When a Republican assistant AG Rosenstein started the investigation by a Republican federal agent who was given a narrow scope and the president refused to be interviewed by?
Was it when Newnes controlled the house committee that “investigated” allegations and refused to allow Dems to help write the report, or have interview time with multiple witnesses?
Or was it when a Republican AG who got the job after writing articles/papers that the president couldn’t be indicted summarised a hundreds of pages report into a handful and then has not produced the actual report?
What kind of doublespeak is this? We were being told there would be collusion for almost three years, which was the primary directive of Mueller’s investigation. Why are we pivoting to obstruction?
The most interesting part of the report is section 3, which details links to the Russian Internet Research Agency, aka the cyber attackers. Most of it is redacted.
Interesting that the report shows Wikileaks was a pass through for Russian military intelligence. That’s a very worrying issue as Assange looks on his was to the US of A.
Edit - this is why he hid in an embassy for 9 years. He’s legitimately ■■■■■■ once the yanks get him in custody.
No that’s just not true at all. The U.S want Assange in relation to the 2010 disclosures that Chelsea Manning gave to him, at least that’s what the indictment specifically mentions.
Is it? I mean, if a journalist is given materials, even if stolen, should they fear being prosecuted if they publish them? It would be hard to argue that information wasn’t in the public interest to know.
You’re saying this as though it’s fact. As far as I’m aware, there’s zero evidence to prove this being factual. My understanding is that Mueller alleged only Guccifer 2.0 was a persona covertly operated by Russian conspirators. I have yet to see any evidence that Assange worked for or knowingly conspired with the Russian government.
I was reading a twitter thread of a page by page analysis of the Mueller report by a lawyer who has previously written a book on the Trump / Mueller saga. He stopped the narrative to explicitly say the content connecting Wikileaks to Russian intelligence was very very bad for Assange. The direct quote is “Assange is hosed.”
So it’s a first take from someone who has the expertise to be listened to based off information that is only hours old.
Assange has stated unequivocally that he knows for a fact that the Russian government wasn’t the Wikileaks source for the emails. Whatever your thoughts are on Assange’s trustworthiness (Wikileaks has 100% record in publishing factual information) , the fact is that no evidence has ever been made public which contradicts him. Any claim that he’s lying is unsubstantiated.
Sorry missed this one. I think you’re really clutching at straws. The investigation was a counter-intel of the Russian government’s efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election, the primary scope being if there was any coordination with the Trump campaign. There’s no evidence which fits in any of those categories. The whole thing has been a sham.
Trump and the GOP are hammering the “No Collusion” catchphrase.
What you raise is my point, the focus is on collusion by conspiracy, which seems possible leaning towards probable, but far from beyond reasonable doubt. The other three types of collusion are being ignored.
Public opinion doesn’t need to wait on beyond reasonable doubt. Opinions of the electorate are formed off weight of probability. There’s soooo much dodgy stuff in that report linking Trump to Russia. Narrowing the focus of the coverage to collusion by conspiracy and setting the bar at beyond reasonable doubt is a GOP tactic to dodge this.
And when you say there’s no evidence, I think you need to read the report or at least wait a couple of days for some quality non-partisan analysis. What I’ve seen of the report shows motivation for both Trump and Russia, along with multiple paths of communication, clear gains experienced by both parties, direct impacts to real world events from this communication.
I’ve stopped reading as my brain was getting overwhelmed with Russian names and dates, but I strongly disagree with you that there’s no evidence. There’s just no evidence that a compromised Attorney General is willing to talk about in his politically biased spin.
Mueller in addition to concluding that there wasn’t enough evidence to charge any American with crimes relating to Russian interference (remember that no American was indicted RE: collusion), he also states in numerous instances that there was no evidence - not merely that there was ‘insufficient’ evidence to obtain a criminal conviction.
It’s late here in Canada and I’m dead, I’ll get some specific examples from the report up tomorrow if I have the time
