Trump

[Brookie1973]

To be fair this is the start of the report

"The Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion."


“The investigation identified two major Russian efforts to influence the 2016 election.
First, a Russian entity carried out a social media campaign that favored presidential candidate Donald J. Trump and disparaged presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.
Second, a Russian intelligence service conducted computer-intrusion operations against entities, employees, and volunteers working on the Clinton Campaign and then released stolen documents.”

On page 1 https://www.justice.gov/archives/sco/file/1373816/dl?inline=

So, no collusion then.

So after years of investigation by the vast resources of the US intelligence community, all they could come up with was someone in Russia said bad things about Hillary. Funny, because my recollection of the 2016 presidential campaign was that all mainstream media was overwhelmingly pro Hillary, and rabidly anti Trump, so much so that Hillary was favoured in all opinion polls. So if there was “interference” it was remarkably ineffective. You could almost turn it around and say that mainstream media interfered in the election by clearly favouring one candidate over the other.

As for leaking of stolen documents, if there was nothing to hide, so what? Transparency is a good thing right?

 

[SeaEagleRock8]

So if there was “interference” it was remarkably ineffective.

Lol, ineffective? Trump won that election! The Russians were trying to help Trump and hinder Clinton. Which is not to say he couldn't have won without the Russian interference, but your level of adherence to Trump's spin on this issue is impressive.
Out f curiosity, which of his policies do you like most?

 

[Brookie1973]

Lol, ineffective? Trump won that election! The Russians were trying to help Trump and hinder Clinton. Which is not to say he couldn't have won without the Russian interference, but your level of adherence to Trump's spin on this issue is impressive.
Out f curiosity, which of his policies do you like most?

Interference to sway public opinion through the media. The media was unequivocally pro Hillary, so yes, ineffective. Some of his policies I agree with, others I do not. Same for the other side. I don’t intend to get into that debate, which always tends to get into another round of “whataboutisms”. You don’t seem to be willing to consider anything other than one side of the argument, which I think is the problem with the world today.

NB are you conceding there was no collusion?

 

[Woodsie]

Thank goodness we would never have a foreign power try to influence an Australian election ... the Chinese would never think of aiding "Handsome Boy" ... or certain Muslim Nations influence the voting of their ex-pats ...

There is a whole Universe of difference between being the passive recipient of assistance ... and knowingly "colluding" in illegal activities ...

I don't know where the facts lie ... and reading media reports haven't helped me ... but I would like to believe that if sufficient evidence was available ... somebody would have been tried for treason ..

 

[Seagles68]

So, no collusion then.

So after years of investigation by the vast resources of the US intelligence community, all they could come up with was someone in Russia said bad things about Hillary. Funny, because my recollection of the 2016 presidential campaign was that all mainstream media was overwhelmingly pro Hillary, and rabidly anti Trump, so much so that Hillary was favoured in all opinion polls. So if there was “interference” it was remarkably ineffective. You could almost turn it around and say that mainstream media interfered in the election by clearly favouring one candidate over the other.

As for leaking of stolen documents, if there was nothing to hide, so what? Transparency is a good thing right?

Didn't Trump himself, publically ask the Russians to hack US servers (Clinton's) in the 2016 election campaign in an effort to find the emails he accused her of hiding? If that's not collusion, I'm not sure what is.
And for the record, I'm not a Clinton fan but I do think Trump is a contemptible human with no redeeming features.

 

[Brookie1973]

Didn't Trump himself, publically ask the Russians to hack US servers (Clinton's) in the 2016 election campaign in an effort to find the emails he accused her of hiding? If that's not collusion, I'm not sure what is.
And for the record, I'm not a Clinton fan but I do think Trump is a contemptible human with no redeeming features.

Trump says a lot of wild things in public. If he really wanted Russian assistance, do you really think he would have asked for it in public? Perhaps you should ask Robert Mueller why he didn’t uncover this startling piece of evidence despite an investigation that lasted years at the cost of many millions of dollars.

 

[Seagles68]

Trump says a lot of wild things in public. If he really wanted Russian assistance, do you really think he would have asked for it in public? Perhaps you should ask Robert Mueller why he didn’t uncover this startling piece of evidence despite an investigation that lasted years at the cost of many millions of dollars.

It is this "Trump says a lot of wild things in public" line that has been a favourite for the Trump apologists in the US for some time and is, IMHO, part of the reason the US now finds itself in the condition that it is. And as someone that considers the US a second home, it is not a healthy place.
But that's just from my personal and family experience. And no disrespect is directed towards you.

 

[Brookie1973]

It is this "Trump says a lot of wild things in public" line that has been a favourite for the Trump apologists in the US for some time and is, IMHO, part of the reason the US now finds itself in the condition that it is. And as someone that considers the US a second home, it is not a healthy place.
But that's just from my personal and family experience. And no disrespect is directed towards you.

I agree it’s not a healthy place. Obama has a lot to answer for.

 

[manly al]

No doubt noteworthy [ previous claims of Russian interference in U S elections ] but in all seriousness , just pales into insignificance with countless examples of major power interference in the political and administrative functioning in all parts of the globe and pretty much for time immortal .
Just taken on a more sophisticated level in the more technological age and for a few decades now
Sad part is that it is very rarely in the best interests of the targeted country when it does occur

 

[SeaEagleRock8]

NB are you conceding there was no collusion?

No but I concede you aren't worth talking to.

 

[manly al]

I agree it’s not a healthy place. Obama has a lot to answer for.

Problem is the backlash to some society trends just tends to stray into the extreme category .
Not to say that some tendencies should not be corrected from time to time if they do get a bit out of hand or proving too disruptive and polarizing but trying to find a comfortable or happy medium can be quite elusive .
Trumpy is a real enigma , just seems a combination of having a loose cannon type of approach , totally unconventional and unpredictable but probably also some good intentions and even reasoning in the mix
And that is not trying to apply a character test , just purely in domestic political and geo political terms
Seems many issues just take on the form of a poker game and transactional type approach also
Noticed one view that he really wants to shake things up as he has this mindset that he only has 4 years to do it .
Not too sure what to make from that if accurate , just hope that it is not too rocky overall in the process

 

[Brookie1973]

No but I concede you aren't worth talking to.

What, me worry?

 

[lsz]

So, no collusion then.

So after years of investigation by the vast resources of the US intelligence community, all they could come up with was someone in Russia said bad things about Hillary. Funny, because my recollection of the 2016 presidential campaign was that all mainstream media was overwhelmingly pro Hillary, and rabidly anti Trump, so much so that Hillary was favoured in all opinion polls. So if there was “interference” it was remarkably ineffective. You could almost turn it around and say that mainstream media interfered in the election by clearly favouring one candidate over the other.

As for leaking of stolen documents, if there was nothing to hide, so what? Transparency is a good thing right?

Well lets talk collusion.

To be fair to he did say that “[a] statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of those facts.”

Further more

Mueller found that Trump campaign members Donald Trump Jr., Paul Manafort and Jared Kushner met with Russian nationals in Trump Tower in New York June 2016 for the purpose of receiving disparaging information about Clinton as part of “Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump,” according to an email message arranging the meeting.

These 11 Mueller Report Myths Just Won’t Die

Here's why they're wrong

time.com

As for the whole Trump just says stuff argument it does worry me the whole way we just put certain topics down to him being Trump. Lets take the Russia if you are listening

Russians tried to hack Clinton server on day Trump urged email search

Prosecutors say spies began hacking on 27 July 2016 – but indictment does not suggest direct link with Trump’s request

www.theguardian.com

Now there is not a direct link however the impact of his words is still there

 

[Brookie1973]

Well lets talk collusion.

To be fair to he did say that “[a] statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of those facts.”

Further more

Mueller found that Trump campaign members Donald Trump Jr., Paul Manafort and Jared Kushner met with Russian nationals in Trump Tower in New York June 2016 for the purpose of receiving disparaging information about Clinton as part of “Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump,” according to an email message arranging the meeting.

These 11 Mueller Report Myths Just Won’t Die

Here's why they're wrong

time.com

As for the whole Trump just says stuff argument it does worry me the whole way we just put certain topics down to him being Trump. Lets take the Russia if you are listening

Russians tried to hack Clinton server on day Trump urged email search

Prosecutors say spies began hacking on 27 July 2016 – but indictment does not suggest direct link with Trump’s request

www.theguardian.com

Now there is not a direct link however the impact of his words is still there

I will have to refer you to my earlier posts, thanks

 

[Brookie1973]

Well lets talk collusion.

To be fair to he did say that “[a] statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of those facts.”

Further more

Mueller found that Trump campaign members Donald Trump Jr., Paul Manafort and Jared Kushner met with Russian nationals in Trump Tower in New York June 2016 for the purpose of receiving disparaging information about Clinton as part of “Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump,” according to an email message arranging the meeting.

These 11 Mueller Report Myths Just Won’t Die

Here's why they're wrong

time.com

As for the whole Trump just says stuff argument it does worry me the whole way we just put certain topics down to him being Trump. Lets take the Russia if you are listening

Russians tried to hack Clinton server on day Trump urged email search

Prosecutors say spies began hacking on 27 July 2016 – but indictment does not suggest direct link with Trump’s request

www.theguardian.com

Now there is not a direct link however the impact of his words is still there

I will say in closing that it’s a shame you and SER8 weren’t on Robert Muellers investigative team, as it appears you had all the evidence he needed to convict Trump. If only he’d asked.

 

[lsz]

I will have to refer you to my earlier posts, thanks

Sorry which ones?

You asked a question and I gave you links to both the direct report and other sources. Happy to review any sources or reports you would like to share?

 

[lsz]

I will say in closing that it’s a shame you and SER8 weren’t on Robert Muellers investigative team, as it appears you had all the evidence he needed to convict Trump. If only he’d asked.

It is funny how these discussions go.

You ask for some form of proof and i try to give you some information. You then conclude it by saying a throw away statement like this designed to try troll or similar rather than discuss the points raised.

I am not sure where I have ever talked about convicting trump?

 

[Woodsie]

To be fair to he did say that “[a] statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of those facts.”

I'm not an English major ... but isn't the evidence of facts the very definition of their existence?

 

[Brookie1973]

Sorry which ones?

You asked a question and I gave you links to both the direct report and other sources. Happy to review any sources or reports you would like to share?

The ones where I argued there is no evidence of collusion, per the mueller report.

 

[lsz]

So I am clear you disagree with this?

These 11 Mueller Report Myths Just Won’t Die

Here's why they're wrong

time.com