Mueller Report, Page 9, second paragraph...

[jmowreader]

"Second, WHILE THE INVESTIGATION IDENTIFIED NUMEROUS LINKS BETWEEN INDIVIDUALS WITH TIES TO THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT AND INDIVIDUALS ASSOCIATED WITH THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN, the evidence was not sufficient to support criminal charges." (Caps Lock turned on for a reason.)

"No collusion," my ass.

[democratisphere]

1. WTF does it take for criminal charges?!

I thought super PACs were bad but THIS is ridiculous.

[pnwmom]

3. It takes evidence to prove a case beyond a reasonable doubt.

So not a 60% certainly, or 75%. Closer to 95%.

That is why the Federal prosecutors have such a high success rate. They limit themselves to cases that meet that extremely high bar.

But the level for impeachment can and should be much lower. Few people would want a President if there was even a fifty/fifty chance he'd committed treason, right? There would be good grounds for impeachment -- for kicking him out of office.

But you couldn't convict anyone of criminal treason charges -- and put him in prison -- on a 50/50 chance.

[Rainbow Droid]

4. Yes, and the problem is that 20-30% of America doesn't seem to care about a 50/50 chance of treason,

because it's literally treason they agree with and would support regardless of what it was called. To these people the rest of us are the traitors, and the quicker the rest of us wise up to this fact the quicker we can start to fix this gigantic mess. And although they want us all to die and would be willing to kill us given the chance, I don't want the same for them. I just want them disarmed, both metaphorically and literally, so their insanity can be healed where possible and contained where necessary.

[orleans]

6. " it's literally treason they agree with"

haunting and horrible
disturbing and devastating
tragic and true

i completely agree with what you wrote. i am certain the "move on, it's over" choir actually agrees with these treason actions

[ElementaryPenguin]

8. We know beyond a reasonable doubt - in plain sight

That Trump fired Comey "because of this Russiar thing was a hoax" (to kill that investigation)

We know beyond a reasonable doubt - in plain sight that Trump repeatedly denied and covered up for the Russians as far as their involvement with hacking and stealing from the DNC, etc. - (like vouching for and denying an accused bank robber who you know is guilty as has even shared with you some of the stolen money) - this makes you an ACCESSORY AFTER THE FACT:

18 U.S. Code § 3. Accessory after the fact
U.S. Code
Notes
Authorities (CFR)

Whoever, knowing that an offense against the United States has been committed, receives, relieves, comforts or assists the offender in order to hinder or prevent his apprehension, trial or punishment, is an accessory after the fact.

Except as otherwise expressly provided by any Act of Congress, an accessory after the fact shall be imprisoned not more than one-half the maximum term of imprisonment or (notwithstanding section 3571) fined not more than one-half the maximum fine prescribed for the punishment of the principal, or both; or if the principal is punishable by life imprisonment or death, the accessory shall be imprisoned not more than 15 years.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 684; Pub. L. 99–646, § 43, Nov. 10, 1986, 100 Stat. 3601; Pub. L. 101–647, title XXXV, § 3502, Nov. 29, 1990, 104 Stat. 4921; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, §§ 330011(h), 330016(2)(A), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2145, 2148.)

[pnwmom]

15. You're right. I was thinking about the collusion side.

[garybeck]

14. It is beyond a reasonable doubt.

If you look at the meeting between kilimnik and manafort, it is clearly being a reasonable doubt.

Gates was there.
He told mueller what was said, and what information was transferred.

Manafort admitted it when he plead guilty.

How is that not beyond a reasonable doubt, if the people there admitted to it?

[A DAY IN THE LIFE]

7. It isn't illegal to talk to Russians

Did they discuss campaign contributions or bribes; or operations that can be taken to undermine the election? If so, where is the physical evidence?

[Meowmee]

2. It would be enough for

Many others

[Soxfan58]

5. Did you cap lock?

Or was it in the report that way?

[jmowreader]

10. I did

I was screaming because I was rolled up on NBC News last night. I had to turn that shit off because Trump’s fat smarmy face was going on and on about there having never been collusion and the report proving it. Then I downloaded Volume 1 (the report says there’s a Volume 2, and I bet that’s REALLY fun!) and the report PROVES collusion before I get ten pages in.

If this was April 1792 rather than April 2019, Les Depot a Domiciles would currently be having a run on 3/4” rope, Henry 208 Wet Patch Roof Cement (the ONLY tar to buy!), feather pillows, railroad ties, pitchforks and tiki torches. But we’ve grown up from those days.

Y’know, I’m old enough to remember when Republicans hated the Russians.

[RAB910]

9. Remember the obstruction of justice limited the evidenced

Had Trump not obstructed justice he would have been found guilty of collusion

[BSdetect]

11. And that is a slam dunk point for impeaching the turd

[jmowreader]

12. Exactly right

I’d say we had a solid case on that charge...however, they didn’t put me in charge.

[dalton99a]

13. +1. The purpose of his obstruction is to hide the evidence

Trump has extensive experience in destroying and hiding evidence, even under court orders