I'm going to identify one point here so that you can begin to think clearly about this.Joe wrote: ↑Thu May 02, 2019 2:18 am
No, I won't, because the report doesn't support that overly broad assertion. Once again, as L'Emmerdeur pointed out, the report says;Go back and read your quotes:A statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of those facts.
Contrast them with what you've written
- "the investigation did not establish"
- "The investigation did not, however, yield evidence sufficient to sustain any charge"
- "the Office did not find evidence likely to prove beyond a reasonable doubt"
- "The investigation did not identify evidence that any U.S. persons knowingly or intentionally coordinated"
Do you see the difference?
- "found zero evidence of coordination or conspiracy"
- "did not find any evidence of the Trump campaign coordinating/conspiring with Russia."
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..."
Ok., then you think that is "contrasted" by my statements that the Mueller investigation "did not find any evidence of the Trump campaign coordinating or conspiring with Russia."
You ask if I see the difference.
No. I do not. Because conspiracy is an intent crime. That means you CAN'T unintentionally conspire. So, if they do not find evidence of an intentional/knowing conspiracy, then they did not find evidence of a conspiracy at all. You can't conspire by accident. You can't conspire by mistake. A conspiracy is a secret plan between people to do something illegal. You can't accidentally have a plan to do something illegal. It's not plan then. Similarly to "coordinate" about the 2016 election or to do something requires intent - you can't "coordinate to interfere with the election" without intending to do so.
So, if you would like to explain the difference, I would appreciate it. Explain exactly how someone can be guilty of unintentionally or without knowledge "conspiring" or "coordinating" with Russia to interfere in the 2016 election.
If you can articulate a difference that makes any sense, I would be willing to change my mind.
Until then, if Mueller says that he did not find evidence of any US Person intentionally or knowningly conspiring or coordinating, then to me that means nobody was doing anything wrong in that regard - because if anyone was ACCIDENTALLY or UNINTENTIONALLY or UNKNOWINGLY conspiring or coordinating with Russia, then they weren't really conspiring or coordinating at all. They were unwitting dupes. An unwitting dupe is not a criminal is he? And if you disagree - then please explain how someone can accidentally or unintentionally or unknowingly "conspire" or "coordinate" with Russian persons to interfere in the US election?
As to the point that L'Emmerdeur made about "A statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of those fact." Yes, indeed, that's true. But, where the report says there was no evidence of something, that DOES mean that there was no evidence discovered by the investigation. And, in relation to the conspiracy/coordination quote you asked me to compare, Mueller DID say there was no evidence. It is NOT the case that "A statement that the investigation found no EVIDENCE of a particular fact does not mean that there was no EVIDENCE of that fact." Having no evidence is having no evidence.