5 ms·

> that's a very poor comparison to the outright falsehoods perpetuated by propaganda. No it's a very apt one. Millions of people fervently "know" that ample ev

> that's a very poor comparison to the outright falsehoods perpetuated by propaganda. No it's a very apt one. Millions of people fervently "know" that ample evidence exists implicating Trump in colluding with Putin to hack the election. They've never seen it, but they are sure it must be there. Just the same as this wall. > Not only was the Trump campaign never exonerated of the collusion accusations, It was, by the Mueller report. From https://www.justice.gov/archives/sco/file/1373816/download https://www.justice.gov/archives/sco/file/1373816/download Excerpts from p.181-183 "The investigation did not establish that the contacts described in Volume I, Section IV, supra, amounted to an agreement to commit any substantive violation of federal criminal law—including foreign-influence and campaign-finance laws, both of which are discussed further below." "The investigation did not establish any agreement among Campaign officials—or between such officials and Russia-linked individuals—to interfere with or obstruct a lawful function of a government agency during the campaign or transition period. And, as discussed in Volume I, Section V.A, supra, the investigation did not identify evidence that any Campaign official or associate knowingly and intentionally participated in the conspiracy to defraud that the Office charged, namely, the active-measures conspiracy described in Volume I, Section II, supra." "The investigation did not, however, yield evidence sufficient to sustain any charge that any individual affiliated with the Trump Campaign acted as an agent of a foreign principal within the meaning of FARA or, in terms of Section 951, subject to the direction or control of the government of Russia, or any official thereof. In particular, the Office did not find evidence likely to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Campaign officials such as Paul Manafort, George Papadopoulos, and Carter Page acted as agents of the Russian government—or at its direction, control, or request during the relevant time period." > but several associates were convicted for their dealings with Russia related to the election and investigation: No Trump associates or campaign personnel were convicted for their dealings with Russia relating to the election.

notahacker 5y ago
If it was "propaganda" as opposed to credible, unproven allegations you'd be pointing us to paragraphs about how meetings between Trump campaign officers and Russian officials probably or definitely did not happen as alleged, not clutching at the straws of "did not find evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt [specific offence]" in an investigation which substantiated that there was contact between the Trump campaign and Russian operatives and resulted in criminal prosecutions of some of the participants for lying about that contact anyway. When the OP suggest that claims of a South Korean built wall stretching the full length of the border are baseless propaganda, he's not doing so from the starting point that yes, there's obviously a wall going the full length of the border but we can't be confident of convicting its builders of criminal intent
- throwawaylinux 5y ago
  > If it was "propaganda" as opposed to credible, unproven allegations you'd be pointing us to paragraphs about how meetings between Trump campaign officers and Russian officials probably or definitely did not happen as alleged, I have not seen these paragraphs that provide evidence that Trump colluded with Russia to hack the election in the Mueller report. Maybe you could point them out? > not clutching at the straws of "did not find evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt [specific offence]" in an investigation which substantiated that there was contact between the Trump campaign and Russian operatives and resulted in criminal prosecutions of some of the participants for lying about them anyway. "clutching at straws" = refuting the central claims of the Trump/Russia conspiracy theory. > When the OP suggest that claims of a South Korean built wall stretching the full length of the border are baseless propaganda, he's not doing so from the starting point that yes, there's obviously a wall going the full length of the border but we can't be confident of convicting its builders of criminal intent Claims about the existence of evidence of Trump colluding with Putin are exactly the same as claims about the existence of the wall.
  - notahacker 5y ago
    The report consists of nearly 400 pages of evidence supporting three of the central "Russiagate" claims - that Russian agents sought to help Trump, that multiple Trump campaign staff had meetings with Russian operatives, and that Trump himself personally encouraged his campaign staff to take steps to obtain and disseminate Hillary's unlawfully obtained emails as part of his campaign messaging. You will forgive me for not serialising this in an offtopic HN subthread. Though I will leave you with the observation that the words "the Office’s investigation uncovered evidence of numerous links (i.e., contacts) between Trump Campaign officials and individuals having or claiming to have ties to the Russian government" appear on the same page as one of the statements you quoted. This is not the summary Mueller would have made if he had concluded that the insinuation of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian government operatives was "propaganda", as opposed to something which definitely happened albeit not provably in a manner which violated relevant conspiracy law. Of course he didnt conclude that Russia "hacked the election" because that was not an actual literal claim under investigation (if you're interested in whether unsubstantiated and in many cases provably false claims of vote-manipulation by foreign countries are being used for propaganda purposes, there's campaigns on behalf of another defeated Presidential election candidate you might want to look at...). There is one actual claim of "Russiagate" which is tendentious: that Hillary would have won the election in the absence of any Trump campaign contact with Russian operatives. You could even call that propaganda, if you wish, though its more of the optimistic, conjectural framing of political failure than the just make stuff up variety. But that one's well outside the scope of Mueller.

notahacker 5y ago

If it was "propaganda" as opposed to credible, unproven allegations you'd be pointing us to paragraphs about how meetings between Trump campaign officers and Russian officials probably or definitely did not happen as alleged, not clutching at the straws of "did not find evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt [specific offence]" in an investigation which substantiated that there was contact between the Trump campaign and Russian operatives and resulted in criminal prosecutions of some of the participants for lying about that contact anyway. When the OP suggest that claims of a South Korean built wall stretching the full length of the border are baseless propaganda, he's not doing so from the starting point that yes, there's obviously a wall going the full length of the border but we can't be confident of convicting its builders of criminal intent

throwawaylinux 5y ago
> If it was "propaganda" as opposed to credible, unproven allegations you'd be pointing us to paragraphs about how meetings between Trump campaign officers and Russian officials probably or definitely did not happen as alleged, I have not seen these paragraphs that provide evidence that Trump colluded with Russia to hack the election in the Mueller report. Maybe you could point them out? > not clutching at the straws of "did not find evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt [specific offence]" in an investigation which substantiated that there was contact between the Trump campaign and Russian operatives and resulted in criminal prosecutions of some of the participants for lying about them anyway. "clutching at straws" = refuting the central claims of the Trump/Russia conspiracy theory. > When the OP suggest that claims of a South Korean built wall stretching the full length of the border are baseless propaganda, he's not doing so from the starting point that yes, there's obviously a wall going the full length of the border but we can't be confident of convicting its builders of criminal intent Claims about the existence of evidence of Trump colluding with Putin are exactly the same as claims about the existence of the wall.
- notahacker 5y ago
  The report consists of nearly 400 pages of evidence supporting three of the central "Russiagate" claims - that Russian agents sought to help Trump, that multiple Trump campaign staff had meetings with Russian operatives, and that Trump himself personally encouraged his campaign staff to take steps to obtain and disseminate Hillary's unlawfully obtained emails as part of his campaign messaging. You will forgive me for not serialising this in an offtopic HN subthread. Though I will leave you with the observation that the words "the Office’s investigation uncovered evidence of numerous links (i.e., contacts) between Trump Campaign officials and individuals having or claiming to have ties to the Russian government" appear on the same page as one of the statements you quoted. This is not the summary Mueller would have made if he had concluded that the insinuation of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian government operatives was "propaganda", as opposed to something which definitely happened albeit not provably in a manner which violated relevant conspiracy law. Of course he didnt conclude that Russia "hacked the election" because that was not an actual literal claim under investigation (if you're interested in whether unsubstantiated and in many cases provably false claims of vote-manipulation by foreign countries are being used for propaganda purposes, there's campaigns on behalf of another defeated Presidential election candidate you might want to look at...). There is one actual claim of "Russiagate" which is tendentious: that Hillary would have won the election in the absence of any Trump campaign contact with Russian operatives. You could even call that propaganda, if you wish, though its more of the optimistic, conjectural framing of political failure than the just make stuff up variety. But that one's well outside the scope of Mueller.