Image 01 Image 03

Mueller Report – No Trump campaign conspiracy or coordination with Russia

Mueller Report – No Trump campaign conspiracy or coordination with Russia

“The Special Counsel’s investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election.”

Attorney General William Barr has provided to Congress the key findings from the Report filed by Special Counsel Robert Mueller.

Key findings:

No further indictments recommended, no non-public indictments.

“The Special Counsel’s investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election.”

No conclusion by Mueller one way or the other as to obstruction of justice. But Barr and Rosenstein find no evidence to support charge of obstruction of justice.

Full letter here.

Excerpts (emphasis added).

No Further Indictments, No Sealed Indictments

The Special Counsel obtained a number of indictments and convictions of individuals and entities in connection with his investigation, all of which have been publicly disclosed. During the course of his investigation, the Special Counsel also referred several matters to other offices for further action. The report does not recommend any further indictments, nor did the Special Counsel obtain any sealed indictments that have yet to be made public.

No Collusion with Russia

… The report outlines the Russian effort to influence the election and documents crimes committed by persons associated with the Russian government in connection with those efforts. The report further explains that a primary consideration for the Special Counsel’s investigation was whether any Americans – including individuals associated with the Trump campaign – joined the Russian conspiracies to influence the election, which would be a federal crime. The Special Counsel’s investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election. As the report states: “[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”1

FN1 – In assessing potential conspiracy charges, the Special Counsel also considered whether members of the Trump campaign “coordinated” with Russian election interference activities. The Special Counsel defined “coordination” as an “agreement-tacit or express-between the Trump Campaign and the Russian government on election interference.”

* * *

The Special Counsel’s investigation determined that there were two main Russian efforts to influence the 2016 election. The first involved attempts by a Russian organization, the Internet Research Agency (IRA), to conduct disinformation and social media operations in the United States designed to sow social discord, eventually with the aim of interfering with the election. As noted above, the Special Counsel did not find that any U.S. person or Trump campaign official or associate conspired or knowingly coordinated with the IRA in its efforts, although the Special Counsel brought criminal charges against a number of Russian nationals and entities in connection with these activities.

The second element involved the Russian government’s efforts to conduct computer hacking operations designed to gather and disseminate information to influence the election. The Special Counsel found that Russian government actors successfully hacked into computers and obtained emails from persons affiliated with the Clinton campaign and Democratic Party organizations, and publicly disseminated those materials through various intermediaries, including WikiLeaks. Based on these activities, the Special Counsel brought criminal charges against a number of Russian military officers for conspiring to hack into computers in the United States for purposes of influencing the election. But as noted above, 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.

No Obstruction of Justice

The report’s second part addresses a number of actions by the President – most of which have been the subject of public reporting – that the Special Counsel investigated as potentially raising obstruction-of-justice concerns. After making a “thorough factual investigation” into these matters, the Special Counsel considered whether to evaluate the conduct under Department standards governing prosecution and declination decisions but ultimately determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment. The Special Counsel therefore did not draw a conclusion – one way or the other – as to whether the examined conduct constituted obstruction. Instead, for each of the relevant actions investigated, the report sets out evidence on both sides of the question and leaves unresolved what the Special Counsel views as “difficult issues” of law and fact concerning whether the President’s actions and intent could be viewed as obstruction . . The Special Counsel states that “while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.

* * *

Over the course of the investigation, the Special Counsel’s office engaged in discussions with certain Department officials regarding many of the legal and factual matters at issue in the Special Counsel’s obstruction investigation. After reviewing the Special Counsel’s final report on these issues; consulting with Department officials, including the Office of Legal Counsel; and applying the principles of federal prosecution that guide our charging decisions, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and I have concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel’s investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense. Our determination was made without regard to, and is not based on, the constitutional considerations that surround the indictment and criminal prosecution of a sitting president. 2

FN2 See A Sitting President’s Amenability to Indictment and Criminal Prosecution, 24 Op. O.L.C. 222 (2000).

In making this determination, we noted that the Special Counsel recognized that “the evidence does not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference,” and that, while not determinative, the absence of such evidence bears upon the President’s intent with respect to obstruction. Generally speaking, to obtain and sustain an obstruction conviction, the government would need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a person, acting with corrupt intent, engaged in obstructive conduct with a sufficient nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding. In cataloguing the President’s actions, many of which took place in public view, the report identifies no actions that, in our judgment, constitute obstructive conduct, had a nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding, and were done with corrupt intent, each of which, under the Department’s principles of federal prosecution guiding charging decisions, would need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to establish an obstruction-of justice offense.

This is a huge win for Trump.


Attorney General March 24 2019 Letter to House and Senate Judiciary Committees Re Mueller Report by Legal Insurrection on Scribd


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


No conclusion one way or the other as to obstruction of justice.

That can only mean that Mueller DID obstruct justice, and that proving it is now the sacred duty of CNN, MSNBC, and the House of Reprehensibles (/sarc) .

    moonmoth in reply to moonmoth. | March 24, 2019 at 3:54 pm

    I meant to say “Trump” rather than “Mueller”, but maybe my post as written is closer to what the lunatics will now claim.

      Tom Servo in reply to moonmoth. | March 24, 2019 at 4:12 pm

      Quite simply, if there was never any underlying crime, no underlying conspiracy, then by definition it was not possible to “Obstruct Justice”, because you did not obstruct the factual finding of Nothing. That’s why this charge wasn’t addressed – with no underlying crime, there could not be “obstruction”.

        puhiawa in reply to Tom Servo. | March 24, 2019 at 5:53 pm

        You are correct. Obstruction requires specific intent. Trump knew he was innocent, saying so does not constitute a crime

        Milhouse in reply to Tom Servo. | March 24, 2019 at 9:52 pm

        That’s actually not true. It’s possible to obstruct justice without any underlying crime. For instance if someone tried to improperly influence Comey to stop investigating Flynn, because they were worried that the investigation would find something he’d done wrong, that would be obstruction even if it turned out that their worry was mistaken.

        But the problem here is that the alleged undue influence consisted of the President outright asking Comey to go easy on Flynn, and he’s allowed to do that; in fact he could have ordered Comey outright to drop the investigation, and in hindsight he should have done so.

          heyjoojoo in reply to Milhouse. | March 24, 2019 at 10:39 pm

          Millhouse is just like Twitter and Facebook where he targets those with the most likes and followers. Lol.

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | March 25, 2019 at 1:40 am

          Huh? What does that even mean?

          Barry in reply to Milhouse. | March 25, 2019 at 1:54 am

          “For instance if someone tried to improperly influence Comey to stop investigating Flynn,…”

          Except it’s not “someone”, it is the president of the United States, and they can, as you note, flat out influence and/or put a stop to the investigation.

          puhiawa in reply to Milhouse. | March 25, 2019 at 2:30 am

          That is a different crime. And suggesting by the boss in such gentle terms does not constitute obstruction. That is called an “opinion”.

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | March 25, 2019 at 2:33 am

          Note the word “improperly”. It’s not improper for the president to tell his minions how to allocate their resources.

          But the assertion I addressed had nothing to do with this case; it was a general statement that if there is no underlying crime then it’s not possible to obstruct justice. That isn’t true. One can obstruct justice in the mistaken belief that a crime has been committed. Or indeed one can obstruct justice by causing the investigation of a crime one knows has not occurred, or by destroying evidence that the target of an investigation is innocent.

Major meltdown in the media. Heads are exploding in all of the commie newsrooms around the world. George Soros has to double dose on his valium prescription. has been coated with explosive grey matter and will be closed until clean up has been expedited.

Do not expect the Dems/Progs who cannot believe Hillary lost a rigged election to believe the results of a rigged investigation. Never happen.

That “Honorable” honorific always cracks me up.

Makes about as much sense as greeting the Invisible Man with a hearty “Hey man, lookin’ good!”

As Dershowitz and others say, how can you obstruct when the decisions fall under your mandated authority?

    In fact, this exact situation came up at the end of Rick Perry’s term as Governor. He vetoed some funding to Travis County, and a local prosecutor charged him with a crime because his Intent was bad, or coercive, or something. Now this was a Texas court, iirc, not Federal, but the Ruling handed down was that if the Executive had the lawful authority to carry out a certain action, then it can never be against the law for him to carry out such an action, no matter what his intent was. (or more accurately, no court has the authority to try and determine his intent)

      Milhouse in reply to Tom Servo. | March 24, 2019 at 10:07 pm

      That’s not exactly what the decision was. Perry said he had no confidence in the Travis County DA, and would therefore not be passing on some special funding that was allocated to her office until she resigned, because he could not be confident she wouldn’t misuse it. Somehow the prosecutor spun this as a blackmail attempt: “no money until you resign”. The court rejected it, because this was entirely within his authority and responsibility as governor. He couldn’t directly order her to resign, but he had no duty to give money to someone he couldn’t trust to spend it lawfully. The fact that they were political rivals just didn’t enter into it; she couldn’t shield herself from his legitimate concerns just because she was a Democrat and he was a Republican, because it doesn’t work that way.

      At least that’s my recollection of the episode.

4th armored div | March 24, 2019 at 4:08 pm

now mueller needs to investigate the D Nd #NeverTrumppers for these same crimes – starting with Obama and his cabal of cable mouthpieces.
let us NOT forget Comey and the Medea darling John McCain.

But CNN headline re: Mueller report “not exonerated”- even though Barr has essentially done that.

    DieJustAsHappy in reply to lc. | March 24, 2019 at 4:19 pm

    “Our determination was made without regard to, and is not based on, the constitutional considerations that surround the indictment and criminal prosecution of a sitting president.”

    This decision by Attorney General William Barr and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein ought to be stressed over and over. And, it suggests to me that there must be rather weak evidence to support a case of obstruction.

      Valerie in reply to DieJustAsHappy. | March 24, 2019 at 5:41 pm

      I interpret it to mean that they found no action, as opposed to finding that he had a right to take some action.

        DieJustAsHappy in reply to Valerie. | March 24, 2019 at 6:27 pm

        I find Mueller’s treatment of this questionable.

        Milhouse in reply to Valerie. | March 24, 2019 at 10:10 pm

        On the contrary, I think it means they found some action but could not form a clear legal opinion on whether the action was unlawful. If he had every right to act as he did then obviously he can’t be charged with it.

        What they’re saying is that the question of whether one can indict a sitting president wasn’t a factor. They didn’t get as far as considering it.

          Being a non-lawyer, it seems to me that “obstruction of justice” is occasionally used as a kind of participation ribbon that some prosecutors award themselves when they fail to land the big fish they were after. Just publically hinting that there was some kind of obstruction (without offering evidence or being willing to go to court to prove it) strikes me as dirty pool.

          At any rate, if Trump’s critics actually think that Trump obstructed justice they needs to provide evidence. Enough with the almost 3 year fishing expedition that has yielded zilch!

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | March 25, 2019 at 2:26 am

          The problem seems to be, not evidence of what he (or someone) did, but whether it’s illegal. There’s a very troubling tendency for ambitious prosecutors to find something that a politician or prominent businessman has openly done with no notion that it might be illegal, and try to convince a jury that it was in fact illegal.

          It’s one thing to say ignorance of the law is no excuse when the accused could in principle, with sufficient diligence, have known the law (though in my opinion this needs to be drastically revised in view of the practical impossibility of anyone knowing all the laws), and quite another to apply it in cases where it was literally impossible for the accused to have known that what he was doing was illegal, because nobody knew it, not even the prosecutor himself.

          This goes back at least as far as the New Deal era executives who went to prison for “price fixing” that they couldn’t have known at the time was illegal, through Rudy Giuliani’s disgraceful prosecution of Michael Milken, to the recent prosecutions of Arthur Anderson, Tom DeLay, Conrad Black, Bob McDonnell, and (perhaps) Shelly Silver.

          I think Mueller is saying the case (such as it is) against Trump for obstruction would have the same problem. If Mueller himself, having had all this time to think about it, isn’t sure whether what he thinks Trump did is illegal, then how could Trump have known?

DieJustAsHappy | March 24, 2019 at 4:23 pm

I see that the mob is calling for the release of the full report, regardless of the consequences to any one. They seriously need some couch time with a counselor.

Also, anyone else find it odd that there hasn’t been a Tweet out of President Trump for over eight (8) hours?

    Valerie in reply to DieJustAsHappy. | March 24, 2019 at 5:45 pm

    It was longer than that. Someone said 40 hours.

    His first tweet after the break was “Good Morning, have a Great Day!”

    That tweet was followed by ‘MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN.”

    The Left went nuts, not that they were sane, to begin with.

    The reason for the Trump Twitter Silence is logical: He didn’t want anything to distract from the main topic in this particular news cycle.


Left for the last 2 years: “Ohthisishorrible! The evidence of Trump’s criminal conspiracy to mess with the election is so obvious! He should be frogmarched out of the WH in handcuffs! Thank God we have a real honest investigator in Mueller who only hires Dem donors and other Trump-despising leftists to root out this criminal conspiracy!”
Left for the next year or two: “Mueller was a Trump plant!”

CBS just interrupted halftime of men’s basketball to bring sports fans this non-story. ????

CNN isnt the only ones running with that Ic! I feel sorry for them because they were so convinced it was only a matter of time! Now they have to start spinning about something else hahahahahahhaa fuckers!!

???? = eye-roll emoji

I have to give President Trump some serious poker face high fives. I am sure there are many times he would have liked to just squash this BS investigation, but he knew he did nothing wrong and let it go to the end. If he had squashed this investigation, the questions and speculations would have raged and raged.

Now all of the classically trained professional journalists with the highest ethical standards can sit around sucking their thumbs and crying.

Voice_of_Reason | March 24, 2019 at 4:43 pm

libtards will STILL insist that Trump wasn’t “proven innocent”, as if that was the standard.

    In societies with warlock hunts and trials, and planned babies, summary judgments are indeed the standard.

    JusticeDelivered in reply to Voice_of_Reason. | March 24, 2019 at 9:14 pm

    Trump enjoys the same presumption of innocence under law as everyone else.

      “Entitled to” isn’t the same as “enjoys”. He may be entitled to it, but you know perfectly well that the left (and certain GOPe) will loudly proclaim him guilty, no matter the evidence of his innocence.

    DaveGinOly in reply to Voice_of_Reason. | March 25, 2019 at 2:41 am

    Remember that the people who are today declaring that finding of “no evidence” of wrongdoing is not an exonerations called James Comey’s laundry list of Hillary’s illegal actions (with respect to classified information, it’s storage, transmission, and illegal possession after leaving office) “an exoneration.” Comey merely recommend to not prosecute based on the actual evidence they had in-hand.

never understood how some entity I don’t like was gonna talk me out of voting for a person I have always detested and would never vote for.

    me NEVER going vote for clinton (been watching them sinve he was gov) while at same time not trusting russians was reason for downvotes.

Good news is that he’s officially exonerated. The bad news is that the Dems and the MSM will simply ignore this and invent more scandals to hang on President Trump since they’ve already signaled the intent to do so. It’s just a continuation of their efforts to delegitimize and undermine the results of the 2016 election.

ScottTheEngineer | March 24, 2019 at 5:18 pm

Kind of a large contrast between this waste of time and the last investigation that found “she broke this law, this law and this law but we don’t think we will find a prosecutor willing to prosecute.”

This may be the funniest short video of the day. It shows the dishonest predictions of every major MSM commenter about the outcome of Mueller’s investigation. Enjoy.

    My2centshere in reply to faboutlaws. | March 24, 2019 at 6:20 pm

    Not like they get together and coordinate a response. I watched a few different outlets today and they have truly lost their minds.

Well, kinda looks like Comey obstructed justice, doesn’t it. As for some of our NeverTrumpers…..waiting to hear!

Poor Rags. He was hoping against hope, his hero Robert Mueller was going up to the White House and frog march Donald Trump down Pennsylvania Avenue and straight into the D C Jail.

inspectorudy | March 24, 2019 at 5:40 pm

Mueller is a backstabbing swine to say what he did about obstruction. It is unethical to write that any obstruction charge could not be determined by the evidence but both sides have a point. This is total BS! This is as bad as Comey saying that “No reasonable prosecutor would press charges against hillary”. That was never his role or duty and just like Mueller, he has no ethics. No one asked for exoneration but Mueller should have said sufficient evidence of obstruction was not determined. Now he has offered the Dims another chance for a witch hunt on obstruction of justice. As one pundit said, “How do you show obstruction of a crime that was not committed?”.

    amwick in reply to inspectorudy. | March 24, 2019 at 7:57 pm

    We paid 30(?) million for a maybe?.. hmmm

    Milhouse in reply to inspectorudy. | March 24, 2019 at 11:21 pm

    You are wrong. It was Mueller’s job to do exactly as he did, and lay out the entire situation to the Attorney General. Comey had the same duty to the AG of the time; his offense, if it was one, was to go public. Of course if he hadn’t gone public we’d never have heard anything about it, since the AG would have deep-sixed it.

“While this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him”

Gotta leave Trump with a taint.

Heard time and again in Mueller’s lair, “Curses, foiled again,”

    malclave in reply to fscarn. | March 25, 2019 at 12:03 am

    It’s similarly noteworthy that the report did not exonerate Hillary Clinton for conspiring with John Wilkes Booth.

    DaveGinOly in reply to fscarn. | March 25, 2019 at 2:44 am

    “Got to leave Trump with a taint.”
    It’s only fair. Hillary has a taint too.
    (Take that as you will.)

The Dems’ new hashtag: #NeverSatisfied

    CorkyAgain in reply to Rab. | March 24, 2019 at 8:00 pm

    #NeverSatisfied has been their hashtag ever since they went in for grievance-mongering and identity politics.

    It’s why you should never apologize for the things they accuse you of.

What will the Collusion Nonsense Network do now ?

After nine trimesters, the president has been deemed viable, and perhaps worthy, of his executive life. We can hope that the left will change course and end their persistent rite of aborting the President and sequestering democracy in a black whore (hat tip: NAACP)… hole.

Now is the time for IG Horowitz to make himself known and start dropping indictments.

Would anyone be suprised?

I saw this on a local blog. In the tradition of the Hitler videos.

The most “professional” thing Mueller and his thugs may have accomplished was to protect Hillary Clinton and her campaign from scrutiny.

DouglasJBender | March 24, 2019 at 6:58 pm

But how could practically all of the MSM have been so virulently wrong these past two years?

regulus arcturus | March 24, 2019 at 7:14 pm

All of the participants in this disaster must be prosecuted, if you want to prevent this from repeat occurrence.

Congress is already calling for Barr to testify. So now the commies are going to punish those who found no evidence to prosecute Trump. Since these kooks keep referring to “overwhelming” evidence of Trump’s guilt, why don’t they produce it?

Barr should refuse to testify. What are they going to do? Impeach him for obstruction of justice? Or for colluding with the White House in a cover up? Hold him in contempt of Congress “just becuz”? Nope. This would just be a distraction from their main goal of Trump who is now doing a few victory laps (talk about heads exploding!).

Maybe, I have heard exactly that elsewhere, but on the top of page 2 AG Barr said that SC referred several matters to other offices for further investigation.

So, considering what one previous AG called a “matter”, that could be interesting. I have to hope so.

DieJustAsHappy | March 24, 2019 at 8:15 pm

As good of an explanation as any. (Took me four attempts to Login to make this comment. Page reloading errors. Done with this site for the day.)

I just read the summary. No American could be found having actually conspired with the Russians among 330 million citizens, including one President Trump. No underlying crime makes prosecuting obstruction of justice very difficult (one of those “hard issues of fact and law”, so, so hard) and along with “no conclusion”, a bluntly worded (by Barr) lack of evidence.

I still stand by the Presidency’s authority to fire the director of the FBI. The very fact the Mueller probe came to a conclusion flies in the face of obstruction. This two year shot across the bow doesn’t change my view of the Constitutional structure of the executive branch.

A Special Prosecutor is neither a judge nor a jury so he cannot determine innocence or guilt; at best, he can present unproven allegations and associated evidence.

Where James Comey assumed the role of a prosecutor in the Hillary email case, Mueller assumed the role of an FBI agent in the Trump obstruction investigation; he presented the allegations, but decided not to decided. Almost two years and $40 million dollars and Mueller takes the opportunity to keep the investigation alive after he walks away.

Now we’ll have to listen to the Democrats in the house count the angels on the head of pin for the rest of Trumps first term.

Close The Fed | March 24, 2019 at 9:20 pm

I put up with Obama for 8 years. But when my candidate won, the left negated our victory. The DNC server(s) were never examined. I spent 3 years in the Army and my clearance was above top secret. If I had done what she had done, I’d have been in prison for a VERY long time.

President Trump should direct A.G. Barr to re-examine the DNC matter and to prosecute Hillary Clinton. There’s no OBJECTIVE reason for her to be above the law.

Somehow the shrew has used vinegar to stay above the law. She’s not Obama, the first black president. No reason to spare her the justice others have endured for far less than she did.

    Milhouse in reply to Close The Fed. | March 24, 2019 at 11:26 pm

    Is she still within the statute of limitations?

      CorkyAgain in reply to Milhouse. | March 24, 2019 at 11:52 pm

      More to the point is there any pertinent evidence that she or her minions haven’t already destroyed?

      Talk about obstruction of justice!

      Close The Fed in reply to Milhouse. | March 25, 2019 at 10:47 am

      I don’t know the statute for these crimes. However, regardless, she probably has some income from government “employment” so it would be appropriate to strip that from her, even if she can’t be imprisoned.

Yes, after his first report found no evidence that bias influenced actions, despite that report being replete with examples of bias.

Dems are engaged in projection. They know that if the Russians had tried to co-opt them, they would have agreed to anything (sold the country out) to win the election. (Think of Hillary’s sale of US uranium to the Russians for a speaking fee.) (Think of Hillary’s hiring a Brit to fabricate the dossier; the use of cutouts to do the hiring proves she knew it was wrong.) (Think of Hillary’s dirty tricks to Bernie’s campaign.) Therefore, they reason (projection), Trump’s like me and must have done the same. But Trump’s not like them; he’s essentially honest and cares for America.

I never expected the dems to change regardless of how innocent Trump was shown to be. The republicans are a question. Will the report move them off the fence in supporting Trump? It should remove uncertainty about his guilt; will that translate to a more unified position in re policies and the election?

The best defense is a good offense.

Time to turn the investigation onto obama, clinton, schiff, wassermanshultz, etc.