promotion image of download ymail app
Promoted
Anonymous
Anonymous asked in Politics & GovernmentPolitics · 2 months ago

Were there ANY Mueller indictments SPECIFICALLY for campaign workers who actually conspired with Moscow to get Trump elected? NOT for...?

...money laundering, bank fraud from a decade ago or ANYTHING BUT conspiring with Russia to help Trump or obstruction or for a 'meeting' where nothing conspiratorial was proved.=

-ONLY direct, indisputable INTERACTION with Moscow, DURING the campaign and ONLY to get Trump elected?  .

10 Answers

Relevance
  • 2 months ago

    No.

    And many of those that were convicted were only guilty because there was an investigation. They had done nothing wrong but they fluffed some answers when questioned.

    The answers by themselves were of no significance to the investigation but because they got them wrong they could be prosecuted.

    If there had been no investigation then the questions would not have been asked and so the answers would not have been wrong and there would have been no crime.

    As it was, there were no crimes about Russian Collusion.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • martin
    Lv 7
    2 months ago

    Election campaigning is free speech, which Russia or anyone else has the right to influence. Only corruption is against the law. Russia naturally would be interested in who became president of the USA.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 2 months ago

    They proved that Manafoirt had lots of Russian connections but not that he directly conspired. The famous meeting in Trump tower showed a number of Trump campaign workers using Russians to get dirt on Hillary but no one was indited for that from the evidence about the meeting. So there was no proof shown that the ones who were indited conspired with the Russian Hackers just that they were trying to use Russian connections to further the campaign.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 2 months ago

    Nope. In fact Mueller explicitly cleared everyone of that.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 2 months ago

    Looks like a distraction.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • abdul
    Lv 7
    2 months ago

    No, not a single one. THe left put all their hopes and dreams into Mueller bringing all these indictments against potus too, and there was not a single one. Poor Adam Schiff's eyeballs about popped out over that.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 2 months ago

     Not a damn one. All Muller got was what

    he knew he already had. Before the first

    day the so called investigation began.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • Lili
    Lv 7
    2 months ago

    Mueller said that he did not find evidence of collusion that he could take to a prosecutor. That should answer your question.

    He also made it clear, however, that he could not say collusion absolutely did not occur.  He could not exonerate Trump or his people.

    Finally, he made it clear that there was NO doubt whatsoever that Russia HAD interfered in the election and that Trump's team had been perfectly happy to be the beneficiaries of such interference. Mueller's conclusions on this score were echoed by other people, foreign service and intelligence experts, in a position to know.

    If interference occurred -- and it did -- collusion could have occurred. Mueller simply didn't find the evidence of it.

    What is it that you don't quite grasp about all that?

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 2 months ago

    No , only fabricated charges and entrapment for the purpose of extorting and bankrupting Trump allies and associates .

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • Gungy
    Lv 6
    2 months ago

    Sorry...you're injecting several different things into one issue just to make your bias. That dog don't hunt no more.

    • .
      Lv 5
      2 months agoReport

      Bias? If Trump calls for an investigation into the nominee on the day they're chosen and expands that to everyone they ever knew or worked for and includes any and every crime -- not just the core issue -- will you agree that it isn't biased? 

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.