How Mueller's hunt for a Russia-Trump conspiracy came up short

[KPN]

This story made my blood boil.

- - - - - -

As recently as February, Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team dropped hints that the inquiry into Russia’s role in the 2016 U.S. election might unearth evidence of active cooperation between Moscow and President Donald Trump’s campaign. ... That turned out not to be the case.

No criminal conspiracy was documented, according to Barr. But tantalizing court statements by members of Mueller’s team and evidence disclosed in various prosecutions by the special counsel had suggested on several occasions during the 22-month investigation that a different conclusion had been possible. ... the words “did not establish” are commonly used in national security cases as language merely ruling out a chargeable offense. “It doesn’t mean a subject is innocent. It means investigators didn’t find enough evidence to charge a crime,” Montoya said.

When Mueller’s report is released - with parts blacked out by Barr to protect certain sensitive information - it is unclear how harsh a light it will shine on the contacts between Trump campaign figures and Russians. Those making contacts included the president’s son Donald Trump Jr., son-in-law Jared Kushner, former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen and campaign figures Manafort, Jeff Sessions, Michael Flynn and George Papadopoulos. ... Mueller and U.S. intelligence agencies have concluded Russia employed hacking and propaganda to sow division in the United States, harm Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton and boost Trump’s candidacy.

Perhaps no avenue of inquiry appeared more promising on the question of conspiracy than Mueller’s pursuit of longtime Trump political adviser Roger Stone ... But when Mueller indicted Stone in January, the seven criminal counts did not refer to conspiring with Russians and there was no allegation of close ties to WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange .Mueller questioned more than a half dozen Stone associates to establish if he had acted as a go-between for the campaign with Wikileaks. Stone associates who spoke to Reuters suggested Stone was struggling to make contact with Assange rather than having an inside track.

Randy Credico, a New York comedian associated with Stone who appeared before Mueller’s grand jury, is a case in point. Text messages seen by Reuters show Stone sought to use Credico as an intermediary with Assange and urged Credico to feed WikiLeaks anti-Clinton research. Credico told Reuters he never made good on the request.

More at:
[link:https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-conspiracy-analysis/how-muellers-hunt-for-a-russia-trump-conspiracy-came-up-short-idUSKCN1RQ0A7|
- - - - - -

I'm not convinced this interpretation of where we stand is correct. But that's irrelevant. We clearly need a higher legal standard when it comes to election campaigns and elected officials -- especially for the President/Commander in Chief. The checks and balances of our Constitution alone obviously do not always work. This should be a priority when we once again control both the executive and legislative branches. And we will.

[hughee99]

1. Members of Mueller's team have made statements?

I wasn’t aware that any of them had.

[KPN]

2. Court statements by Mueller's team.

[hughee99]

3. Ah, okay. I thought this was talking about some statement made

By team members to the press after the report was delivered.

[uponit7771]

4. The articles writer foolishly trust Bill "they spied on Trump, I have no evidence of that" Barr

[stillcool]

5. maybe the reporters..

can give Congress a copy of the Mueller report they obviously read.

[Mc Mike]

6. You know what could make it so that " investigators didn't find enough evidence to charge a crime''?

Obstruction.

[KPN]

7. That seems obvious to me, not to mention pressure on Mueller to wrap up his report as part

of that overall effort. That's exactly the thought I came away with from reading this piece.

[Mc Mike]

8. I'm with you all the way, K.