There’s a bunch, but one example is the emails scheduling the Trump Tower meeting. Those are hard evidence of cooperation between the Trump campaign and the Russian effort to get Trump elected.
What, specifically, did those emails say? Who were they from and who were they to?
I don’t for a second believe that you are unaware of these emails.
What do you think the answers to your own questions are?
Yes, what you have said and will say on the matter will be quite inconsequential. No need to craft a special response to every liberal on the spectrum. It would indeed be silly to do so.
If you actually want a discussion, feel free to respond to any specific points I make that you disagree with, and I’ll try and respond.
If you just want to post cryptic silliness like whatever this post is, then you probably won’t get much in the way of interaction or exchange of ideas.
I’m asking you because you made the claim. If you don’t have any evidence to support it, I’ll just put it on the pile of other unsupported assertions you’ve made.
You asked for emails that provided hard evidence of collusion and I provided an example.
Your pretending that you don’t know who wrote those emails does nothing to advance the conversation.
That meeting and the emails concerning it are probably covered in the Mueller report. Once the report is released, we’ll know more.
CNN reported in 2017 that Mueller planned to look at them. I suspect he looked at the and decided it didn’t amount to collusion. As you say though, we’ll know more once the report is released.
We also don’t know what exactly was referred to other law enforcement offices. There may be plenty of evidence of various crimes, but some of it might not be contained in the official Mueller report, because it was referred to SDNY or some other office.
We really know almost nothing about what Mueller found in his investigation, and we won’t until the full report is released and any referred investigations are completed and the results released.
I know you think it’s fun to make people jump through an endless variety of hoops, and to feel like you’ve won the argument if they get disgusted and refuse to jump fast enough. However, if you Google “Trump Tower Emails”, you’ll find exhaustive resources that answer your question.
I will be pleasantly surprised if you do your own work here.
It’s not MY work. You’re asking me to do Lance Turbo’s work for him. If “go Google it” is now considered a satisfactory response to requests for citations for assertions made on the SDMB, you’re going to see a lot more of that. Do you think that would be helpful for the level if discourse around here?
They are publicly available evidence of collusion. The scheduling of the meeting was a collusive act. The meeting taking place was a collusive act.
Mueller, on the other hand, probably didn’t decide one way or the other on whether they amounted to collusion. You can’t have it both ways on, “Collusion is not a crime.”
But he DID decide:
“[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”
How do your allegedly “collusive act[s]” fit into that narrative?
I don’t understand your question. Mueller did decide that those collusive acts did not establish a crime. That’s what the sentence fragment that Barr quoted states.
He didn’t decide that the collusive acts weren’t collusion. That doesn’t make any sense because it is self contradictory.
It is 100% certain that collusion occurred. There is publicly available proof of that. Mueller’s inability to establish a crime does not refute that. You can’t have it both ways on, “Collusion is not a crime.”
No. It’s not his work to Google one of the top news stories of the past two years for you. If you’re unable to keep up with top news stories, it’d behoove you to excuse yourself politely from conversations about these stories.
The Mueller report quote doesn’t use the word “crime”. How did you determine that his findings were so narrow?
So now we care about which specific words were and were not in the quote?
This is silly.
There is publicly available proof of collusion. The sentence fragments Barr quoted from the Mueller report do not mention collusion at all so therefore do nothing to refute the publicly available proof of collusion.
He declined to produce an indictment.