The basis for the (actual) Russian collusion investigation had a reasonable starting point. Joseph Mifsud[0], the guy that nobody can find right now. It was absolutely worth investigating and it's disappointing that it became the dog-and-pony show it did.
And Russia interfering with foreign elections is real[1]. There are plenty of other sources as well that cover the ongoing efforts by GRU and other Russian groups to influence the election process in many countries.
[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Mifsud [1]https://www.blackhat.com/us-20/briefings/schedule/index.html...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kxG8uJUsWU
Clearly a joke at the expense of the ineptitude of his opponent's campaign. The fact people point to this as their "evidence" is pretty clearly desperation and self-delusion.
There was no evidence. You were lied to.
It never should have got past a few low level intelligence lackeys. The fact you had the chairman of the house intelligence committee as well as countless other powerful politicians, "trusted" journalists, ex-intelligence agency heads, etc. all insisting for years that there was "ample evidence" for it, is just utterly insane in my view. It was obviously just pure lies and dishonesty for political advantage.
Funny you don't mention the Senate committee (led by Republicans) which found the same evidence.
Can you actually quote the report to support your claims? The report actually says that there was evidence to support communication/collusion between the Trump campaign & Russian officials, but not enough evidence [that we know of] to support criminal charges.
This is for two reasons: 1) The "dirt" given at the Trump tower meeting was not valuable enough to prosecute under campaign finance laws. 2) The individuals present at the meeting did not know that their conduct was illegal, so they could not be charged under the law.
So really, Mueller's report said that there was not enough evidence to meet a criminal prosecution, but there was evidence. That's a very different claim than "no evidence."
It's also not possible to prove a negative ("there was never evidence"), and given the numerous cases of obstruction, it is possible that the evidence needed to support criminal charges was covered up.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/01/26/us/politics/t...
> in the end, The Mueller report admitted that no evidence was ever found to substantiate Trump or his associates or campaign ever working with Russians to interfere with the election?
and
> there never was any evidence for... the conspiracy theory that Trump or his campaign colluded with Putin to hack (or otherwise subvert) the election
These claims are strictly not true; Mueller found many instances where the Trump campaign directly worked with Russian officials in order to "get dirt on" Clinton or provided demographic information to Russian officials that helped those officials run (illegal) advertising/marketing campaigns for Trump. Just none of them were prosecutable based on the available evidence, according to Mueller.
Edit: I see you edited to remove your strong claim and dilute it with an interpretation that you have provided, which is legally meaningless.
https://www.justice.gov/archives/sco/file/1373816/download.
> The meeting was proposed to Donald Trump Jr. in an email from Robert Goldstone, at the request of his then-client Emin Agalarov, the son of Russian real-estate developer Aras Agalarov. Goldstone relayed to Trump Jr. that the “Crown prosecutor of Russia . . . offered to provide the Trump Campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia” as “part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump.” Trump Jr. immediately responded that “if it’s what you say I love it,” and arranged the meeting through a series of emails and telephone calls. (Page 110, under the heading "June 9, 2016 Meeting at Trump Tower.")
They are also not legally meaningless, and they aren't even my interpretation, which you would know if you had actually bothered to read the Mueller report or look up the relevant sections. Mueller himself said the reason why he did not prosecute is because (to him) it did not have sufficient evidence to prosecute. But just because the Justice Department wouldn't be able to convict doesn't mean that it is legal to accept information on a political opponent from an agent of a foreign government.
> On the facts here, the government would unlikely be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the June 9 meeting participants had general knowledge that their conduct was unlawful. The investigation has not developed evidence that the participants in the meeting were familiar with the foreign-contribution ban or the application of federal law to the relevant factual context. (Page 187 of the Mueller report.)
> The Office would also encounter difficulty proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the value of the promised documents and information exceeds the $2,000 threshold for a criminal violation, as well as the $25,000 threshold for felony punishment. (Page 188, ibid.)
> "no evidence was ever found to substantiate Trump or his associates or campaign ever working with Russians to interfere with the election"
Parse this again and again. What does this mean? Who would be "interfering?" In what? Is there a legal obligation to conceal factual information? Is there a legal obligation not to seek it? It's telling that they tried to proxy a value under campaign FINANCE violations, so desperate were they to find a crime.
Are you really trying to suggest that actions done by an individual are illegal only if the government can successfully prosecute that individual for their action? Clearly the legality of an action and the ability to prosecute an action are separate concepts.
> It's telling that they tried to proxy a value under campaign FINANCE violations
This very obviously falls under campaign finance regulations. Federal regulations prohibit campaigns from accepting "things of value" from foreign nationals, and opposition research on a political opponent is also clearly a thing of value, seeing as campaigns hire people to perform opposition research all the time. Dirt on a political opponent also obviously falls under something that would be revealed by opposition research.
> Parse this again and again. What does this mean? Who would be "interfering?"
The Russians would be interfering in our elections through ads/marketing that support Trump, and providing things of value to the Trump campaign. If the Trump campaign helps the Russians accomplish those goals (through accepting information or giving the Russians demographic data) that would be illegal. It's really quite simple to understand.
I believe that asking questions or counterfactuals to your statements leads to merciless dead-ends, just like the Mueller report, and I challenge observers to ask those very questions.
In this very specific and unusual case, agents of the US government chose not to alert the campaign of suspected influence, but rather 'monitor' on the side and comb through their documentation for a crime, in full public political and media theatre.
Would that it happened to you, you might object.
So did Clinton. The Steele dossier had information from Russian officials and other Russians. Steele himself isn't an American either.
At Least 27 Phones from Special Counsel’s Office Were Wiped before DOJ Inspector General Could Review Them https://news.yahoo.com/least-27-phones-special-counsel-21293...
Otherwise it's just a private citizen meeting with foreign diplomats, which happens all the time and there's nothing nefarious about that.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-iran-pompeo/pompeo-sl...
Maybe it's all politicking, but then if it's good for the goose it's good for the gander.
If Pompeo had evidence of Kerry having illegal talks, he had the opportunity to provide this evidence to the FBI, seeing as he was part of the administration at the time. Instead he chose to 'slam' Kerry during a news conference.
But still no answer to the question if Kerry pretended to represent the US government, which would have been illegal.
That's the equivalent of an ad-hominen attack.
Anyone still trying to stir up this nonsense partisan battle is just distracting from the recent major world events.
Being lost in the moment of a blizzard of “crises” that really aren’t is intellectually paralyzing. Probably intentionally so.
The fact that the Senate committee (led by the Republicans) also found plenty of connections between the Russia government and the Trump campaign says enough.
Is that true though? He didn't present any evidence of a crime. Congress could have impeached Trump successfully with some hard evidence, so was Muller protecting Trump by only insinuating there was evidence but not presenting any? I don't think vague connections "says enough". If the president really was conspiring with Russia I would want the FBI to present its findings instead of giving more vague insinuation.
Statements that Congress could have impeached Trump can only be viewed as stated in bad faith. Congress did impeach Trump, but for political reasons the Senate refused to remove him.
[1] https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/07/24/rober...
It really seems like they were not able to establish an effective cooperation but would you not want the FBI to investigate such cicumstances?