I've grown tired of the repeated disinformation about collusion.

Guide to the Mueller Report’s Findings on “Collusion”
https://www.justsecurity.org/63838/guide-to-the-mueller-reports-findings-on-collusion/

AP FACT CHECK: Trump, Barr distort Mueller report findings
https://apnews.com/f9c0ab20229140f18ea34e1f15a9f597

The report noted that some Trump campaign officials had declined to testify (Donnie J refused to testify and his lying sack of shyte of a father refused to answer questions regarding obstruction) under the 5th Amendment or had provided false or incomplete testimony, making it difficult to get a complete picture of what happened during the 2016 campaign. The special counsel wrote that he “cannot rule out the possibility” that unavailable information could have cast a different light on the investigation’s findings.

The report also makes clear the investigation did not assess whether “collusion” occurred because it is not a legal term. The investigation found multiple contacts between the Trump campaign and Russia, and the report said it 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 "no collusion" meme doesn't not stand up to the facts. It was established by Billy the Bagman immediately after the release of the Mueller report to construct a false narrative before the public had access to the report. There is an enormously important distinction Trumpette's are not making between the lack of evidence to prove a criminal conspiracy (as defined by Mueller in his report) and the ample evidence of what has been labeled collusion.


Stop Using the Word “Collusion”—How to Frame the Critical Question at the Heart of Trump-Russia
https://www.justsecurity.org/62675/...w-frame-critical-question-heart-trump-russia/

"On the other end of the spectrum is the more precise legal definition of “collusion,” which is “conspiracy.” But because conspiracy is a criminal law term, it may be too narrow: The legal definition of conspiracy requires specific behaviors and states of mind that may not be present in various forms of coordinated activity against the interests of the United States. Further, focusing only on the criminal aspect does not capture the policy and national security concerns at the heart of the Special Counsel’s counterintelligence investigation, concerns that remain whether or not crimes were committed.'

 

Substitute "coordination" for collusion and the story changes

 

The world was stunned when the Dem Party controlled House of Representatives had the guts to charge Trump for Collusion and Obstruction based on the Mueller Report findings. Oh wait . . . that did not happen. Nobody knows what they finally ended up charging Trump for, because nobody was paying any attention to them by that time.

 

Exactly. It's a semantic distinction. Mueller did an excellent job to the extent of what he investigated..........and then did a horrible job communicating the results of the investigation. Of course, Billy the Bagman's duplicitous mischaracterization of the report's conclusions didn't help.

 

As discussed, since collusion isn't a legal term the House could not make such a charge. Conversely, obstruction is illegal but can not be charged against a sitting prez according to OLC guidelines.
They ended up impeaching Don over the attempted Ukraine extortion and he was acquitted because spineless Repubs refused to take the facts in to consideration in favor of not upsetting The Following.

 

Translation: Trump was charged for what Quid Pro Quo Joe Biden actually did . . . and the world laughed at the Dem Party's messed up leadership.

 

On this thread the topic of discussion is the misguided belief on the part of The Following that Mueller found no evidence of collusion. An assertion that is patently false.

 

Collusion was found? Gasp! Someone should have told Nancy before she invented impeachment charges that made the nation laugh at the Dem Party's leadership. Sloppy, sloppy, sloppy.

 

Continuing to conflate the findings of the Mueller investigation with Don's criminal behavior towards Ukraine is not going to work. Please confine your remarks to the subject at hand.

 

Changing the names of things is not the same as validating them. End result of Mueller's politically motivated investigation? No meaningful evidence upon which to launch an impeachment of Trump . . . which is why even lunatic Nancy did not do so when all was said and done.

 

Two long years ago
the probe began and many thought
that someday it would make them smile.
And those who said it had no chance
were scowled upon and seen askance
so desperate was the hope to see a trial.

But February made them shiver
as it came clear he’d not deliver.
The news that they desired
was not to be acquired.

I know that many people cried
when they read the news, it hurt their pride,
so deeply in the pipe dream mired
the day collusion died.

So bye, bye to the collusion lie,
Russian Agents, Putin’s Puppet and a plot to deny.
From each new event how the conjecture would fly.
Can they let it go and just let it die?
Let it go and just let it die. (The Day Collusion Died, Don Caron, 2019)

Caron's parody accurately portrays the insanity and delusion of the democrats.

 

There was no evidence of a conspiracy . Trump and Russia did not conspire.

Yet you refuse to accept it.

Its your mental problem.

Damned nefarious what you are trying to do. And you dont care. Entitled to your own facts?

 

The evidence of collusion (for lack of a better term) needs no validation. It only needs examination absent the effect of Barr's deceptive description of the report. Mueller's report lays out the facts clearly. There were multiple instances of "collusion."

 

Trump was acquitted because the house brought forth a founded a case founded on rumor innuendo and hearsay if not out right lies, and came to the only correct conclusion, acquital. You will, of course, not accept this quite rational verdict because you did not get what you wanted, and like every other leftist of my acquaintance truth, justice, or for that matter, reality, don't matter nearly as much as getting what you want.

 

Not so. I accept Mueller did not find evidence of a conspiracy as it is legally defined. But he found plenty of evidence of "collusion."

 

Collusion is not even a formal legal term. It is not defined as a crime any more than are drinkin' and carousin'.

But there was none of it anyway.

 

Correct, it isn't a legal term..........as pointed out by Mueller.

"The report noted that some Trump campaign officials had declined to testify (Donnie J refused to testify and his lying sack of shyte of a father refused to answer questions regarding obstruction) under the 5th Amendment or had provided false or incomplete testimony, making it difficult to get a complete picture of what happened during the 2016 campaign. The special counsel wrote that he “cannot rule out the possibility” that unavailable information could have cast a different light on the investigation’s findings.

The report also makes clear the investigation did not assess whether “collusion” occurred because it is not a legal term. The investigation found multiple contacts between the Trump campaign and Russia, and the report said it 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.”
.......................................................................................................................................................
But the report contains multiple instances of, let's call it cooperation, in reaching a mutually desired outcome.

This..........."For that reason, this Office’s focus in resolving the question of joint criminal liability was on conspiracy as defined in federal law, not the commonly discussed term “collusion.” The Office considered in particular whether contacts between Trump Campaign officials and Russia-linked individuals could trigger liability for the crime of conspiracy—either under statutes that have their own conspiracy language (e.g., 18 U.S.C. §§ 1349, 1951(a)), or under the general conspiracy statute (18 U.S.C. § 371). The investigation did not establish that the contacts described in Volume I, Section IV, supra, amounted to an agreement to commit any substantive violation of federal criminal law—including foreign-influence and campaign-finance laws, both of which are discussed further below. The Office therefore did not charge any individual associated with the Trump Campaign with conspiracy to commit a federal offense arising from Russia contacts, either under a specific statute or under Section 371’s offenses clause."

.................does not rule out contacts between the Russians and the campaign were antithetical to the spirit of the law.

 

If you're tired of it why keep posting it?
The Mueller report was clear. There was no collusion between the Trump administration and the Russians to interfere with the 2016 election..

Let it go already. Donald Trump won fair and square. That's what all the evidence shows.

 

It seems it is really eating him up!

 

One exception to the finding no law was broken had to do with the Tower meeting involving Donnie J. In this matter Mueller decided he could sustain a felony charge because of Donnie's ignorance of the law and the difficulty in assigning a value to the dirt on Hillary Donnie was seeking. But he plainly states the law was broken. From Mueller....................

"The Office considered whether this evidence (evidence relating to the Tower meeting) would establish a conspiracy to violate the foreign contributions ban, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371; the solicitation of an illegal foreignsource contribution; or the acceptance or receipt of “an express or implied promise to make a 185 U.S. Department of Justice Attorney Work Product // May Contain Material Protected Under Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e) [foreign-source] contribution,” both in violation of 52 U.S.C. § 30121(a)(1)(A), (a)(2). There are reasonable arguments that the offered information would constitute a “thing of value” within the meaning of these provisions, but the Office determined that the government would not be likely to obtain and sustain a conviction for two other reasons: first, the Office did not obtain admissible evidence likely to meet the government’s burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that these individuals acted “willfully,” i.e., with general knowledge of the illegality of their conduct; and, second, the government would likely encounter difficulty in proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the value of the promised information exceeded the threshold for a criminal violation, see 52 U.S.C. § 30109(d)(1)(A)(i).'

 

2020 is gonna be insane. I bet we don't get a decisive winner on election night.

Unless of course the dems nominate Bernie Sanders. Because Trump will destroy him in the debates.

 

I fully acknowledge being frustrated when I read, over and over, Trumpette's repeat falsehoods that go to the heart of Mueller's findings. Falsehoods promoted in an ongoing campaign of disinformation by right wing media and by the Liar-in-Chief............and his sock puppet Billy the Bagman.

 

Get over it already!

 

Page 173 of the Mueller report.
We found no evidence that anyone in the Trump campaign colluded with with Russians to interfere with the 2016 election.
This is a paraphrase because I'm far too lazy to look it up for you AGAIN.

 

From over here it seems a little more than frustration IMO.