7 ms·

> What exactly are we investigating? Collusion between Trump/team and Russia. It's one thing for Russia to mess with an election, it's a vastly different thin

> What exactly are we investigating? Collusion between Trump/team and Russia. It's one thing for Russia to mess with an election, it's a vastly different thing if the campaign coordinated with them to do it.

jMyles 10y ago
If "messed with" the election just means misleading propaganda, then is it really an issue if they coordinated with them? How is it any different than hiring a PR firm based in another country?
- mirimir 10y ago
  For a US politician to hire a foreign intelligence agency is arguably an issue. Some might call it treason.
- nyolfen 10y ago
  forgive me if i'm being uncharitable, but it comes across as if you're being willfully obtuse. "messed with" means hacking and possible criminal coordination between a campaign and russian officials. if it came out that the clinton campaign had coordinated with [insert historic rival] intelligence, people would be calling for executions.
  - jMyles 10y ago
    > if it came out that the clinton campaign had coordinated with [insert historic rival] intelligence, people would be calling for executions. ...not sure which Clinton you mean here, but if you meant Bill, it's quite likely that he did indeed coordinate with Saudi Intelligence in a reasonably similar fashion. ...and so did the man he defeated, George H.W. Bush. http://www.nytimes.com/1993/08/23/world/clinton-and-his-ties-to-the-influential-saudis.html http://www.nytimes.com/1993/08/23/world/clinton-and-his-ties...
    - nyolfen 10y ago
      "having close ties" is not "illegally coordinating an election campaign", and saudi is not a rival of the united states -- it's been among its strongest allies since fdr. but that's neither here nor there and i'm not interested in defending either of the clintons. you're trying to dodge the issue when it's spelled out. you're arguing in bad faith.
- gnaritas 10y ago
  > then is it really an issue if they coordinated with them Yes, it is. > How is it any different than hiring a PR firm based in another country? One is treason, one is not.
hourislate 10y ago
It strikes me as odd that Americans don't seem to mind that a President to some extent might be serving the interests of a foreign power above the interests of the his own citizens. Who would have thought so many Americans would have a love affair with a KGB Agent that is responsible for murder and oppression and for his entire life worked to undermine America and has accomplished that to some extent with this Administration.
- jMyles 10y ago
  I think that the part you are missing is that the vast majority (like 65%) don't support or respect this President at all. Of all the terrible things the government has done in the past 1 / 10 / 100 years, I don't think that a candidate coordinating with Russia about which fake news to publish is even worth mentioning. If Congress has the guts to investigate the Steele dossier (which alleged Trump traded eased regulations for oil interests) then that's great. And if he is impeached on that basis, that's great too, although it leaves us with a probably worse Mike Pence. Better yet is if the entire government falls. I'm not defending Trump or his conduct; I'm just saying this is a distraction.
  - mirimir 10y ago
    Russia's goal is fragmenting the US. Just as the US did to the Soviet Union. Turnabout is fair play, no?
    - pessimizer 10y ago
      The confidence with which you express the goals that you're projecting on Russia here is scary. Not only do we have yet to find evidence that Russia did anything involving the election (although we certainly could during these investigations), you seem to have sussed out their goal in doing that which has not been proven, and a motive of revenge. It's weird. Hearing people talk like this is weird, and reminds me of the run-up to Iraq, except that at least then there were claims to evidence.
      - 10y ago
dr_ick 10y ago
Did Obama coordinate with "Remainers" when he tried to influence Brexit voters with his "back of the queue" speech?
- gnaritas 10y ago
  Such a deflection of the topic is unworthy of hacker news. Trump is the president, discussion about Trump's negatives are not an excuse to deflect with "what about Obama", he is not the topic. Giving a speech is in no way comparable to the topic at hand anyway.
  - dr_ick 10y ago
    It sets a precedent that the left does want to acknowledge. There was likely collusion between Obama and "Remainers". Obama made a speech with a threat that was intended to directly influence a vote in a foreign country. Where was the outrage from the Democrats and media when this was done? Former Acting CIA Director Michael Morell has stated that he has seen no evidence of collusions between Trump and the Kremlin. "On the question of the Trump campaign conspiring with the Russians here, there is smoke, but there is no fire, at all," Morell said.[156] James Clapper, the Director of National Intelligence under President Obama, said there was no evidence of any collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian operatives as of January 2017 when the intelligence community issued its report on the subject.[157]
    - gnaritas 10y ago
      You're again trying to fly off on a diversion of the topic, I'm not playing. This is not a discussion about Obama, period. Nor are public speeches that influence foreign countries remotely comparable to collusion to affect "our" elections. Your continual citing of only the evidence that supports your politics is nothing more than partisan deflection, you are not engaging in honest debate. It's like you don't even read the links you post https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections#Links_between_the_Trump_campaign_and_Russian_officials https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_20... There's plenty right there in your own source that warrants investigation into Trump simply from the already proved contacts that have occurred between the Russians and Trump's associates. That they have not found direct evidence of Trump's involvement yet is not a reason to stop an investigation who's purpose is simply to find out what did actually happen.

jMyles 10y ago

If "messed with" the election just means misleading propaganda, then is it really an issue if they coordinated with them? How is it any different than hiring a PR firm based in another country?

mirimir 10y ago
For a US politician to hire a foreign intelligence agency is arguably an issue. Some might call it treason.
nyolfen 10y ago
forgive me if i'm being uncharitable, but it comes across as if you're being willfully obtuse. "messed with" means hacking and possible criminal coordination between a campaign and russian officials. if it came out that the clinton campaign had coordinated with [insert historic rival] intelligence, people would be calling for executions.
- jMyles 10y ago
  > if it came out that the clinton campaign had coordinated with [insert historic rival] intelligence, people would be calling for executions. ...not sure which Clinton you mean here, but if you meant Bill, it's quite likely that he did indeed coordinate with Saudi Intelligence in a reasonably similar fashion. ...and so did the man he defeated, George H.W. Bush. http://www.nytimes.com/1993/08/23/world/clinton-and-his-ties-to-the-influential-saudis.html http://www.nytimes.com/1993/08/23/world/clinton-and-his-ties...
  - nyolfen 10y ago
    "having close ties" is not "illegally coordinating an election campaign", and saudi is not a rival of the united states -- it's been among its strongest allies since fdr. but that's neither here nor there and i'm not interested in defending either of the clintons. you're trying to dodge the issue when it's spelled out. you're arguing in bad faith.
gnaritas 10y ago
> then is it really an issue if they coordinated with them Yes, it is. > How is it any different than hiring a PR firm based in another country? One is treason, one is not.

hourislate 10y ago

It strikes me as odd that Americans don't seem to mind that a President to some extent might be serving the interests of a foreign power above the interests of the his own citizens. Who would have thought so many Americans would have a love affair with a KGB Agent that is responsible for murder and oppression and for his entire life worked to undermine America and has accomplished that to some extent with this Administration.

jMyles 10y ago
I think that the part you are missing is that the vast majority (like 65%) don't support or respect this President at all. Of all the terrible things the government has done in the past 1 / 10 / 100 years, I don't think that a candidate coordinating with Russia about which fake news to publish is even worth mentioning. If Congress has the guts to investigate the Steele dossier (which alleged Trump traded eased regulations for oil interests) then that's great. And if he is impeached on that basis, that's great too, although it leaves us with a probably worse Mike Pence. Better yet is if the entire government falls. I'm not defending Trump or his conduct; I'm just saying this is a distraction.
- mirimir 10y ago
  Russia's goal is fragmenting the US. Just as the US did to the Soviet Union. Turnabout is fair play, no?
  - pessimizer 10y ago
    The confidence with which you express the goals that you're projecting on Russia here is scary. Not only do we have yet to find evidence that Russia did anything involving the election (although we certainly could during these investigations), you seem to have sussed out their goal in doing that which has not been proven, and a motive of revenge. It's weird. Hearing people talk like this is weird, and reminds me of the run-up to Iraq, except that at least then there were claims to evidence.
    - 10y ago

dr_ick 10y ago

Did Obama coordinate with "Remainers" when he tried to influence Brexit voters with his "back of the queue" speech?

gnaritas 10y ago
Such a deflection of the topic is unworthy of hacker news. Trump is the president, discussion about Trump's negatives are not an excuse to deflect with "what about Obama", he is not the topic. Giving a speech is in no way comparable to the topic at hand anyway.
- dr_ick 10y ago
  It sets a precedent that the left does want to acknowledge. There was likely collusion between Obama and "Remainers". Obama made a speech with a threat that was intended to directly influence a vote in a foreign country. Where was the outrage from the Democrats and media when this was done? Former Acting CIA Director Michael Morell has stated that he has seen no evidence of collusions between Trump and the Kremlin. "On the question of the Trump campaign conspiring with the Russians here, there is smoke, but there is no fire, at all," Morell said.[156] James Clapper, the Director of National Intelligence under President Obama, said there was no evidence of any collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian operatives as of January 2017 when the intelligence community issued its report on the subject.[157]
  - gnaritas 10y ago
    You're again trying to fly off on a diversion of the topic, I'm not playing. This is not a discussion about Obama, period. Nor are public speeches that influence foreign countries remotely comparable to collusion to affect "our" elections. Your continual citing of only the evidence that supports your politics is nothing more than partisan deflection, you are not engaging in honest debate. It's like you don't even read the links you post https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections#Links_between_the_Trump_campaign_and_Russian_officials https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_20... There's plenty right there in your own source that warrants investigation into Trump simply from the already proved contacts that have occurred between the Russians and Trump's associates. That they have not found direct evidence of Trump's involvement yet is not a reason to stop an investigation who's purpose is simply to find out what did actually happen.