While no fan of Trump I do find it rather glaring that the whole "Russia rigged the election!" movement went on unfiltered for years. This is Twitter, though, they have never shied from their biases.
I don't think I've heard people say Russia "rigged" the election. There was a charge of Russian interference with the 2016 election. The two are not the same.
The charge of Russian interference is well documented, among other places in the Senate Report. [slashdot.org] There really isn't controversy there. (The controversy is to what extent the Trump campaign colluded, or tried to collude, with the Russians. The Mueller report answered that only by saying "collusion is not a legal term, and so I did not investigate wheth
The two are not the same. The charge of Russian interference is well documented
Distinction without difference to the point being made.
For over two years Trump had to endure baseless accusations of "collusion" with Russia — with government officials, elected lawmakers, journalists and lawyers falling out of every TV-set talking about it. The talk, though subsided after Mueller's report obliterated the allegations [theintercept.com], continues to this day [twitter.com] — but Twitter was not, and is not stamping any of it out.
The Mueller report answered that only by saying "collusion is not a legal term, and so I did not investigate whether collusion occurred."
The actual quote from the report was:
Russian government believed it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome. Investigators did not establish that Trump campaign members conspired or coordinated with Russia in the effort. [emphasis mine]
Meanwhile vote-rigging is a crime, and the accusations exist — with evidence of witness testimony [vice.com], signed affidavits [filmdaily.co], and other documents. So why is it Ok to discuss Trump's non-crime of "collusion" — for which there is no evidence — but not Ok to discuss the actual crime of vote-rigging, for which evidence does exist?
Why, despite no proof ever emerging, do you continue to believe, Trump "colluded" (whatever that means) with Putin, while the vote-rigging is not merely unsubstantiated to you, you call them false?
Why do you treat absence of evidence as evidence of absence in the latter case, but not in the former?
When the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, said on Tuesday that his investigators had no “direct evidence” that Hillary Clinton’s email account had been “successfully hacked,” both private experts and federal investigators immediately understood his meaning: It very likely had been breached, but the intruders were far too skilled to leave evidence of their work.
OK, you quote the FBI saying their investigators had no “direct evidence” that Hillary Clinton’s email account had been “successfully hacked,
That's fine; I'll go with that: There was no evidence that Hillary Clinton's email account was hacked.
Now, can you show me the part in that article where "Hillary, the DNC, and their stooges were shrieking that her illegal email server was hacked by the Russians" (that is: the text I called "wrong")-- not the part where it said "the FBI said
Are you really, sincerely claiming, this is how colluding co-conspirators communicate?
Turns out it worked.
"Mueller’s report also found a cause-and-effect between Trump’s remarks in July 2016 and subsequent cyberattacks.
“I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” said then-candidate Trump at a press conference, referring to emails Clinton stored on a personal email server while she headed the State Department. Mueller’s report said “within approximately five hours” of those remarks, GRU officers began targeting for the first time Clinton’s personal office.
More than a dozen staffers were targeted by Unit 26165, including a senior aide. “It is unclear how the GRU was able to identify these email accounts, which were not public,” said Mueller."
you can't provide any evedience of vote rigging you don't actually have it.
That's what I refer to as absence of evidence — there may have been vote-rigging, but we cannot prove it.
To pretend, that this is also evidence of absence — that there was no rigging — is a fallacy. If "Mueller didn't exonerate Trump", then your judges certainly didn't exonerate Democrats either.
So, why are you allowed to claim, Trump "colluded" with Russia, but Trump is not allowed to say, you rigged the vote? Not
I assume you googled and posted the link without actually reading any of the articles linked? Because none of them say that that Russia "rigged" the election.
The two are not the same. The charge of Russian interference is well documented
Distinction without difference to the point being made.
A difference with an important distinction: Russia did interfere in the election.
A difference with an important distinction: Russia did interfere in the election.
Russia interfered in every election prior as well — all countries try their hardest at that.
The accusation was, Trump "colluded" with it — committing some sort of crime while at it. That accusation was baseless, but was and continues to be repeated — without any attempt by Twitter to put and end to it.
For that same entity to declare Trump's own accusations false and inhibit his speech is most hypocritical.
You didn't scroll up far enough. The topic was "I do find it rather glaring that the whole "Russia rigged the election!" movement went on unfiltered for years."
Because there has been no evidence presented anywhere that there was vote rigging on a widespread scale. if there was such evidence it would have been presented in court. On the other hand, there was evidence of likely collusion, and it was investigated even if it was never proven.
The fraud election is a lie. By now after 4 years people on both sides of the aisle should know very clearly that the current president is a habitual liar. And yet so many still believe all his crazy fantasies.
Literally your first link about vote rigging is to an article of the person who had claimed it distancing himself from it and saying a disinformation group wrote his affadavit. You've persuaded me about how credible the claims were, but not the way you may have intended.
As to your claims that Mueller's report exonerated Trump; it'd be laughable if the implications of what may have happened weren't so severe. I think I'll take Mueller's own words on what his report did or didn't mean. Those words were
As the trials of life continue to take their toll, remember that there
is always a future in Computer Maintenance.
-- National Lampoon, "Deteriorata"
Inadvertently... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:4, Informative)
The charge of Russian interference is well documented, among other places in the Senate Report. [slashdot.org] There really isn't controversy there. (The controversy is to what extent the Trump campaign colluded, or tried to collude, with the Russians. The Mueller report answered that only by saying "collusion is not a legal term, and so I did not investigate wheth
Re:Inadvertently... (Score:5, Interesting)
Selective memories [google.com], huh?
Distinction without difference to the point being made.
For over two years Trump had to endure baseless accusations of "collusion" with Russia — with government officials, elected lawmakers, journalists and lawyers falling out of every TV-set talking about it. The talk, though subsided after Mueller's report obliterated the allegations [theintercept.com], continues to this day [twitter.com] — but Twitter was not, and is not stamping any of it out.
The actual quote from the report was:
Meanwhile vote-rigging is a crime, and the accusations exist — with evidence of witness testimony [vice.com], signed affidavits [filmdaily.co], and other documents. So why is it Ok to discuss Trump's non-crime of "collusion" — for which there is no evidence — but not Ok to discuss the actual crime of vote-rigging, for which evidence does exist?
Why, despite no proof ever emerging, do you continue to believe, Trump "colluded" (whatever that means) with Putin, while the vote-rigging is not merely unsubstantiated to you, you call them false?
Why do you treat absence of evidence as evidence of absence in the latter case, but not in the former?
Re: (Score:1)
"Russia, if you're listening..."
Wrong, and wrong [Re:Inadvertently...] (Score:2)
It was satire because Hillary, the DNC, and their stooges were shrieking that her illegal email server was hacked by the Russians (which was a lie).
Wrong, and wrong.
Nobody said (much less "shrieked") that Hillary's email server had been hackedn. It was the DNC email server that had been hacked. And this was not a lie; it happened.
https://apnews.com/article/dea... [apnews.com]
https://techcrunch.com/2019/04... [techcrunch.com]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Bzzzz, false. [nytimes.com]. Emphasis mine:
The abov
Still wrong [Re:Wrong, and wrong] (Score:2)
OK, you quote the FBI saying their investigators had no “direct evidence” that Hillary Clinton’s email account had been “successfully hacked,
That's fine; I'll go with that: There was no evidence that Hillary Clinton's email account was hacked.
Now, can you show me the part in that article where "Hillary, the DNC, and their stooges were shrieking that her illegal email server was hacked by the Russians" (that is: the text I called "wrong")-- not the part where it said "the FBI said
It worked [Re:Inadvertently...] (Score:4, Informative)
Are you really, sincerely claiming, this is how colluding co-conspirators communicate?
Turns out it worked.
"Mueller’s report also found a cause-and-effect between Trump’s remarks in July 2016 and subsequent cyberattacks.
“I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” said then-candidate Trump at a press conference, referring to emails Clinton stored on a personal email server while she headed the State Department. Mueller’s report said “within approximately five hours” of those remarks, GRU officers began targeting for the first time Clinton’s personal office.
More than a dozen staffers were targeted by Unit 26165, including a senior aide. “It is unclear how the GRU was able to identify these email accounts, which were not public,” said Mueller."
https://techcrunch.com/2019/04... [techcrunch.com]
Re: Inadvertently... (Score:2)
When you get laughed out of court because you can't provide any evedience of vote rigging you don't actually have it.
Sort of like the hunter biden laptop that was mysteriously lost in the mail.
Did it even exist is a question.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's what I refer to as absence of evidence — there may have been vote-rigging, but we cannot prove it.
To pretend, that this is also evidence of absence — that there was no rigging — is a fallacy. If "Mueller didn't exonerate Trump", then your judges certainly didn't exonerate Democrats either.
So, why are you allowed to claim, Trump "colluded" with Russia, but Trump is not allowed to say, you rigged the vote? Not
Re: (Score:2)
Selective memories [google.com], huh?
I'm not sure what results google give you, but my results are about rigged Russian elections, and Russian interference in American elections.
Meanwhile vote-rigging is a crime, and the accusations exist — with evidence of witness testimony [vice.com],
Surely you got a better article than one where the witness himself says it is not true and that it was written by Project Veritas
A difference with an important difference (Score:2)
Selective memories [google.com], huh?
I assume you googled and posted the link without actually reading any of the articles linked? Because none of them say that that Russia "rigged" the election.
The two are not the same. The charge of Russian interference is well documented
Distinction without difference to the point being made.
A difference with an important distinction: Russia did interfere in the election.
Re: (Score:2)
Russia interfered in every election prior as well — all countries try their hardest at that.
The accusation was, Trump "colluded" with it — committing some sort of crime while at it. That accusation was baseless, but was and continues to be repeated — without any attempt by Twitter to put and end to it.
For that same entity to declare Trump's own accusations false and inhibit his speech is most hypocritical.
Re: (Score:2)
Russia interfered in every election prior as well — all countries try their hardest at that.
You seem to be using a lot of words to say over and over again that you agree with me. I'm not sure why this thread is continuing.
The accusation was, Trump "colluded" with it — committing some sort of crime while at it.
No it was not. The specific accusation that I was responding to stated that Russia "rigged" the elections.
You want to change the topic and talk about the Trump campaign "colluding" with Russia.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not a change of topic, that's the original topic. You wrote:
If people alleging, Trump "colluded", can repeat such baseless beliefs on Twitter, Trump should be able to repeat his own too.
That his own aren't quite so baseless is a separate topic — maybe, a special prosecutor, funded and empowered as Mueller was
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because there has been no evidence presented anywhere that there was vote rigging on a widespread scale. if there was such evidence it would have been presented in court. On the other hand, there was evidence of likely collusion, and it was investigated even if it was never proven.
The fraud election is a lie. By now after 4 years people on both sides of the aisle should know very clearly that the current president is a habitual liar. And yet so many still believe all his crazy fantasies.
And Trump was no
Re: (Score:2)
As to your claims that Mueller's report exonerated Trump; it'd be laughable if the implications of what may have happened weren't so severe. I think I'll take Mueller's own words on what his report did or didn't mean. Those words were