7 ms·

The search function seems to be broken. I searched for instances of "Russian collusion" and waited for two years for the results and it came back with zero inst

The search function seems to be broken. I searched for instances of "Russian collusion" and waited for two years for the results and it came back with zero instances of Russian collusion found...

hyperdunc 7y ago
You're searching the wrong archive. Try the CNN or MSNBC archives.
- rdtsc 7y ago
  Actually that's an interesting research idea. Calculate the total hours of airtime and/or news articles written. I bet it would be close to a continuous month if not more.
  - Jach 7y ago
    Someone did. It ends up being about 13 articles per day across four sources, just since September, just on this topic. https://twitter.com/charliekirk11/status/1109975164777725952 https://twitter.com/charliekirk11/status/1109975164777725952
  - jessaustin 7y ago
    It has a slightly different focus, but I found this chart insightful: https://fair.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/MSNBC-Yemen-Daniels-2.png https://fair.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/MSNBC-Yemen-Dani...
valine 7y ago
The word collusion has no meaning in a legal sense. Try searching for obstruction of justice.
- s_y_n_t_a_x 7y ago
  [self-censored]
  - somebehemoth 7y ago
    False. "The Mueller report does establish that, in fact, members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities." https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/25/opinion/mueller-trump-campaign-russia-conpiracy-.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/25/opinion/mueller-trump-cam... Edit: Since the comment I am replying to is no longer present and I got downvotes for my comment: the person claimed there was "no evidence [anyone] conspired with Russia" so I linked to an article in the NYT by a law professor that contradicts this claim in detail. No evidence _is_ a false claim.
    - s_y_n_t_a_x 7y ago
      [self-censored]
      - spaceheretostay 7y ago
        > Meeting with Russians is not a crime When it pertains to election and polling data, American citizens' privacy, taking funds for political purposes, and other illegal financial dealings, yes sometimes meeting with [and doing business with] Russians can be a crime. > many Democrats have ties to Russia. You are moving some goalposts. Meeting with == having ties to, now? And not all "ties to" Russia are bad, obviously. Also, this is whataboutism and you are using logical fallacies.
        deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
    - rdtsc 7y ago
      > By the standards of a potential impeachment inquiry, the evidence is clear Ah yes. The conspiracy theory continues. "Impeachment is just around the corner. We finally got him". We just have to wait another week, or two... This is exactly how doomsday cults retain members even after the day of the apocalypse passes without anything happening. I am convinced we'll be studying this for years as the most effective and pervasive conspiracy theory pushed by the mainstream media.
- siidooloo 7y ago
  Yeah, A bunch of people in the White House deleted evidence and used encrypted communications. Not hypocritical at all. The President probably committed obstruction multiple times, but Mueller refuses to Make a final judgment on that because they believe that is the job of congress. And the campaign did try to benefit from the Russian influence campaign, and did try to obtain the stolen emails. They wanted Russias help. But there was no evidence of direct coordination (remember the deleted evidence). This doesn’t seem like much of an ‘exoneration.’
  - another-one-off 7y ago
    The classic issue here is the lack of evidence could mean it didn't happen or that that the evidence is expertly hidden. However the American spy network is large, well provisioned, has no compunction about spying on Russians and was controlled by Democrats when the alleged conspiracy took place. If there is no conclusive evidence of collusion then it didn't happen. The idea that the Russians are better at influencing the American people than the Democrat and Republican campaign machines is jaw dropping. It doesn't make any sense. Trump could have found more capable people to collude with if he wanted to.
    - siidooloo 7y ago
      The Russians were better at spying during the cold war. Why wouldn’t they still be? Also, the issue isn’t just if there was ‘collusion.’ It was what they tried to do. The Trump campaign tried to work with the Russians but failed because they had no idea what they were doing. They were doing stuff like sending people’s emails to the wrong place.
- colordrops 7y ago
  This Twitter talking point is ignoring the fact that the whole point of this effort was to investigate collusion with the Russians, regardless of any particular crime the investigated are accused of. The report's title is "Report on the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election" no less.
  - valine 7y ago
    It’s not unreasonable to require that the president of the United States does not commit high crimes while in office. It doesn’t matter why the investigation was initiated. If he attempted to obstruct justice he should be impeached. Period. The president might be a criminal and you think it doesn’t count because the investigation was started for unrelated reasons? There’s nothing that can be said over the internet to change the mind of someone who thinks like this, but wow it sure is frustrating to read this garbage.
    - SantalBlush 7y ago
      He didn't merely obstruct justice, either; he very clearly had a quid pro quo relationship with Russia which involved influencing the election.
      - zaroth 7y ago
        In fact, the investigation did not establish that there was a “quid pro quo” relationship with Russia. > “Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.” It would be more accurate to say that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. This is not quid pro quo, it’s not collusion, and it’s not cooperation. It is benefiting from blood in the water. Trump also benefited significantly from Bernie Sanders’ attacks on Clinton and the fact that many of his voters wouldn’t vote for her. Trump did not collude or cooperate with Sanders either.
spaceheretostay 7y ago
What do you mean? Mueller and his team were not tasked with finding "Russian collusion" so why would you expect that in this report? > the investigation's scope included allegations that there were links or coordination between Donald Trump's presidential campaign and the Russian government[4][5] as well as "any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Counsel_investigation_(2017%E2%80%932019) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Counsel_investigation_... > waited for two years for the results and it came back with zero instances of Russian collusion found.. The results of the report clearly demonstrate multiple instances of Trump and Republicans colluding with Russia. Even the phrase "russian collusion" directly appears in the search results of the redacted, linked report (mostly Trump complaining about the media, I think).
- dredmorbius 7y ago
  The matter of why 'collusion" wasn't directly addressed ... is directly addressed, in a titled section of the Introduction to Volume I, on page 2: In evaluating whether evidence about collective action of multiple individuals constituted a crime, we applied the framework of conspiracy law, not the concept of “collusion.” In so doing, the Office recognized that the word “collud[e]” was used in communications with the Acting Attorney General confirming certain aspects of the investigation’s scope and that the term has frequently been invoked in public reporting about the investigation. But collusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the United States Code, nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law. For those reasons, the Office’s focus in analyzing questions of joint criminal liability was on conspiracy as defined in federal law. Again: "collusion" itself is not a legal term. Conspiracy and obstruction, among many othrs, are. https://archive.org/details/mueller_report_20190422/page/n9 https://archive.org/details/mueller_report_20190422/page/n9
dredmorbius 7y ago
'Russia" and "collusion" are both specifically, though independently, addressed.
badcede 7y ago
> it came back with zero instances of Russian collusion found Just like the Mueller Report itself!

The search function seems to be broken. I searched for instances of "Russian collusion" and waited for two years for the results and it came back with zero instances of Russian collusion found...

hyperdunc 7y ago

You're searching the wrong archive. Try the CNN or MSNBC archives.

rdtsc 7y ago
Actually that's an interesting research idea. Calculate the total hours of airtime and/or news articles written. I bet it would be close to a continuous month if not more.
- Jach 7y ago
  Someone did. It ends up being about 13 articles per day across four sources, just since September, just on this topic. https://twitter.com/charliekirk11/status/1109975164777725952 https://twitter.com/charliekirk11/status/1109975164777725952
- jessaustin 7y ago
  It has a slightly different focus, but I found this chart insightful: https://fair.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/MSNBC-Yemen-Daniels-2.png https://fair.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/MSNBC-Yemen-Dani...

valine 7y ago

The word collusion has no meaning in a legal sense. Try searching for obstruction of justice.

s_y_n_t_a_x 7y ago
[self-censored]
- somebehemoth 7y ago
  False. "The Mueller report does establish that, in fact, members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities." https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/25/opinion/mueller-trump-campaign-russia-conpiracy-.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/25/opinion/mueller-trump-cam... Edit: Since the comment I am replying to is no longer present and I got downvotes for my comment: the person claimed there was "no evidence [anyone] conspired with Russia" so I linked to an article in the NYT by a law professor that contradicts this claim in detail. No evidence _is_ a false claim.
  - s_y_n_t_a_x 7y ago
    [self-censored]
    - spaceheretostay 7y ago
      > Meeting with Russians is not a crime When it pertains to election and polling data, American citizens' privacy, taking funds for political purposes, and other illegal financial dealings, yes sometimes meeting with [and doing business with] Russians can be a crime. > many Democrats have ties to Russia. You are moving some goalposts. Meeting with == having ties to, now? And not all "ties to" Russia are bad, obviously. Also, this is whataboutism and you are using logical fallacies.
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
  - rdtsc 7y ago
    > By the standards of a potential impeachment inquiry, the evidence is clear Ah yes. The conspiracy theory continues. "Impeachment is just around the corner. We finally got him". We just have to wait another week, or two... This is exactly how doomsday cults retain members even after the day of the apocalypse passes without anything happening. I am convinced we'll be studying this for years as the most effective and pervasive conspiracy theory pushed by the mainstream media.
siidooloo 7y ago
Yeah, A bunch of people in the White House deleted evidence and used encrypted communications. Not hypocritical at all. The President probably committed obstruction multiple times, but Mueller refuses to Make a final judgment on that because they believe that is the job of congress. And the campaign did try to benefit from the Russian influence campaign, and did try to obtain the stolen emails. They wanted Russias help. But there was no evidence of direct coordination (remember the deleted evidence). This doesn’t seem like much of an ‘exoneration.’
- another-one-off 7y ago
  The classic issue here is the lack of evidence could mean it didn't happen or that that the evidence is expertly hidden. However the American spy network is large, well provisioned, has no compunction about spying on Russians and was controlled by Democrats when the alleged conspiracy took place. If there is no conclusive evidence of collusion then it didn't happen. The idea that the Russians are better at influencing the American people than the Democrat and Republican campaign machines is jaw dropping. It doesn't make any sense. Trump could have found more capable people to collude with if he wanted to.
  - siidooloo 7y ago
    The Russians were better at spying during the cold war. Why wouldn’t they still be? Also, the issue isn’t just if there was ‘collusion.’ It was what they tried to do. The Trump campaign tried to work with the Russians but failed because they had no idea what they were doing. They were doing stuff like sending people’s emails to the wrong place.
colordrops 7y ago
This Twitter talking point is ignoring the fact that the whole point of this effort was to investigate collusion with the Russians, regardless of any particular crime the investigated are accused of. The report's title is "Report on the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election" no less.
- valine 7y ago
  It’s not unreasonable to require that the president of the United States does not commit high crimes while in office. It doesn’t matter why the investigation was initiated. If he attempted to obstruct justice he should be impeached. Period. The president might be a criminal and you think it doesn’t count because the investigation was started for unrelated reasons? There’s nothing that can be said over the internet to change the mind of someone who thinks like this, but wow it sure is frustrating to read this garbage.
  - SantalBlush 7y ago
    He didn't merely obstruct justice, either; he very clearly had a quid pro quo relationship with Russia which involved influencing the election.
    - zaroth 7y ago
      In fact, the investigation did not establish that there was a “quid pro quo” relationship with Russia. > “Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.” It would be more accurate to say that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. This is not quid pro quo, it’s not collusion, and it’s not cooperation. It is benefiting from blood in the water. Trump also benefited significantly from Bernie Sanders’ attacks on Clinton and the fact that many of his voters wouldn’t vote for her. Trump did not collude or cooperate with Sanders either.

spaceheretostay 7y ago

What do you mean? Mueller and his team were not tasked with finding "Russian collusion" so why would you expect that in this report? > the investigation's scope included allegations that there were links or coordination between Donald Trump's presidential campaign and the Russian government[4][5] as well as "any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Counsel_investigation_(2017%E2%80%932019) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Counsel_investigation_... > waited for two years for the results and it came back with zero instances of Russian collusion found.. The results of the report clearly demonstrate multiple instances of Trump and Republicans colluding with Russia. Even the phrase "russian collusion" directly appears in the search results of the redacted, linked report (mostly Trump complaining about the media, I think).

dredmorbius 7y ago
The matter of why 'collusion" wasn't directly addressed ... is directly addressed, in a titled section of the Introduction to Volume I, on page 2: In evaluating whether evidence about collective action of multiple individuals constituted a crime, we applied the framework of conspiracy law, not the concept of “collusion.” In so doing, the Office recognized that the word “collud[e]” was used in communications with the Acting Attorney General confirming certain aspects of the investigation’s scope and that the term has frequently been invoked in public reporting about the investigation. But collusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the United States Code, nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law. For those reasons, the Office’s focus in analyzing questions of joint criminal liability was on conspiracy as defined in federal law. Again: "collusion" itself is not a legal term. Conspiracy and obstruction, among many othrs, are. https://archive.org/details/mueller_report_20190422/page/n9 https://archive.org/details/mueller_report_20190422/page/n9

dredmorbius 7y ago

'Russia" and "collusion" are both specifically, though independently, addressed.

badcede 7y ago

> it came back with zero instances of Russian collusion found Just like the Mueller Report itself!