3 ms·

"Russiagate" is commonly used to refer to the accusation that Trump colluded with the Russian state to determine the outcome of the 2016 election. The Special C

"Russiagate" is commonly used to refer to the accusation that Trump colluded with the Russian state to determine the outcome of the 2016 election. The Special Counsel investigation found no evidence of collusion. Or is everything involving Russia now its own "Russiagate"?

mullingitover 6y ago
They weren't able to prove collusion directly (and listed repeated efforts by the administration to obstruct justice), but they found that Russia helped the Trump campaign proactively and they welcomed the foreign assistance[1]. So the Trump campaign welcomed the Russian election interference, of which there was a breathtaking amount[2]. It's also telling that Trump, who never has spared an unkind word for anyone, has never spoken ill of Russia for his entire term. It's also worth noting that the special counsel was never allowed to indict the President, or even say that indictable conduct occurred, due to Justice Department policy. The absolute strongest available language that they could use was that their report didn't exonerate the President, and that's exactly what the report said. [1] https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-mueller-report-trump-russia-collusion-20190418-story.html https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-mueller-report-tr... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Russian_interferen...
- the-dude 6y ago
  So I start reading [2], scroll to 2016 only to find a tremendous list of unconvincing mini-facts? How does this end up on Wikipedia?
  - mullingitover 6y ago
    What's 'mini' about facts like "Trump lied to voters about his efforts to build a Trump Tower in Moscow while he was campaigning, and his personal lawyer went to prison for lying to congress to cover up that project" ? If you're interested in more, there's the very sizable list, "Links between Trump associates and Russian officials" [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Links_between_Trump_associates_and_Russian_officials https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Links_between_Trump_associates...
    - the-dude 6y ago
      That is a prime example of what I would call 'mini'. How is that remotely 'Russian interference'? I am from NL, and I will raise you : our current Prime Minister promised all citizens € 1000. Guess what? We never got it.
      - mullingitover 6y ago
        Russia interferes on Trump's behalf. Trump campaign wins, promotes policies that are beneficial to Russia (slow walking support for Ukraine, attacking NATO, generally gutting the State Department, and a plethora of other moves that cripple US soft power, edit: Oh, and how could I forget sanctions relief and readmission to G8?), and Putin approves a real estate project that benefits Trump financially. It's telling that Trump is the first president in history not to divest himself of his global financial stakes, which represent a massive conflict of interest. Pretty basic garden variety bribery.
        the-dude 6y ago
        I agree it reads like a spy novel. Is there any reason to believe the project would not have been approved without the alleged favors?
        mullingitover 6y ago
        Does any project of that size get approved in Moscow without favors?
shadowgovt 6y ago
It is not technically 'collusion' if one says, very publicly and loudly, "Won't someone rid me of this meddlesome priest?" And when agents of a foreign government with obvious vested interest in said priest's fate come to you with dirt on said priest, you take it and disseminate it. It is not technically collusion.
- mhh__ 6y ago
  The Mueller report clearly left unfinished business (not an exoneration not indictment), and a senate report went further - if there wasn't collusion it's by a technicality rather than the spirit of the law.
dredmorbius 6y ago
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. -- Reort on the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf It's not possible to come to a legal conclusion on a question which lacks a legal definition.

mullingitover 6y ago

They weren't able to prove collusion directly (and listed repeated efforts by the administration to obstruct justice), but they found that Russia helped the Trump campaign proactively and they welcomed the foreign assistance[1]. So the Trump campaign welcomed the Russian election interference, of which there was a breathtaking amount[2]. It's also telling that Trump, who never has spared an unkind word for anyone, has never spoken ill of Russia for his entire term. It's also worth noting that the special counsel was never allowed to indict the President, or even say that indictable conduct occurred, due to Justice Department policy. The absolute strongest available language that they could use was that their report didn't exonerate the President, and that's exactly what the report said. [1] https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-mueller-report-trump-russia-collusion-20190418-story.html https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-mueller-report-tr... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Russian_interferen...

the-dude 6y ago
So I start reading [2], scroll to 2016 only to find a tremendous list of unconvincing mini-facts? How does this end up on Wikipedia?
- mullingitover 6y ago
  What's 'mini' about facts like "Trump lied to voters about his efforts to build a Trump Tower in Moscow while he was campaigning, and his personal lawyer went to prison for lying to congress to cover up that project" ? If you're interested in more, there's the very sizable list, "Links between Trump associates and Russian officials" [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Links_between_Trump_associates_and_Russian_officials https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Links_between_Trump_associates...
  - the-dude 6y ago
    That is a prime example of what I would call 'mini'. How is that remotely 'Russian interference'? I am from NL, and I will raise you : our current Prime Minister promised all citizens € 1000. Guess what? We never got it.
    - mullingitover 6y ago
      Russia interferes on Trump's behalf. Trump campaign wins, promotes policies that are beneficial to Russia (slow walking support for Ukraine, attacking NATO, generally gutting the State Department, and a plethora of other moves that cripple US soft power, edit: Oh, and how could I forget sanctions relief and readmission to G8?), and Putin approves a real estate project that benefits Trump financially. It's telling that Trump is the first president in history not to divest himself of his global financial stakes, which represent a massive conflict of interest. Pretty basic garden variety bribery.
      - the-dude 6y ago
        I agree it reads like a spy novel. Is there any reason to believe the project would not have been approved without the alleged favors?
        mullingitover 6y ago
        Does any project of that size get approved in Moscow without favors?

shadowgovt 6y ago

It is not technically 'collusion' if one says, very publicly and loudly, "Won't someone rid me of this meddlesome priest?" And when agents of a foreign government with obvious vested interest in said priest's fate come to you with dirt on said priest, you take it and disseminate it. It is not technically collusion.

mhh__ 6y ago
The Mueller report clearly left unfinished business (not an exoneration not indictment), and a senate report went further - if there wasn't collusion it's by a technicality rather than the spirit of the law.

dredmorbius 6y ago

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. -- Reort on the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf It's not possible to come to a legal conclusion on a question which lacks a legal definition.