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

[buckeye45_73]

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.

TRUMPKIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! HE's a right wing racist, we must burn his house down!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Billy_Bob]

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.

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.

The bull shit runs deep with this one...

Flynn was acting for the PRESIDENT ELECT at that time.. He did nothing wrong under the law.... You wanna cry some and try lying again?

 

[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

/----/ "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 Trump has nothing to hide, what is he afraid of?

Clinton testified, Nixon testified, Reagan testified

 

[rightwinger]

For nothing to do with collusion with Russia or Trump

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.

The bull shit runs deep with this one...

Flynn was acting for the PRESIDENT ELECT at that time.. He did nothing wrong under the law.... You wanna cry some and try lying again?

Flynn has plead guilty to a lesser charge in return for testimony
What do you think that testimony was about ??

 

[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.

If Trump has nothing to hide, what is he afraid of?

Clinton testified, Nixon testified, Reagan testified

For nothing to do with collusion with Russia or Trump

/----/ 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.

The bull shit runs deep with this one...

Flynn was acting for the PRESIDENT ELECT at that time.. He did nothing wrong under the law.... You wanna cry some and try lying again?

Flynn has plead guilty to a lesser charge in return for testimony
What do you think that testimony was about ??

/——/ Wedding plans and yoga classes

 

[Billy_Bob]

For nothing to do with collusion with Russia or Trump

/----/ 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.

The bull shit runs deep with this one...

Flynn was acting for the PRESIDENT ELECT at that time.. He did nothing wrong under the law.... You wanna cry some and try lying again?

Flynn has plead guilty to a lesser charge in return for testimony
What do you think that testimony was about ??

He never lied according to the interviewing officers in their congressional testimony... So what exactly was his crime? Even the judge is about to toss this pile of crap....

 

[Rosy]

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.

Harvard professor Alan Dershowitz wrote a book saying the same thing...………..

 

[Wry Catcher]

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.

DUH ^^^ THE INVESTIGATION IS ON GOING!!!!!!!

THERE ARE DOCUMENTS TO READ, PERSONS TO INTERVIEW, AND FOLLOW UP INTERVIEWS TO BE CONDUCTED, AND THEN INTERROGATIONS, AND NEGOTIATIONS AS PART OF DEALS AND AS A RESULT MORE AVENUES TO EXPLORE.

A RUSH TO JUDGMENT BENEFITS NO MAN.

 

[rightwinger]

For nothing to do with collusion with Russia or Trump

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.

The bull shit runs deep with this one...

Flynn was acting for the PRESIDENT ELECT at that time.. He did nothing wrong under the law.... You wanna cry some and try lying again?

Flynn has plead guilty to a lesser charge in return for testimony
What do you think that testimony was about ??

He never lied according to the interviewing officers in their congressional testimony... So what exactly was his crime? Even the judge is about to toss this pile of crap....

Flynn has plead guilty

 

[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.

Harvard professor Alan Dershowitz wrote a book saying the same thing...………..

Dershowitz sold out decades ago for OJ bucks

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

For nothing to do with collusion with Russia or Trump

/----/ 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.

The bull shit runs deep with this one...

Flynn was acting for the PRESIDENT ELECT at that time.. He did nothing wrong under the law.... You wanna cry some and try lying again?

Flynn has plead guilty to a lesser charge in return for testimony
What do you think that testimony was about ??

Two scoops of ice cream. Serious shit man.

 

[forkup]

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!

Maybe because the fact that the officers representing Guccifer are Russian assets who because of their job will never leave Russia?? I find it really interesting that when Mueller releases more indictments on Russians you are immediately prepared to yell partisan witch hunt, notwithstanding that Mueller was a Republican appointed by another Republican indicting Russian hackers. But when a judge decides to jail an American citizen in an American court because of him breaking the terms of his release you are prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt.

 

[WaitingFor2020]

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, I KNOW a GWU law professor with a J.D. and an LL.M who prosecutes bank fraud and money laundering cases for the IRS, and he says Trump is guilty of not only colluding with the Russians but also laundering money for them.

He said the first thing Mueller did when he was appointed Special Counsel was get a copy of all of Trump's tax returns. He started there.

 

[forkup]

For nothing to do with collusion with Russia or Trump

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.

The bull shit runs deep with this one...

Flynn was acting for the PRESIDENT ELECT at that time.. He did nothing wrong under the law.... You wanna cry some and try lying again?

The Logan Act (1 Stat. 613, 18 U.S.C. § 953, enacted January 30, 1799) is a United States federal law that criminalizes negotiation by unauthorized persons with foreign governments having a dispute with the United States.
I don't think being the potential National Security Advisor is authorized. It's kind of like when you claim the Secretary of State can't have a private e-mail server.
And as rightwinger pointed out, you don't know what they really got on him considering he did plead GUILTY. Innocent people typically don't say they committed crimes.

 

[saveliberty]

The Russians must be so disappointed the collusion has not benefited them...at least they can help in the midterms....

 

[Cellblock2429]

For nothing to do with collusion with Russia or Trump

/----/ 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.

The bull shit runs deep with this one...

Flynn was acting for the PRESIDENT ELECT at that time.. He did nothing wrong under the law.... You wanna cry some and try lying again?

The Logan Act (1 Stat. 613, 18 U.S.C. § 953, enacted January 30, 1799) is a United States federal law that criminalizes negotiation by unauthorized persons with foreign governments having a dispute with the United States.
I don't think being the potential National Security Advisor is authorized. It's kind of like when you claim the Secretary of State can't have a private e-mail server.
And as rightwinger pointed out, you don't know what they really got on him considering he did plead GUILTY. Innocent people typically don't say they committed crimes.

/---- It's not so cut and dry: How the Logan Act Does — and Doesn't — Work
How the Logan Act Works (or Doesn't)
A couple major problems arise when it comes to enforcing the Logan Act these days. One is free speech. It's hard to keep a U.S. citizen, whether authorized by the government to act in an official capacity or not, from exercising it.

"The Supreme Court has basically relegated content-based restrictions, or restrictions on what a person can say, to the dustbin of permissible legislation because it equates them with censorship," University of Texas law professor Steve Vladeck tells the Atlantic.

Another sticking point is that, the way politics works today, it's virtually impossible to keep everybody away from the policy party. U.S. foreign policy, after all, doesn't happen in a vacuum. A lot of people have a lot of varying interests, be they economic, political, religious or whatever.

 

[Hellokitty]

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.

Turley is a hard line never-TRUMPer, and knows the main purpose of the Mueller witch hunt investigation is to find anything on TRUMP to take him down, connected to Russia or not.

 

[OldLady]

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.

Did we really need a George Washington University professor to tell anyone that?
I'm not hearing "spin" to the contrary--and I listen to CNN for at least fifteen minutes a day.
Don't forward me to internet sites, either--that is not the place to get news.

 

[OldLady]

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.

He was asked to investigate if any of Americans were involved in the Russian interference. Call it what you will.

 

[Billy_Bob]

For nothing to do with collusion with Russia or Trump

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.

The bull shit runs deep with this one...

Flynn was acting for the PRESIDENT ELECT at that time.. He did nothing wrong under the law.... You wanna cry some and try lying again?

Flynn has plead guilty to a lesser charge in return for testimony
What do you think that testimony was about ??

He never lied according to the interviewing officers in their congressional testimony... So what exactly was his crime? Even the judge is about to toss this pile of crap....

Flynn has plead guilty

The judge has the responsibility to ensure someone wrongfully accused is not wrongfully imprisoned or sanctioned. its his god damn job you fucking left wing moron! The judge has already threatened to throw the whole thing out and his last admonishment, to Mueller and his cronies, deadline is Monday!

If they fail to produce, and as of Friday they had not, it will be tossed...