The introduction addresses the nature of the RUSSIAN INVOLVEMENT, AND POSSIBLE "COLLUSION" WITH THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN.
TEXT FROM THE REPORT:
"As set forth in detail in this report, the Special Counsel's investigation established that Russia interfere~ in the 2016 presidential election principally through two operations. First, a Russian entity carried out a social media campaign that favored presidential candidate Donald J. Trump and disparaged presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. Second, a Russian intelligence service conducted computer-intrusion operations against entities, employees, and volunteers working on the Clinton Campaign and then released stolen documents. The investigation also identified numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump Campaign. Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."
END TEXT.
How can we make sense of this? At one point, the report comments about the contacts between the TRUMP CAMPAIGN, AND THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT: "The investigation also identified numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump Campaign."
Yet, at another point, it seems to exonerate the TRUMP CAMPAIGN with the following: "...the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."
Further Down, we see the reasoning used in evaluating any CRIMINAL LIABILITY THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN MAY HAVE, INVOLVING THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENTS ACTIVITIES TO INFLUENCE THE OUTCOME OF THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION. IT IS HERE THAT WE FIND OUT HOW MUCH OF A "WITCH HUNT" THIS INVESTIGATION HAS BEEN. THE TRUTH MAY SUPRISE YOU.
TEXT FROM THE REPORT.
1) "In evaluating whether evidence about collective action of multiple individuals constituted a crime, we applied the framework of conspiracy law, not the concept of "collusion." In so doing, the Office recognized that the word "collud[ e ]" was used in communications with the Acting Attorney General confirming certain aspects of the investigation's scope and that the term has frequently been invoked in public reporting about the investigation. 2) But 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. For those reasons, the Office's focus in analyzing questions of joint criminal liability was on conspiracy as defined in federal law. In connection with that analysis, 3) we addressed the factual question whether members of the Trump Campaign "coordinat[ ed]"-a term that appears in the appointment order-with Russian election interference activities. Like collusion,4) "coordination" does not have a settled definition in federal criminal law. We understood "coordination" to require an agreement-tacit or express- between the Trump Campaign and the Russian government on election interference.
5) That requires more than the two parties taking actions that were informed by or responsive to the other's actions or interests. We applied the term coordination in that sense when stating in the report that the investigation did not establish that the Trump Campaign coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."
END TEXT.
THE NUMBERS 1-5 ABOVE CORRESPOND WITH THOSE BELOW, IN GIVING A BASIC INTERPRETATION OF THE MEANING OF THE ABOVE TEXT.
1) THE POPULAR TERM "COLLUSION" HAS NO BASIS IN LAW, THE LAW REGARDING "CONSPIRACY" WAS USED.
2) JOINT CRIMINAL LIABILITY WAS DETERMINED BY THE FEDERAL LAW REGARDING "CONSPIRACY."
3) DETERMINED WHETHER OR NOT MEMBERS OF THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN "COORDINATED" WITH THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENTS INTERFERENCE ACTIVITIES.
4) THE OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL COUNCEL DECIDED THAT TO ACCUSE THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN OF "COORDINATING" WITH THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT, THERE WOULD HAVE TO BE AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN BOTH BODIES, "TACIT OR EXPRESS."
5)"That requires more than the two parties taking actions that were informed by or responsive to the other's actions or interests."
WHAT DOES THIS MEAN? A MEMBER OF THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN COULD HAVE ENGAGED IN "CONSPIRITORIAL CONDUCT" WITH THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT AND/OR AFFILIATED INDIVIDUALS OR GROUPS, BUT IF IT WAS NOT DONE AT THE EXPRESS ORDER OF THE CAMPAIGN ITSELF, with the approval of the Russian Government, NO CRIME WAS COMMITTED.
CUTTING THROUGH THE NOISE, HERE IS WHAT IT MEANS: THAT NO ONE IN THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN IS EXONERATED. BY THIS VERY NARROW DEFINITION, ANY INDIVIDUAL OR GROUP IN THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN COULD HAVE "CONSPIRED" WITH THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT, OR ANYONE WORKING ON BEHALF OF THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT, AND AS LONG AS THERE WAS NO EXPRESS AGREEMENT AMONG BOTH THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN AND THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT, THE FINDING WOULD BE THAT OF NO "COLLUSION" OR NO "CONSPIRACY."
THIS IS A TRAVESTY. IT LITERALLY GIVES INDIVIDUALS AND GROUPS A FREE PASS TO HAVE COMMITTED ELECTION FRAUD, AS LONG AS THE "LEADERSHIP" DID NOT FORMALLY APPROVE IT.
The introduction addresses the nature of the RUSSIAN INVOLVEMENT, AND POSSIBLE "COLLUSION" WITH THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN.
TEXT FROM THE REPORT:
"As set forth in detail in this report, the Special Counsel's investigation established that Russia interfere~ in the 2016 presidential election principally through two operations. First, a Russian entity carried out a social media campaign that favored presidential candidate Donald J. Trump and disparaged presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. Second, a Russian intelligence service conducted computer-intrusion operations against entities, employees, and volunteers working on the Clinton Campaign and then released stolen documents. The investigation also identified numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump Campaign. Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."
END TEXT.
How can we make sense of this? At one point, the report comments about the contacts between the TRUMP CAMPAIGN, AND THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT: "The investigation also identified numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump Campaign."
Yet, at another point, it seems to exonerate the TRUMP CAMPAIGN with the following: "...the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."
Further Down, we see the reasoning used in evaluating any CRIMINAL LIABILITY THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN MAY HAVE, INVOLVING THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENTS ACTIVITIES TO INFLUENCE THE OUTCOME OF THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION. IT IS HERE THAT WE FIND OUT HOW MUCH OF A "WITCH HUNT" THIS INVESTIGATION HAS BEEN. THE TRUTH MAY SUPRISE YOU.
TEXT FROM THE REPORT.
1) "In evaluating whether evidence about collective action of multiple individuals constituted a crime, we applied the framework of conspiracy law, not the concept of "collusion." In so doing, the Office recognized that the word "collud[ e ]" was used in communications with the Acting Attorney General confirming certain aspects of the investigation's scope and that the term has frequently been invoked in public reporting about the investigation. 2) But 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. For those reasons, the Office's focus in analyzing questions of joint criminal liability was on conspiracy as defined in federal law. In connection with that analysis, 3) we addressed the factual question whether members of the Trump Campaign "coordinat[ ed]"-a term that appears in the appointment order-with Russian election interference activities. Like collusion,4) "coordination" does not have a settled definition in federal criminal law. We understood "coordination" to require an agreement-tacit or express- between the Trump Campaign and the Russian government on election interference.
5) That requires more than the two parties taking actions that were informed by or responsive to the other's actions or interests. We applied the term coordination in that sense when stating in the report that the investigation did not establish that the Trump Campaign coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."
THE NUMBERS 1-5 ABOVE CORRESPOND WITH THOSE BELOW, IN GIVING A BASIC INTERPRETATION OF THE MEANING OF THE ABOVE TEXT.
1) THE POPULAR TERM "COLLUSION" HAS NO BASIS IN LAW, THE LAW REGARDING "CONSPIRACY" WAS USED.
2) JOINT CRIMINAL LIABILITY WAS DETERMINED BY THE FEDERAL LAW REGARDING "CONSPIRACY."
3) DETERMINED WHETHER OR NOT MEMBERS OF THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN "COORDINATED" WITH THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENTS INTERFERENCE ACTIVITIES.
4) THE OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL COUNCEL DECIDED THAT TO ACCUSE THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN OF "COORDINATING" WITH THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT, THERE WOULD HAVE TO BE AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN BOTH BODIES, "TACIT OR EXPRESS."
5)"That requires more than the two parties taking actions that were informed by or responsive to the other's actions or interests."
WHAT DOES THIS MEAN? A MEMBER OF THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN COULD HAVE ENGAGED IN "CONSPIRITORIAL CONDUCT" WITH THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT AND/OR AFFILIATED INDIVIDUALS OR GROUPS, BUT IF IT WAS NOT DONE AT THE EXPRESS ORDER OF THE CAMPAIGN ITSELF, with the approval of the Russian Government, NO CRIME WAS COMMITTED.
CUTTING THROUGH THE NOISE, HERE IS WHAT IT MEANS: THAT NO ONE IN THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN IS EXONERATED. BY THIS VERY NARROW DEFINITION, ANY INDIVIDUAL OR GROUP IN THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN COULD HAVE "CONSPIRED" WITH THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT, OR ANYONE WORKING ON BEHALF OF THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT, AND AS LONG AS THERE WAS NO EXPRESS AGREEMENT AMONG BOTH THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN AND THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT, THE FINDING WOULD BE THAT OF NO "COLLUSION" OR NO "CONSPIRACY."
THIS IS A TRAVESTY. IT LITERALLY GIVES INDIVIDUALS AND GROUPS A FREE PASS TO HAVE COMMITTED ELECTION FRAUD, AS LONG AS THE "LEADERSHIP" DID NOT FORMALLY APPROVE IT.
TEXT FROM THE REPORT:
"As set forth in detail in this report, the Special Counsel's investigation established that Russia interfere~ in the 2016 presidential election principally through two operations. First, a Russian entity carried out a social media campaign that favored presidential candidate Donald J. Trump and disparaged presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. Second, a Russian intelligence service conducted computer-intrusion operations against entities, employees, and volunteers working on the Clinton Campaign and then released stolen documents. The investigation also identified numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump Campaign. Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."
END TEXT.
How can we make sense of this? At one point, the report comments about the contacts between the TRUMP CAMPAIGN, AND THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT: "The investigation also identified numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump Campaign."
Yet, at another point, it seems to exonerate the TRUMP CAMPAIGN with the following: "...the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."
Further Down, we see the reasoning used in evaluating any CRIMINAL LIABILITY THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN MAY HAVE, INVOLVING THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENTS ACTIVITIES TO INFLUENCE THE OUTCOME OF THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION. IT IS HERE THAT WE FIND OUT HOW MUCH OF A "WITCH HUNT" THIS INVESTIGATION HAS BEEN. THE TRUTH MAY SUPRISE YOU.
TEXT FROM THE REPORT.
1) "In evaluating whether evidence about collective action of multiple individuals constituted a crime, we applied the framework of conspiracy law, not the concept of "collusion." In so doing, the Office recognized that the word "collud[ e ]" was used in communications with the Acting Attorney General confirming certain aspects of the investigation's scope and that the term has frequently been invoked in public reporting about the investigation. 2) But 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. For those reasons, the Office's focus in analyzing questions of joint criminal liability was on conspiracy as defined in federal law. In connection with that analysis, 3) we addressed the factual question whether members of the Trump Campaign "coordinat[ ed]"-a term that appears in the appointment order-with Russian election interference activities. Like collusion,4) "coordination" does not have a settled definition in federal criminal law. We understood "coordination" to require an agreement-tacit or express- between the Trump Campaign and the Russian government on election interference.
5) That requires more than the two parties taking actions that were informed by or responsive to the other's actions or interests. We applied the term coordination in that sense when stating in the report that the investigation did not establish that the Trump Campaign coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."
END TEXT.
THE NUMBERS 1-5 ABOVE CORRESPOND WITH THOSE BELOW, IN GIVING A BASIC INTERPRETATION OF THE MEANING OF THE ABOVE TEXT.
1) THE POPULAR TERM "COLLUSION" HAS NO BASIS IN LAW, THE LAW REGARDING "CONSPIRACY" WAS USED.
2) JOINT CRIMINAL LIABILITY WAS DETERMINED BY THE FEDERAL LAW REGARDING "CONSPIRACY."
3) DETERMINED WHETHER OR NOT MEMBERS OF THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN "COORDINATED" WITH THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENTS INTERFERENCE ACTIVITIES.
4) THE OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL COUNCEL DECIDED THAT TO ACCUSE THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN OF "COORDINATING" WITH THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT, THERE WOULD HAVE TO BE AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN BOTH BODIES, "TACIT OR EXPRESS."
5)"That requires more than the two parties taking actions that were informed by or responsive to the other's actions or interests."
WHAT DOES THIS MEAN? A MEMBER OF THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN COULD HAVE ENGAGED IN "CONSPIRITORIAL CONDUCT" WITH THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT AND/OR AFFILIATED INDIVIDUALS OR GROUPS, BUT IF IT WAS NOT DONE AT THE EXPRESS ORDER OF THE CAMPAIGN ITSELF, with the approval of the Russian Government, NO CRIME WAS COMMITTED.
CUTTING THROUGH THE NOISE, HERE IS WHAT IT MEANS: THAT NO ONE IN THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN IS EXONERATED. BY THIS VERY NARROW DEFINITION, ANY INDIVIDUAL OR GROUP IN THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN COULD HAVE "CONSPIRED" WITH THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT, OR ANYONE WORKING ON BEHALF OF THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT, AND AS LONG AS THERE WAS NO EXPRESS AGREEMENT AMONG BOTH THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN AND THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT, THE FINDING WOULD BE THAT OF NO "COLLUSION" OR NO "CONSPIRACY."
THIS IS A TRAVESTY. IT LITERALLY GIVES INDIVIDUALS AND GROUPS A FREE PASS TO HAVE COMMITTED ELECTION FRAUD, AS LONG AS THE "LEADERSHIP" DID NOT FORMALLY APPROVE IT.
