What I will be most interested in seeing, when the full report is released (assuming Trump doesn't change his mind again), is why the Trump Administration behaved like it did.
Your confused at how they reacting to being illegally spied on for political purposes? Having intentional and malicious security breaches by members of the bureacracy? Not having any real control over the administration of justice (a primary function of the executive) because an internal cabal was looking to use anything they could to generate a charge?
And oh yeah, having the entire media and DNC sell a lie about them being agents of a foreign power?
Notice the word "specifically." What you just wrote has little, if anything, to do with what I was specifically looking for.
I will note that most of the security breaches were committed by Trump appointees in his own White House. But then, they were "only the best" leakers and security breachers, weren't they?
Specifically:
* Why did Trump Jr. meet with the Russians at Trump Tower, along with Maniford and Kushner? What did he really expect to get from the Russians? What did Maniford and Kushner expect?
Trump Jr. said from the start he thought he was getting dirt on the Clinton campaign. I've pointed this out to you at least 4 times.
Oddly enough, I don't recall this. Could you point to your source, so I can see the time line of when he said he thought he was getting dirt on Clinton? As I recall, he only admitted it after his e-mail leaked, and it was obvious they didn't meet to talk about adoptions, i.e. when Junior couldn't lie anymore.
* Why did Donald and Jr. lie about what the Trump Tower meeting was really about? If anyone who thinks they were only expecting to discuss Russian adoptions, I have a nice new bridge to sell you.
Are you intentionally lying, or do you keep forgetting? Trump Jr. said he thought the meeting was to get dirt, but all they wanted to talk about was the Magnitsky Act. That's literally the opposite of what you erroneously believe.
In other words, he didn't lie.
Except I don't believe they only talked about Magnitsky Act. Russia had dirt on Clinton. The other Russian players who were at the meeting were not there to talk about the Magnitsky Act. Do you really think they would waste their time just talking about adoptions?
Why do you think they only talked about the Magnitsky Act? How do you know what they talked about? What's your source?
I'd like to see what Mueller came up with.
* Why did Kushner attempt to get a secret phone line through the Russian embassy?
Same reason Hillary did? Assuming it's even true.
Hillary tried to get a secret line with the Russians? Why wasn't that front-page news for the Right Wing Press? What's your source?
Or are you referring to Hillary's improper use of non-government cell phone lines, like Kushner is now accused of doing? (BTW, does this mean Republicans will now be chanting "Lock Him Up?" Or do they only want to lock up Democrats?
)
* Why did Trump refuse to allow any American translator listen to his official conversations with Vladimir Putin?
Leaks. Leaks. Leaks. And oh yeah, big ole lies based on pseudo leaks.
You're telling me Trump couldn't find a single translator he could trust? That you believe he is that incompetent? And you voted for this clown.
* Why did Maniford share poll data with a man linked to Russian intelligence? I can't think of a good reason unless it was to help the campaign.
Have you responded to a single point I raised on this? No. No and No again.
And which of your points wasn't speculation on your part? I'd like to hear the opinion of a professional investigator before I stop wondering.
* Why did Mueller categorically state that "the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities," but only stated that "while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime [regarding obstruction of justice], it also does not exonerate him?" Why was he so conclusive about one issue, but not the other? What instances did Mueller considered it possible that Trump obstructed justice? And why did Trump act like he did in those instances?
Because there's literally no real evidence of collusion, which just underscores how silly your prior lines of questions are.
Obstruction, 3 likely reasons, 1. he was running a political witch hunt and that's all he could throw to his allies the DNC and Never Trumpers; 2. he was pissed as a prosecutor with all the things Trump said and he had no obligation to make Trump's life easier; 3. he honestly found Trump's behavior repugnant and was looking for anything he could charge but couldn't bring himself to actually make the charge.
Just because you believe they are "likely reasons" doesn't make them true. I'd rather see Mueller's reasoning than to speculate based on nothing.
And you ignore the most "likely reason:" that Mueller did find evidence of obstruction of justice, but felt it was not sufficient for him to make any charges and left it up to the Attorney General.
I am glad that this investigation was done, and that we will have some answers about the Trump Administration's behavior. But it has yet to clarify the suspicious behaviors that started the investigation. Hopefully, the full report will provide satisfactory answers.
Yes, I'd like to see clarity on the "suspicious behaviors" that started the investigation. 1. How did a FISA warrant get issued on Carter Page requiring verified evidence he's a Russian agent, yet he not get charged. 2. How did the DNC get away with hiring a British Spy to collect Russian intell and internet accounts into a report that triggered a federal investigation of an opposition political party. 3. How did the bureacracy manage to leak left and right things to trigger an investigation, including illegally unmasking and leaking the names of Americans in intell transcritpts. 4. How did the head of the FBI manage to get away with attempting to blackmail an American president, leaking classified information, and triggering a special counsel without legitimate evidence. 5. How are the DNC and the Media getting away with coordinating a message of constant lies?
I mean honestly, you guys have been calling Trump a liar since he claimed that the Obama admin had his campaign wiretapped - which turned out to be true, in Trump tower - which turned out to be true. That he was lieing about Russian collusion - which again turned out to be true.
Now, several of you said you'd accept the conclusions of the Mueller report. Are you there? Do you accept that the story of Russian collusion was a lie?
I certainly accept that there is not sufficient evidence to accuse Trump or his Administration of colluding with the Russians. I would still like to see the evidence of why these suspicious behaviors were innocent and innocuous events.
Hopefully some of your questions will be answered, too, although I doubt Mueller investigated the reasons for his investigation.
I am also happy about the outcome. This is precisely what you would expect from an unbiased investigation. The facts were considered, and the conclusions were based on the facts, and not politics. Trump should have had more faith in the system, instead of calling it a "witch hunt" from the beginning. That only made him look guilty and afraid of the results. I'd rather have a system that verifies the integrity of our leaders than one where just investigating suspicious behavior makes one a "traitor" to our country. (And you know what we do with traitors...) Let us hope we never reach a point where the latter becomes true.
