Serenity Now : No...no..no.. the Mueller Report did NOT clearly state there was "no collusion".

the watchman

Former Staff
Jul 2011
93,534
59,994
becoming more and more
Yet, you still can't recognize how you guys have been led down the trap, nice and deep, with the promise of Trumps head on a platter.....
uh, no. As I stated in the OP I've never believed that Mueller was investigating "collusion". Collusion isn't against the law. Mueller just confirmed that in his report. Again. As I stated in the OP. Pay attention. The OP doesn't indicate what you're claiming about what I don't "recognize". That's your own hype. Learn the difference please. The report lays out in meticulous detail how , in fact, the Trump campaign did collude with Russia.
 
Jan 2015
51,257
15,018
Great State of Texas
It doesn't matter what the fake news MSM thinks Mueller said ir didn't say.

Mueller has no power to indict.

What matters is AG Bill Barr .... who can indict.

And, this is what AG Barr said about that:

But the Special Counsel found no evidence that any Americans – including anyone associated with the Trump campaign – conspired or coordinated with the Russian government or the IRA in carrying out this illegal scheme. Indeed, as the report states, “[t]he investigation did not identify evidence that any U.S. persons knowingly or intentionally coordinated with the IRA’s interference operation.” Put another way, the Special Counsel found no “collusion” by any Americans in the IRA’s illegal activity.
-Attorney General William Barr

Transcript: Attorney General William Barr's press conference remarks ahead of Mueller report release

This is just another wishful thinking thread for the Sheeple.
 
  • Like
Reactions: orangecat

the watchman

Former Staff
Jul 2011
93,534
59,994
becoming more and more
It doesn't matter what the fake news MSM thinks Mueller said ir didn't say.

Mueller has no power to indict.

What matters is AG Bill Barr .... who can indict.

And, this is what AG Barr said about that:

But the Special Counsel found no evidence that any Americans – including anyone associated with the Trump campaign – conspired or coordinated with the Russian government or the IRA in carrying out this illegal scheme. Indeed, as the report states, “[t]he investigation did not identify evidence that any U.S. persons knowingly or intentionally coordinated with the IRA’s interference operation.” Put another way, the Special Counsel found no “collusion” by any Americans in the IRA’s illegal activity.
-Attorney General William Barr

Transcript: Attorney General William Barr's press conference remarks ahead of Mueller report release

This is just another wishful thinking thread for the Sheeple.
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.”
 
Jun 2011
49,232
20,639
God Bless Texas
It doesn't matter what the fake news MSM thinks Mueller said ir didn't say.

Mueller has no power to indict.

What matters is AG Bill Barr .... who can indict.

And, this is what AG Barr said about that:

But the Special Counsel found no evidence that any Americans – including anyone associated with the Trump campaign – conspired or coordinated with the Russian government or the IRA in carrying out this illegal scheme. Indeed, as the report states, “[t]he investigation did not identify evidence that any U.S. persons knowingly or intentionally coordinated with the IRA’s interference operation.” Put another way, the Special Counsel found no “collusion” by any Americans in the IRA’s illegal activity.
-Attorney General William Barr

Transcript: Attorney General William Barr's press conference remarks ahead of Mueller report release

This is just another wishful thinking thread for the Sheeple.
Well, finding no evidence of something and stating that it didn't happen are two different things.
 
Oct 2014
33,166
6,066
C-A-N-A-D-A-Eh
uh, no. As I stated in the OP I've never believed that Mueller was investigating "collusion". Collusion isn't against the law. Mueller just confirmed that in his report. Again. As I stated in the OP. Pay attention. The OP doesn't indicate what you're claiming about what I don't "recognize". That's your own hype. Learn the difference please. The report lays out in meticulous detail how , in fact, the Trump campaign did collude with Russia.
I forget the specific phrasing but the first mandate was to determine whether there was any Russian influence on the election or hacking or something like that.

The mandate later got expanded into obstruction of justice.

And at best you could say that they would have been willing to accept the assistance, but also say that it never happened... so we are talking about a moot point here.

A big problem is that Mueller DID NOT investigate the DNC hack, but instead just accepted the conclusion of crowdstrike, and stated it as fact. Why it is a problem is that the files have been made public, and the metadata of the files proves that the files were copied at a rate that required physical access to a computer on their internal network, consistent with a USB drive.

The time is getting shorter where you will wish you hadn't been so dismissive of the facts raised these past 2 years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: John T Ford
Oct 2014
33,166
6,066
C-A-N-A-D-A-Eh
Not it the eyes of the Law.

One is relevant.

One is not.
Imo they are the same thing.

If theres no evidence of something happening, the presumption is it did not happen (or whichever innocence is).

If it "did not happen" there would similarly be no evidence and the result is the same.
 
  • Like
Reactions: John T Ford

the watchman

Former Staff
Jul 2011
93,534
59,994
becoming more and more
I forget the specific phrasing but the first mandate was to determine whether there was any Russian influence on the election or hacking or something like that.

The mandate later got expanded into obstruction of justice.

And at best you could say that they would have been willing to accept the assistance, but also say that it never happened... so we are talking about a moot point here.

A big problem is that Mueller DID NOT investigate the DNC hack, but instead just accepted the conclusion of crowdstrike, and stated it as fact. Why it is a problem is that the files have been made public, and the metadata of the files proves that the files were copied at a rate that required physical access to a computer on their internal network, consistent with a USB drive.

The time is getting shorter where you will wish you hadn't been so dismissive of the facts raised these past 2 years.
when was the Mueller mandate expanded? Got a link? Oh and , here it comes again where you start up with the personal attacks based solely on what you're making up. I haven't been dismissive of any facts. You're not actually presenting any facts. It's all a bunch of nonsense. That again, you're making up as you go.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OldGaffer