Actually we do have an idea. Are you just using hyperbole, or do you not understand the following statement:
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 U.S. presidential election. As the report states: “[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”
So you have it in Barr's words and the words from the report. Mueller did not find the evidence of collusion that you want to see.
Barr has specifically stated that his note was not a 'summary' of Mueller's findings, and there has been reports that the investigators believe that Barr grossly misrepresented their findings.
Barr quoted a passage from the report. I can't guaranty it, but it's a virtual certainty that what the reports of "anonymous" members of the team passing on to their "anonymous" associates and somehow to the front page of the NYTimes is that they believed the President obstructed justice. As I mentioned before, they are bulldog leftist prosecutors and seem to believe that publically calling their investigation a witchhunt should have been deemed a criminal interference.
It's a nonsensical standard.
In any event, Barr quoted the report on this point. It is settled, and it's pure conspiracy to assert that he's somehow misrepresented the conclusion.
So I think given both of those we don't have much of an idea of what Mueller found.
To the contrary, we have a lot of idea of what he found. Nothing much.
Also Barr has made statements about what would constitute obstruction of justice that seems he holds a definition entirely contrary to law. Given this, I don't think Barr's statements can be taken at face value.
Actually he didn't. You're flat wrong in two ways. First, his summary specifically said that he was not relying on that interpretation (which relates to whether a President can not be guilty as a matter of law), but rather that the elements were not present. We also know they were not present because
Mueller didn't bring the claim himself.
Second, you're just wrong that what he said was contrary to law. It's factually completely consistent with law. The existence of a legal debate on the point does not render his position (which has been widely held for decades by the DOJ under control of both parties) as beyond settled to be wrong.
Again, we don't know how Mueller defined "Russian Government" - he may have decided that Russian oligarchs don't meet the definition of "Russian government" and thus are outside his purview.
No chance. Given that he'd be at least as aware as you are of the interconnections between the two. Not to mention he specifically investigated Russian companies with connections more nebulous than that.
Again, why are you going to such lengths to hang your hat on obvious nonsense. The prosecutors involved are much better at their job that you are, and they were at least as motivated.
Both the house and the Senate also failed to find this "obvious" evidence.
The Republican controlled House and Senate didn't call a number of important witnesses, and bizarrely allowed claims of privilege for conversations that were not privileged. It was clearly not a good faith investigation, but rather a farce.
Lol, you keep asserting this nonsense. There are no "witnesses" to collusion that didn't happen. What criminal activity are you investigating? There was none. What collusion are you investigating? There was none. Who exactly did the House, the Senate and the Special Prosecutor fail to talk to?
Every person you claim they "failed to call" provided them with documents or testimony. And you've yet to set out any thing compelling that they were not already asked. Heck, the administration shared 1.5 million pages with the Special Prosecutor. The GCA turned over (possibly illegal) the records of the transition to the special prosecutor.
You want to call Hope Hicks to discuss the president's schedule? Guaranty they've seen the schedule itself. Bannon to discuss what? Executive privileged discussions?
It's all nonsense.
The most likely answer is and always was that there was no collusion, which is why no one can find evidence of it.
I just presented evidence of it - it may not meet a 'beyond reasonable doubt' - but it absolutely is evidence.
Really? Did you present some evidence of coordination? Not that I saw. You presented "evidence" that some people talked to Russians. It's only delusion that converts that into something more.
There is not one politician that doesn't have someone in their orbit that has talked to a Russian.
No, or Mueller would still be investigating. Stone speaking to Wikileaks isn't even a crime, even assuming that the prosecutors can show he did so (which he denied). Are you still confused about that?
Given the Meuller's investigation was quickly brought to a close after Barr was appointed, I think it likely that Barr instructed Mueller to wrap up the investigation by a given date. I never claimed that talking with wikileaks was a crime - I said conspiring with Russia.
Again, you make up a new fact. Barr told Mueller to wrap it up.
I already laid out the more likely point. Mueller knew the gig was up when a non-recused AG was appointed and he'd have to explain why a 2 year investigation into collusion that didn't find collusion was ongoing.
Not that "still had material investigations to do" but that did not find collusion.
Let's see what started this whole witch hunt.
There is actually a sealed indictment against Julian Assange that was accidentally revealed due to a misfiling by prosecutors.
lol. There's been several of those for years, why do you think he's hiding in an embassy? Nothing stops them from filing against Wikileaks.
Also there is only an anonymous source claiming there are 'no sealed indictments' - we don't actually have that from the special counsel's report (especially since we don't have the special counsels report).
If by "anonymous source" you mean Barr's letter:
The Special Counsel obtained a number of indictments and convictions of individuals and entities in connection with his investigation, all of which have been publicly disclosed. During the course of his investigation, 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.
So let's be clear there are no sealed indictments waiting to be made public by the Special Counsel.
Again, it's delusional to think that anything in Barr's letter is going to be directly contradicted by the full report.
Barr said "russian government" not "russian oligarchs" - so even if Barrs statement accurately reflected Mueller's findings, we don't know what Mueller's findings were regarding russian oligarchs. Statements by lawyers should be parsed as if they were by lawyers, especially when bad faith and deceptive statements are regular occurrences by this administration.
Well agree, statements by lawyers shouldn't be parsed by people caught in the grip of a conspiracy theory. You start reading things in that you wished were there rather than what was there.
If there was something there about "Russian Oligarchs" Mueller would have brought the charges. Are you confused about his mandate - which specifically covered evidence and crimes that came to his attention during the investigation?
Again this is a fail. The report is not going to establish a case for Russian Oligarch (but really the Russian government by another name) charges against the President or his campaign.
There was plenty of real evidence, we simply don't know what Meuller's findings were.
Actually we do. No collusion with the campaign despite Russian efforts to reach out. That's the finding.
What you don't know is what facts Mueller discovered that caused him to reach that conclusion.
You may have faith that Trump and his administration have made a good faith report of what Meuller has found, I don't have such faith. Once we see Mueller's report and have heard his and his collegues testimony then I'll be satisifed.
Oh, do you know have evidence that Trump has seen the report, or that the White House has access to it? Far as we know its still sitting with the AG.
And no. You won't be satisfied if and when it proves there was no collusion. You're too invested.
Meanwhile, still waiting for an explanation for sending a swat team with diver support and tactical equipment to capture a 69 year old man, with a deaf wife, who didn't present any real risk, and who was released by the court on his own recognizance, while CNN had a crew standing by. Do you care - at all - about abuse by the government?
If you mean Stone - a no knock warrant was fully justified - the risk was his destroying evidence. CNN figured out where it would take place on their own. There is zero evidence of government abuse in this case.
What evidence? They already had his electronic and other records. Do you just make this up as you go?
Nothing justifies the level of raid they conducted on someone who is not a physical threat.
