The Meuller Report

[Crunch]

This is literally where we are:

Liberals: Trump stole the election by colluding with Russia!

Trump: I didn’t collude.

Liberals: We’ll wait for House investigation.

House committee: No collusion!

Liberals: We’ll wait for Senate investigation.

Senate committee: No collusion!

Liberals: We’ll wait for Mueller report.

Mueller: No collusion!

Liberals: BUT OBSTRUCTION

We now go back to the beginning.   

[seekingprometheus]

Scifi:

All that being said, no, there's no slam dunk. Nobody in the Senate is going to suddenly want to convict after impeachment based on this report. Mostly it's stuff we already knew.

Only if you distrusted the POTUS' persistent pronouncements that all the news stories about his connections with Russia were fake news.

It seems that all the major reporting stories which Don was declaiming as fake news (Don Jr Russia meeting, sourceless leaks about staff defiance of crazy orders, etc) were largely true.

Meanwhile, the whole legal question seems like it would come down to whether or not Trump's intent in obstructing like we all saw him publicly do was corrupt.

Lol!

That should be a slam dunk, but there's no accounting for the judgment of a jury of his peers, when it comes to the question of corruption.

[TheDeamon]

Why do the dozens of other investigators remain silent if Barr has misrepresented them?

Allegedly many of them haven't been particularly silent, but they're staying in the shadows with their complaints rather than going whistleblower.

[Crunch]

Why do the dozens of other investigators remain silent if Barr has misrepresented them?

Allegedly many of them haven't been particularly silent, but they're staying in the shadows with their complaints rather than going whistleblower.

 

[Seriati]

I have not had a chance to read the report in whole and my initial reaction from the executive summaries is that it looks like a hit job.  I'd caution everyone to realize that what you read may not be the truth or the only version of a story.  If one person said what the prosecutors wanted to hear and eleven said it didn't happen, what ended up in the report (Guiliani has flat out said that some of the things in the report were directly contradicted, and known to have been directly contradicted, by the special counsel's office by more credible witnesses).

The one thing I do know, is this report was not written to end the controversy.  I can't imagine how you could write a report to generate more partisan discord, than to fail to make a case for obstruction (ergo, no corruption charges), yet still write out a report that shows you really wanted to bring those charges. 

I think the summary that LR cites to (describing what Meuller thought he could and couldn't do on obstruction) is disingenuous.  It's laid out that way to give Meuller an excuse for not bringing charges that he doubted would be valid or winning in court, notwithstanding that his team was convinced of the "truth" of them, by implying that he couldn't do so.  It's a version of the ultimate in prosecutor dirty tricks, knowing you don't have a legal case, but still smearing the accused where the accused won't be able to directly confront the statements in court.

In any event, I will give updates when I do read it, though I expect, unfortunately, that'll be too late to change any minds.  Just remember as you go forward, you didn't get every version of each event, and what you did get may not be the truth (that's why we have the right to cross examine and introduce witnesses that contradict the account).  Go back and watch My Cousin Vinnie if you want to see the difference between an air tight prosecution case, and an ultimate reality.

[Crunch]

Glenn Greenwald:

These facts are fatal to the conspiracy theorists who have drowned U.S. discourse for almost three years with a dangerous and distracting fixation on a fictitious espionage thriller involved unhinged claims of sexual and financial blackmail, nefarious infiltration of the U.S. Government by familiar foreign villains, and election cheating that empowered an illegitimate President. They got the exact prosecutor and investigation that they wanted, yet he could not establish that any of this happened and, in many cases, established that it did not.

No collusion. No obstruction.

[D.W.]

Who's a good birdie?  Crunch want a cracker?

We heard Trump the first time. 

I for one am glad that the talk of him being a willing foreign agent will finally be silenced (even if I think the number of those claiming such has been overblown by his defenders).  I'm saddened that the current spin/deflection is trying to make it appear the man did nothing wrong. 

Thanks to those around Trump willing to say, "Sir that's *censored*ing insane... No, just... no."  I honestly didn't think there were any/many around to do so.  As upset as the other side gets when one is in power anymore, it's good to see a lot of the pressure valves and safety nets do their job in protecting us from bad decisions.

[Wayward Son]

I have not had a chance to read the report in whole and my initial reaction from the executive summaries is that it looks like a hit job.  I'd caution everyone to realize that what you read may not be the truth or the only version of a story.  If one person said what the prosecutors wanted to hear and eleven said it didn't happen, what ended up in the report (Guiliani has flat out said that some of the things in the report were directly contradicted, and known to have been directly contradicted, by the special counsel's office by more credible witnesses).

Are you saying, Seriati, that we should not put too much credence into this report that completely and totally exonerated Trump on collusion and obstruction of justice?

OK, if you say so.

(BTW, I wouldn't take Guiliani's word over Mueller's any day of the week, year, or millennium.  In fact, I wouldn't take him at this word at all.  That man has already proven himself to be a stupid shill for Trump, and would probably lie at the drop of a hat if he thought it would help him.  A utterly unreliable source.)

[ScottF]

I have not had a chance to read the report in whole and my initial reaction from the executive summaries is that it looks like a hit job.  I'd caution everyone to realize that what you read may not be the truth or the only version of a story.  If one person said what the prosecutors wanted to hear and eleven said it didn't happen, what ended up in the report (Guiliani has flat out said that some of the things in the report were directly contradicted, and known to have been directly contradicted, by the special counsel's office by more credible witnesses).

Are you saying, Seriati, that we should not put too much credence into this report that completely and totally exonerated Trump on collusion and obstruction of justice?

OK, if you say so.

(BTW, I wouldn't take Guiliani's word over Mueller's any day of the week, year, or millennium.  In fact, I wouldn't take him at this word at all.  That man has already proven himself to be a stupid shill for Trump, and would probably lie at the drop of a hat if he thought it would help him.  A utterly unreliable source.)

I think he's also saying the facts within the report will have a zero percent chance of changing anyone's mind. He said it less definitively but I believe the odds of someone actually changing their opinion based on the report is 0.0. Too much confirmation bias on both sides for this to have ever been anything other than radio static for the next month or two until it fades into the background. I suppose that's ultimately a "win" for the Trump side and continued misery on the orange-man-bad side.

[Crunch]

Sadly, youare probably correct. The left got exactly the investigation they wanted by the guys they wanted to do it and now dismiss the results.

From page 2 of the report:

The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign coordinated with the Russian government in its election of interference activities.

Yet there are people, even on this forum, that still maintain there are mountains of proof that Trump coordinated with Putin and is a Russian agent.

Mueller acknowledges that the administration fully cooperated with the investigation in every way.

Yet people, right here on this forum, insist that despite Mueller confirming such cooperation that there must be obstruction. Note, these are the same people that for the last 2+ years told us about all that proof of Russian collusion which, it turns out, never existed.

There is a level of denial here at work that’s just truly incredible. I hope it lasts.

[D.W.]

I think the biggest disconnect is Trump defenders lumping all his opponents into one group.  There were SOME people who believed this investigation would uncover a direct criminal link between the Russian government and Trump/his campaign.  There were A LOT of people who believed it would reveal criminal behavior on the part of Trump/his campaign.  Calling it a fishing expedition or what have you, but the people in the latter group are going to read it an find a lot of what they believed confirmed.  It's only the smaller first group that got shut down.

Either way.  The problems / vulnerabilities are apparent to all.  I expect we'll see swift bipartisan action to address them...   

I'll say it again, I'm thankful for those in this administration restraining DJT to the best of their ability.  Your nation thanks you, as should your boss who's ass you probably saved by telling him "NO".

[LetterRip]

For those interested, here are really good summaries of the two reports.

The first summarizes the first volume of the report (Russian activity, and interaction between Russia and Trump campaign), I was doing my own summary and spent a couple of hours last night reading the report, but this is better than I could have done.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-mueller-found-russia-and-obstruction-first-analysis

This is a detailed summary of the second volume of the report looking at each instance of potential obstruction of justice, and to what extent there is evidence to support such a charge in each instance (if in fact all three elements of the crime were met).

https://www.lawfareblog.com/appendix-instances-obstruction-mueller-report

[Wayward Son]

Mueller acknowledges that the administration fully cooperated with the investigation in every way.

Who said that, Crunch?  And why should I believe that person?

And if the administration cooperated with the investigation "in every way," why are there 11 instances of apparent obstruction of justice listed in the report? 

[Lloyd Perna]

Mueller acknowledges that the administration fully cooperated with the investigation in every way.

Who said that, Crunch?  And why should I believe that person?

And if the administration cooperated with the investigation "in every way," why are there 11 instances of apparent obstruction of justice listed in the report? 

I think you are misstating what the report says.  I think a more correct statement would be "there were 11 instances of possible obstruction investigated and the evidence they found for each is summarized in the report"

The report makes no statement regarding whether that evidence supports an obstruction charge.

[scifibum]

Sure. Whatever you say.

Why do you think none of the 17 lawyers or 40 FBI agents or even Mueller himself, who have leaked heavily this whole time, are not contradicting Barr?

This is a strange argument for you to make, since Mueller's team has famously been tight lipped, and it only began to change after Barr's summarization came out - THEN a few of the team members began talking on background to reporters about how Barr was not fairly representing the report.  The opposite of what you seem to be saying here.

[scifibum]

Sadly, youare probably correct. The left got exactly the investigation they wanted by the guys they wanted to do it and now dismiss the results.

From page 2 of the report:

The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign coordinated with the Russian government in its election of interference activities.

Yet there are people, even on this forum, that still maintain there are mountains of proof that Trump coordinated with Putin and is a Russian agent.

Mueller acknowledges that the administration fully cooperated with the investigation in every way.

Yet people, right here on this forum, insist that despite Mueller confirming such cooperation that there must be obstruction. Note, these are the same people that for the last 2+ years told us about all that proof of Russian collusion which, it turns out, never existed.

There is a level of denial here at work that’s just truly incredible. I hope it lasts.

Couple of things.

1. Your second quote - who said that? Those aren't Mueller's words. There are plenty of ways described in the report that the President was not cooperative, to put it mildly. That quote is a dishonest or ignorant summary.

2. You're making things up. Go pull the quotes of people right here on this forum who said there are mountains of proof of the nature you're representing here.

[scifibum]

This is literally where we are:

Liberals: Trump stole the election by colluding with Russia!

Trump: I didn’t collude.

Liberals: We’ll wait for House investigation.

House committee: No collusion!

Liberals: We’ll wait for Senate investigation.

Senate committee: No collusion!

Liberals: We’ll wait for Mueller report.

Mueller: No collusion!

Liberals: BUT OBSTRUCTION

We now go back to the beginning.   

It strikes me if you're confident in your position you wouldn't rely so much on inaccurate paraphrases and lumping all "liberals" together.

[Seriati]

It's not directly the Mueller Report, but if you want to see how perjury traps are set up, take a look at the now released questions that the Special Counsel's office submitted to President Trump.  And consider also, that there are a couple that were phrased so that either answer would lead to incrimination - take a look at I h. for example, and try to imagine how to answer that in a way that couldn't be twisted.

If you want to see how one is completely frustrated then also read President Trump's answers.

Seriously, ask yourself if you could provide an answer in the level of detail asked for without a single misstatement.  Then ask yourself if every person you referred to would have an identical memory of each of those conversations to what you yourself had.  Any conflict or forgotten meeting by either side sets up a potential charge for lying to the prosecutor, which sets up pressure to force that person to dispute other specific conversations.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/read-trump-s-written-responses-mueller-report-n995851

[TheDrake]

I hear you say that all the time, Seriati, but I still don't really accept it. You present it like somebody just sprung up out of nowhere and demanded answers. Take questions about the timing of meetings on Trump tower moscow. Somebody might not remember that detail if they hadn't thought about it in a year or more. You and your lawyers know they are going to ask about trump tower moscow, however. You have your plane tickets from when you went out there. You can review your email. There is absolutely no reason why people shouldn't have been prepped with the proper information, and for that matter why they couldn't have provided it in advance if they were truly cooperating.

Let's say you overlook it in preparation. If you don't know, you get to answer that you don't know.

Let's say you made a mistake. Presumably you could look at your own deposition and proactively amend your testimony.

If what you are saying is true, then doesn't it suggest the entire system of testimony and deposition breaks down? That's a much bigger issue than what happened to Trump's aides.

Here's a set of tips for people giving depositions (randomly on a law blog):

Some Tips for Dealing With the Process—Preparation

Be prepared. Spend some time before the deposition date thinking about the event or circumstances you'll be questioned about. You might want to make some notes to jog your memory. You can bring the notes with you to the deposition.

See, you git to bring notes with you. You don't have to memorize the information.

[Crunch]

Sure. Whatever you say.

Why do you think none of the 17 lawyers or 40 FBI agents or even Mueller himself, who have leaked heavily this whole time, are not contradicting Barr?

This is a strange argument for you to make, since Mueller's team has famously been tight lipped, and it only began to change after Barr's summarization came out - THEN a few of the team members began talking on background to reporters about how Barr was not fairly representing the report.  The opposite of what you seem to be saying here.

Did you not warch the news for the last 2 years?

[Redskullvw]

If at this point in time you cannot comprehend the report and realize that this was an incredible attack on our election process, then you are either so partisan that you are blind or you really can't read English. The entire step by step process has only one logical conclusion. A sitting President, his leadership in the Department of Justice, the Democrat party and its Presidential candidate intentionally and attempted to nullify the election of the Republican nominee and after the election, push for invalid grounds for impeachment.

if you are not realizing you've been lied to for two years and cannot recognize how unprecedented this is in United States political process, there is zero competency in your logic and discernment of facts.

[seekingprometheus]

if you are not realizing you've been lied to for two years

I think that everyone gets that they're being lied to, Redskull, the issue is that we don't seem to agree on the question of who it is who is doing the lying.

At this point (the release of the redacted Mueller report) it seems pretty apparent that the individual who has been lying the most to the most people is...Trump.

Most of the biased right writers around here have been claiming that the media has been lying to us in their portrayal of Trump's actions (read: lies), but it appears that the reputable liberal sources of news (NYT, WP) have been telling the truth all along.

The stories about Trump's attempts to obstruct the Mueller investigation (which he has been lying and calling fake news) were all true, according to the report. What has been reported about his (or his people's) dealing with Russia (eg his attempts to put up a hotel in Moscow at a time he was claiming he had no dealing in Russia) has also been largely true.

I've never considered myself to be part of the liberal echo chamber--as I frequently find myself partial to arguments which typically are asserted by voices on the political right, and because I find that many voices which I identify as representative of the liberal echo chamber lack the logic of simple common sense--but to be honest, I'm so turned off to the total deafness to hypocrisy in the conservative echo chamber these days that I'm not even certain specifically whom you are calling a liar, at this point. It's not Trump, to your mind, I suppose, but I'm confident that you'd be hard pressed to find another individual who has been proven at this point in time to have been lying to us more over the last two years than the sitting POTUS...

The president has been attacking the credibility of the fourth estate, and persistently calling the truth about his behaviors "fake news." According to the Mueller report, the major reporting Trump was declaiming as false, was decidedly true. Trump has been lying to the American people about what he is really doing and saying behind closed doors, even when it has been leaked to the news--he just lies about it more. Until you can come up with a better liar, it seems to me that Donald Trump is the current Liar-to-US-in-Chief.

Btw, obstruction of justice is a perfectly constitutionally valid reason for impeachment (even if our silly political system doesn't permit for impeachment for lying to the people like your job depends on it), and, at this point, it is well-established that there is plenty of evidence Trump that obstructed Justice.

[LetterRip]

if you are not realizing you've been lied to for two years and cannot recognize how unprecedented this is in United States political process, there is zero competency in your logic and discernment of facts.

Oh we absolutely were lied to - but it appears to be solely by Trump and Republican mouthpieces.  Nearly everything reported about Trump and his and his campaign and cabinet members and people acting on his behalf (such as Cohen) has been accurate.

The only reason more Trump campaign members aren't in jail is because it can't be proven beyond reasonable doubt that they had criminal intent (arguing ignorance of the law) when they committed their crimes.  Not because they didn't engage in the criminal behavior that was reported in the newspapers.

Similarly the only reason Trump isn't under indictment is due to quite dubious findings by the Office of Legal Council (findings that were not based on law, but rather by the person drafting the finding asking the AG what outcome he wanted), that state that a sitting President can't be charged or indicted.

[D.W.]

To quote the great sage Ice T:  Don't hate the player, hate the game.
 

[Crunch]

No collusion. No obstruction.

You guys got 3 investigations, 1 of them by exactly the guy and process you wanted. It’s pretty incredible that you now reject the findings of all of them.

When Trump wins his second term, it’s really gonna be something to watch.

[D.W.]

NO illegal collusion, MAYBE obstruction.  get it right Crunch. 

Investigation went about exactly as I expected it to.  Several convictions and lots of shady activity nobody should condone revealed.  But hey, he was upset and scared and treated unfairly, that excuses a lot!  I guess.

[TheDeamon]

NO illegal collusion, MAYBE obstruction.  get it right Crunch. 

Investigation went about exactly as I expected it to.  Several convictions and lots of shady activity nobody should condone revealed.  But hey, he was upset and scared and treated unfairly, that excuses a lot!  I guess.

Considering the entire basis of the investigation was 100% politically motivated from the onset, and the investigation also failed to produce anything to substantiate what political basis for investigation even was, I'm inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to Trump on the obstruction charges.

He was elected to be President of the United States. Not a Saint.

[TheDeamon]

Also there is a thing called "spirit of the law" or "spirit in which the law was written" vs "the letter of the law" and with a lot of what has surrounded Trump, from some of the Campaign Finance violations to even the obstruction issues present, I have to tend to strongly to believe the "spirit of the law" would be siding with Trump over the Democrats wanting to haggle over the precise interpretation of each individual letter used in the phrasing of a particular law.

[DonaldD]

politically motivated... so Republicans investigated Republicans, but it was all politically motivated...

You didn't also believe that these investigations, initiated by the majority party and run by majority party representatives, were, as the president repeated endlessly, a Democrat driven witch hunt, do you?

[TheDeamon]

politically motivated... so Republicans investigated Republicans, but it was all politically motivated...

You didn't also believe that these investigations, initiated by the majority party and run by majority party representatives, were, as the president repeated endlessly, a Democrat driven witch hunt, do you?

You do remember there was an extremely Democrat Friendly media which was running almost wall to wall coverage with accusations from the Clinton Campaign and outgoing Obama Administration officials at the time?

The Republicans couldn't ignore it even if they wanted to, and given the large Never-Trump contingent in Washington, I doubt most did to start with.

[Crunch]

politically motivated... so Republicans investigated Republicans, but it was all politically motivated...

You didn't also believe that these investigations, initiated by the majority party and run by majority party representatives, were, as the president repeated endlessly, a Democrat driven witch hunt, do you?

Yes, politically motivated. I find it unbelievable that you don’t know this.  It started off with Democrats from the Obama administration and loyalists in DOJ and CIA and the Clinton campaign. Never-Trumpers from the Republican party, a significant faction within the Republican party, quickly joined the coup efforts.

Hopefully there will be an investigation of this witch hunt and the attempted coup, how it started and who drove it. It should be far ranging with a mandate to track down all the evidence and ultimately jail people like Comey, Clapper, Mueller, Strzok, Lynch, and all the other co-conspirators, including investigation of their business associates, families, and friends. It is my sincere hope that Trump unleashes the full vindictive might of the justice department on all of them.

[Crunch]

NO illegal collusion, MAYBE obstruction.  get it right Crunch. 

Investigation went about exactly as I expected it to.  Several convictions and lots of shady activity nobody should condone revealed.  But hey, he was upset and scared and treated unfairly, that excuses a lot!  I guess.

I do have it right, no collusion, no obstruction. If it was anything else, 3 investigations with the final one being exactly what the left wanted and the way they wanted it would have uncovered the evidence to support your accusations. With no legal violations, the best that could be done was build a foundation of innuendo to try to keep the political efforts going.

Not a single person was indicted, convicted, or even implicated in collusion with the Russian. Zero. Even the NYT is now coming forward with the idea that the Steele dossier was largely bull*censored* or completely unverified crap. This was a witch hunt, literally an attempted coup.  Every American should be upset at the attempted overthrow of a legally elected president - Trump especially. They took their shot and missed, now Trump should destroy them.

[D.W.]

They took their shot and missed, now Trump should destroy them.

With?  His black magic witchy powers? 

[DJQuag]

Have to admit it's pretty funny to me to see right wingers getting worked up over the Russia thing. You know, after the birther thing.

Reap what you sow, my friends.

[DJQuag]

They took their shot and missed, now Trump should destroy them.

With?  His black magic witchy powers? 

Trump is the King and can do whatever he wants.

Source: Trump's twitter account.

[Crunch]

They took their shot and missed, now Trump should destroy them.

With?  His black magic witchy powers? 

No, with the FBI. And, if he wants, the CIA and the IRS.

[rightleft22]

No, with the FBI. And, if he wants, the CIA and the IRS.

Are you saying you would be OK with a president using the CIA and IRS to get revenge?

[Crunch]

No, with the FBI. And, if he wants, the CIA and the IRS.

Are you saying you would be OK with a president using the CIA and IRS to get revenge?

I'm saying if it was OK for Obama to use the IRS to target conservatives, then it must be OK for Trump to do the same thing.

I'm also saying if it was OK for the CIA to engage in targeting Trump campaign staff, it's probably OK for Trump to do the same.

Why is it only bad if Trump does it?

[rightleft22]

Why is it only bad if Trump does it?

I guess if we don't demand better we will never get better. But if your OK with using the argument that a president should be allowed to emulate the worst qualities of past Presidents that's fine
Likely wont end in a world we want to live it but why aim for better.

I wonder if Democracy is proving to be a failed experiment as the current trend to a false belief that giving up one freedom to the strong man or 1% is the best shot at freedom

[Crunch]

You know, the only time the left demands better is when they're out of power.

What the Democrats and their media outlets have done the last 2 years is anything but democracy. It was an attempted coup, they tried to nullify an election, the very antithesis of democracy.

Trump should use every means at his disposal to identify and punish everyone that had any connection to the attempted coup - including those used by past Democrat presidents when this behavior was perfectly fine. Trump should do everything in his power to personally, professionally, and financially ruin them and then send them off for lengthy prison sentences. He should use the power of his office to such an extent that nobody ever tries this again, crushing his enemies, see them driven before him, and hear the lamentation of the women. Scorched earth, no stone unturned, no soul unburned.

[rightleft22]

Be careful what you wish for. If history is to judge, the distance between being a friend of Trump and a Enemy isn't that great

We create what we Fear more often then we create what we hope for.

“If we do an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, we will be a blind and toothless nation.” ― Martin Luther King Jr

[Crunch]

The only thing worse than Trump doing this would have been for the coup to succeed.

[TheDrake]

I don't think you know what the word coup means. Even if the Democrats had impeached Trump on a bunch of made up charges, they wouldn't have been able to take executive power for themselves, nor could they have accomplished such without cooperation from Senate republicans.

If this was a coup attempt, then we've had several of them. Nixon, Clinton, and Obama have all faced widespread investigations.

[Wayward Son]

May I remind you, Crunch, that Congress has the obligation to oversee the government, including the Presidency.

If you believe that investigating the Presidency because of suspicious behavior is an attempted coup to nullify an election, and the elected officials who started that investigation should be "personally, professionally, and financially ruin[ed] ... and ... sen[t] ... off for lengthy prison sentences," then you are advocating that this role of Congress be stricken from the Constitution.  This is basically calling for the destruction of our Constitution and our system of government, since achieving the above would provide the President the power to become a dictator and destroy anyone who questions him. 

If you read the Mueller report, you will see there were plenty of behaviors that were suspicious, some even being legally and morally questionable.  Most of them still are, even if Mueller determined there was insufficient evidence for criminal prosecution.  So calling for the President to use the power of his office to "crush... his enemies," "[drive] them before him," and "hear the lamentation of the women"  ( )--well, let's just say that there are plenty of American patriots who love this country who will respond in kind. 

[rightleft22]

If I understand the conclusion of the Mueller report with regards to collusion. Mueller found evidence of Russian interference (which the base ought to be more upset about) and that Trump campaign knew Russia was interfering and capitalized on it however their was no proof of intent to conspire with Russia = no crime as “collusion” has no legal definition and isn’t a federal crime.

Mueller looked into whether the Trump campaign purposefully worked with Russia which he found reasonable doubt with regards to intent not that it didn't happen
Mueller did find several troubling interactions for example:
- Two Trump campaign officials — Paul Manafort and Rick Gates — provided polling information to a Russian oligarch Gates believed was a “spy” for the Kremlin
- Trump foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos, with Trump’s approval, tried to arrange meetings between Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin
- Russia tried to hack Hillary Clinton’s office five hours after Trump called on Moscow to find her deleted emails

Trump campaign may not have crossed the line of criminal intent but they did walk it.

[Crunch]

You guys can pretend whatever you want, split all the hairs necessary. But you’re in an echo chamber. It’s not playing like you think it is anywhere but CNN, MSNBC and random Quora questions. It’s in Trump’s interest that you keep the flame alive.

[rightleft22]

I agree its in Trumps interest to keep the issue alive though that doesn't change the facts even if you don't like them.
There is no collusion because collusion isn't a crime case closed

With regards to the echo chamber your argument of a coup (which you incorrectly define) is straight out of the echo chamber you take your 'truth' from

Classic case of shadow projection

[Crunch]

A coup d'état (/ˌkuː deɪˈtɑː/ (About this soundlisten); French: [ku deta]), also known as a putsch (/pʊtʃ/), a golpe, or simply as a coup, means the overthrow of an existing government; typically, this refers to an illegal, unconstitutional seizure of power by a dictator, the military, or a political faction.

[Crunch]

There is no collusion because collusion isn't a crime case closed

It’s weird that you say this now.

[D.W.]

Yet the attempt was legal and constitutional and in no way an attempt to overthrow the government.  Even if your most extreme partisan fever dreams, it doesn't fit this definition.

Then again there IS what appears to be an illegal, unconstitutional seizure of power by a dictator going on...