Did you miss the part of the report where there was an exhaustive analysis of Russian contacts including results and motives regardless if whether they were deemed criminal? Also Bannon and Prince both wiped their text history and obviously lied about it.https://twitter.com/mtracey/status/1119923927134896128 …
-
-
Replying to @Ugarles
Right, I saw that exhaustive analysis: Mueller never came close to asserting that this amounted to any illicit collusive arrangement, whether a criminally chargeable one or otherwise. Which is why it's batshit that the NYT would continue implying the complete opposite
5 replies 3 retweets 19 likes -
Replying to @mtracey
everyone can literally read and decide for themselves whether the contacts amount to non-criminal activity that is still concerning. TT meeting analysis relies on contested questions of law on scienter and valuation. Seychelles is a black box. A lot was uninteresting, not all.
1 reply 0 retweets 10 likes -
Replying to @Ugarles
Mueller had the full resources of the US Treasury, the US code, and the security state apparatus to establish criminal wrongdoing as it relates to "Russian contacts." He reached no such conclusion. That people are now waving that away as inconsequential is just astounding
2 replies 3 retweets 9 likes -
Replying to @mtracey
it's not "inconsequential" but it doesn't end the analysis! the charging standard for Mueller is much higher than it would be in a civil context. Is the known evidence and civil judgment enough to influence your opinion of OJ?
1 reply 0 retweets 9 likes -
Replying to @Ugarles
Mueller's mandate went far beyond that of an ordinary prosecutor, in that he was tasked with laying out an elaborate narrative as to the facts ascertained. Had he saw fit to lay out a theory of collusion that didn't rise to the level of charges, he could've done so. He did not
3 replies 0 retweets 7 likes -
Replying to @mtracey
it isn't a theory of collusion. it is a theory of intent to influence and people close to the campaign influence-curious and appreciative of the help. not sure why you think that is nothing at all. I've been wait-and-see on Russia stuff because open conspiracy seemed farfetched.
2 replies 0 retweets 8 likes
"Curious and appreciative" is several orders of magnitude removed from "collusion" which is the notion that has dominated US politics for three years. I think every campaign in US history has been "curious and appreciative" about external events that could damage an opponent.
-
-
-
not every campaign is US history would do that. I'm pretty confident that most wouldn't, in fact, not because of moral integrity, but because they tend not to be that stupid
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.