Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)WH
whenthebigonefinallyhitsla @ whenthebigonefinallyhitsla @kbin.run
Posts
0
Comments
9
Joined
11 mo. ago

  • mueller released the report in 2 volumes, one talking about russian interference and collusion, and one talking about obstruction

    it seems pretty clear from the quote and rest of the source that he's not talking about obstruction there

  • But, the report said, “because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President’s conduct.

    i presume you're pulling that from volume 2 of the report, since you didn't link anything

    volume 1 deals with election interference

    volume 2 deals with obstruction of justice

    or in other words, your quote isn't relevant to evidence for conspiracy with russia

     

    the investigation established multiple links between Trump Campaign officials and individuals tied to the Russian government. Those links included Russia offers of assistance to the Campaign.

    "establishing multiple links" isn't the same thing as concluding they conspired, but even if it was, the second line of my initial comment addresses this:

    Even if the report had concluded they conspired, concluding they conspired isn't the same thing as having "sufficient evidence to seek criminal charges"

     

    Investigators “found multiple acts by the President that were capable of exerting undue influence over law enforcement investigations, including the Russian-interference and obstruction investigations.”

    this is talking about obstruction again, not collusion

     

    your linked article doesn't support the statement "mueller found enough evidence to convict trump" at any point, which means the journalist was correct

  • Concluding that Russia interfered with an election to Trump's benefit isn't the same thing as concluding that Trump conspired with the Russians

    Even if the report had concluded they conspired, concluding they conspired isn't the same thing as having "sufficient evidence to seek criminal charges"