There's a few things you're slamming together that are better understood when teased apart.
There were actions that Russia took during the 2016 election season to support the election of Trump. This is a well documented fact.
There was a meeting between a Russian intelligence connected lawyer and Trump campaign personnel including Trump Jr, Jared Kushner, and Paul Manafort. In this meeting, the Trump campaign was offered information to use against the Clinton campaign. This is a well documented fact.
After thorough investigation, it was concluded that there was not substantial explicit collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. But that same evidence showed they were extremely aligned in their goals. Trump was clearly Russia's preferred candidate and Russia was spending time, money, and effort to support his candidacy in a number of ways.
That investigation was impeded by Trump, as Mueller found in his report and testified to Congress.
Trump and his acolytes like to take "Trump did not explicitly collude with Russia" to mean "There is nothing whatsoever to the idea that Russia wanted Trump to win and took actions to support that outcome." And that's just not the case. That's putting some extreme interpretations on the actual facts of the matter.
The facts I stated were established irrespective of anything Clinton did or didn't do, so we can step past your smokescreen.
The Mueller report did not clear Trump. Clearly you did not read it, it's damning. Only according to Trump is he cleared by that report.
The Mueller Report Vol I firmly establishes that the Russians sought to interfere in the 2016 election, they explicitly preferred Trump over Clinton and aimed to help him by 1) hacking her campaign and 2) spreading misinformation on social media. It further found that despite the Trump administration claiming they the campaign had 0 contacts with Russian nationals, in fact they had over 100 contacts.
One such contact was a Russian spy named Natalia Veselnitskaya. She met in Trump Tower with Don Jr, Jared Kushner, and Trump's campaign manager Paul Manafort. They discussed relaxing international relations with Russia, in exchange for providing dirt on the Clinton campaign. These facts were admitted to by the members of that meeting, after they first attempted to cover it up with a lie that the meeting was to discuss adoption of Russian orphans. Absurd.
It's also a fact that Donald Trump aided in the dissemination of the hacked materials, as he referenced them constantly and even implored Russia to find more. The Mueller reports found that GRU operatives actively responded to that public request from Trump. Again, this is all in Vol I of the report.
Then there's the smoking gun, the fact that Paul Manafort was caught funneling internal campaign data to Konstantin Kilimnik, a known Russian intelligence officer. This was not in the Mueller Report, but established later by the Senate Intel Committee in volume VI of their report on Russian active measures during the 2016 election, at a time it was chaired by none other than current Secretary of State, then Senator, Republican Marco Rubio. It was further confirmed by the Department of Treasury.
So I ask you again: where's the lie?
Because the facts found by investigators show collusion happened. Russia wanted Trump to win, and Trump wanted to win; the two coordinated publicly and in private; the campaign lied about it every step of the way; and they obstructed any investigation as much as they could, which included firing the FBI director, and lying about the contents of the Mueller report when it was finally released.
It's a stain of historical magnitude on the office of the presidency, and the fact it wasn't dealt with properly in 2016 is a direct cause of us being in this thread today, right now, discussing imbeciles in the highest echelons of government conducting themselves like people who can get away with anything. Because they already have.
"The Mueller Report Vol I firmly establishes that the Russians sought to interfere in the 2016 election, they explicitly preferred Trump over Clinton and aimed to help him by 1) hacking her campaign and 2) spreading misinformation on social media. It further found that despite the Trump administration claiming they the campaign had 0 contacts with Russian nationals, in fact they had over 100 contacts." -- Russia preferring Trump is nothing to do with Trump, and in fact backfired on them.
The fact that Trump made jokes about emails that showed the DNC cheating the primaries to disfavor Sanders and give first sight of questions to Hillary doesn't prove he's a Russian agent.
"Because the facts found by investigators show collusion happened. Russia wanted Trump to win, and Trump wanted to win; the two coordinated publicly and in private; the campaign lied about it every step of the way; and they obstructed any investigation as much as they could, which included firing the FBI director, and lying about the contents of the Mueller report when it was finally released."
There is no evidence Trump campaign colluded with Russia. If there was, he would have been indicted.
Edit: And the Mueller report notes[1] that as the primary reason Trump wasn't indicted. You keep making false statements about what's in the report. Perhaps that's something you might think about doing if you're going to use it as a source.
> Russia preferring Trump is nothing to do with Trump
It does because that's the reason Trump colluded with them.
> in fact backfired on them.
How do you figure?
Look around: the US is currently realigning itself diplomatically to favor Russia and turn against traditional allies like Canada/UK and Europe. NATO is hanging by a thread as Trump threatens to invade Greenland. US is capitulating on every demand Russia is making in Ukraine, lifting sanctions, dropping efforts to track kidnapped children, halting funding to Ukraine...
It could hardly be going any better for them! How do you think it backfired?
> doesn't prove he's a Russian agent.
I didn't claim he's a Russian agent, I claimed he colluded with Russia.
> There is no evidence Trump campaign colluded with Russia.
Yes there is and I already told you what that is, but I'll put it in bullet form:
- Lying about over 100 Russian contacts that happened.
- Lying about a hotel deal in Russia that was being put together while Trump was running for office.
- Talking to a Russian spy about hacking his opponent in secret and lying about it when caught.
- Handing campaign data to Russian intelligence officers while they were engaged in active measures to interfere in the election.
- Campaigning using materials from the DNC that Russians hacked specifically to help Trump.
etc. etc.
If that is not evidence, what kind of evidence would you say is evidence of collusion?
> If there was, he would have been indicted.
That he has not been indicted for this is not evidence collusion didn't happen, primarily because, as the Mueller report lays out (and you would know this if you had actually read it) "collusion" is not actually a crime for which one can be indicted under US code.
Oh you've devolved to name calling now? Speaks volumes about the merit of any argument you may offer.
Who's Robin? Like Batman?
> and the Columbian Journalism Review
Okay, surely you agree with them about the danger of Trump today?
"When the president attacks the First Amendment from the Oval Office, or makes sweeping and false statements about some of the most important news organizations in the world, you can hide from it and hope it goes away, or you can speak up, saying publicly, That’s not right, and it’s not what I believe. Quite frankly, too few of you have stood up as we’ve come under attack."
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/mueller-i-did-not-clea...
That says "Obstruction of Justice" not "Colluding with Russia".
There's a few things you're slamming together that are better understood when teased apart.
There were actions that Russia took during the 2016 election season to support the election of Trump. This is a well documented fact.
There was a meeting between a Russian intelligence connected lawyer and Trump campaign personnel including Trump Jr, Jared Kushner, and Paul Manafort. In this meeting, the Trump campaign was offered information to use against the Clinton campaign. This is a well documented fact.
After thorough investigation, it was concluded that there was not substantial explicit collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. But that same evidence showed they were extremely aligned in their goals. Trump was clearly Russia's preferred candidate and Russia was spending time, money, and effort to support his candidacy in a number of ways.
That investigation was impeded by Trump, as Mueller found in his report and testified to Congress.
Trump and his acolytes like to take "Trump did not explicitly collude with Russia" to mean "There is nothing whatsoever to the idea that Russia wanted Trump to win and took actions to support that outcome." And that's just not the case. That's putting some extreme interpretations on the actual facts of the matter.
5 replies →
The facts I stated were established irrespective of anything Clinton did or didn't do, so we can step past your smokescreen.
The Mueller report did not clear Trump. Clearly you did not read it, it's damning. Only according to Trump is he cleared by that report.
The Mueller Report Vol I firmly establishes that the Russians sought to interfere in the 2016 election, they explicitly preferred Trump over Clinton and aimed to help him by 1) hacking her campaign and 2) spreading misinformation on social media. It further found that despite the Trump administration claiming they the campaign had 0 contacts with Russian nationals, in fact they had over 100 contacts.
One such contact was a Russian spy named Natalia Veselnitskaya. She met in Trump Tower with Don Jr, Jared Kushner, and Trump's campaign manager Paul Manafort. They discussed relaxing international relations with Russia, in exchange for providing dirt on the Clinton campaign. These facts were admitted to by the members of that meeting, after they first attempted to cover it up with a lie that the meeting was to discuss adoption of Russian orphans. Absurd.
It's also a fact that Donald Trump aided in the dissemination of the hacked materials, as he referenced them constantly and even implored Russia to find more. The Mueller reports found that GRU operatives actively responded to that public request from Trump. Again, this is all in Vol I of the report.
Then there's the smoking gun, the fact that Paul Manafort was caught funneling internal campaign data to Konstantin Kilimnik, a known Russian intelligence officer. This was not in the Mueller Report, but established later by the Senate Intel Committee in volume VI of their report on Russian active measures during the 2016 election, at a time it was chaired by none other than current Secretary of State, then Senator, Republican Marco Rubio. It was further confirmed by the Department of Treasury.
So I ask you again: where's the lie?
Because the facts found by investigators show collusion happened. Russia wanted Trump to win, and Trump wanted to win; the two coordinated publicly and in private; the campaign lied about it every step of the way; and they obstructed any investigation as much as they could, which included firing the FBI director, and lying about the contents of the Mueller report when it was finally released.
It's a stain of historical magnitude on the office of the presidency, and the fact it wasn't dealt with properly in 2016 is a direct cause of us being in this thread today, right now, discussing imbeciles in the highest echelons of government conducting themselves like people who can get away with anything. Because they already have.
"The Mueller Report Vol I firmly establishes that the Russians sought to interfere in the 2016 election, they explicitly preferred Trump over Clinton and aimed to help him by 1) hacking her campaign and 2) spreading misinformation on social media. It further found that despite the Trump administration claiming they the campaign had 0 contacts with Russian nationals, in fact they had over 100 contacts." -- Russia preferring Trump is nothing to do with Trump, and in fact backfired on them.
The fact that Trump made jokes about emails that showed the DNC cheating the primaries to disfavor Sanders and give first sight of questions to Hillary doesn't prove he's a Russian agent.
"Because the facts found by investigators show collusion happened. Russia wanted Trump to win, and Trump wanted to win; the two coordinated publicly and in private; the campaign lied about it every step of the way; and they obstructed any investigation as much as they could, which included firing the FBI director, and lying about the contents of the Mueller report when it was finally released."
There is no evidence Trump campaign colluded with Russia. If there was, he would have been indicted.
>There is no evidence Trump campaign colluded with Russia. If there was, he would have been indicted.
That hasn't been the case since at least 2000[0]
[0] https://www.justice.gov/olc/opinion/sitting-president%E2%80%...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mueller_report
Edit: And the Mueller report notes[1] that as the primary reason Trump wasn't indicted. You keep making false statements about what's in the report. Perhaps that's something you might think about doing if you're going to use it as a source.
> Russia preferring Trump is nothing to do with Trump
It does because that's the reason Trump colluded with them.
> in fact backfired on them.
How do you figure?
Look around: the US is currently realigning itself diplomatically to favor Russia and turn against traditional allies like Canada/UK and Europe. NATO is hanging by a thread as Trump threatens to invade Greenland. US is capitulating on every demand Russia is making in Ukraine, lifting sanctions, dropping efforts to track kidnapped children, halting funding to Ukraine...
It could hardly be going any better for them! How do you think it backfired?
> doesn't prove he's a Russian agent.
I didn't claim he's a Russian agent, I claimed he colluded with Russia.
> There is no evidence Trump campaign colluded with Russia.
Yes there is and I already told you what that is, but I'll put it in bullet form:
- Lying about over 100 Russian contacts that happened.
- Lying about a hotel deal in Russia that was being put together while Trump was running for office.
- Talking to a Russian spy about hacking his opponent in secret and lying about it when caught.
- Handing campaign data to Russian intelligence officers while they were engaged in active measures to interfere in the election.
- Campaigning using materials from the DNC that Russians hacked specifically to help Trump.
etc. etc.
If that is not evidence, what kind of evidence would you say is evidence of collusion?
> If there was, he would have been indicted.
That he has not been indicted for this is not evidence collusion didn't happen, primarily because, as the Mueller report lays out (and you would know this if you had actually read it) "collusion" is not actually a crime for which one can be indicted under US code.
[flagged]
[flagged]
What more could a Russian agent do to advance Putin's agenda that Trump and his admin aren't already doing?
DeNiro says it about as succinctly as possible in Casino - https://youtu.be/-Dujc4xJ9gs?si=2cYzK8FSygQgunNt&t=57
4 replies →
[flagged]
Oh you've devolved to name calling now? Speaks volumes about the merit of any argument you may offer.
Who's Robin? Like Batman?
> and the Columbian Journalism Review
Okay, surely you agree with them about the danger of Trump today?
"When the president attacks the First Amendment from the Oval Office, or makes sweeping and false statements about some of the most important news organizations in the world, you can hide from it and hope it goes away, or you can speak up, saying publicly, That’s not right, and it’s not what I believe. Quite frankly, too few of you have stood up as we’ve come under attack."
Is Trump a threat to our democracy - yes or no?
https://www.cjr.org/politics/cjr-editor-addresses-congress.p...
1 reply →