Further, Mueller cites Rosenstein, who oversaw the investigation and defined its parameters, as having specifically identified the word "collusion" as what Mueller was tasked to investigate. So yes, Mueller investigated collusion, and found none. It's right there in plain English
-
-
Show this thread
-
In fact, Mueller took an expansive view of what acts could constitute a violation under federal conspiracy statutes, and applied this view to Trump officials' allegedly nefarious "contacts" with Russians. The conclusion: none of it amounted to any conspiracy (aka, collusion)pic.twitter.com/xxgUB13aap
Show this thread -
So that's a settled issue, unless you're now rejecting how Mueller himself has characterized his investigative purview. In other words: put down the Collusion Crackpipe, and seek help
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
If only you had highlighted a passage from the previous sentence you could have seen the part that says Mueller did not analyze the conduct under the rubric of collusion.
-
If only you could follow the reasoning Mueller set forth, whereby he interpreted his mandate to investigate "collusion" as drawing on federal conspiracy statutes, because these terms are "largely synonymous"
- 3 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
No, that paragraph makes the exact opposite point, that when they use the word "collusion", they don't mean the same thing as e.g Schiff means when he says collusion, and so whatever they say about "collusion", it may not in fact address what he or others have said.
-
Is this a joke?
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
When they start arguing semantics you know they know they have nothing.
-
We know they’ve had nothing from the moment the dossier was leaked.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
-
If you want to acknowledge that Mueller said he did NOT analyze collusion, but argue that he said that legal dictionaries define it as conspiracy, which he did not find, go ahead.
-
M is just clarifying that he was tasked w/finding evidence of joint criminal "collusion" as described by AAG/media. But bc it's both A) not a fed crime & B) synonymous w/conspiracy, which *is* a fed crime, he thus investigated what *we* call "collusion" as fed criminal conspiracy
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Some of the people doing that are referencing thishttps://twitter.com/emptywheel/status/1120306634906054656 …
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
But when a guy repeatedly says "I am not analyzing x" you should not go around claiming he said he analyzed x.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Where, exactly, has Mueller stated that "the investigation [was obstructed] to such a point that it can not be properly investigated."?
- 2 more replies
-
-
-
But still, nothing
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Try highlighting that first sentence.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Lawyers don't use qualifiers like "largely" without reason. If he had meant to say that collusion was exactly equal to conspiracy that's what he would have said. He didn't.https://twitter.com/mtracey/status/1120120963809652738 …
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
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.