Waco1947 said:

---

dt supporters have a way of emptying words of their meaning.
Lies do that.

---

^^^ Drinking heavily, again, I see???

The true anti Trump fanatics will merely keep on with their fantastic conspiracies.

They've invested far too much of their limited egos to ever admit they were wrong .

Jack and DP said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

dt supporters have a way of emptying words of their meaning.
Lies do that.

---

Like when you try to turn God into god with a little g?

---

No poopyhead! Stop making stuff up.
The secular world is leaving the church in groves because you insist on requiring them to believe an impossible theism.
I still believe the Christian God holds one of the strongest hopes for humankind and you don't get to try rob my God of meaning.

Waco1947 said:

---

No poopyhead!

---

Whoa! Watch that language on a public website.

Waco1947 said:

---

Jack and DP said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

dt supporters have a way of emptying words of their meaning.
Lies do that.

---

Like when you try to turn God into god with a little g?

---

No poopyhead! Stop making stuff up.
The secular world is leaving the church in groves because you insist on requiring them to believe an impossible theism.
I still believe the Christian God holds one of the strongest hopes for humankind and you don't get to try rob my God of meaning.

---

Groves are trees.

Bigger Fake News :

Collusion

Or

Jussie Homphobic Racist MAGA Attack?

riflebear said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

I get the celebrating now in the short term, since this letter is tailor made for the kind of headlines Trump wanted out of it. But surely even the Right has to understand that in the long-term, this letter isn't going to cut it. Barr's conclusions by themselves aren't enough, and there are enough loose threads left hanging by this letter that we need to see at least some of the underlying report.

The only direct quote provided from the Mueller Report on the subject states that the investigation "did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities". That's a very brief snippet from what is surely a very lengthy explanation. "Did not establish" is also very different from "no evidence" or "established that X did not happen", and the words "Russian Government" are doing a lot of work there when you consider the revelation that Manafort was dealing regularly with an ex Russian GRU agent.

There is also thought to be at least 1 evidentiary subpoena issued by Mueller that is still being litigated, which raises questions of its own about how a report was issued without that wrapped up. I'm also curious why Jerome Corsi was never charged after (he says) being notified to expect it for lying. Unfortunately, for now it seems that a lot of questions will remain unaddressed, and a lot of people will pretend that is not so to declare victory.

---

There are some of the brightest minds of former special prosectors who are saying there couldn't have been a more definitive statement from Mueller that there as 100% NO COLLUSION. Are you really trying to spin this by saying there still could have been? What is your background to make this statement, watching CNN & MSNBC commentators who are doubling down after lying for 2 1/2 yrs. Are you still believing these people?

---

You literally quoted me giving examples of more definitive statements... "Did not establish" is markedly different from "established that XYZ did not". I even gave examples of hanging loose threads still to be answered. Surely the Mueller pull-quote sentence Barr used was part of a larger paragraph, why didn't he quote more of it to contextualize? Because like it or not, that is a pretty narrowly qualified statement given the allegations involved. Why should we essentially have to take his word for it when Mueller wrote a detailed answer to the question(s)? Especially after the bullsht selective disclosures to support a narrative Nunes pulled with the Page memo.

One sentence stripped of all context and wrapped in a coating of Barr's "conclusions" is not enough for me, so let's see the report. The unbelievable irony and similarity of using those last words is not lost on me as a Baylor alum, and unlike Pepper Hamilton Mueller actually did compile a document, so again, let's see the report. I could be wrong about this (I hope), but I doubt Barr let's it come out in a substantially complete form while he is AG.

As for people lying the last 2.5yrs, I'd love to hear an explanation for all the Trump people's lies about ties to Russia for all that time too.

corncob pipe said:

---

---

Because of Maralago, it should say "Florida man"

HuMcK said:

---

riflebear said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

I get the celebrating now in the short term, since this letter is tailor made for the kind of headlines Trump wanted out of it. But surely even the Right has to understand that in the long-term, this letter isn't going to cut it. Barr's conclusions by themselves aren't enough, and there are enough loose threads left hanging by this letter that we need to see at least some of the underlying report.

The only direct quote provided from the Mueller Report on the subject states that the investigation "did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities". That's a very brief snippet from what is surely a very lengthy explanation. "Did not establish" is also very different from "no evidence" or "established that X did not happen", and the words "Russian Government" are doing a lot of work there when you consider the revelation that Manafort was dealing regularly with an ex Russian GRU agent.

There is also thought to be at least 1 evidentiary subpoena issued by Mueller that is still being litigated, which raises questions of its own about how a report was issued without that wrapped up. I'm also curious why Jerome Corsi was never charged after (he says) being notified to expect it for lying. Unfortunately, for now it seems that a lot of questions will remain unaddressed, and a lot of people will pretend that is not so to declare victory.

---

There are some of the brightest minds of former special prosectors who are saying there couldn't have been a more definitive statement from Mueller that there as 100% NO COLLUSION. Are you really trying to spin this by saying there still could have been? What is your background to make this statement, watching CNN & MSNBC commentators who are doubling down after lying for 2 1/2 yrs. Are you still believing these people?

---

You literally quoted me giving examples of more definitive statements... "Did not establish" is markedly different from "established that XYZ did not". I even gave examples of hanging loose threads still to be answered. Surely the Mueller pull-quote sentence Barr used was part of a larger paragraph, why didn't he quote more of it to contextualize? Because like it or not, that is a pretty narrowly qualified statement given the allegations involved. Why should we essentially have to take his word for it when Mueller wrote a detailed answer to the question(s)? Especially after the bullsht selective disclosures to support a narrative Nunes pulled with the Page memo.

One sentence stripped of all context and wrapped in a coating of Barr's "conclusions" is not enough for me, so let's see the report. The unbelievable irony and similarity of using those last words is not lost on me as a Baylor alum, and unlike Pepper Hamilton Mueller actually did compile a document, so again, let's see the report. I could be wrong about this (I hope), but I doubt Barr let's it come out in a substantially complete form while he is AG.

As for people lying the last 2.5yrs, I'd love to hear an explanation for all the Trump people's lies about ties to Russia for all that time too.

---

^^^ Now ALL we'll hear from democrat side(JUST LIKE THIS JOKER ABOVE HuMcK!) through the next election is ......

"We need to see report"

That's all they got!!! That's soooooo dishonest but dishonest is what they are!

2 scenarios are variables of "we need to see report" and democrats will spin BOTH to their advantage by more lies, but lies are all they know
1. they'll never get report and they'll claim coverup by Trump appointed Barr
2. they'll get report, cherry pick parts of it(like they already have tried to say report doesn't "exonerate Trump") and spin the wording to their advantage

ALL DEMOCRATS HAVE IS LIES, LIES AND MORE LIES

contrario said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

riflebear said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

I get the celebrating now in the short term, since this letter is tailor made for the kind of headlines Trump wanted out of it. But surely even the Right has to understand that in the long-term, this letter isn't going to cut it. Barr's conclusions by themselves aren't enough, and there are enough loose threads left hanging by this letter that we need to see at least some of the underlying report.

The only direct quote provided from the Mueller Report on the subject states that the investigation "did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities". That's a very brief snippet from what is surely a very lengthy explanation. "Did not establish" is also very different from "no evidence" or "established that X did not happen", and the words "Russian Government" are doing a lot of work there when you consider the revelation that Manafort was dealing regularly with an ex Russian GRU agent.

There is also thought to be at least 1 evidentiary subpoena issued by Mueller that is still being litigated, which raises questions of its own about how a report was issued without that wrapped up. I'm also curious why Jerome Corsi was never charged after (he says) being notified to expect it for lying. Unfortunately, for now it seems that a lot of questions will remain unaddressed, and a lot of people will pretend that is not so to declare victory.

---

There are some of the brightest minds of former special prosectors who are saying there couldn't have been a more definitive statement from Mueller that there as 100% NO COLLUSION. Are you really trying to spin this by saying there still could have been? What is your background to make this statement, watching CNN & MSNBC commentators who are doubling down after lying for 2 1/2 yrs. Are you still believing these people?

---

You literally quoted me giving examples of more definitive statements... "Did not establish" is markedly different from "established that XYZ did not". I even gave examples of hanging loose threads still to be answered. Surely the Mueller pull-quote sentence Barr used was part of a larger paragraph, why didn't he quote more of it to contextualize? Because like it or not, that is a pretty narrowly qualified statement given the allegations involved. Why should we essentially have to take his word for it when Mueller wrote a detailed answer to the question(s)? Especially after the bullsht selective disclosures to support a narrative Nunes pulled with the Page memo.

One sentence stripped of all context and wrapped in a coating of Barr's "conclusions" is not enough for me, so let's see the report. The unbelievable irony and similarity of using those last words is not lost on me as a Baylor alum, and unlike Pepper Hamilton Mueller actually did compile a document, so again, let's see the report. I could be wrong about this (I hope), but I doubt Barr let's it come out in a substantially complete form while he is AG.

As for people lying the last 2.5yrs, I'd love to hear an explanation for all the Trump people's lies about ties to Russia for all that time too.

---

Wait, you have a law degree, right? What shtty, second-rate law program did you go to? For the same reason courts find accused people "not guilty" is the same reason the findings were worded the way they were.

And for the past 2 years you have been effectively saying there is indisputable evidence that Trump colluded with Russia. What evidence do you have that Mueller missed? We need to send it to congress immediately. Or were you just assuming Maddow was telling the truth?

Trump is sketchy as fck, I can't stand the guy and I disagree with conservative Republicans that support him, but the democrats and the media look foolish today for continuing the Russia collusion narrative for so long. An extensive, impartial investigation effectively found Trump not guilty. Time to move on.

---

I get the "did not establish" language. I was just pointing out that it isn't as definitive as y'all make it out to be, and could have been more so, especially when you figure that was apparently the most definitive statement Barr could pull from what is reportedly a 600pg document. I'd really like to see the whole sentence at least, if not the paragraph it comes from. I've thought since Manafort's feigned cooperation stunt that Mueller had a less-than coin-flip chance of being able to conclusively prove anything against Trump specifically. The way they went hard after Manafort says to me that Mueller viewed him as the fulcrum for whatever malfeasance he believes was going on with the Trump campaign, with the question being was he directed from higher up or working independently. Trump may be the most ignorant and uninformed POTUS we'll ever see, but he certainly knows how to insulate himself from liability (civil and criminal), and Manafort has proven willing to keep his mouth shut while he waits for a pardon.

At this point without the underlying report available, I'm just trying to square the one incomplete (hence the brackets around the [T] at the start of the cite, indicating the capitalization was new formating for Barr's summary and there were some preceding words that didn't make it in) sentence from Mueller's report that Barr cited with the knowledge we have from Manafort's case. We know for a fact that Mueller's team at least believed (I'd be very surprised if they didn't have evidence to back it up since they took Manafort's freedom away over lying about it) Manafort was regularly meeting with an ex Russian spy named Konstantin Kilimnik. That knowledge makes Mueller's narrowly qualified and incomplete sentence about coordinating with the "Russian Government" a little more conspicuous in it's narrowness, don't you think? Manafort's dealings with Russian non governmental cut-outs like Kilimnik (which he admits on the record to sharing campaign polling data with) and Oleg Deripaska is seemingly not covered by the provided statement from Mueller's Report about not establishing proof of coordination with the Russian Government. Roger Stone is also known to have been in somewhat regular contact with Julian Assange at Wikileaks, another Russian cut-out that isn't covered by Mueller's statement, and at least once at the direction of a "senior campaign official" according to his indictment. Don Jr also accepted a meeting after being promised the help of the "Russian Government" by a representative of yet another Russian billionaire, and thats where the "did not establish" language probably kicks in; we know he enthusiastically took the meeting, and Mueller was apparently unable to establish that a deal was struck...but that doesn't make it any less suspicious or answer any questions about the event that have been raised.

Barr is a lawyer too, it's not lost on him that specific words have specific meanings and games can be played when your audience can't see the rest of the document. You guys are acting like it's the height of impossibility that Barr would use one quick pull quote to put his spin on things and crystallize a narrative before any contradicting info ever comes out, even though we all watched Devin Nunes do exactly that with his Carter Page memo. I imagine at some point in the near future we will hear from Mueller himself in a hearing, and if he says that Barr's summary is an accurate representation of both the spirit and letter of the Report, then that would have to suffice. As it stand though, Barr's summary left a whole lot of loose threads hanging around, and I sincerely hope that they don't bury the Report past 2020 so we just have to take his word for it on things.

Notice also how I typed all that out without any insults or personal digs? You should try it sometime, you're about one degree away from being Doc and two degrees from Golem. Still a few steps off from Florda though at least...

Waco1947 said:

---

Jack and DP said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

dt supporters have a way of emptying words of their meaning.
Lies do that.

---

Like when you try to turn God into god with a little g?

---

No poopyhead! Stop making stuff up.
The secular world is leaving the church in groves because you insist on requiring them to believe an impossible theism.
I still believe the Christian God holds one of the strongest hopes for humankind and you don't get to try rob my God of meaning.

---

Are the groves of cedar, pine, or mangrove?

Your problem, with all due respect, is you trust a democrat tool lik HuMcK at all!!!

Maybe someday you'll stop wasting time assuming they have ANY legitimacy in ANYTHING THEY DO OR SAY

As I've said before, middle of road today gets you run over

You just got run over trusting, or even respecting, ANYTHING HuMcK says or does! Democrats are same as him today

Perfect example here

trey3216 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Jack and DP said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

dt supporters have a way of emptying words of their meaning.
Lies do that.

---

Like when you try to turn God into god with a little g?

---

No poopyhead! Stop making stuff up.
The secular world is leaving the church in groves because you insist on requiring them to believe an impossible theism.
I still believe the Christian God holds one of the strongest hopes for humankind and you don't get to try rob my God of meaning.

---

Are the groves of cedar, pine, or mangrove?

---

Groves were connected with paganism in the OT as alters and images to heathen gods were constructed there. ......worshiping the wood as it were.

Sam Lowry said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

contrario said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

riflebear said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

I get the celebrating now in the short term, since this letter is tailor made for the kind of headlines Trump wanted out of it. But surely even the Right has to understand that in the long-term, this letter isn't going to cut it. Barr's conclusions by themselves aren't enough, and there are enough loose threads left hanging by this letter that we need to see at least some of the underlying report.

The only direct quote provided from the Mueller Report on the subject states that the investigation "did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities". That's a very brief snippet from what is surely a very lengthy explanation. "Did not establish" is also very different from "no evidence" or "established that X did not happen", and the words "Russian Government" are doing a lot of work there when you consider the revelation that Manafort was dealing regularly with an ex Russian GRU agent.

There is also thought to be at least 1 evidentiary subpoena issued by Mueller that is still being litigated, which raises questions of its own about how a report was issued without that wrapped up. I'm also curious why Jerome Corsi was never charged after (he says) being notified to expect it for lying. Unfortunately, for now it seems that a lot of questions will remain unaddressed, and a lot of people will pretend that is not so to declare victory.

---

There are some of the brightest minds of former special prosectors who are saying there couldn't have been a more definitive statement from Mueller that there as 100% NO COLLUSION. Are you really trying to spin this by saying there still could have been? What is your background to make this statement, watching CNN & MSNBC commentators who are doubling down after lying for 2 1/2 yrs. Are you still believing these people?

---

You literally quoted me giving examples of more definitive statements... "Did not establish" is markedly different from "established that XYZ did not". I even gave examples of hanging loose threads still to be answered. Surely the Mueller pull-quote sentence Barr used was part of a larger paragraph, why didn't he quote more of it to contextualize? Because like it or not, that is a pretty narrowly qualified statement given the allegations involved. Why should we essentially have to take his word for it when Mueller wrote a detailed answer to the question(s)? Especially after the bullsht selective disclosures to support a narrative Nunes pulled with the Page memo.

One sentence stripped of all context and wrapped in a coating of Barr's "conclusions" is not enough for me, so let's see the report. The unbelievable irony and similarity of using those last words is not lost on me as a Baylor alum, and unlike Pepper Hamilton Mueller actually did compile a document, so again, let's see the report. I could be wrong about this (I hope), but I doubt Barr let's it come out in a substantially complete form while he is AG.

As for people lying the last 2.5yrs, I'd love to hear an explanation for all the Trump people's lies about ties to Russia for all that time too.

---

Wait, you have a law degree, right? What shtty, second-rate law program did you go to? For the same reason courts find accused people "not guilty" is the same reason the findings were worded the way they were.

And for the past 2 years you have been effectively saying there is indisputable evidence that Trump colluded with Russia. What evidence do you have that Mueller missed? We need to send it to congress immediately. Or were you just assuming Maddow was telling the truth?

Trump is sketchy as fck, I can't stand the guy and I disagree with conservative Republicans that support him, but the democrats and the media look foolish today for continuing the Russia collusion narrative for so long. An extensive, impartial investigation effectively found Trump not guilty. Time to move on.

---

I get the "did not establish" language. I was just pointing out that it isn't as definitive as y'all make it out to be, and could have been more so, especially when you figure that was apparently the most definitive statement Barr could pull from what is reportedly a 600pg document. I'd really like to see the whole sentence at least, if not the paragraph it comes from. I've thought since Manafort's feigned cooperation stunt that Mueller had a less-than coin-flip chance of being able to conclusively prove anything against Trump specifically. The way they went hard after Manafort says to me that Mueller viewed him as the fulcrum for whatever malfeasance he believes was going on with the Trump campaign, with the question being was he directed from higher up or working independently. Trump may be the most ignorant and uninformed POTUS we'll ever see, but he certainly knows how to insulate himself from liability (civil and criminal), and Manafort has proven willing to keep his mouth shut while he waits for a pardon.

At this point without the underlying report available, I'm just trying to square the one incomplete (hence the brackets around the [T] at the start of the cite, indicating the capitalization was new formating for Barr's summary and there were some preceding words that didn't make it in) sentence from Mueller's report that Barr cited with the knowledge we have from Manafort's case. We know for a fact that Mueller's team at least believed (I'd be very surprised if they didn't have evidence to back it up since they took Manafort's freedom away over lying about it) Manafort was regularly meeting with an ex Russian spy named Konstantin Kilimnik. That knowledge makes Mueller's narrowly qualified and incomplete sentence about coordinating with the "Russian Government" a little more conspicuous in it's narrowness, don't you think? Manafort's dealings with Russian non governmental cut-outs like Kilimnik (which he admits on the record to sharing campaign polling data with) and Oleg Deripaska is seemingly not covered by the provided statement from Mueller's Report about not establishing proof of coordination with the Russian Government. Roger Stone is also known to have been in somewhat regular contact with Julian Assange at Wikileaks, another Russian cut-out that isn't covered by Mueller's statement, and at least once at the direction of a "senior campaign official" according to his indictment. Don Jr also accepted a meeting after being promised the help of the "Russian Government" by a representative of yet another Russian billionaire, and thats where the "did not establish" language probably kicks in; we know he enthusiastically took the meeting, and Mueller was apparently unable to establish that a deal was struck...but that doesn't make it any less suspicious or answer any questions about the event that have been raised.

Barr is a lawyer too, it's not lost on him that specific words have specific meanings and games can be played when your audience can't see the rest of the document. You guys are acting like it's the height of impossibility that Barr would use one quick pull quote to put his spin on things and crystallize a narrative before any contradicting info ever comes out, even though we all watched Devin Nunes do exactly that with his Carter Page memo. I imagine at some point in the near future we will hear from Mueller himself in a hearing, and if he says that Barr's summary is an accurate representation of both the spirit and letter of the Report, then that would have to suffice. As it stand though, Barr's summary left a whole lot of loose threads hanging around, and I sincerely hope that they don't bury the Report past 2020 so we just have to take his word for it on things.

Notice also how I typed all that out without any insults or personal digs? You should try it sometime, you're about one degree away from being Doc and two degrees from Golem. Still a few steps off from Florda though at least...

---

Hang in there. I'm sure it's but a matter of time until the full context is revealed and Trump is led from office in cuffs.

---

That's pretty rich coming from the "reinvestigate Hillary so we can Lock Her Up" crowd, but irony is dead in these days of a reality TV POTUS.

The only scenario where Trump gets to wear steel bracelets is after his Presidency ends. We've had this conversation before, Michael Cohen plead guilty to a felony committed at the direction of Individual-1, the only thing stopping Individual-1 from being charged is the Office of the Presidency. I suspect Dems will become well versed in financial fraud laws soon too, since Trump seems to have a penchant for inflating (misconstruing) values on official loan and insurance documents, so Trump may have that to worry about after his term in office ends too.

HuMcK said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

contrario said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

riflebear said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

I get the celebrating now in the short term, since this letter is tailor made for the kind of headlines Trump wanted out of it. But surely even the Right has to understand that in the long-term, this letter isn't going to cut it. Barr's conclusions by themselves aren't enough, and there are enough loose threads left hanging by this letter that we need to see at least some of the underlying report.

The only direct quote provided from the Mueller Report on the subject states that the investigation "did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities". That's a very brief snippet from what is surely a very lengthy explanation. "Did not establish" is also very different from "no evidence" or "established that X did not happen", and the words "Russian Government" are doing a lot of work there when you consider the revelation that Manafort was dealing regularly with an ex Russian GRU agent.

There is also thought to be at least 1 evidentiary subpoena issued by Mueller that is still being litigated, which raises questions of its own about how a report was issued without that wrapped up. I'm also curious why Jerome Corsi was never charged after (he says) being notified to expect it for lying. Unfortunately, for now it seems that a lot of questions will remain unaddressed, and a lot of people will pretend that is not so to declare victory.

---

There are some of the brightest minds of former special prosectors who are saying there couldn't have been a more definitive statement from Mueller that there as 100% NO COLLUSION. Are you really trying to spin this by saying there still could have been? What is your background to make this statement, watching CNN & MSNBC commentators who are doubling down after lying for 2 1/2 yrs. Are you still believing these people?

---

You literally quoted me giving examples of more definitive statements... "Did not establish" is markedly different from "established that XYZ did not". I even gave examples of hanging loose threads still to be answered. Surely the Mueller pull-quote sentence Barr used was part of a larger paragraph, why didn't he quote more of it to contextualize? Because like it or not, that is a pretty narrowly qualified statement given the allegations involved. Why should we essentially have to take his word for it when Mueller wrote a detailed answer to the question(s)? Especially after the bullsht selective disclosures to support a narrative Nunes pulled with the Page memo.

One sentence stripped of all context and wrapped in a coating of Barr's "conclusions" is not enough for me, so let's see the report. The unbelievable irony and similarity of using those last words is not lost on me as a Baylor alum, and unlike Pepper Hamilton Mueller actually did compile a document, so again, let's see the report. I could be wrong about this (I hope), but I doubt Barr let's it come out in a substantially complete form while he is AG.

As for people lying the last 2.5yrs, I'd love to hear an explanation for all the Trump people's lies about ties to Russia for all that time too.

---

Wait, you have a law degree, right? What shtty, second-rate law program did you go to? For the same reason courts find accused people "not guilty" is the same reason the findings were worded the way they were.

And for the past 2 years you have been effectively saying there is indisputable evidence that Trump colluded with Russia. What evidence do you have that Mueller missed? We need to send it to congress immediately. Or were you just assuming Maddow was telling the truth?

Trump is sketchy as fck, I can't stand the guy and I disagree with conservative Republicans that support him, but the democrats and the media look foolish today for continuing the Russia collusion narrative for so long. An extensive, impartial investigation effectively found Trump not guilty. Time to move on.

---

I get the "did not establish" language. I was just pointing out that it isn't as definitive as y'all make it out to be, and could have been more so, especially when you figure that was apparently the most definitive statement Barr could pull from what is reportedly a 600pg document. I'd really like to see the whole sentence at least, if not the paragraph it comes from. I've thought since Manafort's feigned cooperation stunt that Mueller had a less-than coin-flip chance of being able to conclusively prove anything against Trump specifically. The way they went hard after Manafort says to me that Mueller viewed him as the fulcrum for whatever malfeasance he believes was going on with the Trump campaign, with the question being was he directed from higher up or working independently. Trump may be the most ignorant and uninformed POTUS we'll ever see, but he certainly knows how to insulate himself from liability (civil and criminal), and Manafort has proven willing to keep his mouth shut while he waits for a pardon.

At this point without the underlying report available, I'm just trying to square the one incomplete (hence the brackets around the [T] at the start of the cite, indicating the capitalization was new formating for Barr's summary and there were some preceding words that didn't make it in) sentence from Mueller's report that Barr cited with the knowledge we have from Manafort's case. We know for a fact that Mueller's team at least believed (I'd be very surprised if they didn't have evidence to back it up since they took Manafort's freedom away over lying about it) Manafort was regularly meeting with an ex Russian spy named Konstantin Kilimnik. That knowledge makes Mueller's narrowly qualified and incomplete sentence about coordinating with the "Russian Government" a little more conspicuous in it's narrowness, don't you think? Manafort's dealings with Russian non governmental cut-outs like Kilimnik (which he admits on the record to sharing campaign polling data with) and Oleg Deripaska is seemingly not covered by the provided statement from Mueller's Report about not establishing proof of coordination with the Russian Government. Roger Stone is also known to have been in somewhat regular contact with Julian Assange at Wikileaks, another Russian cut-out that isn't covered by Mueller's statement, and at least once at the direction of a "senior campaign official" according to his indictment. Don Jr also accepted a meeting after being promised the help of the "Russian Government" by a representative of yet another Russian billionaire, and thats where the "did not establish" language probably kicks in; we know he enthusiastically took the meeting, and Mueller was apparently unable to establish that a deal was struck...but that doesn't make it any less suspicious or answer any questions about the event that have been raised.

Barr is a lawyer too, it's not lost on him that specific words have specific meanings and games can be played when your audience can't see the rest of the document. You guys are acting like it's the height of impossibility that Barr would use one quick pull quote to put his spin on things and crystallize a narrative before any contradicting info ever comes out, even though we all watched Devin Nunes do exactly that with his Carter Page memo. I imagine at some point in the near future we will hear from Mueller himself in a hearing, and if he says that Barr's summary is an accurate representation of both the spirit and letter of the Report, then that would have to suffice. As it stand though, Barr's summary left a whole lot of loose threads hanging around, and I sincerely hope that they don't bury the Report past 2020 so we just have to take his word for it on things.

Notice also how I typed all that out without any insults or personal digs? You should try it sometime, you're about one degree away from being Doc and two degrees from Golem. Still a few steps off from Florda though at least...

---

Hang in there. I'm sure it's but a matter of time until the full context is revealed and Trump is led from office in cuffs.

---

That's pretty rich coming from the "reinvestigate Hillary so we can Lock Her Up" crowd, but irony is dead in these days of a reality TV POTUS.

The only scenario where Trump gets to wear steel bracelets is after his Presidency ends. We've had this conversation before, Michael Cohen plead guilty to a felony committed at the direction of Individual-1, the only thing stopping Individual-1 from being charged is the Office of the Presidency. I suspect Dems will become well versed in financial fraud laws soon too, since Trump seems to have a penchant for inflating (misconstruing) values on official loan and insurance documents, so Trump may have that to worry about after his term in office ends too.

---

I've never called for reinvestigating Hillary. Criminalization of policy differences has gone far enough. I'd like to see Republicans take the high road at this point.