Can anyone explain to me

[SHRED]

Why the events surrounding the Tower meeting and actual Trump Tower meeting was not prosecuted?

[mahina]

1. Guessing obvs, Barr halted the work.

[SHRED]

2. I fear we'll never know if this is true

Mueller won't "rock the boat" and volunteer this info.

We must get him under oath in a public hearing and ask these questions.

[Hoyt]

3. I think it was addressed in M's report. Basically trump kids were too stupid to know it was wrong.

I think they lost interest in that meeting when it was discovered the previously unidentified calls after the meeting were not to trump.

[SHRED]

4. So future campaigns have a green light then

To seek aid from hostile foreign powers.

Got it.

[Hoyt]

5. Probably not, because they would presumably know it's wrong.

[SHRED]

7. Junior said "I'd love it"

He knew.

I'm not buying the "stupid" defense.
And don't you find it odd that a prosecutor offers a defense?

[Hoyt]

11. It's too late now. I doubt a jury would convict when you having Mueller and/or Barr saying

they didn't have the intent to break the law.

I agree those smirking trump kids and Kushner should have been prosecuted, at least for selling out our country's interest for their personal gain.

Unfortunately, too many ignorant white wingers don't care how trump the Racist-in-Chief got elected. Until a significant portion turn against trump, successful Impeachment (with conviction) -- or even indictments against kids -- are unlikely.

[uponit7771]

12. Yes, I didn't know it was illegal is the go forward line for all candidates to say when they involve

... other nation groups into America's elections.

What's bad is Mueller didn't interview them, how did he know !?!??!

This would be the first question I'd ask Mueller when he gets in front of house

[SHRED]

17. Yep

Very first.

But will it be asked?

[lagomorph777]

8. But smart enough to know they should lie about it. Manafort's a septuagenarian "kid"

apparently.

[uponit7771]

13. Right, this line of questions would be the first thing I'd ask Mueller

[SHRED]

14. Exactly!

[mahina]

6. Or possibly they are some of the prosecutions that are unidentified.

[ScratchCat]

9. Here's my take:

Could charges for conspiracy or campaign finance violations be brought? Yes.

Would it be prudent to do so when the Statute for conspiracy requires a tacit agreement and when the campaign finance law requires the receipt of "something of value" when this is very difficult to prove to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt? That is the crux.

And what I believe may have happened is that in this one single area, Mueller decided it would look "too political" and the chances of a conviction were nill, so he didn't go there. Its also possible that some of the data destroyed prevented them from having solid evidence.

[SHRED]

10. That's not what Mueller said is it?

Why didn't he spell some of that out instead?

[uponit7771]

18. No, Mueller said Don Jr didn't know and there was nothing of value in Clinton dirt ....

... which I 100% disagree with.

Not only that there was the "attempted campaign finance" violations, I don't know why that was not in the report.

[uponit7771]

16. "I love it" isn't a tacit agreement !?!? and "dirt on Hillary" isn't invaluable to a campagin agains

... Hillary?

There's also the "attempt" here ... if they thought it was of value, and Don Jr DID... then there are elements of attempted campaign finance violations.

[SHRED]

21. The notion that the dirt on Hillary was of no value isn't a good reason

If that's the case than we cannot prosecute obstructing of justice unless there is an underlying crime. This is what Barr believes.

[uponit7771]

22. +1, which makes me think this wasn't wholley Mueller's opionion here

[ScratchCat]

15. The report states

that they couldn't identify a Federal Statute that was clearly broken.

[uponit7771]

19. Campaign finance, Mueller said "dirt" on Clinton wasn't provable to be of value

[SHRED]

20. Intent

What about intent?

Also, sting operations use props many times. They have no "provable value" either.

[uponit7771]

23. +1, Intent in campaign finance isn't the first element its knowledge its an offence which is fucking

... crazy !!!

Then it goes into intent and something of value.

Like you said, all someone has to do now is say "I didn't know that was illegal and you have no proof I knew" and that persons colluding with another country is legal.

[lagomorph777]

24. Try that defense in traffic court some time.

See if you can get your fine doubled.