• OccamsRazer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    3 months ago

    So what did it conclude about trump colluding with Russians? And what actions have come from that conclusion?

    • magnusrufus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      Why are you asking these questions now after asserting falsehoods before and refusing to read the report?

      • OccamsRazer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        3 months ago

        Just curious what exactly you got from it, and how you reconcile that against what all of the news reported and concluded. Mueller report states that the investigation “did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in it’s election interference activities”. What does that mean to you?

        • magnusrufus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          Read the report and listen to what Mueller said he thought were the appropriate boundaries of his job. He refused to make judgments and focused on putting facts and evidence in the report. Fox and Republicans twisted that into the narrative that you are repeating. Mueller didn’t find collusion because he refused to take that role, supposedly believing that the elected representatives were the ones that would take an honest look at the report and make that judgement. But you are asking those questions because you want to deflect away from you making claims about without having read it. All news didn’t reach the same conclusion. All right-wing propaganda did though.

          • OccamsRazer@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            PBS, NPR, American Bar Association, etc are not what I would call right wing propaganda, but I guess it’s relative. If I understand correctly though, your stance is that Mueller was simply getting the information out there for others to act on if they chose to. In that case, why have they not acted? My impression from legal summaries, including from the American bar association, is that they are not pursuing it because the Mueller report couldn’t find enough evidence to build a case. I trust their assessment and summary of the report more than what I can get out of reading it myself in it’s entirety.

            So what really happened? Nobody knows for sure and there is not enough evidence to do anything about it. It’s a non-topic.

            How long until he gets jail time? How many continuous years of lawsuits and investigations before they get him? Is the system really that broken that he keeps getting away with it or are the charges simply weak to begin with? Tbh I don’t really know, but I have serious Trump fatigue.

            • magnusrufus@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              3 months ago

              I think that an honest assessment of Trump’s handling by the legal system shows that there is plenty to go after him for and that he has been given far too much leeway. The system is broken in the sense that it relies on being populated by good faith actors instead of loyalists to a demagogue.

              I think that the motivation and the handling was different but I wonder if you feel that the decades a legal pursuit of the Clinton’s similarly shows that it was unfounded?

              I think they didn’t take action against Trump because of a combination of cowardice, party loyalty, and overt obstruction from prominent Republican leadership.

              • OccamsRazer@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                3 months ago

                I think it’s the same as for the Clintons or Biden. There are probably shady things that they did, but we will never actually know or be able to prove anything. Their enemies certainly tried hard enough without success. Going after them was a political move for them as much as it is/was for Trump, and if you can’t prove anything over years of investigation and legal actions then you need to let it go, even if you believe that they are probably guilty.

                Just to reiterate, I personally think Trump easily could have colluded with Russians in their interference. I believe that he would do it if he knew he could get away with it, and maybe he did. but apparently nothing can be proven (“insufficient evidence” and all that) so we need to drop it and move on, effectively assuming innocence.

                • magnusrufus@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  I disagree with the need to drop it and move on part. Conservatives thrive on that. They lie and deny until fatigue sets in and then are never held accountable. Then when we’ve all moved on they either rewrite history as needed or just act like nothing ever happened. Not dropping it makes their pattern of lies more obvious.

                  • OccamsRazer@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    3 months ago

                    But that just turns the legal system into a weapon for driving public sentiment, another political tool instead of a means to bring justice to criminals. If it never leads to a conviction, at some point you should wonder why. Also you are giving too much credit/blame to conservatives. That might be true if they were always in power, but the they aren’t, and haven’t been. So why do the Democrats keep letting them get away with it?