No you didnt. Because if you had you would have had the same reading as everyone else, including the AG. If there was a conspiracy I eagerly await the impeachment proceedings, as usual. Its been out for almost 6 months. Still waiting.
If you're taking that complete hack seriously, then we're done here. You can compare his summary to the actual report and see just how utterly full of shit he is.
You are just parroting the most hardcore leftist that have finally forced Nancy Pelosi's hand on a totally different subject than collusion in a totally different realm (this should be your first sign your collusion case is weak). They all play up Don Jrs meeting as conclusive proof they colluded because he was simply willing to take a meeting. It appears the meeting went down about how Don Jr described, the woman didn't have any real information and had obviously lied about the nature of her intentions, so the cut the meeting short. Pragmatic leaders like Nancy Pelosi know that it's a weak case to stake an impeachment on because one, no evidence that any information or quid pro quos happened or was shown in the Meuller report, and two, the ambiguousness of the events could easily be construed as legal opposition research by any competent defense. I know you really really want to project a smoking gun crime out of it but like Juice is trying to say, if it was such an open and shut case the left in congress who are rabidly out to impeach him (and have been open about this pre election) would have pounced on it in half a second.
If the report did show clear cut collusion, how come we're not dealing with impeachment proceedings based on that evidence right now instead of impeachment articles based on hearsay? As soon as they figured out they didn't have a leg to stand on with the collusion charges they moved on to the next thing they could find. It's been the exact same pattern for the past 3-4 years: Something comes up, the extreme left goes rabid and screams "This time Trump is really through" and they holler, scream and protest until it turns out the issue has no basis. Then they move on to the next week's outrage. Lather, rinse, repeat.
It states it point blank. In fact, it does so in the first few pages of the report. You don't even have to read very far to know it says this. You're calling people who can accept this hacks now?
At this point, does it matter if there was or wasn't collusion? (never mind that the actual act of collusion is not, by itself. a crime, though elements of it can be) What matters is what is happening right now. And what worries me, is that despite a large field of challengers, the dems still appear to have their heads up their asses. Biden might give trump a good run, but do we really want his dumbass as President? I mean, it'd be great for the jokes on SNL, and of course he's better than the orange man, but come on! Meanwhile, even though history has proven over and over again that socialism doesn't work, somehow Bernie is still getting top billing. I think I've said it before, I'm a moderate who leans republican on fiscal issues and liberal on some social issues. I'd be a libertarian but both some of their stances, as well as their candidates they consistently find, are flat fucking stupid. I'd hope this two-party system breaks, but I think that would require something absolutely drastic happening, and I'm terrified of what that might be.
For all the "then why didn't they impeach him" crowd, just read the above responses. Barr got out ahead of it and they got a good chunk of the public believing the report said things it didn't say. So much so that people know the report said "no collusion" when it 100% didn't. The Democrats knew they couldn't sell impeachment to a public that easily tricked. And they were probably right. Hopefully this time is different because the news is moving faster than the White House can spin it, but we'll see.
The report mostly uses the words coordination and conspiracy rather than collusion, and explains why. From page 2. From page 66. In reaching it's conclusions on whether or not to charge anyone on the campaign with a crime related to Russian election interference - If you really want to quibble about it, does not establish means something more along the lines "did not prove". Regardless I don't know how the fuck you expect congress to impeach based on something they can't prove. Once you get into actual crimes the report is even more specific. For any relevant criminality, let's look at what the report says. To claim that congress didn't move forward with impeachment based on an investigation that has these conclusions "because the public was tricked" is the most insane claim I've heard yet. You can't wipe out a multiyear investigation that has consistently been the prevalent public headline for it's duration with a brief summary letter. You cannot claim a report that specifically says over and over that it can't establish that the Trump campaign was coordinating with Russia's efforts is in actuality making it "very clear" that the Trump campaign assisted with Russia's efforts. You really just can't accept that the collusion narrative was a dead end, can you? You might at least stop making snide remarks to others who don't agree with your thoroughly outlandish interpretations, but I guess even that much self awareness would be too much to ask. I get hating Trump. I will never get how someone reaches the point where they are only able to process anything through such a convoluted spin.
Anyone on the left still bitching about Russiagate is probably the type of person who thinks Elizabeth Warren is a progressive. Gullible.
Look how far the goalposts have moved just in this conversation alone. It started with "the Mueller report showed there was no collusion," then it became "the Mueller report didn't find any evidence of collusion" and now we're all the way to "the Mueller report did not satisfy all of the elements of criminal conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt in the court of law." Meanwhile the same people who are asserting that the Mueller report showed nothing are the same people who, when all of this began, were asserting that it was ridiculous to think Russia interfered with the election, ludicrous to think the Trump campaign knew about it, and "the moon landings were faked" level of conspiracy theory to think that the Trump campaign was in communication with the Russians about it. All of which the Mueller report established as true.
The reason they were not able to establish certain elements is because of the obstruction. Destruction of evidence, lying under oath, deleting texts, ignoring subpoenas, etc.
Poll after poll tells us that Trump is the most unpopular president ever. Did Barr's statement not only fool a gullible public that overwhelmingly dislikes Trump , but also the DNC themselves? If it laid out the groundwork for impeachment so clearly, why aren't they pursuing it on those grounds instead of something completely different ?
People doubted Russia's involvement for maybe a couple of weeks. You've been going on about this evidence for collusion for two years that has never emerged. Now, even after the pertinent sections of the report are bolded for you you're babbling about moving the goalposts. Are you just so fucking immature you can't accept that you've been wrong about this? Holy shit, grow up. What the fuck do you even want after millions of dollars spent and no evidence found? Another investigation anyway? An impeachment on collusion that has no proof whatsoever? For other people to just be as out of their minds about anything Trump related as you are?
Here are some things the left doesn’t do- Discredit global warming as a hoax Discredit the press You have to embrace those major positions by our president to be on his side- it’s two of his biggest talking points. If you embrace those points you’re a fascist.