kahos, with your logic, everyone is guilty. What do you mean by "inability to prove the conspiracy in a court of law"? Mueller had 3 years and 40 millions and he had NO CASE to bring to court. They don't even have a case to go to court.
Also, you keep insisting about Trump Jr wanting Hillary's dirt on the June 9 meeting as a bad thing. But why are you not saying anything about the DNC paying to get dirts on Trump and they actually GOT the dirts?
No, by my logic not everyone is innocent or fully vindicated. That's basically what the trump fans are trying to portray this report as saying: No collusion, no conspiracy, no wrongdoing. It simply isn't that simple IMO. It's quite telling that Mueller protested that Barr's take on the report was inaccurate.
Proving criminal conspiracy isn't easy. There's a clear difference between what you "know" and what you can "prove" in court. Anyone with a background in criminal justice could tell you that. In this case there are legal reasons for what Mueller "knows" not being presented in court and they are extensively documented in his report. Note that there are significant parts that are not yet published.
Read from page 185 and it speaks to the challenges in prosecutings with consipacy at is relates to the June 9th meeting at trump tower.
in light of the government’s substantial burden of proof on issues of intent (“knowing” and “willful”), and the difficulty of establishing the value of the offered information, criminal charges would not meet the Justice Manual standard that “the admissible evidence will probably be sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction.”
but the Office determined that the government would not be likely to obtain and sustain a conviction for two other reasons: first, the Office did not obtain admissible evidence likely to meet the government’s burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that these individuals acted “willfully,” i.e., with general knowledge of the illegality of their conduct; and, second, the government would likely encounter difficulty in proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the value of the promised information exceeded the threshold for a criminal violation, see 52 U.S.C. § 30109(d)(1)(A)(i).
It's odd enough, but one of the reason they weren't charged was because they couldn't prove or asses a value to the information but that's the legal system for you. It's easy to assess the value of property, but what is "information" worth? Without a value, it may not meet the elements of the underlying offence.
You'd also have to prove that they knew that what they were doing was a crime (willfully / intent) which is easier said than done. Emails alone don't do it. You need someone solid enough to stand up to testimony and cross-examination. Not every witness's word carries the same weight. We're not exactly dealing with the local church choir here... Hacks and politicians? Lying is part of their every day routine...
Trump Jr. did not agree to be interviewed. Can't blame him, any lawyers worth anything, heck, even broody would tell him to plead the 5th. That's not rocket science.
Good luck compelling the Russian to attend court in the U.S. to testify. Not happening. They'd either disappear, or wisely choose not to step foot on U.S soil again. If you can't see that as a challenge, I can't help.
You simply can't proceed against people of such high profile unless you've got a 99.9% chance of conviction. The context sets the bar even higher than if those were everyday Joe public. It would be too much of a blunder and embarrassment otherwise. Those are all parts of the reason this is the situation we're in today. Not because it's all been debunked.
Anyhow, that's my take on it. I think I've stated it as clearly as I care to in the past couple days. There are still sealed indictments are out there. Who's to say what's going to happen next? All I know is that this isn't over.
