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 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.
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: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.