3 ms·

It was an investigation into whether Trump colluded with the Russians. Even the American Bar Association observed that Mueller found no evidence that Trump coll

It was an investigation into whether Trump colluded with the Russians. Even the American Bar Association observed that Mueller found no evidence that Trump colluded with the Russians[0]: "The special counsel found that Russia did interfere with the election, but “did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in these efforts, despite multiple efforts from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign." Obviously "things were uncovered". People were charged. But their charges were obviously not related to Trump-Russia collusion, given Mueller's findings. So why is it that half of the country believes that he did? The answer is so, so obvious. But hey, maybe you have a better handle on this whole thing than the ABA. I'd be glad to hear your thoughts. [0]https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/aba-news-archives/2019/03/mueller-concludes-investigation/ https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/aba-news-archives/2...

kenjackson 6y ago
Mueller himself said he made no determination on collusion.
- marcusverus 6y ago
  This is tantamount to saying that he did not prove a negative. Of course he didn't.
  - kenjackson 6y ago
    No it’s not. Mueller stated “if we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so”. Mueller felt as if his hands were tied in his ability to present evidence to prosecute a sitting President. And the final Senate report details even more communication than previously believed. But since it came out in August, it really got less media attention than it deserved. https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/press/senate-intel-releases-volume-5-bipartisan-russia-report https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/press/senate-intel-relea...
    - vharuck 6y ago
      Specifically, the report stated there could be no accusation that any sitting President committed a crime because it would be unfair. Mueller knew the Justice Department would not charge a sitting President, meaning the President would've been effectively denied the right to defend himself in court. Sadly, Barr took the opportunity to put a different PR spin on the lack of accusation.
    - marcusverus 6y ago
      >“if we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so” Say your spouse suspects you of being in contact with your ex, so she hires a private investigator. She is not sure whether you spoke to your ex in person, by phone, or through one of several dozen close confidants with whom you regularly interact. After the investigation, she asks the PI whether he is confident that you did not make contact with your ex. How could he possibly be? The sheer number of contact interactions makes it impossible to rule out. This is why our criminal justice system operates on the presumption of innocence. For many crimes, it is practically impossible to arrive at "confidence that the [accused] clearly did not commit a crime". >Mueller felt as if his hands were tied in his ability to present evidence to prosecute a sitting President. Given that the report stated outright that there was no evidence of collusion, I assume this is in reference to the question of obstruction, which is out of scope.
      - kenjackson 6y ago
        You need to go back and look at the statement he made. He never says anything to the effect of "you can't prove a negative". Or "we scoured everything and could find no evidence whatsoever, but still doesn't mean that there might have been something he dud". No, immediately following the statement about "we would have said so", he goes into -- "a current president can not be charged with a federal crime ...". He then goes on to say that he was bound by this property. That's an odd next statement for someone you think is innocent, but just can't prove a negative. With a new attorney general and Trump about to no longer be an an active President, we may revisit this.
tom-_- 6y ago
The parent's link provides a fair summary of the report and is more detailed than the ABA statement, which is also fair, just less detailed. The investigation was about two things; Trump's collusion with Russia AND the obstruction of justice. The report finds no overt collusion between Trump and the Russians. It details promises of influence to the Ukranians and the Russians by sleazy power brokers like Paul Manafort and Felix Sater, and Trump's associates soliciting Russians and pretty much anyone for Hilary's deleted emails but again, no substantial evidence of direct collusion. Whether there was obstruction of justice seems like a much more legitimate cause for outrage. https://www.lawfareblog.com/obstruction-justice-mueller-report-heat-map https://www.lawfareblog.com/obstruction-justice-mueller-repo... details the numerous ways this was attempted, though full-disclosure Brookings is left-leaning centrist think tank. The full report is here https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf which you don't need to pass the bar to comprehend, though you do need a lot of free time. I've only read a few parts but it's further confirmed my belief that all politicians (right and left) are completely unscrupulous and must be in order win. "Democracy" is a vague, fungible concept that anyone vying for power will either disregard or interpret in their favor.
- marcusverus 6y ago
  I certainly agree that there is some substance to the section on obstruction, but let's take a step back and follow the thread here. 1) OP says Democrats haven't undermined democracy since the civil war. 2). I observe that Democrat leadership actively pushed the unsubstantiated conspiracy theory that Trump colluded with the Russians to gain power. 3) I provide evidence that half of the country believes that the President of the United States conspired with Russia to gain power. The fact that Trump may have obstructed the investigation matters--of course it does. And if he did, he should have been punished for it. But even if he did attempt to obstruct the investigation, that does not change the basic fact that the Democrats actively undermined our Democratic institutions by convincing the American people, with out evidence, that the President was in cahoots with the Russians. I have not intended to assert that Trump is as clean as a whistle, or that the Mueller report found nothing at all. (My 'zero evidence' claim above was vague and lazy--it was intended to refer to the question of collusion alone) My intent was to convey that there is no evidence of collusion, and that the fact that the American people were intentionally mislead on this point was the result of a concerted effort by the Democrats to mislead the American people and undermining faith in the President (and, necessarily, the presidency and our republic as a whole. It is also true that charges were brought due the the Mueller probe, though none led to any charges related to colluding with the Russians to affect the outcome of the Election. It is also true that Trump may have obstructed the investigation. All three are true. The fact that folks are refusing to address the first fact by merely observing the second and third facts should indicate how masterfully those other issues--which are related to the Mueller investigation but have no bearing on the question of collusion--have been used to muddy the waters and cover for the Democrats' role in spreading the collusion conspiracy theory, at great cost to the country.

kenjackson 6y ago

Mueller himself said he made no determination on collusion.

marcusverus 6y ago
This is tantamount to saying that he did not prove a negative. Of course he didn't.
- kenjackson 6y ago
  No it’s not. Mueller stated “if we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so”. Mueller felt as if his hands were tied in his ability to present evidence to prosecute a sitting President. And the final Senate report details even more communication than previously believed. But since it came out in August, it really got less media attention than it deserved. https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/press/senate-intel-releases-volume-5-bipartisan-russia-report https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/press/senate-intel-relea...
  - vharuck 6y ago
    Specifically, the report stated there could be no accusation that any sitting President committed a crime because it would be unfair. Mueller knew the Justice Department would not charge a sitting President, meaning the President would've been effectively denied the right to defend himself in court. Sadly, Barr took the opportunity to put a different PR spin on the lack of accusation.
  - marcusverus 6y ago
    >“if we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so” Say your spouse suspects you of being in contact with your ex, so she hires a private investigator. She is not sure whether you spoke to your ex in person, by phone, or through one of several dozen close confidants with whom you regularly interact. After the investigation, she asks the PI whether he is confident that you did not make contact with your ex. How could he possibly be? The sheer number of contact interactions makes it impossible to rule out. This is why our criminal justice system operates on the presumption of innocence. For many crimes, it is practically impossible to arrive at "confidence that the [accused] clearly did not commit a crime". >Mueller felt as if his hands were tied in his ability to present evidence to prosecute a sitting President. Given that the report stated outright that there was no evidence of collusion, I assume this is in reference to the question of obstruction, which is out of scope.
    - kenjackson 6y ago
      You need to go back and look at the statement he made. He never says anything to the effect of "you can't prove a negative". Or "we scoured everything and could find no evidence whatsoever, but still doesn't mean that there might have been something he dud". No, immediately following the statement about "we would have said so", he goes into -- "a current president can not be charged with a federal crime ...". He then goes on to say that he was bound by this property. That's an odd next statement for someone you think is innocent, but just can't prove a negative. With a new attorney general and Trump about to no longer be an an active President, we may revisit this.

tom-_- 6y ago

The parent's link provides a fair summary of the report and is more detailed than the ABA statement, which is also fair, just less detailed. The investigation was about two things; Trump's collusion with Russia AND the obstruction of justice. The report finds no overt collusion between Trump and the Russians. It details promises of influence to the Ukranians and the Russians by sleazy power brokers like Paul Manafort and Felix Sater, and Trump's associates soliciting Russians and pretty much anyone for Hilary's deleted emails but again, no substantial evidence of direct collusion. Whether there was obstruction of justice seems like a much more legitimate cause for outrage. https://www.lawfareblog.com/obstruction-justice-mueller-report-heat-map https://www.lawfareblog.com/obstruction-justice-mueller-repo... details the numerous ways this was attempted, though full-disclosure Brookings is left-leaning centrist think tank. The full report is here https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf which you don't need to pass the bar to comprehend, though you do need a lot of free time. I've only read a few parts but it's further confirmed my belief that all politicians (right and left) are completely unscrupulous and must be in order win. "Democracy" is a vague, fungible concept that anyone vying for power will either disregard or interpret in their favor.

marcusverus 6y ago
I certainly agree that there is some substance to the section on obstruction, but let's take a step back and follow the thread here. 1) OP says Democrats haven't undermined democracy since the civil war. 2). I observe that Democrat leadership actively pushed the unsubstantiated conspiracy theory that Trump colluded with the Russians to gain power. 3) I provide evidence that half of the country believes that the President of the United States conspired with Russia to gain power. The fact that Trump may have obstructed the investigation matters--of course it does. And if he did, he should have been punished for it. But even if he did attempt to obstruct the investigation, that does not change the basic fact that the Democrats actively undermined our Democratic institutions by convincing the American people, with out evidence, that the President was in cahoots with the Russians. I have not intended to assert that Trump is as clean as a whistle, or that the Mueller report found nothing at all. (My 'zero evidence' claim above was vague and lazy--it was intended to refer to the question of collusion alone) My intent was to convey that there is no evidence of collusion, and that the fact that the American people were intentionally mislead on this point was the result of a concerted effort by the Democrats to mislead the American people and undermining faith in the President (and, necessarily, the presidency and our republic as a whole. It is also true that charges were brought due the the Mueller probe, though none led to any charges related to colluding with the Russians to affect the outcome of the Election. It is also true that Trump may have obstructed the investigation. All three are true. The fact that folks are refusing to address the first fact by merely observing the second and third facts should indicate how masterfully those other issues--which are related to the Mueller investigation but have no bearing on the question of collusion--have been used to muddy the waters and cover for the Democrats' role in spreading the collusion conspiracy theory, at great cost to the country.