- Jul 2, 2003
- 148,233
- 18,567
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Democrat
What Mueller Found on Russia and on Obstruction: A First Analysis
But Mueller did not say 'no collusion'. And he sure didn't imply no obstruction.
The OP has the video of Nunez's opening statement for June 12th. Here is Rep. Schiff's opening statement:
Rep. Schiff Opening Remarks at House Intelligence Hearing Open Hearing on Counterintelligence Implications of the Mueller Report | C-SPAN.org
It is not a hoax that Russia tried to interfere with the 2016 election. It is not a hoax that members of the Trump campaign had contacts with Russians 141 times. In fact, from the link at the top of this post:
‘Let me make something 100% clear’: FEC chair lays down the law on foreign help
Who can forget Nunez's joke of a midnight run to the White House. pfft
No, Mueller did not find a criminal conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia, and no, he did not conclude that President Trump had obstructed justice. But Mueller emphatically did not find that there had been “no collusion” either. Indeed, he described in page after damning page a dramatic pattern of Russian outreach to figures close to the president, including to Trump’s campaign and his business; Mueller described receptivity to this outreach on the part of those figures; he described a positive eagerness on the part of the Trump campaign to benefit from illegal Russian activity and that of its cutouts; he described serial lies about it all. And he described as well a pattern of behavior on the part of the president in his interactions with law enforcement that is simply incompatible with the president’s duty to “take care” that the laws are “faithfully executed”—a pattern Mueller explicitly declined to conclude did not obstruct justice.
Not concluding obstruction has been explained many times, and by Mueller. He could not indict a sitting president nor try him. That is for the congress.
But Mueller did not say 'no collusion'. And he sure didn't imply no obstruction.
The OP has the video of Nunez's opening statement for June 12th. Here is Rep. Schiff's opening statement:
Rep. Schiff Opening Remarks at House Intelligence Hearing Open Hearing on Counterintelligence Implications of the Mueller Report | C-SPAN.org
It is not a hoax that Russia tried to interfere with the 2016 election. It is not a hoax that members of the Trump campaign had contacts with Russians 141 times. In fact, from the link at the top of this post:
This report shows that the Trump campaign was reasonably aware of the Russian efforts, at least on the hacking side. They were aware the Russians sought to help them win. They welcomed that assistance. Instead of warning the American public, they devised a public relations and campaign strategy that sought to capitalize on Russia’s illicit assistance. In other words, the Russians and the Trump campaign shared a common goal, and each side worked to achieve that goal with basic knowledge of the other side’s intention. They just didn’t agree to work toward that goal together.
In fact, the recent statement from Trump about listening to information from foreign countries on the opposition, the FEC had to come out and clearly state the law:
‘Let me make something 100% clear’: FEC chair lays down the law on foreign help
“Let me make something 100% clear to the American public and anyone running for public office: It is illegal for any person to solicit, accept, or receive anything of value from a foreign national in connection with a U.S. election,“ wrote Ellen Weintraub, chairwoman of the FEC. “This is not a novel concept.“
Who can forget Nunez's joke of a midnight run to the White House. pfft
Upvote
0