4 ms·

A couple of Facebook groups, memes, and Twitter posts by Russian trolls != collusion. The left was screaming about Trump directly colluding with the Russians.

by YATA0 5y ago

A couple of Facebook groups, memes, and Twitter posts by Russian trolls != collusion. The left was screaming about Trump directly colluding with the Russians. When the facts came out and it was clear he didn't collude, the goal posts shifted to "well the Russian troll farms helped Trump win!" That's not collusion.

dane-pgp 5y ago
We're talking about more than "Russian troll farms" here: > Trump and his associates' participation in and enabling of this Russian activity If you want to understand more, there is a summary of "Links between Trump associates and Russian officials" in the Wikipedia article about "Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections"[0], including this section, for example: > In the email, Goldstone said the information had come from the Russian government and "was part of a Russian government effort to help Donald Trump's presidential campaign". Trump Jr. replied with an e-mail saying "If it's what you say I love it especially later in the summer" and arranged the meeting. Trump Jr. went to the meeting expecting to receive information harmful to the Clinton campaign, but he said none was forthcoming, and instead the conversation then turned to [US sanctions against Russia] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections#Links_between_Trump_associates_and_Russian_officials https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_20...
- YATA0 5y ago
  >We're talking about more than "Russian troll farms" here Not really, no. From your own source: "The Special Counsel's report, made public in April 2019, examined numerous contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian officials but concluded that there was insufficient evidence to bring any conspiracy or coordination charges against Trump or his associates." It literally states there was no evidence of collision or conspiracy.
  - dane-pgp 5y ago
    The Wikipedia article doesn't actually provide a citation for that conclusion, and if you follow the link through to the article about "The Special Counsel's report", i.e. the Mueller Report, you'll find that: > Mueller privately wrote to Barr, stating that the March 24 Barr letter "did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this office's work and conclusions" Bear in mind that Mueller was a Republican special counsel, whose remit was set by Trump's DOJ, and that: > On May 1, Barr testified that he "didn't exonerate" Trump on obstruction as "that's not what the Justice Department does" and that neither he nor Rosenstein had reviewed the underlying evidence in the report. and: > In July 2019, Mueller testified to Congress that a president could be charged with crimes including obstruction of justice after the president left office. so he was prevented by policy (not the law or the facts) from bringing charges against Trump. The article summary concludes: > In 2020, a Republican-appointed federal judge decided to personally review the report's redactions to see if they were legitimate. The judge said Barr's "misleading" statements about the report's findings led him to suspect that Barr had tried to establish a "one-sided narrative" favorable to Trump. In any case, the Senate investigation (which is what I originally quoted) came later, and was more forthcoming about the connection between Trump's team and Russia.
    - YATA0 5y ago
      >The Wikipedia article doesn't actually provide a citation for that conclusion, and if you follow the link through to the article about "The Special Counsel's report", i.e. the Mueller Report, you'll find that: Yes it does, it links to the Mueller Report Wikipedia page that directly states: "Volume I of the report concludes that the investigation "did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."" With several linked sources. >Bear in mind that Mueller was a Republican special counsel, whose remit was set by Trump's DOJ, and that: And? There were multiple Democrats in the special counsel that also did not find any collision. "On May 1, Barr testified that he "didn't exonerate" Trump on obstruction ... Mueller testified to Congress that a president could be charged with crimes including obstruction of justice after the president left office." Obstruction is not collusion. I can hear the goalposts screeching from here. >so he was prevented by policy (not the law or the facts) from bringing charges against Trump. And no one, not any of the state or federal ADAs/AGs/etc. brought any charges up for collision... because there was no evidence of it as reported by Mueller. QED. >In any case, the Senate investigation (which is what I originally quoted) came later, and was more forthcoming about the connection between Trump's team and Russia. And also found nothing. I'll say it again: There is no evidence that Trump and Co. colluded with the Russians. What you believe is an Alex Jones level conspiracy theory that just so happens to be politically expedient to believe.

by YATA0 5y ago

dane-pgp 5y ago

We're talking about more than "Russian troll farms" here: > Trump and his associates' participation in and enabling of this Russian activity If you want to understand more, there is a summary of "Links between Trump associates and Russian officials" in the Wikipedia article about "Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections"[0], including this section, for example: > In the email, Goldstone said the information had come from the Russian government and "was part of a Russian government effort to help Donald Trump's presidential campaign". Trump Jr. replied with an e-mail saying "If it's what you say I love it especially later in the summer" and arranged the meeting. Trump Jr. went to the meeting expecting to receive information harmful to the Clinton campaign, but he said none was forthcoming, and instead the conversation then turned to [US sanctions against Russia] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections#Links_between_Trump_associates_and_Russian_officials https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_20...

YATA0 5y ago
>We're talking about more than "Russian troll farms" here Not really, no. From your own source: "The Special Counsel's report, made public in April 2019, examined numerous contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian officials but concluded that there was insufficient evidence to bring any conspiracy or coordination charges against Trump or his associates." It literally states there was no evidence of collision or conspiracy.
- dane-pgp 5y ago
  The Wikipedia article doesn't actually provide a citation for that conclusion, and if you follow the link through to the article about "The Special Counsel's report", i.e. the Mueller Report, you'll find that: > Mueller privately wrote to Barr, stating that the March 24 Barr letter "did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this office's work and conclusions" Bear in mind that Mueller was a Republican special counsel, whose remit was set by Trump's DOJ, and that: > On May 1, Barr testified that he "didn't exonerate" Trump on obstruction as "that's not what the Justice Department does" and that neither he nor Rosenstein had reviewed the underlying evidence in the report. and: > In July 2019, Mueller testified to Congress that a president could be charged with crimes including obstruction of justice after the president left office. so he was prevented by policy (not the law or the facts) from bringing charges against Trump. The article summary concludes: > In 2020, a Republican-appointed federal judge decided to personally review the report's redactions to see if they were legitimate. The judge said Barr's "misleading" statements about the report's findings led him to suspect that Barr had tried to establish a "one-sided narrative" favorable to Trump. In any case, the Senate investigation (which is what I originally quoted) came later, and was more forthcoming about the connection between Trump's team and Russia.
  - YATA0 5y ago
    >The Wikipedia article doesn't actually provide a citation for that conclusion, and if you follow the link through to the article about "The Special Counsel's report", i.e. the Mueller Report, you'll find that: Yes it does, it links to the Mueller Report Wikipedia page that directly states: "Volume I of the report concludes that the investigation "did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."" With several linked sources. >Bear in mind that Mueller was a Republican special counsel, whose remit was set by Trump's DOJ, and that: And? There were multiple Democrats in the special counsel that also did not find any collision. "On May 1, Barr testified that he "didn't exonerate" Trump on obstruction ... Mueller testified to Congress that a president could be charged with crimes including obstruction of justice after the president left office." Obstruction is not collusion. I can hear the goalposts screeching from here. >so he was prevented by policy (not the law or the facts) from bringing charges against Trump. And no one, not any of the state or federal ADAs/AGs/etc. brought any charges up for collision... because there was no evidence of it as reported by Mueller. QED. >In any case, the Senate investigation (which is what I originally quoted) came later, and was more forthcoming about the connection between Trump's team and Russia. And also found nothing. I'll say it again: There is no evidence that Trump and Co. colluded with the Russians. What you believe is an Alex Jones level conspiracy theory that just so happens to be politically expedient to believe.