Leading GWU Law Professor Says Mueller Has Produced No Evidence of Trump-Russian Collusion

[mikegriffith1]

In an editorial published on RealClearPolitics this morning, Jonathan Turley, a nationally recognized legal scholar and law professor at George Washington University, says that Mueller still has not produced any evidence of Trump-Russian collusion. Here's an excerpt:

After 14 months of investigation (and for the second time in a formal indictment), the Justice Department has stated that it is not alleging any knowing collusion between Trump campaign officials or associates and the Russians. Back in February, Mueller handed down his major indictment of 13 Russians for actively interfering with the 2016 election by spreading false information. Both Mueller and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein expressly noted that the evidence involved “unwitting” communications with Russians adopting false identities. This indictment shows that same pattern of clearly concealed identities in seeking to hack and distribute email information from the Democratic campaign and its associates.

When I noted at the time of the February indictment that it was strikingly silent on evidence of collusion, some insisted that the indictment did not cover the hacking operation and that Mueller was likely waiting to indict Trump officials colluding on the theft and distribution of the emails. We are still waiting. While the indictment speaks of both a reporter and a Trump campaign associate unwittingly communicating with the Russians, the indictment does not allege knowing collusion. That does not mean that no one colluded on some level, but after 14 months we have yet to see compelling evidence of collusion by Trump or his campaign. (Ignore the spin — still no evidence of Trump collusion)​

If you read the whole article, you'll see that Turley is not completely siding with Trump on the matter. He disagrees with Trump's label of "witch hunt" and believes that in many respects Mueller's investigation is serving a legitimate purpose. But Turley also makes the point that so far Mueller has produced zero evidence that Trump or his top aides colluded with the Russians.

 

[miketx]

In an editorial published on RealClearPolitics this morning, Jonathan Turley, a nationally recognized legal scholar and law professor at George Washington University, says that Mueller still has not produced any evidence of Trump-Russian collusion. Here's an excerpt:

After 14 months of investigation (and for the second time in a formal indictment), the Justice Department has stated that it is not alleging any knowing collusion between Trump campaign officials or associates and the Russians. Back in February, Mueller handed down his major indictment of 13 Russians for actively interfering with the 2016 election by spreading false information. Both Mueller and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein expressly noted that the evidence involved “unwitting” communications with Russians adopting false identities. This indictment shows that same pattern of clearly concealed identities in seeking to hack and distribute email information from the Democratic campaign and its associates.

When I noted at the time of the February indictment that it was strikingly silent on evidence of collusion, some insisted that the indictment did not cover the hacking operation and that Mueller was likely waiting to indict Trump officials colluding on the theft and distribution of the emails. We are still waiting. While the indictment speaks of both a reporter and a Trump campaign associate unwittingly communicating with the Russians, the indictment does not allege knowing collusion. That does not mean that no one colluded on some level, but after 14 months we have yet to see compelling evidence of collusion by Trump or his campaign. (Ignore the spin — still no evidence of Trump collusion)​

If you read the whole article, you'll see that Turley is not completely siding with Trump on the matter. He disagrees with Trump's label of "witch hunt" and believes that in many respects Mueller's investigation is serving a legitimate purpose. But Turley also makes the point that so far Mueller has produced zero evidence that Trump or his top aides colluded with the Russians.

Let it run its course. I figure about 6 more years and they'll wind it up.

 

[mikegriffith1]

In an editorial published on RealClearPolitics this morning, Jonathan Turley, a nationally recognized legal scholar and law professor at George Washington University, says that Mueller still has not produced any evidence of Trump-Russian collusion. Here's an excerpt:

After 14 months of investigation (and for the second time in a formal indictment), the Justice Department has stated that it is not alleging any knowing collusion between Trump campaign officials or associates and the Russians. Back in February, Mueller handed down his major indictment of 13 Russians for actively interfering with the 2016 election by spreading false information. Both Mueller and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein expressly noted that the evidence involved “unwitting” communications with Russians adopting false identities. This indictment shows that same pattern of clearly concealed identities in seeking to hack and distribute email information from the Democratic campaign and its associates.

When I noted at the time of the February indictment that it was strikingly silent on evidence of collusion, some insisted that the indictment did not cover the hacking operation and that Mueller was likely waiting to indict Trump officials colluding on the theft and distribution of the emails. We are still waiting. While the indictment speaks of both a reporter and a Trump campaign associate unwittingly communicating with the Russians, the indictment does not allege knowing collusion. That does not mean that no one colluded on some level, but after 14 months we have yet to see compelling evidence of collusion by Trump or his campaign. (Ignore the spin — still no evidence of Trump collusion)​

If you read the whole article, you'll see that Turley is not completely siding with Trump on the matter. He disagrees with Trump's label of "witch hunt" and believes that in many respects Mueller's investigation is serving a legitimate purpose. But Turley also makes the point that so far Mueller has produced zero evidence that Trump or his top aides colluded with the Russians.

Let it run its course. I figure about 6 more years and they'll wind it up.

I know a few liberals who think that we've reached the point where Mueller either needs to present whatever Trump-collusion evidence he has (if he has any) or end his investigation.

 

[Cellblock2429]

In an editorial published on RealClearPolitics this morning, Jonathan Turley, a nationally recognized legal scholar and law professor at George Washington University, says that Mueller still has not produced any evidence of Trump-Russian collusion. Here's an excerpt:

After 14 months of investigation (and for the second time in a formal indictment), the Justice Department has stated that it is not alleging any knowing collusion between Trump campaign officials or associates and the Russians. Back in February, Mueller handed down his major indictment of 13 Russians for actively interfering with the 2016 election by spreading false information. Both Mueller and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein expressly noted that the evidence involved “unwitting” communications with Russians adopting false identities. This indictment shows that same pattern of clearly concealed identities in seeking to hack and distribute email information from the Democratic campaign and its associates.

When I noted at the time of the February indictment that it was strikingly silent on evidence of collusion, some insisted that the indictment did not cover the hacking operation and that Mueller was likely waiting to indict Trump officials colluding on the theft and distribution of the emails. We are still waiting. While the indictment speaks of both a reporter and a Trump campaign associate unwittingly communicating with the Russians, the indictment does not allege knowing collusion. That does not mean that no one colluded on some level, but after 14 months we have yet to see compelling evidence of collusion by Trump or his campaign. (Ignore the spin — still no evidence of Trump collusion)​

If you read the whole article, you'll see that Turley is not completely siding with Trump on the matter. He disagrees with Trump's label of "witch hunt" and believes that in many respects Mueller's investigation is serving a legitimate purpose. But Turley also makes the point that so far Mueller has produced zero evidence that Trump or his top aides colluded with the Russians.

Let it run its course. I figure about 6 more years and they'll wind it up.

I know a few liberals who think that we've reached the point where Mueller either needs to present whatever Trump-collusion evidence he has (if he has any) or end his investigation.

/----/ Some of the saner Trump haters are tired of defending Muller's inaction and lack of proof.

 

[forkup]

In an editorial published on RealClearPolitics this morning, Jonathan Turley, a nationally recognized legal scholar and law professor at George Washington University, says that Mueller still has not produced any evidence of Trump-Russian collusion. Here's an excerpt:

After 14 months of investigation (and for the second time in a formal indictment), the Justice Department has stated that it is not alleging any knowing collusion between Trump campaign officials or associates and the Russians. Back in February, Mueller handed down his major indictment of 13 Russians for actively interfering with the 2016 election by spreading false information. Both Mueller and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein expressly noted that the evidence involved “unwitting” communications with Russians adopting false identities. This indictment shows that same pattern of clearly concealed identities in seeking to hack and distribute email information from the Democratic campaign and its associates.

When I noted at the time of the February indictment that it was strikingly silent on evidence of collusion, some insisted that the indictment did not cover the hacking operation and that Mueller was likely waiting to indict Trump officials colluding on the theft and distribution of the emails. We are still waiting. While the indictment speaks of both a reporter and a Trump campaign associate unwittingly communicating with the Russians, the indictment does not allege knowing collusion. That does not mean that no one colluded on some level, but after 14 months we have yet to see compelling evidence of collusion by Trump or his campaign. (Ignore the spin — still no evidence of Trump collusion)​

If you read the whole article, you'll see that Turley is not completely siding with Trump on the matter. He disagrees with Trump's label of "witch hunt" and believes that in many respects Mueller's investigation is serving a legitimate purpose. But Turley also makes the point that so far Mueller has produced zero evidence that Trump or his top aides colluded with the Russians.

Another one? let me repeat the following too then. -First, Turnley nor congress, or anybody besides the Mueller team knows what information he has. In fact Mueller is well served by keeping information close to his chest until such time he actually indicts someone. So saying Mueller has produced no evidence is both to be expected and very premature to state.
- Second he, in this article just is trying to make a point that the information in this indictment doesn't prove KNOWING collusion. This is a weird way to put something because it does imply they did collude but didn't know the information was provided by the Russians. Not exactly reassuring.
- Thirdly Mueller has yet to rule on some of the more inflamatory information in the public sphere. Namely the Don Jr Trump tower meeting. Hardly an innocent unknowing instance, and one that strongly suggests collusion. It's something that I suspect will mean legal trouble.
- Fourthly. Collusion wasn't in the mandate that Mueller got, so saying he didn't provide evidence of it is a straw man argument.

 

[depotoo]

If he had evidence of collusion he would have charged him by now...unless he just wants to rape the taxpayers.

In an editorial published on RealClearPolitics this morning, Jonathan Turley, a nationally recognized legal scholar and law professor at George Washington University, says that Mueller still has not produced any evidence of Trump-Russian collusion. Here's an excerpt:

After 14 months of investigation (and for the second time in a formal indictment), the Justice Department has stated that it is not alleging any knowing collusion between Trump campaign officials or associates and the Russians. Back in February, Mueller handed down his major indictment of 13 Russians for actively interfering with the 2016 election by spreading false information. Both Mueller and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein expressly noted that the evidence involved “unwitting” communications with Russians adopting false identities. This indictment shows that same pattern of clearly concealed identities in seeking to hack and distribute email information from the Democratic campaign and its associates.

When I noted at the time of the February indictment that it was strikingly silent on evidence of collusion, some insisted that the indictment did not cover the hacking operation and that Mueller was likely waiting to indict Trump officials colluding on the theft and distribution of the emails. We are still waiting. While the indictment speaks of both a reporter and a Trump campaign associate unwittingly communicating with the Russians, the indictment does not allege knowing collusion. That does not mean that no one colluded on some level, but after 14 months we have yet to see compelling evidence of collusion by Trump or his campaign. (Ignore the spin — still no evidence of Trump collusion)​

If you read the whole article, you'll see that Turley is not completely siding with Trump on the matter. He disagrees with Trump's label of "witch hunt" and believes that in many respects Mueller's investigation is serving a legitimate purpose. But Turley also makes the point that so far Mueller has produced zero evidence that Trump or his top aides colluded with the Russians.

Another one? let me repeat the following too then. -First, Turnley nor congress, or anybody besides the Mueller team knows what information he has. In fact Mueller is well served by keeping information close to his chest until such time he actually indicts someone. So saying Mueller has produced no evidence is both to be expected and very premature to state.
- Second he, in this article just is trying to make a point that the information in this indictment doesn't prove KNOWING collusion. This is a weird way to put something because it does imply they did collude but didn't know the information was provided by the Russians. Not exactly reassuring.
- Thirdly Mueller has yet to rule on some of the more inflamatory information in the public sphere. Namely the Don Jr Trump tower meeting. Hardly an innocent unknowing instance, and one that strongly suggests collusion. It's something that I suspect will mean legal trouble.
- Fourthly. Collusion wasn't in the mandate that Mueller got, so saying he didn't provide evidence of it is a straw man argument.

 

[Penelope]

In an editorial published on RealClearPolitics this morning, Jonathan Turley, a nationally recognized legal scholar and law professor at George Washington University, says that Mueller still has not produced any evidence of Trump-Russian collusion. Here's an excerpt:

After 14 months of investigation (and for the second time in a formal indictment), the Justice Department has stated that it is not alleging any knowing collusion between Trump campaign officials or associates and the Russians. Back in February, Mueller handed down his major indictment of 13 Russians for actively interfering with the 2016 election by spreading false information. Both Mueller and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein expressly noted that the evidence involved “unwitting” communications with Russians adopting false identities. This indictment shows that same pattern of clearly concealed identities in seeking to hack and distribute email information from the Democratic campaign and its associates.

When I noted at the time of the February indictment that it was strikingly silent on evidence of collusion, some insisted that the indictment did not cover the hacking operation and that Mueller was likely waiting to indict Trump officials colluding on the theft and distribution of the emails. We are still waiting. While the indictment speaks of both a reporter and a Trump campaign associate unwittingly communicating with the Russians, the indictment does not allege knowing collusion. That does not mean that no one colluded on some level, but after 14 months we have yet to see compelling evidence of collusion by Trump or his campaign. (Ignore the spin — still no evidence of Trump collusion)​

If you read the whole article, you'll see that Turley is not completely siding with Trump on the matter. He disagrees with Trump's label of "witch hunt" and believes that in many respects Mueller's investigation is serving a legitimate purpose. But Turley also makes the point that so far Mueller has produced zero evidence that Trump or his top aides colluded with the Russians.

Let it run its course. I figure about 6 more years and they'll wind it up.

I know a few liberals who think that we've reached the point where Mueller either needs to present whatever Trump-collusion evidence he has (if he has any) or end his investigation.

No he can take all the time he wants and needs, like Starr did.

 

[Penelope]

If he had evidence of collusion he would have charged him by now...unless he just wants to rape the taxpayers.

In an editorial published on RealClearPolitics this morning, Jonathan Turley, a nationally recognized legal scholar and law professor at George Washington University, says that Mueller still has not produced any evidence of Trump-Russian collusion. Here's an excerpt:

After 14 months of investigation (and for the second time in a formal indictment), the Justice Department has stated that it is not alleging any knowing collusion between Trump campaign officials or associates and the Russians. Back in February, Mueller handed down his major indictment of 13 Russians for actively interfering with the 2016 election by spreading false information. Both Mueller and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein expressly noted that the evidence involved “unwitting” communications with Russians adopting false identities. This indictment shows that same pattern of clearly concealed identities in seeking to hack and distribute email information from the Democratic campaign and its associates.

When I noted at the time of the February indictment that it was strikingly silent on evidence of collusion, some insisted that the indictment did not cover the hacking operation and that Mueller was likely waiting to indict Trump officials colluding on the theft and distribution of the emails. We are still waiting. While the indictment speaks of both a reporter and a Trump campaign associate unwittingly communicating with the Russians, the indictment does not allege knowing collusion. That does not mean that no one colluded on some level, but after 14 months we have yet to see compelling evidence of collusion by Trump or his campaign. (Ignore the spin — still no evidence of Trump collusion)​

If you read the whole article, you'll see that Turley is not completely siding with Trump on the matter. He disagrees with Trump's label of "witch hunt" and believes that in many respects Mueller's investigation is serving a legitimate purpose. But Turley also makes the point that so far Mueller has produced zero evidence that Trump or his top aides colluded with the Russians.

Another one? let me repeat the following too then. -First, Turnley nor congress, or anybody besides the Mueller team knows what information he has. In fact Mueller is well served by keeping information close to his chest until such time he actually indicts someone. So saying Mueller has produced no evidence is both to be expected and very premature to state.
- Second he, in this article just is trying to make a point that the information in this indictment doesn't prove KNOWING collusion. This is a weird way to put something because it does imply they did collude but didn't know the information was provided by the Russians. Not exactly reassuring.
- Thirdly Mueller has yet to rule on some of the more inflamatory information in the public sphere. Namely the Don Jr Trump tower meeting. Hardly an innocent unknowing instance, and one that strongly suggests collusion. It's something that I suspect will mean legal trouble.
- Fourthly. Collusion wasn't in the mandate that Mueller got, so saying he didn't provide evidence of it is a straw man argument.

What is raping the taxpayers are the Trumps and the GOPs on the house judiciary committee.

 

[rightwinger]

In an editorial published on RealClearPolitics this morning, Jonathan Turley, a nationally recognized legal scholar and law professor at George Washington University, says that Mueller still has not produced any evidence of Trump-Russian collusion. Here's an excerpt:

After 14 months of investigation (and for the second time in a formal indictment), the Justice Department has stated that it is not alleging any knowing collusion between Trump campaign officials or associates and the Russians. Back in February, Mueller handed down his major indictment of 13 Russians for actively interfering with the 2016 election by spreading false information. Both Mueller and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein expressly noted that the evidence involved “unwitting” communications with Russians adopting false identities. This indictment shows that same pattern of clearly concealed identities in seeking to hack and distribute email information from the Democratic campaign and its associates.

When I noted at the time of the February indictment that it was strikingly silent on evidence of collusion, some insisted that the indictment did not cover the hacking operation and that Mueller was likely waiting to indict Trump officials colluding on the theft and distribution of the emails. We are still waiting. While the indictment speaks of both a reporter and a Trump campaign associate unwittingly communicating with the Russians, the indictment does not allege knowing collusion. That does not mean that no one colluded on some level, but after 14 months we have yet to see compelling evidence of collusion by Trump or his campaign. (Ignore the spin — still no evidence of Trump collusion)​

If you read the whole article, you'll see that Turley is not completely siding with Trump on the matter. He disagrees with Trump's label of "witch hunt" and believes that in many respects Mueller's investigation is serving a legitimate purpose. But Turley also makes the point that so far Mueller has produced zero evidence that Trump or his top aides colluded with the Russians.

Well, if that is the case
Why won’t Trump testify under oath?

Why won’t Trump just explain why his key people were meeting with the Russians.......you don’t send key people to discuss Russian adoptions

What did Flynn and company trade for lighter sentences?

Much is still unknown

 

[rightwinger]

In an editorial published on RealClearPolitics this morning, Jonathan Turley, a nationally recognized legal scholar and law professor at George Washington University, says that Mueller still has not produced any evidence of Trump-Russian collusion. Here's an excerpt:

After 14 months of investigation (and for the second time in a formal indictment), the Justice Department has stated that it is not alleging any knowing collusion between Trump campaign officials or associates and the Russians. Back in February, Mueller handed down his major indictment of 13 Russians for actively interfering with the 2016 election by spreading false information. Both Mueller and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein expressly noted that the evidence involved “unwitting” communications with Russians adopting false identities. This indictment shows that same pattern of clearly concealed identities in seeking to hack and distribute email information from the Democratic campaign and its associates.

When I noted at the time of the February indictment that it was strikingly silent on evidence of collusion, some insisted that the indictment did not cover the hacking operation and that Mueller was likely waiting to indict Trump officials colluding on the theft and distribution of the emails. We are still waiting. While the indictment speaks of both a reporter and a Trump campaign associate unwittingly communicating with the Russians, the indictment does not allege knowing collusion. That does not mean that no one colluded on some level, but after 14 months we have yet to see compelling evidence of collusion by Trump or his campaign. (Ignore the spin — still no evidence of Trump collusion)​

If you read the whole article, you'll see that Turley is not completely siding with Trump on the matter. He disagrees with Trump's label of "witch hunt" and believes that in many respects Mueller's investigation is serving a legitimate purpose. But Turley also makes the point that so far Mueller has produced zero evidence that Trump or his top aides colluded with the Russians.

Let it run its course. I figure about 6 more years and they'll wind it up.

I know a few liberals who think that we've reached the point where Mueller either needs to present whatever Trump-collusion evidence he has (if he has any) or end his investigation.

No he can take all the time he wants and needs, like Starr did.

Exactly
Whitewater took seven years
Republicans even investigated the Vince Foster suicide and a White House blowjob

Mueller is moving quickly by comparison

 

[Jimmy_Chitwood]

In an editorial published on RealClearPolitics this morning, Jonathan Turley, a nationally recognized legal scholar and law professor at George Washington University, says that Mueller still has not produced any evidence of Trump-Russian collusion. Here's an excerpt:

After 14 months of investigation (and for the second time in a formal indictment), the Justice Department has stated that it is not alleging any knowing collusion between Trump campaign officials or associates and the Russians. Back in February, Mueller handed down his major indictment of 13 Russians for actively interfering with the 2016 election by spreading false information. Both Mueller and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein expressly noted that the evidence involved “unwitting” communications with Russians adopting false identities. This indictment shows that same pattern of clearly concealed identities in seeking to hack and distribute email information from the Democratic campaign and its associates.

When I noted at the time of the February indictment that it was strikingly silent on evidence of collusion, some insisted that the indictment did not cover the hacking operation and that Mueller was likely waiting to indict Trump officials colluding on the theft and distribution of the emails. We are still waiting. While the indictment speaks of both a reporter and a Trump campaign associate unwittingly communicating with the Russians, the indictment does not allege knowing collusion. That does not mean that no one colluded on some level, but after 14 months we have yet to see compelling evidence of collusion by Trump or his campaign. (Ignore the spin — still no evidence of Trump collusion)​

If you read the whole article, you'll see that Turley is not completely siding with Trump on the matter. He disagrees with Trump's label of "witch hunt" and believes that in many respects Mueller's investigation is serving a legitimate purpose. But Turley also makes the point that so far Mueller has produced zero evidence that Trump or his top aides colluded with the Russians.

But the polls said Trump had no path to victory?

 

[Cellblock2429]

In an editorial published on RealClearPolitics this morning, Jonathan Turley, a nationally recognized legal scholar and law professor at George Washington University, says that Mueller still has not produced any evidence of Trump-Russian collusion. Here's an excerpt:

After 14 months of investigation (and for the second time in a formal indictment), the Justice Department has stated that it is not alleging any knowing collusion between Trump campaign officials or associates and the Russians. Back in February, Mueller handed down his major indictment of 13 Russians for actively interfering with the 2016 election by spreading false information. Both Mueller and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein expressly noted that the evidence involved “unwitting” communications with Russians adopting false identities. This indictment shows that same pattern of clearly concealed identities in seeking to hack and distribute email information from the Democratic campaign and its associates.

When I noted at the time of the February indictment that it was strikingly silent on evidence of collusion, some insisted that the indictment did not cover the hacking operation and that Mueller was likely waiting to indict Trump officials colluding on the theft and distribution of the emails. We are still waiting. While the indictment speaks of both a reporter and a Trump campaign associate unwittingly communicating with the Russians, the indictment does not allege knowing collusion. That does not mean that no one colluded on some level, but after 14 months we have yet to see compelling evidence of collusion by Trump or his campaign. (Ignore the spin — still no evidence of Trump collusion)​

If you read the whole article, you'll see that Turley is not completely siding with Trump on the matter. He disagrees with Trump's label of "witch hunt" and believes that in many respects Mueller's investigation is serving a legitimate purpose. But Turley also makes the point that so far Mueller has produced zero evidence that Trump or his top aides colluded with the Russians.

Well, if that is the case
Why won’t Trump testify under oath?

Why won’t Trump just explain why his key people were meeting with the Russians.......you don’t send key people to discuss Russian adoptions

What did Flynn and company trade for lighter sentences?

Much is still unknown

/----/ "Why won’t Trump testify under oath?" For the same reason your attorney would tell you not to testify under oath in a witch hunt. Too big of a chance of being caught in a process crime.

 

[forkup]

If he had evidence of collusion he would have charged him by now...unless he just wants to rape the taxpayers.

In an editorial published on RealClearPolitics this morning, Jonathan Turley, a nationally recognized legal scholar and law professor at George Washington University, says that Mueller still has not produced any evidence of Trump-Russian collusion. Here's an excerpt:

After 14 months of investigation (and for the second time in a formal indictment), the Justice Department has stated that it is not alleging any knowing collusion between Trump campaign officials or associates and the Russians. Back in February, Mueller handed down his major indictment of 13 Russians for actively interfering with the 2016 election by spreading false information. Both Mueller and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein expressly noted that the evidence involved “unwitting” communications with Russians adopting false identities. This indictment shows that same pattern of clearly concealed identities in seeking to hack and distribute email information from the Democratic campaign and its associates.

When I noted at the time of the February indictment that it was strikingly silent on evidence of collusion, some insisted that the indictment did not cover the hacking operation and that Mueller was likely waiting to indict Trump officials colluding on the theft and distribution of the emails. We are still waiting. While the indictment speaks of both a reporter and a Trump campaign associate unwittingly communicating with the Russians, the indictment does not allege knowing collusion. That does not mean that no one colluded on some level, but after 14 months we have yet to see compelling evidence of collusion by Trump or his campaign. (Ignore the spin — still no evidence of Trump collusion)​

If you read the whole article, you'll see that Turley is not completely siding with Trump on the matter. He disagrees with Trump's label of "witch hunt" and believes that in many respects Mueller's investigation is serving a legitimate purpose. But Turley also makes the point that so far Mueller has produced zero evidence that Trump or his top aides colluded with the Russians.

Another one? let me repeat the following too then. -First, Turnley nor congress, or anybody besides the Mueller team knows what information he has. In fact Mueller is well served by keeping information close to his chest until such time he actually indicts someone. So saying Mueller has produced no evidence is both to be expected and very premature to state.
- Second he, in this article just is trying to make a point that the information in this indictment doesn't prove KNOWING collusion. This is a weird way to put something because it does imply they did collude but didn't know the information was provided by the Russians. Not exactly reassuring.
- Thirdly Mueller has yet to rule on some of the more inflamatory information in the public sphere. Namely the Don Jr Trump tower meeting. Hardly an innocent unknowing instance, and one that strongly suggests collusion. It's something that I suspect will mean legal trouble.
- Fourthly. Collusion wasn't in the mandate that Mueller got, so saying he didn't provide evidence of it is a straw man argument.

So the most logical assumption for a special prosecutor investigating a major crime involving complex, cyber, financial and international ties isn't the complex nature of an investigation of this type but rather some weird wish to cost the taxpayer money?
It took congress 9 separate investigations, 8 million dollars and 2,5 years to conclude nothing criminal happened with Benghazi, but Mueller investigating something this far reaching should be done already?

 

[Cellblock2429]

In an editorial published on RealClearPolitics this morning, Jonathan Turley, a nationally recognized legal scholar and law professor at George Washington University, says that Mueller still has not produced any evidence of Trump-Russian collusion. Here's an excerpt:

After 14 months of investigation (and for the second time in a formal indictment), the Justice Department has stated that it is not alleging any knowing collusion between Trump campaign officials or associates and the Russians. Back in February, Mueller handed down his major indictment of 13 Russians for actively interfering with the 2016 election by spreading false information. Both Mueller and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein expressly noted that the evidence involved “unwitting” communications with Russians adopting false identities. This indictment shows that same pattern of clearly concealed identities in seeking to hack and distribute email information from the Democratic campaign and its associates.

When I noted at the time of the February indictment that it was strikingly silent on evidence of collusion, some insisted that the indictment did not cover the hacking operation and that Mueller was likely waiting to indict Trump officials colluding on the theft and distribution of the emails. We are still waiting. While the indictment speaks of both a reporter and a Trump campaign associate unwittingly communicating with the Russians, the indictment does not allege knowing collusion. That does not mean that no one colluded on some level, but after 14 months we have yet to see compelling evidence of collusion by Trump or his campaign. (Ignore the spin — still no evidence of Trump collusion)​

If you read the whole article, you'll see that Turley is not completely siding with Trump on the matter. He disagrees with Trump's label of "witch hunt" and believes that in many respects Mueller's investigation is serving a legitimate purpose. But Turley also makes the point that so far Mueller has produced zero evidence that Trump or his top aides colluded with the Russians.

Let it run its course. I figure about 6 more years and they'll wind it up.

I know a few liberals who think that we've reached the point where Mueller either needs to present whatever Trump-collusion evidence he has (if he has any) or end his investigation.

No he can take all the time he wants and needs, like Starr did.

Exactly
Whitewater took seven years
Republicans even investigated the Vince Foster suicide and a White House blowjob

Mueller is moving quickly by comparison

/----/ That's because Whitewater and the Vince Foster murder actually happened. Russian Collusion is a myth created out of whole cloth to explain away Hildabeast's humiliating defeat.

 

[Cellblock2429]

If he had evidence of collusion he would have charged him by now...unless he just wants to rape the taxpayers.

In an editorial published on RealClearPolitics this morning, Jonathan Turley, a nationally recognized legal scholar and law professor at George Washington University, says that Mueller still has not produced any evidence of Trump-Russian collusion. Here's an excerpt:

After 14 months of investigation (and for the second time in a formal indictment), the Justice Department has stated that it is not alleging any knowing collusion between Trump campaign officials or associates and the Russians. Back in February, Mueller handed down his major indictment of 13 Russians for actively interfering with the 2016 election by spreading false information. Both Mueller and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein expressly noted that the evidence involved “unwitting” communications with Russians adopting false identities. This indictment shows that same pattern of clearly concealed identities in seeking to hack and distribute email information from the Democratic campaign and its associates.

When I noted at the time of the February indictment that it was strikingly silent on evidence of collusion, some insisted that the indictment did not cover the hacking operation and that Mueller was likely waiting to indict Trump officials colluding on the theft and distribution of the emails. We are still waiting. While the indictment speaks of both a reporter and a Trump campaign associate unwittingly communicating with the Russians, the indictment does not allege knowing collusion. That does not mean that no one colluded on some level, but after 14 months we have yet to see compelling evidence of collusion by Trump or his campaign. (Ignore the spin — still no evidence of Trump collusion)​

If you read the whole article, you'll see that Turley is not completely siding with Trump on the matter. He disagrees with Trump's label of "witch hunt" and believes that in many respects Mueller's investigation is serving a legitimate purpose. But Turley also makes the point that so far Mueller has produced zero evidence that Trump or his top aides colluded with the Russians.

Another one? let me repeat the following too then. -First, Turnley nor congress, or anybody besides the Mueller team knows what information he has. In fact Mueller is well served by keeping information close to his chest until such time he actually indicts someone. So saying Mueller has produced no evidence is both to be expected and very premature to state.
- Second he, in this article just is trying to make a point that the information in this indictment doesn't prove KNOWING collusion. This is a weird way to put something because it does imply they did collude but didn't know the information was provided by the Russians. Not exactly reassuring.
- Thirdly Mueller has yet to rule on some of the more inflamatory information in the public sphere. Namely the Don Jr Trump tower meeting. Hardly an innocent unknowing instance, and one that strongly suggests collusion. It's something that I suspect will mean legal trouble.
- Fourthly. Collusion wasn't in the mandate that Mueller got, so saying he didn't provide evidence of it is a straw man argument.

So the most logical assumption for a special prosecutor investigating a major crime involving complex, cyber, financial and international ties isn't the complex nature of an investigation of this type but rather some weird wish to cost the taxpayer money?
It took congress 9 separate investigations, 8 million dollars and 2,5 years to conclude nothing criminal happened with Benghazi, but Mueller investigating something this far reaching should be done already?

/----/ Benghazi actually happened. Trump Russia Collusion is fake.

 

[kiwiman127]

I love all these threads, that make claims about the Mueller Investigation.
The fact is, they are all conjecture. No one knows what Mueller and his team are doing, Team Mueller just plain doesn't leak information, before or after the fact. No one knows anything, until the Grand Jury indicts someone, based on evidence or someone's home or business is searched after a Search Warrant is granted.
Otherwise, everything else is conjecture/conspiracies which seem to dominate opinionated news.

 

[Cellblock2429]

I love all these threads, that make claims about the Mueller Investigation.
The fact is, they are all conjecture. No one knows what Mueller and his team are doing, Team just plain doesn't lead information, before or after the fact. No one knows anything, until the Grand Jury indicts someone, based on evidence or someone's home or business is searched after a Search Warrant is granted.
Otherwise, everything else is conjecture/conspiracies which seem to dominate opinionated news.

/----/ There is no Grand Jury involved in the Muller Witch Hunt. The indictments come directly from the Special Prosecutor. Geeeeze.

 

[forkup]

If he had evidence of collusion he would have charged him by now...unless he just wants to rape the taxpayers.

In an editorial published on RealClearPolitics this morning, Jonathan Turley, a nationally recognized legal scholar and law professor at George Washington University, says that Mueller still has not produced any evidence of Trump-Russian collusion. Here's an excerpt:

After 14 months of investigation (and for the second time in a formal indictment), the Justice Department has stated that it is not alleging any knowing collusion between Trump campaign officials or associates and the Russians. Back in February, Mueller handed down his major indictment of 13 Russians for actively interfering with the 2016 election by spreading false information. Both Mueller and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein expressly noted that the evidence involved “unwitting” communications with Russians adopting false identities. This indictment shows that same pattern of clearly concealed identities in seeking to hack and distribute email information from the Democratic campaign and its associates.

When I noted at the time of the February indictment that it was strikingly silent on evidence of collusion, some insisted that the indictment did not cover the hacking operation and that Mueller was likely waiting to indict Trump officials colluding on the theft and distribution of the emails. We are still waiting. While the indictment speaks of both a reporter and a Trump campaign associate unwittingly communicating with the Russians, the indictment does not allege knowing collusion. That does not mean that no one colluded on some level, but after 14 months we have yet to see compelling evidence of collusion by Trump or his campaign. (Ignore the spin — still no evidence of Trump collusion)​

If you read the whole article, you'll see that Turley is not completely siding with Trump on the matter. He disagrees with Trump's label of "witch hunt" and believes that in many respects Mueller's investigation is serving a legitimate purpose. But Turley also makes the point that so far Mueller has produced zero evidence that Trump or his top aides colluded with the Russians.

Another one? let me repeat the following too then. -First, Turnley nor congress, or anybody besides the Mueller team knows what information he has. In fact Mueller is well served by keeping information close to his chest until such time he actually indicts someone. So saying Mueller has produced no evidence is both to be expected and very premature to state.
- Second he, in this article just is trying to make a point that the information in this indictment doesn't prove KNOWING collusion. This is a weird way to put something because it does imply they did collude but didn't know the information was provided by the Russians. Not exactly reassuring.
- Thirdly Mueller has yet to rule on some of the more inflamatory information in the public sphere. Namely the Don Jr Trump tower meeting. Hardly an innocent unknowing instance, and one that strongly suggests collusion. It's something that I suspect will mean legal trouble.
- Fourthly. Collusion wasn't in the mandate that Mueller got, so saying he didn't provide evidence of it is a straw man argument.

So the most logical assumption for a special prosecutor investigating a major crime involving complex, cyber, financial and international ties isn't the complex nature of an investigation of this type but rather some weird wish to cost the taxpayer money?
It took congress 9 separate investigations, 8 million dollars and 2,5 years to conclude nothing criminal happened with Benghazi, but Mueller investigating something this far reaching should be done already?

/----/ Benghazi actually happened. Trump Russia Collusion is fake.

Mueller has indicted dozens of people, including several high ranking people in the Trump campaign and administration. Which is more then ever was put forth on Benghazi that has ZERO indictments. Yelling fake doesn't make that go away.

 

[kiwiman127]

I love all these threads, that make claims about the Mueller Investigation.
The fact is, they are all conjecture. No one knows what Mueller and his team are doing, Team Mueller just plain doesn't leak information, before or after the fact. No one knows anything, until the Grand Jury indicts someone, based on evidence or someone's home or business is searched after a Search Warrant is granted.
Otherwise, everything else is conjecture/conspiracies which seem to dominate opinionated news.

Oh you think it's funny Cellblock, prove me wrong or fuck off.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

After the midterms, Trump will fire Sessions and indict Mueller for sedition and prosecutorial misconduct