Within the Executive Branch, these investigatory efforts ultimately led to the May 2017 appointment of Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller, III. The order appointing the Special Counsel authorized him to investigate "the Russian government's efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election," including any links or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump Campaign.

Robert Mueller and the Special Council had ORDERS to conduct an investigation EXACTLY in the way it was conducted. They did nothing wrong. There was no indication it was political.

Because "the Trump Campaign" is a political organization, it doesn't mean the investigation was political in nature. Political organizations can break the law. The law is what matters. Was there bias because of a couple of agents that were having a love affair? No, because when Robert Mueller heard of the nonsense between these two people they were dismissed from the investigation. There is nothing more to know about it. As a matter of fact, the Special Council probably read through the materials submitted by those two people and made sure everything was sound. Robert Mueller would not allow biased information to continue to be part of the record. If the evidence was sound, he sure won't throw it out. This was about the country, Robert Mueller lived his life carrying the importance of American sovereignty in all his work. He knew what he was doing.

As set forth in detail in this report, the Special Counsel's investigation established that Russia interfere~ in the 2016 presidential election principally through two operations. First, a Russian entity carried out a social media campaign that favored presidential candidate Donald J. Trump and disparaged presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. Second, a Russian intelligence service conducted computer-intrusion operations against entities, employees, and volunteers working on the Clinton Campaign and then released stolen documents. The investigation also identified numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump Campaign. Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.

In other words, the Russian government made it possible for Trump to win the 2016 elections due to their interference. Trump was their preferred candidate. Russia worked with every aspect they could to put Trump in the White House. We know that is true. The president of Russia, Vladimir Putin, openly stated in the closing months of the election that if Hillary Clinton was elected there would be a nuclear war, but, if Trump was elected there would be no nuclear war.

GOT THAT?

The president of Russia declared nuclear war on the USA should Hillary Clinton be elected president.

Vladimir Putin threatened the American people before they voted with nuclear war to benefit his priority in placing Trump into office.

Donald Trump did not put those words into Putin's mouth or hold a gun to his head to achieve that end. However, it was obvious to the American people and to Trump and his campaign that Russia was involved in compromising the elections. I don't think Americans made the connection that their social media was being manipulated by agents of Russia. But, it was known that Putin wanted Trump in office.

Donald Trump did not denounce Russia's statements or influence. Now, the USA would have a compromised president in the White House by a grateful Trump and that was later noted when he fired James Comey and brought Russian leadership into the Oval Office to provide highly classified information to them. Trump was not demanding Vladimir Putin to leave the USA alone, quite the contrary.

Was there a conspiracy that can be prosecuted? There was no direct link between Russia's work to undermine the 2016 elections and plans made by the Trump Campaign or Trump. But, BOTH PARTIES UNDERSTOOD EACH OTHER AND THEIR COMMON INTERESTS. Why would Russia compromise Trump legally if they wanted a puppet?

***
There are three stars in this part of the introduction that separates SUBJECTS from each other. The top part is about findings. The bottom part is about evidence.

Below we describe the evidentiary considerations underpinning statements about the results of our investigation and the Special Counsel's charging decisions, and we then provide an overview of the two volumes of our report. 

The report describes actions and events that the Special Counsel's Office found to be supported by the evidence collected in our investigation. In some instances, the report points out the absence of evidence or conflicts in the evidence about a particular fact or event. In other instances, when substantial, credible evidence enabled the Office to reach a conclusion with confidence, the report states that the investigation established that certain actions or events occurred. A statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of those facts.

Robert Mueller did not bring charges forward. I hope that is clearly understood. It is not to say there weren't members of the Special Council engaged in subsequent prosecutions. They did the work. They knew the case(s). They were professionals that could carry out a presentation of evidence and prosecution, BUT, the charging agency was the DOJ.

In this particular instance, Rod Rosenstein would receive the findings of the Special Council. With the evidence staring him in the face, the Assistant Attorney General would authorize the indictments. Carrying out the indictments fell back to the Special Council and why Robert Mueller had to pass on the Grand Juries to others to finish the Special Council work when they were closed out by Barr.

To my way of thinking CONSISTENCY in prosecution through Grand Juries is best pursued by the people most knowledgable of the investigation. That is why with continued Grand Juries involved, it makes no sense to me that Robert Mueller and the Special Council isn't concluding the work. That could also be selfish of me as well. Robert Mueller and his Special Council have lives. They would do what is asked of them to a conclusion. There is a possibility there were personal reasons to close out the Special Council and return to them to their private lives. If that is the case, I wish them all well. But, occurrences with them since the report was handed to Barr and the fact this looks like an incomplete document really raises issues about the report.

In evaluating whether evidence about collective action of multiple individuals constituted a crime, we applied the framework of conspiracy law, not the concept of "collusion." In so doing, the Office recognized that the word "collud[ e ]" was used in communications with the Acting Attorney General confirming certain aspects of the investigation's scope and that the term has frequently been invoked in public reporting about the investigation. But collusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the United States Code, nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law. For those reasons, the Office's focus in analyzing questions of joint criminal liability was on conspiracy as defined in federal law. In connection with that analysis, we addressed the factual question whether members of the Trump Campaign "coordinat[ ed]"-a term that appears in the appointment order-with Russian election interference activities. Like collusion, "coordination" does not have a settled definition in federal criminal law. We understood coordination to require an agreement-tacit or express- between the Trump Campaign and the Russian government on election interference. That requires more than the two parties taking actions that were informed by or responsive to the other's actions or interests. We applied the term coordination in that sense when stating in the report that the investigation did not establish that the Trump Campaign coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.

The Special Council never used the idea of collusion. With Trump ranting and raving about "No Collusion" indicates he never bothered to read the report, not even the introduction of Volume I. The word collusion in the vapors of Trump Speak is political and continues to be political. It is not a legal finding.

In examining the evidence before the Special Council the word used was coordinate or coordinated. The legal definition of the word(s) is established by the Special Council to be an agreement-tacit or express- between the Trump Campaign and the Russian government on election interference.

The word collusion has no legal standing in this report.

The other word used in the report is collude. It was not the language of the charging document of the Special Council. This language was defined as understood between the Special Counsel and the Assistant Attorney General in some communications. The Special Council noted it was used in the public realm, but, was not a legal term or statute. That might seem petty to many, but, it isn't. The language of any document has to be understood without any misunderstandings and why DEFINING words are important. There was a vocabulary clarified between the two entities. When dealing with the law, it means if misunderstandings took place there could be trouble for those being indicted. So the language used by the Special Counsel is very important and should not be dismissed.

***
Three more stars for the same reason.

The report on our investigation consists of two volumes: Volume I describes the factual results of the Special Counsel's investigation of Russia's interference in the 2016 presidential election and its interactions with the Trump Campaign. Section I describes the scope of the investigation. Sections II and III describe the principal ways Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election. Section IV describes links between the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump Campaign. Section V sets forth the Special Counsel's charging decisions.

Volume II addresses the President's actions towards the FBI's investigation into Russia' s interference in the 2016 presidential election and related matters, and his actions towards the Special Counsel' s investigation. Volume II separately states its framework and the considerations that guided that investigation. 

This concludes the Introduction of Volume I. It simply states the way the report is organized and somewhat why it is organized into two volumes.

This is a real treat. The investigation of the Special Council is before us all and it will provide incredible insight to the methods of Russian agencies and agents. It will also provide an insight into USA intelligence and how dear the USA is treated. This is special. 

I will continue with more of Volume I later.

Thank you for your interest.