Stunning conflation by the media. Insufficient evidence is not affirmative proof of no collusion.

[JudyM]

I just continue to SMH at the way the media (even some allies) is mistakenly conflating the actual (presumed) finding of insufficient evidence to prove conspiracy/coordination beyond a reasonable doubt with “no collusion.”

There was no affirmative finding of an absence of coordination, yet that’s what so many are blaring.

IMO we are left with more than just the hope of finding obstruction... if Barr cut Mueller’s investigation short - before “proof beyond a reasonable doubt” could be established - there may well be an Act 2 on the whole deal in the House.

[zaj]

1. It's a 90% confidence of conviction threshhold

With this is might have been needed to be even higher.

The question is, was it more than 50%?

[SuprstitionAintthWay]

2. This drives me to distraction too.

Scott freakin Pelly announced on 60 minutes that Mueller just EXONERATED the Trump campaign of conspiring or coordinating with Russia.

Utter bullshit.

You'd expect some 60 Min editor to know that a federal investigation that did not lead to charges being filed is NOT exoneration of the suspects. It just means not enough evidence could be found to warrant charging and trying people.

As Mueller's own words said, his investigation did not "establish" that conspiracy or coordination between the campaign and the Russian government occurred.

And it appears he was focusing on just direct conspiracy -- no intermediaries -- with a couple of specific Russian govt crimimal entities at that: the IRA and the GRU's Fancy Bear hackers. Hell, no one expected even, say, DJTJ, to have been dumb enough to conspire directly with the Internet Research Agency or the Fancy Bear hackers themselves. But comms definitely did flow, for example, about what emails were stolen and when, pre-election, batches of them would be strategically dumped, along the channel GRU(Guccifer2.0) - Assange - Stone - Trump, and with all parties along that channel fully aware of who or what the other parties were. That's racketeering right there. Feds regularly use the RICO Act on that kind of conspiring to commit crime (in this case a foreign power interfering in an American election).

What Mueller reported appears to fall far, far short of proving that conspiracy between the campaign and Russia didn't happen. Which is what one would need to be "exonerated."

[JudyM]

4. Yes, it is continuing to be pronounced as a given, here's another by thinkprogress

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10142291999

The report concluded that neither President Donald Trump nor his campaign had collaborated with Moscow.

And as you point out, there’s no shortage of less than ambiguous circumstantial evidence.

[gratuitous]

3. Another feature to keep an eye on

No matter what transpired in the "But her emails" nontroversy, every development no matter how exculpatory meant that questions still lingered and clouds continued to overshadow Clinton's campaign. Now, with one refreshing fart from Trump's hand-picked mouthpiece, all doubts have disappeared entirely. Every question has been answered, every cloud has blown away or evaporated. It's like a miracle! And we haven't even seen the underlying report, but every journalist in the media is utterly satisfied, and anyone still harping on this is some conspiracy theory devotee, worse than those dirty fucking hippies who protested the invasion of Iraq, which also turned out totally fine.