There was No Collusion -- because legally it is actually called "Conspiracy."
—
"So now the Radical Left Dems
don't talk about Collusion anymore,
because the Mueller Report said there was No Collusion, they only want to talk about Obstruction, even though there was No Obstruction or No Crime — except for the crimes committed by the other side!"
Trump tweeted over the weekend.
"Also, there are 'No High Crimes & Misdemeanors,'
No Collusion, No Conspiracy, No Obstruction,"
Trump tweeted earlier this month. "ALL THE CRIMES ARE ON THE OTHER SIDE, and that's what the Dems should be looking at, but they won't. Nevertheless, the tables are turning."
—
Donald Trump's totally outrageous claim about investigating the Russia probe,
www.cnn.com — May 14, 2019
Ummm No.
The Mueller Report did NOT say there was No Collusion.
The Mueller Report DID say there WAS Conspiracy.
The Mueller Report DID say there WAS many Trump Campaign-Russian contacts, including the exchanges of Polling Data.
The Mueller Report DID say they could not conclusively prove Conspiracy, due to among other things: Trump Campaign witnesses lying, taking the Fifth, falsifying evidence, and some having “deleted relevant communications”.
That is a long, long way from saying that Trump Campaign has been “totally exonerated of Collusion” ...
[pgs 8-10] {emphasis added}
THE SPECIAL COUNSEL'S CHARGING DECISIONS
In reaching the charging decisions described in Volume 1 of the report, the Office determined whether the conduct it found amounted to a violation of federal criminal law chargeable under the Principles of Federal Prosecution. See Justice Manual § 9-27.000 et seq. (2018). The standard set forth in the Justice Manual is whether the conduct constitutes a crime; if so, whether admissible evidence would probably be sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction; and whether prosecution would serve a substantial federal interest that could not be adequately served by prosecution elsewhere or through non-criminal alternatives. See Justice Manual § 9-27.220.
Section V of the report provides detailed explanations of the Office's charging decisions, which contain three main components.
First, the Office determined that Russia's two principal interference operations in the 2016 U.S. presidential election — the social media campaign and the hacking-and-dumping operations-violated U.S. criminal law. Many of the individuals and entities involved in the social media campaign have been charged with participating in a conspiracy to defraud the United States by undermining through deceptive acts the work of federal agencies charged with regulating foreign influence in U.S. elections, as well as related counts of identity theft. See United States v. Internet Research Agency, et al., No. 18-cr-32 (D.D.C.). Separately, Russian intelligence officers who carried out the hacking into Democratic Party computers and the personal email accounts of individuals affiliated with the Clinton Campaign conspired to violate, among other federal laws, the federal computer-intrusion statute, and the have been so charged. See United States v. Neksho, et al., No. 18-cr-215 D.D.C.). [REDACTED — Ongoing Matter, Personal Privacy]
Second, while the investigation identified numerous links between individuals with ties to the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump Campaign, the evidence was not sufficient to support criminal charges. Among other things, the evidence was not sufficient to charge any Campaign official as an unregistered agent of the Russian government or other Russian principal. And our evidence about the June 9, 2016 meeting and WikiLeaks's releases of hacked materials was not sufficient to charge a criminal campaign-finance violation. Further, the evidence was not sufficient to charge that any member of the Trump Campaign conspired with representatives of the Russian government to interfere in the 2016 election.
Third, the investigation established that several individuals affiliated with the Trump Campaign lied to the Office, and to Congress, about their interactions with Russian-affiliated individuals and related matters. Those lies materially impaired the investigation of Russian election interference. The Office charged some of those lies as violations of the federal false-statements statute. Former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn pleaded guilty to lying about his interactions with Russian Ambassador Kislyak during the transition period. George Papadopoulos, a foreign policy advisor during the campaign period, pleaded guilty to lying to investigators about, inter alia, the nature and timing of his interactions with Joseph Mifsud, the professor who told Papadopoulos that the Russians had dirt on candidate Clinton in the form of thousands of emails. Former Trump Organization attorney Michael Cohen pleaded guilt to making false statements to Congress about the Trump Moscow Project. [REDACTED — Ongoing Matter] And in February 2019, the U.S. District of Columbia found that Manafort lied to the Office and the grand jury concerning his interactions and communications with Konstantin Kilimnik about Trump Campaign polling data and a peace plan for Ukraine.
***
[...]
The investigation did not always yield admissible information or testimony, or a complete picture of the activities undertaken by subjects of the investigation. Some individuals invoked their Fifth Amendment right against compelled self-incrimination and were not, in the Office's judgment, appropriate candidates for grants of immunity. The Office limited its pursuit of other witnesses and information — such as information known to attorneys or individuals claiming to be members of the media — in light of internal Department of Justice policies. See, e.g., Justice Manual§§ 9-13.400, 13.410. Some of the information obtained via court process, moreover, was presumptively covered by legal privilege and was screened from investigators by a filter (or "taint") team. Even when individuals testified or agreed to be interviewed, they sometimes provided information that was false or incomplete, leading to some of the false-statements charges described above. And the Office faced practical limits on its ability to access relevant evidence as well-numerous witnesses and subjects lived abroad, and documents were held outside the United States.
Further, the Office learned that some of the individuals we interviewed or whose conduct we investigated — including some associated with the Trump Campaign — deleted relevant communications or communicated during the relevant period using applications that feature encryption or that do not provide for long-term retention of data or communications records. In such cases, the Office was not able to corroborate witness statements through comparison to contemporaneous communications or fully question witnesses about statements that appeared inconsistent with other known facts.
Accordingly, while this report embodies factual and legal determinations that the Office believes to be accurate and complete to the greatest extent possible, given these identified gaps, the Office cannot rule out the possibility that the unavailable information would shed additional light on (or cast in a new light) the events described in the report.
Perhaps those stonewalling, lying, non-cooperating, and record-deleting Trump Campaign individuals, could have “shed additional light” on this blatant exchange of Trump Campaign Polling Data and Polling Targets, with a known Russia agent?
[pg 140] {emphasis added}
Second, Manafort briefed Kilimnik on the state of the Trump Campaign and Manafort's plan to win the election.[930] That briefing encompassed the Campaign's messaging and its internal polling data. According to Gates, it also included discussion of "battleground" states, which Manafort identified as Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Minnesota.[931] Manafort did not refer explicitly to "battleground" states in his telling of the August 2 discussion, [REDACTED — Grand Jury]
This kind of Trump Campaign behavior seems like exactly the opposite of “No Collusion” to me.
[pg 129] {emphasis added}
Manafort had connections to Russia through his prior work for Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska and later through his work for a pro-Russian regime in Ukraine. Manafort stayed in touch with these contacts during the campaign period through Konstantin Kilimnik, a longtime Manafort employee who previously ran Manafort 's office in Kiev and who the FBI assesses to have ties to Russian intelligence. Manafort instructed Rick Gates, his deputy on the Campaign and a longtime employee,[839] to provide Kilimnik with updates on the Trump Campaign — including internal polling data, although Manafort claims not to recall that specific instruction. Manafort expected Kilimnik to share that information with others in Ukraine and with Deripaska. Gates periodically sent such polling data to Kilimnik during the campaign.[834]
Hmmm, “a ‘backdoor’ means for Russia to control eastern Ukraine”, would seem like “an agreement to break the Law at a future date” to me. Perhaps several Laws, from several countries:
[pg 130] {emphasis added}
Manafort also twice met Kilimnik in the United States during the campaign period and conveyed campaign information. The second meeting took place on August 2, 2016 , in New York City. Kilimnik requested the meeting to deliver in person a message from former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, who was then living in Russia. The message was about a peace plan for Ukraine that Manafort has since acknowledged was a "backdoor" means for Russia to control eastern Ukraine. Several months later, after the presidential election, Kilimnik wrote an email to Manafort expressing the view — which Manafort later said he shared — that the plan's success would require U.S. support to succeed: "all that is required to start the process is a very minor 'wink' (or slight push) from [Donald Trump]." [840] The email also stated that if Manafort were designated as the U.S. representative and started the process, Yanukovych would ensure his reception in Russia "at the very top level."
Manafort communicated with Kilimnik about peace plans for Ukraine on at least four occasions after their first discussion of the topic on August 2: [...]
I thought it only took one meeting to establish “conspiracy” ie. an agreement to break the Law:
Conspiracy (criminal)
In criminal law, a conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime at some time in the future.[1] Criminal law in some countries or for some conspiracies may require that at least one overt act be undertaken in furtherance of that agreement, to constitute an offense. There is no limit on the number participating in the conspiracy and, in most countries, no requirement that any steps have been taken to put the plan into effect.
By that standard the Trump Administration is still “conspiring to” break U.S. Laws on nearly every single stonewalling-day.
— — —
To recap:
"So now the Radical Left Dems don't talk about Collusion anymore, because the Mueller Report said there was No Collusion ...” according the grand conspirator.
Ummm No.
The Mueller Report DID NOT show that. Not in the least little bit.
It shows that the Trump Campaign was full of Liars, Obstructors, and Evidence-destroyers.
And that’s a long way from “100% Exoneration.” In the fact-based world rather: it’s called criminal activity.
—
Comments are closed on this story.