia guy who was an intelligence agent failing to do his job, said so" - if you truly want to be pedantic, and use the broadest term for evidence possible, that's one thing; but that's not what I am saying.

I'm still talking about conspiracy.

The following is a long analysis from the Lawfare blog written by Benjamin Wittes. He argues why the conclusion Mueller came to concerning conspiracy is the correct one, and goes through the main points. I don't dispute his arguments, but for the purpose of this argument I will highlight some parts:

First, Mueller makes clear that when the report concludes that “the investigation did not establish particular facts” this “does not mean there was no evidence of those facts.”

Mueller made clear early on that he knows perfectly well how to “point[] out the absence of evidence” when the investigation refutes something; the phrase “did not establish,” he noted specifically, “does not mean there was no evidence” of the facts in question. It means, rather, that the investigation could not prove something adequately for criminal purposes. Coordination, meanwhile, he interprets in light of conspiracy law, which requires a meeting of the minds between conspirators in an agreement to pursue an illegal end. So let’s start by noting the narrowness of the inquiry here and the fact that Mueller chose to use the phrase that he had specifically said earlier did not signify the absence of evidence.

The first point to make, therefore, is that Mueller did not conclude either that coordination between the Russians and the Trump campaign did not happen through some or all of these contacts. He concluded, rather, that he had insufficient evidence to allege criminally that it did happen. This is notably different from his conclusions about the IRA operation, where he affirmatively reported an absence of evidence: the “investigation did not identify evidence that any U.S. persons knowingly and intentionally coordinated with the IRA interference operations.”

It is not hard to see how he came to the conclusion that charges for conspiracy would not be plausible based on the contacts reported here. For starters, a number of the individual incidents that looked deeply suspicious when they first came to light do look more innocent after investigation. These include the change in the Republican Party platform on Ukraine at the Republican Convention, for example, and the various encounters between Jeff Sessions and other campaign officials, on the one hand, and the omnipresent former Russian ambassador, Sergey Kislyak, on the other. On these matters, Mueller does seem to have found that nothing untoward happened.

Even those incidents that don’t look innocent after investigation don’t look like criminal conspiracy either. So, for example, George Papadopoulos found out about the Russians having “dirt” on Clinton in the form of “thousands of emails,” but he does not appear to have reported this to the campaign—though he was trying to arrange a Trump-Putin meeting at the time. Even if he had reported it to the campaign, it doesn’t constitute conspiracy for the Trump campaign to be aware of Russian possession of hacked Clinton emails. The campaign, even if it did learn of what Papadopoulos had heard, never did anything about it.

The Trump Tower meeting is one of the most damning single episodes discussed, since the campaign’s senior staff took a meeting with Russian representatives having been promised disparaging information on Clinton as part of the Russian government’s support of Trump. Yet even here, while the campaign showed eagerness to benefit from Russian activity, the meeting was unproductive and nothing came of it. Where exactly is the conspiracy supposed to be?

Ditto the extended negotiations over Trump Tower Moscow. The investigation here makes clear that Trump—who spent the campaign insisting he had “nothing to do with Russia”—was lying through his teeth the whole time he was, in fact, seeking Russian presidential support for his business deal. But it’s not illegal to have contacts with Russians, including Putin’s immediate staff, to try to build a building. And it’s not obvious how this sort of “collusion” with the Russian government could amount to coordination or conspiracy on concurrent Russian electoral interference. Tellingly, Mueller notes that Michael Cohen couldn’t recall any discussion of the “political implications of the Trump Moscow project,” though he did recall “conversations with Trump in which the candidate suggested that his campaign would be a significant ‘infomercial’ for Trump-branded properties.”

The problem with imagining this series of contacts as a conspiracy law problem is that neither any one of them individually nor any group of them together reflects what Mueller described as his threshold definition of “coordination,” which “require[s] 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.”

But if that’s the case, then why is Mueller so reticent about a stronger “no collusion” conclusion? Mueller actually doesn’t answer this question. But I think there are likely two major factors that lead him to be circumspect in his conclusion on this score.

The first is the sheer volume of contacts. It really is breathtaking. These contacts were taking place even as it was publicly revealed that the Russians had been behind the Democratic Party hacks, even as the releases of emails took place, even as the incumbent administration was publicly attributing the attacks to Russia, even as—through the transition—the outgoing administration was sanctioning Russia for them. The brazen quality of meeting serially with an adversary power while it is attacking the country and lying about it constantly militates against a stronger conclusion that there is no evidence of conspiracy—at least not in the absence of solid answers to every question.

This brings me to the second factor, which is that there were not solid answers to every question—and some of the loose ends are weird. The Mueller team was clearly left unsatisfied that it understood all of Carter Page’s activities while he was in Moscow in July 2016, for example. While redactions encumber the reading of this portion of the discussion, Page had referred in an email to the campaign to “feedback from a diverse array of other sources close to the [Russian] Presidential Administration.” Mueller’s team was apparently unable to figure out what this reference to a "diverse array" of government "sources" meant. “The Office was unable to obtain additional evidence or testimony about who Page may have met or communicated with in Moscow; thus, Page’s activities in Russia—as described in his emails with the Campaign—were not fully explained,” Mueller writes.

Similarly, Donald Trump Jr., the office reports in its discussion of the Trump Tower meeting, “declined to be voluntarily interviewed by the Office.” This line is followed by a redaction for grand jury information. Given that a subpoena would normally resolve the problem of such a refusal of an interview, the redaction raises the question of whether Trump Jr. may have asserted his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination or indicated an intent to do so (prosecutors typically will not force someone to appear before a grand jury once they have been informed he or she intends to assert the Fifth). In any event, Mueller’s team was left without a full account of the conduct of the president's son.

The biggest problem in this regard was Paul Manafort. Mueller is candid that he was unable to determine why Manafort was having campaign polling data shared with his long-time employee, Konstantin Kilimnik; Mueller specifically cites evidence tending to support the FBI’s determination that Kilimnik has ties to Russian intelligence. Mueller was also unable to determine what to make of repeated conversations between Kilimnik and Manafort about a Ukrainian peace plan highly favorable to Russia. And while Mueller could not find evidence of Manafort’s passing the peace plan along to other people in the campaign, he notes that the office was unable “to gain access to all of Manafort’s electronic communications” because “messages were sent using encryption applications” and that Manafort lied to the office about the peace plan. As to the polling data, “the Office could not assess what Kilimink (or others he may have given it to) did with it.” So while the office did not establish coordination in this area, it was clearly left with residual suspicions—and with unanswered questions.

So there you are, on the legal side. The evidence arising out of links or contacts isn’t all that close to establishing coordination in the sense that conspiracy law would recognize. But the volume of contacts, the lies and the open questions make it impossible to say that there’s no evidence of it—much less that there’s positive evidence falsifying it.

Claiming that Mueller says there's 'no evidence' for conspiracy, when he actually says the evidence was not sufficient to support criminal charges, is simply wrong.

First, Mueller makes clear that when the report concludes that “the investigation did not establish particular facts” this “does not mean there was no evidence of those facts.”

And me saying that all NSGers can add 1 + 1, does not mean that there is no evidence showing that a single NSGer cannot add 1 + 1. Under the Presumption of Innocence, which American Citizens have, you are not guilty until evidence is found to prove that you are guilty. Thus a prosecutor being unable to find evidence is the equivalent of no evidence existing for legal purposes.

So you're back to claiming that there no evidence existed that OJ murdered his wife and Ron Goldman. Or, for that matter, that Jussie Smollett faked an attack on hiimself. You know, since no evidence was found to prove either of them guilty.

Your understanding of the presumption of innocence is incorrect, as is your understanding of the existence of evidence for legal purposes, not to mention what Mueller actually said in the report.

What actual evidence of collusion/conspiracy did Mueller find?

Quite a lot, according to his report.

What we have here is zero times a thousand. That's still zero. And that's my point.

According to Mueller, we don't have zero, however. We have >0. More than zero is not "no". So your point if incorrect.

[Rogue Hyperpower]

Emphasis on the underlined. Obstruction was one of the charges on Nixon's impeachment. A president can be impeached for obstruction, among others. For good reason. The president is not above the law.

When I say that Trump cannot be impeached for obstruction, I am referring to reality, rather than fiction, or legal hypotheticals. It's unrealistic for the Democrats to impeach Trump if all he can be charged with is obstruction, and I highly doubt that Nixon would've been impeached on obstruction alone. Obstruction was one of the three charges, but the main charge was Abuse of Power, going back to Nixon's Watergate Hotel activities.

There are some posters on NSG that want to spend all day focusing on precise definition down to the minutia of detail, and technically we can talk about legal definition all day long, but I'm not writing a legal book; I'm talking about reality in Washington, and considering that I called all but one Senate Race in the previous election, I know what I'm doing.

Mueller is not a politician. He prosecuted white collar crime, assisted lying to America about the urgency of invading Iraq, spoke out against "enhanced" interrogation, and defended NSA's surveillance program. He is your average Bush/McCain Republican, who reviles Trump for Trump pwning the establishment, but he didn't want to stretch precedent beyond the breaking point, so he split his report into two volumes, the first talking about conspiracy/collusion with the Russians, which failed to generate a single indictment thus far, and the second dealing with obstruction, which might serve as a roadmap for attacking Trump.

In doing so, Mueller further divided the nation, as the Republican Party shifted to Trump's side after Trump's win in 2016, and the Kavanaugh Hearings. It's also what Ukraine failed to comprehend; prior to Trump being the Republican nominee - attack away; after that, kindly fuck off, you're Ukraine. If the Republicans take a stand against Trump, they risk losing their Senate Majority, their primary seat of power, and as the Democrats showed in 2018, they can put on a show for the House of Representatives.

But now we have a Democratic House, and a Republican Senate, something that's unlikely to change in 2020. The voters are getting tired of stalemate; Senators are elected every six years - House members - every two. That matters, as it means that the Senate is more immune to stalemate than the House. Let's say that the House impeaches Trump, the Senate says "fuck off" and doesn't even provide 51 votes, (not even close to the 67 needed,) and Trump gets reelected. That's a huge risk to take, as that could lead to the Democrats being out of Government from 2022 to 2024.

As a result, Trump's impeachable charge must be so damning, that it makes him unelectable. Collusion/conspiracy does that; alleged obstruction doesn't, unless it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in the eyes of a Republican Senator. And that's the reality. That's my point. And that's also why the Left's partisans are going to be working overtime pretending that Volume I is actually Volume II.

I don't think they will have to work overtime or pretend, given the several instances in Volume 1 where Mueller's team documents where their investigation was obstructed by lost, deleted, and / or encrypted communications.

It's probably not a good idea for you to keep insisting Mueller wrote two damning reports, rather than one with two volumes.

[Shofercia]

To get a FISA Warrant, you don't need evidence that can stand up on cross-examination. When I was referring to evidence of conspiracy/collusion, I was referring to actual evidence, not "some butthurt at Russia guy who was an intelligence agent failing to do his job, said so" - if you truly want to be pedantic, and use the broadest term for evidence possible, that's one thing; but that's not what I am saying.






And me saying that all NSGers can add 1 + 1, does not mean that there is no evidence showing that a single NSGer cannot add 1 + 1. Under the Presumption of Innocence, which American Citizens have, you are not guilty until evidence is found to prove that you are guilty. Thus a prosecutor being unable to find evidence is the equivalent of no evidence existing for legal purposes.

So you're back to claiming that there no evidence existed that OJ murdered his wife and Ron Goldman. Or, for that matter, that Jussie Smollett faked an attack on hiimself. You know, since no evidence was found to prove either of them guilty.

Your understanding of the presumption of innocence is incorrect, as is your understanding of the existence of evidence for legal purposes, not to mention what Mueller actually said in the report.

What actual evidence of collusion/conspiracy did Mueller find?

Quite a lot, according to his report.

What we have here is zero times a thousand. That's still zero. And that's my point.

According to Mueller, we don't have zero, however. We have >0. More than zero is not "no". So your point if incorrect.

I'm talking about evidence that can withstand a cross examination; the evidence against Smollett and OJ could certainly withstand a cross examination. What evidence of collusion/conspiracy did Mueller find? You said he found quite a lot, and I know that you love arguing legalese, but you're very weak when it comes to arguing actual facts, I mean heck, you were the guy who once argued that United Russian losing 20 seats in Crimea somehow enhanced it's power, so please tell me - what evidence of conspiracy/collusion, with the Russian Government, (not Ukraine, not Ukrainian businessmen, not English actors/showmen, but the Russian Government,) that could withstand a cross examination, was found on President Trump?

[Shofercia]

When I say that Trump cannot be impeached for obstruction, I am referring to reality, rather than fiction, or legal hypotheticals. It's unrealistic for the Democrats to impeach Trump if all he can be charged with is obstruction, and I highly doubt that Nixon would've been impeached on obstruction alone. Obstruction was one of the three charges, but the main charge was Abuse of Power, going back to Nixon's Watergate Hotel activities.

There are some posters on NSG that want to spend all day focusing on precise definition down to the minutia of detail, and technically we can talk about legal definition all day long, but I'm not writing a legal book; I'm talking about reality in Washington, and considering that I called all but one Senate Race in the previous election, I know what I'm doing.

Mueller is not a politician. He prosecuted white collar crime, assisted lying to America about the urgency of invading Iraq, spoke out against "enhanced" interrogation, and defended NSA's surveillance program. He is your average Bush/McCain Republican, who reviles Trump for Trump pwning the establishment, but he didn't want to stretch precedent beyond the breaking point, so he split his report into two volumes, the first talking about conspiracy/collusion with the Russians, which failed to generate a single indictment thus far, and the second dealing with obstruction, which might serve as a roadmap for attacking Trump.

In doing so, Mueller further divided the nation, as the Republican Party shifted to Trump's side after Trump's win in 2016, and the Kavanaugh Hearings. It's also what Ukraine failed to comprehend; prior to Trump being the Republican nominee - attack away; after that, kindly fuck off, you're Ukraine. If the Republicans take a stand against Trump, they risk losing their Senate Majority, their primary seat of power, and as the Democrats showed in 2018, they can put on a show for the House of Representatives.

But now we have a Democratic House, and a Republican Senate, something that's unlikely to change in 2020. The voters are getting tired of stalemate; Senators are elected every six years - House members - every two. That matters, as it means that the Senate is more immune to stalemate than the House. Let's say that the House impeaches Trump, the Senate says "fuck off" and doesn't even provide 51 votes, (not even close to the 67 needed,) and Trump gets reelected. That's a huge risk to take, as that could lead to the Democrats being out of Government from 2022 to 2024.

As a result, Trump's impeachable charge must be so damning, that it makes him unelectable. Collusion/conspiracy does that; alleged obstruction doesn't, unless it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in the eyes of a Republican Senator. And that's the reality. That's my point. And that's also why the Left's partisans are going to be working overtime pretending that Volume I is actually Volume II.

I don't think they will have to work overtime or pretend, given the several instances in Volume 1 where Mueller's team documents where their investigation was obstructed by lost, deleted, and / or encrypted communications.

It's probably not a good idea for you to keep insisting Mueller wrote two damning reports, rather than one with two volumes.

Claiming that it's probably not a good idea for me to insist that Mueller wrote two reports, instead of one report with two volumes, is like claiming that it's a bad idea to eat two fifty calorie pies, rather than one, one hundred calories pie, as the amount of calories is the same. Mueller's Report, whether it's viewed as a single report divided into two volumes, or two reports with one per volume, is still the very same Mueller Report.

It doesn't magically become more damning, if the term "volume" is changed to another term - "report" as you're doing the same thing that President Trump is doing: taking both volumes of the Mueller Report and pretend that they're both saying the same thing, and Mueller just split it up for shits and giggles. If you cannot even grasp that, Rogue Hyperpower, what's the point of debating with you on more complex issues?

[Rogue Hyperpower]

I don't think they will have to work overtime or pretend, given the several instances in Volume 1 where Mueller's team documents where their investigation was obstructed by lost, deleted, and / or encrypted communications.

It's probably not a good idea for you to keep insisting Mueller wrote two damning reports, rather than one with two volumes.

Claiming that it's probably not a good idea for me to insist that Mueller wrote two reports, instead of one report with two volumes, is like claiming that it's a bad idea to eat two fifty calorie pies, rather than one, one hundred calories pie, as the amount of calories is the same. Mueller's Report, whether it's viewed as a single report divided into two volumes, or two reports with one per volume, is still the very same Mueller Report.

It doesn't magically become more damning, if the term "volume" is changed to another term - "report" as you're doing the same thing that President Trump is doing: taking both volumes of the Mueller Report and pretend that they're both saying the same thing, and Mueller just split it up for shits and giggles. If you cannot even grasp that, Rogue Hyperpower, what's the point of debating with you on more complex issues?

It's not all that many posts back that I informed you that I'd be pointing out each time you make a fool of yourself. Maybe not typing so much foolishness won't tax your stamina next time.

Both volumes of the Mueller Report contain information that is damning to the Trump campaign and administration. It really makes no difference to me if you eat it as one big damning report or two damning reports. But you will eat it.

[Shofercia]

Claiming that it's probably not a good idea for me to insist that Mueller wrote two reports, instead of one report with two volumes, is like claiming that it's a bad idea to eat two fifty calorie pies, rather than one, one hundred calories pie, as the amount of calories is the same. Mueller's Report, whether it's viewed as a single report divided into two volumes, or two reports with one per volume, is still the very same Mueller Report.

It doesn't magically become more damning, if the term "volume" is changed to another term - "report" as you're doing the same thing that President Trump is doing: taking both volumes of the Mueller Report and pretend that they're both saying the same thing, and Mueller just split it up for shits and giggles. If you cannot even grasp that, Rogue Hyperpower, what's the point of debating with you on more complex issues?

It's not all that many posts back that I informed you that I'd be pointing out each time you make a fool of yourself. Maybe not typing so much foolishness won't tax your stamina next time.

Both volumes of the Mueller Report contain information that is damning to the Trump campaign and administration. It really makes no difference to me if you eat it as one big damning report or two damning reports. But you will eat it.

It's probably not a good idea for you to keep insisting Mueller wrote two damning reports, rather than one with two volumes.

It really makes no difference to me if you eat it as one big damning report or two damning reports.

If you want to have a debate with yourself, go for it. But here are the facts: President Trump won't be impeached, and barring an economic crisis, might be reelected, if the Democrats nominate someone like Kamala Harris. I'm also not sure what there is to eat about the Mueller Report, considering that when I asked for specific examples of collusion/conspiracy that could stand up to cross examination, all I hear are crickets, legalese arguments, and lack of said examples.

That's a very bland meal, not sure if I want to eat that. If someone suggested that I had to eat that, I'd say that they have extremely poor taste, and probably contradict themselves often, while projecting massively to cover their insecurities about the country's future, as it might suit the needs of the "deplorables" - but clearly doesn't suit their needs.

[Rogue Hyperpower]

It's not all that many posts back that I informed you that I'd be pointing out each time you make a fool of yourself. Maybe not typing so much foolishness won't tax your stamina next time.

Both volumes of the Mueller Report contain information that is damning to the Trump campaign and administration. It really makes no difference to me if you eat it as one big damning report or two damning reports. But you will eat it.

It's probably not a good idea for you to keep insisting Mueller wrote two damning reports, rather than one with two volumes.

It really makes no difference to me if you eat it as one big damning report or two damning reports.

If you want to have a debate with yourself, go for it. But here are the facts: President Trump won't be impeached, and barring an economic crisis, might be reelected, if the Democrats nominate someone like Kamala Harris. I'm also not sure what there is to eat about the Mueller Report, considering that when I asked for specific examples of collusion/conspiracy that could stand up to cross examination, all I hear are crickets, legalese arguments, and lack of said examples.

That's a very bland meal, not sure if I want to eat that. If someone suggested that I had to eat that, I'd say that they have extremely poor taste, and probably contradict themselves often, while projecting massively to cover their insecurities about the country's future, as it might suit the needs of the "deplorables" - but clearly doesn't suit their needs.

I'm not debating myself. I do have an inordinate amount of faith that you do have something intelligent to say eventually. I'd hate to think you've been trying to conceal readily apparent intellectual deficiencies under all of your bombastic personal attacks on me for no reason. That said, when I committed myself to pointing out each time you made a fool of yourself, it wasn't a challenge for you to go about making a fool of yourself multiple times in one post.

I don't know if Trump will be impeached. Neither of us know that with certainty. Another thing we don't know is whether or not if Trump will be prosecuted when he leaves office, when the Justice Department is unrestrained from doing so.

What I do know, as should you, is that the Mueller Report isn't going away, and its contents can only be explored and expanded upon as the remaining prosecutions and indictments play out from Mueller's work. The funny thing about all your blather is this:

You haven't convinced Robert Mueller that there's nothing there in his report.

[Shofercia]

If you want to have a debate with yourself, go for it. But here are the facts: President Trump won't be impeached, and barring an economic crisis, might be reelected, if the Democrats nominate someone like Kamala Harris. I'm also not sure what there is to eat about the Mueller Report, considering that when I asked for specific examples of collusion/conspiracy that could stand up to cross examination, all I hear are crickets, legalese arguments, and lack of said examples.

That's a very bland meal, not sure if I want to eat that. If someone suggested that I had to eat that, I'd say that they have extremely poor taste, and probably contradict themselves often, while projecting massively to cover their insecurities about the country's future, as it might suit the needs of the "deplorables" - but clearly doesn't suit their needs.

I'm not debating myself.

So when you first say that It's probably not a good idea for you to keep insisting Mueller wrote two damning reports, rather than one with two volumes and later state that It really makes no difference to me if you eat it as one big damning report or two damning reports - you are not debating yourself. Gotcha.

I do have an inordinate amount of faith that you do have something intelligent to say eventually. I'd hate to think you've been trying to conceal readily apparent intellectual deficiencies under all of your bombastic personal attacks on me for no reason. That said, when I committed myself to pointing out each time you made a fool of yourself, it wasn't a challenge for you to go about making a fool of yourself multiple times in one post.

So many times that you've yet to point out any of them. Once again, you're projecting.

I don't know if Trump will be impeached. Neither of us know that with certainty. Another thing we don't know is whether or not if Trump will be prosecuted when he leaves office, when the Justice Department is unrestrained from doing so.

I can tell you, with certainty, that he won't be impeached.

What I do know, as should you, is that the Mueller Report isn't going away, and its contents can only be explored and expanded upon as the remaining prosecutions and indictments play out from Mueller's work. The funny thing about all your blather is this:

You haven't convinced Robert Mueller that there's nothing there in his report.

Not sure why you'd think that an online poster on a forum that might be read by a few thousand people, would try to convince Robert Mueller, but you do you Rogue Hyperpower, you do you. And I'll wait to see all of those indictments about conspiracy/collusion with the Russians, all zero of them. I'm actually hoping that there are some, and that those get taken to a Court of Law - as those trials would be very amusing to watch.

"Counselor, do you have evidence that is not based on a rumor, nor circumstantial?"
"Rumors are evidence your Honor, Orange Man Bad!"

How'd that work out with Justice Kavanaugh?

[Rogue Hyperpower]

I'm not debating myself.

So when you first say that It's probably not a good idea for you to keep insisting Mueller wrote two damning reports, rather than one with two volumes and later state that It really makes no difference to me if you eat it as one big damning report or two damning reports - you are not debating yourself. Gotcha.

I do have an inordinate amount of faith that you do have something intelligent to say eventually. I'd hate to think you've been trying to conceal readily apparent intellectual deficiencies under all of your bombastic personal attacks on me for no reason. That said, when I committed myself to pointing out each time you made a fool of yourself, it wasn't a challenge for you to go about making a fool of yourself multiple times in one post.

So many times that you've yet to point out any of them. Once again, you're projecting.

I don't know if Trump will be impeached. Neither of us know that with certainty. Another thing we don't know is whether or not if Trump will be prosecuted when he leaves office, when the Justice Department is unrestrained from doing so.

I can tell you, with certainty, that he won't be impeached.

What I do know, as should you, is that the Mueller Report isn't going away, and its contents can only be explored and expanded upon as the remaining prosecutions and indictments play out from Mueller's work. The funny thing about all your blather is this:

You haven't convinced Robert Mueller that there's nothing there in his report.

Not sure why you'd think that an online poster on a forum that might be read by a few thousand people, would try to convince Robert Mueller, but you do you Rogue Hyperpower, you do you. And I'll wait to see all of those indictments about conspiracy/collusion with the Russians, all zero of them. I'm actually hoping that there are some, and that those get taken to a Court of Law - as those trials would be very amusing to watch.

"Counselor, do you have evidence that is not based on a rumor, nor circumstantial?"
"Rumors are evidence your Honor, Orange Man Bad!"

How'd that work out with Justice Kavanaugh?

In your exhaustive efforts to eradicate any possibly unwarranted notions that you may eventually have some intelligible insight into the Mueller Report, you bring up the Kavanaugh hearings. Or Jussie Smollett. Or the Flat Earth Society. All of these off topic references you've made serve as milestones for when your weak argument took a fatal blow. It's almost as if you're deriving a sense of pleasure or satisfaction out of failing. At this point in the thread, I just have to ask who else besides me has faith you have something intelligent to say? We all know an actual analysis of the Mueller Report pretty much stomps your "No CoLlUsIoN tOtAl ExHOnErAtIoN" flag into the dirt, but please stop disappointing us. Give me a post where I don't have to point out that you're making a fool of yourself. Just for kicks. If you can handle the strain. Don't drool yourself into dehydration.

The evidence Mueller has gathered is not "circumstantial" or "rumors." A lot of middlemen between Russia and the Trump campaign have been indicted. Some have been convicted. Those Conspiracy Against The United States charges Manafort and Flynn had to eat are motherfuckers. I'm sure more of the same are coming down the pipeline. The Mueller Report will continue to be explored and expanded.

Perhaps your faith in the outcome of a potential trial of Trump, a guy so innocent that he pays out hush money and settlements every time he's faced a court or the threat of court (as innocent people do, lol) is a bit more clumsy than you'd like it to be.