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 whether collusion occurred.")
I definitely remember a Hillary Clinton, who said there were attempts to attack her, but never questioned the election result and conceded on November 9, 2016.
Unlike one lying gibbon who keeps telling his base a bunch of lies and moronic "legal theories" that those morons swallow whole, although it should be obvious to everyone with several functioning brain cells they are all lies and crap.
Also, I remember many calls to "lock her up" from the same lying sack of shit, calls that weren't followed by anything
That's not election rigging. That's plain old ratf*cking.
The decentralized nature of the American presidential elections make them very difficult to rig. The Russians know this, so clearly that's not their purpose. What they were trying to do with Clinton was undermine her Presidency in case she won.
That's generally their purpose, to undermine Americans' confidence in their institutions.
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 those fact checkers who are calling him a historically racist and socialist German? The "N" word.
That's the hypocrisy that the OP is pointing out while you debate semantics. Only some facts are allowed to be checked - the ones that don't fit their political bias.
So basically Trump had nothing to do with any interference?
That... what? How are you coming to that conclusion from what the parent said?
The term "collusion" was addressed, because that's the term that people had been using, but it doesn't mean anything legally and so was not investigated. The other terms, like "conspire," were investigated. We know that Mueller's chose not to charge Trump with conspiracy, we don't know why other than "insufficient evidence." That part is redacted.
However, the part about why they chose not to charge Trump Jr., Manafort, and Kushner over the Trump Tower meeting is not redacted. There are two reasons: First, they couldn't put a monetary value on the information that those three were expecting to receive from the Russians. The law requires that it have a monetary value above a certain limit. Second, they didn't feel that they would be able to prove that those three knew that what they were doing was illegal. The law requires a willful violation, and so ignorance is a defense.
We can't assume that the same factors are true for Trump himself, but that's the best we've got.
I have absolutely no idea how you're going from that to dismissing Russian interference in the election. The Mueller report says specifically, "The Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion." This is the first sentence past the preamble, on the first page. You can't possibly miss it.
Right....? I answered the parent's question, and then I asked a different but related question. Not the same question. My question, the new question, was rhetorical: obviously there would have been an investigation, my question was simply pointing out the absurdity of thinking otherwise.
I see. Yes, if we were living in a fantasy where this -> "The Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion." did not happen, then yes. In that case, this -> "The Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion." would probably not have been investigated.
Oh, nice bait and switch there. Shame I spotted it.
"The Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion." has fuck all to do with "You think that Hillary would have just stood by while Russia colluded with her political opponent?"
Four fucking years and the lies keep on coming. There's more fucking evidence that Hillary's campaign manufactured the whole Russian hoax than there is of collusion.
You spotted... what? You're going to need to spell this out, nice and slow. I know that you're living inside of some delusion where the Illuminati is out to get your god emperor, you don't need to tell me that part. What I'm asking is: where is the inconsistency in what I've been saying? What is this bait and switch?
The other person asked me: "Do you think there would have been an investigation into Russia had Hillary won?"
My answer was: "Absolutely. You think that Hillary would have just stood by whi
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.
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
Trump's campaign colluded with Russia. Trump himself most likely did not, but that's only because, to be blunt, he's a figure head and wasn't actually running things. Then or now. His job is to rile people up at rallies. Which he does very well.
“Widespread” may not be a legal term either, since the definition is almost wholly subjective. I’m clearly a Troll as well, or my contrary opinion is Flamebait.
The word they used was "hacked". Then later on, when their paranoid nonsense started getting discredited, they switched to "interference" in order to confuse the issue, as interference can mean literally anything.
The Mueller report answered that only by saying "collusion is not a legal term, and so I did not investigate whether collusion occurred."
That's a very odd reading of the report.
A better one is that Mueller investigated whether Trump's campaign coordinated (which is a term used by the law with respect to non-financial foreign campaign contributions) with Russia, and although it found a lot of suggestive events, failed to find conclusive evidence of overt or covert coordination. One odd thing about Mueller's approach was that he used a more stringent definition of coordination than the FEC uses when enforcing the relevant statute. It's likel
The Mueller report answered that only by saying "collusion is not a legal term, and so I did not investigate whether collusion occurred."
That's a very odd reading of the report.
In posts to/. you can't write a twenty page essay. There is necessarily some summarization. Mueller's actual words were: “We did not address ‘collusion,’ which is not a legal term."
Yes, he did continue on, "Rather, we focused on whether the evidence was sufficient to charge any member of the campaign with taking part in a criminal conspiracy. It was not.” I left out the next sentence-- along with 447 other pages of report-- because discussing the Mueller report in detail hadn't b
The Mueller report answered that only by saying "collusion is not a legal term, and so I did not investigate whether collusion occurred."
That's a very odd reading of the report.
In posts to/. you can't write a twenty page essay. There is necessarily some summarization. Mueller's actual words were: “We did not address ‘collusion,’ which is not a legal term."
Yes, he did continue on, "Rather, we focused on whether the evidence was sufficient to charge any member of the campaign with taking part in a criminal conspiracy. It was not.” I left out the next sentence-- along with 447 other pages of report-- because discussing the Mueller report in detail hadn't been my intent; my actual point was that nobody said that Russia "rigged" the election.
But your summary implied that he simply dismissed the whole issue. Agreed that it wasn't related to your point, but it was misleading.
Yes, but the election of 2016 was so close that many relatively small groups can claim to have been decisive. Notwithstanding my reservations, I thought The Road to Unfreedom by Timothy Snyder presented the case against Russia quite strongly.
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:Inadvertently... (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 whether collusion occurred.")
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
and https://www.intelligence.senat... [senate.gov]
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I definitely remember a Hillary Clinton, who said there were attempts to attack her, but never questioned the election result and conceded on November 9, 2016.
Unlike one lying gibbon who keeps telling his base a bunch of lies and moronic "legal theories" that those morons swallow whole, although it should be obvious to everyone with several functioning brain cells they are all lies and crap.
Also, I remember many calls to "lock her up" from the same lying sack of shit, calls that weren't followed by anything
Re: Inadvertently... (Score:4, Informative)
You mean "corruption" that got investigated for years and turned up zero indictable offences? This one: https://edition.cnn.com/2020/0... [cnn.com]?
Re: Inadvertently... (Score:4, Insightful)
I like how the Hunter Biden Laptop story was such a short blip that it doesn't didn't get brought up just now.
Re: Inadvertently... (Score:4, Informative)
That's not election rigging. That's plain old ratf*cking.
The decentralized nature of the American presidential elections make them very difficult to rig. The Russians know this, so clearly that's not their purpose. What they were trying to do with Clinton was undermine her Presidency in case she won.
That's generally their purpose, to undermine Americans' confidence in their institutions.
Re: Inadvertently... (Score:5, Insightful)
That's generally their purpose, to undermine Americans' confidence in their institutions.
So just like Donald Trump then..
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Or maybe the Russians hacked every county in Florida [dispatch.com] according to Hillary.
The D and R are just dumb and dumber, and you've chosen to be on one of those teams.
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously, you guys need to get Hillary out of your head. I know that I'm kicking Donald Trump out on January 20.
Re: (Score:2)
You chose your party, you're just as dumb as everyone else who chooses a party.
Re:Inadvertently... (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 those fact checkers who are calling him a historically racist and socialist German? The "N" word.
That's the hypocrisy that the OP is pointing out while you debate semantics. Only some facts are allowed to be checked - the ones that don't fit their political bias.
Re:Inadvertently... (Score:5, Insightful)
So basically Trump had nothing to do with any interference?
That... what? How are you coming to that conclusion from what the parent said?
The term "collusion" was addressed, because that's the term that people had been using, but it doesn't mean anything legally and so was not investigated. The other terms, like "conspire," were investigated. We know that Mueller's chose not to charge Trump with conspiracy, we don't know why other than "insufficient evidence." That part is redacted.
However, the part about why they chose not to charge Trump Jr., Manafort, and Kushner over the Trump Tower meeting is not redacted. There are two reasons: First, they couldn't put a monetary value on the information that those three were expecting to receive from the Russians. The law requires that it have a monetary value above a certain limit. Second, they didn't feel that they would be able to prove that those three knew that what they were doing was illegal. The law requires a willful violation, and so ignorance is a defense.
We can't assume that the same factors are true for Trump himself, but that's the best we've got.
I have absolutely no idea how you're going from that to dismissing Russian interference in the election. The Mueller report says specifically, "The Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion." This is the first sentence past the preamble, on the first page. You can't possibly miss it.
Re: (Score:1)
Do you think there would have been an investigation into Russia had Hillary won?
Re: (Score:3)
This is wondering even further from the topic at hand, however.
Re: (Score:2)
Absolutely. You think that Hillary would have just stood by while Russia colluded with her political opponent?
That wasn't the question. The question was whether there'd have been an investigation.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Your answer seemed predicated on the question you asked, which while rhetorical relied on a very large assumption.
Which is false.
Why would Hillary investigate something she knew didn't happen?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, nice bait and switch there. Shame I spotted it.
"The Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion." has fuck all to do with "You think that Hillary would have just stood by while Russia colluded with her political opponent?"
Four fucking years and the lies keep on coming. There's more fucking evidence that Hillary's campaign manufactured the whole Russian hoax than there is of collusion.
Re: (Score:2)
The other person asked me: "Do you think there would have been an investigation into Russia had Hillary won?"
My answer was: "Absolutely. You think that Hillary would have just stood by whi
Re: (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.
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
The Senate report was pretty clear (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
* citation needed
Read the report (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
“Widespread” may not be a legal term either, since the definition is almost wholly subjective. I’m clearly a Troll as well, or my contrary opinion is Flamebait.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The Mueller report answered that only by saying "collusion is not a legal term, and so I did not investigate whether collusion occurred."
That's a very odd reading of the report.
A better one is that Mueller investigated whether Trump's campaign coordinated (which is a term used by the law with respect to non-financial foreign campaign contributions) with Russia, and although it found a lot of suggestive events, failed to find conclusive evidence of overt or covert coordination. One odd thing about Mueller's approach was that he used a more stringent definition of coordination than the FEC uses when enforcing the relevant statute. It's likel
rigging, collusion, conspiracy, coordination (Score:2)
The Mueller report answered that only by saying "collusion is not a legal term, and so I did not investigate whether collusion occurred."
That's a very odd reading of the report.
In posts to /. you can't write a twenty page essay. There is necessarily some summarization. Mueller's actual words were: “We did not address ‘collusion,’ which is not a legal term."
Yes, he did continue on, "Rather, we focused on whether the evidence was sufficient to charge any member of the campaign with taking part in a criminal conspiracy. It was not.” I left out the next sentence-- along with 447 other pages of report-- because discussing the Mueller report in detail hadn't b
Re: (Score:2)
The Mueller report answered that only by saying "collusion is not a legal term, and so I did not investigate whether collusion occurred."
That's a very odd reading of the report.
In posts to /. you can't write a twenty page essay. There is necessarily some summarization. Mueller's actual words were: “We did not address ‘collusion,’ which is not a legal term."
Yes, he did continue on, "Rather, we focused on whether the evidence was sufficient to charge any member of the campaign with taking part in a criminal conspiracy. It was not.” I left out the next sentence-- along with 447 other pages of report-- because discussing the Mueller report in detail hadn't been my intent; my actual point was that nobody said that Russia "rigged" the election.
But your summary implied that he simply dismissed the whole issue. Agreed that it wasn't related to your point, but it was misleading.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but the election of 2016 was so close that many relatively small groups can claim to have been decisive. Notwithstanding my reservations, I thought The Road to Unfreedom by Timothy Snyder presented the case against Russia quite strongly.