Anarchistbear said:
Indulge me. Cut and paste what your example is into this thread. What I saw had nothing to do with any evidence of a conspiracy. And I didn't see it on page 28
You're trying to have an argument and you are not being particularly pleasant so I don't know why I am even responding.
There are many articles outlining all the connections better than I can. And I have still not finished reading the report and the PDF is blocked from cut and paste. But here is a pretty good summary article. It states:
"Although Attorney General William Barr said that there was "no collusion" in his press conference before the report's release, Mueller is actually quite explicit that he did not address the question of "collusion." This is because, to his mind, the term is not precise enough, nor does it fall within the ambit of what was essentially a criminal investigation.
"Collusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the United States Code, nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law," Mueller writes. "For those reasons, the Office's focus in analyzing questions of joint criminal liability was on conspiracy as defined in federal law."
So when Mueller concludes that he "did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities," he is not saying that there is no evidence of "collusion" at all, in any sense. What he is saying is that there is insufficient evidence to prove that the Trump administration was directly involved in Russian crimes like stealing Clinton's emails.
But did the Trump campaign actively work with the Russian government to improve its electoral chances? If that's the standard, then the report provides plenty of evidence to suggest the answer is yes."
https://www.vox.com/2019/4/18/18484965/mueller-report-trump-no-collusionYou have seemingly used the word "debunked" in place of not-prosecuted or proven to criminal standard, but there is much discussion about what the appropriate standard is and to what standard Mueller was working. Many many questionable and still being investigated contacts (that were in turn covered up by lies for what reason?) between Trump/associates and Russia are described.
You have called out my sharing rumors I heard that I fully disclaimed and asterisked. I didn't say they were true, I made it clear they were rumors that I wasn't sure if they were accurate. Should I not have shared? And furthermore, they still may be in play. We have another 14 (?) investigations still ongoing with redactions that point to the very things I claimed about a potential sealed indictment of Trump children (I don't think I said Kushner).
Furthermore, the collusion question may still have more to follow that is revealed in other investigations and potential impeachment proceeding. Consider that ongoing cases could yet prove collusion with Russia as defined today by Barr. If an American were the liaison between Stone, Wikileaks, and Russia to steal/hack those emails, then according to Barr collusion occurred and any dissemination/promotion of the stolen emails is illegal.
We can go round and round in cute play with what is collusion and what was "agreed to" and who is an official Russian, but the pattern of action and pattern of cover up and the pattern of beneficiary adds up to Russia wanting Trump in office; taking actions to make that happen with both the active and passive desires and assistance of Trump's team; and then erratic unethical behavior to hide these action from public and investigators; and followed by distinctly pro-Russian policy shifts, departures from pro-Nato policy, and business pursuits for profit of Trump and oligarchs...it's a mess of corruption that has compromised this president and the country and needs to be rectified & punished immediately. There are literally over a hundred acts in the report that would have undone any other presidency by that one act, and yet he persists on the blind loyalty of his supporters, the animus of Liberals, the dereliction of the GOP, and the detached defenses of people like you who are smart enough to know and do better.
To quote agent Starling: "You see a lot don't you AnarchistBear? Why don't you turn that high-powered perception at yourself and tell us what you see, or, maybe you're afraid to."