Having read most of the report, I find it irritatingly ironic that if "collusion" were a crime Mueller would have proven it over and over again. Throughout the report there are depictions of knowledge of, foreknowledge of, invitations for, acceptance of, and benefitting from Russian actions by the Trump campaign.

The report lists these actions, but makes it clear that by DOJ policy it will make no indictment, prosecution, accusation, or proclamation of guilt on a sitting president. That's what makes the "no collusion" and the "exoneration" claim so patently absurd: it wasn't making any claim on collusion but if it were it would have proven collusion and it was making no verdict or exoneration on ANYTHING.

Instead, the report tells us clearly that it is reporting on a very narrow investigation into coordination (working together on a planned crime together) between the Trump campaign and the Russian government in election interference. That leaves so much open to question and so many other crimes that it does show evidence for (that are presumably subjects in the ongoing investigations): acts of non-coordination that are still either illegal or impeachable, acts by individuals rather than the two organizations, acts with Russians versus the Russian government, and non-election related crimes of coordination et al.

So, we have this report that on it's very narrow objective comes to a "no coordination" conclusion, makes no conclusion on obstruction while clearly showing that it believes obstruction happened and expects Congress or AG to pursue, and shows evidence of many other crimes.

Any yet Barr and Trump and FOX want us to believe this is good news? That this is okay and acceptable behavior by a president? And that pursuit of all the evidence/crimes listed is a witch hunt or political maneuvering by Dems. It's absurd. It's spin. And it's party line that only those people who haven't read the report or are sworn loyalists who will disavow any fact that contradicts their pre-decided narrative would believe.

Impeachment? This should be about if this man will be in jail the rest of his life. It's unbelievable what he has done and how he he has treated office as a king's throne and ego-dome of personal profit.

My questions to lawyers are these:
1) Have I mischaracterized the report?

2) What are the potential other crimes that the report indicates either within or that it implies are being pursued in the other 12-14 cases? Espionage? Conspiracy? Witness tampering? Blackmail/threats? Not to mention all the financial crimes that are coming on campaign finance, tax evasion, laundering, etc.

3) I know treason is a war time crime, but isn't the Russian action an attack that is aided by Trump's actions? He assisted the Russian attack in his denials, non action, and implied and explicit permission and quid pro quo on sanctions and real estate deals. What crime can be brought for betrayal of country or being a traitor?

4) Is it not a crime to lie to the American public ever? It should be for president to intentionally lie or mislead the public on issues of national security and for his own benefit and protection? Is there a crime here?

5) This is the biggest question I have: is the president not an accessory? He had been briefed about Russian attack when he made the famous request for emails--so he knew that Russia was stealing data for his good and requested more. How is that not a crime? When in Helsinki, and all the other numerous times, he said he didn't know if Russia attacked and in fact said they didn't, he DID in fact know 100% that they had. Not only is that a lie, but him creating confusion and sewing doubt helped them get away with it and assisted in the crime. It's clear obstruction, but isn't that an accessory too? I have not heard the term accessory to a crime said once. Why not?

I am so confused by how narrow the report AND the conversation of the president's crimes has become (I guess him making it just about collusion worked). This is so much bigger than Watergate and so much more dangerous to the country, and yet the "debate" seems so small and technical. And the step back big picture is so plain that Mueller concluded that we have a dirty and dangerous man in office and that the preparation of the report and distribution of the investigation was all about protecting against the corrupt actions he knew this man and his dirty hitmen were capable of.

As a whole the Mueller report screams guilty.

blungld said:

---

Having read most of the report, I find it irritatingly ironic that if "collusion" were a crime Mueller would have proven it over and over again. Throughout the report there are depictions of knowledge of, foreknowledge of, invitations for, acceptance of, and benefitting from Russian actions by the Trump campaign.

The report lists these actions, but makes it clear that by DOJ policy it will make no indictment, prosecution, accusation, or proclamation of guilt on a sitting president. That's what makes the "no collusion" and the "exoneration" claim so patently absurd: it wasn't making any claim on collusion but if it were it would have proven collusion and it was making no verdict or exoneration on ANYTHING.

Instead, the report tells us clearly that it is reporting on a very narrow investigation into coordination (working together on a planned crime together) between the Trump campaign and the Russian government in election interference. That leaves so much open to question and so many other crimes that it does show evidence for (that are presumably subjects in the ongoing investigations): acts of non-coordination that are still either illegal or impeachable, acts by individuals rather than the two organizations, acts with Russians versus the Russian government, and non-election related crimes of coordination et al.

So, we have this report that on it's very narrow objective comes to a "no coordination" conclusion, makes no conclusion on obstruction while clearly showing that it believes obstruction happened and expects Congress or AG to pursue, and shows evidence of many other crimes.

Any yet Barr and Trump and FOX want us to believe this is good news? That this is okay and acceptable behavior by a president? And that pursuit of all the evidence/crimes listed is a witch hunt or political maneuvering by Dems. It's absurd. It's spin. And it's party line that only those people who haven't read the report or are sworn loyalists who will disavow any fact that contradicts their pre-decided narrative would believe.

Impeachment? This should be about if this man will be in jail the rest of his life. It's unbelievable what he has done and how he he has treated office as a king's throne and ego-dome of personal profit.

My questions to lawyers are these:
1) Have I mischaracterized the report?

2) What are the potential other crimes that the report indicates either within or that it implies are being pursued in the other 12-14 cases?

3) I know treason is a war time crime, but isn't the Russian action an attack that is aided by Trump's actions? He assisted the Russian attack in his denials, non action, and implied and explicit permission and quid pro quo on sanctions and real estate deals. What crime can be brought for betrayal of country or being a traitor?

4) Is it not a crime to lie to the American public ever? It should be for president to intentionally lie or mislead the public on issues of national security and for his own benefit and protection? Is there a crime here?

5) This is the biggest question I have: is the president not an accessory? He had been briefed about Russian attack when he made the famous request for emails--so he knew that Russia was stealing data for his good and requested more. How is that not a crime? When in Helsinki, and all the other numerous times, he said he didn't know if Russia attacked and in fact said they didn't, he DID in fact know 100% that they had. Not only is that a lie, but him creating confusion and sewing doubt helped them get away with it and assisted in the crime. It's clear obstruction, but isn't that an accessory too? I have not heard the term accessory to a crime said once. Why not?

I am so confused by how narrow the report AND the conversation of the president's crimes has become (I guess him making it just about collusion worked). This is so much bigger than Watergate and so much more dangerous to the country, and yet the "debate" seems so small and technical. And the step back big picture is so plain that Mueller concluded that we have a dirty and dangerous man in office and that the preparation of the report and distribution of the investigation was all about protecting against the corrupt actions he knew this man and his dirty hitmen were capable of.

As a whole the Mueller report screams guilty.

---

Not a lawyer, obviously.

By the largely agreed upon standards of what crimes and misdemeanors meet the standard for impeachment, Trump has zoomed past those long ago. That the Democratic Congress refuses to do their constitutional duty and begin impeachment proceedings simply because they think it would be bad for them politically is a dereliction of duty in my opinion. My guess is that they think if the Senate vote against impeachment, much of the country will view that as the equivalent of saying "Trump is innocent", which he plainly isn't.

We'll just have to vote the son of a ***** out in a year and a half.

Yogi Bear said:

---

By the largely agreed upon standards of what crimes and misdemeanors meet the standard for impeachment, Trump has zoomed past those long ago. That the Democratic Congress refuses to do their constitutional duty and begin impeachment proceedings simply because they think it would be bad for them politically is a dereliction of duty in my opinion. My guess is that they think if the Senate vote against impeachment, much of the country will view that as the equivalent of saying "Trump is innocent", which he plainly isn't.

We'll just have to vote the son of a ***** out in a year and a half.

---

That may be right, but I am just really curious about if his actions constitute accessory to a crime? I see no difference (except it's far worse) than Trump's actions with Russia and say a a woman who is having an affair with a man who says he is going to kill his wife and benefit from her life insurance policy. She knows it is going to happen, benefits from it, does nothing to report or stop it, but doesn't do the actual killing. How is that not equivalent to Trump's actions many times?

I'm a retired lawyer, but have to give you the report from experts on the local public radio station as to Mueller report determination.

The report flatly states that Russian interference efforts began in 2014, continued in 2015 and blossomed into a full-blown effort to meddle in the 2016 presidential election. The report found no evidence that the Trump campaign coordinated with Russia on election meddling, to wit: "the evidence we obtained did not establish that the president was involved in an underling crime related to Russian election interference." Despite receiving and using information from likely Russian agents, the Trump campaign was not guilty of collusion or for that matter criminal conspiracy. For collusion you need a secret agreement between two or more parties for deceiving, misleading, or defrauding others of their legal rights, or to obtain an objective forbidden by law. The key is the agreement context. There was no evidence that using information provided by the Russians constituted an agreement, particularly without some quid pro quo. Collusion cases typically are though of in the business context, such as competing companies colluding on bidding or the like. Political campaigns (or journalists for that matter) get all types of political information from various sources including other countries (isreal and China, in particular, are infamous for doing this) which they publish without ever committing collusion. "

IMO, Adam Schiff really hurt Democrats by raising the bar on collusion. For two years, Schiff and other Democrats in Congress repeatedly claimed there was evidence of collusion. Time and again, Schiff said he had "direct" evidence of Trump illegally colluding with Russia and, since Barr's initial summary letter, doubled down on his claims before the report came out. What makes this really dumb is Schiff as a former federal prosecutor should have known just how hard it would be to demonstrate an agreement in this type of situation. What is more galling is the Mueller report says the Obama administration knew about the Russian effort in 2015, and (1) did nothing about it, including warning either Clinton or Trump, and (2) didn't warn off Schiff (particularly after leaving office) that there was no evidence of an agreement.

Making more measured statements would have not only achieved the goals of keeping the matter before the media and public, but not inflicted the political damage on the credibility of Democrats. This can get real ugly fast, with impeachment efforts as every leak by Dems or use of another governments money and information (can you say Clinton Foundation) will be thrown in their face.

Trump is being separately investigated for various matters that appear to have real legal merit and are obvious impeachable offenses (e.g, , tax fraud and evasion) that voters can relate to), The Dems should not gun jump again if they really want to impeach Trump (query if they are better off having him office?).

The more i read the more it seems we have hundreds of pages describing an accessory after the fact:

23. (1) An accessory after the fact to an offence is one who, knowing that a person has been a party to the offence, receives, comforts or assists that person for the purpose of enabling that person to escape.

I'm too broken hearted to spend the time to read the report and do a legal analysis so all I have is a gut instinct:

They needed Paulie Walnuts Manafort to flip to get the ball from the goal line into the end zone. Paulie didn't flip.

wifeisafurd said:

---

I'm a retired lawyer, but have to give you the report from experts on the local public radio station as to Mueller report determination.

The report flatly states that Russian interference efforts began in 2014, continued in 2015 and blossomed into a full-blown effort to meddle in the 2016 presidential election. The report found no evidence that the Trump campaign coordinated with Russia on election meddling, to wit: "the evidence we obtained did not establish that the president was involved in an underling crime related to Russian election interference." Despite receiving and using information from likely Russian agents, the Trump campaign was not guilty of collusion or for that matter criminal conspiracy. For collusion you need a secret agreement between two or more parties for deceiving, misleading, or defrauding others of their legal rights, or to obtain an objective forbidden by law. The key is the agreement context. There was no evidence that using information provided by the Russians constituted an agreement, particularly without some quid pro quo. Collusion cases typically are though of in the business context, such as competing companies colluding on bidding or the like. Political campaigns (or journalists for that matter) get all types of political information from various sources including other countries (isreal and China, in particular, are infamous for doing this) which they publish without ever committing collusion. "

IMO, Adam Schiff really hurt Democrats by raising the bar on collusion. For two years, Schiff and other Democrats in Congress repeatedly claimed there was evidence of collusion. Time and again, Schiff said he had "direct" evidence of Trump illegally colluding with Russia and, since Barr's initial summary letter, doubled down on his claims before the report came out. What makes this really dumb is Schiff as a former federal prosecutor should have known just how hard it would be to demonstrate an agreement in this type of situation. What is more galling is the Mueller report says the Obama administration knew about the Russian effort in 2015, and (1) did nothing about it, including warning either Clinton or Trump, and (2) didn't warn off Schiff (particularly after leaving office) that there was no evidence of an agreement.

Making more measured statements would have not only achieved the goals of keeping the matter before the media and public, but not inflicted the political damage on the credibility of Democrats. This can get real ugly fast, with impeachment efforts as every leak by Dems or use of another governments money and information (can you say Clinton Foundation) will be thrown in their face.

Trump is being separately investigated for various matters that appear to have real legal merit and are obvious impeachable offenses (e.g, , tax fraud and evasion) that voters can relate to), The Dems should not gun jump again if they really want to impeach Trump (query if they are better off having him office?).

---

This is a distortion of what Schiff is saying. You claim Schiff said he had evidence of Trump "illegally" colluding with Russia. You need to remove the "illegally" part. What Schiff is saying is he has evidence of Trump colluding with Russia. To me, that is clear as day - maybe not in legalistic terms but in layman's terms. As Schiff said, "whether it's illegal or not". I also like Swalwell's approach that if what Trump did was not illegal, it should be. Congress should pass new laws to make it illegal. It was clearly unpatriotic and bad for the country.

Mueller is clear in his redacted report that he does not believe "collusion" is a legal term. That is the context.
I'll also add that Schiff hasn't "really hurt Democrats" anywhere but in the minds of Fox and Friends fanatics. Most people don't know who Schiff is, much less what he said.

This piece offers additional insights:

Inside the special counsel's long hunt to uncover whether the Trump campaign conspired with Russia

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/inside-the-special-counsels-long-hunt-to-uncover-whether-the-trump-campaign-conspired-with-russia/2019/04/21/57e67ac4-563c-11e9-814f-e2f46684196e_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.63dba79f8ab4

Yogi Bear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

What is more galling is the Mueller report says the Obama administration knew about the Russian effort in 2015, and (1) did nothing about it, including warning either Clinton or Trump, and (2) didn't warn off Schiff (particularly after leaving office) that there was no evidence of an agreement.

---

You're right. That's the really galling part.

Thanks for the partisan breakdown. I could've just turned on Fox and Friends for that.

---

I will also note that people who worked for Obama say that he did bring this evidence to Congressional leaders, and McConnell told him that if he went public with it that he would denounce it as a partisan attempt to sway the next election. So if you find this galling you must also find the Republican Congress' lack of action galling.

dajo9 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

I'm a retired lawyer, but have to give you the report from experts on the local public radio station as to Mueller report determination.

The report flatly states that Russian interference efforts began in 2014, continued in 2015 and blossomed into a full-blown effort to meddle in the 2016 presidential election. The report found no evidence that the Trump campaign coordinated with Russia on election meddling, to wit: "the evidence we obtained did not establish that the president was involved in an underling crime related to Russian election interference." Despite receiving and using information from likely Russian agents, the Trump campaign was not guilty of collusion or for that matter criminal conspiracy. For collusion you need a secret agreement between two or more parties for deceiving, misleading, or defrauding others of their legal rights, or to obtain an objective forbidden by law. The key is the agreement context. There was no evidence that using information provided by the Russians constituted an agreement, particularly without some quid pro quo. Collusion cases typically are though of in the business context, such as competing companies colluding on bidding or the like. Political campaigns (or journalists for that matter) get all types of political information from various sources including other countries (isreal and China, in particular, are infamous for doing this) which they publish without ever committing collusion. "

IMO, Adam Schiff really hurt Democrats by raising the bar on collusion. For two years, Schiff and other Democrats in Congress repeatedly claimed there was evidence of collusion. Time and again, Schiff said he had "direct" evidence of Trump illegally colluding with Russia and, since Barr's initial summary letter, doubled down on his claims before the report came out. What makes this really dumb is Schiff as a former federal prosecutor should have known just how hard it would be to demonstrate an agreement in this type of situation. What is more galling is the Mueller report says the Obama administration knew about the Russian effort in 2015, and (1) did nothing about it, including warning either Clinton or Trump, and (2) didn't warn off Schiff (particularly after leaving office) that there was no evidence of an agreement.

Making more measured statements would have not only achieved the goals of keeping the matter before the media and public, but not inflicted the political damage on the credibility of Democrats. This can get real ugly fast, with impeachment efforts as every leak by Dems or use of another governments money and information (can you say Clinton Foundation) will be thrown in their face.

Trump is being separately investigated for various matters that appear to have real legal merit and are obvious impeachable offenses (e.g, , tax fraud and evasion) that voters can relate to), The Dems should not gun jump again if they really want to impeach Trump (query if they are better off having him office?).

---

This is a distortion of what Schiff is saying. You claim Schiff said he had evidence of Trump "illegally" colluding with Russia. You need to remove the "illegally" part. What Schiff is saying is he has evidence of Trump colluding with Russia. To me, that is clear as day - maybe not in legalistic terms but in layman's terms. As Schiff said, "whether it's illegal or not". I also like Swalwell's approach that if what Trump did was not illegal, it should be. Congress should pass new laws to make it illegal. It was clearly unpatriotic and bad for the country.

Mueller is clear in his redacted report that he does not believe "collusion" is a legal term. That is the context.
I'll also add that Schiff hasn't "really hurt Democrats" anywhere but in the minds of Fox and Friends fanatics. Most people don't know who Schiff is, much less what he said.

---

This was actually verbatim what the CNN legal analyst said.

I agree most people don't know who Schiff is. Most people didn't even seriously follow the Russian investigation and those that vaguely followed thought they were told by the Democrats that Trump colluded with the Russians to steal the Presidency from Clinton, and that the Mueller report vindicated Trump. Most posters in the shallow vacuum of this O/T board said that repeatedly. That Schiff is now changing his narrative to "illegal or not" means very little except to partisan Democrats. What may be even more disheartening to you partisans is how little the American public actually cares about Russia. It is way down the list of important issues, now way more than ever. I think that American public can relate to something like tax evasion a lot better. Everyone pays taxes (even if just sales tax), and understands cheating on your taxes is wrong, or deducting your hush payments to your porn star girl friend. Belatedly "illegally or not" is a wonderful distinction few voters could give a sh!! about, on a topic very few voters now care about. And expecting a divided Congress to do anything more about the Russians is delusional, sticking with the basic perspectives of this board.

Quintessential Obama. He finds out there is Russian interference so he goes to Mitch for a "bi-partisan" solution then backs off

Yogi Bear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

What is more galling is the Mueller report says the Obama administration knew about the Russian effort in 2015, and (1) did nothing about it, including warning either Clinton or Trump, and (2) didn't warn off Schiff (particularly after leaving office) that there was no evidence of an agreement.

---

You're right. That's the really galling part.

Thanks for the partisan breakdown. I could've just turned on Fox and Friends for that.

---

glad to see NPR is now appearing on Fox and Friends. The primary talking head was the CNN legal analyst. Maybe is a covert Fox guy. Let's do a House investigation.

Anarchistbear said:

---

Quintessential Obama. He finds out there is Russian interference so he goes to Mitch for a "bi-partisan" solution then backs off

---

It's fine to criticize him for this, but if you do then I don't want to hear any complaints about the "Imperial Presidency" and Presidents overreaching their constitutional authority.

wifeisafurd said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

I'm a retired lawyer, but have to give you the report from experts on the local public radio station as to Mueller report determination.

The report flatly states that Russian interference efforts began in 2014, continued in 2015 and blossomed into a full-blown effort to meddle in the 2016 presidential election. The report found no evidence that the Trump campaign coordinated with Russia on election meddling, to wit: "the evidence we obtained did not establish that the president was involved in an underling crime related to Russian election interference." Despite receiving and using information from likely Russian agents, the Trump campaign was not guilty of collusion or for that matter criminal conspiracy. For collusion you need a secret agreement between two or more parties for deceiving, misleading, or defrauding others of their legal rights, or to obtain an objective forbidden by law. The key is the agreement context. There was no evidence that using information provided by the Russians constituted an agreement, particularly without some quid pro quo. Collusion cases typically are though of in the business context, such as competing companies colluding on bidding or the like. Political campaigns (or journalists for that matter) get all types of political information from various sources including other countries (isreal and China, in particular, are infamous for doing this) which they publish without ever committing collusion. "

IMO, Adam Schiff really hurt Democrats by raising the bar on collusion. For two years, Schiff and other Democrats in Congress repeatedly claimed there was evidence of collusion. Time and again, Schiff said he had "direct" evidence of Trump illegally colluding with Russia and, since Barr's initial summary letter, doubled down on his claims before the report came out. What makes this really dumb is Schiff as a former federal prosecutor should have known just how hard it would be to demonstrate an agreement in this type of situation. What is more galling is the Mueller report says the Obama administration knew about the Russian effort in 2015, and (1) did nothing about it, including warning either Clinton or Trump, and (2) didn't warn off Schiff (particularly after leaving office) that there was no evidence of an agreement.

Making more measured statements would have not only achieved the goals of keeping the matter before the media and public, but not inflicted the political damage on the credibility of Democrats. This can get real ugly fast, with impeachment efforts as every leak by Dems or use of another governments money and information (can you say Clinton Foundation) will be thrown in their face.

Trump is being separately investigated for various matters that appear to have real legal merit and are obvious impeachable offenses (e.g, , tax fraud and evasion) that voters can relate to), The Dems should not gun jump again if they really want to impeach Trump (query if they are better off having him office?).

---

This is a distortion of what Schiff is saying. You claim Schiff said he had evidence of Trump "illegally" colluding with Russia. You need to remove the "illegally" part. What Schiff is saying is he has evidence of Trump colluding with Russia. To me, that is clear as day - maybe not in legalistic terms but in layman's terms. As Schiff said, "whether it's illegal or not". I also like Swalwell's approach that if what Trump did was not illegal, it should be. Congress should pass new laws to make it illegal. It was clearly unpatriotic and bad for the country.

Mueller is clear in his redacted report that he does not believe "collusion" is a legal term. That is the context.
I'll also add that Schiff hasn't "really hurt Democrats" anywhere but in the minds of Fox and Friends fanatics. Most people don't know who Schiff is, much less what he said.

---

This was actually verbatim what the CNN legal analyst said.

I agree most people don't know who Schiff is. Most people didn't even seriously follow the Russian investigation and those that vaguely followed thought they were told by the Democrats that Trump colluded with the Russians to steal the Presidency from Clinton, and that the Mueller report vindicated Trump. Most posters in the shallow vacuum of this O/T board said that repeatedly. That Schiff is now changing his narrative to "illegal or not" means very little except to partisan Democrats. What may be even more disheartening to you partisans is how little the American public actually cares about Russia. It is way down the list of important issues, now way more than ever. I think that American public can relate to something like tax evasion a lot better. Everyone pays taxes (even if just sales tax), and understands cheating on your taxes is wrong, or deducting your hush payments to your porn star girl friend. Belatedly "illegally or not" is a wonderful distinction few voters could give a sh!! about, on a topic very few voters now care about. And expecting a divided Congress to do anything more about the Russians is delusional, sticking with the basic perspectives of this board.

---

You are entitled to your opinions but not to a distortion of what people are saying. Schiff is not changing his narrative - you are changing his narrative.

sycasey said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

Quintessential Obama. He finds out there is Russian interference so he goes to Mitch for a "bi-partisan" solution then backs off

---

It's fine to criticize him for this, but if you do then I don't want to hear any complaints about the "Imperial Presidency" and Presidents overreaching their constitutional authority.

---

I think it speaks more to the current hysteria. Some people on this board and in the media are arguing that the Russia interference was some kind of first strike existential attack on the US. If you believe that his actions are indefensible.

I think he thought;
1, He didn't think it was a big deal.
2) He had a lot of work to still do with Russia- Syria, etc
3) He thought Clinton would win easily and it wasn't worth bringing up politically

All that except #3 was true.

dajo9 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

I'm a retired lawyer, but have to give you the report from experts on the local public radio station as to Mueller report determination.

The report flatly states that Russian interference efforts began in 2014, continued in 2015 and blossomed into a full-blown effort to meddle in the 2016 presidential election. The report found no evidence that the Trump campaign coordinated with Russia on election meddling, to wit: "the evidence we obtained did not establish that the president was involved in an underling crime related to Russian election interference." Despite receiving and using information from likely Russian agents, the Trump campaign was not guilty of collusion or for that matter criminal conspiracy. For collusion you need a secret agreement between two or more parties for deceiving, misleading, or defrauding others of their legal rights, or to obtain an objective forbidden by law. The key is the agreement context. There was no evidence that using information provided by the Russians constituted an agreement, particularly without some quid pro quo. Collusion cases typically are though of in the business context, such as competing companies colluding on bidding or the like. Political campaigns (or journalists for that matter) get all types of political information from various sources including other countries (isreal and China, in particular, are infamous for doing this) which they publish without ever committing collusion. "

IMO, Adam Schiff really hurt Democrats by raising the bar on collusion. For two years, Schiff and other Democrats in Congress repeatedly claimed there was evidence of collusion. Time and again, Schiff said he had "direct" evidence of Trump illegally colluding with Russia and, since Barr's initial summary letter, doubled down on his claims before the report came out. What makes this really dumb is Schiff as a former federal prosecutor should have known just how hard it would be to demonstrate an agreement in this type of situation. What is more galling is the Mueller report says the Obama administration knew about the Russian effort in 2015, and (1) did nothing about it, including warning either Clinton or Trump, and (2) didn't warn off Schiff (particularly after leaving office) that there was no evidence of an agreement.

Making more measured statements would have not only achieved the goals of keeping the matter before the media and public, but not inflicted the political damage on the credibility of Democrats. This can get real ugly fast, with impeachment efforts as every leak by Dems or use of another governments money and information (can you say Clinton Foundation) will be thrown in their face.

Trump is being separately investigated for various matters that appear to have real legal merit and are obvious impeachable offenses (e.g, , tax fraud and evasion) that voters can relate to), The Dems should not gun jump again if they really want to impeach Trump (query if they are better off having him office?).

---

This is a distortion of what Schiff is saying. You claim Schiff said he had evidence of Trump "illegally" colluding with Russia. You need to remove the "illegally" part. What Schiff is saying is he has evidence of Trump colluding with Russia. To me, that is clear as day - maybe not in legalistic terms but in layman's terms. As Schiff said, "whether it's illegal or not". I also like Swalwell's approach that if what Trump did was not illegal, it should be. Congress should pass new laws to make it illegal. It was clearly unpatriotic and bad for the country.

Mueller is clear in his redacted report that he does not believe "collusion" is a legal term. That is the context.
I'll also add that Schiff hasn't "really hurt Democrats" anywhere but in the minds of Fox and Friends fanatics. Most people don't know who Schiff is, much less what he said.

---

This was actually verbatim what the CNN legal analyst said.

I agree most people don't know who Schiff is. Most people didn't even seriously follow the Russian investigation and those that vaguely followed thought they were told by the Democrats that Trump colluded with the Russians to steal the Presidency from Clinton, and that the Mueller report vindicated Trump. Most posters in the shallow vacuum of this O/T board said that repeatedly. That Schiff is now changing his narrative to "illegal or not" means very little except to partisan Democrats. What may be even more disheartening to you partisans is how little the American public actually cares about Russia. It is way down the list of important issues, now way more than ever. I think that American public can relate to something like tax evasion a lot better. Everyone pays taxes (even if just sales tax), and understands cheating on your taxes is wrong, or deducting your hush payments to your porn star girl friend. Belatedly "illegally or not" is a wonderful distinction few voters could give a sh!! about, on a topic very few voters now care about. And expecting a divided Congress to do anything more about the Russians is delusional, sticking with the basic perspectives of this board.

---

You are entitled to your opinions but not to a distortion of what people are saying. Schiff is not changing his narrative - you are changing his narrative.

---

And you are not entitled to revisionist history.

Since prior to Trump's inauguration in January 2017, Schiff had a media campaign claiming, among other things, that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russian government. he went frequent television interviews stating that there was "more than circumstantial evidence of collusion, but {I} can't go into particulars because they are matters on national security." No where did he ever discuss questions of legal versus non-legal or criminal collusion.

Then Mueller was appointed and In December 2017, he appeared on CNN's State of the Union.

"The Russians offered help, the campaign accepted help, the Russians gave help, and the president made full use of that help, and that is pretty damning, whether it is proof beyond a reasonable doubt of conspiracy or not," Schiff said. "Can you prove beyond a reasonable doubt, (that) will be Mueller's question to answer.

This was the first Schiff ever qualified his position on evidence of absolute collusion.

Then in late 2018 and 2019 Schiff said at various times on CNN: "There's clear evidence on the issue of collusion." No qualification about evidence beyond reasonable doubts or any other qualifications for Mueller. He did the same thing in a New York Times cover story. And on other stories.

The Schiff started repeating things other non-lawyer Dems said, which implied knowledge of classified facts that demonstrated collusion. No niceties about about reasonable doubt, Mueller or whatever.

Then there was this in early February 2018 press conference in response to why Schiff won't provide evidence, Schiff said: "If this were a trial on the issue of did the Trump campaign conspire with the Russians to interfere or violate U.S. election laws by providing help to the Trump campaign, if this were a trial on that conspiracy charge...all of that evidence would come in as evidence of collusion exists." This sounds f--ing legal to me. I mean you have a criminal trial, evidence, a jury finding. There isn't any qualification about illegal vs kinda legal, or we find collusion not as a legal term, or whatever other BS you are trying to manufacture from the jury.

And he had more comments in the vain. I mean what planet are you on that Schiff kept the same narrative? Schiff is not the local NPR station down here in LA constantly, and I heard him constantly and no where did he ever qualify his accusations with some type legal vs non-legal distinction.


Then came the letter from Barr and a Schiff tweet:

"Mueller did not find sufficient evidence to establish conspiracy, notwithstanding Russian offers to help Trump's campaign, their acceptance, and a litany of concealed interactions with Russia.


I trust Mueller's prosecutorial judgement, but the country must see the evidence."

This is a misstatement of the actual report which also did not find a collusive agreement, and from a lawyer's standpoint makes the comment about "acceptance" total BS. Mueller both found no conspiracy or agreement to collude, making the comment about agreement a complete misrepresentation and distortion of what the Mueller report finds. So I guess both of you are entitled to distort what people say.

BTW, next investigation-up, Ukraine influence on election.
As Russia collusion fades, Ukrainian plot to help Clinton emerges ...https://thehill.com/.../435029-as-russia-collusion-fades-ukrainian-plot-to-help-clinton-...

Schiff Concedes DNC Collusion with Ukrainian Government Inappropriate https://www.lifezette.com/2017/07/schiff-concedes-dnc-collusion-ukrainian-government-inappropriate/ via @LifeZette

Taste of Ukraine Reception for Rep. Adam Schiff (D, CA-29) - Political ...politicalpartytime.org/party/34974/

Move on to tax evasion, now.
[url=https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=24&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwiuvfzZveThAhVIEawKHaTjAQA4FBAWMAN6BAgEEAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fpoliticalpartytime.org%2Fparty%2F34974%2F&usg=AOvVaw2gWlrv8UvQ1-ppiTxuSHIV][/url]

Anarchistbear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

Quintessential Obama. He finds out there is Russian interference so he goes to Mitch for a "bi-partisan" solution then backs off

---

It's fine to criticize him for this, but if you do then I don't want to hear any complaints about the "Imperial Presidency" and Presidents overreaching their constitutional authority.

---

I think it speaks more to the current hysteria. Some people on this board and in the media are arguing that the Russia interference was some kind of first strike existential attack on the US. If you believe that his actions are indefensible.

I think he thought;
1, He didn't think it was a big deal.
2) He had a lot of work to still do with Russia- Syria, etc
3) He thought Clinton would win easily and it wasn't worth bringing up politically

All that except #3 was true.

---

This . . . seems like a very different point than you were originally making. People know different things now than they knew in 2015. I don't see the point of calling out public hypocrisy on any of it.

I was reacting to your point. I don't think his actions had anything to do with "imperial Presidency". His actions were consistent with his nature, Presidency and what he believed at the time - that this wasn't some " get up in front of the country moment." Get Mitch to buy in, etc. And I'm saying he was right

Only '71 gets to call out people for hypocrisy. He knew everything about Trump in 2015-6 that we didn't, including the actions he would take in the future.

IMO, eventually there will be in the public grounds that people will accept, on a bi-partisan basis, for impeachment. The only thing that worries me is gun jumping will undermine the credibility of those charges in the public's mind.

Impeachment is a waste of time. It is one of our parties seeking to deligitimize the other by political means rather than the ballot box.

The Mueller report is the Impeachment- it says that Trump is legitimately elected but serves only himself by any means necessary . That's all the voters need to know. Let them decide.

wifeisafurd said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

I'm a retired lawyer, but have to give you the report from experts on the local public radio station as to Mueller report determination.

The report flatly states that Russian interference efforts began in 2014, continued in 2015 and blossomed into a full-blown effort to meddle in the 2016 presidential election. The report found no evidence that the Trump campaign coordinated with Russia on election meddling, to wit: "the evidence we obtained did not establish that the president was involved in an underling crime related to Russian election interference." Despite receiving and using information from likely Russian agents, the Trump campaign was not guilty of collusion or for that matter criminal conspiracy. For collusion you need a secret agreement between two or more parties for deceiving, misleading, or defrauding others of their legal rights, or to obtain an objective forbidden by law. The key is the agreement context. There was no evidence that using information provided by the Russians constituted an agreement, particularly without some quid pro quo. Collusion cases typically are though of in the business context, such as competing companies colluding on bidding or the like. Political campaigns (or journalists for that matter) get all types of political information from various sources including other countries (isreal and China, in particular, are infamous for doing this) which they publish without ever committing collusion. "

IMO, Adam Schiff really hurt Democrats by raising the bar on collusion. For two years, Schiff and other Democrats in Congress repeatedly claimed there was evidence of collusion. Time and again, Schiff said he had "direct" evidence of Trump illegally colluding with Russia and, since Barr's initial summary letter, doubled down on his claims before the report came out. What makes this really dumb is Schiff as a former federal prosecutor should have known just how hard it would be to demonstrate an agreement in this type of situation. What is more galling is the Mueller report says the Obama administration knew about the Russian effort in 2015, and (1) did nothing about it, including warning either Clinton or Trump, and (2) didn't warn off Schiff (particularly after leaving office) that there was no evidence of an agreement.

Making more measured statements would have not only achieved the goals of keeping the matter before the media and public, but not inflicted the political damage on the credibility of Democrats. This can get real ugly fast, with impeachment efforts as every leak by Dems or use of another governments money and information (can you say Clinton Foundation) will be thrown in their face.

Trump is being separately investigated for various matters that appear to have real legal merit and are obvious impeachable offenses (e.g, , tax fraud and evasion) that voters can relate to), The Dems should not gun jump again if they really want to impeach Trump (query if they are better off having him office?).

---

This is a distortion of what Schiff is saying. You claim Schiff said he had evidence of Trump "illegally" colluding with Russia. You need to remove the "illegally" part. What Schiff is saying is he has evidence of Trump colluding with Russia. To me, that is clear as day - maybe not in legalistic terms but in layman's terms. As Schiff said, "whether it's illegal or not". I also like Swalwell's approach that if what Trump did was not illegal, it should be. Congress should pass new laws to make it illegal. It was clearly unpatriotic and bad for the country.

Mueller is clear in his redacted report that he does not believe "collusion" is a legal term. That is the context.
I'll also add that Schiff hasn't "really hurt Democrats" anywhere but in the minds of Fox and Friends fanatics. Most people don't know who Schiff is, much less what he said.

---

This was actually verbatim what the CNN legal analyst said.

I agree most people don't know who Schiff is. Most people didn't even seriously follow the Russian investigation and those that vaguely followed thought they were told by the Democrats that Trump colluded with the Russians to steal the Presidency from Clinton, and that the Mueller report vindicated Trump. Most posters in the shallow vacuum of this O/T board said that repeatedly. That Schiff is now changing his narrative to "illegal or not" means very little except to partisan Democrats. What may be even more disheartening to you partisans is how little the American public actually cares about Russia. It is way down the list of important issues, now way more than ever. I think that American public can relate to something like tax evasion a lot better. Everyone pays taxes (even if just sales tax), and understands cheating on your taxes is wrong, or deducting your hush payments to your porn star girl friend. Belatedly "illegally or not" is a wonderful distinction few voters could give a sh!! about, on a topic very few voters now care about. And expecting a divided Congress to do anything more about the Russians is delusional, sticking with the basic perspectives of this board.

---

You are entitled to your opinions but not to a distortion of what people are saying. Schiff is not changing his narrative - you are changing his narrative.

---

And you are not entitled to revisionist history.

Since prior to Trump's inauguration in January 2017, Schiff had a media campaign claiming, among other things, that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russian government. he went frequent television interviews stating that there was "more than circumstantial evidence of collusion, but {I} can't go into particulars because they are matters on national security." No where did he ever discuss questions of legal versus non-legal or criminal collusion.

Then Mueller was appointed and In December 2017, he appeared on CNN's State of the Union.

"The Russians offered help, the campaign accepted help, the Russians gave help, and the president made full use of that help, and that is pretty damning, whether it is proof beyond a reasonable doubt of conspiracy or not," Schiff said. "Can you prove beyond a reasonable doubt, (that) will be Mueller's question to answer.

This was the first Schiff ever qualified his position on evidence of absolute collusion.

Then in late 2018 and 2019 Schiff said at various times on CNN: "There's clear evidence on the issue of collusion." No qualification about evidence beyond reasonable doubts or any other qualifications for Mueller. He did the same thing in a New York Times cover story. And on other stories.

The Schiff started repeating things other non-lawyer Dems said, which implied knowledge of classified facts that demonstrated collusion. No niceties about about reasonable doubt, Mueller or whatever.

Then there was this in early February 2018 press conference in response to why Schiff won't provide evidence, Schiff said: "If this were a trial on the issue of did the Trump campaign conspire with the Russians to interfere or violate U.S. election laws by providing help to the Trump campaign, if this were a trial on that conspiracy charge...all of that evidence would come in as evidence of collusion exists." This sounds f--ing legal to me. I mean you have a criminal trial, evidence, a jury finding. There isn't any qualification about illegal vs kinda legal, or we find collusion not as a legal term, or whatever other BS you are trying to manufacture from the jury.

And he had more comments in the vain. I mean what planet are you on that Schiff kept the same narrative? Schiff is not the local NPR station down here in LA constantly, and I heard him constantly and no where did he ever qualify his accusations with some type legal vs non-legal distinction.


Then came the letter from Barr and a Schiff tweet:

"Mueller did not find sufficient evidence to establish conspiracy, notwithstanding Russian offers to help Trump's campaign, their acceptance, and a litany of concealed interactions with Russia.


I trust Mueller's prosecutorial judgement, but the country must see the evidence."

This is a misstatement of the actual report which also did not find a collusive agreement, and from a lawyer's standpoint makes the comment about "acceptance" total BS. Mueller both found no conspiracy or agreement to collude, making the comment about agreement a complete misrepresentation and distortion of what the Mueller report finds. So I guess both of you are entitled to distort what people say.

BTW, next investigation-up, Ukraine influence on election.
As Russia collusion fades, Ukrainian plot to help Clinton emerges ...https://thehill.com/.../435029-as-russia-collusion-fades-ukrainian-plot-to-help-clinton-...

Schiff Concedes DNC Collusion with Ukrainian Government Inappropriate https://www.lifezette.com/2017/07/schiff-concedes-dnc-collusion-ukrainian-government-inappropriate/ via @LifeZette

Taste of Ukraine Reception for Rep. Adam Schiff (D, CA-29) - Political ...politicalpartytime.org/party/34974/

Move on to tax evasion, now.
[url=https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=24&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwiuvfzZveThAhVIEawKHaTjAQA4FBAWMAN6BAgEEAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fpoliticalpartytime.org%2Fparty%2F34974%2F&usg=AOvVaw2gWlrv8UvQ1-ppiTxuSHIV][/url]

---

This is typical wiaf. When caught distorting he goes off on a very long tirade which neither makes his point nor refutes mine.

Boy, the Dems are horrible at spin. Repeatedly they pave the way for the worst behavior and in fact support the Republican spin. As we enter into discussions about impeachment we hear them saying "the Senate will never vote for it." What stupid thing to say. Yes, that may be true, but why give them permission to do it? What not instead say that they would never vote against what is right? Why not exert some shame and pressure make it seem inconceivable to be that political and immoral and biased?

They basically acquiesce before they need to and let the Senate off the hook. And this is something they have done so many times. They argue both sides and give tacit permission.

FOX and Trump are not backing down at all. They are still full no collusion total exoneration though the report says nothing like that. Can the Dems grow some balls and just say we have a criminal in the WH and the report shows it without a doubt and Mr. President it's time to either resign or go under oath and give us a reason not to impeach you.

dajo9 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

I'm a retired lawyer, but have to give you the report from experts on the local public radio station as to Mueller report determination.

The report flatly states that Russian interference efforts began in 2014, continued in 2015 and blossomed into a full-blown effort to meddle in the 2016 presidential election. The report found no evidence that the Trump campaign coordinated with Russia on election meddling, to wit: "the evidence we obtained did not establish that the president was involved in an underling crime related to Russian election interference." Despite receiving and using information from likely Russian agents, the Trump campaign was not guilty of collusion or for that matter criminal conspiracy. For collusion you need a secret agreement between two or more parties for deceiving, misleading, or defrauding others of their legal rights, or to obtain an objective forbidden by law. The key is the agreement context. There was no evidence that using information provided by the Russians constituted an agreement, particularly without some quid pro quo. Collusion cases typically are though of in the business context, such as competing companies colluding on bidding or the like. Political campaigns (or journalists for that matter) get all types of political information from various sources including other countries (isreal and China, in particular, are infamous for doing this) which they publish without ever committing collusion. "

IMO, Adam Schiff really hurt Democrats by raising the bar on collusion. For two years, Schiff and other Democrats in Congress repeatedly claimed there was evidence of collusion. Time and again, Schiff said he had "direct" evidence of Trump illegally colluding with Russia and, since Barr's initial summary letter, doubled down on his claims before the report came out. What makes this really dumb is Schiff as a former federal prosecutor should have known just how hard it would be to demonstrate an agreement in this type of situation. What is more galling is the Mueller report says the Obama administration knew about the Russian effort in 2015, and (1) did nothing about it, including warning either Clinton or Trump, and (2) didn't warn off Schiff (particularly after leaving office) that there was no evidence of an agreement.

Making more measured statements would have not only achieved the goals of keeping the matter before the media and public, but not inflicted the political damage on the credibility of Democrats. This can get real ugly fast, with impeachment efforts as every leak by Dems or use of another governments money and information (can you say Clinton Foundation) will be thrown in their face.

Trump is being separately investigated for various matters that appear to have real legal merit and are obvious impeachable offenses (e.g, , tax fraud and evasion) that voters can relate to), The Dems should not gun jump again if they really want to impeach Trump (query if they are better off having him office?).

---

This is a distortion of what Schiff is saying. You claim Schiff said he had evidence of Trump "illegally" colluding with Russia. You need to remove the "illegally" part. What Schiff is saying is he has evidence of Trump colluding with Russia. To me, that is clear as day - maybe not in legalistic terms but in layman's terms. As Schiff said, "whether it's illegal or not". I also like Swalwell's approach that if what Trump did was not illegal, it should be. Congress should pass new laws to make it illegal. It was clearly unpatriotic and bad for the country.

Mueller is clear in his redacted report that he does not believe "collusion" is a legal term. That is the context.
I'll also add that Schiff hasn't "really hurt Democrats" anywhere but in the minds of Fox and Friends fanatics. Most people don't know who Schiff is, much less what he said.

---

This was actually verbatim what the CNN legal analyst said.

I agree most people don't know who Schiff is. Most people didn't even seriously follow the Russian investigation and those that vaguely followed thought they were told by the Democrats that Trump colluded with the Russians to steal the Presidency from Clinton, and that the Mueller report vindicated Trump. Most posters in the shallow vacuum of this O/T board said that repeatedly. That Schiff is now changing his narrative to "illegal or not" means very little except to partisan Democrats. What may be even more disheartening to you partisans is how little the American public actually cares about Russia. It is way down the list of important issues, now way more than ever. I think that American public can relate to something like tax evasion a lot better. Everyone pays taxes (even if just sales tax), and understands cheating on your taxes is wrong, or deducting your hush payments to your porn star girl friend. Belatedly "illegally or not" is a wonderful distinction few voters could give a sh!! about, on a topic very few voters now care about. And expecting a divided Congress to do anything more about the Russians is delusional, sticking with the basic perspectives of this board.

---

You are entitled to your opinions but not to a distortion of what people are saying. Schiff is not changing his narrative - you are changing his narrative.

---

And you are not entitled to revisionist history.

Since prior to Trump's inauguration in January 2017, Schiff had a media campaign claiming, among other things, that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russian government. he went frequent television interviews stating that there was "more than circumstantial evidence of collusion, but {I} can't go into particulars because they are matters on national security." No where did he ever discuss questions of legal versus non-legal or criminal collusion.

Then Mueller was appointed and In December 2017, he appeared on CNN's State of the Union.

"The Russians offered help, the campaign accepted help, the Russians gave help, and the president made full use of that help, and that is pretty damning, whether it is proof beyond a reasonable doubt of conspiracy or not," Schiff said. "Can you prove beyond a reasonable doubt, (that) will be Mueller's question to answer.

This was the first Schiff ever qualified his position on evidence of absolute collusion.

Then in late 2018 and 2019 Schiff said at various times on CNN: "There's clear evidence on the issue of collusion." No qualification about evidence beyond reasonable doubts or any other qualifications for Mueller. He did the same thing in a New York Times cover story. And on other stories.

The Schiff started repeating things other non-lawyer Dems said, which implied knowledge of classified facts that demonstrated collusion. No niceties about about reasonable doubt, Mueller or whatever.

Then there was this in early February 2018 press conference in response to why Schiff won't provide evidence, Schiff said: "If this were a trial on the issue of did the Trump campaign conspire with the Russians to interfere or violate U.S. election laws by providing help to the Trump campaign, if this were a trial on that conspiracy charge...all of that evidence would come in as evidence of collusion exists." This sounds f--ing legal to me. I mean you have a criminal trial, evidence, a jury finding. There isn't any qualification about illegal vs kinda legal, or we find collusion not as a legal term, or whatever other BS you are trying to manufacture from the jury.

And he had more comments in the vain. I mean what planet are you on that Schiff kept the same narrative? Schiff is not the local NPR station down here in LA constantly, and I heard him constantly and no where did he ever qualify his accusations with some type legal vs non-legal distinction.


Then came the letter from Barr and a Schiff tweet:

"Mueller did not find sufficient evidence to establish conspiracy, notwithstanding Russian offers to help Trump's campaign, their acceptance, and a litany of concealed interactions with Russia.


I trust Mueller's prosecutorial judgement, but the country must see the evidence."

This is a misstatement of the actual report which also did not find a collusive agreement, and from a lawyer's standpoint makes the comment about "acceptance" total BS. Mueller both found no conspiracy or agreement to collude, making the comment about agreement a complete misrepresentation and distortion of what the Mueller report finds. So I guess both of you are entitled to distort what people say.

BTW, next investigation-up, Ukraine influence on election.
As Russia collusion fades, Ukrainian plot to help Clinton emerges ...https://thehill.com/.../435029-as-russia-collusion-fades-ukrainian-plot-to-help-clinton-...

Schiff Concedes DNC Collusion with Ukrainian Government Inappropriate https://www.lifezette.com/2017/07/schiff-concedes-dnc-collusion-ukrainian-government-inappropriate/ via @LifeZette

Taste of Ukraine Reception for Rep. Adam Schiff (D, CA-29) - Political ...politicalpartytime.org/party/34974/

Move on to tax evasion, now.
[url=https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=24&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwiuvfzZveThAhVIEawKHaTjAQA4FBAWMAN6BAgEEAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fpoliticalpartytime.org%2Fparty%2F34974%2F&usg=AOvVaw2gWlrv8UvQ1-ppiTxuSHIV][/url]

---

This is typical wiaf. When caught distorting he goes off on a very long tirade which neither makes his point nor refutes mine.

---

et me make It shorter for you so you understand. You made up some bull that Adam Shiff position was that Trump never said Trump illegally colluded, just colluded. You lied. He repeatedly said that, even to the extend he said a jury would convict Trump of illegally colluding. Is that short enough for you? I can't keep laying out all the time he did say that because apparently that is too long for you to understand.

Yogi Bear said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

This is typical wiaf. When caught distorting he goes off on a very long tirade which neither makes his point nor refutes mine.

---

It's rather evident that deep in his soul, he realizes that he shouldn't have voted for Trump, but he will twist up logic to the nth degree to not have to admit it. I could almost have compassion for someone who voted that way and at least had the decency to admit that he screwed up. For someone who paints himself as a swing voter who is happy to vote for a variety of Democrats and then gives you the Fox & Friends answer when his feet are held to the fire? I'm gonna hold him to his ****ty decision and his willingness to put himself ahead of his country.

---

Oh for a man that longs for an echo chamber with just his views. Get over it, Clinton lost. The posters got you right on this:

Anarchistbear said:

---

Impeachment is a waste of time. It is one of our parties seeking to deligitimize the other by political means rather than the ballot box.

The Mueller report is the Impeachment- it says that Trump is legitimately elected but serves only himself by any means necessary . That's all the voters need to know. Let them decide.

---

Will Pelosi may be right in that regard. The Dems may be better with him in office. The bozos here have not even read the part about his personal dysfunction, not realizing his orders to all these staffers to fire Mueller were not being carried out is pathetic, and calls Into question Trump's mental state. I was expecting this, not some BS about "non-legal" collusion.

That said, as another poster noted, the Dems are bad at this. They seem quite capable of electing someone that can lose to Trump. Look at 2016.

wifeisafurd said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

I'm a retired lawyer, but have to give you the report from experts on the local public radio station as to Mueller report determination.

The report flatly states that Russian interference efforts began in 2014, continued in 2015 and blossomed into a full-blown effort to meddle in the 2016 presidential election. The report found no evidence that the Trump campaign coordinated with Russia on election meddling, to wit: "the evidence we obtained did not establish that the president was involved in an underling crime related to Russian election interference." Despite receiving and using information from likely Russian agents, the Trump campaign was not guilty of collusion or for that matter criminal conspiracy. For collusion you need a secret agreement between two or more parties for deceiving, misleading, or defrauding others of their legal rights, or to obtain an objective forbidden by law. The key is the agreement context. There was no evidence that using information provided by the Russians constituted an agreement, particularly without some quid pro quo. Collusion cases typically are though of in the business context, such as competing companies colluding on bidding or the like. Political campaigns (or journalists for that matter) get all types of political information from various sources including other countries (isreal and China, in particular, are infamous for doing this) which they publish without ever committing collusion. "

IMO, Adam Schiff really hurt Democrats by raising the bar on collusion. For two years, Schiff and other Democrats in Congress repeatedly claimed there was evidence of collusion. Time and again, Schiff said he had "direct" evidence of Trump illegally colluding with Russia and, since Barr's initial summary letter, doubled down on his claims before the report came out. What makes this really dumb is Schiff as a former federal prosecutor should have known just how hard it would be to demonstrate an agreement in this type of situation. What is more galling is the Mueller report says the Obama administration knew about the Russian effort in 2015, and (1) did nothing about it, including warning either Clinton or Trump, and (2) didn't warn off Schiff (particularly after leaving office) that there was no evidence of an agreement.

Making more measured statements would have not only achieved the goals of keeping the matter before the media and public, but not inflicted the political damage on the credibility of Democrats. This can get real ugly fast, with impeachment efforts as every leak by Dems or use of another governments money and information (can you say Clinton Foundation) will be thrown in their face.

Trump is being separately investigated for various matters that appear to have real legal merit and are obvious impeachable offenses (e.g, , tax fraud and evasion) that voters can relate to), The Dems should not gun jump again if they really want to impeach Trump (query if they are better off having him office?).

---

This is a distortion of what Schiff is saying. You claim Schiff said he had evidence of Trump "illegally" colluding with Russia. You need to remove the "illegally" part. What Schiff is saying is he has evidence of Trump colluding with Russia. To me, that is clear as day - maybe not in legalistic terms but in layman's terms. As Schiff said, "whether it's illegal or not". I also like Swalwell's approach that if what Trump did was not illegal, it should be. Congress should pass new laws to make it illegal. It was clearly unpatriotic and bad for the country.

Mueller is clear in his redacted report that he does not believe "collusion" is a legal term. That is the context.
I'll also add that Schiff hasn't "really hurt Democrats" anywhere but in the minds of Fox and Friends fanatics. Most people don't know who Schiff is, much less what he said.

---

This was actually verbatim what the CNN legal analyst said.

I agree most people don't know who Schiff is. Most people didn't even seriously follow the Russian investigation and those that vaguely followed thought they were told by the Democrats that Trump colluded with the Russians to steal the Presidency from Clinton, and that the Mueller report vindicated Trump. Most posters in the shallow vacuum of this O/T board said that repeatedly. That Schiff is now changing his narrative to "illegal or not" means very little except to partisan Democrats. What may be even more disheartening to you partisans is how little the American public actually cares about Russia. It is way down the list of important issues, now way more than ever. I think that American public can relate to something like tax evasion a lot better. Everyone pays taxes (even if just sales tax), and understands cheating on your taxes is wrong, or deducting your hush payments to your porn star girl friend. Belatedly "illegally or not" is a wonderful distinction few voters could give a sh!! about, on a topic very few voters now care about. And expecting a divided Congress to do anything more about the Russians is delusional, sticking with the basic perspectives of this board.

---

You are entitled to your opinions but not to a distortion of what people are saying. Schiff is not changing his narrative - you are changing his narrative.

---

And you are not entitled to revisionist history.

Since prior to Trump's inauguration in January 2017, Schiff had a media campaign claiming, among other things, that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russian government. he went frequent television interviews stating that there was "more than circumstantial evidence of collusion, but {I} can't go into particulars because they are matters on national security." No where did he ever discuss questions of legal versus non-legal or criminal collusion.

Then Mueller was appointed and In December 2017, he appeared on CNN's State of the Union.

"The Russians offered help, the campaign accepted help, the Russians gave help, and the president made full use of that help, and that is pretty damning, whether it is proof beyond a reasonable doubt of conspiracy or not," Schiff said. "Can you prove beyond a reasonable doubt, (that) will be Mueller's question to answer.

This was the first Schiff ever qualified his position on evidence of absolute collusion.

Then in late 2018 and 2019 Schiff said at various times on CNN: "There's clear evidence on the issue of collusion." No qualification about evidence beyond reasonable doubts or any other qualifications for Mueller. He did the same thing in a New York Times cover story. And on other stories.

The Schiff started repeating things other non-lawyer Dems said, which implied knowledge of classified facts that demonstrated collusion. No niceties about about reasonable doubt, Mueller or whatever.

Then there was this in early February 2018 press conference in response to why Schiff won't provide evidence, Schiff said: "If this were a trial on the issue of did the Trump campaign conspire with the Russians to interfere or violate U.S. election laws by providing help to the Trump campaign, if this were a trial on that conspiracy charge...all of that evidence would come in as evidence of collusion exists." This sounds f--ing legal to me. I mean you have a criminal trial, evidence, a jury finding. There isn't any qualification about illegal vs kinda legal, or we find collusion not as a legal term, or whatever other BS you are trying to manufacture from the jury.

And he had more comments in the vain. I mean what planet are you on that Schiff kept the same narrative? Schiff is not the local NPR station down here in LA constantly, and I heard him constantly and no where did he ever qualify his accusations with some type legal vs non-legal distinction.


Then came the letter from Barr and a Schiff tweet:

"Mueller did not find sufficient evidence to establish conspiracy, notwithstanding Russian offers to help Trump's campaign, their acceptance, and a litany of concealed interactions with Russia.


I trust Mueller's prosecutorial judgement, but the country must see the evidence."

This is a misstatement of the actual report which also did not find a collusive agreement, and from a lawyer's standpoint makes the comment about "acceptance" total BS. Mueller both found no conspiracy or agreement to collude, making the comment about agreement a complete misrepresentation and distortion of what the Mueller report finds. So I guess both of you are entitled to distort what people say.

BTW, next investigation-up, Ukraine influence on election.
As Russia collusion fades, Ukrainian plot to help Clinton emerges ...https://thehill.com/.../435029-as-russia-collusion-fades-ukrainian-plot-to-help-clinton-...

Schiff Concedes DNC Collusion with Ukrainian Government Inappropriate https://www.lifezette.com/2017/07/schiff-concedes-dnc-collusion-ukrainian-government-inappropriate/ via @LifeZette

Taste of Ukraine Reception for Rep. Adam Schiff (D, CA-29) - Political ...politicalpartytime.org/party/34974/

Move on to tax evasion, now.
[url=https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=24&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwiuvfzZveThAhVIEawKHaTjAQA4FBAWMAN6BAgEEAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fpoliticalpartytime.org%2Fparty%2F34974%2F&usg=AOvVaw2gWlrv8UvQ1-ppiTxuSHIV][/url]

---

This is typical wiaf. When caught distorting he goes off on a very long tirade which neither makes his point nor refutes mine.

---

et me make It shorter for you so you understand. You made up some bull that Adam Shiff position was that Trump never said Trump illegally colluded, just colluded. You lied. He repeatedly said that, even to the extend he said a jury would convict Trump of illegally colluding. Is that short enough for you? I can't keep laying out all the time he did say that because apparently that is too long for you to understand.

---

You don't seem to be able to differentiate between collusion and conspiracy. Or between evidence and indictment. SAD.

dajo9 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

I'm a retired lawyer, but have to give you the report from experts on the local public radio station as to Mueller report determination.

The report flatly states that Russian interference efforts began in 2014, continued in 2015 and blossomed into a full-blown effort to meddle in the 2016 presidential election. The report found no evidence that the Trump campaign coordinated with Russia on election meddling, to wit: "the evidence we obtained did not establish that the president was involved in an underling crime related to Russian election interference." Despite receiving and using information from likely Russian agents, the Trump campaign was not guilty of collusion or for that matter criminal conspiracy. For collusion you need a secret agreement between two or more parties for deceiving, misleading, or defrauding others of their legal rights, or to obtain an objective forbidden by law. The key is the agreement context. There was no evidence that using information provided by the Russians constituted an agreement, particularly without some quid pro quo. Collusion cases typically are though of in the business context, such as competing companies colluding on bidding or the like. Political campaigns (or journalists for that matter) get all types of political information from various sources including other countries (isreal and China, in particular, are infamous for doing this) which they publish without ever committing collusion. "

IMO, Adam Schiff really hurt Democrats by raising the bar on collusion. For two years, Schiff and other Democrats in Congress repeatedly claimed there was evidence of collusion. Time and again, Schiff said he had "direct" evidence of Trump illegally colluding with Russia and, since Barr's initial summary letter, doubled down on his claims before the report came out. What makes this really dumb is Schiff as a former federal prosecutor should have known just how hard it would be to demonstrate an agreement in this type of situation. What is more galling is the Mueller report says the Obama administration knew about the Russian effort in 2015, and (1) did nothing about it, including warning either Clinton or Trump, and (2) didn't warn off Schiff (particularly after leaving office) that there was no evidence of an agreement.

Making more measured statements would have not only achieved the goals of keeping the matter before the media and public, but not inflicted the political damage on the credibility of Democrats. This can get real ugly fast, with impeachment efforts as every leak by Dems or use of another governments money and information (can you say Clinton Foundation) will be thrown in their face.

Trump is being separately investigated for various matters that appear to have real legal merit and are obvious impeachable offenses (e.g, , tax fraud and evasion) that voters can relate to), The Dems should not gun jump again if they really want to impeach Trump (query if they are better off having him office?).

---

This is a distortion of what Schiff is saying. You claim Schiff said he had evidence of Trump "illegally" colluding with Russia. You need to remove the "illegally" part. What Schiff is saying is he has evidence of Trump colluding with Russia. To me, that is clear as day - maybe not in legalistic terms but in layman's terms. As Schiff said, "whether it's illegal or not". I also like Swalwell's approach that if what Trump did was not illegal, it should be. Congress should pass new laws to make it illegal. It was clearly unpatriotic and bad for the country.

Mueller is clear in his redacted report that he does not believe "collusion" is a legal term. That is the context.
I'll also add that Schiff hasn't "really hurt Democrats" anywhere but in the minds of Fox and Friends fanatics. Most people don't know who Schiff is, much less what he said.

---

This was actually verbatim what the CNN legal analyst said.

I agree most people don't know who Schiff is. Most people didn't even seriously follow the Russian investigation and those that vaguely followed thought they were told by the Democrats that Trump colluded with the Russians to steal the Presidency from Clinton, and that the Mueller report vindicated Trump. Most posters in the shallow vacuum of this O/T board said that repeatedly. That Schiff is now changing his narrative to "illegal or not" means very little except to partisan Democrats. What may be even more disheartening to you partisans is how little the American public actually cares about Russia. It is way down the list of important issues, now way more than ever. I think that American public can relate to something like tax evasion a lot better. Everyone pays taxes (even if just sales tax), and understands cheating on your taxes is wrong, or deducting your hush payments to your porn star girl friend. Belatedly "illegally or not" is a wonderful distinction few voters could give a sh!! about, on a topic very few voters now care about. And expecting a divided Congress to do anything more about the Russians is delusional, sticking with the basic perspectives of this board.

---

You are entitled to your opinions but not to a distortion of what people are saying. Schiff is not changing his narrative - you are changing his narrative.

---

And you are not entitled to revisionist history.

Since prior to Trump's inauguration in January 2017, Schiff had a media campaign claiming, among other things, that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russian government. he went frequent television interviews stating that there was "more than circumstantial evidence of collusion, but {I} can't go into particulars because they are matters on national security." No where did he ever discuss questions of legal versus non-legal or criminal collusion.

Then Mueller was appointed and In December 2017, he appeared on CNN's State of the Union.

"The Russians offered help, the campaign accepted help, the Russians gave help, and the president made full use of that help, and that is pretty damning, whether it is proof beyond a reasonable doubt of conspiracy or not," Schiff said. "Can you prove beyond a reasonable doubt, (that) will be Mueller's question to answer.

This was the first Schiff ever qualified his position on evidence of absolute collusion.

Then in late 2018 and 2019 Schiff said at various times on CNN: "There's clear evidence on the issue of collusion." No qualification about evidence beyond reasonable doubts or any other qualifications for Mueller. He did the same thing in a New York Times cover story. And on other stories.

The Schiff started repeating things other non-lawyer Dems said, which implied knowledge of classified facts that demonstrated collusion. No niceties about about reasonable doubt, Mueller or whatever.

Then there was this in early February 2018 press conference in response to why Schiff won't provide evidence, Schiff said: "If this were a trial on the issue of did the Trump campaign conspire with the Russians to interfere or violate U.S. election laws by providing help to the Trump campaign, if this were a trial on that conspiracy charge...all of that evidence would come in as evidence of collusion exists." This sounds f--ing legal to me. I mean you have a criminal trial, evidence, a jury finding. There isn't any qualification about illegal vs kinda legal, or we find collusion not as a legal term, or whatever other BS you are trying to manufacture from the jury.

And he had more comments in the vain. I mean what planet are you on that Schiff kept the same narrative? Schiff is not the local NPR station down here in LA constantly, and I heard him constantly and no where did he ever qualify his accusations with some type legal vs non-legal distinction.


Then came the letter from Barr and a Schiff tweet:

"Mueller did not find sufficient evidence to establish conspiracy, notwithstanding Russian offers to help Trump's campaign, their acceptance, and a litany of concealed interactions with Russia.


I trust Mueller's prosecutorial judgement, but the country must see the evidence."

This is a misstatement of the actual report which also did not find a collusive agreement, and from a lawyer's standpoint makes the comment about "acceptance" total BS. Mueller both found no conspiracy or agreement to collude, making the comment about agreement a complete misrepresentation and distortion of what the Mueller report finds. So I guess both of you are entitled to distort what people say.

BTW, next investigation-up, Ukraine influence on election.
As Russia collusion fades, Ukrainian plot to help Clinton emerges ...https://thehill.com/.../435029-as-russia-collusion-fades-ukrainian-plot-to-help-clinton-...

Schiff Concedes DNC Collusion with Ukrainian Government Inappropriate https://www.lifezette.com/2017/07/schiff-concedes-dnc-collusion-ukrainian-government-inappropriate/ via @LifeZette

Taste of Ukraine Reception for Rep. Adam Schiff (D, CA-29) - Political ...politicalpartytime.org/party/34974/

Move on to tax evasion, now.
[url=https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=24&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwiuvfzZveThAhVIEawKHaTjAQA4FBAWMAN6BAgEEAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fpoliticalpartytime.org%2Fparty%2F34974%2F&usg=AOvVaw2gWlrv8UvQ1-ppiTxuSHIV][/url]

---

This is typical wiaf. When caught distorting he goes off on a very long tirade which neither makes his point nor refutes mine.

---

et me make It shorter for you so you understand. You made up some bull that Adam Shiff position was that Trump never said Trump illegally colluded, just colluded. You lied. He repeatedly said that, even to the extend he said a jury would convict Trump of illegally colluding. Is that short enough for you? I can't keep laying out all the time he did say that because apparently that is too long for you to understand.

---

You don't seem to be able to differentiate between collusion and conspiracy. Or between evidence and indictment. SAD.

---

sure I can. Collusion and conspiracy were what Mueller found there was insufficient evidence to actually charge, despite Adam Schiff telling us there was sufficient evidence to actually convict, no less even charge. Evidence also is something Adam Schiff says he has but can't tell us what it is. Indictment is a new word for you. It may actually become relevant as around 13 matters were referred out by Mueller, and other prosecutors may provide indictments. Trump may be an un-indicted party if the prosecution is federal, as I believe the Justice Department is bound by internal legal opinions that a sitting President can't be indicted. A state AG would not be limited by those opinions. Stick to BSing people on financial matters, since you are out of league on legal ones.

wifeisafurd said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

You don't seem to be able to differentiate between collusion and conspiracy. Or between evidence and indictment. SAD.

---

sure I can. Collusion and conspiracy were what Mueller found there was insufficient evidence to actually charge,

---

I'm pretty sure Mueller said he was making no determination on collusion.

https://washingtonmonthly.com/2019/04/22/the-mueller-report-didnt-absolve-trump-of-collusion/

Quote:

---

In evaluating whether evidence about collective action of multiple individuals constituted a crime, we applied the framework of conspiracy law, not the concept of "collusion." In so doing, the Office recognized that the word "collud[e]"has frequently been invoked in public reporting about the investigation. But 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. For those reasons, the Office's focus in analyzing questions of joint criminal liability was on conspiracy as defined in federal law.

---

His report did say there was insufficient evidence to charge the Trump campaign with conspiracy.

So no, you can't lump both of those words together and say that Mueller provided results on both.

sycasey said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

You don't seem to be able to differentiate between collusion and conspiracy. Or between evidence and indictment. SAD.

---

sure I can. Collusion and conspiracy were what Mueller found there was insufficient evidence to actually charge,

---

I'm pretty sure Mueller said he was making no determination on collusion.

https://washingtonmonthly.com/2019/04/22/the-mueller-report-didnt-absolve-trump-of-collusion/

Quote:

---

In evaluating whether evidence about collective action of multiple individuals constituted a crime, we applied the framework of conspiracy law, not the concept of "collusion." In so doing, the Office recognized that the word "collud[e]"has frequently been invoked in public reporting about the investigation. But 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. For those reasons, the Office's focus in analyzing questions of joint criminal liability was on conspiracy as defined in federal law.

---

His report did say there was insufficient evidence to charge the Trump campaign with conspiracy.

So no, you can't lump both of those words together and say that Mueller provided results on both.

---

Some legal concepts are getting mixed by Dajo, which are leading to confusion, and I suggest you read the Report more carefully.

Collusion: There is an underlying crime of collusion (as opposed to the word collude). This is repetitive from an early post, but the federal crime of collusion is a secret agreement between two or more parties to limit open competition by deceiving, misleading, or defrauding others of their legal rights, or to obtain an objective forbidden by law typically by defrauding or gaining an unfair market advantage. This is not Fox News as '71 rants, but a statute. in fact, federal prosecutors periodically bring charges against companies who rig federal bids for collusion for example. There was a direct finding of no collusion by Mueller Report and I posted that exact language. Again this was not Fox News as '71 rants, but Mueller's actual finding. This has nothing to do with the word collude, which is a general term.

Conspiracy: There are basically 5 elements for the crime of federal Conspiracy. Those elements are: 1. You must have 2 or more persons who 2. Intentionally 3. make an agreement (emphasis added) 4. to violate federal law or defraud the United states, and then 5. Commit some overt act in furtherance of the agreement. This also is statue, and not Fox News. So the example here would be that the Trump campaign, consisting of the President (who would be an un-indicted conspirator) and others in his campaign, had an agreement with the Russians to to rig the election (which would violate federal law - the Mueller Report did find the Russians violated federal law). The Mueller Report found no agreement with the Russians and the Trump campaign (again I quoted directly from the Mueller Report); thus no conspiracy. Again, I quoted directly from the Report, not Fox News.

These are two different federal statues and crimes.

Here is the best discussion I have heard by actual knowledgeable lawyers (note this is NPR, not Fox News for those who like to rant):

Ken White on the Mueller report with Left, Right & Center https://kcrw.co/2W2LdGw

You may recall the OP asked for an explanation of why Mueller found what he found. I provided a summary by someone else who is CNN's legal expert (and actually was the guy who launched on Schiff for gun jumping) and was called a partisan. I'm not sure what else needs to be said. Some people simply can't accept the findings of the Report and attack those who try to explain the Report. You can Google Ken to see his qualifications, but he is the guy on federal criminal stuff in SoCal, and certainly no partisan Trump reporter.

I strongly recommend listening to the NPR link, it suggests the most relevant matters with the the Mueller Report are not the criminal findings, but the Report's report of Trump's erratic behavior. Hopefully, this makes Anti's posts (which I tend to agree with) make even more sense.

Sorry if this is too long for some to be able to follow.