5 ms·

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 Mu

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...
- the_optimist 5y ago
  There was no evidence that would support a criminal prosecution. You say it yourself. What exactly are you trying to rebut here?
  - tylerhou 5y ago
    The original poster said: > 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? and > there never was any evidence for... the conspiracy theory that Trump or his campaign colluded with Putin to hack (or otherwise subvert) the election These claims are strictly not true; Mueller found many instances where the Trump campaign directly worked with Russian officials in order to "get dirt on" Clinton or provided demographic information to Russian officials that helped those officials run (illegal) advertising/marketing campaigns for Trump. Just none of them were prosecutable based on the available evidence, according to Mueller.
    - the_optimist 5y ago
      You're going to need to cite evidence. I read the Mueller report and found there no statements consistent with yours. Edit: I see you edited to remove your strong claim and dilute it with an interpretation that you have provided, which is legally meaningless.
      - tylerhou 5y ago
        My "stronger claim" is my original claim, just rephrased, so don't pretend that I have moved any goalposts. These statements are in the Mueller report, as you can see for yourself. https://www.justice.gov/archives/sco/file/1373816/download https://www.justice.gov/archives/sco/file/1373816/download. > The meeting was proposed to Donald Trump Jr. in an email from Robert Goldstone, at the request of his then-client Emin Agalarov, the son of Russian real-estate developer Aras Agalarov. Goldstone relayed to Trump Jr. that the “Crown prosecutor of Russia . . . offered to provide the Trump Campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia” as “part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump.” Trump Jr. immediately responded that “if it’s what you say I love it,” and arranged the meeting through a series of emails and telephone calls. (Page 110, under the heading "June 9, 2016 Meeting at Trump Tower.") They are also not legally meaningless, and they aren't even my interpretation, which you would know if you had actually bothered to read the Mueller report or look up the relevant sections. Mueller himself said the reason why he did not prosecute is because (to him) it did not have sufficient evidence to prosecute. But just because the Justice Department wouldn't be able to convict doesn't mean that it is legal to accept information on a political opponent from an agent of a foreign government. > On the facts here, the government would unlikely be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the June 9 meeting participants had general knowledge that their conduct was unlawful. The investigation has not developed evidence that the participants in the meeting were familiar with the foreign-contribution ban or the application of federal law to the relevant factual context. (Page 187 of the Mueller report.) > The Office would also encounter difficulty proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the value of the promised documents and information exceeds the $2,000 threshold for a criminal violation, as well as the $25,000 threshold for felony punishment. (Page 188, ibid.)

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...

the_optimist 5y ago
There was no evidence that would support a criminal prosecution. You say it yourself. What exactly are you trying to rebut here?
- tylerhou 5y ago
  The original poster said: > 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? and > there never was any evidence for... the conspiracy theory that Trump or his campaign colluded with Putin to hack (or otherwise subvert) the election These claims are strictly not true; Mueller found many instances where the Trump campaign directly worked with Russian officials in order to "get dirt on" Clinton or provided demographic information to Russian officials that helped those officials run (illegal) advertising/marketing campaigns for Trump. Just none of them were prosecutable based on the available evidence, according to Mueller.
  - the_optimist 5y ago
    You're going to need to cite evidence. I read the Mueller report and found there no statements consistent with yours. Edit: I see you edited to remove your strong claim and dilute it with an interpretation that you have provided, which is legally meaningless.
    - tylerhou 5y ago
      My "stronger claim" is my original claim, just rephrased, so don't pretend that I have moved any goalposts. These statements are in the Mueller report, as you can see for yourself. https://www.justice.gov/archives/sco/file/1373816/download https://www.justice.gov/archives/sco/file/1373816/download. > The meeting was proposed to Donald Trump Jr. in an email from Robert Goldstone, at the request of his then-client Emin Agalarov, the son of Russian real-estate developer Aras Agalarov. Goldstone relayed to Trump Jr. that the “Crown prosecutor of Russia . . . offered to provide the Trump Campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia” as “part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump.” Trump Jr. immediately responded that “if it’s what you say I love it,” and arranged the meeting through a series of emails and telephone calls. (Page 110, under the heading "June 9, 2016 Meeting at Trump Tower.") They are also not legally meaningless, and they aren't even my interpretation, which you would know if you had actually bothered to read the Mueller report or look up the relevant sections. Mueller himself said the reason why he did not prosecute is because (to him) it did not have sufficient evidence to prosecute. But just because the Justice Department wouldn't be able to convict doesn't mean that it is legal to accept information on a political opponent from an agent of a foreign government. > On the facts here, the government would unlikely be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the June 9 meeting participants had general knowledge that their conduct was unlawful. The investigation has not developed evidence that the participants in the meeting were familiar with the foreign-contribution ban or the application of federal law to the relevant factual context. (Page 187 of the Mueller report.) > The Office would also encounter difficulty proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the value of the promised documents and information exceeds the $2,000 threshold for a criminal violation, as well as the $25,000 threshold for felony punishment. (Page 188, ibid.)