A few things you might have missed from the Mueller report

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Fubijag West Jordan, UT
    April 22, 2019 9:21 a.m.

    Karen,
    Let's break down your statements and address your points one by one ok?
    1. " the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."
    this quote says it all. "There was no conspiracy"

    2. "They didn't help Putin hack/steal Dem info. They didn't help them buy the FB ads or set up the Twitter bots. They just made use of the results of Russian efforts to undermine our nation, even when they knew what it was up to, because it conveniently served their purposes too."
    If it was working the other way do you really belive that Hillary Clinton would have said "Hey everybody the russians are putting out fake news so don't belive anything bad about Trump that you hear". Is that what Trumps team should have done?

    3. Honestly, the more this sinks in the more I wonder how the heck this isn't aiding and abetting the enemy.
    Aiding and abetting the enemy only applies during war. Did I miss the declaration of war? Also, I remember how the left laughed at Romney during the 2012 debates when he stated our biggest foreign policy issue was Russia. Now suddenly Russia is the ENEMY?

  • Fubijag West Jordan, UT
    April 22, 2019 8:33 a.m.

    It's funny to me that the people who claim that because the Investigations into Hillary's emails and the clinton foundation did not lead to any indictments that she was exonerated, are the same people who claim that because the mueller report did not lead to indictments does not exonerate Trump. This seems highly partisan and hypocritical. And yes I recognize that it goes the other way with those who feel that clinton was not exonerated. In politics it is not about the truth, it is all about the spin.

  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    April 21, 2019 5:37 p.m.

    @ RiDal

    "So now the Trump-hate narratve shifts to: Oh, it was there, but just not enough to indict him?"

    No need, IMO. Sticking with what was found is bad enough. Once again, from pp. 1-2 of the report:

    "Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."

    They didn't help Putin hack/steal Dem info. They didn't help them buy the FB ads or set up the Twitter bots. They just made use of the results of Russian efforts to undermine our nation, even when they knew what it was up to, because it conveniently served their purposes too.

    Honestly, the more this sinks in the more I wonder how the heck this isn't aiding and abetting the enemy.

  • RiDal Sandy, UT
    April 21, 2019 9:35 a.m.

    No evidence of collusion is...no evidence.
    So now the Trump-hate narratve shifts to: Oh, it was there, but just not enough to indict him?

    Yeah..*No Evidence* is not enough to indict anyone.
    "No" means "none".

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    April 21, 2019 8:39 a.m.

    "Russian collusion or no Russian collusion. Hmm? But there is no law against that."
    Worf, you may have touched upon something that I've been thinking about since the book report from Barr a few weeks ago. Every now and again we hear people playing semantic games with the word 'collusion'. You're correct in that there is no law against collusion. The Mueller report addresses this point on page 2 noting that "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"
    'No Collusion' is as valuable a statement as 'No Unicorns'. That there was none is irrelevant and claiming it is deceptive.

  • one old man MSC, UT
    April 21, 2019 8:28 a.m.

    RiDal - Sandy, UT
    April 20, 2019 11:30 a.m.
    No evidence of collusion by Trump, any member of his campaign, or any other American citizen.

    Democrats seem to keep missing that part. I suggest searching for information on "psychological scotoma".
    =====

    RiDal, have you actually read any of the report? From page 2 : "...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...

    Fourth, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice , we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment. The evidence we obtained about the President 's actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."

    trump -- yet again -- managed to slither out

  • Utefan60 , 00
    April 20, 2019 7:11 p.m.

    worf - McAllen, TX said:

    "Russian collusion or no Russian collusion. Hmm? But there is no law against that."

    Actually there is laws against that. There are laws about lying about it also. The Mueller report did not exonerate Trump from Obstruction. Worf. It is not only illigal, but more important, immoral.

    But your side could care less about that kind of damage to the US, and our sacred election system as long as you get what you want, right?

  • worf McAllen, TX
    April 20, 2019 6:29 p.m.

    Russian collusion or no Russian collusion. Hmm? But there is no law against that.

    Everything else is irrelevant.

  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    April 20, 2019 5:55 p.m.

    Dishonest Don is out of control

  • Ralph Salt Lake City, UT
    April 20, 2019 5:49 p.m.

    @Ridal "No evidence of collusion by Trump, any member of his campaign, or any other American citizen."

    And yet, Trump and his associates had over 100 contacts with Russians, both spies and business people.

    How odd.

  • Utefan60 , 00
    April 20, 2019 5:31 p.m.

    It is amazing to see the twist of the real facts by the Trump supporters. Can they at least read the report?

    Is it too easy for them to turn on Fox News, and become a thinker that allows others to think for them?

    It is impossible to draw a conclusion of complete innocence about Trump. Impossible!

    Trump supporters, how many convictions and people have been charged under this investigation? Can you at least take a few minutes away from fake news and look it up? Seriously, as one educated poster here has said many times. "get educated".

  • Frozen Fractals Salt Lake City, UT
    April 20, 2019 3:27 p.m.

    Notice how those whose reaction to Barr's 4 page summary was one of giddy notes of total exoneration are now upset with Mueller again as more becomes known, and those whose reaction was one of caution and waiting til the report are correct in their concern that there'd be troubling things in there. They wouldn't be trying to belittle the investigators and dismiss them if the report really was what Barr initially suggested it was.

  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    April 20, 2019 3:21 p.m.

    @ RiDal

    Thought I'd make it plain: The reason Barr could say "no collusion" over and over again is because collusion wasn't investigated. Clever of him, eh? I bet he was counting on Trump loyalists to not read the report and just parrot what he said. Kinda looks like he was right.

    Not that you'll care, but here is what Mueller found on conspiracy:

    "Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."

    Conspiracy requires an actually agreement to work together - it's a high bar to establish it. But Putin and Trump didn't need to go that far because they were benefiting from each other's actions already. Thus the reason conspiracy couldn't be established. The only reason. It's disgusting.

  • Daedalus, Stephen Arvada, CO
    April 20, 2019 3:12 p.m.

    @RiDal: "No evidence of collusion..."

    @Thid Barker: "...could not find evidence of collusion or obstruction..."

    Please read the just the Intro and Executive Summaries of both volumes of the Mueller report...about 20 pages total, should take 30 min or so.

    Then skim through the other 350+ pages, most which goes into granular detail of the evidence Mueller found for both conspiracy-based crimes and obstruction of justice.

    How and why Mueller did not indict Trump or others in his campaign for conspiracy-based crimes or obstruction of justice is also explained in great detail.

    As @Karen R. helpfully excerpts, Mueller did not indict Trump for "collision" for no other reason than "collusion" is not defined as a federal crime.

    No one is stopping you from continuing to cheer how Trump was not indicted for collusion, which is technically true.

    But that is as insightful as observing how Mueller did not indict Trump for unicorn poaching. And will be similarly mocked if it persists.

  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    April 20, 2019 2:48 p.m.

    @ RiDal

    "No evidence of collusion by Trump, any member of his campaign, or any other American citizen."

    This is exactly what Trump and Barr are counting on from the Trump faithful. They won't bother to educate themselves. They won't read the report or expose themselves to any news sources that will tell them what it actually says. No, they'll lap up whatever their told by approved sources and it'll never occur to them that they're being bamboozled.

    See my response to Thid Barker, RiDal, if you have the courage to, and find out why your statement is utterly meaningless.

  • Mad Hatter Santa Fe, NM
    April 20, 2019 2:22 p.m.

    worf - McAllen, TX
    April 20, 2019 10:45 a.m.

    "Many politicians are sore losers. Why do they fear Donald Trump?

    Because he's a dangerous, malevolent man who will do anything to protect himself?

    Would you lie to protect Trump if he asked you? Are you a real true-believer who will do what you can to cover-up whatever he is hiding from the public? How much of a Trump loyalist are you?

    Did you ever read the Mueller report, or do you just follow whatever Fox News and its propagandists tell you? Are "lies" just "alternative facts" to you and completely acceptable in today's world?

    Would you rather be a Russian than a Democrat?

  • Jim Chee Lahaina, HI
    April 20, 2019 2:16 p.m.

    Thid Barker - Victor, ID
    April 20, 2019 9:10 a.m.

    "The Mueller probe could not find evidence of collusion or obsgtruction."

    Have you read the Mueller report, or do you just get your information from Fox News? Even in the redacted form, the report finds much to support the probability of conspiracy and only doesn't find obstruction because of an OLC rule. You won't hear that on Fox, but you will see it if you read the report.

    On "conspiracy", Robert Mueller details that he was unable to interview many players, including Russians involved in the cyber attacks, find essential deleted emails and other documentation, and interview Donald Trump who refused to cooperate. Trump written answers completed with the assistance of his lawyers were filled with inadequate responses like "I don't remember", "It escapes my mind" and other statements of avoidance.

    Then we learn that Trump knew all about WikiLeaks and information dumps to plan strategy to utilize the information to best purpose. This was not a guy unaware of the help he was happy to get from the Russians.

    As to "obstruction", it's clear that Mueller believe Trump obstructed, but he couldn't indict him. He was ham-strung.

  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    April 20, 2019 11:40 a.m.

    @ Thid

    "The Mueller probe could not find evidence of collusion or obsgtruction."

    This tells me you haven't even bothered to read to p. 2 of the report:

    "...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...

    Fourth, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice , we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment. The evidence we obtained about the President 's actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."

  • RiDal Sandy, UT
    April 20, 2019 11:30 a.m.

    No evidence of collusion by Trump, any member of his campaign, or any other American citizen.

    Democrats seem to keep missing that part. I suggest searching for information on "psychological scotoma".

  • shamrock Salt Lake City, UT
    April 20, 2019 10:56 a.m.

    "Flynn — under pressure from the president-elect — directed K.T. McFarland, who served as deputy national security adviser, to contact the newspaper and deny that sanctions had ever been talked about. ... McFarland made the call even though she knew she was relaying false information ... [A]fter Flynn was ousted from the White House, Trump sought to have McFarland draft an internal letter stating that he had not directed Flynn to discuss sanctions with Kislyak. But McFarland refused."

    Got that? This is our President and Flynn conspiring to deceive us and thwart any later investigation.

    How the Trump Devotees can support this stuff is beyond me.

  • worf McAllen, TX
    April 20, 2019 10:45 a.m.

    Many politicians are sore losers.

    Why do they fear Donald Trump?

  • Itsjustpyrite Magna, UT
    April 20, 2019 9:47 a.m.

    Left leaning or right leaning should learn an important lesson from all of this.
    No matter who you side with, the bottom line is that Vlad Putin and the Russian government has accomplished what they set out to do.
    Russia has sewn the seeds of disruption in our country so deeply that we as a society dont know what is right or wrong, or what is truth or lying propiganda.
    Americans as a whole need to stop pointing fingers at our politicaly divided selfs and point our collective finger at RUSSIA.

    Putin continues to laugh.

  • Thid Barker Victor, ID
    April 20, 2019 9:10 a.m.

    Mark Twain said, "Get your facts right first, then distort them as much as you please." The Mueller probe could not find evidence of collusion or obsgtruction. The Democrats must distort the facts of the Mueller report, they have no other option! My question is where will all of this end? Democrats want to impeach President Trump. Impeach him for what?

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    April 20, 2019 9:03 a.m.

    'Complete exoneration' and 'game over' may well be overstating things a bit. There's a lot to unpack here.