6 ms·

This is ridiculous. Regardless of your politics, this is just going the wrong direction. Where was this policy when the other side was pushing the Russia collus

This is ridiculous. Regardless of your politics, this is just going the wrong direction. Where was this policy when the other side was pushing the Russia collusion narrative for years?

ihsw 6y ago
Get out of here with your facts and analysis, pleb. Didn't you know, orange man bad? ...or are you a Russian bot too??
slacka 6y ago
Nice false equivalence. Judges have ruled that Trump's side has failed to show any evidence of fraud in Court, losing 50/51 court cases, with the "win" having nothing to do with fraud[1]. On the other hand, there are literally thousand of pages from the Senate Committee on Intelligence showing evidence of Russian Interference in 2016. [2] [3], along with the Mueller Report [4]. Russian Interference in 2016 is not comparable to Trump's false claims of fraud in 2020. [1] https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-losing-election-lawsuits-36d113484ac0946fa5f0614deb7de15e https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-losing-election-laws... [2] https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Report_Volume1.pdf https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/docu... [3] https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Report_Volume1.pdf https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/docu... [4] https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf
- muttantt 6y ago
  The other side had hordes of FBI and DOJ professionals digging every nook and cranny for years in an attempt to find evidence. That did not stop anyone from screaming "Russia collusion" all over social media and the 24/7 news cycle.
  - casefields 6y ago
    Agreed. This shit is going to radicalize people, and all these big tech companies better be ready. There will be a backlash.
- hashmymustache 6y ago
  Funny how the comment you’re responding to said Russian collusion but you instead bring up the separate topic of Russian interference.
  - ehsankia 6y ago
    It doesn't change the fact that the courts have decided that there was no fraud over dozens and dozens of lawsuits. The proponent of the Russia collusion wanted it investigated, and there was very little talk about it after (the honestly poorly handled) Mueller report. And while there was no clear evidence of Trump himself colluding, many were indicted and even admitted guilt. How many people have gone to jail for fraud in the 2020 election? Is there the equivalent to the Jr. email and the Trump Tower meeting when it comes to election fraud? Has there been a single real evidence of fraud shown in courts (not on News or social media where there are no consequences for lying)?
    - JamisonM 6y ago
      Really it is worse than that, the media narrative pushed by the litigants is about "fraud" but most of the losing lawsuits don't even allege fraud!
    - colordrops 6y ago
      Wait who admitted guilt of russian collusion? No Russian collusion was ever proven.
- its_simple 6y ago
  Did you actually read the Mueller Report? The only claims that I've heard about this nonsense story are that some people were guilty of lying to the government (which shouldn't even be a crime lmfao. they're allowed to lie to us), and avoiding taxes by putting money overseas and getting the money back via loans, which all of these oligarchs do, and is definitely not treason lol.
  - pdabbadabba 6y ago
    I read it. And what I found was nearly 200 pages describe various forms of collusion between Trump campaign officials and various Russian actors. True, there was no "treason." But that's moving the goalpost. If we stick with "Russian collusion," the Muller report confirms that it was, in fact, rampant--albeit not chargeably criminal. ("Collusion" is not a crime.)
    - its_simple 6y ago
      "Not charegably criminal." So then what are we even talking about?
      - habeebtc 6y ago
        In fact "not chargeably criminal" as it is written in the report reads more like, "Reasonable Doubt exists, based on what we were able to find. We are out of time and resources, so if it is there, we may not find it." Paraphrasing of course. What was "chargeably criminal" was the obstruction of justice. I read it. It's in there, and it is damning on both counts, the second count enough to indict anyone but a president.
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
- shanty 6y ago
  Exactly true. However the Russian investigation spanned years. These things take a lot of time to work through the investigative process. Take a look here, https://hereistheevidence.com https://hereistheevidence.com, which provides significant questionable items that still need to be investigated.
pdabbadabba 6y ago
The problem with this comparison is that there actually was significant evidence of collusion with Russia. If you read the Muller report you'll see it all over the place. Here's a summary: https://www.justsecurity.org/63838/guide-to-the-mueller-reports-findings-on-collusion/ https://www.justsecurity.org/63838/guide-to-the-mueller-repo.... Reading the actual report would be better, but it is very long. Trump's repeated claim that Muller's report somehow supported his claims of "no collusion" is simply fiction. It did the opposite. You may have a reasonable higher level point out selective application of the rules, but this is a bad example.
- ed25519FUUU 6y ago
  The entire point of the SCO was to try and shore up / verify the allegations in the Steele dossier, of which it couldn't make a single connection. Where are the pee pee tapes? When did Cohen go to Prague to get the emails again? You'd think the SCO could have at least interviewed Julian Assange and asked him where he got the emails.
gravity13 6y ago
Wait - was the "Russia collusion narrative" that one totally crazy massive investigation that ended up getting 34 people indicted? One of them Trump just pardoned Flynn for a week or so ago? Are you just gonna sit here and pretend like they're even remotely the same thing to a bunch of people calling for the dismissal of our democratic institution of counting votes fairly? As if people were talking about "civil war" and kidnapping of government heads in the opposition party? You're just like somebody arguing that intolerance of intolerance is itself intolerance. That is a path towards intolerance. Now I'm not saying we shouldn't question Youtube's decision here, but the way you're doing it is straight up wrong.
- colordrops 6y ago
  They weren't indicted for russian collusion. Your comment should be deleted for misinformation.
  - mike00632 6y ago
    Flynn was indicted for lying about his call with the Russian ambassador which happened to have been recorded. Also, a pardon means that even Flynn admits his guilt.
    - colordrops 6y ago
      As you say, Flynn was indicted for, and was pardoned for, lying to the FBI, which is absolutely not the same thing as collusion with Russia. Thanks for proving my point. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Flynn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Flynn What's with the mental block all you people have? I am completely disgusted with Trump and am happy he is gone. That doesn't mean I'm going to ignore facts directly in front of my face if they don't fall in line with prevailing anti-Trump sentiment.
      - mike00632 6y ago
        I think you missed the part about Russia, i.e. the subject of his lie. Also, Russia was wining and dining Flynn. Remember the photos of Flynn at the Russian propaganda event? I'm sure that has nothing to do with Russia, right? No Russian motive there, right? Just, you know, forget about Flynn pleading guilty in court and then acknowledging guilt by accepting the pardon. You forgot to mention those extremely relevant points.

This is ridiculous. Regardless of your politics, this is just going the wrong direction. Where was this policy when the other side was pushing the Russia collusion narrative for years?

ihsw 6y ago

Get out of here with your facts and analysis, pleb. Didn't you know, orange man bad? ...or are you a Russian bot too??

slacka 6y ago

Nice false equivalence. Judges have ruled that Trump's side has failed to show any evidence of fraud in Court, losing 50/51 court cases, with the "win" having nothing to do with fraud[1]. On the other hand, there are literally thousand of pages from the Senate Committee on Intelligence showing evidence of Russian Interference in 2016. [2] [3], along with the Mueller Report [4]. Russian Interference in 2016 is not comparable to Trump's false claims of fraud in 2020. [1] https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-losing-election-lawsuits-36d113484ac0946fa5f0614deb7de15e https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-losing-election-laws... [2] https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Report_Volume1.pdf https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/docu... [3] https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Report_Volume1.pdf https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/docu... [4] https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf

muttantt 6y ago
The other side had hordes of FBI and DOJ professionals digging every nook and cranny for years in an attempt to find evidence. That did not stop anyone from screaming "Russia collusion" all over social media and the 24/7 news cycle.
- casefields 6y ago
  Agreed. This shit is going to radicalize people, and all these big tech companies better be ready. There will be a backlash.
hashmymustache 6y ago
Funny how the comment you’re responding to said Russian collusion but you instead bring up the separate topic of Russian interference.
- ehsankia 6y ago
  It doesn't change the fact that the courts have decided that there was no fraud over dozens and dozens of lawsuits. The proponent of the Russia collusion wanted it investigated, and there was very little talk about it after (the honestly poorly handled) Mueller report. And while there was no clear evidence of Trump himself colluding, many were indicted and even admitted guilt. How many people have gone to jail for fraud in the 2020 election? Is there the equivalent to the Jr. email and the Trump Tower meeting when it comes to election fraud? Has there been a single real evidence of fraud shown in courts (not on News or social media where there are no consequences for lying)?
  - JamisonM 6y ago
    Really it is worse than that, the media narrative pushed by the litigants is about "fraud" but most of the losing lawsuits don't even allege fraud!
  - colordrops 6y ago
    Wait who admitted guilt of russian collusion? No Russian collusion was ever proven.
its_simple 6y ago
Did you actually read the Mueller Report? The only claims that I've heard about this nonsense story are that some people were guilty of lying to the government (which shouldn't even be a crime lmfao. they're allowed to lie to us), and avoiding taxes by putting money overseas and getting the money back via loans, which all of these oligarchs do, and is definitely not treason lol.
- pdabbadabba 6y ago
  I read it. And what I found was nearly 200 pages describe various forms of collusion between Trump campaign officials and various Russian actors. True, there was no "treason." But that's moving the goalpost. If we stick with "Russian collusion," the Muller report confirms that it was, in fact, rampant--albeit not chargeably criminal. ("Collusion" is not a crime.)
  - its_simple 6y ago
    "Not charegably criminal." So then what are we even talking about?
    - habeebtc 6y ago
      In fact "not chargeably criminal" as it is written in the report reads more like, "Reasonable Doubt exists, based on what we were able to find. We are out of time and resources, so if it is there, we may not find it." Paraphrasing of course. What was "chargeably criminal" was the obstruction of justice. I read it. It's in there, and it is damning on both counts, the second count enough to indict anyone but a president.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
shanty 6y ago
Exactly true. However the Russian investigation spanned years. These things take a lot of time to work through the investigative process. Take a look here, https://hereistheevidence.com https://hereistheevidence.com, which provides significant questionable items that still need to be investigated.

pdabbadabba 6y ago

The problem with this comparison is that there actually was significant evidence of collusion with Russia. If you read the Muller report you'll see it all over the place. Here's a summary: https://www.justsecurity.org/63838/guide-to-the-mueller-reports-findings-on-collusion/ https://www.justsecurity.org/63838/guide-to-the-mueller-repo.... Reading the actual report would be better, but it is very long. Trump's repeated claim that Muller's report somehow supported his claims of "no collusion" is simply fiction. It did the opposite. You may have a reasonable higher level point out selective application of the rules, but this is a bad example.

ed25519FUUU 6y ago
The entire point of the SCO was to try and shore up / verify the allegations in the Steele dossier, of which it couldn't make a single connection. Where are the pee pee tapes? When did Cohen go to Prague to get the emails again? You'd think the SCO could have at least interviewed Julian Assange and asked him where he got the emails.

gravity13 6y ago

Wait - was the "Russia collusion narrative" that one totally crazy massive investigation that ended up getting 34 people indicted? One of them Trump just pardoned Flynn for a week or so ago? Are you just gonna sit here and pretend like they're even remotely the same thing to a bunch of people calling for the dismissal of our democratic institution of counting votes fairly? As if people were talking about "civil war" and kidnapping of government heads in the opposition party? You're just like somebody arguing that intolerance of intolerance is itself intolerance. That is a path towards intolerance. Now I'm not saying we shouldn't question Youtube's decision here, but the way you're doing it is straight up wrong.

colordrops 6y ago
They weren't indicted for russian collusion. Your comment should be deleted for misinformation.
- mike00632 6y ago
  Flynn was indicted for lying about his call with the Russian ambassador which happened to have been recorded. Also, a pardon means that even Flynn admits his guilt.
  - colordrops 6y ago
    As you say, Flynn was indicted for, and was pardoned for, lying to the FBI, which is absolutely not the same thing as collusion with Russia. Thanks for proving my point. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Flynn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Flynn What's with the mental block all you people have? I am completely disgusted with Trump and am happy he is gone. That doesn't mean I'm going to ignore facts directly in front of my face if they don't fall in line with prevailing anti-Trump sentiment.
    - mike00632 6y ago
      I think you missed the part about Russia, i.e. the subject of his lie. Also, Russia was wining and dining Flynn. Remember the photos of Flynn at the Russian propaganda event? I'm sure that has nothing to do with Russia, right? No Russian motive there, right? Just, you know, forget about Flynn pleading guilty in court and then acknowledging guilt by accepting the pardon. You forgot to mention those extremely relevant points.