4 ms·

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 som

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.
  - ultramundane8 6y ago
    The fact that you're retreating to the semantics of the word narrative and ignoring all surrounding words is a dead giveaway that your blinders are growing longer.
    - orblivion 6y ago
      Well, that should be enough to convince you that I shouldn't be in charge of what claims people get to make on YouTube. Anyway, it kind of sounds like Manafort is involved in a conspiracy of some sort to cover up wrongdoing by the Russians. But it just feels like weasel wording. It sounds bad but I'm not sure what it really means. Is the implication that the Russians did Trump the favor of the social media campaign, and Manafort is doing them the favor of helping them cover it up? That's the quid pro quo? I don't want to give anyone the benefit of the doubt here, I want to hear the point.

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.
- ultramundane8 6y ago
  The fact that you're retreating to the semantics of the word narrative and ignoring all surrounding words is a dead giveaway that your blinders are growing longer.
  - orblivion 6y ago
    Well, that should be enough to convince you that I shouldn't be in charge of what claims people get to make on YouTube. Anyway, it kind of sounds like Manafort is involved in a conspiracy of some sort to cover up wrongdoing by the Russians. But it just feels like weasel wording. It sounds bad but I'm not sure what it really means. Is the implication that the Russians did Trump the favor of the social media campaign, and Manafort is doing them the favor of helping them cover it up? That's the quid pro quo? I don't want to give anyone the benefit of the doubt here, I want to hear the point.