Why Didn't He Notify The FBI?

Trump just tweeted:

@realDonaldTrump

“The Special Counsel did not find that the Trump Campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian Government in these efforts, despite multiple offers from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump Campaign.”

3:20 AM - 25 Mar 2019

This is a little puzzling, because he stated so many times, that he believes Putin, when he told him he did not interfere.

Trump is now tweeting, a carefully extracted portion of the AG's report, clearly indicating that the Russians contacted the Trump campaign, with offers to interfere. So, why did he say he believed Putin, when he knew this was not the case?

Better yet, why didn't his campaign contact the FBI?

Top | Newest First | Oldest First

MistyCee

I think you're getting to what might be the heart of why Mueller came to no conclusion on obstruction: Trump's intent, and the difficulty of proving it.

Normally you prove corrupt intent by circumstantial evidence and the key is often finding that a defendant lied on one topic but, otherwise, was fairly consistently truthful on others. He doesnt tell the truth consistently on any topic, and as a result, statements or actions that might be seen as probative evidence for most people aren't really probative or compelling with regard to Trump.

Trump doesn't work that way. He seems to say things with little concern for whether they're objectively true or and often whether they're consistent with what he's said before.

Much has been made of the fact that this would have made him vulnerable to a "perjury trap", but I think it may also have played into why, absent sworn testimony and cross examination, Mueller might be unable I come to a conclusion in whether there was sufficient evidence to prove corrupt intent.

ladycae · 100+, F

@MistyCee trump also refused to release any documents. how can you make a determination when you are denied the most relevant info

MistyCee

@ladycae Actually I think I've heard the adminstration and Trump's spokespeople talking about how many documents they have produced voluntarily. I have no idea if it's true, of course, or if it's just another set of "alternate facts" which people will believe if they hear repeated enough, though.

WalksWith · 56-60, F

Who know's the answers to those questions? I want to know why all those who were arrested and jailed LIED when, (according to Barr's summery) they didn't HAVE to?

SW-User

They accepted help and it’s not clear there was no collusion, just that the case couldn’t be proven. Horrible disloyal Americans.

sarabee1995 · 26-30, F

Idk ...

If someone I only tangentially knew through business or some other contact came up to me and proposed that we go rob a bank or engage in some other criminal activity and I declined, would I then go call the police?

I know I would cut off ties to that person and keep any future contact in public and fully transparent, but would I call the police about a crime that did not happen? This is what you're asking and I'm not sure.

View 4 more replies »

sarabee1995 · 26-30, F

@softspokenman I would, of course, tell the truth. I would say I immediately ended the conversation, that I declined the offer as absurd, and that I cut off all contact with this person.

@Northwest Absolutely Russia did meddle in the election!!! I wish we were talking more about that fact than this side show of collusion which was not even part of the original charge given to the Special Counsel.

So yes, Russia did meddle in two ways: 1) The Russian Army engaged in a successful campaign to hack into US political entities and disseminated damaging information harvested from that hacking, and 2) Russian troll farms engaged in coordinated campaigns to plant false and divisive stories in US social media in order to sow discord and distrust.

So which of these two crimes are you alleging that the Trump campaign was approached about? If you're going to say Wikileaks and therefore the Russian Army, keep in mind that in 2016 no one knew about the connections there.

Northwest · M

@sarabee1995 I am not privy to the investigation, and in fact, no one, beside the AG, is. We don't know who was interviewed and what was discussed.

I am commenting on Trump's tweet, NOT some hypothetical of hyperbole.

Here's Trump tweet, again:

he Special Counsel did not find that the Trump Campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian Government in these efforts, despite multiple offers from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump Campaign

He's saying that his campaign received multiple offers from Russia to collude. That, in and by itself, represents proof that he knew the Russians were interfering, otherwise, why would they be contacting his campaign.

As a candidate for the Presidency, it is his responsibility to make sure our democracy is protected, and not hide behind legal loopholes, or is this too much to ask?

So, why didn't he contact the FBI?

As to your claim that in 2016, no one knew about the Russia-wikileaks connection, then why would Trump, during a televised campaign debate with Hillary, say "Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing. I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press"?

softspokenman · M

@sarabee1995 Thank you for your answer. I believe that all decent people would tell the truth also. You knew that person 'tangentially'. Trump 'Hired' people to work for him and they lied in court to protect him. They are going to prison. He says he had no idea what they were doing. When he was asked, on video, Did you know about the hush money he said "NO" and it was later proven, with evidence, that he did. I think he should go to prison for conspiring against the people along with the others.

ArthurP · 80-89, M

Pathetic. Grasping and straws springs to mind. Move on.

Northwest · M

@ArthurP Can't face the truth, so you resort to ad hominem? Stop being a sheep.

Northwest · M

@ArthurP And here's a straw you should try hanging to:

Despite Trump’s claim of total exoneration, Mueller did not draw a conclusion one way or the other on whether he sought to stifle the Russia investigation through his actions including the firing of former FBI director James Comey.

According to Barr’s summary, Mueller set out "evidence on both sides of the question" and stated that "while this report does not conclude the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."

This is from Fox news, BTW.

softspokenman · M

@ArthurP It's the drowning man clutching for the straw in the ocean of lies that he created.

Add a comment...