30 ms·

[self-censored]

somebehemoth 8y 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 8y ago
  [self-censored]
  - spaceheretostay 8y 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 8y ago
      [deleted]
- rdtsc 8y 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.
- zaroth 8y ago
  Note this link points to an OpEd. At least I believe the NYT isn’t so far gone as to publish such a claim outside of the editorial section, but I may be wrong. For a different perspective, read what Glenn Greenwald has to say on the subject, in a piece titled “Robert Mueller Did Not Merely Reject the Trump-Russia Conspiracy Theories. He Obliterated Them.” [1] Edit: I actually took the time to read the editorial. It is a collection, in my opinion, of dubious claims about standards of evidence being too high as the reason Mueller and his massive team could not bring a single solitary charge against Trump or the campaign related to Russian interference in the election. Please remember how this all started, with a dirty dossier obtained from the Russians by the DNC, with a counter-intelligence operation claiming without evidence the President could be a Russian patsy. And yet here we are, still entirely unable to expose truth to the lie. [1] - https://theintercept.com/2019/04/18/robert-mueller-did-not-merely-reject-the-trumprussia-conspiracy-theories-he-obliterated-them/ https://theintercept.com/2019/04/18/robert-mueller-did-not-m...
  - jpfed 8y ago
    >Please remember how this all started, with a dirty dossier Nope, it began when some foreign diplomats gave us a heads up that George Papadopoulos was bragging abroad that the Russians were going to help Trump by releasing dirt on Clinton. That the investigation was predicated on the dossier is a common misconception. If you are getting news from sources that get this basic fact wrong, you may wish to downgrade those sources' credibility in your estimation.
    - polithrowaway 8y ago
      If Papadopoulos was so central, why did the FBI not interview him until late January 2017? It seems as though the Papadopoulos origin was drummed up once the Carter Page origin story fell apart. All media sources were reporting on the dossier as the origin until it fell apart.
      - aljones 8y ago
        What does the date of the interview have to do with whether or not he was central?
- mfatica 8y ago
  I'll stick with the actual quote from the actual report: "the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in it's election interference activities." Regardless of what any opinion piece wants to claim, in America you are innocent until proven guilty. Beyond a reasonable doubt is not just something done just for fun, but an important legal standard: Beyond a reasonable doubt - The standard that must be met by the prosecution's evidence in a criminal prosecution: that no other logical explanation can be derived from the facts except that the defendant committed the crime, thereby overcoming the presumption that a person is innocent until proven guilty.
spaceheretostay 8y ago
> There was no evidence found that any American conspired with Russia. That's not true. Significant evidence was found that multiple Americans conspired with Russia. A key thing about this situation is that words matter. Barr and Trump et al. have gone with "Mueller found no collusion" or "Mueller recommends no charges" phrasing, which is ambiguous and can be taken two ways, one of which (the one referenced here) is factually incorrect: The correct and unambiguous wording would be that that Mueller does not actively recommend specific charges be filed at this time - and it says nothing about whether or not Trump et. all did indeed commit crimes.
- s_y_n_t_a_x 8y ago
  [self-censored]
  - spaceheretostay 8y ago
    I mean - Paul Manafort is going to be in prison for years and years. He was Trump's campaign manager and he directly conspired with Russia in nearly countless ways. What's with the "okay point to it" attitude anyway? Please be more respectful.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - zaroth 8y ago
      To be fair, Paul Manafort is in prison for things he did before Trump even thought about running for President.
daveFNbuck 8y ago
We started out trying to determine whether Trump colluded with Russia. This is a very important thing for the American people to know. Trump obstructed the investigation and we weren't able to determine whether that happened. If obstruction didn't count unless you were convicted of the crime you were obstructing justice on, people could get away with crimes by interfering with the investigation and there'd be no recourse. We don't want people to get away with crimes by interfering with the investigation. That's why obstruction is a crime.
- s_y_n_t_a_x 8y ago
  [self-censored]
  - spaceheretostay 8y ago
    "Obstruction of justice" has nothing to do with the report being finished. Those are completely unrelated things. > I'm just pointing out how far the goalpost has moved. You're the one moving goalposts here. Obstruction of justice is illegal even in an attempt to actively obstruct, which Trump and others did, repeatedly, and which was written about clearly in the redacted Mueller report.
    - dang 8y ago
      Since you've been using HN primarily for political battle, and we warned you that we'd ban you if you didn't stop, I've banned this account. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - lukenels 8y ago
    The crime is the attempt to obstruct justice. Having succeeded in doing so is not a requirement.
  - daveFNbuck 8y ago
    He finished the report, but he wasn't able to draw a conclusion on whether Trump colluded with Russia.
fzeroracer 8y ago
Users on HN really should not be able to fully erase their posts when they engage in a argument and decide to back out. This kind of attitude fractures the discussion.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- fromthestart 8y ago
  What you're proposing would simply have the self censoring effect that is common on other platforms and in person. So instead of potential two sided discussions, you get phenomena like closet Trump supporters.
- s_y_n_t_a_x 8y ago
  It's not really a discussion when everyone on HN thinks the same way politically. There's no point to have political discussions here. If you're not on the liberal train, you get downvoted to oblivion, or flagged. It's just not worth it, noone replying or reading actually wants your perspective, they just want their turn to say their talking point based on some keywords in your comment. That's why I deleted my comments and that's why this is my last political discussion on here.
  - preommr 8y ago
    This is a really good way to shutdown any kind of conversation ever. Yes there are going to be people that regurgitate their talking points without wanting to listen. But you don't have to respond to them. If you really have an idea that stand on it's own merits, then it shouldn't matter if it's unpopular unless what you're really seeking is validation from your own camp that agree with you overall, but might nitpick on some small details.
  - fzeroracer 8y ago
    I've had my comments downvoted and flagged in the past. I stand by every single one of them and don't hide behind my opinions being downvoted as an excuse to destroy the rest of the discussion. Otherwise editing and hiding your posts does nothing but make the rest of the discussion and the people trying to engage you unreadable. What you want is an echo chamber where people must agree with your positions.

[self-censored]

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 8y ago
[self-censored]
- spaceheretostay 8y 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 8y ago
    [deleted]
rdtsc 8y 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.
zaroth 8y ago
Note this link points to an OpEd. At least I believe the NYT isn’t so far gone as to publish such a claim outside of the editorial section, but I may be wrong. For a different perspective, read what Glenn Greenwald has to say on the subject, in a piece titled “Robert Mueller Did Not Merely Reject the Trump-Russia Conspiracy Theories. He Obliterated Them.” [1] Edit: I actually took the time to read the editorial. It is a collection, in my opinion, of dubious claims about standards of evidence being too high as the reason Mueller and his massive team could not bring a single solitary charge against Trump or the campaign related to Russian interference in the election. Please remember how this all started, with a dirty dossier obtained from the Russians by the DNC, with a counter-intelligence operation claiming without evidence the President could be a Russian patsy. And yet here we are, still entirely unable to expose truth to the lie. [1] - https://theintercept.com/2019/04/18/robert-mueller-did-not-merely-reject-the-trumprussia-conspiracy-theories-he-obliterated-them/ https://theintercept.com/2019/04/18/robert-mueller-did-not-m...
- jpfed 8y ago
  >Please remember how this all started, with a dirty dossier Nope, it began when some foreign diplomats gave us a heads up that George Papadopoulos was bragging abroad that the Russians were going to help Trump by releasing dirt on Clinton. That the investigation was predicated on the dossier is a common misconception. If you are getting news from sources that get this basic fact wrong, you may wish to downgrade those sources' credibility in your estimation.
  - polithrowaway 8y ago
    If Papadopoulos was so central, why did the FBI not interview him until late January 2017? It seems as though the Papadopoulos origin was drummed up once the Carter Page origin story fell apart. All media sources were reporting on the dossier as the origin until it fell apart.
    - aljones 8y ago
      What does the date of the interview have to do with whether or not he was central?
mfatica 8y ago
I'll stick with the actual quote from the actual report: "the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in it's election interference activities." Regardless of what any opinion piece wants to claim, in America you are innocent until proven guilty. Beyond a reasonable doubt is not just something done just for fun, but an important legal standard: Beyond a reasonable doubt - The standard that must be met by the prosecution's evidence in a criminal prosecution: that no other logical explanation can be derived from the facts except that the defendant committed the crime, thereby overcoming the presumption that a person is innocent until proven guilty.

spaceheretostay 8y ago

> There was no evidence found that any American conspired with Russia. That's not true. Significant evidence was found that multiple Americans conspired with Russia. A key thing about this situation is that words matter. Barr and Trump et al. have gone with "Mueller found no collusion" or "Mueller recommends no charges" phrasing, which is ambiguous and can be taken two ways, one of which (the one referenced here) is factually incorrect: The correct and unambiguous wording would be that that Mueller does not actively recommend specific charges be filed at this time - and it says nothing about whether or not Trump et. all did indeed commit crimes.

s_y_n_t_a_x 8y ago
[self-censored]
- spaceheretostay 8y ago
  I mean - Paul Manafort is going to be in prison for years and years. He was Trump's campaign manager and he directly conspired with Russia in nearly countless ways. What's with the "okay point to it" attitude anyway? Please be more respectful.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - zaroth 8y ago
    To be fair, Paul Manafort is in prison for things he did before Trump even thought about running for President.

daveFNbuck 8y ago

We started out trying to determine whether Trump colluded with Russia. This is a very important thing for the American people to know. Trump obstructed the investigation and we weren't able to determine whether that happened. If obstruction didn't count unless you were convicted of the crime you were obstructing justice on, people could get away with crimes by interfering with the investigation and there'd be no recourse. We don't want people to get away with crimes by interfering with the investigation. That's why obstruction is a crime.

s_y_n_t_a_x 8y ago
[self-censored]
- spaceheretostay 8y ago
  "Obstruction of justice" has nothing to do with the report being finished. Those are completely unrelated things. > I'm just pointing out how far the goalpost has moved. You're the one moving goalposts here. Obstruction of justice is illegal even in an attempt to actively obstruct, which Trump and others did, repeatedly, and which was written about clearly in the redacted Mueller report.
  - dang 8y ago
    Since you've been using HN primarily for political battle, and we warned you that we'd ban you if you didn't stop, I've banned this account. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- lukenels 8y ago
  The crime is the attempt to obstruct justice. Having succeeded in doing so is not a requirement.
- daveFNbuck 8y ago
  He finished the report, but he wasn't able to draw a conclusion on whether Trump colluded with Russia.

fzeroracer 8y ago

Users on HN really should not be able to fully erase their posts when they engage in a argument and decide to back out. This kind of attitude fractures the discussion.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
fromthestart 8y ago
What you're proposing would simply have the self censoring effect that is common on other platforms and in person. So instead of potential two sided discussions, you get phenomena like closet Trump supporters.
s_y_n_t_a_x 8y ago
It's not really a discussion when everyone on HN thinks the same way politically. There's no point to have political discussions here. If you're not on the liberal train, you get downvoted to oblivion, or flagged. It's just not worth it, noone replying or reading actually wants your perspective, they just want their turn to say their talking point based on some keywords in your comment. That's why I deleted my comments and that's why this is my last political discussion on here.
- preommr 8y ago
  This is a really good way to shutdown any kind of conversation ever. Yes there are going to be people that regurgitate their talking points without wanting to listen. But you don't have to respond to them. If you really have an idea that stand on it's own merits, then it shouldn't matter if it's unpopular unless what you're really seeking is validation from your own camp that agree with you overall, but might nitpick on some small details.
- fzeroracer 8y ago
  I've had my comments downvoted and flagged in the past. I stand by every single one of them and don't hide behind my opinions being downvoted as an excuse to destroy the rest of the discussion. Otherwise editing and hiding your posts does nothing but make the rest of the discussion and the people trying to engage you unreadable. What you want is an echo chamber where people must agree with your positions.