The Trump campaign met with representitives of the Russian Government

[edhopper]

to discuss hacking and release info harmful to the Clinton campaign in return for easing sanctions.

The material was released, the Trump White House has worked to ease sanctions.

How is this not collusion?

Can someone explain that to me.

[ProudMNDemocrat]

1. Conspiracy in plain sight.

The 2016 Trump Tower meeting is proof. Congress will get to that. Let's hope they do.

[TxVietVet]

2. I talked to some local conservanazis.

They believe the shit gibbon has been exonerated. The wing it’s believe the false narrative put out by the conservanazis’ Fox Noise.

Please tell me that the Dems are going to expose the GOPers’ crimes?

[uponit7771]

3. K&R, the LAW says the person must KNOW that what they're doing is illegal when it comes to campaign

... finance.

The rest of them knew, I'm thinking they're part of the 14 redacted indictments

[mr_lebowski]

4. They didn't (apparently) receive the docs at Trump Tower

I personally think an agreement was reached there that Russia would 'get them out there', but to my knowledge Mueller was unable to prove that. We don't know IOW that what you're asserting (and I'm guessing) ... happened.

The problem is the laws just aren't 'there' against what happened at TT. Yes it's shady and it's 'colluding' but that's not illegal unless you can prove a campaign finance violation or direct involvement in the original theft of the docs. W/O TrumpCo ever taking possession of the 'dirt' it's difficult to prove they 'received something of value' unless someone admits 'yeah, we told 'em we'd drop sanctions if they'd release the dirt through wikileaks', and as I say I don't think anyone copped to that.

Further, for it to be criminal CF violation you have to prove > a certain $$$ amount. Well, how much was that 'dirt' worth, in dollars? Very tough to pin down.

[edhopper]

5. Thanks

that is serious bullshit. It seems the circumstantial evidence should be enough.

[mr_lebowski]

6. As incompetent and stupid as Trumps people were ...

Manafort is a savvy player, and the Russian's definitely know WTF they're doing ... without one small, highly technical screwup by the GRU, we might still be arguing over whether Guccifer 2.0 (the thief) even had anything to do with Russia.

Natalia was never going to just hand over 'the dirt', that'd be like WAY RISKY, and Russia wasn't gonna take a risk like that. No, they already had the plans to release the docs through DCLeaks ... but then apparently Wikileaks magically asked for them, and the Russian's were like 'oh, hell yeah! another layer of abstraction from us, and way more visibility?! SURE!'

However, this is where there's still a potential here for a blockbuster revelation, because it's very possible that Stone was behind setting up Wikileaks with the stolen docs from Guccifer 2.0. And although he's technically not 'the campaign', he's close enough to Trump personally for it to get Trump into some real shit if it can be proven Stone facilitated that transfer. Still likely not illegal, but it'll look real bad.

[edhopper]

7. And perhaps

impeachable?

[anarch]

8. if I understood the report correctly, there is "no collusion" b/c that is not a legal term

more particularly, "collusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the United States Code, nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law." (Mueller Report, page 2), so that is why none of this was "collusion."

Besides that, Mueller states up front that the SCO conducted the investigation in a manner constrained by his understanding of prosecutorial roles and limitations assigned to the different bodies of government per the constitution and established case law, meaning basically the intent was to refer this information to congress for their consideration and action as merited by the evidence.

And then basically: 1. we couldn't find clear evidence, beyond reasonable doubt, that any of the many, many interactions with foreign entities during the campaign could be successfully prosecuted as a crime (partly b/c Jr. is too dumb to understand campaign finance regulations; partly b/c much of the evidence was destroyed and/or the parties involved were uncooperative), 2. at the end of the day, Individual 1 did not not obstruct justice, and 3. it's Congress's job to deal with this.

[mr_lebowski]

9. Mueller didn't say at EOD, Individual 1 did not obstruct justice ...

Where do you get that from?

EDIT, didn't see your double-negative ... N/M

[edhopper]

11. Me too.

oops

[anarch]

12. I think you're overlooking the double-negative: he did not not obstruct

To quote directly: "if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the [job title deleted for the sake of good taste; you know who] 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."

so, he did not not obstruct justice.

[mr_lebowski]

13. You missed my almost immediate edit ;) (nt)

[edhopper]

10. Mueller actually said

he did obstruct Justice, but the OSC can't indict a sitting President.

He said the coordination with the Russians doesn't quite add up to something a Prosecutor could win.

Except Prosecutors bring charges to people that can't winn all the time.

Sen Menendez comes to mind.