3 ms·

No, because that actually happened. https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/512487-senate-panel-releases-final-report-on-russian-interference-detailing ht

No, because that actually happened. https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/512487-senate-panel-releases-final-report-on-russian-interference-detailing https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/512487-senate-p...

throwaway8078 6y ago
Except it didn't: https://www.npr.org/2019/03/24/706318191/trump-white-house-hasnt-seen-or-been-briefed-on-mueller-investigation-report https://www.npr.org/2019/03/24/706318191/trump-white-house-h... "Special counsel Robert Mueller did not find evidence that President Trump's campaign conspired with Russia to influence the 2016 election, according to a summary of findings submitted to Congress"
- dleslie 6y ago
  If you read my link it was not referring to the Mueller investigation. In August, of this year, the US Senate Special Committee on Intelligence concluded its investigation and found that collusion occurred with Russian nationals, and possibly Russian intelligence. _Separately_ from Mueller.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- VikingCoder 6y ago
  Let's not remove the end of that quote so quickly: "Special counsel Robert Mueller did not find evidence that President Trump's campaign conspired with Russia to influence the 2016 election, according to a summary of findings submitted to Congress by Attorney General William Barr." I think Attorney General William Barr did not correctly summarize the findings of the Mueller report, and was acting to drive an incorrect narrative. Given that, I think it's entirely appropriate to also look at the Republican-controlled Senate report that the OP linked, which says it did.
  - throwaway56098 6y ago
    >Given that, I think it's entirely appropriate to also look at the Republican-controlled Senate report that the OP linked, which says it did. Wrong, it said it did not find collision. Here's the summary from the lead on the US Senate Special Committee on Intelligence: https://www.rubio.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=15CD9A7F-66B5-4700-9545-6974E593EA32 https://www.rubio.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases... “We can say, without any hesitation, that the Committee found absolutely no evidence that then-candidate Donald Trump or his campaign colluded with the Russian government to meddle in the 2016 election."
    - VikingCoder 6y ago
      More fuel for the fire: https://www.lawfareblog.com/republican-senators-misrepresent-their-own-russia-report https://www.lawfareblog.com/republican-senators-misrepresent... https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/08/19/marco-rubios-curious-summary-his-committees-russia-report/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/08/19/marco-rub...
    - ModernMech 6y ago
      Rubio says this, but that doesn’t comport with the contents of the report. Trump’s Campaign manager giving internal campaign data, to a man who the Senate Intel Committee characterizes as a “Russian intel Agent”. and then lying about it to the American people and the FBI is clearly evidence of collusion. For Rubio to make this statement, he needs to explain this finding of his committee.
- rplst8 6y ago
  It couldn't find anything on collusion, but the question of obstruction is still open... and what exactly were they obstructing investigators from finding? Evidence of collusion maybe? We won't know because they obstructed the investigation.
gthtjtkt 6y ago
Your own article disagrees with you: > The committee's findings are a more in-depth look at the interference than Mueller's investigation, but the findings run parallel to the conclusions of Mueller's probe, which found overwhelming evidence of Russia's efforts to interfere in the election through disinformation and cyber campaigns but a lack of sufficient evidence that the Trump campaign conspired with the Kremlin to impact the outcome of the 2016 election. Mueller didn't indict a single US citizen for conspiring with Russia. It didn't happen.
- dleslie 6y ago
  The article isn't about the Mueller report, it's about the Senate Committee. The Senate Committee did conclude that collusion with Russian nationals, and possibly intelligence, occurred; they did so _separately_ from the Mueller investigation.
  - gthtjtkt 6y ago
    I'll quote it again since you didn't read: > the findings run parallel to the conclusions of Mueller's probe, which found overwhelming evidence of Russia's efforts to interfere in the election through disinformation and cyber campaigns but a lack of sufficient evidence that the Trump campaign conspired with the Kremlin to impact the outcome of the 2016 election. That's from the article you linked. a lack of sufficient evidence that the Trump campaign conspired with the Kremlin to impact the outcome of the 2016 election. Do you see that part?
    - dleslie 6y ago
      I do see that part, did you see the rest of that quoted paragraph? The _subject_ of that quote is the Mueller investigation, _not_ the Senate Committee. > the findings run parallel to the conclusions of Mueller's probe, which found overwhelming evidence of Russia's efforts to interfere in the election through disinformation and cyber campaigns but a lack of sufficient evidence that the Trump campaign conspired with the Kremlin to impact the outcome of the 2016 election. It's stating that _Mueller's probe_ found evidence of efforts, but not sufficient evidence of conspiracy. This is _not_ stating that the committee did not.
orblivion 6y ago
I this is a good example to bring up. One person sees "Russian Intelligence officer is an associate of Trump's campaign manager, and they worked together on some 'narratives', whatever that means. And if it were something more clearly bad, The Hill would have given a clear explanation.", and another person sees "Definitive evidence of collusion." One person sees a suitcase full of ballots hidden under a table after lying about whether counting was done, another person sees a normal ballot counting process and a misunderstanding. The same people (YouTube employees) who don't agree with you in the first place are now in the position to decide whether your argument is reasonable enough to make. Nobody is rightly in the position to put guard rails on speculation over events, and I think we'll all be better off when we finally understand this.
- dleslie 6y ago
  It's fairly definitive, the report didn't mince words: > Among the probe's newest revelations is that Konstantin V. Kilimnik, an associate of Manafort's, was a "Russian intelligence officer." Manafort's contacts also posed a “grave counterintelligence threat,” according to the report. > "Manafort worked with Kilimnik starting in 2016 on narratives that sought to undermine evidence that Russia interfered in the 2016 U.S. election," the report added. > "At nearly 1,000 pages, Volume 5 stands as the most comprehensive examination of ties between Russia and the 2016 Trump campaign to date — a breathtaking level of contacts between Trump officials and Russian government operatives that is a very real counterintelligence threat to our elections," Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), the panel's vice chairman, added in a statement.
  - orblivion 6y ago
    Per my interpretation, this all amounts to something troubling, but not definitively something solid pointing to let's say a quid pro quo. So to me this doesn't close the question of whether "it happened". > “grave counterintelligence threat,” Somebody's opinion about what could happen or might have happened. > "very real counterintelligence threat" The opinion of a member of the opposing political party about what could happen or might have happened. > narratives This sounds like something that could be part of collusion but I'd need to see the rest. It's open to interpretation and I don't trust the media enough to assume they wouldn't imply something like this without having something big behind it. Indeed they hint at things without actually stating them because they're not actually true all the time.
commandlinefan 6y ago
It doesn't matter if it actually happened or not, YouTube's exact words are "We also disallow content alleging widespread fraud or errors changed the outcome of a historical U.S. Presidential election." Nothing in there about only disallowing it if somebody believes it happened.
- knowaveragejoe 6y ago
  ...but it did happen, and has actual admissible evidence to support it. If it weren't for the unprecedented obstruction from the WH on the matter, we'd know even more currently - but, we'll have to wait for a year or so to get more of the story. Still blown away how trumpism has infected the HN crowd this deeply.

throwaway8078 6y ago

Except it didn't: https://www.npr.org/2019/03/24/706318191/trump-white-house-hasnt-seen-or-been-briefed-on-mueller-investigation-report https://www.npr.org/2019/03/24/706318191/trump-white-house-h... "Special counsel Robert Mueller did not find evidence that President Trump's campaign conspired with Russia to influence the 2016 election, according to a summary of findings submitted to Congress"

dleslie 6y ago
If you read my link it was not referring to the Mueller investigation. In August, of this year, the US Senate Special Committee on Intelligence concluded its investigation and found that collusion occurred with Russian nationals, and possibly Russian intelligence. _Separately_ from Mueller.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
VikingCoder 6y ago
Let's not remove the end of that quote so quickly: "Special counsel Robert Mueller did not find evidence that President Trump's campaign conspired with Russia to influence the 2016 election, according to a summary of findings submitted to Congress by Attorney General William Barr." I think Attorney General William Barr did not correctly summarize the findings of the Mueller report, and was acting to drive an incorrect narrative. Given that, I think it's entirely appropriate to also look at the Republican-controlled Senate report that the OP linked, which says it did.
- throwaway56098 6y ago
  >Given that, I think it's entirely appropriate to also look at the Republican-controlled Senate report that the OP linked, which says it did. Wrong, it said it did not find collision. Here's the summary from the lead on the US Senate Special Committee on Intelligence: https://www.rubio.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=15CD9A7F-66B5-4700-9545-6974E593EA32 https://www.rubio.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases... “We can say, without any hesitation, that the Committee found absolutely no evidence that then-candidate Donald Trump or his campaign colluded with the Russian government to meddle in the 2016 election."
  - VikingCoder 6y ago
    More fuel for the fire: https://www.lawfareblog.com/republican-senators-misrepresent-their-own-russia-report https://www.lawfareblog.com/republican-senators-misrepresent... https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/08/19/marco-rubios-curious-summary-his-committees-russia-report/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/08/19/marco-rub...
  - ModernMech 6y ago
    Rubio says this, but that doesn’t comport with the contents of the report. Trump’s Campaign manager giving internal campaign data, to a man who the Senate Intel Committee characterizes as a “Russian intel Agent”. and then lying about it to the American people and the FBI is clearly evidence of collusion. For Rubio to make this statement, he needs to explain this finding of his committee.
rplst8 6y ago
It couldn't find anything on collusion, but the question of obstruction is still open... and what exactly were they obstructing investigators from finding? Evidence of collusion maybe? We won't know because they obstructed the investigation.

gthtjtkt 6y ago

Your own article disagrees with you: > The committee's findings are a more in-depth look at the interference than Mueller's investigation, but the findings run parallel to the conclusions of Mueller's probe, which found overwhelming evidence of Russia's efforts to interfere in the election through disinformation and cyber campaigns but a lack of sufficient evidence that the Trump campaign conspired with the Kremlin to impact the outcome of the 2016 election. Mueller didn't indict a single US citizen for conspiring with Russia. It didn't happen.

dleslie 6y ago
The article isn't about the Mueller report, it's about the Senate Committee. The Senate Committee did conclude that collusion with Russian nationals, and possibly intelligence, occurred; they did so _separately_ from the Mueller investigation.
- gthtjtkt 6y ago
  I'll quote it again since you didn't read: > the findings run parallel to the conclusions of Mueller's probe, which found overwhelming evidence of Russia's efforts to interfere in the election through disinformation and cyber campaigns but a lack of sufficient evidence that the Trump campaign conspired with the Kremlin to impact the outcome of the 2016 election. That's from the article you linked. a lack of sufficient evidence that the Trump campaign conspired with the Kremlin to impact the outcome of the 2016 election. Do you see that part?
  - dleslie 6y ago
    I do see that part, did you see the rest of that quoted paragraph? The _subject_ of that quote is the Mueller investigation, _not_ the Senate Committee. > the findings run parallel to the conclusions of Mueller's probe, which found overwhelming evidence of Russia's efforts to interfere in the election through disinformation and cyber campaigns but a lack of sufficient evidence that the Trump campaign conspired with the Kremlin to impact the outcome of the 2016 election. It's stating that _Mueller's probe_ found evidence of efforts, but not sufficient evidence of conspiracy. This is _not_ stating that the committee did not.

orblivion 6y ago

I this is a good example to bring up. One person sees "Russian Intelligence officer is an associate of Trump's campaign manager, and they worked together on some 'narratives', whatever that means. And if it were something more clearly bad, The Hill would have given a clear explanation.", and another person sees "Definitive evidence of collusion." One person sees a suitcase full of ballots hidden under a table after lying about whether counting was done, another person sees a normal ballot counting process and a misunderstanding. The same people (YouTube employees) who don't agree with you in the first place are now in the position to decide whether your argument is reasonable enough to make. Nobody is rightly in the position to put guard rails on speculation over events, and I think we'll all be better off when we finally understand this.

dleslie 6y ago
It's fairly definitive, the report didn't mince words: > Among the probe's newest revelations is that Konstantin V. Kilimnik, an associate of Manafort's, was a "Russian intelligence officer." Manafort's contacts also posed a “grave counterintelligence threat,” according to the report. > "Manafort worked with Kilimnik starting in 2016 on narratives that sought to undermine evidence that Russia interfered in the 2016 U.S. election," the report added. > "At nearly 1,000 pages, Volume 5 stands as the most comprehensive examination of ties between Russia and the 2016 Trump campaign to date — a breathtaking level of contacts between Trump officials and Russian government operatives that is a very real counterintelligence threat to our elections," Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), the panel's vice chairman, added in a statement.
- orblivion 6y ago
  Per my interpretation, this all amounts to something troubling, but not definitively something solid pointing to let's say a quid pro quo. So to me this doesn't close the question of whether "it happened". > “grave counterintelligence threat,” Somebody's opinion about what could happen or might have happened. > "very real counterintelligence threat" The opinion of a member of the opposing political party about what could happen or might have happened. > narratives This sounds like something that could be part of collusion but I'd need to see the rest. It's open to interpretation and I don't trust the media enough to assume they wouldn't imply something like this without having something big behind it. Indeed they hint at things without actually stating them because they're not actually true all the time.

commandlinefan 6y ago

It doesn't matter if it actually happened or not, YouTube's exact words are "We also disallow content alleging widespread fraud or errors changed the outcome of a historical U.S. Presidential election." Nothing in there about only disallowing it if somebody believes it happened.

knowaveragejoe 6y ago
...but it did happen, and has actual admissible evidence to support it. If it weren't for the unprecedented obstruction from the WH on the matter, we'd know even more currently - but, we'll have to wait for a year or so to get more of the story. Still blown away how trumpism has infected the HN crowd this deeply.