Were you surprised by the result of the Mueller investigation?

[Hutch Starskey]

The constitution allows congress to conduct oversight.

And congress codified this oversight into law.
In that law, it specified that the AG sends a report to Congress; Congressional access to the report is through the AG.

Nope.
There is no such law. There's a DOJ regulation regarding a special consel and their report to the AG. The AG writes the DOJ regulations. That means Barr can do as he wishes.

If you choose to remain ignorant of the law, you cannot be helped.

Post the law, dope.

You don't accept truth facts or laws.

Let's test that. Post the law.

 

[jc456]

Show us the crimes liar, not some bullshit media speculation.

LOL....

I don't know if there are crimes. Neither do you.

sure we do, there are no indictments to act on.

Again, dope. If a sitting president cannot be indicted, there would be no indictments regardless of criminality. Right?

yes there would be. it would be in the packet as an indictment to act on. It's why I've continued to use that language in my posts. That indictment would wait until the president was out of office. sorry bubba. nothing in the report. nadda, history baby!!!!!

Ok. Now how would you know if there were?
Sealed indictments are sealed. I'm not saying there are any but simply pointing to your faulty logic.

because Barr wrote this:

"the Special Counsel also referred several matters to other offices for further action. The report does not recommend any further indictments, nor did the Special Counsel obtain any sealed indictments that have yet to be made public." no indictments to act on, means no crimes. no crimes =exonerated. 1+1=2

 

[toomuchtime_]

You only believe this because you don't like what it said.

but it did have a fact. no open indictments. that's a fact. without an indictment means there is no collusion.

Well, of course.
The left generally remains in denial; some of them have moved on to anger and/or bargaining.

Barr's letter also was factual about the number of lawyers Mueller used. But those are not facts of the matter.

The fact of the matter is that with the full resources of the Justice Department at his disposal, in two year investigation Mueller was unable to find any evidence of collusion with the Russians and didn't find evidence sufficient to conclude obstruction of justice. And now you guts are jonesing for more lies about the President.

Actually that is your speculation. You didn't even include a single quote from Barr.

No, it is exactly what Barr said in his letter. You apparently did not read it. Don't you think it's a good idea to know what it is before forming an opinion on it?

 

[FA_Q2]

You only believe this because you don't like what it said.

but it did have a fact. no open indictments. that's a fact. without an indictment means there is no collusion.

Well, of course.
The left generally remains in denial; some of them have moved on to anger and/or bargaining.

Barr's letter also was factual about the number of lawyers Mueller used. But those are not facts of the matter.

The fact of the matter is that with the full resources of the Justice Department at his disposal, in two year investigation Mueller was unable to find any evidence of collusion with the Russians and didn't find evidence sufficient to conclude obstruction of justice. And now you guts are jonesing for more lies about the President.

Actually that is your speculation. You didn't even include a single quote from Barr.

"But as noted above, the Special Counsel did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in these efforts, despite multiple offers from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign."

This is crystal clear. There is no more clear way to state the conclusion.

"After reviewing the Special Counsel's final report on these issues; consulting with Department officials, including the Office of Legal Counsel; and applying the principles of federal prosecution that guide our charging decisions, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and I have concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel's investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense. "

Is also crystal clear from Barr's determination of the evidence that Muller presented. Further, it was Muller who decided to pass on making any recommendation in the report as stated by Barr:

"After making a “thorough factual investigation” into these matters, the Special Counsel considered whether to evaluate the conduct under Department standards governing prosecution and declination decisions but ultimately determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment."

So, no. His statement was not 'opinion.' It was fact based on the actual letter that Barr released to the public. That Muller punted on the obstruction side of the case is not really a surprise at all - it is difficult to establish corrupt intent when Trump neither touched the actual investigation itself as there has not been a single iota of evidence showing Trump actually interfering with Muller's investigation and no actual crime was discovered in the first place.

The left is mostly hanging onto Comey's dismissal as obstruction yet that is a massive cry from actual obstruction.

 

[BlindBoo]

but it did have a fact. no open indictments. that's a fact. without an indictment means there is no collusion.

Well, of course.
The left generally remains in denial; some of them have moved on to anger and/or bargaining.

Barr's letter also was factual about the number of lawyers Mueller used. But those are not facts of the matter.

The fact of the matter is that with the full resources of the Justice Department at his disposal, in two year investigation Mueller was unable to find any evidence of collusion with the Russians and didn't find evidence sufficient to conclude obstruction of justice. And now you guts are jonesing for more lies about the President.

Actually that is your speculation. You didn't even include a single quote from Barr.

No, it is exactly what Barr said in his letter. You apparently did not read it. Don't you think it's a good idea to know what it is before forming an opinion on it?

"Mueller was unable to find any evidence of collusion" is in fact not a phrase in Barr's letter so your interpretation of his letter is not exact.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Well, of course.
The left generally remains in denial; some of them have moved on to anger and/or bargaining.

Barr's letter also was factual about the number of lawyers Mueller used. But those are not facts of the matter.

The fact of the matter is that with the full resources of the Justice Department at his disposal, in two year investigation Mueller was unable to find any evidence of collusion with the Russians and didn't find evidence sufficient to conclude obstruction of justice. And now you guts are jonesing for more lies about the President.

Actually that is your speculation. You didn't even include a single quote from Barr.

No, it is exactly what Barr said in his letter. You apparently did not read it. Don't you think it's a good idea to know what it is before forming an opinion on it?

"Mueller was unable to find any evidence of collusion" is in fact not a phrase in Barr's letter so your interpretation of his letter is not exact.

Are you crazy?

[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”

and

The Special Counsel’s investigation determined that there were two main Russian efforts to influence the 2016 election. The first involved attempts by a Russian organization, the Internet Research Agency (IRA), to conduct disinformation and social media operations in the United States designed to sow social discord, eventually with the aim of interfering with the election. As noted above, the Special Counsel did not find that any U.S. person or Trump campaign official or associate conspired or knowingly coordinated with the IRA in its efforts, although the Special Counsel brought criminal charges against a number of Russian nationals and entities in connection with these activities.

and

But as noted above, the Special Counsel did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in these efforts, despite multiple offers from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign.

Here’s the text of the Mueller report summary letter, typed out for easy reading

 

[BlindBoo]

but it did have a fact. no open indictments. that's a fact. without an indictment means there is no collusion.

Well, of course.
The left generally remains in denial; some of them have moved on to anger and/or bargaining.

Barr's letter also was factual about the number of lawyers Mueller used. But those are not facts of the matter.

The fact of the matter is that with the full resources of the Justice Department at his disposal, in two year investigation Mueller was unable to find any evidence of collusion with the Russians and didn't find evidence sufficient to conclude obstruction of justice. And now you guts are jonesing for more lies about the President.

Actually that is your speculation. You didn't even include a single quote from Barr.

"But as noted above, the Special Counsel did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in these efforts, despite multiple offers from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign."

This is crystal clear. There is no more clear way to state the conclusion.

"After reviewing the Special Counsel's final report on these issues; consulting with Department officials, including the Office of Legal Counsel; and applying the principles of federal prosecution that guide our charging decisions, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and I have concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel's investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense. "

Is also crystal clear from Barr's determination of the evidence that Muller presented. Further, it was Muller who decided to pass on making any recommendation in the report as stated by Barr:

"After making a “thorough factual investigation” into these matters, the Special Counsel considered whether to evaluate the conduct under Department standards governing prosecution and declination decisions but ultimately determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment."

So, no. His statement was not 'opinion.' It was fact based on the actual letter that Barr released to the public. That Muller punted on the obstruction side of the case is not really a surprise at all - it is difficult to establish corrupt intent when Trump neither touched the actual investigation itself as there has not been a single iota of evidence showing Trump actually interfering with Muller's investigation and no actual crime was discovered in the first place.

The left is mostly hanging onto Comey's dismissal as obstruction yet that is a massive cry from actual obstruction.

"But, as noted above..."

But what? What is above? Fine, they can't prove a conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt, I accept that. Removing Trumpybear would only happen with Trumpublican support, and that just would never happen. I have a feeling in the next 20 months or so we're going to find out what Mueller learned. Sit back and enjoy the show campers. Remember lies travel halfway across the universe before the truth gets up and has it's first cup of coffee.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Well, of course.
The left generally remains in denial; some of them have moved on to anger and/or bargaining.

Barr's letter also was factual about the number of lawyers Mueller used. But those are not facts of the matter.

The fact of the matter is that with the full resources of the Justice Department at his disposal, in two year investigation Mueller was unable to find any evidence of collusion with the Russians and didn't find evidence sufficient to conclude obstruction of justice. And now you guts are jonesing for more lies about the President.

Actually that is your speculation. You didn't even include a single quote from Barr.

"But as noted above, the Special Counsel did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in these efforts, despite multiple offers from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign."

This is crystal clear. There is no more clear way to state the conclusion.

"After reviewing the Special Counsel's final report on these issues; consulting with Department officials, including the Office of Legal Counsel; and applying the principles of federal prosecution that guide our charging decisions, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and I have concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel's investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense. "

Is also crystal clear from Barr's determination of the evidence that Muller presented. Further, it was Muller who decided to pass on making any recommendation in the report as stated by Barr:

"After making a “thorough factual investigation” into these matters, the Special Counsel considered whether to evaluate the conduct under Department standards governing prosecution and declination decisions but ultimately determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment."

So, no. His statement was not 'opinion.' It was fact based on the actual letter that Barr released to the public. That Muller punted on the obstruction side of the case is not really a surprise at all - it is difficult to establish corrupt intent when Trump neither touched the actual investigation itself as there has not been a single iota of evidence showing Trump actually interfering with Muller's investigation and no actual crime was discovered in the first place.

The left is mostly hanging onto Comey's dismissal as obstruction yet that is a massive cry from actual obstruction.

"But, as noted above..."

But what? What is above? Fine, they can't prove a conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt, I accept that. Removing Trumpybear would only happen with Trumpublican support, and that just would never happen. I have a feeling in the next 20 months or so we're going to find out what Mueller learned. Sit back and enjoy the show campers. Remember lies travel halfway across the universe before the truth gets up and has it's first cup of coffee.

Are you not a good reader? It said he found nothing, not just beyond a reasonable doubt but nothing. For the last two years we have heard nothing but lies from Democrats about collusion and apparently you just can't seem to stop lying. It is fair to wonder if there is a single honest Democrat in Congress.

 

[FA_Q2]

Well, of course.
The left generally remains in denial; some of them have moved on to anger and/or bargaining.

Barr's letter also was factual about the number of lawyers Mueller used. But those are not facts of the matter.

The fact of the matter is that with the full resources of the Justice Department at his disposal, in two year investigation Mueller was unable to find any evidence of collusion with the Russians and didn't find evidence sufficient to conclude obstruction of justice. And now you guts are jonesing for more lies about the President.

Actually that is your speculation. You didn't even include a single quote from Barr.

"But as noted above, the Special Counsel did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in these efforts, despite multiple offers from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign."

This is crystal clear. There is no more clear way to state the conclusion.

"After reviewing the Special Counsel's final report on these issues; consulting with Department officials, including the Office of Legal Counsel; and applying the principles of federal prosecution that guide our charging decisions, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and I have concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel's investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense. "

Is also crystal clear from Barr's determination of the evidence that Muller presented. Further, it was Muller who decided to pass on making any recommendation in the report as stated by Barr:

"After making a “thorough factual investigation” into these matters, the Special Counsel considered whether to evaluate the conduct under Department standards governing prosecution and declination decisions but ultimately determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment."

So, no. His statement was not 'opinion.' It was fact based on the actual letter that Barr released to the public. That Muller punted on the obstruction side of the case is not really a surprise at all - it is difficult to establish corrupt intent when Trump neither touched the actual investigation itself as there has not been a single iota of evidence showing Trump actually interfering with Muller's investigation and no actual crime was discovered in the first place.

The left is mostly hanging onto Comey's dismissal as obstruction yet that is a massive cry from actual obstruction.

"But, as noted above..."

But what? What is above? Fine, they can't prove a conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt, I accept that. Removing Trumpybear would only happen with Trumpublican support, and that just would never happen. I have a feeling in the next 20 months or so we're going to find out what Mueller learned. Sit back and enjoy the show campers. Remember lies travel halfway across the universe before the truth gets up and has it's first cup of coffee.

Read the report if you want to know what is 'above' blind. Quoting the entire thing is not helpful or even useful in discussion. The 'above' was nothing more than an explanation of what Muller was looking into and some of the charges filed against Russians.

"they can't prove a conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt" is YOUR INTERPRETATION. What was actually said was the investigation DID NOT FIND. Not that there was insufficient evidence to bring it to trial. Not, like in Hillary's case, that they could not determine that corrupt intent was involved. They found that HE DID NOT collude. Ergo, a lack of evidence.

You cannot get more clear than that. Whining about the politics of not being able to remove Trump is asinine at best. That is a pathetic attempt to color Muller's actions as politically motivated. They did not fail to establish a case because they did not think he would be removed - they failed to establish a case because they could not find the evidence. Considering the massive amount of access he had to everything Trump related - all the way down to his LAWYERS files - Muller certainly was thorough in his search for evidence.

 

[BlindBoo]

Barr's letter also was factual about the number of lawyers Mueller used. But those are not facts of the matter.

The fact of the matter is that with the full resources of the Justice Department at his disposal, in two year investigation Mueller was unable to find any evidence of collusion with the Russians and didn't find evidence sufficient to conclude obstruction of justice. And now you guts are jonesing for more lies about the President.

Actually that is your speculation. You didn't even include a single quote from Barr.

No, it is exactly what Barr said in his letter. You apparently did not read it. Don't you think it's a good idea to know what it is before forming an opinion on it?

"Mueller was unable to find any evidence of collusion" is in fact not a phrase in Barr's letter so your interpretation of his letter is not exact.

Are you crazy?

[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”

and

The Special Counsel’s investigation determined that there were two main Russian efforts to influence the 2016 election. The first involved attempts by a Russian organization, the Internet Research Agency (IRA), to conduct disinformation and social media operations in the United States designed to sow social discord, eventually with the aim of interfering with the election. As noted above, the Special Counsel did not find that any U.S. person or Trump campaign official or associate conspired or knowingly coordinated with the IRA in its efforts, although the Special Counsel brought criminal charges against a number of Russian nationals and entities in connection with these activities.

and

But as noted above, the Special Counsel did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in these efforts, despite multiple offers from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign.

Here’s the text of the Mueller report summary letter, typed out for easy reading

The first quote is not proof that they found no evidence. Lifting a seemingly exonerating sentence from a report can even be done with Comey's Statements on Hillary Server. But the public got the whole statement then. Now we wait.

 

[Bush92]

Seems to me, this caught the left flat-footed -- they really and truly believed this was a slam-dunk case conspiracy and obstruction.

- Did you allow your partisan rage to cloud your objectivity?
- Did you believe your own hype and that fed to you by the likes on MSNBC, CNN, and ABC?
- Were you more surprised by this than the 2016 election?
- Are you more emotionally let down by this than the 2016 election?
- If this - after 2 years of waiting with baited breath for the report, telling us daily that Mueller had the goods and it was a matter of time - does not convince you there was no collusion w/ Russia and/or obstruction of justice, what will?
- Why should we believe you?

Trump was innocent from day one. Surprised that he beat yet another deep state coup.

 

[Bush92]

The fact of the matter is that with the full resources of the Justice Department at his disposal, in two year investigation Mueller was unable to find any evidence of collusion with the Russians and didn't find evidence sufficient to conclude obstruction of justice. And now you guts are jonesing for more lies about the President.

Actually that is your speculation. You didn't even include a single quote from Barr.

No, it is exactly what Barr said in his letter. You apparently did not read it. Don't you think it's a good idea to know what it is before forming an opinion on it?

"Mueller was unable to find any evidence of collusion" is in fact not a phrase in Barr's letter so your interpretation of his letter is not exact.

Are you crazy?

[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”

and

The Special Counsel’s investigation determined that there were two main Russian efforts to influence the 2016 election. The first involved attempts by a Russian organization, the Internet Research Agency (IRA), to conduct disinformation and social media operations in the United States designed to sow social discord, eventually with the aim of interfering with the election. As noted above, the Special Counsel did not find that any U.S. person or Trump campaign official or associate conspired or knowingly coordinated with the IRA in its efforts, although the Special Counsel brought criminal charges against a number of Russian nationals and entities in connection with these activities.

and

But as noted above, the Special Counsel did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in these efforts, despite multiple offers from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign.

Here’s the text of the Mueller report summary letter, typed out for easy reading

The first quote is not proof that they found no evidence. Lifting a seemingly exonerating sentence from a report can even be done with Comey's Statements on Hillary Server. But the public got the whole statement then. Now we wait.

For what do you wait? Get the **** over it. Hillary lost.

 

[toomuchtime_]

The fact of the matter is that with the full resources of the Justice Department at his disposal, in two year investigation Mueller was unable to find any evidence of collusion with the Russians and didn't find evidence sufficient to conclude obstruction of justice. And now you guts are jonesing for more lies about the President.

Actually that is your speculation. You didn't even include a single quote from Barr.

No, it is exactly what Barr said in his letter. You apparently did not read it. Don't you think it's a good idea to know what it is before forming an opinion on it?

"Mueller was unable to find any evidence of collusion" is in fact not a phrase in Barr's letter so your interpretation of his letter is not exact.

Are you crazy?

[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”

and

The Special Counsel’s investigation determined that there were two main Russian efforts to influence the 2016 election. The first involved attempts by a Russian organization, the Internet Research Agency (IRA), to conduct disinformation and social media operations in the United States designed to sow social discord, eventually with the aim of interfering with the election. As noted above, the Special Counsel did not find that any U.S. person or Trump campaign official or associate conspired or knowingly coordinated with the IRA in its efforts, although the Special Counsel brought criminal charges against a number of Russian nationals and entities in connection with these activities.

and

But as noted above, the Special Counsel did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in these efforts, despite multiple offers from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign.

Here’s the text of the Mueller report summary letter, typed out for easy reading

The first quote is not proof that they found no evidence. Lifting a seemingly exonerating sentence from a report can even be done with Comey's Statements on Hillary Server. But the public got the whole statement then. Now we wait.

I understand you are disappointed that the report makes it clear that the Democrats have all been lying their asses off for the last two years and intend to continue lying.

 

[BlindBoo]

Barr's letter also was factual about the number of lawyers Mueller used. But those are not facts of the matter.

The fact of the matter is that with the full resources of the Justice Department at his disposal, in two year investigation Mueller was unable to find any evidence of collusion with the Russians and didn't find evidence sufficient to conclude obstruction of justice. And now you guts are jonesing for more lies about the President.

Actually that is your speculation. You didn't even include a single quote from Barr.

"But as noted above, the Special Counsel did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in these efforts, despite multiple offers from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign."

This is crystal clear. There is no more clear way to state the conclusion.

"After reviewing the Special Counsel's final report on these issues; consulting with Department officials, including the Office of Legal Counsel; and applying the principles of federal prosecution that guide our charging decisions, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and I have concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel's investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense. "

Is also crystal clear from Barr's determination of the evidence that Muller presented. Further, it was Muller who decided to pass on making any recommendation in the report as stated by Barr:

"After making a “thorough factual investigation” into these matters, the Special Counsel considered whether to evaluate the conduct under Department standards governing prosecution and declination decisions but ultimately determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment."

So, no. His statement was not 'opinion.' It was fact based on the actual letter that Barr released to the public. That Muller punted on the obstruction side of the case is not really a surprise at all - it is difficult to establish corrupt intent when Trump neither touched the actual investigation itself as there has not been a single iota of evidence showing Trump actually interfering with Muller's investigation and no actual crime was discovered in the first place.

The left is mostly hanging onto Comey's dismissal as obstruction yet that is a massive cry from actual obstruction.

"But, as noted above..."

But what? What is above? Fine, they can't prove a conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt, I accept that. Removing Trumpybear would only happen with Trumpublican support, and that just would never happen. I have a feeling in the next 20 months or so we're going to find out what Mueller learned. Sit back and enjoy the show campers. Remember lies travel halfway across the universe before the truth gets up and has it's first cup of coffee.

Read the report if you want to know what is 'above' blind. Quoting the entire thing is not helpful or even useful in discussion. The 'above' was nothing more than an explanation of what Muller was looking into and some of the charges filed against Russians.

"they can't prove a conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt" is YOUR INTERPRETATION. What was actually said was the investigation DID NOT FIND. Not that there was insufficient evidence to bring it to trial. Not, like in Hillary's case, that they could not determine that corrupt intent was involved. They found that HE DID NOT collude. Ergo, a lack of evidence.

You cannot get more clear than that. Whining about the politics of not being able to remove Trump is asinine at best. That is a pathetic attempt to color Muller's actions as politically motivated. They did not fail to establish a case because they did not think he would be removed - they failed to establish a case because they could not find the evidence. Considering the massive amount of access he had to everything Trump related - all the way down to his LAWYERS files - Muller certainly was thorough in his search for evidence.

I realized I was thinking about the wrong quote. I was wrong. But my reaction to the AG letter is not. If lynch had done the same thing with Comey's Statement and lifted the tiny bit out of it that exonerates her, the other side would erupt in ginormous poutrage and demand more information. The truth will come out.

 

[BlindBoo]

Actually that is your speculation. You didn't even include a single quote from Barr.

No, it is exactly what Barr said in his letter. You apparently did not read it. Don't you think it's a good idea to know what it is before forming an opinion on it?

"Mueller was unable to find any evidence of collusion" is in fact not a phrase in Barr's letter so your interpretation of his letter is not exact.

Are you crazy?

[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”

and

The Special Counsel’s investigation determined that there were two main Russian efforts to influence the 2016 election. The first involved attempts by a Russian organization, the Internet Research Agency (IRA), to conduct disinformation and social media operations in the United States designed to sow social discord, eventually with the aim of interfering with the election. As noted above, the Special Counsel did not find that any U.S. person or Trump campaign official or associate conspired or knowingly coordinated with the IRA in its efforts, although the Special Counsel brought criminal charges against a number of Russian nationals and entities in connection with these activities.

and

But as noted above, the Special Counsel did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in these efforts, despite multiple offers from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign.

Here’s the text of the Mueller report summary letter, typed out for easy reading

The first quote is not proof that they found no evidence. Lifting a seemingly exonerating sentence from a report can even be done with Comey's Statements on Hillary Server. But the public got the whole statement then. Now we wait.

I understand you are disappointed that the report makes it clear that the Democrats have all been lying their asses off for the last two years and intend to continue lying.

Again, the report has not been released, and I'm not surprised by Barr's letter.

 

[FA_Q2]

The fact of the matter is that with the full resources of the Justice Department at his disposal, in two year investigation Mueller was unable to find any evidence of collusion with the Russians and didn't find evidence sufficient to conclude obstruction of justice. And now you guts are jonesing for more lies about the President.

Actually that is your speculation. You didn't even include a single quote from Barr.

"But as noted above, the Special Counsel did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in these efforts, despite multiple offers from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign."

This is crystal clear. There is no more clear way to state the conclusion.

"After reviewing the Special Counsel's final report on these issues; consulting with Department officials, including the Office of Legal Counsel; and applying the principles of federal prosecution that guide our charging decisions, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and I have concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel's investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense. "

Is also crystal clear from Barr's determination of the evidence that Muller presented. Further, it was Muller who decided to pass on making any recommendation in the report as stated by Barr:

"After making a “thorough factual investigation” into these matters, the Special Counsel considered whether to evaluate the conduct under Department standards governing prosecution and declination decisions but ultimately determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment."

So, no. His statement was not 'opinion.' It was fact based on the actual letter that Barr released to the public. That Muller punted on the obstruction side of the case is not really a surprise at all - it is difficult to establish corrupt intent when Trump neither touched the actual investigation itself as there has not been a single iota of evidence showing Trump actually interfering with Muller's investigation and no actual crime was discovered in the first place.

The left is mostly hanging onto Comey's dismissal as obstruction yet that is a massive cry from actual obstruction.

"But, as noted above..."

But what? What is above? Fine, they can't prove a conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt, I accept that. Removing Trumpybear would only happen with Trumpublican support, and that just would never happen. I have a feeling in the next 20 months or so we're going to find out what Mueller learned. Sit back and enjoy the show campers. Remember lies travel halfway across the universe before the truth gets up and has it's first cup of coffee.

Read the report if you want to know what is 'above' blind. Quoting the entire thing is not helpful or even useful in discussion. The 'above' was nothing more than an explanation of what Muller was looking into and some of the charges filed against Russians.

"they can't prove a conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt" is YOUR INTERPRETATION. What was actually said was the investigation DID NOT FIND. Not that there was insufficient evidence to bring it to trial. Not, like in Hillary's case, that they could not determine that corrupt intent was involved. They found that HE DID NOT collude. Ergo, a lack of evidence.

You cannot get more clear than that. Whining about the politics of not being able to remove Trump is asinine at best. That is a pathetic attempt to color Muller's actions as politically motivated. They did not fail to establish a case because they did not think he would be removed - they failed to establish a case because they could not find the evidence. Considering the massive amount of access he had to everything Trump related - all the way down to his LAWYERS files - Muller certainly was thorough in his search for evidence.

I realized I was thinking about the wrong quote. I was wrong. But my reaction to the AG letter is not. If lynch had done the same thing with Comey's Statement and lifted the tiny bit out of it that exonerates her, the other side would erupt in ginormous poutrage and demand more information. The truth will come out.

I am sure that much of the report will come out. That is a good thing and there is almost no one actually arguing against releasing the bulk of the report.

 

[BlindBoo]

Actually that is your speculation. You didn't even include a single quote from Barr.

No, it is exactly what Barr said in his letter. You apparently did not read it. Don't you think it's a good idea to know what it is before forming an opinion on it?

"Mueller was unable to find any evidence of collusion" is in fact not a phrase in Barr's letter so your interpretation of his letter is not exact.

Are you crazy?

[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”

and

The Special Counsel’s investigation determined that there were two main Russian efforts to influence the 2016 election. The first involved attempts by a Russian organization, the Internet Research Agency (IRA), to conduct disinformation and social media operations in the United States designed to sow social discord, eventually with the aim of interfering with the election. As noted above, the Special Counsel did not find that any U.S. person or Trump campaign official or associate conspired or knowingly coordinated with the IRA in its efforts, although the Special Counsel brought criminal charges against a number of Russian nationals and entities in connection with these activities.

and

But as noted above, the Special Counsel did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in these efforts, despite multiple offers from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign.

Here’s the text of the Mueller report summary letter, typed out for easy reading

The first quote is not proof that they found no evidence. Lifting a seemingly exonerating sentence from a report can even be done with Comey's Statements on Hillary Server. But the public got the whole statement then. Now we wait.

For what do you wait? Get the **** over it. Hillary lost.

The edited and sanitized Report. I understand all you parrots have your talking point drilled into yer skulls and ya did your job disseminating the points, but the truth will catch up one day.

 

[toomuchtime_]

The fact of the matter is that with the full resources of the Justice Department at his disposal, in two year investigation Mueller was unable to find any evidence of collusion with the Russians and didn't find evidence sufficient to conclude obstruction of justice. And now you guts are jonesing for more lies about the President.

Actually that is your speculation. You didn't even include a single quote from Barr.

"But as noted above, the Special Counsel did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in these efforts, despite multiple offers from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign."

This is crystal clear. There is no more clear way to state the conclusion.

"After reviewing the Special Counsel's final report on these issues; consulting with Department officials, including the Office of Legal Counsel; and applying the principles of federal prosecution that guide our charging decisions, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and I have concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel's investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense. "

Is also crystal clear from Barr's determination of the evidence that Muller presented. Further, it was Muller who decided to pass on making any recommendation in the report as stated by Barr:

"After making a “thorough factual investigation” into these matters, the Special Counsel considered whether to evaluate the conduct under Department standards governing prosecution and declination decisions but ultimately determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment."

So, no. His statement was not 'opinion.' It was fact based on the actual letter that Barr released to the public. That Muller punted on the obstruction side of the case is not really a surprise at all - it is difficult to establish corrupt intent when Trump neither touched the actual investigation itself as there has not been a single iota of evidence showing Trump actually interfering with Muller's investigation and no actual crime was discovered in the first place.

The left is mostly hanging onto Comey's dismissal as obstruction yet that is a massive cry from actual obstruction.

"But, as noted above..."

But what? What is above? Fine, they can't prove a conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt, I accept that. Removing Trumpybear would only happen with Trumpublican support, and that just would never happen. I have a feeling in the next 20 months or so we're going to find out what Mueller learned. Sit back and enjoy the show campers. Remember lies travel halfway across the universe before the truth gets up and has it's first cup of coffee.

Read the report if you want to know what is 'above' blind. Quoting the entire thing is not helpful or even useful in discussion. The 'above' was nothing more than an explanation of what Muller was looking into and some of the charges filed against Russians.

"they can't prove a conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt" is YOUR INTERPRETATION. What was actually said was the investigation DID NOT FIND. Not that there was insufficient evidence to bring it to trial. Not, like in Hillary's case, that they could not determine that corrupt intent was involved. They found that HE DID NOT collude. Ergo, a lack of evidence.

You cannot get more clear than that. Whining about the politics of not being able to remove Trump is asinine at best. That is a pathetic attempt to color Muller's actions as politically motivated. They did not fail to establish a case because they did not think he would be removed - they failed to establish a case because they could not find the evidence. Considering the massive amount of access he had to everything Trump related - all the way down to his LAWYERS files - Muller certainly was thorough in his search for evidence.

I realized I was thinking about the wrong quote. I was wrong. But my reaction to the AG letter is not. If lynch had done the same thing with Comey's Statement and lifted the tiny bit out of it that exonerates her, the other side would erupt in ginormous poutrage and demand more information. The truth will come out.

The truth has come out about both Trump and Lynch and you refuse to accept it.

 

[mudwhistle]

Mueller Quotes specifically said no crimes were committed,

Poor Pseudo-cons. Desperately trying to find a liberal who is running around with their hair on fire.

Actually no it didn't.

Congress should get the entire report.

See this is why you are a bald faced liar since YOU were shown the actual quotes from Mueller, here it is again, this time with full links to the report:

It is clear you didn't bother to read the 4 page report, since Barr QUOTES Mueller, who specifically states:

"The Investigation Did Not Establish That Members of the Trump Campaign Conspired or Coordinated With the Russian Government in it's Election Interference Activities"

and,

"the evidence does not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference"

LINK

=========================================================
President Trump is on record stating he wants the ENTIRE report published to the public.

Stop lying about it.

The fact that they didn't establish that, doesn't say "no crime was committed".

If I'm not mistaken, Trumpybear takes Putin's strong and powerful words for granted that they didn't interfere, so isn't that statement a backhanded stab at the Trumpybear?

no finding, automatically means no crime. no indictment to act on means no crime, therefore, no crime, no crime the objective failed and exonerated is the president and his campaign.

If the AG meant to say "No Crime was committed" wouldn't he just come out and say "No crime was committed"? Furthermore if the report fully exonerated the president, wouldn't the report say the president is fully exonerated?

I don't think simplifying the report to that level is a good enough argument.
I'm sure crimes were committed.....but by whom we don't know....mainly because charges weren't filed.

 

[beautress]

The question asked: "Were you surprised by the result of the Mueller investigation?"

Was I surprised by the Mueller Investigation?
First, I was surprised that it would take 2 years to complete.
Secondly, I was surprised that it encompassed more than investigating ties to Russia, resulting in people getting in trouble for everything but Russian collusion
Thirdly, I was surprised that Democrats limited the inquiries to work against conservative Republicans only, since collusion seems not to have been the aim of those framing this little frame-up job.
Fourthly, I was surprised and disappointed that Mueller would let himself be used by the Democrats, because when this first came out, he seemed unattached. Later on, it became evident Democrat operatives were pulling Mueller's strings for timing his findings following the election of communistic socialists who want to divert America's entire GNP to failed environmental propositions and failed forms of government.

And 1,000 Pinocchios to the Democrats for knowing ahead of time that Donald Trump did not collude. I think some far-left Democrat plawrights drafted Maher's little tap dance the night or so following the announcement that Trump did not collude.

The German people kind of went into crazy mixed up mode preceding their Holocaust against Jews, and the Socialists using spokesperson, anti-semite Ilhan Omar make me want to hurl. All of them seem to be going down the Nazi road, and I would be very downhearted if they took the United States of America with them.

This country should never, never, never, never, never, never, never have allowed Hillary Clinton to get off the hook for lying about having hundreds of FBI dossiers on politicians competitive with Communists and unfriendly to Clinton war room policies of revenge without a trial against Hillary's hated list. Because Congress decided against holding Hillary's feet to the fire when she said, "I forget," we may soon have a situation where the next Democrat that comes to power will make Ilhan's dream of getting rid of all the Jews come true. We need another George Washington, and we don't seem to have one.