4 ms·

I know about those, and they were not "follow up" or really close the whole strange issue about the Trump Russia scandal at all. https://www.vox.com/policy-and

I know about those, and they were not "follow up" or really close the whole strange issue about the Trump Russia scandal at all. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/2/20/17031772/mueller-indictments-grand-jury https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/2/20/17031772/m... 1) George Papadopoulos, former Trump campaign foreign policy adviser, making false statements to the FBI. He got a 14-day sentence. 2) Paul Manafort, Trump’s former campaign chair, was indicted on a total of 25 different counts by Mueller’s team, related mainly to his past work for Ukrainian politicians and his finances. 3) Rick Gates, a former Trump campaign aide and Manafort’s longtime junior business partner, was indicted on similar charges to Manafort. 4) Michael Flynn, Trump’s former national security adviser, pleaded guilty in December 2017 to making false statements to the FBI. 36) Michael Cohen: In August 2018, Trump’s former lawyer pleaded guilty to 8 counts — tax and bank charges, related to his finances and taxi business, and campaign finance violations 37) Roger Stone: In January 2019, Mueller indicted longtime Trump adviser Roger Stone on 7 counts. He accused Stone of lying to the House Intelligence Committee about his efforts to get in touch with WikiLeaks during the campaign, and tampering with a witness who could have debunked his story. It wasn't all that many people at all really and none of the ones vaguely related to Trump had anything to do with colluding with Putin or hacking the election. Where was the evidence that kicked all this off? Where was the evidence that kept it all going for nearly 3 years? Even right after the Mueller report was released nobody retracted anything and everybody falsely claimed that it did not exonerate Trump, (which it pretty clearly did of the main thrust of the investigation and media circus that had gone on which was of Trump colluding with Putin to hack the election, for which Mueller stated clearly they found no substantial evidence for). Then everybody just kind of forgot about it and moved on. None of that strikes you as slightly odd? All seems above board, no unanswered questions left. Not concerned that maybe Putin got to Mueller and Schiff as well? Doesn't strike you as even slightly strange that all the news corporations who were banging the "ample evidence" that Trump colluded with Putin drum for years were suddenly perfectly fine with the Mueller report which said that no such evidence had ever been found? Not strange that any of these trusted journalists and truth seekers were placated by that and all in unison decided that was the end of the story, nothing more to investigate?

rsj_hn 5y ago
Absolutely none of these were found guilty of "Russian collusion", "hacking the election", or any such thing. Especially notable is Ukraine bribery, which is something both parties are guilty of, but part of the reason why you do not see cries that Ukraine hacked the election is that we launched a coup there and installed an extremely corrupt government (one that pays lots of bribes to US elites). That government is an enemy of Russia, so I don't see how these (legitimate) concerns about Ukrainian payoffs have much bearing on the Putin-puppet thesis. I guess they are both slavic nations, so hey, that should be good enough for low information voters. The rest were all charged for things like making false statements, tax evasion, etc. Given the general witchunts and prosecutorial abuse of that era, you'd think they'd be able to convict just one person for something related to "hacking the election" or "colluding" with Russians.

rsj_hn 5y ago

Absolutely none of these were found guilty of "Russian collusion", "hacking the election", or any such thing. Especially notable is Ukraine bribery, which is something both parties are guilty of, but part of the reason why you do not see cries that Ukraine hacked the election is that we launched a coup there and installed an extremely corrupt government (one that pays lots of bribes to US elites). That government is an enemy of Russia, so I don't see how these (legitimate) concerns about Ukrainian payoffs have much bearing on the Putin-puppet thesis. I guess they are both slavic nations, so hey, that should be good enough for low information voters. The rest were all charged for things like making false statements, tax evasion, etc. Given the general witchunts and prosecutorial abuse of that era, you'd think they'd be able to convict just one person for something related to "hacking the election" or "colluding" with Russians.