5 ms·

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 t

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.
  - _-david-_ 5y ago
    So did the media. Are wr going to arrest any news commentator who was viewed by a Russian?
    - teclordphrack2 5y ago
      Yeah, those are not the same thing. You are not open to an honest debate.
- chaosharmonic 5y ago
  It's also new for a presidential candidate to literally ask for their assistance on live TV.
  - the_optimist 5y ago
    The deep-state circus that followed was clearly rooted in this. Don’t make them mad.
  - spankyspangler 5y ago
    This? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kxG8uJUsWU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kxG8uJUsWU Clearly a joke at the expense of the ineptitude of his opponent's campaign. The fact people point to this as their "evidence" is pretty clearly desperation and self-delusion. There was no evidence. You were lied to.
    - chaosharmonic 5y ago
      Right, because it's not like he's lied about this specific event in campaign speeches[0], or specifically asked a foreign power to assist in digging up dirt on an opponent on live TV more than once[1] or anything... [0] https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1310009283401187330 https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1310009283401187330 [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1Q67tAUiMg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1Q67tAUiMg
spankyspangler 5y ago
No I don't think it did have a reasonable starting point at all. Extra-ordinary claims require extra ordinary evidence, and as it turned out (as explained in Mueller's report), there never was any evidence for it. I'm not talking about vague suggestions of Russian interference, I'm talking about the conspiracy theory that Trump or his campaign colluded with Putin to hack (or otherwise subvert) the election. It never should have got past a few low level intelligence lackeys. The fact you had the chairman of the house intelligence committee as well as countless other powerful politicians, "trusted" journalists, ex-intelligence agency heads, etc. all insisting for years that there was "ample evidence" for it, is just utterly insane in my view. It was obviously just pure lies and dishonesty for political advantage.
- gebruikersnaam 5y ago
  > there was "ample evidence" for it Funny you don't mention the Senate committee (led by Republicans) which found the same evidence.
  - spankyspangler 5y ago
    What same evidence?
- tylerhou 5y ago
  > as it turned out (as explained in Mueller's report), there never was any evidence for it. Can you actually quote the report to support your claims? The report actually says that there was evidence to support communication/collusion between the Trump campaign & Russian officials, but not enough evidence [that we know of] to support criminal charges. This is for two reasons: 1) The "dirt" given at the Trump tower meeting was not valuable enough to prosecute under campaign finance laws. 2) The individuals present at the meeting did not know that their conduct was illegal, so they could not be charged under the law. So really, Mueller's report said that there was not enough evidence to meet a criminal prosecution, but there was evidence. That's a very different claim than "no evidence." It's also not possible to prove a negative ("there was never evidence"), and given the numerous cases of obstruction, it is possible that the evidence needed to support criminal charges was covered up. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/01/26/us/politics/trump-contacts-russians-wikileaks.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/01/26/us/politics/t...
pjc50 5y ago
Also convicted spy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria_Butina https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria_Butina

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.
- _-david-_ 5y ago
  So did the media. Are wr going to arrest any news commentator who was viewed by a Russian?
  - teclordphrack2 5y ago
    Yeah, those are not the same thing. You are not open to an honest debate.
chaosharmonic 5y ago
It's also new for a presidential candidate to literally ask for their assistance on live TV.
- the_optimist 5y ago
  The deep-state circus that followed was clearly rooted in this. Don’t make them mad.
- spankyspangler 5y ago
  This? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kxG8uJUsWU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kxG8uJUsWU Clearly a joke at the expense of the ineptitude of his opponent's campaign. The fact people point to this as their "evidence" is pretty clearly desperation and self-delusion. There was no evidence. You were lied to.
  - chaosharmonic 5y ago
    Right, because it's not like he's lied about this specific event in campaign speeches[0], or specifically asked a foreign power to assist in digging up dirt on an opponent on live TV more than once[1] or anything... [0] https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1310009283401187330 https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1310009283401187330 [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1Q67tAUiMg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1Q67tAUiMg

spankyspangler 5y ago

No I don't think it did have a reasonable starting point at all. Extra-ordinary claims require extra ordinary evidence, and as it turned out (as explained in Mueller's report), there never was any evidence for it. I'm not talking about vague suggestions of Russian interference, I'm talking about the conspiracy theory that Trump or his campaign colluded with Putin to hack (or otherwise subvert) the election. It never should have got past a few low level intelligence lackeys. The fact you had the chairman of the house intelligence committee as well as countless other powerful politicians, "trusted" journalists, ex-intelligence agency heads, etc. all insisting for years that there was "ample evidence" for it, is just utterly insane in my view. It was obviously just pure lies and dishonesty for political advantage.

gebruikersnaam 5y ago
> there was "ample evidence" for it Funny you don't mention the Senate committee (led by Republicans) which found the same evidence.
- spankyspangler 5y ago
  What same evidence?
tylerhou 5y ago
> as it turned out (as explained in Mueller's report), there never was any evidence for it. Can you actually quote the report to support your claims? The report actually says that there was evidence to support communication/collusion between the Trump campaign & Russian officials, but not enough evidence [that we know of] to support criminal charges. This is for two reasons: 1) The "dirt" given at the Trump tower meeting was not valuable enough to prosecute under campaign finance laws. 2) The individuals present at the meeting did not know that their conduct was illegal, so they could not be charged under the law. So really, Mueller's report said that there was not enough evidence to meet a criminal prosecution, but there was evidence. That's a very different claim than "no evidence." It's also not possible to prove a negative ("there was never evidence"), and given the numerous cases of obstruction, it is possible that the evidence needed to support criminal charges was covered up. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/01/26/us/politics/trump-contacts-russians-wikileaks.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/01/26/us/politics/t...

pjc50 5y ago

Also convicted spy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria_Butina https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria_Butina