4 ms·

> this one strays pretty far from the legalese into just making a bunch of wild accusations And for those who haven’t been paying all that much attention to th

> this one strays pretty far from the legalese into just making a bunch of wild accusations And for those who haven’t been paying all that much attention to the news, or aren’t familiar with Trump’s reference to “the long-disproved Russian Collusion Hoax”, that’s another blatant lie that needs fact-checking. So here it is: “A bipartisan investigation by the Senate Intelligence Committee has validated the January 2017 U.S. intelligence assessment describing Russia interference in the 2016 presidential election — including Russian efforts to help Donald Trump — describing it as accurate, thorough, and untainted by political bias.“ https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/bipartisan-senate-report-says-2017-intel-assessment-about-russian-interference-n1188696 https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/bipartisa... I’m afraid that President Trump has lost the ability to tell facts from fantasy and is no longer capable of performing his duties as president.

inerte 6y ago
As much as I dislike Trump and this administration, interference is not collusion.
- sammalloy 6y ago
  > As much as I dislike Trump and this administration, interference is not collusion Trump specifically uses the word “collusion” because neither investigation addressed it. It’s a tactical strategy. Mueller: > 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]”…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. This is Roy Cohn 101. When Trump says he didn’t do something, you can be quite certain that he did worse. https://forensicnews.net/2020/01/03/trump-deutsche-bank-loans-underwritten-by-russian-state-owned-bank-whistleblower-told-fbi/ https://forensicnews.net/2020/01/03/trump-deutsche-bank-loan...
  - inerte 6y ago
    Right, it's 100% wordplay for political reasons. I really don't like Trump. He probably should be tried in Hague for what's happening at the border with caged children. He's a white nationalist destroying US institutions, and withdrawing the country from world leadership and handing it to China, a much worse outcome. Still, you said he lies and should be fact checked for saying "the long-disproved Russian Collusion Hoax" - I just came here to say, that despite the consequences of the interference, where a US candidate gladly accepted Russian election manipulation, wanted Russia to investigate an US citizen, and weakened the world's oldest standing democracy... still wasn't collusion, as you sourced (twice).
    - sammalloy 6y ago
      > still wasn’t collusion There was a conspiracy, supported by both investigations. Whether the evidence rises to the level of implicating the president, wasn’t a conclusion left for Mueller, it was left for the Senate, which chose to ignore the evidence.
    - Simulacra 6y ago
      The House intelligence committee led by a Democrat, Adam Schiff, found no evidence of collusion... "Newly released documents show he knew all along that there was no proof of Russia-Trump collusion." https://www.wsj.com/articles/all-the-adam-schiff-transcripts-11589326164 https://www.wsj.com/articles/all-the-adam-schiff-transcripts... Now who's right, you or the Wall Street Journal? Who gets to decide that? What if HN said this is clear evidence you're wrong, so we're going to put a disclaimer on your post because you're wrong.

inerte 6y ago

As much as I dislike Trump and this administration, interference is not collusion.

sammalloy 6y ago
> As much as I dislike Trump and this administration, interference is not collusion Trump specifically uses the word “collusion” because neither investigation addressed it. It’s a tactical strategy. Mueller: > 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]”…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. This is Roy Cohn 101. When Trump says he didn’t do something, you can be quite certain that he did worse. https://forensicnews.net/2020/01/03/trump-deutsche-bank-loans-underwritten-by-russian-state-owned-bank-whistleblower-told-fbi/ https://forensicnews.net/2020/01/03/trump-deutsche-bank-loan...
- inerte 6y ago
  Right, it's 100% wordplay for political reasons. I really don't like Trump. He probably should be tried in Hague for what's happening at the border with caged children. He's a white nationalist destroying US institutions, and withdrawing the country from world leadership and handing it to China, a much worse outcome. Still, you said he lies and should be fact checked for saying "the long-disproved Russian Collusion Hoax" - I just came here to say, that despite the consequences of the interference, where a US candidate gladly accepted Russian election manipulation, wanted Russia to investigate an US citizen, and weakened the world's oldest standing democracy... still wasn't collusion, as you sourced (twice).
  - sammalloy 6y ago
    > still wasn’t collusion There was a conspiracy, supported by both investigations. Whether the evidence rises to the level of implicating the president, wasn’t a conclusion left for Mueller, it was left for the Senate, which chose to ignore the evidence.
  - Simulacra 6y ago
    The House intelligence committee led by a Democrat, Adam Schiff, found no evidence of collusion... "Newly released documents show he knew all along that there was no proof of Russia-Trump collusion." https://www.wsj.com/articles/all-the-adam-schiff-transcripts-11589326164 https://www.wsj.com/articles/all-the-adam-schiff-transcripts... Now who's right, you or the Wall Street Journal? Who gets to decide that? What if HN said this is clear evidence you're wrong, so we're going to put a disclaimer on your post because you're wrong.