I suspect that had far more to do with dodgy business dealings that some sort of collusion to rig elections.
Dems should have been pushing for his tax returns and ‘business dealings’ from day 1
The lies that were charged didn’t lead to any ‘conspiracy’. That’s why Don Jnr wasn’t indicted for lying about the Trump Tower meeting.
Oh really? So we’re gonna go down this “not guilty” doesn’t mean you’re innocent path? Lol
From Greenwald, who is not a fan of trump.
Pulitzer award winning journalists aren’t allowed to be posted on this thread didn’t you know? Only partisan hacks like Jake Tapper, Jim Acosta, Rachel Maddow et al
Oh crap, sorry. Is this better?
The dude from infowars, that’s bound to improve the thread.
Edit: Maybe we can get Louise Mensch to react from the other end. Then Mike Cernovich. Just play tennis between the bad faith or just plain crazy grifters.
Yes, but the interesting thing is this, though I’d say he’s not referring to infowars as such.
I was referring to Paul Joseph Watson.
1. Robert Mueller says he found no evidence Trump officials colluded with Russia
The primary aim of Mr Mueller’s investigation was to uncover whether any Americans — including members of President Donald Trump’s campaign team — conspired with Russia to influence the 2016 election.
However, Mr Barr said the investigation determined there was no evidence found to support any collusion .
“The special counsel’s investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 US presidential election,” he said.
2. Russia influenced the US election in two ways
According to Mr Barr, Mr Mueller’s report confirmed:
- A Russian organisation called the Internet Research Agency (IRA) spread false information online and on social media to “sow social discord”
- Russian Government actors hacked into computers and released emails from people affiliated with Hillary Clinton’s campaign and Democratic Party organisations
But crucially, the report found no evidence that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, worked with the IRA or the Russian Government during those activities.
3. The report did not conclude whether Donald Trump committed a crime
During his investigation, Mr Mueller looked at whether a number of Mr Trump’s actions might have obstructed the course of justice.
The key figures in the Russia probe
These are main characters in Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 Presidential election, and any charges they face (or have faced).](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-03-23/donald-trump-robert-mueller-russia-investigation-key-players/10679256)
One of those actions included, for example, firing his FBI director James Comey in May 2017.
Mr Barr said the special counsel made a “thorough factual investigation” into the actions, but did not “draw a conclusion one way or the other” on whether they constituted a crime.
Instead, the report presented evidence “on both sides of the question” and left it up to Mr Barr to decide.
“While this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate (clear) him,” the report stated.
4. Mr Barr doesn’t think Mr Trump obstructed justice
After reading the report, Mr Barr said he believed there was not enough evidence to establish the President had committed a crime .
“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 offence,” he said.
"Our determination was made without regard to, and is not based on, the constitutional considerations that surround the indictment and criminal prosecution of a sitting president.
“Generally speaking, to obtain and sustain an obstruction conviction, the Government would need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a person, acting with corrupt intent, engaged in obstructive conduct with a sufficient nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding.”
5. It could be some time before we see the report
Mr Barr has promised to release as much of the report as possible, but says some parts of the document are legally sensitive .
As a result, his team now needs to comb through its pages to identify any material that cannot be released by law (they’ll get some help from the special counsel to speed up the process).
“As soon as that process is complete, I will be in a position to move forward expeditiously in determining what can be released in light of applicable, law, regulations and departmental policies,” he said.
Out of all the things to nail Trump on ‘collusion’ was by far the weakest. One thing that has a possibility of bringing him down is the emoluments. This isn’t really being talked about. There’s no doubt in my mind that Trump is using his position as POTUS to enrich himself unconstitutionally.
That is what the forthcoming congressional investigations will look into. There are ongoing investigations the Special Counsel farmed out to EDVA, SDNY, etc that may also be looking into the relationship between Trump’s businesses, his campaign, and transition, and his admin.
This and his, apparently, unnecessary and obvious obstruction of the investigation (which won’t be prosecuted by his own JD), as well as his highly suspect past financial and business dealings, is what the Dem Establishment should have been harping on for last 2 and a half years.
I doubt the leadership of the Democratic Party will press too hard on these real issues (Pelosi has already indicated as much) and they will be more focused on making sure their preferred candidate wins the primary.
Yeah I know, that’s why I posted what Greenwald said.
Chair of House Judicary Committee signalling intent to call Barr for testimony.
Reportedly, Barr sent a memo to DOJ criticising Mueller’s approach to obstruction of justice, a few months before he was appointed AG.
Reportedly also, Trump refused to be questioned before Mueller on obstruction of justice. If so, Barr might justify non-prosecution on the basis of insufficient/unreliable evidence to meet the criminal standard of proof
Trump got his perfect man.
Not only did Barr’s unsolicited memo say the his view was that Muller’s obstruction of justice approach was invalid it also said the for it to have any validity there had to be collusion first.
This was why Trump chose him. Even if Muller outlines the perfect obstruction case (he may have, we don’t know what his report says in this outside he didn’t make a judgement either way) Barr was always going to no obstruction case because collusion wasn’t proven beyond a reasonable doubt - which it was never going to because of the narrow terms and the need for a smoking gun.
I’m obviously missing something simple. What connection does Greenwald have to me wondering why you’d post an Infowars charlatan?
The ABC has about as much credibility as infowars these days. Spending years peddling conspiracy theories about Russia.
Give me back my tax dollars you thieves.