Yea, I bet it really was hard to be a conservative at NPR. Unfortunately, between DEI, Hunter’s Laptop, Lab-gate, etc, it’s pretty easy to see that this fellow has simply taken modern conservative talking points all at face-value. That is not necessarily a good idea.
edit: Side question: Has anyone else ever noticed a correlation between font size and journalistic integrity, or is it just me?
Persistent rumors that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia over the election became the catnip that drove reporting. […]
But when the Mueller report found no credible evidence of collusion […]
Aaaaand I stopped reading.
The Mueller Report absolutely found credible evidence of collusion, despite heavy-handled interference by Trump, Barr, and the rest of the GOP. It unfortunately failed to result in any prosecution (in no small part due to Barr), and failed to pressure Republicans to vote to remove Trump when he was impeached.
Literally every source says there was insufficient evidence to prove collusion, from the Mueller report specifically.
Read the thing.
Uhh… no u?
I did when it came out.
So what did it conclude about trump colluding with Russians? And what actions have come from that conclusion?
Why are you asking these questions now after asserting falsehoods before and refusing to read the report?
Just curious what exactly you got from it, and how you reconcile that against what all of the news reported and concluded. Mueller report states that the investigation “did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in it’s election interference activities”. What does that mean to you?
Insufficient evidence to prove a crime? Maybe. I disagree, but I’m neither a lawyer nor a judge.
But “collusion” itself isn’t a crime, and the evidence clearly showed evidence of collusion between the GOP and Russia.
The number of connections between the GOP and Russia, financially and ideologically, and Russia’s proven interference in 2016 and since (not to mention the GOP visit to Moscow on July 4th) are evidence enough to show there is “collusion”.
The problem is our laws on campaign finance and foreign political influence are Swiss cheese.
And then they turn around and act like, “Well, he didn’t get convicted of a crime, so clearly it was all a hoax.”
No. It wasn’t a hoax. There was evidence. Just not enough to do anythong about it, apparently. (And I still argue only because of the amount of interference run on the investigation.)
EDIT: And just in case you want to come back and obtusely repeat your argument, here’s the report in full. After 181 pages of evidence, here’s the conclusion.
IV. CONCLUSION Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President’s conduct. The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. At the same time, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.
Its in black and white: they had already determined that they would not make a “prosecutorial judgment” (recommendation to charge Trump with a crime), since Barr said that should be left to the Impeachment process. But despite that, the report makes clear, in no unclear terms…
“It also does not exonerate him.”
Obstruction of justice is a different accusation than collusion with Russians. The report states that there is insufficient evidence to prove collusion, but there may be a case to prove obstruction of justice if they decided to pursue it. But they aren’t going to. Which means absolutely nothing, at the end of the day. You can’t work with it, can’t assume anything or draw any conclusions. It’s not even a hypothesis let alone one that can be proven or not proven.
Hmm, I see, I see… But, pray tell…
WHAT JUSTICE WAS HE OBSTRUCTING?!
The GOP logic seems to go like this.
- Get accused of crime.
- Illegally block investigation into the original crime.
- Because of your obstruction, insufficient evidence of your original crime is found to force prosecution.
- Now that you blocked the original charges, you can claim it was all bogus. You can’t “obstruct justice” if there was no crime in the first place, right?!
So, obstruction of justice is legal now, so long as you succeed. Got it. Thanks.
Also, fuck off. I’m not reading another reply. You are unwilling to discuss this topic in good faith, or you lack the brain cells to do so.
Lol ok
