5 ms·

Except it didn't find any evidence of collusion: https://www.npr.org/2019/03/24/706318191/trump-white-house-h https://www.npr.org/2019/03/24/706318191/trump-wh

Except it didn't find any evidence of collusion: https://www.npr.org/2019/03/24/706318191/trump-white-house-h 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
The link I provided was not referring to the Mueller investigation. In August, of this year, the a US Senate Committee on Intelligence found that the Trump campaign colluded with Russian nationals, and possibly Russian intelligence. Independently of Mueller.
- throwaway8078 6y ago
  In your own provided source: "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." Your own source literally disproves what you're claiming. I'll say it again, from your source: "lack of sufficient evidence that the Trump campaign conspired with the Kremlin to impact the outcome of the 2016 election."
  - dleslie 6y ago
    Yes, that quote says that the Mueller investigation failed. However, the article is _about the Senate Committee_. This is a different thing than the Mueller investigation, and it succeeded where Mueller failed. FTA: > 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.
    - throwaway8078 6y ago
      >Yes, that quote says that the Mueller investigation failed. It says nothing of the sort, it actually agrees with the Mueller investigation, and only adds to its legitimacy. Nothing that you quoted points towards collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian officials. There were contacts with Russians from both the DNC and RNP, but once again: > a lack of sufficient evidence that the Trump campaign conspired with the Kremlin to impact the outcome of the 2016 election. Lack of evidence that Trump conspired. There is no collusion. Thanks for proving my point with your source.
      - dleslie 6y ago
        You keep quoting the bits that are talking about the Mueller investigation and not the Senate Committee. This? This is about Mueller. Not the committee. > lack of sufficient evidence that the Trump campaign conspired with the Kremlin to impact the outcome of the 2016 election.
        throwaway56098 6y ago
        >You keep quoting the bits that are talking about the Mueller investigation and not the Senate Committee. Wrong, I am quoting the bits that are taking about the US Senate Special Committee on Intelligence report. >"the findings run parallel to the conclusions of Mueller's probe" "the findings [of the US Senate Special Committee on Intelligence] run parallel to the conclusions of Mueller's probe" It's reconfirming that the Senate committee findings run parallel, or in other words, come to the same conclusion, as the Mueller report.
        dleslie 6y ago
        Good lord that's a reach. In stating they ran parallel they meant that they're investigating the same offences at the same time. It ran parallel, but did not collaborate with, the Mueller investigation. It found more evidence and drew stronger conclusions.
alwayseasy 6y ago
Impressive, a throwaway account that uses the very controversial summary that Barr wrote quickly before the report was released and without Mueller's re-reading. Here's the follow up from NPR where Mueller later distanced himself from this obviously misleading summary: https://www.npr.org/2019/04/30/718883130/mueller-complained-that-barr-summary-of-trump-russia-probe-lacked-context https://www.npr.org/2019/04/30/718883130/mueller-complained-...
- dleslie 6y ago
  There's at least two accounts trying to conflate the Mueller investigation with the Senate Committee. It's kind of amazing how ... clearly identical their arguments are.
  - alwayseasy 6y ago
    Yeah. In a thread where the debate is about "people being able to form their opinions on their own" it seems like they really like to depend on spoon-fed talking points.
    - tha0xa1 6y ago
      > In a thread where the debate is about "people being able to form their opinions on their own" it seems like they really like to depend on spoon-fed talking points. This belongs at the top of /r/selfawarewolves
      - alwayseasy 6y ago
        Glad you created an account for this contribution.
- throwaway56098 6y ago
  >Impressive, a throwaway account that uses the very controversial summary that Barr Or use the latest findings from the lead on the Senate Intel report: 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." Unfortunately it has to be a throwaway because these kinds of facts might as well be thought crimes here.

dleslie 6y ago

The link I provided was not referring to the Mueller investigation. In August, of this year, the a US Senate Committee on Intelligence found that the Trump campaign colluded with Russian nationals, and possibly Russian intelligence. Independently of Mueller.

throwaway8078 6y ago
In your own provided source: "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." Your own source literally disproves what you're claiming. I'll say it again, from your source: "lack of sufficient evidence that the Trump campaign conspired with the Kremlin to impact the outcome of the 2016 election."
- dleslie 6y ago
  Yes, that quote says that the Mueller investigation failed. However, the article is _about the Senate Committee_. This is a different thing than the Mueller investigation, and it succeeded where Mueller failed. FTA: > 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.
  - throwaway8078 6y ago
    >Yes, that quote says that the Mueller investigation failed. It says nothing of the sort, it actually agrees with the Mueller investigation, and only adds to its legitimacy. Nothing that you quoted points towards collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian officials. There were contacts with Russians from both the DNC and RNP, but once again: > a lack of sufficient evidence that the Trump campaign conspired with the Kremlin to impact the outcome of the 2016 election. Lack of evidence that Trump conspired. There is no collusion. Thanks for proving my point with your source.
    - dleslie 6y ago
      You keep quoting the bits that are talking about the Mueller investigation and not the Senate Committee. This? This is about Mueller. Not the committee. > lack of sufficient evidence that the Trump campaign conspired with the Kremlin to impact the outcome of the 2016 election.
      - throwaway56098 6y ago
        >You keep quoting the bits that are talking about the Mueller investigation and not the Senate Committee. Wrong, I am quoting the bits that are taking about the US Senate Special Committee on Intelligence report. >"the findings run parallel to the conclusions of Mueller's probe" "the findings [of the US Senate Special Committee on Intelligence] run parallel to the conclusions of Mueller's probe" It's reconfirming that the Senate committee findings run parallel, or in other words, come to the same conclusion, as the Mueller report.
        dleslie 6y ago
        Good lord that's a reach. In stating they ran parallel they meant that they're investigating the same offences at the same time. It ran parallel, but did not collaborate with, the Mueller investigation. It found more evidence and drew stronger conclusions.

alwayseasy 6y ago

Impressive, a throwaway account that uses the very controversial summary that Barr wrote quickly before the report was released and without Mueller's re-reading. Here's the follow up from NPR where Mueller later distanced himself from this obviously misleading summary: https://www.npr.org/2019/04/30/718883130/mueller-complained-that-barr-summary-of-trump-russia-probe-lacked-context https://www.npr.org/2019/04/30/718883130/mueller-complained-...

dleslie 6y ago
There's at least two accounts trying to conflate the Mueller investigation with the Senate Committee. It's kind of amazing how ... clearly identical their arguments are.
- alwayseasy 6y ago
  Yeah. In a thread where the debate is about "people being able to form their opinions on their own" it seems like they really like to depend on spoon-fed talking points.
  - tha0xa1 6y ago
    > In a thread where the debate is about "people being able to form their opinions on their own" it seems like they really like to depend on spoon-fed talking points. This belongs at the top of /r/selfawarewolves
    - alwayseasy 6y ago
      Glad you created an account for this contribution.
throwaway56098 6y ago
>Impressive, a throwaway account that uses the very controversial summary that Barr Or use the latest findings from the lead on the Senate Intel report: 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." Unfortunately it has to be a throwaway because these kinds of facts might as well be thought crimes here.