- Joined
- Sep 23, 2006
- Messages
- 16,608
- Reaction score
- 6,937
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
This was the last paragraph of the March 24, 2019 article Greenwald linked to.
By Paul Farhi March 24, 2019
“....Liberal journalists expected Mueller to build a case for scandalous collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government,” said Tim Graham, director of media analysis for the conservative Media Research Center. Noting Mueller’s broad findings, he said, “So now it’s apparent the news channels merely channeled their wishful thinking. They had a grand denouement in mind, and it didn’t happen. They mocked Trump for saying ‘no collusion,’ and that ended up being the truth. . . . The voters should feel punked, swindled.”
Facts:
Paul Farhi was obviously reacting only to :
"Read Attorney General William Barr’s Summary of the Mueller Report
By THE NEW YORK TIMES MARCH 24, 2019
The letter, by Attorney General William P. Barr, details the main findings of the special counsel’s two-year investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election..."
www.latimes.com
By Associated Press
"March 6, 2020 2:01 AM
WASHINGTON —
A federal judge on Thursday sharply rebuked Atty. Gen. William Barr’s handling of the special counsel’s Russia report, saying Barr had made “misleading public statements” to spin the investigation’s findings in favor of President Trump and had shown a “lack of candor.”
U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton delivered the criticism in a 23-page order in which he directed the Justice Department to provide him with an unredacted version of the report so that he could decide if any additional information from the document could be publicly disclosed..."
www.vox.com
" The Mueller report’s collusion section is much worse than you think
The contacts with Russians documented in the report amount to a devastating indictment of Trump’s approach to politics.
By Zack Beauchamp Apr 18, 2019, 2:50pm EDT
The strong evidence of (something like) collusion
Although Attorney General William Barr said that there was “no collusion” in his press conference before the report’s release, Mueller is actually quite explicit that he did not address the question of “collusion.” This is because, to his mind, the term is not precise enough, nor does it fall within the ambit of what was essentially a criminal investigation.
“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 writes. “For those reasons, the Office’s focus in analyzing questions of joint criminal liability was on conspiracy as defined in federal law.”
So when Mueller concludes that he “did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities,” he is not saying that there is no evidence of “collusion” at all, in any sense. What he is saying is that there is insufficient evidence to prove that the Trump administration was directly involved in Russian crimes like stealing Clinton’s emails.
But did the Trump campaign actively work with the Russian government to improve its electoral chances? If that’s the standard, then the report provides plenty of evidence to suggest the answer is yes...."
By Paul Farhi March 24, 2019
“....Liberal journalists expected Mueller to build a case for scandalous collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government,” said Tim Graham, director of media analysis for the conservative Media Research Center. Noting Mueller’s broad findings, he said, “So now it’s apparent the news channels merely channeled their wishful thinking. They had a grand denouement in mind, and it didn’t happen. They mocked Trump for saying ‘no collusion,’ and that ended up being the truth. . . . The voters should feel punked, swindled.”
Facts:
Paul Farhi was obviously reacting only to :
"Read Attorney General William Barr’s Summary of the Mueller Report
By THE NEW YORK TIMES MARCH 24, 2019
The letter, by Attorney General William P. Barr, details the main findings of the special counsel’s two-year investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election..."
Judge sharply rebukes William Barr's handling of Mueller report
A federal judge on Thursday sharply rebuked Attorney General William Barr's handling of the special counsel's Russia report.
www.latimes.com
"March 6, 2020 2:01 AM
WASHINGTON —
A federal judge on Thursday sharply rebuked Atty. Gen. William Barr’s handling of the special counsel’s Russia report, saying Barr had made “misleading public statements” to spin the investigation’s findings in favor of President Trump and had shown a “lack of candor.”
U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton delivered the criticism in a 23-page order in which he directed the Justice Department to provide him with an unredacted version of the report so that he could decide if any additional information from the document could be publicly disclosed..."
The Mueller report’s collusion section is much worse than you think
The contacts with Russians documented in the report amount to a devastating indictment of Trump’s approach to politics.
www.vox.com
The contacts with Russians documented in the report amount to a devastating indictment of Trump’s approach to politics.
By Zack Beauchamp Apr 18, 2019, 2:50pm EDT
The strong evidence of (something like) collusion
Although Attorney General William Barr said that there was “no collusion” in his press conference before the report’s release, Mueller is actually quite explicit that he did not address the question of “collusion.” This is because, to his mind, the term is not precise enough, nor does it fall within the ambit of what was essentially a criminal investigation.
“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 writes. “For those reasons, the Office’s focus in analyzing questions of joint criminal liability was on conspiracy as defined in federal law.”
So when Mueller concludes that he “did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities,” he is not saying that there is no evidence of “collusion” at all, in any sense. What he is saying is that there is insufficient evidence to prove that the Trump administration was directly involved in Russian crimes like stealing Clinton’s emails.
But did the Trump campaign actively work with the Russian government to improve its electoral chances? If that’s the standard, then the report provides plenty of evidence to suggest the answer is yes...."
