4 ms·

False. "The Mueller report does establish that, in fact, members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election int

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.
zaroth 7y 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 7y 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 7y 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 7y ago
      What does the date of the interview have to do with whether or not he was central?
mfatica 7y 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.

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.

zaroth 7y 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 7y 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 7y 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 7y ago
    What does the date of the interview have to do with whether or not he was central?

mfatica 7y 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.