Neither of these things are true.
Barr’s summary of Mueller’s report does not say there is no evidence of collusion.
Mueller did not say there is insufficient evidence of obstruction.
Please quote for me 4 random sentences from pages 110-112 of the Mueller Report.
Thanks!
So, no.
If you want to quibble about the difference between “colloborating” and “conspiring and coordinating”, fine, but then you will need to show that members of the Trump campaign “collaborated” with the Russians. Because
Regards,
Shodan
I liked this
[quote]
(https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1111286086070878213) from Nate Silver: "Revising my prior on “Barr substantially misrepresented the Mueller Report” from “unlikely but not unthinkable” to “not the modal outcome but well within the thick part of the probability distribution”.
You’ll note that that statement is very specific to “conspiring to hack into computers in the United States for the purposes of influencing the election”. It doesn’t say anything about the myriad other ways in which “conspiring and coordinating” (or “collaboration”, for that matter) may have occurred. I mean, I’m sure there was nothing untoward in all those meetings with Russians, including members of the Russian government, that multiple members of the Trump campaign team deliberately denied having, some to the point of committing felony perjury, but obviously there’s no way of knowing. Perhaps they were swapping cake recipes.
Adoptions. Putin wanted to adopt Tiffany, but Trump insisted that he take Eric too, so the deal fell through. That’s the story the Trumps told us (or something similar).
How many weeks until Democrats take responsibility for running a presidential campaign so poorly that they lost to a racist gameshow host? At the end of the day it will turn out that Trump is corrupt as hell (big surprise) but there is insufficient evidence to prove “collusion” with the dastardly Russians.
There’s plenty. What there isn’t, according Barr anyway, is evidence that the Trump campaign committed crimes in doing so.
Exactly this.
There is evidence of collusion. There is proof of collusion. We 100% know that collusion occurred even without the Mueller report.
The Barr summary of the Mueller report says that the collusion that definitely occurred did not rise to the level of criminality.
No crime does not mean no collusion. You can’t have it both ways on collusion is not a crime.
Didn’t read the first quote?
:shrugs: I guess Shodan’s law will have to apply from now on.
Regards,
Shodan
You mean the quote that was from a political appointee’s summary of the Mueller report, that specified the Russian government, and “these efforts”, not necessarily ruling out activities linked to other Russians (who may or may not have links to the Russian government), and potentially other “efforts” unrelated to the specific ones described in that part of the Barr letter?
Is that the quote you’re talking about? Just to be sure.
I’m reminded of the people who thought those redcapped children aren’t racists because the PR firm hired to say they aren’t racists said they aren’t racists.
It’s remarkable how so many people aren’t assuming that a political document written by a political appointee for political purposes might have some political spin within it.
Barr claims he’ll release a redacted report by Mid-April.
I remain in my “wait and see” mode.
Same here. One thing I’d like to point out that there is a legal (afaik…I’m not a lawyer) difference between there being not enough evidence to prosecute or continue the investigation for something (i.e. not enough to prosecute) and exoneration. It seems to me that we don’t really know at this point what there was, and my guess is that what the report is going to say is essentially there is insufficient evidence to convict Trump et al or even to successfully prosecute them, but that there were some irregularities that warranted almost a year of investigation. But for my part I’m in wait and see mode at this point.
I have to admit to some level of disappointment though not real surprise in this outcome.
LOL, did y’all read that thing?
“Also, I notice some media reports and other public statements mischaracterizing my March 24th, 2019 supplemental notification as a “summary” of the Special Counsels investigation or report…”
I think that’s what they call a “walk back”.
IMHO, the Republicans jumped WAY TOO SOON on the “complete exoneration” claim and are realizing that they have made a colossal blunder of epic… almost Trumpian… proportions. It’s pretty obvious that word is getting out that even the stuff that won’t be redacted is pretty fucking bad.
Walk back is exactly how I read it too.
I mean, his original letter said he was summarizing the investigation and its conclusions!
“Guys, when I said ‘summary’ I meant something different. Like a ‘recap’.”
A sizzle reel, maybe.
I really have to wonder how much of Barr’s… um… whatever was written before he had a chance to read Mueller’s report. Quite a bit, I’d wager, considering not even a single complete sentence was quoted.