The Thread of Democrats

[Joe]

What about the obstruction issue? Any thoughts on that?

A lot, and I gave some above. But I want the courtesy of a straight answer from Joe to my direct questions about the first bit, before I move on to the second bit.

Well kid, you got your answers. You're still wrong.

[Joe]

One point -- I said, "Also, I'm not inaccurately representing the report. You are. When keep requoting, for example, the portion of the report that says that if they find that a given item was "established" it doesn't mean there wasn't any "evidence." Your quote is accurate, but you apply it to situations where the report actually says they didn't find or identify any "evidence.""

Then you say this absurdity in response:
"Yes, my quote is accurate, and your caveat is just your opinion, which I don't value much, and is just trying to deflect from the refutation of your statements."

It's neither an opinion, nor a deflection. Your quote says that where the report says that an item was not "established" that doesn't mean there wasn't any evidence. Yes, indeed. But, where the report says they didn't identify any EVIDENCE, then that means just what it says, they didn't identify any EVIDENCE.

Do you or do you not agree that where the report says it did not identify any "evidence" that it does, in fact, mean that the they did not identify any evidence? Or, do you think it means that just because they say they didn't identify evidence, they nevertheless identified evidence?

No kid, I'm saying I don't buy your unsupported opinion, based on my experience with you. To put it bluntly, what you say is dishonest horseshit unless you have a source to back it up. You have a reputation on this forum.

[Forty Two]

Another point - your last post is a complete avoidance of substantiating your claim. I'm claiming that what you have said is in there is not in there. So, it's up to you, making the positive assertion, to actually substantiate it. Saying "go read the report" is you not substantiating the claim. I have read the report. Now, if you want to back up your assertion that it does, in fact, identify evidence of collusion, conspiracy or coordination by Trump campaign persons with Russia to interfere with the election, then please, present it. What evidence was identified of collusion, conspiracy or coordination by the Trump campaign persons with Russia to interfere with the election?

It's a simple question. Answer it. Or, if you aren't making that assertion, then I certainly don't want to misstate your assertion. Just say - there's your problem 42, "I am not asserting that the Mueller report identifies evidence of collusion, conspiracy or coordination by Trump campaign person(s) with Russia to interfere with the election."

Uh, Forty Two....My last post asked, "What did I say was 'overwhelmingly clear' Trump had done? It's not "collusion/coordination/conspiracy."

I think you must have confused it with the post where I demonstrated that Meuller report did say there was coordination between the Trump campaign, American citizens, and Russians.

Funny that you're responding to that post selectively. It's almost like you're hiding something.

I'm addressing one point at a time. I'll address obstruction, but I want the courtesy of a clear answer to my questions about collusion/conspiracy/coordination first.

It's a simple question. Answer it.Or, if you aren't making that assertion, then I certainly don't want to misstate your assertion. Just say - there's your problem Joe, "I am not asserting that

The report found zero evidence of coordination or conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia (or any American and Russia).

Fess up now, you know that's not correct.

Fess up now, you know it is correct. You haven't cited any evidence of "coordination or conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia." The one item you quoted, where people called the Trump campaign for signs and such - that's evidence AGAINST coordination, not for coordination. It shows that they had no evidence that the Trump campaign workers did anything more than pick up the phone and have someone on the other end ask for signs and help with rallies. That's not coordination with Russia to interfere wtih an election.

Now, if you have any evidence of ccordination/collusion/conspiracy with Russia to interference with the election? That's what I've been asking for. If the one thing you have is that mention about the signs and rallies, then that's fine. That's all you have.

[Forty Two]

What generalization was that? Remember when you wrote, smelling of elderberries no less, this bullshit?

The report found zero evidence of coordination or conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia (or any American and Russia).

Yep, that's the basis for the argument, and you've been strawmanning ever since I refuted it.

This is very simple, and your evasions don't get around the fact that you haven't cited evidence of coordination or conpspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia to interfere with the 2016 election. If you say that my statement "the report found zero evidence..." of that to be "strawmanning" - then by all means - cite the evidence that Mueller found that the Trump campaign conspired, colluded or coordinated with Russia to interfere with the campaign

If your citation is back to that statement where people called the campaign office and asked for signs etc., but that there was no evidence that the campaign workers knew that the people were foreign persons - that's not collusion, coordination or conspiracy, nor is it evidence of it. And, if that's the best you can find, it's a wonder you keep on about it. It should be embarrassing to you to pretend that that statement was some kind of suggestion that there was "Evidence of collusion, conspiracy or coordination." It's not. You're making it up.

As for this howler,

You can't unkowingly conspire or collude or coordinate with someone.

That's exactly what Meuller said happened, people unknowingly coordinated with Russians, and he called it coordination. That's because he has a dictionary.

Now you're just inventing that. He did not say the Trump campaign coordinated with anybody, and certainly not to interfere with an election. There is nothing in the least wrong with a foreign person calling a campaign office for signs and rallies. In fact, it is protected by the constitution for a Russian or Mexican person to rally, carry signs, and support candidates. There is nothing wrong with that.

And, the quote - if you read it in other than the dishonest way you present it here - you would see that what Mueller's report says that the persons calling on the phone for the signs and help with rallies attempted to coordinate LOGISTICS of the rallies. That's not coordination "with the Trump campaign to interfere with an election." That's what we're talking about.

If your allegation is that the Mueller report stated that Russians called Trump campaign office and asked for signs and help with rallies -- oh, shit yeah - you got 'em dead to rights! If you think that constitutes vvidence of collusion, coordination, conspiracy, with the Russians to interfere with the election, you're wrong. Completely wrong.

Honestly, you can't be serious about this.

Look - if you think Mueller said that there was evidence that the Trump campaign colluded, conspired, or coordinated with Russia, then cite to it. If all you have is your ridiculous notion that foreign persons calling into a campaign office for signs and help to coordinate logistics of a rally is evidence of "coordination, conspiracy or collusion with the Russians to interfere with the election in 2016" -- if you seriously think that's what that is - then you are out of your mind.

Why don't you just man up and say, "Damn Joe, my bad. I meant to say, ' The report found zero evidence of knowing coordination or conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia (or any American and Russia)?'"

[/quote]

There is no such thing as unknowingly conspiring. If you don't know about the conspiracy or the criminal activity then you can't conspire. If someone is trying to conspire with you, but you don't know what they're doing, you aren't conspiring with them. The quote you relied on from the Mueller report says the russians "attempted" to coordinate logistics of a rally, when there was no evidence the campaign workers even knew they were foreign workers.

That's not coordination to interfere with an election, or evidence thereof. Why don't you just grow a pair and admit that you're grasping at straws - anything - anything --- to keep the ball in the air, and you don't have to intellectual honesty to admit when you're wrong.

See - two can play at that game. I don't like all your nonsense about manning up, and your veiled and not so veiled insults - so, I'm responding in kind. It's your preferred mode of communication, apparently, and if you want to talk that way, I'll respond the same way to you.

[Forty Two]

What about the obstruction issue? Any thoughts on that?

A lot, and I gave some above. But I want the courtesy of a straight answer from Joe to my direct questions about the first bit, before I move on to the second bit.

Well kid, you got your answers. You're still wrong.

I did? Well, the answer then is that you, Joe, have no citation from the report that says there was evidence found of collusion/conspiracy/coordination with the Russians to interfere with the 2016 campaign.

You have not cited one shred of evidence of that.

You have cited evidence that Russians may have called the campaign office and asked for signs and help coordinating logistics of rallies - at a time when the campaign workers didn't know they were "foreign person" much less Russians. But, that's not evidence of coordination, conspiracy or collusion with Russians to interefere with the 2016 campaign.

If that's your big gotcha - that a Russian(s) called a campaign office asking for signs and attempting to coordinate logistics of a rally, without the campaign worker knowing it was a foreign person calling, then you've proven yourself wrong. If you have something else, bring it.

[Joe]

What about the obstruction issue? Any thoughts on that?

A lot, and I gave some above. But I want the courtesy of a straight answer from Joe to my direct questions about the first bit, before I move on to the second bit.

Well kid, you got your answers. You're still wrong.

I did? Well, the answer then is that you, Joe, have no citation from the report that says there was evidence found of collusion/conspiracy/coordination with the Russians to interfere with the 2016 campaign.

You have not cited one shred of evidence of that.

You have cited evidence that Russians may have called the campaign office and asked for signs and help coordinating logistics of rallies - at a time when the campaign workers didn't know they were "foreign person" much less Russians. But, that's not evidence of coordination, conspiracy or collusion with Russians to interefere with the 2016 campaign.

If that's your big gotcha - that a Russian(s) called a campaign office asking for signs and attempting to coordinate logistics of a rally, without the campaign worker knowing it was a foreign person calling, then you've proven yourself wrong. If you have something else, bring it.

Now kid, do you really think that BS flies with anybody here? I linked you to a previous post with three examples of coordination between the Trump campaign, US persons, and the IRA. If you're not happy with that, it's not my problem. You made a false claim

The report found zero evidence of coordination or conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia (or any American and Russia).

and the report listed examples where the Trump campaign and US persons did in fact coordinate with Russians to influence the election, albeit unwittingly. That's irrelevant to the accuracy of your claim, as is the fact that unwitting coordination is not a crime, since you didn't include either of those caveats in your big, sweeping assertion.

You don't think the word coordination means coordination, kid? You're welcome to you're opinions, but you've not provided a single citation to back them up, so they don't carry a lot of weight with me.

I do get a kick out of you trying to hand wave the coordination Mueller documented. It's a big gotcha to the people who indicted 12 Russian agents, and sent one American to prison for six months, and to me. Again you're welcome to you're opinion, but I'm free to disregard it given your inability to cite anything supporting it.

I'll get to your other posts tomorrow night. I have higher priorities this evening, and you're opinion notwithstanding, you're not entitled to any courtesy from me.

[Brian Peacock]

Martha Stewart to Donald Trump: Can there be obstruction of justice with no underlying crime?

...

Legal experts told us that a president (or anyone) could still be prosecuted for obstructing justice if they believed they might be prosecuted — even if they ultimately never are.

"You can obstruct justice even if a prosecutor ultimately finds you were not guilty of committing the crime that was the focus of the underlying investigation," said Miriam Baer, a professor at Brooklyn Law School. "Even if a prosecutor ultimately concluded that you weren’t guilty of crime X, that says nothing as to whether you thought that you might be indicted for crime X, or, for that matter, if you thought one of your friends of family members would be indicted for crime X."

Eric Posner, a professor at the University of Chicago Law School, agreed that an obstruction prosecution could have been argued in this case.

"Suppose Trump knew that no crime had been committed but believed that the investigation would uncover politically or personally embarrassing information, or if he believed that the investigation would embarrass or implicate an ally, aide, or family member," Posner said. "Then interfering with the investigation is a crime. The reason is that the purpose of the investigation is to find the truth, and if people obstruct an investigation, then the investigation becomes more difficult, wasting government resources."

That said, an obstruction case is naturally going to be stronger if there is an underlying crime that’s being prosecuted, said Ric Simmons, a professor at the Ohio State University Moritz College of Law.

It is "technically possible, but the legal and practical challenges in winning such an obstruction case would be great," Simmons said. "A prosecutor would have to prove that the president believed there was a collusion case ‘contemplated’ against him even when he did not engage in collusion. That is theoretically possible, but hard to prove to a jury."

...

[Joe]

Martha Stewart to Donald Trump: Can there be obstruction of justice with no underlying crime?

...

Legal experts told us that a president (or anyone) could still be prosecuted for obstructing justice if they believed they might be prosecuted — even if they ultimately never are.

"You can obstruct justice even if a prosecutor ultimately finds you were not guilty of committing the crime that was the focus of the underlying investigation," said Miriam Baer, a professor at Brooklyn Law School. "Even if a prosecutor ultimately concluded that you weren’t guilty of crime X, that says nothing as to whether you thought that you might be indicted for crime X, or, for that matter, if you thought one of your friends of family members would be indicted for crime X."

Eric Posner, a professor at the University of Chicago Law School, agreed that an obstruction prosecution could have been argued in this case.

"Suppose Trump knew that no crime had been committed but believed that the investigation would uncover politically or personally embarrassing information, or if he believed that the investigation would embarrass or implicate an ally, aide, or family member," Posner said. "Then interfering with the investigation is a crime. The reason is that the purpose of the investigation is to find the truth, and if people obstruct an investigation, then the investigation becomes more difficult, wasting government resources."

That said, an obstruction case is naturally going to be stronger if there is an underlying crime that’s being prosecuted, said Ric Simmons, a professor at the Ohio State University Moritz College of Law.

It is "technically possible, but the legal and practical challenges in winning such an obstruction case would be great," Simmons said. "A prosecutor would have to prove that the president believed there was a collusion case ‘contemplated’ against him even when he did not engage in collusion. That is theoretically possible, but hard to prove to a jury."

...

Mueller apparently agrees, writing "Obstruction of justice can be motivated by a desire to protect non-criminal personal interests, to protect against investigations where underlying criminal liability falls into a gray area, or to avoid personal embarrassment. The injury to the integrity of the justice system is the same regardless of whether a person committed an underlying wrong."

It gets interesting, to be sure. I found the Michael Cohen case to be eerily similar to Bill Clinton's obstruction of justice article of impeachment WRT his secretary Betty Currie. Both Clinton and Trump made statements that didn't direct their employee to lie, but forcefully endorsed a story that was false. Currie didn't take it as direction, but Cohen has testified that he did.

Independent counsel Ken Starr cut Clinton no slack, writing "There is substantial and credible information that President Clinton endeavored to obstruct justice by attempting to influence the testimony of Betty Currie," but charges were never filed. Instead Clinton was impeached and acquitted.

Mueller was more circumspect, "In analyzing the President's intent in his actions towards Cohen as a potential witness , there is evidence that could support the inference that the President intended to discourage Cohen from cooperating with the government because Cohen's information would shed adverse light on the President's campaign-period conduct and statements."

Ironically, Starr criticized the Mueller report as Special counsel overkill. Of course, irony is lost on these people.

[Joe]

Another point - your last post is a complete avoidance of substantiating your claim. I'm claiming that what you have said is in there is not in there. So, it's up to you, making the positive assertion, to actually substantiate it. Saying "go read the report" is you not substantiating the claim. I have read the report. Now, if you want to back up your assertion that it does, in fact, identify evidence of collusion, conspiracy or coordination by Trump campaign persons with Russia to interfere with the election, then please, present it. What evidence was identified of collusion, conspiracy or coordination by the Trump campaign persons with Russia to interfere with the election?

It's a simple question. Answer it. Or, if you aren't making that assertion, then I certainly don't want to misstate your assertion. Just say - there's your problem 42, "I am not asserting that the Mueller report identifies evidence of collusion, conspiracy or coordination by Trump campaign person(s) with Russia to interfere with the election."

Uh, Forty Two....My last post asked, "What did I say was 'overwhelmingly clear' Trump had done? It's not "collusion/coordination/conspiracy."

I think you must have confused it with the post where I demonstrated that Meuller report did say there was coordination between the Trump campaign, American citizens, and Russians.

Funny that you're responding to that post selectively. It's almost like you're hiding something.

I'm addressing one point at a time. I'll address obstruction, but I want the courtesy of a clear answer to my questions about collusion/conspiracy/coordination first.

It's a simple question. Answer it.Or, if you aren't making that assertion, then I certainly don't want to misstate your assertion. Just say - there's your problem Joe, "I am not asserting that

The report found zero evidence of coordination or conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia (or any American and Russia).

Fess up now, you know that's not correct.

Fess up now, you know it is correct. You haven't cited any evidence of "coordination or conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia." The one item you quoted, where people called the Trump campaign for signs and such - that's evidence AGAINST coordination, not for coordination. It shows that they had no evidence that the Trump campaign workers did anything more than pick up the phone and have someone on the other end ask for signs and help with rallies. That's not coordination with Russia to interfere wtih an election.

Now, if you have any evidence of ccordination/collusion/conspiracy with Russia to interference with the election? That's what I've been asking for. If the one thing you have is that mention about the signs and rallies, then that's fine. That's all you have.

It's funny you say I haven't cited any evidence as you reply to a post "where I demonstrated that Meuller report did say there was coordination between the Trump campaign, American citizens, and Russians." I linked to not one, but three citations from the report, and yet you keep repeating this false assertion.

Perhaps you are unwittingly subscribing to the propagandist's adage that, “Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth,” eh?

I suppose you equating a quote describing coordination with "evidence AGAINST coordination, not for coordination" makes sense from your perspective, but if you can't cite a source to support that rather dubious interpretation, I have to assume you are unwittingly subscribing to bollocks.

It wouldn't be the first time.

[Joe]

What generalization was that? Remember when you wrote, smelling of elderberries no less, this bullshit?

The report found zero evidence of coordination or conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia (or any American and Russia).

Yep, that's the basis for the argument, and you've been strawmanning ever since I refuted it.

This is very simple, and your evasions don't get around the fact that you haven't cited evidence of coordination or conpspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia to interfere with the 2016 election. If you say that my statement "the report found zero evidence..." of that to be "strawmanning" - then by all means - cite the evidence that Mueller found that the Trump campaign conspired, colluded or coordinated with Russia to interfere with the campaign

If your citation is back to that statement where people called the campaign office and asked for signs etc., but that there was no evidence that the campaign workers knew that the people were foreign persons - that's not collusion, coordination or conspiracy, nor is it evidence of it. And, if that's the best you can find, it's a wonder you keep on about it. It should be embarrassing to you to pretend that that statement was some kind of suggestion that there was "Evidence of collusion, conspiracy or coordination." It's not. You're making it up.

As for this howler,

You can't unkowingly conspire or collude or coordinate with someone.

That's exactly what Meuller said happened, people unknowingly coordinated with Russians, and he called it coordination. That's because he has a dictionary.

Now you're just inventing that. He did not say the Trump campaign coordinated with anybody, and certainly not to interfere with an election. There is nothing in the least wrong with a foreign person calling a campaign office for signs and rallies. In fact, it is protected by the constitution for a Russian or Mexican person to rally, carry signs, and support candidates. There is nothing wrong with that.

And, the quote - if you read it in other than the dishonest way you present it here - you would see that what Mueller's report says that the persons calling on the phone for the signs and help with rallies attempted to coordinate LOGISTICS of the rallies. That's not coordination "with the Trump campaign to interfere with an election." That's what we're talking about.

If your allegation is that the Mueller report stated that Russians called Trump campaign office and asked for signs and help with rallies -- oh, shit yeah - you got 'em dead to rights! If you think that constitutes vvidence of collusion, coordination, conspiracy, with the Russians to interfere with the election, you're wrong. Completely wrong.

Honestly, you can't be serious about this.

Look - if you think Mueller said that there was evidence that the Trump campaign colluded, conspired, or coordinated with Russia, then cite to it. If all you have is your ridiculous notion that foreign persons calling into a campaign office for signs and help to coordinate logistics of a rally is evidence of "coordination, conspiracy or collusion with the Russians to interfere with the election in 2016" -- if you seriously think that's what that is - then you are out of your mind.

Why don't you just man up and say, "Damn Joe, my bad. I meant to say, ' The report found zero evidence of knowing coordination or conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia (or any American and Russia)?'"

There is no such thing as unknowingly conspiring. If you don't know about the conspiracy or the criminal activity then you can't conspire. If someone is trying to conspire with you, but you don't know what they're doing, you aren't conspiring with them. The quote you relied on from the Mueller report says the russians "attempted" to coordinate logistics of a rally, when there was no evidence the campaign workers even knew they were foreign workers.

That's not coordination to interfere with an election, or evidence thereof. Why don't you just grow a pair and admit that you're grasping at straws - anything - anything --- to keep the ball in the air, and you don't have to intellectual honesty to admit when you're wrong.

See - two can play at that game. I don't like all your nonsense about manning up, and your veiled and not so veiled insults - so, I'm responding in kind. It's your preferred mode of communication, apparently, and if you want to talk that way, I'll respond the same way to you.

Well kid, aside from lies and bluster, it seems your latest attempt to deny Mueller's evidence is that coordinating "LOGISTICS" with Russians is somehow not evidence of "coordination, conspiracy or collusion with the Russians to interfere with the election in 2016."

Since logistics is defined as, "the detailed coordination of a complex operation involving many people, facilities, or supplies," it's safe to say you can't cite anybody making such a claim. Ipse dixit doesn't cut it kid.

Oh yeah, if you don't like what I have to say, you can always run away to a safe place where everybody agrees with you.

[Joe]

Fess up now, you know it is correct. You haven't cited any evidence of "coordination or conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia." The one item you quoted, where people called the Trump campaign for signs and such - that's evidence AGAINST coordination, not for coordination. It shows that they had no evidence that the Trump campaign workers did anything more than pick up the phone and have someone on the other end ask for signs and help with rallies. That's not coordination with Russia to interfere wtih an election.

Now, if you have any evidence of ccordination/collusion/conspiracy with Russia to interference with the election? That's what I've been asking for. If the one thing you have is that mention about the signs and rallies, then that's fine. That's all you have.

Gee kid, when you say

The report found zero evidence of coordination or conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia (or any American and Russia).

you really ought to pay attention when I give you examples where it did, and called you out for bad behavior.

If you want to "discuss the topic like adults" 42, you should refrain from misrepresenting my argument. As I've told you before, that's really offensive. I've highlighted the portion of my post you cut to twist my argument into something it's not, and added some comments to show how full of crap your post is.

Now. now Forty Two, play nice. If you want to "discuss the topic like adults" my young friend, you should refrain from childish insults.

Now, how about we get back to the topic: the inaccuracy of your statement. I've demonstrated the differences between your statement and Meuller's, identifying the words he used and you didn't. I know you're enthusiastic about the criminal aspect of the investigation, but mine is a linguistic point, so criminality is not relevant to the discussion.

It's an interesting digression, but it did not address my points.

The key difference in your inaccurate representation of "did not find any evidence of the Trump campaign coordinating or conspiring with Russia" and "The investigation did not identify evidence that any U.S. persons knowingly or intentionally coordinated" is that Meuller limited the scope of his statement to persons who "knowing or intentionally coordinated," and you didn't in yours.

You keep ignoring the fact that the Mueller report does not merely limit itself to "knowingly or intentionally coordinated." I have quoted a different quote from the report where that qualification is not used.
No, I focused on what you asked me to

I'm going to identify one point here so that you can begin to think clearly about this.

You said "go back and read your quotes." One of the things you wanted me to read was "The investigation did not identify evidence that any US person knowing or intentionally coordinated..."

I had plenty of other quotes that didn't use those words. Nice try at deflection.

Also, I'm not inaccurately representing the report. You are. When keep requoting, for example, the portion of the report that says that if they find that a given item was "established" it doesn't mean there wasn't any "evidence." Your quote is accurate, but you apply it to situations where the report actually says they didn't find or identify any "evidence."
Yes, my quote is accurate, and your caveat is just your opinion, which I don't value much, and is just trying to deflect from the refutation of your statements.

That's significant because the investigation did identify evidence of coordination between the Trump campaign and Russian operatives. (Volume I, page 35)

Starting in June 2016, the IRA contacted different U.S. persons affiliated with the Trump Campaign in an effort to coordinate pro-Trump IRA-organized rallies inside the United States. In all cases, the IRA contacted the Campaign while claiming to be U.S. political activists working on behalf of a conservative grassroots organization. The IRA's contacts included requests for signs and other materials to use at rallies, as well as requests to promote the rallies and help coordinate Iogistics. While certain campaign volunteers agreed to provide the requested support (for example, agreeing to set aside a number of signs), the investigation has not identified evidence that any Trump Campaign official understood the requests were coming from foreign nationals.

No coordination, eh? I wonder why Meuller used the word.

This doesn't support your sweeping generalization, and neither do any of your other quotes, which Meuller qualified in one way or another and you didn't.

Of course it does - what that paragraph says is that the IRA contacted people "in an effort to coordinate." They claimed to be US activists - and they asked for signs and other materials to be used at rallies. Campaign volunteers agreed to provide the signs and other materials. And, the Mueller investigation did not "identify any evidence" that the requests for signs came from any foreign national (Russian or otherwise). That's not "did not establish...but there might still be evidence..." -- that's did not find any EVIDENCE at all. That is neither conspiracy, nor coordination - nor collusion.

You got the quote wrong, "the investigation has not identified evidence that any Trump Campaign official understood the requests were coming from foreign nationals." That says nothing about evidence of coordination, no matter how much you capitalize. You're misrepresenting Meuller.

That paragraph describes completely innocent, lawful activity.

So what? My point is about your language, not criminality. Oh yeah, you cut that out when you misquoted me.

I've read the whole report, and found that Meuller took great pains to be careful and deliberate with his statements, and the caveat L'Emmerdeur shared deserves respect, because it reflects that care.

It does - and that care extends to making sure we don't use it to suggest that where the Mueller report says, like above, that it "...did not identify evidence..." that it means just that - no evidence was found. It does NOT mean that it merely failed to establish the point, but there was some evidence identified, just insufficient to meat a given standard of proof.

Yes, and that care extends to accurately stating what Meuller found no evidence of, "that any Trump Campaign official understood the requests were coming from foreign national," instead of misrepresenting it as no evidence of coordination.

The report describes actions and events that the Special Counsel's Office found to be supported by the evidence collected in our investigation. In some instances, the report points out the absence of evidence

In the example you just gave, it was "absence of evidence." Do you have any example of coordination or conspiracy or collusion where it was something other than absence of evidence?

You mean like the footnotes at the bottom of the page? That is why I provided the page number. Absence of evidence? PUH-LEASE!

or conflicts in the evidence about a particular fact or event. In other instances, when substantial, credible evidence enabled the Office to reach a conclusion with confidence, the report states that the investigation established that certain actions or events occurred. A statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of those facts.

And, in the example you just gave, the events that occurred were: Russians called Trump campaign workers and asked for signs and other materials to use at rallies and help coordinate Iogistics, but they posed as US persons looking to get materials for rallies. Campaign workers said, sure we will set aside signs and such for you, but no evidence was identified that they were "foreign persons."

Once again, you cut Meuller's quote to bolster your failing argument. If there's such "absence of evidence," how come you're trying to minimize what he found?

The important point had no evidence identified: coordination, collusion, conspiracy. None of that had any evidence identified.

You mean other than the evidence of coordination I provided above?

If you were a campaign volunteer and a Mexican guy called you on the phone and asked for campaign materials to throw a rally in favor of your preferred candidate, and you had no idea he worked for Mexican intelligence, you aren't "coordinating" or "conspiring" or "colluding" with him by saying "sure, we'll set aside 100 signs for you to use at the rally."

This is right up front, on page 2 of Volume I, and the scope of the statement is "the report."

As I've said, you are welcome to disagree, but I value Meuller's guidance over your opinion. Try not to take it personally.

I haven't offered my opinion - I've taken Mueller's report at its word. Where I quoted -- imaged from the report - highlighted express language. It says what it says.

Since the report "says what it says," you should accept Meuller's use of the word "coordinate" in my example as evidence of coordination.

I assume if you had a better example of conspiracy or coordination, you''d have provided it.

Wrong again! Volume I, page 29, US persons coordinating with the IRA.

The IRA organized and promoted political rallies inside the United States while posing as U.S . grassroots activists. First, the IRA used one of its preexisting social media personas (Facebook groups and Twitter accounts, for example) to announce and promote the event. The IRA then sent a large number of direct messages to followers of its social media account asking them to attend the event. From those who responded with interest in attending , the IRA then sought a U.S. person to serve as the event's coordinator. In most cases, the IRA account operator would tell the U.S . person that they personally could not attend the event due to some preexisting conflict or because they were somewhere else in the United States. 82 The IRA then further promoted the event by contacting U.S. media about the event and directing them to speak with the coordinator. 83

Volume I, page 175, US person unwittingly assisted the IRA conspiracy.

The Office did, however , charge one U.S . national for his role in supplying false or stolen bank account numbers that allowed the IRA conspirators to access U.S. online payment systems by circumventing those systems ' security features. On February 12, 2018, Richard Pinedo pleaded guilty, pursuant to a single-count information , to identity fraud , in violation of 18 U .S.C. § 1028(a)(7) and (b)(l)(D) . Plea Agreement, United States v. Richard Pinedo, No. 1:18-cr-24 (D.D.C . Feb. 12, 2018) , Doc. 10. The investigation did not establish that Pinedo was aware of the identity of the IRA members who purchased bank account numbers from him. Pinedo's sales of account numbers enabled the IRA members to anonymously access a financial network through which they transacted with U.S. persons and companies . See Gov't Sent. Mem. at 3, United States v. Richard Pinedo, No. 1:18-cr-24 (D.D.C. Sept. 26, 2018), Doc. 24. On October 10, 2018, Pinedo was sentenced to six months of imprisonment, to be followed by six months of home confinement, and was ordered to complete 100 hours of community service.

If a foreign person calling a campaign office (not identifying himself as foreign person) asking for signs and other materials to hold rallies, is in your mind of the nature of collusion, conspiracy or coordination, then I do disagree, and so did Mueller.

How would you know what Meuller thinks? You didn't read the report, and you clearly don't know what you're talking about.

Come back when you have some facts kid, your opinion means nothing to me, and given how you've distorted Meuller, you don't get to speak for him.

Meuller sez

I've spoilered it so members don't have to scroll past the quote. Some have you on ignore, and I want to be considerate of them.

I've unspoilered it (sorry Animavore) so you can't miss my examples.

That's three citations, and three doesn't equal zero, except in Trumpland, where they round funny.

Of course, Mueller did say "The Office identified dozens of U.S. rallies organized by the IRA." on Vol I, page 29, so you're really trying to say "dozens" equal zero.

Really kid, your argument has no credibility. You parroted a silly Trump talking point, and Mueller's specifics don't support it.

Give it up.

[Tero]

Trump tweets his tariffs will create wealth.

[Joe]

They will, for his rich friends. Regular folks, not so much.

[Forty Two]

Fess up now, you know it is correct. You haven't cited any evidence of "coordination or conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia." The one item you quoted, where people called the Trump campaign for signs and such - that's evidence AGAINST coordination, not for coordination. It shows that they had no evidence that the Trump campaign workers did anything more than pick up the phone and have someone on the other end ask for signs and help with rallies. That's not coordination with Russia to interfere wtih an election.

Now, if you have any evidence of ccordination/collusion/conspiracy with Russia to interference with the election? That's what I've been asking for. If the one thing you have is that mention about the signs and rallies, then that's fine. That's all you have.

Gee kid, when you say

The report found zero evidence of coordination or conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia (or any American and Russia).

you really ought to pay attention when I give you examples where it did, and called you out for bad behavior.

My bad behavior was only a mimic of yours -- I was quite clear to tell you something to the effect of "see how douchey it sounds when you address people like that?" You pretend as if I wasn't responding to you. But regardless.

Your ONE allegation that you think is "evidence of coordination or conspiracy" is your own misstatement of what Mueller actually found. You referred only to the "coordinate logistics" blurb. However, that quote does NOT say that the Trump campaign coordinated with Russia to interfere in the 2016 election. That quote says that Russians contacted the Trump campaign asking for signs and to coordinate logistics of a rally, and that the Trump campaign workers had no knowledge that they were "foreign nationals" (much less, Russians). It is dishonest to call that "the Trump campaign coordinating with Russians..." - you can't coordinate or conspire with a Russian who you don't know is a Russian, and there isn't anything wrong with picking up the phone and agreeing to provide signs and other help with rallies, no matter what the nationality of the caller.

The fact that that's your best - and only - statement that you have provided as evidence of coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia to interfere with the 2016 election proves my point - not yours.

Let's clear up one point - do you have anything else besides that blurb about Russians supposedly calling a Trump campaign office and asking for signs and to help with rallies? Anything at all?

[Forty Two]

Note - Richard Pinedo did not have anything to do with the Trump campaign, or Trump. So how in the world does that amount to evidence that Trump or the Trump campaign coordinated or conspired with Russia to interfere with the 2016 election?

Pinedo operated the website Auction Essistance, which brokered bank account numbers to allow people banned from eBay and PayPal (and similar websites) to return to those websites under a different identity. Pinedo transferred, possessed and used the identities of other people in connection with unlawful activity, according to a statement of the offense. I’m not sure how this could have less to do with Russian collusion, coordination or conspiracy with the Trump campaign to interfere with the election.