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

[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.

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.

/----/ Yeah, we're waiting for those russians to show up for trial. BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

 

[Aldo Raine]

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.

If you didn't commit a crime or lie then it would be no problem. Oh wait it is Rump so the lying part is out the window.

 

[forkup]

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

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.

/----/ Yeah, we're waiting for those russians to show up for trial. BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Manafort is already in jail BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

 

[bodecea]

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.

Ongoing investigation...several indictments...several guilty pleas....he's supposed to tell you what he's got?

 

[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 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.

/----/ Provide one link proving there is a Grand Jury involded in Muller's Witch Hunt or fuck off.

 

[bodecea]

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.

This is Whitewater? If so, he's already ahead of Ken Starr by several indictments and several guilty pleas.

 

[bodecea]

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.

Sure you do.....

 

[Cellblock2429]

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

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.

/----/ Yeah, we're waiting for those russians to show up for trial. BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Manafort is already in jail BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

/-----/ And it looks like he belongs in jail. But what does that have to do with Trump Russia Collusion?
In the indictment released Thursday, prosecutors allege Manafort and Gates "hid the existence and ownership of the foreign companies and bank accounts" they oversaw and laundered more than $30 million in income.

 

[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.

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.

Sorry, but you lie again. We have real patriots in charge now who aren't going to put up with too much more of this faggot liberal feast.

 

[forkup]

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.

/----/ Yeah, we're waiting for those russians to show up for trial. BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Manafort is already in jail BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

/-----/ And it looks like he belongs in jail. But what does that have to do with Trump Russia Collusion?
In the indictment released Thursday, prosecutors allege Manafort and Gates "hid the existence and ownership of the foreign companies and bank accounts" they oversaw and laundered more than $30 million in income.

It has to do with the ACTUAL Mueller mandate not the straw man argument you guys keep on pushing.
(ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation;
https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/967231/download
So when you guys keep on yelling fake, what you are actually saying is. Don't look at what the Russians are doing.

 

[Cellblock2429]

/----/ 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.

/----/ Yeah, we're waiting for those russians to show up for trial. BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Manafort is already in jail BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

/-----/ And it looks like he belongs in jail. But what does that have to do with Trump Russia Collusion?
In the indictment released Thursday, prosecutors allege Manafort and Gates "hid the existence and ownership of the foreign companies and bank accounts" they oversaw and laundered more than $30 million in income.

It has to do with the ACTUAL Mueller mandate not the straw man argument you guys keep on pushing.
(ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation;
https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/967231/download
So when you guys keep on yelling fake, what you are actually saying is. Don't look at what the Russians are doing.

/----/ When Ken Starr did that to Clinton, you LIbtards had a cow.

 

[depotoo]

For nothing to do with collusion with Russia or Trump

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.

 

[forkup]

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.

/----/ Yeah, we're waiting for those russians to show up for trial. BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Manafort is already in jail BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

/-----/ And it looks like he belongs in jail. But what does that have to do with Trump Russia Collusion?
In the indictment released Thursday, prosecutors allege Manafort and Gates "hid the existence and ownership of the foreign companies and bank accounts" they oversaw and laundered more than $30 million in income.

It has to do with the ACTUAL Mueller mandate not the straw man argument you guys keep on pushing.
(ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation;
https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/967231/download
So when you guys keep on yelling fake, what you are actually saying is. Don't look at what the Russians are doing.

/----/ When Ken Starr did that to Clinton, you LIbtards had a cow.

So it went from a fake investigation, to a real investigation but one without any chance of actual convictions, to actual convictions but Trump isn't involved to, but when it happened with Clinton you guys weren't happy? You really are doing all the greatest hits. None of it changes anything. Mueller is investigating a crime that has serious ramifications on the Democratic process. He's doing that because the president went on camera and said he fired the FBI director because of that investigation. You guys keep on putting politics into it. If the president of the United States says he doesn't want an investigation on election fraud the DOJ will appoint an apolitical investigator to protect its integrity. You don't like it but it is how the system is supposed to work.

 

[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.

/----/ Provide one link proving there is a Grand Jury involded in Muller's Witch Hunt or fuck off.

You really are that clueless about our country's judicial procedures, but then, that doesn't surprises me, you're just a typical uniformed Trumpsters.
===========================================
Simply stated, an indictment is a formal accusation against someone who is suspected of committing a serious crime, filed after the conclusion of a grand jury investigation.
What is an Indictment? - FindLaw

 

[forkup]

For nothing to do with collusion with Russia or Trump

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

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.

Flynn plead guilty to lying about the FBI about a meeting between him and the RUSSIAN ambassador. A meeting he did as a private citizen discussing sanction relief with the RUSSIANS. That sounds pretty collusionist. Pretty sure I just invented a word there but the point stands.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Not after Rosenstein is impeached.

 

[Camp]

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.
View attachment 204930

Geeeeze you are stupid and misinformed. Google or other search "Mueller Grand Jury indictments". All the indictments come from Federal Grand Juries. A prosecutor can not issue an indictment without a Grand Jury.

For someone who posts as much as you do about this subject, you are painfully ignorant and misinformed.

 

[bodecea]

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

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.

/----/ Yeah, we're waiting for those russians to show up for trial. BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

So...they are above the law when they are in the U.S.?

 

[Billy_Bob]

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.

Funny;

Why are they selectively releasing these indictments before the actors are in a country from which we can extradite? This is wholly unethical conduct by the DOJ and Mueller. It goes against the very basic tenets of bringing them to justice, DOJ, and FBI POLICIES!.

The release serves no legitimate investigative purpose. Why would you telegraph your intentions to the Russians?

This was an effort to stop Trump from having a successful summit. Nothing more... Partisan Witch Hunt it is!

 

[Billy_Bob]

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

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.

/----/ Yeah, we're waiting for those russians to show up for trial. BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Manafort is already in jail BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Without conviction.... just HERESAY...

If we followed your leed Hillary and her whole cabal should be in jail for life!