Just announced, No Collusion!

[..]

Hillary lost and THEY just can't accept it.

Speaks volumes about their psyche.

[..]

I was really hoping Mueller would uncover what Trump put under baldo's saddle to make him buck so much!

Doubt that is going to happen.

What I'm not holding my breath for is a well deserved apology from our Trump haters or at least an admission that they were wrong.   Maybe they are simply embarrassed, wouldn't blame them, I would be.    What I am relatively sure of is the lack of comments from those folks is because they are waiting for the next Democrat produced drama.    This ain't over, you can bet their hatred is simmering......

I really disliked Obama's policies and his plan for the United States but, never went where the Trump haters went simply on hoping they could find something.     I sincerely wish the same type of investigation would happen to Hillary, then we could get past what did or didn't occur.

Rams

I'm waiting for more complete information before I throw my hat in the ring. Like others have said...a four page 'summary' from a hand-picked AG with a past position of this:

"Notably, Barr has always been opposed to an obstruction case against the President. Before he was attorney general under Trump, Barr wrote a memo in June 2018 to top Justice Department officials, saying he believed an obstruction case against Trump was "fatally misconceived."

And then there's this....."While this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him," Mueller wrote in his report, as Barr quoted him on Sunday. Contrary to the lies being spewed, he's nowhere near free and clear.

So everyone that's doing cartwheels, you may be a bit premature in your revelry...

Thanks, I knew you wouldn't let us down......

Rams

 

[bscrive]

Hillary lost and THEY just can't accept it.

Speaks volumes about their psyche.

The same can be said about the the republicans when Obama was elected.

Americans really need to get away from being so focused on political leaning and focus on the country.  I am not a fan of Trump, but he is doing good for your country.  If there was anything, it would have come out by now.  You have a strong economy and low jobless rate.  What more can you ask for?

[Robert]

Hillary lost and THEY just can't accept it.

Speaks volumes about their psyche.

The same can be said about the the republicans when Obama was elected.

Americans really need to get away from being so focused on political leaning and focus on the country.  I am not a fan of Trump, but he is doing good for your country.  If there was anything, it would have come out by now.  You have a strong economy and low jobless rate.  What more can you ask for?

Everyone that was behind this arrested and in Gitmo, the federal reserve GONE, that would go really far in my wish list.

[hubcapsc]

I think the "not exonerated" part of the report has to do with Trump not being exonerated on
obstruction of justice because Trump fired Comey. That Trump said he fired Comey because
Comey was going to investigate Russia collusion is why "they" think they can still get Trump on obstruction...

“But regardless of recommendation, I was going to fire Comey knowing there was no good time to do it And in fact, when I decided to just do it, I said to myself — I said, you know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story. It’s an excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election that they should’ve won.”

“As far as I’m concerned, I want that thing to be absolutely done properly. When I did this now, I said I probably maybe will confuse people. Maybe I’ll expand that — you know, I’ll lengthen the time because it should be over with. It should — in my opinion, should’ve been over with a long time ago because it — all it is an excuse. But I said to myself I might even lengthen out the investigation. But I have to do the right thing for the American people. He’s the wrong man for that position.”

My take on what Trump said is "I fired Comey because he was going to investigate the [proved now to be unfounded]
Russia collusion which indicated to me that Comey was incompetent."  That doesn't sound like "obstruction
of justice" to me. Trump, being the guy that was supposed to have colluded, knew the collusion charge was unfounded.
Trump, being the President, gets to fire certain people who he thinks need fired. Other people, because of checks and balances,
he can't fire. So we're stuck with them.

-Mike "not a lawyer, not even always able to find my socks..."

[Rams]

I was really hoping Mueller would uncover what Trump put under baldo's saddle to make him buck so much!

Doubt that is going to happen.

What I'm not holding my breath for is a well deserved apology from our Trump haters or at least an admission that they were wrong.   Maybe they are simply embarrassed, wouldn't blame them, I would be.    What I am relatively sure of is the lack of comments from those folks is because they are waiting for the next Democrat produced drama.    This ain't over, you can bet their hatred is simmering......

I really disliked Obama's policies and his plan for the United States but, never went where the Trump haters went simply on hoping they could find something.     I sincerely wish the same type of investigation would happen to Hillary, then we could get past what did or didn't occur.

Rams

I'm waiting for more complete information before I throw my hat in the ring. Like others have said...a four page 'summary' from a hand-picked AG with a past position of this:


So everyone that's doing cartwheels, you may be a bit premature in your revelry...

No need for cartwheels. It is the same as if Mueller had determined that the sun is hot. We all knew it, even the Democrats. Now the Democrats are hoping to find a thread to to pull on for the next two years to keep them from looking like fools.

Obviously depending on the viewers perspective, that point was way back down the road.  
Most assuredly Trump is guilty regardless of his innocence.  

I have to assume our leftist members do not accept Mueler's report or, do not accept Barr's letter as truthful/ factual on the collusion issue.   Both have responded that they need to read the report for themselves.    Swallowing one's pride and admitting one's error is hard for some folks.   

Rams

[The emperor has no clothes]

I think the "not exonerated" part of the report has to do with Trump not being exonerated on
obstruction of justice because Trump fired Comey. That Trump said he fired Comey because
Comey was going to investigate Russia collusion is why "they" think they can still get Trump on obstruction...

“But regardless of recommendation, I was going to fire Comey knowing there was no good time to do it And in fact, when I decided to just do it, I said to myself — I said, you know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story. It’s an excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election that they should’ve won.”

“As far as I’m concerned, I want that thing to be absolutely done properly. When I did this now, I said I probably maybe will confuse people. Maybe I’ll expand that — you know, I’ll lengthen the time because it should be over with. It should — in my opinion, should’ve been over with a long time ago because it — all it is an excuse. But I said to myself I might even lengthen out the investigation. But I have to do the right thing for the American people. He’s the wrong man for that position.”

My take on what Trump said is "I fired Comey because he was going to investigate the [proved now to be unfounded]
Russia collusion which indicated to me that Comey was incompetent."  That doesn't sound like "obstruction
of justice" to me. Trump, being the guy that was supposed to have colluded, knew the collusion charge was unfounded.
Trump, being the President, gets to fire certain people who he thinks need fired. Other people, because of checks and balances,
he can't fire. So we're stuck with them.

-Mike "not a lawyer, not even always able to find my socks..."

I think him trying to get Comey to lay off Flynn didn’t help his cause either. (I’m not a lawyer either, but we stayed in a couple of Holiday Inns in France)

[3fan4life]

I think that the Dems should have to reimburse the American taxpayers for all of the $$$ spent on the Mueller investigation.

I've heard that it was $25,000,000 (probably more).

I wonder how much of that found its way into Mueller's bank account?

[The emperor has no clothes]

I think that the Dems should have to reimburse the American taxpayers for all of the $$$ spent on the Mueller investigation.

I've heard that it was $25,000,000 (probably more).

I wonder how much of that found its way into Mueller's bank account?

Nothing to reimburse. He took in 28.6 million from the felons.

[scooperhsd]

Mueller probably got his salary. I'm not sure what level he would have been paid at (probably something comparable to SES level ? or maybe what other political appointees receive).

[f6john]

I think that the Dems should have to reimburse the American taxpayers for all of the $$$ spent on the Mueller investigation.

I've heard that it was $25,000,000 (probably more).

I wonder how much of that found its way into Mueller's bank account?

Nothing to reimburse. He took in 28.6 million from the felons.

Ever wonder what the money trail looks like on such a haul?

[Serk]

Don't worry, I'm sure the mainstream media will be publishing their public apologies any minute now.....

https://babylonbee.com/news/nation-awaits-apology-from-media-that-pushed-fake-news-story-for-two-years

[The emperor has no clothes]

I think that the Dems should have to reimburse the American taxpayers for all of the $$$ spent on the Mueller investigation.

I've heard that it was $25,000,000 (probably more).

I wonder how much of that found its way into Mueller's bank account?

Nothing to reimburse. He took in 28.6 million from the felons.

Ever wonder what the money trail looks like on such a haul?

Do you think someone is pocketing it ?

[Robert]

Lindsey Graham calls for focus after Mueller to shift to FBI, Clinton campaign

Lindsey Graham Holds Press Conference To Announce He’s Calling For New Special Counsel To Investigate FBI, DOJ, Hillary, Targeting Of Trump


Sen. Lindsey Graham said Monday he intends to uncover whether there was any wrongdoing by the Obama administration and Hillary Clinton’s campaign now that special counsel Robert Mueller’s probe found the Trump campaign did not conspire with the Russians.



Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) told FNC's Sean Hannity Wednesday night that the Department of Justice must answer two questions: Did they stop the Clinton investigation because they wanted her to win? Did they start the Russian investigation against Trump as an insurance policy in case he won?

[Rams]

Lindsey Graham calls for focus after Mueller to shift to FBI, Clinton campaign

Lindsey Graham Holds Press Conference To Announce He’s Calling For New Special Counsel To Investigate FBI, DOJ, Hillary, Targeting Of Trump


Sen. Lindsey Graham said Monday he intends to uncover whether there was any wrongdoing by the Obama administration and Hillary Clinton’s campaign now that special counsel Robert Mueller’s probe found the Trump campaign did not conspire with the Russians.



Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) told FNC's Sean Hannity Wednesday night that the Department of Justice must answer two questions: Did they stop the Clinton investigation because they wanted her to win? Did they start the Russian investigation against Trump as an insurance policy in case he won?

Always did like Lindsey Graham. 

Rams

[f6john]

I think that the Dems should have to reimburse the American taxpayers for all of the $$$ spent on the Mueller investigation.

I've heard that it was $25,000,000 (probably more).

I wonder how much of that found its way into Mueller's bank account?

Nothing to reimburse. He took in 28.6 million from the felons.

Ever wonder what the money trail looks like on such a haul?

Do you think someone is pocketing it ?

No, that would create a mad scramble! Just wondering what bills get paid, what pet projects get fed, who actually routes the money ect.

[The emperor has no clothes]

I think that the Dems should have to reimburse the American taxpayers for all of the $$$ spent on the Mueller investigation.

I've heard that it was $25,000,000 (probably more).

I wonder how much of that found its way into Mueller's bank account?

Nothing to reimburse. He took in 28.6 million from the felons.

Ever wonder what the money trail looks like on such a haul?

Do you think someone is pocketing it ?

No, that would create a mad scramble! Just wondering what bills get paid, what pet projects get fed, who actually routes the money ect.

I believe the fines and penalties just go into the general fund. But I’ve never looked into it.

[The emperor has no clothes]

I am not a political person, so I have to ask this.  If you discovered Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner, and Paul Manafort had meetings with Russians, wouldn't you want to know what they were doing in there?

I’d say yes. And if they lied about the meetings, you’d be a little suspicious.

[f6john]

I am not a political person, so I have to ask this.  If you discovered Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner, and Paul Manafort had meetings with Russians, wouldn't you want to know what they were doing in there?

Would the same question apply to the Chinese, Germans, Indians, Pakistanis, Iranian, ? These guys talk to a lot of nationalities, of course Manaforts conversations will be limited for a while. What about conversations Clinton had with the Russians?

[Rams]

I am not a political person, so I have to ask this.  If you discovered Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner, and Paul Manafort had meetings with Russians, wouldn't you want to know what they were doing in there?

I would agree if, it can be proven.

Same thing for HRC, put Mueler on her and prove or disprove all the allegations.   Same for Comey and several others.

Rams

[hubcapsc]

I am not a political person, so I have to ask this.  If you discovered Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner, and Paul Manafort had meetings with Russians, wouldn't you want to know what they were doing in there?

From a logical (non-political) viewpoint, that makes sense. But when one throws
in the petty political hatred, animosity and general dis-function that surrounds
our political parties, all logic goes out the window. These aren't
seasoned dispassionate statesmen who want to know what Trump Jr., Kushner
and Manafort were doing with the Russians, these are shrill partisan self-seekers
reaching for anything they can find that might stick so that they can "impeach that
mf"...

-Mike "I've probably exposed myself as an ist with all kinds of isms by saying statesmen instead of... statespeople...?"

[The emperor has no clothes]

-Mike "I've probably exposed myself as an ist with all kinds of isms by saying statesmen instead of... statespeople...?"

(I won’t tell anybody)

[Bighead]

I am not a political person, so I have to ask this.  If you discovered Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner, and Paul Manafort had meetings with Russians, wouldn't you want to know what they were doing in there?

I’d say yes. And if they lied about the meetings, you’d be a little suspicious.

You have to know that it would have been in Russia’s better interest if HRC would have won. So why in the Hell does anyone think that DJT had any kind of colluding with them.

[¿spoom]

I am not a political person, so I have to ask this.  If you discovered Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner, and Paul Manafort had meetings with Russians, wouldn't you want to know what they were doing in there?

I'd like to know what a lot of powerful people are doing and who they are talking with from MANY countries, but that doesn't mean I have a right to make unfounded allegations and hound them down. Our system is supposed to find a crime, and look for who did it, not take a name and see what you can dig up because you are of a different political bent. Perhaps Trump should only meet with people in planes parked in airports, and then only about the grandchildren?

[Robert]

President Trump on ‘Treasonous’ Actions of People Behind Mueller Probe 3/25/19

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=37&v=7NZ-zxwHrJk

President Donald Trump slammed Robert Mueller‘s investigation on Monday by railing against the “treasonous” actions at the center of the probe. While speaking with the White House press corps alongside prime minister, Trump was asked if he still thinks Mueller’s investigation is a “witch hunt” since it has concluded that he didn’t collude with Russia in 2016. “It’s 100 percent the way it should have been,” Trump answered before saying that the people who sparked the Mueller probe did “evil things” to the country. “There are a lot of people out there who have done some very, very evil things. Very bad things. I would say treasonous things against our country. Hopefully, people that have done such harm to our country…those people will certainly be looked at. I’ve been looking at them for a long time and I’m saying why haven’t they been looked at. They lied to Congress. Many of them.

Ready, set, she does not have the sword for nothing.

[The emperor has no clothes]

I am not a political person, so I have to ask this.  If you discovered Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner, and Paul Manafort had meetings with Russians, wouldn't you want to know what they were doing in there?

I’d say yes. And if they lied about the meetings, you’d be a little suspicious.

You have to know that it would have been in Russia’s better interest if HRC would have won. So why in the Hell does anyone think that DJT had any kind of colluding with them.

You have to know that Putin was very pissed at Clinton encouraging his opposition in his last election. All of our intelligence agencies agree the Russians didn’t want her to win and did what they could to hurt her campaign. That doesn’t mean Trump conspired with them though. If Mueller’s team determined he didn’t, then I believe that.

[Robert]

You have to know that Putin was very pissed at Clinton encouraging his opposition in his last election. All of our intelligence agencies agree the Russians didn’t want her to win and did what they could to hurt her campaign. That doesn’t mean Trump conspired with them though. If Mueller’s team determined he didn’t, then I believe that.

Your wrong

As Russia collusion fades, Ukrainian plot to help Clinton emerges

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/435029-as-russia-collusion-fades-ukrainian-plot-to-help-clinton-emerges

If you look to the uranium one scandal then you will also find out more information.

[f6gal]

I was really hoping Mueller would uncover what Trump put under baldo's saddle to make him buck so much!

Doubt that is going to happen.

What I'm not holding my breath for is a well deserved apology from our Trump haters or at least an admission that they were wrong.   Maybe they are simply embarrassed, wouldn't blame them, I would be.    What I am relatively sure of is the lack of comments from those folks is because they are waiting for the next Democrat produced drama.    This ain't over, you can bet their hatred is simmering......

I really disliked Bama's policies and his plan for the United States but, never went where the Trump haters went simply on hoping they could find something.     I sincerely wish the same type of investigation would happen to Hillary, then we could get past what did or didn't occur.

Rams

Rams

I am waiting to read the actual report from Mueller before weighing in. 3 quotes in a synopsis from the Attorney General doesn't show much.

I need some literacy help from Willow, or others who understand grammar better than I. There is a quote in Barr's report that starts with [T]. What does that mean or symbolize ? If this was learned in 10th grade English class, it's been long forgotten. TIA

In this context, brackets typically indicate that something within a quote is paraphrased or different from the original.  I believe the instance in the Barr document indicates that the word 'the' was not capitalized in the original quote.

[Moonshot_1]

It has been quite obvious that there was nothing to the notion that the Russians and the Trump "colluded" to insure a Trump win.

I have always asked a simple question that has never been answered. How? What was the mechanics of how this was done? It should have been obvious, easy and plain to show and explain.

What was colluded about? What was the crime? No one could answer that.

There was no collusion to create voter fraud.
No collusion to bribe Electoral College officials.
No collusion to hack voting machines.

There was never any logical or plausible or even semi-plausible narrative offered as to what the crime was that was colluded about.

But apparently all the intel agencies agreed that there was a whole lot of it.
Does this mean Muller undermined the intel community by finding no collusion?

For years we heard about "collusion", and "meddling" without any relevant or contextual definition. Anything could be then construed as "collusion" or "meddling".

Apparently if the media and Democrats say it over and over for 3 years it will be true.

And so what we really had, and still have, here was the Government, led by political opposition and a sycophant media investigating a duly elected President simply because he won.

This has been a political abomination and shall go down in History as such.
The accountability for the perpetrators of this fiasco must be swift and severe.

[The emperor has no clothes]

I was really hoping Mueller would uncover what Trump put under baldo's saddle to make him buck so much!

Doubt that is going to happen.

What I'm not holding my breath for is a well deserved apology from our Trump haters or at least an admission that they were wrong.   Maybe they are simply embarrassed, wouldn't blame them, I would be.    What I am relatively sure of is the lack of comments from those folks is because they are waiting for the next Democrat produced drama.    This ain't over, you can bet their hatred is simmering......

I really disliked Bama's policies and his plan for the United States but, never went where the Trump haters went simply on hoping they could find something.     I sincerely wish the same type of investigation would happen to Hillary, then we could get past what did or didn't occur.

Rams

Rams

I am waiting to read the actual report from Mueller before weighing in. 3 quotes in a synopsis from the Attorney General doesn't show much.

I need some literacy help from Willow, or others who understand grammar better than I. There is a quote in Barr's report that starts with [T]. What does that mean or symbolize ? If this was learned in 10th grade English class, it's been long forgotten. TIA

In this context, brackets typically indicate that something within a quote is paraphrased or different from the original.  I believe the instance in the Barr document indicates that the word 'the' was not capitalized in the original quote.

Thanks, Connie. It probably doesn’t mean squat. I just couldn’t parse out what it meant. Knowing that, I guess maybe he quoted a partial sentence not from the beginning ?

[The emperor has no clothes]

You have to know that Putin was very pissed at Clinton encouraging his opposition in his last election. All of our intelligence agencies agree the Russians didn’t want her to win and did what they could to hurt her campaign. That doesn’t mean Trump conspired with them though. If Mueller’s team determined he didn’t, then I believe that.

Your wrong

As Russia collusion fades, Ukrainian plot to help Clinton emerges

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/435029-as-russia-collusion-fades-ukrainian-plot-to-help-clinton-emerges

If you look to the uranium one scandal then you will also find out more information.

I have looked at it. Several times. The timeline is WAY off for it to go down as your conspiracy theory. You could always check for yourself. 

[f6gal]

I was really hoping Mueller would uncover what Trump put under baldo's saddle to make him buck so much!

Doubt that is going to happen.

What I'm not holding my breath for is a well deserved apology from our Trump haters or at least an admission that they were wrong.   Maybe they are simply embarrassed, wouldn't blame them, I would be.    What I am relatively sure of is the lack of comments from those folks is because they are waiting for the next Democrat produced drama.    This ain't over, you can bet their hatred is simmering......

I really disliked Bama's policies and his plan for the United States but, never went where the Trump haters went simply on hoping they could find something.     I sincerely wish the same type of investigation would happen to Hillary, then we could get past what did or didn't occur.

Rams

Rams

I am waiting to read the actual report from Mueller before weighing in. 3 quotes in a synopsis from the Attorney General doesn't show much.

I need some literacy help from Willow, or others who understand grammar better than I. There is a quote in Barr's report that starts with [T]. What does that mean or symbolize ? If this was learned in 10th grade English class, it's been long forgotten. TIA

In this context, brackets typically indicate that something within a quote is paraphrased or different from the original.  I believe the instance in the Barr document indicates that the word 'the' was not capitalized in the original quote.

Thanks, Connie. It probably doesn’t mean squat. I just couldn’t parse out what it meant. Knowing that, I guess maybe he quoted a partial sentence not from the beginning ?

Likely.

[The emperor has no clothes]

It has been quite obvious that there was nothing to the notion that the Russians and the Trump "colluded" to insure a Trump win.

I have always asked a simple question that has never been answered. How? What was the mechanics of how this was done? It should have been obvious, easy and plain to show and explain.

What was colluded about? What was the crime? No one could answer that.

There was no collusion to create voter fraud.
No collusion to bribe Electoral College officials.
No collusion to hack voting machines.

There was never any logical or plausible or even semi-plausible narrative offered as to what the crime was that was colluded about.

But apparently all the intel agencies agreed that there was a whole lot of it.
Does this mean Muller undermined the intel community by finding no collusion?

For years we heard about "collusion", and "meddling" without any relevant or contextual definition. Anything could be then construed as "collusion" or "meddling".

Apparently if the media and Democrats say it over and over for 3 years it will be true.

And so what we really had, and still have, here was the Government, led by political opposition and a sycophant media investigating a duly elected President simply because he won.

This has been a political abomination and shall go down in History as such.
The accountability for the perpetrators of this fiasco must be swift and severe.

Conspiring to taint the election could take many other forms than the examples you provided. Example : if Hillary Clinton’s aides had met with Yugoslavians to get stolen emails on Trump’s extramarital affairs, and had then used that to suppress his vote, that would be against the law. If she had promised lessened sanctions on the Yugoslavians in exchange for that, that would be an additional broken law. I’m sure Mueller looked into something such as this and didn’t find evidence.

[Jess from VA]

The best I've read yet.

https://nypost.com/2019/03/24/we-should-all-be-celebrating-the-collapse-of-hillarys-big-lie/

[Rams]

It has been quite obvious that there was nothing to the notion that the Russians and the Trump "colluded" to insure a Trump win.

I have always asked a simple question that has never been answered. How? What was the mechanics of how this was done? It should have been obvious, easy and plain to show and explain.

What was colluded about? What was the crime? No one could answer that.

There was no collusion to create voter fraud.
No collusion to bribe Electoral College officials.
No collusion to hack voting machines.

There was never any logical or plausible or even semi-plausible narrative offered as to what the crime was that was colluded about.

But apparently all the intel agencies agreed that there was a whole lot of it.
Does this mean Muller undermined the intel community by finding no collusion?

For years we heard about "collusion", and "meddling" without any relevant or contextual definition. Anything could be then construed as "collusion" or "meddling".

Apparently if the media and Democrats say it over and over for 3 years it will be true.

And so what we really had, and still have, here was the Government, led by political opposition and a sycophant media investigating a duly elected President simply because he won.

This has been a political abomination and shall go down in History as such.
The accountability for the perpetrators of this fiasco must be swift and severe.

Conspiring to taint the election could take many other forms than the examples you provided. Example : if Hillary Clinton’s aides had met with Yugoslavians to get stolen emails on Trump’s extramarital affairs, and had then used that to suppress his vote, that would be against the law. If she had promised lessened sanctions on the Yugoslavians in exchange for that, that would be an additional broken law. I’m sure Mueller looked into something such as this and didn’t find evidence.

If you believe that, may we assume you accept Mueller's/Barr's no collusion finding?

Rams

[Moonshot_1]

It has been quite obvious that there was nothing to the notion that the Russians and the Trump "colluded" to insure a Trump win.

I have always asked a simple question that has never been answered. How? What was the mechanics of how this was done? It should have been obvious, easy and plain to show and explain.

What was colluded about? What was the crime? No one could answer that.

There was no collusion to create voter fraud.
No collusion to bribe Electoral College officials.
No collusion to hack voting machines.

There was never any logical or plausible or even semi-plausible narrative offered as to what the crime was that was colluded about.

But apparently all the intel agencies agreed that there was a whole lot of it.
Does this mean Muller undermined the intel community by finding no collusion?

For years we heard about "collusion", and "meddling" without any relevant or contextual definition. Anything could be then construed as "collusion" or "meddling".

Apparently if the media and Democrats say it over and over for 3 years it will be true.

And so what we really had, and still have, here was the Government, led by political opposition and a sycophant media investigating a duly elected President simply because he won.

This has been a political abomination and shall go down in History as such.
The accountability for the perpetrators of this fiasco must be swift and severe.

Conspiring to taint the election could take many other forms than the examples you provided. Example : if Hillary Clinton’s aides had met with Yugoslavians to get stolen emails on Trump’s extramarital affairs, and had then used that to suppress his vote, that would be against the law. If she had promised lessened sanctions on the Yugoslavians in exchange for that, that would be an additional broken law. I’m sure Mueller looked into something such as this and didn’t find evidence.

That is my point. There was nothing, nothing to prompt the Special Council in the first place. There must have been some kind of crime to prompt such action. There wasn't.

[Robert]

It has been quite obvious that there was nothing to the notion that the Russians and the Trump "colluded" to insure a Trump win.

I have always asked a simple question that has never been answered. How? What was the mechanics of how this was done? It should have been obvious, easy and plain to show and explain.

What was colluded about? What was the crime? No one could answer that.

There was no collusion to create voter fraud.
No collusion to bribe Electoral College officials.
No collusion to hack voting machines.

There was never any logical or plausible or even semi-plausible narrative offered as to what the crime was that was colluded about.

But apparently all the intel agencies agreed that there was a whole lot of it.
Does this mean Muller undermined the intel community by finding no collusion?

For years we heard about "collusion", and "meddling" without any relevant or contextual definition. Anything could be then construed as "collusion" or "meddling".

Apparently if the media and Democrats say it over and over for 3 years it will be true.

And so what we really had, and still have, here was the Government, led by political opposition and a sycophant media investigating a duly elected President simply because he won.

This has been a political abomination and shall go down in History as such.
The accountability for the perpetrators of this fiasco must be swift and severe.

The Trump–Russia dossier, also known as the Steele dossier, is a private intelligence report comprising 17 memos written between June and December 2016 by Christopher Steele, a former head of the Russia Desk for British intelligence (MI6), for the private investigative firm Fusion GPS. The resulting dossier contains allegations of misconduct and conspiracy between Donald Trump's presidential campaign and the Government of Russia during the 2016 election, with campaign members and Russian operatives allegedly colluding to interfere in the election to benefit Trump. It also alleged that Russia sought to damage Hillary Clinton's candidacy, including sharing negative information about Clinton with the Trump campaign. The dossier was published in full by BuzzFeed on January 10, 2017. Several mainstream media outlets criticized BuzzFeed's decision to release it without verifying its allegations, while others defended it.

All fabricated, all paid for by Hillary, delivered by John Mc Cain and his assistants, and by the way Hillary was in control of the DNC. The collusion was to present it to the FISA court and not state what it was and who paid for it. When something is presented to the Fisa court it has to be signed off on by the people investigating it and sworn to be factual. This is the basis of Mueller's appointment and investigation. Mueller did not investigate Hillary at all. The fact that Mueller was the head of the FBI worked with Hillary on the Uranium One deal, delivered personally a sample of the Uranium to Russia and no one told the regulating agency of the conflict of interest either.

Muller should have recused himself from this investigation along with Page, Strzok and many others that worked for Mueller.


Dan Bongino former secret service agent- puts it all together with an explanation to show, Obama, Mueller and the Biggest Scam in American History

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_aevtHHULag

Timeline, do you realize that the dossier that they used on Trump was written in 2007 in April in the Wall Street Journal in an article how lobbyists help ex soviets woo Washington, written by Glen Simpson and Mary Jacoby Fusion GPS.

[The emperor has no clothes]

It has been quite obvious that there was nothing to the notion that the Russians and the Trump "colluded" to insure a Trump win.

I have always asked a simple question that has never been answered. How? What was the mechanics of how this was done? It should have been obvious, easy and plain to show and explain.

What was colluded about? What was the crime? No one could answer that.

There was no collusion to create voter fraud.
No collusion to bribe Electoral College officials.
No collusion to hack voting machines.

There was never any logical or plausible or even semi-plausible narrative offered as to what the crime was that was colluded about.

But apparently all the intel agencies agreed that there was a whole lot of it.
Does this mean Muller undermined the intel community by finding no collusion?

For years we heard about "collusion", and "meddling" without any relevant or contextual definition. Anything could be then construed as "collusion" or "meddling".

Apparently if the media and Democrats say it over and over for 3 years it will be true.

And so what we really had, and still have, here was the Government, led by political opposition and a sycophant media investigating a duly elected President simply because he won.

This has been a political abomination and shall go down in History as such.
The accountability for the perpetrators of this fiasco must be swift and severe.

Conspiring to taint the election could take many other forms than the examples you provided. Example : if Hillary Clinton’s aides had met with Yugoslavians to get stolen emails on Trump’s extramarital affairs, and had then used that to suppress his vote, that would be against the law. If she had promised lessened sanctions on the Yugoslavians in exchange for that, that would be an additional broken law. I’m sure Mueller looked into something such as this and didn’t find evidence.

If you believe that, may we assume you accept Mueller's/Barr's no collusion finding?

Rams

Yes. But I want to read his report myself.

[The emperor has no clothes]

It has been quite obvious that there was nothing to the notion that the Russians and the Trump "colluded" to insure a Trump win.

I have always asked a simple question that has never been answered. How? What was the mechanics of how this was done? It should have been obvious, easy and plain to show and explain.

What was colluded about? What was the crime? No one could answer that.

There was no collusion to create voter fraud.
No collusion to bribe Electoral College officials.
No collusion to hack voting machines.

There was never any logical or plausible or even semi-plausible narrative offered as to what the crime was that was colluded about.

But apparently all the intel agencies agreed that there was a whole lot of it.
Does this mean Muller undermined the intel community by finding no collusion?

For years we heard about "collusion", and "meddling" without any relevant or contextual definition. Anything could be then construed as "collusion" or "meddling".

Apparently if the media and Democrats say it over and over for 3 years it will be true.

And so what we really had, and still have, here was the Government, led by political opposition and a sycophant media investigating a duly elected President simply because he won.

This has been a political abomination and shall go down in History as such.
The accountability for the perpetrators of this fiasco must be swift and severe.

Conspiring to taint the election could take many other forms than the examples you provided. Example : if Hillary Clinton’s aides had met with Yugoslavians to get stolen emails on Trump’s extramarital affairs, and had then used that to suppress his vote, that would be against the law. If she had promised lessened sanctions on the Yugoslavians in exchange for that, that would be an additional broken law. I’m sure Mueller looked into something such as this and didn’t find evidence.

That is my point. There was nothing, nothing to prompt the Special Council in the first place. There must have been some kind of crime to prompt such action. There wasn't.

They had Flynn lying about it. They had Trump Jr. lying about it. They had Papadopolous lying about it. They had Manafort lying about it. Just that right there should be more than enough to start the investigation.

[Serk]

If I were accused of a serious crime I didn't commit, a grand jury investigated all possible details the crime could have been committed, dug into my personal life, my finances, my family, my family's finances, my family's personal details, my friends personal lives, their business dealings, their friends personal details, my business associates, their friends, their finances, etc. etc. etc I really wouldn't want to see all that information be published.

The intimate details of a grand jury or similar investigation are really no one's business, and publishing said info would likely make people less willing to cooperate with such an institution in the future, knowing everything they say or hand over will one day end up on the front page of the New York Times, even if they're never charged with a crime.