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
So basically Trump had nothing to do with any interference? And the term "collusion" was left out because of a lack of legal standing? What bout all those other terms that are allowed? Surely if he cheated the election then there would be something in there that shows how he had defrauded a state affair, which is illegal. Right?
I'd say that pretty much confirms the OP's sentiments. All those false claims on twitter going rampant without a care, accusing Trump of pretty much anything they'd like. Where are t
So basically Trump had nothing to do with any interference?
Almost. More clearly stated: no evidence was found connecting Trump to the election interference.
And the term "collusion" was left out because of a lack of legal standing?
Correct.
...I'd say that pretty much confirms the OP's sentiments.
Then you would be wrong. The OP was about a purported ""Russia rigged the election!" movement" that "went on unfiltered for years."
There was no such thing. There was, however, a claim that Russia interfered with the election. This claim went on "unfiltered" because in fact it was accurate.
The collusion campaign involving interference is clearly what was meant. You said it yourself, there was no "Russia rigged the election" movement, so the OP must have been referring to the baseless collusion allegations. Frankly that's a fairly obvious conclusion. The investigation found no supporting evidence which indicates any kind of plot by Trump to defraud the election. In fact, it shows that the original allegation itself was made up when it outlined the origins of those claims.
The collusion campaign involving interference is clearly what was meant. You said it yourself, there was no "Russia rigged the election" movement, so the OP must have been referring to the baseless collusion allegations.
I'm not sure if I can even follow your argument. The OP was talking about "Russia rigged the elections!", I responded pointing out that Russia didn't rig the elections but they did interfere with the elections. And your response is that the fact that Russia didn't rig the elections but did interfere is so obvious that when the OP said "Russia rigged the elections" he clearly must have meant "Trump colluded with Russia," why didn't I understand that.
If that's what he meant, he should have said that.
"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 whether collusion occurred."
Did you not write this in your response? I see it in your comment. Mueller's response to collusion was the complete opposite of what you made up there. The fact that you made up that quote is the sole reason for my responses. You corrected the OP with a completely false
You quoted the Mueller report, not what he said in congress. Even so, my reply was in reference to that second half of your misquote "and so I did not investigate whether collusion occurred". That portion of the statement completely changes the context of your reply because it implies that a lack of investigation is the reason that a conspiracy wasn't found, which is untrue. No conspiracy was found because there wasn't any evidence to support one.
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: (Score:4, Insightful)
So basically Trump had nothing to do with any interference? And the term "collusion" was left out because of a lack of legal standing? What bout all those other terms that are allowed? Surely if he cheated the election then there would be something in there that shows how he had defrauded a state affair, which is illegal. Right?
I'd say that pretty much confirms the OP's sentiments. All those false claims on twitter going rampant without a care, accusing Trump of pretty much anything they'd like. Where are t
Re:Inadvertently... (Score:2)
So basically Trump had nothing to do with any interference?
Almost. More clearly stated: no evidence was found connecting Trump to the election interference.
And the term "collusion" was left out because of a lack of legal standing?
Correct.
Then you would be wrong. The OP was about a purported ""Russia rigged the election!" movement" that "went on unfiltered for years."
There was no such thing. There was, however, a claim that Russia interfered with the election. This claim went on "unfiltered" because in fact it was accurate.
Re: (Score:1)
The collusion campaign involving interference is clearly what was meant. You said it yourself, there was no "Russia rigged the election" movement, so the OP must have been referring to the baseless collusion allegations. Frankly that's a fairly obvious conclusion. The investigation found no supporting evidence which indicates any kind of plot by Trump to defraud the election. In fact, it shows that the original allegation itself was made up when it outlined the origins of those claims.
Like I said, you're de
If that's what he meant, he should have said that (Score:2)
The collusion campaign involving interference is clearly what was meant. You said it yourself, there was no "Russia rigged the election" movement, so the OP must have been referring to the baseless collusion allegations.
I'm not sure if I can even follow your argument. The OP was talking about "Russia rigged the elections!", I responded pointing out that Russia didn't rig the elections but they did interfere with the elections. And your response is that the fact that Russia didn't rig the elections but did interfere is so obvious that when the OP said "Russia rigged the elections" he clearly must have meant "Trump colluded with Russia," why didn't I understand that.
If that's what he meant, he should have said that.
Re: (Score:1)
"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 whether collusion occurred."
Did you not write this in your response? I see it in your comment. Mueller's response to collusion was the complete opposite of what you made up there. The fact that you made up that quote is the sole reason for my responses. You corrected the OP with a completely false
Re: (Score:2)
...Nowhere did the report state that "I did not investigate whether collusion occurred". Even if that's a paraphrase, it's completely wrong. ...
Mueller's exact words, in his testimony to Congress: "We did not address ‘collusion,’ which is not a legal term."
Re: (Score:1)
You quoted the Mueller report, not what he said in congress. Even so, my reply was in reference to that second half of your misquote "and so I did not investigate whether collusion occurred". That portion of the statement completely changes the context of your reply because it implies that a lack of investigation is the reason that a conspiracy wasn't found, which is untrue. No conspiracy was found because there wasn't any evidence to support one.