12 ms·

If the FBI can use the Russia thing on a presidential candidate, they can use it on anybody.

spankyspangler 5y ago
Not just a presidential candidate, but a president. Did you know that after all those years of investigations, all those years of the house intelligence committee chairman and others insisting that there was "ample evidence" that Trump colluded with Putin to hack the election... in the end, The Mueller report admitted that no evidence was ever found to substantiate Trump or his associates or campaign ever working with Russians to interfere with the election? I found that really crazy when I found that out. What's even crazier is that everyone just quietly kind of stopped talking about it. Nobody wants to confront the fact they were badly manipulated, deluded, and lied to. Or they're comfortable with their own reality in which their enemies are the ultimate evil and their side is pure and good. That's why these things will never be fixed.
- temp8964 5y ago
  But the Mueller team was good at covering their own ass. At Least 27 Phones from Special Counsel’s Office Were Wiped before DOJ Inspector General Could Review Them https://news.yahoo.com/least-27-phones-special-counsel-212933558.html https://news.yahoo.com/least-27-phones-special-counsel-21293...
  - teclordphrack2 5y ago
    And? Standard IT practice.
    - gowld 5y ago
      No, it's not standard IT practice for dozens of people (>10% of the team?) to suddenly spam incorrect passwords into their phones at approximately the same time.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- twic 5y ago
  It's not just that - some people will still, today, insist that Trump was working with Russia. When you point out that investigations found nothing, they point to some random minor finding as if that vindicates them. It's genuinely concerning.
  - penultimatename 5y ago
    I find it more odd that people hand-wave a political campaign meeting with a foreign government for political dirt on an opponent. That is truly genuinely concerning.
    - sthnblllII 5y ago
      You mean like how the Clinton campaign paid a foreign intelligence broker in the UK to dig up dirt about her opponent? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steele_dossier https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steele_dossier I find that "truly genuinely concerning" and totally expected given who the Clintons are. Trump has so much dirty on him but this isnt it. Feigning outrage over one if these corrupt politicians but not the other is purely political partisanship and not productive.
      - penultimatename 5y ago
        I think your failure to acknowledge the difference between a private company paid for services and a foreign government offering their services for free says who is the partisan one here.
        sthnblllII 5y ago
        The Clintons and Trump (and the Bidens and the Kushners) are corrupt. Saying one is more corrupt as a defense of another is just playing into the idea that you have to support one of them. You don't. Edit: going around flagging my comments with your main account doesnt make you right.
  - anoonmoose 5y ago
- knightofmars 5y ago
  The phrase "Russian collusion" has become a catch-all for anything involving Russian influence, it's ridiculous and it over simplifies reality. The basis for the (actual) Russian collusion investigation had a reasonable starting point. Joseph Mifsud[0], the guy that nobody can find right now. It was absolutely worth investigating and it's disappointing that it became the dog-and-pony show it did. And Russia interfering with foreign elections is real[1]. There are plenty of other sources as well that cover the ongoing efforts by GRU and other Russian groups to influence the election process in many countries. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Mifsud https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Mifsud [1]https://www.blackhat.com/us-20/briefings/schedule/index.html#hacking-the-voter-lessons-from-a-decade-of-russian-military-operations-20555 https://www.blackhat.com/us-20/briefings/schedule/index.html...
  - temp8964 5y ago
    There is nothing new about Russia interfering with foreign elections. What is new is that a presidential candidate can be accused of colluding with Russia. You can't just go back to say "Russian collusion" means something else, when in fact the mainstream media and the Democrat Party members at the time was claiming Trump colluded with Putin.
    - wavefunction 5y ago
      Throwaway account because you're not proud to take credit for what you're claiming? Don't worry, I didn't downvote you, other than with this post.
      - temp8964 5y ago
        Thanks. I feel I said lots of stupid things in the past, so I created a long-term throwaway account.
    - teclordphrack2 5y ago
      There was collusion. Manafort gave polling data to the russians.
- Paradigma11 5y ago
  Trumps campaign manager Manafort worked for some shady ukrain/russian oligarchs. Trumps future NSA worked for the turks the whole campaign. Trumps son arranged a meeting between the campaign and representatives of the criminal russian influence campaign. It really seems like they were not able to establish an effective cooperation but would you not want the FBI to investigate such cicumstances?
  - spankyspangler 5y ago
    The Muller investigation was able to produce no evidence of a criminal conspiracy or collusion. Doesn't it strike you that the response was a bit overblown then, in that case, knowing now that the whole time it was all going on, nobody had any actual evidence?
- runjake 5y ago
  The fact that multiple people very close to Trump (Manafort, Stone, Gates, Flynn), both personally and operational, met with Russian intelligence agents and assets helps the argument that the DOJ should be looking into Trump himself.
  - sthnblllII 5y ago
    >the DOJ should be looking into Trump himself. Anyone still trying to stir up this nonsense partisan battle is just distracting from the recent major world events.
    - sk1459 5y ago
      Contextualizing events with the knowledge that the FBI has shown itself to be a modern NKVD and the “intelligentsia” in journalism are happy to be mouthpieces of the US oligarchy actually saves you a lot of confusion. Being lost in the moment of a blizzard of “crises” that really aren’t is intellectually paralyzing. Probably intentionally so.
  - mc32 5y ago
    Hmm, should they likewise look into J Kerry meeting with foreign diplomats whilst not being in the then current administration too?
    - gebruikersnaam 5y ago
      Only if he pretended to represent the US administration. Did he do that? Otherwise it's just a private citizen meeting with foreign diplomats, which happens all the time and there's nothing nefarious about that.
      - mc32 5y ago
        Things like these: https://nypost.com/2021/04/26/iran-foreign-minister-says-john-kerry-met-with-him-during-trump-years/ https://nypost.com/2021/04/26/iran-foreign-minister-says-joh... https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-iran-pompeo/pompeo-slams-kerry-for-inappropriate-meetings-with-iran-officials-idUSKCN1LU2NY https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-iran-pompeo/pompeo-sl... Maybe it's all politicking, but then if it's good for the goose it's good for the gander.
mc32 5y ago
The sad thing about this is I understand many people disliked Trump and were pleased by this, but, unfortunately that sword is double edged and all candidates have to dance to their tune, meaning they have to let them go beyond their purview or mission and maintain inertial agendas —which should not be the case. They are supposed to look at interstate crime among some other things.
- tored 5y ago
  Yes, remember that presidential candidate Bernie Sanders also got smeared with Russian interference, so it is not something only used on Trump or Trump supporters. In my country, Sweden, alleging connections to Russia or Putin is often used in the political discourse to silence individuals or groups, without any sort of proof. It has happened both on the right and the left. We have to remember that many journalists in the west are funded by the security apparatus or any of it subsidiaries.
  - temp8964 5y ago
    Did FBI investigate Bernie Sanders and his associates?
    - tored 5y ago
      Not officially to my knowledge, so it is not exactly the same, but he was briefed by the "intelligence community" about it and that was used to smear his campaign.
    - mc32 5y ago
      The accusation stuck enough that nothing further had to be put forth.
    - teclordphrack2 5y ago
      Na, cause Bernies team did not speak with the russians unlike trumps team whom spoke with, meet with, and gave information to the russians.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
mint2 5y ago
Let’s be real. There was a trump Russia thing. It’s beyond sketchy to have your campaign manager and his aid literally provide internal polling data to Russian intelligence. And Russia was undeniably trying to help trump win, and trump was undeniably pleased that was happening. I don’t get why people deny this happened.
- tored 5y ago
  Can you provide a source on that claim of polling data to Russian intelligence?
  - nawgz 5y ago
    I googled "polling data to Russian intelligence" https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-paul-manafort-russia-campaigns-konstantin-kilimnik-d2fdefdb37077e28eba135e21fce6ebf https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-paul-manafort-russia...
    - tored 5y ago
      Thanks. Answered this here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27156995 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27156995
  - tw04 5y ago
    His own lawyers admitted to it in documents they tried (and failed) to redact: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/manafort-says-he-didn-t-lie-federal-investigators-n956276 https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/manafort... Because apparently we're going to pretend that NBCnews is somehow not a reputable news source, the link to the actual document so we can stop trying to change the subject: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/5677512/Manafort-20190108-Dc.pdf https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/5677512/Manafort-... Page 6, copy and paste the blacked out text: >The same is true with regard to the Government’s allegation that Mr. Manafort lied about sharing polling data with Mr. Kilimnik related to the 2016 presidential campaign. (See Doc. 460 at 6). The simple fact that Mr. Manafort could not recall, or incorrectly recalled, specific events from his past dealings with Mr. Kilimnik – but often (after being shown or told about relevant documents or other evidence) corrected himself or clarified his responses – does not support a determination that he intentionally lied.
tootie 5y ago
This is a very weasely statement. The FBI and multiple other agencies investigated a very real campaign of election influence that swirled around a particular candidate. No one ever made an accusation that wasn't supported by facts. There was no concerted effort to punish a candidate. Proxies to the candidate were tried and convicted for their very real crimes.
- the_optimist 5y ago
  Your statement is simply false. There were four years of allegations and strong innuendo floated in congress and the press, as well as extraordinary use of carefully worded statements to sustain extralegal focus with zero evidence of behavior that would violate an actual law. No one was charged with or found guilty of anything other than conjured process crimes. History will not forgive, and it will not forget.
  - tootie 5y ago
    "Process crimes" is the refrain of the denier. The process crimes in question involved obstructing the investigation that could have uncovered more evidence. That is tantamount to full guilt. We know for a fact that Roger Stone worked with the campaign and Guccifer 2.0 and WikiLeaks. He refused to cooperate and waited for his pardon. Manafort was reporting to his Russian handler while he was campaign manager. Trump Jr met with Russian agents about emails at Trump Tower. There was plenty of legitimate crime going on but the standard for a president shouldn't be conviction beyond a reasonable doubt. His open encouragement of Russian hacking even under the guise of "sarcasm" was grotesquely inappropriate. His refusal to confront Russia was shameful. His continued conspiring with his agents in Ukraine were plain as day and showed his willingness to break any rules he could to meet his ends. Trump, who won his campaign on ludicrous conspiracy theories spent his final days in office fomenting insurrection and suing relentlessly to overturn the election based on lies. His crimes done in broad daylight are 1000x worse than the ones we can't thoroughly prove.
- temp8964 5y ago
  "No one ever made an accusation that wasn't supported by facts. " Wow.

Not just a presidential candidate, but a president. Did you know that after all those years of investigations, all those years of the house intelligence committee chairman and others insisting that there was "ample evidence" that Trump colluded with Putin to hack the election... in the end, The Mueller report admitted that no evidence was ever found to substantiate Trump or his associates or campaign ever working with Russians to interfere with the election? I found that really crazy when I found that out. What's even crazier is that everyone just quietly kind of stopped talking about it. Nobody wants to confront the fact they were badly manipulated, deluded, and lied to. Or they're comfortable with their own reality in which their enemies are the ultimate evil and their side is pure and good. That's why these things will never be fixed.

temp8964 5y ago
But the Mueller team was good at covering their own ass. At Least 27 Phones from Special Counsel’s Office Were Wiped before DOJ Inspector General Could Review Them https://news.yahoo.com/least-27-phones-special-counsel-212933558.html https://news.yahoo.com/least-27-phones-special-counsel-21293...
- teclordphrack2 5y ago
  And? Standard IT practice.
  - gowld 5y ago
    No, it's not standard IT practice for dozens of people (>10% of the team?) to suddenly spam incorrect passwords into their phones at approximately the same time.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
twic 5y ago
It's not just that - some people will still, today, insist that Trump was working with Russia. When you point out that investigations found nothing, they point to some random minor finding as if that vindicates them. It's genuinely concerning.
- penultimatename 5y ago
  I find it more odd that people hand-wave a political campaign meeting with a foreign government for political dirt on an opponent. That is truly genuinely concerning.
  - sthnblllII 5y ago
    You mean like how the Clinton campaign paid a foreign intelligence broker in the UK to dig up dirt about her opponent? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steele_dossier https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steele_dossier I find that "truly genuinely concerning" and totally expected given who the Clintons are. Trump has so much dirty on him but this isnt it. Feigning outrage over one if these corrupt politicians but not the other is purely political partisanship and not productive.
    - penultimatename 5y ago
      I think your failure to acknowledge the difference between a private company paid for services and a foreign government offering their services for free says who is the partisan one here.
      - sthnblllII 5y ago
        The Clintons and Trump (and the Bidens and the Kushners) are corrupt. Saying one is more corrupt as a defense of another is just playing into the idea that you have to support one of them. You don't. Edit: going around flagging my comments with your main account doesnt make you right.
- anoonmoose 5y ago
knightofmars 5y ago
The phrase "Russian collusion" has become a catch-all for anything involving Russian influence, it's ridiculous and it over simplifies reality. The basis for the (actual) Russian collusion investigation had a reasonable starting point. Joseph Mifsud[0], the guy that nobody can find right now. It was absolutely worth investigating and it's disappointing that it became the dog-and-pony show it did. And Russia interfering with foreign elections is real[1]. There are plenty of other sources as well that cover the ongoing efforts by GRU and other Russian groups to influence the election process in many countries. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Mifsud https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Mifsud [1]https://www.blackhat.com/us-20/briefings/schedule/index.html#hacking-the-voter-lessons-from-a-decade-of-russian-military-operations-20555 https://www.blackhat.com/us-20/briefings/schedule/index.html...
- temp8964 5y ago
  There is nothing new about Russia interfering with foreign elections. What is new is that a presidential candidate can be accused of colluding with Russia. You can't just go back to say "Russian collusion" means something else, when in fact the mainstream media and the Democrat Party members at the time was claiming Trump colluded with Putin.
  - wavefunction 5y ago
    Throwaway account because you're not proud to take credit for what you're claiming? Don't worry, I didn't downvote you, other than with this post.
    - temp8964 5y ago
      Thanks. I feel I said lots of stupid things in the past, so I created a long-term throwaway account.
  - teclordphrack2 5y ago
    There was collusion. Manafort gave polling data to the russians.
Paradigma11 5y ago
Trumps campaign manager Manafort worked for some shady ukrain/russian oligarchs. Trumps future NSA worked for the turks the whole campaign. Trumps son arranged a meeting between the campaign and representatives of the criminal russian influence campaign. It really seems like they were not able to establish an effective cooperation but would you not want the FBI to investigate such cicumstances?
- spankyspangler 5y ago
  The Muller investigation was able to produce no evidence of a criminal conspiracy or collusion. Doesn't it strike you that the response was a bit overblown then, in that case, knowing now that the whole time it was all going on, nobody had any actual evidence?
runjake 5y ago
The fact that multiple people very close to Trump (Manafort, Stone, Gates, Flynn), both personally and operational, met with Russian intelligence agents and assets helps the argument that the DOJ should be looking into Trump himself.
- sthnblllII 5y ago
  >the DOJ should be looking into Trump himself. Anyone still trying to stir up this nonsense partisan battle is just distracting from the recent major world events.
  - sk1459 5y ago
    Contextualizing events with the knowledge that the FBI has shown itself to be a modern NKVD and the “intelligentsia” in journalism are happy to be mouthpieces of the US oligarchy actually saves you a lot of confusion. Being lost in the moment of a blizzard of “crises” that really aren’t is intellectually paralyzing. Probably intentionally so.
- mc32 5y ago
  Hmm, should they likewise look into J Kerry meeting with foreign diplomats whilst not being in the then current administration too?
  - gebruikersnaam 5y ago
    Only if he pretended to represent the US administration. Did he do that? Otherwise it's just a private citizen meeting with foreign diplomats, which happens all the time and there's nothing nefarious about that.
    - mc32 5y ago
      Things like these: https://nypost.com/2021/04/26/iran-foreign-minister-says-john-kerry-met-with-him-during-trump-years/ https://nypost.com/2021/04/26/iran-foreign-minister-says-joh... https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-iran-pompeo/pompeo-slams-kerry-for-inappropriate-meetings-with-iran-officials-idUSKCN1LU2NY https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-iran-pompeo/pompeo-sl... Maybe it's all politicking, but then if it's good for the goose it's good for the gander.

mc32 5y ago

The sad thing about this is I understand many people disliked Trump and were pleased by this, but, unfortunately that sword is double edged and all candidates have to dance to their tune, meaning they have to let them go beyond their purview or mission and maintain inertial agendas —which should not be the case. They are supposed to look at interstate crime among some other things.

tored 5y ago
Yes, remember that presidential candidate Bernie Sanders also got smeared with Russian interference, so it is not something only used on Trump or Trump supporters. In my country, Sweden, alleging connections to Russia or Putin is often used in the political discourse to silence individuals or groups, without any sort of proof. It has happened both on the right and the left. We have to remember that many journalists in the west are funded by the security apparatus or any of it subsidiaries.
- temp8964 5y ago
  Did FBI investigate Bernie Sanders and his associates?
  - tored 5y ago
    Not officially to my knowledge, so it is not exactly the same, but he was briefed by the "intelligence community" about it and that was used to smear his campaign.
  - mc32 5y ago
    The accusation stuck enough that nothing further had to be put forth.
  - teclordphrack2 5y ago
    Na, cause Bernies team did not speak with the russians unlike trumps team whom spoke with, meet with, and gave information to the russians.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

mint2 5y ago

Let’s be real. There was a trump Russia thing. It’s beyond sketchy to have your campaign manager and his aid literally provide internal polling data to Russian intelligence. And Russia was undeniably trying to help trump win, and trump was undeniably pleased that was happening. I don’t get why people deny this happened.

tored 5y ago
Can you provide a source on that claim of polling data to Russian intelligence?
- nawgz 5y ago
  I googled "polling data to Russian intelligence" https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-paul-manafort-russia-campaigns-konstantin-kilimnik-d2fdefdb37077e28eba135e21fce6ebf https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-paul-manafort-russia...
  - tored 5y ago
    Thanks. Answered this here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27156995 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27156995
- tw04 5y ago
  His own lawyers admitted to it in documents they tried (and failed) to redact: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/manafort-says-he-didn-t-lie-federal-investigators-n956276 https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/manafort... Because apparently we're going to pretend that NBCnews is somehow not a reputable news source, the link to the actual document so we can stop trying to change the subject: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/5677512/Manafort-20190108-Dc.pdf https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/5677512/Manafort-... Page 6, copy and paste the blacked out text: >The same is true with regard to the Government’s allegation that Mr. Manafort lied about sharing polling data with Mr. Kilimnik related to the 2016 presidential campaign. (See Doc. 460 at 6). The simple fact that Mr. Manafort could not recall, or incorrectly recalled, specific events from his past dealings with Mr. Kilimnik – but often (after being shown or told about relevant documents or other evidence) corrected himself or clarified his responses – does not support a determination that he intentionally lied.

tootie 5y ago

This is a very weasely statement. The FBI and multiple other agencies investigated a very real campaign of election influence that swirled around a particular candidate. No one ever made an accusation that wasn't supported by facts. There was no concerted effort to punish a candidate. Proxies to the candidate were tried and convicted for their very real crimes.

the_optimist 5y ago
Your statement is simply false. There were four years of allegations and strong innuendo floated in congress and the press, as well as extraordinary use of carefully worded statements to sustain extralegal focus with zero evidence of behavior that would violate an actual law. No one was charged with or found guilty of anything other than conjured process crimes. History will not forgive, and it will not forget.
- tootie 5y ago
  "Process crimes" is the refrain of the denier. The process crimes in question involved obstructing the investigation that could have uncovered more evidence. That is tantamount to full guilt. We know for a fact that Roger Stone worked with the campaign and Guccifer 2.0 and WikiLeaks. He refused to cooperate and waited for his pardon. Manafort was reporting to his Russian handler while he was campaign manager. Trump Jr met with Russian agents about emails at Trump Tower. There was plenty of legitimate crime going on but the standard for a president shouldn't be conviction beyond a reasonable doubt. His open encouragement of Russian hacking even under the guise of "sarcasm" was grotesquely inappropriate. His refusal to confront Russia was shameful. His continued conspiring with his agents in Ukraine were plain as day and showed his willingness to break any rules he could to meet his ends. Trump, who won his campaign on ludicrous conspiracy theories spent his final days in office fomenting insurrection and suing relentlessly to overturn the election based on lies. His crimes done in broad daylight are 1000x worse than the ones we can't thoroughly prove.
temp8964 5y ago
"No one ever made an accusation that wasn't supported by facts. " Wow.