U.S. And International Politics

[Tom Graves]

I don't answer questions based on false premises.

What's the false premise?

Do you think Republican Mueller and/or the Republican-controlled Senate Select Committee on Intelligence made stuff up to "get" Trump?

[John Corbett]

What's the false premise?

Do you think Republican Mueller and/or the Republican-controlled Senate Select Committee on Intelligence made stuff up to "get" Trump?

You keep insisting I disagreed with the Mueller report. I have already stated and didn't disagree with their finding that there was no evidence the Trump campaign conspired with the Russians to influence the 2016 election. If Mueller found no such evidence, why should I believe there is such evidence. I did state that congressional committees are not infallible, and pointed to the HSCA of a probable conspiracy to assassinate JFK as one example of that. I was making a general observation about congressional committees and you read far more into that than you should have.

I have not read the full Mueller report and if I did I might or might not find things I disagree with. I have read the Cliff Notes summary of their findings. They found evidence that the Russians had worked to influence the outcome of our elections. I would be amazed if they hadn't since they had always done that in the past. In 2016 they had more tools in their toolbox due to the prevalence of social media, especially among younger voters. The Mueller report also found no evidence that Trump campaign had conspired with the Russians to influence the outcome. Of course, the Trump campaign was trying to influence the election. That's what campaigns are all about. There is no evidence the Trump campaign was working with the Russians and Mueller's report stated so.

Now tell use where I have said I disagree with the Mueller Report or the Senate investigating committee.

[Tom Graves]

You keep insisting I disagreed with the Mueller report. I have already stated and didn't disagree with their finding that there was no evidence the Trump campaign conspired with the Russians to influence the 2016 election. If Mueller found no such evidence, why should I believe there is such evidence. I did state that congressional committees are not infallible, and pointed to the HSCA of a probable conspiracy to assassinate JFK as one example of that. I was making a general observation about congressional committees and you read far more into that than you should have.

I have not read the full Mueller report and if I did I might or might not find things I disagree with. I have read the Cliff Notes summary of their findings. They found evidence that the Russians had worked to influence the outcome of our elections. I would be amazed if they hadn't since they had always done that in the past. In 2016 they had more tools in their toolbox due to the prevalence of social media, especially among younger voters. The Mueller report also found no evidence that Trump campaign had conspired with the Russians to influence the outcome. Of course, the Trump campaign was trying to influence the election. That's what campaigns are all about. There is no evidence the Trump campaign was working with the Russians and Mueller's report stated so.

Now tell us where I have said I disagree with the Mueller Report or the Senate investigating committee.

You've read the "Cliff Notes" summary of "their" findings?

Are you referring to William Barr's four-page "summary" or his specious twenty-page memo to Trump?

Wikipedia's article on the Mueller Report?

Have you read it?

Here's an excerpt. I know you agree with the first sentence up to the [4] [5] & [6] footnotes, but what about the rest of the paragraph?

While the report concludes that the investigation "did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities,"[4][5][6] investigators had an incomplete picture of what happened due in part to some communications that were encrypted, deleted, or not saved, as well as testimony that was false, incomplete, or declined.[7][8][9] The report states that Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election was illegal and occurred "in sweeping and systematic fashion,"[10][11][12] and was welcomed by the Trump campaign as it expected to benefit from such efforts.[13][14][15] It also identifies multiple links between the Trump campaign and Russian officials,[16] about which several persons connected to the campaign made false statements and obstructed investigations.[4] Mueller later stated that his investigation's findings of Russian interference "deserves the attention of every American."[17]

[John Corbett]

You've read the "Cliff Notes" summary of "their" findings?

Are you referring to William Barr's four-page "summary" or his specious twenty-page memo to Trump?

Wikipedia's article on the Mueller Report?

Have you read it?

Here's an excerpt. I know you agree with the first sentence up to the [4] [5] & [6] footnotes, but what about the rest of the paragraph?

While the report concludes that the investigation "did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities,"[4][5][6] investigators had an incomplete picture of what happened due in part to some communications that were encrypted, deleted, or not saved, as well as testimony that was false, incomplete, or declined.[7][8][9] The report states that Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election was illegal and occurred "in sweeping and systematic fashion,"[10][11][12] and was welcomed by the Trump campaign as it expected to benefit from such efforts.[13][14][15] It also identifies multiple links between the Trump campaign and Russian officials,[16] about which several persons connected to the campaign made false statements and obstructed investigations.[4] Mueller later stated that his investigation's findings of Russian interference "deserves the attention of every American."[17]

A lot of mumbo-jumbo to say that while they found no evidence the Trump campaign had conspired with Russians, they wanted to suggest that they had. I'm not interested in what they thought. I care about what they knew and that was that there was no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians to influence the election.

But as long as we are dealing in innuendos, let's talk about the Clinton campaign and their funding of the phony Steele Dossier, which they laundered through the Perkins Coie law firm and Fusion GPS. This gave the Clinton campaign plausible deniability that they had directly funded the Steele Dosier. Still, the FEC fined the Clinton campaign $8000 for that piece of deception (BS) and the DNC $105,000. Do you condemn that or is your outrage selective.

[Tom Graves]

A lot of mumbo-jumbo to say that while they found no evidence the Trump campaign had conspired with Russians, they wanted to suggest that they had. I'm not interested in what they thought. I care about what they knew and that was that there was no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians to influence the election.

No evidence?

ME: Did the Mueller Report say the investigation found no evidence of conspiracy?

GROK: No, the Mueller Report did not say the investigation found "no evidence" of conspiracy (or coordination) between the Trump Campaign and Russia.

Exact Wording from the Report:

The key conclusion in Volume I (Executive Summary and main findings) states, "the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."

This phrasing—"did not establish"—is the report's consistent legal language. It means the evidence gathered was insufficient to prove a criminal conspiracy (or the narrower definition of "coordination" as an agreement—tacit or express—between the campaign and the Russian government on election interference) beyond a reasonable doubt, to the standard required for criminal charges.

Mueller's team explicitly noted the distinction:  "A statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of those facts."

What the Report Did Find

Russian interference: Russia interfered "in sweeping and systematic fashion" to help Trump and hurt Clinton, via hacking/DNC emails released through WikiLeaks and a social media disinformation campaign.

Links and contacts: The investigation "established" "numerous links" between the Trump Campaign (or associates) and individuals tied to the Russian government. It documented the campaign's interest in, and expectation of benefit from, information stolen by Russia. Examples include the Trump Tower meeting (offering dirt on Clinton as "part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump"), Paul Manafort sharing polling data, and outreach involving WikiLeaks. The campaign "welcomed" the potential help in multiple instances.

No prosecutable conspiracy: Despite these interactions and "multiple offers" of assistance from Russian-affiliated individuals, the evidence did not meet the threshold to charge any Trump Campaign member with conspiracy under federal law. No such charges were brought against campaign officials for coordinating with the Russian government.

In a public statement after the report's release, Mueller reinforced: the investigation found "insufficient evidence to charge a broader conspiracy."

Why the Distinction Matters

Saying "no evidence" would imply the probe found zero indications of any relevant contacts or interactions—which the report explicitly did not conclude (it detailed many).

"Did not establish" is prosecutorial language: the facts uncovered, even with incomplete evidence in some areas (e.g., deleted messages, false testimony, non-cooperating witnesses), were not enough for criminal charges.

This nuance led to debates over summaries and media framing. Attorney General Barr's initial letter quoted the "did not establish" line but also used broader phrasing like "did not find" conspiracy/coordination. The full report is more precise and avoids claiming total absence of evidence.

In summary: The Mueller Report did not claim "no evidence" of conspiracy. It concluded the investigation did not establish (i.e., prove) a criminal conspiracy or coordination, while documenting Russian efforts to assist Trump and the campaign's receptive stance toward them. The bottom-line outcome—no charges for conspiracy with Russia—has been consistent across the report, Barr's summary, and Mueller's own statements.

Let's talk about the Clinton campaign and their funding of the phony Steele Dossier.

The Steele Dossier?

You mean the one whose main source (of unfalsifiable "intel") was a probable KGB agent by the name of Igor Danchenko, whom John Durham rightfully prosecuted, but for the wrong reasons?

Politics is dirty, Corbett.

Especially when one candidate (Trump) has the backing of Putin's professional trolls and the KGB/GRU because the Kremlin knows he'll do a darn good job of destroying America and NATO.

[John Corbett]

No evidence?

ME: Did the Mueller Report say the investigation found no evidence of conspiracy?

GROK: No, the Mueller Report did not say the investigation found "no evidence" of conspiracy (or coordination) between the Trump Campaign and Russia.


Exact Wording from the Report

The key conclusion in Volume I (Executive Summary and main findings) states, "the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."

cbsnews.com

This phrasing—"did not establish"—is the report's consistent legal language. It means the evidence gathered was insufficient to prove a criminal conspiracy (or the narrower definition of "coordination" as an agreement—tacit or express—between the campaign and the Russian government on election interference) beyond a reasonable doubt, to the standard required for criminal charges.

In this country one is given the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Mueller could not prove the Trump or anyone from his campaign conspired with the Russians to influence the election. The presumption is that they did not. If you want to believe innuendos in lieu of real evidence, that is your right. I choose to believe what evidence indicates.

Mueller's team explicitly noted the distinction:  "A statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of those facts."

Completely irresponsible conduct by Mueller. Despite not having evidence of collusion between the Trump Campaign and the Russians, he makes an innuendo that they did. IOW, he suggests what he cannot prove. And you bought the innuendo hook, line, and sinker.

What the Report Did Find

Russian interference: Russia interfered "in sweeping and systematic fashion" to help Trump and hurt Clinton, via hacking/DNC emails released through WikiLeaks and a social media disinformation campaign.

Links and contacts: The investigation "established" "numerous links" between the Trump Campaign (or associates) and individuals tied to the Russian government. It documented the campaign's interest in, and expectation of benefit from, information stolen by Russia. Examples include the Trump Tower meeting (offering dirt on Clinton as "part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump"), Paul Manafort sharing polling data, and outreach involving WikiLeaks. The campaign "welcomed" the potential help in multiple instances.

More innuendo. No evidence of collusion.

No prosecutable conspiracy: Despite these interactions and "multiple offers" of assistance from Russian-affiliated individuals, the evidence did not meet the threshold to charge any Trump Campaign member with conspiracy under federal law. No such charges were brought against campaign officials for coordinating with the Russian government.

In a public statement after the report's release, Mueller reinforced: the investigation found "insufficient evidence to charge a broader conspiracy."

Mueller wants us to believe something he lacks proof of.

Why the Distinction Matters

Saying "no evidence" would imply the probe found zero indications of any relevant contacts or interactions—which the report explicitly did not conclude (it detailed many).

"Did not establish" is prosecutorial language: the facts uncovered, even with incomplete evidence in some areas (e.g., deleted messages, false testimony, non-cooperating witnesses), were not enough for criminal charges.

This nuance led to debates over summaries and media framing. Attorney General Barr's initial letter quoted the "did not establish" line but also used broader phrasing like "did not find" conspiracy/coordination. The full report is more precise and avoids claiming total absence of evidence.

In summary: The Mueller Report did not claim "no evidence" of conspiracy. It concluded the investigation did not establish (i.e., prove) a criminal conspiracy or coordination, while documenting Russian efforts to assist Trump and the campaign's receptive stance toward them. The bottom-line outcome—no charges for conspiracy with Russia—has been consistent across the report, Barr's summary, and Mueller's own statements.

Bottom line: Mueller had no proof of conclusion. To suggest there was collusion in lieu of credible evidence is reprehensible misconduct.

The Steele Dossier?

You mean the one whose main source (of unfalsifiable "intel") was a probable KGB agent by the name of Igor Danchenko, whom John Durham rightfully prosecuted, but for the wrong reasons?

Politics is dirty, Corbett.

Especially when one candidate (Trump) has the backing of Putin's professional trolls and the KGB/GRU because the Kremlin knows he'll do a darn good job of destroying America and NATO.

So you excuse misconduct by the Clinton campaign and then feign outrage over alleged, unproven allegations about the Trump campaign. Typical leftist double standard.

[Tom Graves]

Mueller had no proof of conclusion. To suggest there was collusion in lieu of credible evidence is reprehensible misconduct.

It's disingenuous of you and other Trump supporters to accuse Mueller, et al., of failing to prove collusion when "collusion" isn't a legal concept, crime, or theory of liability in U.S. criminal law.