5 ms·

No that Russia collusion conspiracy theory rubbish has been debunked.

jmpman 7mo ago
“Just left Ukraine. What I saw proved to me we can’t give up on the Ukrainian people. Everyone wants this war to end, but any agreement has to protect Ukraine’s security and can’t be a giveaway to Putin. Let me tell you about my trip and why it’s important we stand with Ukraine.” - Mark Kelly Musk replied directly to that post: “You are a traitor.” Kelly fired back the next day: “Traitor? Elon, if you don’t understand that defending freedom is a basic tenet of what makes America great and keeps us safe, maybe you should leave it to those of us who do.” Musk later doubled down in media appearances, stating that putting “the interests of another country above America” makes someone a traitor. I don't see Musk making those statement about US helping the interest of other countries. It seems like stopping Russia from being an aggressor is in the direct interest of the US. Why would Musk think otherwise?
- ExoticPearTree 7mo ago
  > It seems like stopping Russia from being an aggressor is in the direct interest of the US. Why would Musk think otherwise? He is entitled to his own opinions. From a business perspective Russia is a bigger market than Ukraine for Starlink. And since have no political color, it makes sense for him to not be pro-Ukraine that much. And lastly, what is in the interest of the state is not neccesarily in the interest of people and vice-versa.
- pestatije 7mo ago
  because of the money...he puts more value on the money he can get than the interests of his adopted country
  - jmpman 7mo ago
    Seems like these South African tech bros have some affinity towards Russia. I don't understand it.
    - pestatije 7mo ago
      youll notice these tech bros from South Africa are in fact white...that, considering SA history, kind of half explains (to me) their affinity towards Russia
rasz 7mo ago
Yes. For example trump proved it wrong two days ago by /checks notes removing all russian oil sanctions https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/12/us/politics/trump-russia-oil-sanctions.html https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/12/us/politics/trump-russia-...
- tmnvix 7mo ago
  That decision was out of self interest. The US will do whatever it can to try to stop Iran succeeding in their strategy to raise the price of oil. So no. Not proved wrong in my opinion.
- JasonADrury 7mo ago
  That article does not say what you (and possibly the author) think it does. > The United States on Thursday temporarily lifted sanctions on Russian oil that is currently at sea This is weird phrasing, and for a reason. Oil at sea has typically already been sold! Lifting sanctions on it does practically nothing.
  - rasz 7mo ago
    "30-day waiver for countries _to buy_ sanctioned Russian oil and petroleum products currently stranded at sea" with "currently stranded at sea" being one of those things nobody can prove either way with shadow fleet.
    - stinkbeetle 7mo ago
      Aha! That must be all the ample and irrefutable proof Adam Schiff has been hiding that shows Trump colluded with Putin to hack the election.
    - JasonADrury 7mo ago
      >with "currently stranded at sea" being one of those things nobody can prove either way with shadow fleet. This is simply wrong. The shadow fleet ships still exist in the physical realm and can be observed using eyeballs and other pieces of equipment.
pstuart 7mo ago
It was effectively quashed but not debunked: https://www.cato.org/blog/mueller-report-faqs https://www.acslaw.org/projects/the-presidential-investigation-education-project/other-resources/key-findings-of-the-mueller-report/ I could go on and on but I don't think it would make a difference. It continues to boggle my mind that the GOP, a party that for all of my life had been an enemy of Russia turned around and embraced it. I wonder why.
- stinkbeetle 7mo ago
  No it was debunked. It was always a conspiracy theory without evidence. I have read the Mueller report, it says no evidence was found of conspiracy (collusion). I can do better than regurgitating links at you and making handwaving claims about how I could go on and on, I can quote you verbatim passages which say just that. Where is all that "ample evidence" that Adam Schiff, as chair House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, repeatedly claimed to have seen that provided Trump colluded with Putin to hack the election? He has seen it all, it's an open and shut case, so why did he go so quiet about it? Did Putin get to him too? Obviously he has nothing and never did. I've pressed people for specifics about this, and the only "evidence" they have been able to provide is Trump's "Russia if you're listening" speech, which is an obvious joke.
  - tw04 7mo ago
    > I have read the Mueller report, it says no evidence was found of conspiracy (collusion). You absolutely did not read the report, you listened to Barr’s brief lie about what was in it. There were endless examples of collusion and people in Trump’s inner circle found guilty of collaborating with the Russian government. Let me guess, you also think Paul Manafort did nothing wrong? https://www.acslaw.org/projects/the-presidential-investigation-education-project/other-resources/key-findings-of-the-mueller-report/ https://www.acslaw.org/projects/the-presidential-investigati...
    - stinkbeetle 7mo ago
      > You absolutely did not read the report, you listened to Barr’s brief lie about what was in it. I did. > There were endless examples of collusion and people in Trump’s inner circle found guilty of collaborating with the Russian government. For which apparently Mueller's team was incapable of using to substantiate any such charges, and apparently Adam Schiff seems to have lost all that evidence he lied about seeing. The only reasonable explanation is obviously that Trump colluded with Putin to hack Mueller and Schiff, right? > Let me guess, you also think Paul Manafort did nothing wrong? A person who isn't called Donald Trump was found guilty of charges that did not include colluding with Putin to hack the election, but relating to to tax evasion and failing to register as an agent working for Ukraine, starting a decade before Trump's campaign started? No I don't think he did nothing wrong and never claimed he did. Nice strawman though, typical of conspiracy theorist rantings.

“Just left Ukraine. What I saw proved to me we can’t give up on the Ukrainian people. Everyone wants this war to end, but any agreement has to protect Ukraine’s security and can’t be a giveaway to Putin. Let me tell you about my trip and why it’s important we stand with Ukraine.” - Mark Kelly Musk replied directly to that post: “You are a traitor.” Kelly fired back the next day: “Traitor? Elon, if you don’t understand that defending freedom is a basic tenet of what makes America great and keeps us safe, maybe you should leave it to those of us who do.” Musk later doubled down in media appearances, stating that putting “the interests of another country above America” makes someone a traitor. I don't see Musk making those statement about US helping the interest of other countries. It seems like stopping Russia from being an aggressor is in the direct interest of the US. Why would Musk think otherwise?

ExoticPearTree 7mo ago
> It seems like stopping Russia from being an aggressor is in the direct interest of the US. Why would Musk think otherwise? He is entitled to his own opinions. From a business perspective Russia is a bigger market than Ukraine for Starlink. And since have no political color, it makes sense for him to not be pro-Ukraine that much. And lastly, what is in the interest of the state is not neccesarily in the interest of people and vice-versa.
pestatije 7mo ago
because of the money...he puts more value on the money he can get than the interests of his adopted country
- jmpman 7mo ago
  Seems like these South African tech bros have some affinity towards Russia. I don't understand it.
  - pestatije 7mo ago
    youll notice these tech bros from South Africa are in fact white...that, considering SA history, kind of half explains (to me) their affinity towards Russia

rasz 7mo ago

Yes. For example trump proved it wrong two days ago by /checks notes removing all russian oil sanctions https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/12/us/politics/trump-russia-oil-sanctions.html https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/12/us/politics/trump-russia-...

tmnvix 7mo ago
That decision was out of self interest. The US will do whatever it can to try to stop Iran succeeding in their strategy to raise the price of oil. So no. Not proved wrong in my opinion.
JasonADrury 7mo ago
That article does not say what you (and possibly the author) think it does. > The United States on Thursday temporarily lifted sanctions on Russian oil that is currently at sea This is weird phrasing, and for a reason. Oil at sea has typically already been sold! Lifting sanctions on it does practically nothing.
- rasz 7mo ago
  "30-day waiver for countries _to buy_ sanctioned Russian oil and petroleum products currently stranded at sea" with "currently stranded at sea" being one of those things nobody can prove either way with shadow fleet.
  - stinkbeetle 7mo ago
    Aha! That must be all the ample and irrefutable proof Adam Schiff has been hiding that shows Trump colluded with Putin to hack the election.
  - JasonADrury 7mo ago
    >with "currently stranded at sea" being one of those things nobody can prove either way with shadow fleet. This is simply wrong. The shadow fleet ships still exist in the physical realm and can be observed using eyeballs and other pieces of equipment.

pstuart 7mo ago

It was effectively quashed but not debunked: https://www.cato.org/blog/mueller-report-faqs https://www.acslaw.org/projects/the-presidential-investigation-education-project/other-resources/key-findings-of-the-mueller-report/ I could go on and on but I don't think it would make a difference. It continues to boggle my mind that the GOP, a party that for all of my life had been an enemy of Russia turned around and embraced it. I wonder why.

stinkbeetle 7mo ago
No it was debunked. It was always a conspiracy theory without evidence. I have read the Mueller report, it says no evidence was found of conspiracy (collusion). I can do better than regurgitating links at you and making handwaving claims about how I could go on and on, I can quote you verbatim passages which say just that. Where is all that "ample evidence" that Adam Schiff, as chair House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, repeatedly claimed to have seen that provided Trump colluded with Putin to hack the election? He has seen it all, it's an open and shut case, so why did he go so quiet about it? Did Putin get to him too? Obviously he has nothing and never did. I've pressed people for specifics about this, and the only "evidence" they have been able to provide is Trump's "Russia if you're listening" speech, which is an obvious joke.
- tw04 7mo ago
  > I have read the Mueller report, it says no evidence was found of conspiracy (collusion). You absolutely did not read the report, you listened to Barr’s brief lie about what was in it. There were endless examples of collusion and people in Trump’s inner circle found guilty of collaborating with the Russian government. Let me guess, you also think Paul Manafort did nothing wrong? https://www.acslaw.org/projects/the-presidential-investigation-education-project/other-resources/key-findings-of-the-mueller-report/ https://www.acslaw.org/projects/the-presidential-investigati...
  - stinkbeetle 7mo ago
    > You absolutely did not read the report, you listened to Barr’s brief lie about what was in it. I did. > There were endless examples of collusion and people in Trump’s inner circle found guilty of collaborating with the Russian government. For which apparently Mueller's team was incapable of using to substantiate any such charges, and apparently Adam Schiff seems to have lost all that evidence he lied about seeing. The only reasonable explanation is obviously that Trump colluded with Putin to hack Mueller and Schiff, right? > Let me guess, you also think Paul Manafort did nothing wrong? A person who isn't called Donald Trump was found guilty of charges that did not include colluding with Putin to hack the election, but relating to to tax evasion and failing to register as an agent working for Ukraine, starting a decade before Trump's campaign started? No I don't think he did nothing wrong and never claimed he did. Nice strawman though, typical of conspiracy theorist rantings.