The debate "The media is looking for trump russia collusion which doesnt exist" was started by
July 21, 2017, 3:44 am.
11 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 5 people are on the disagree side.
People are starting to choose their side.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
thereal posted 1 argument, MrShine posted 3 arguments to the agreers part.
MrShine posted 1 argument, historybuff posted 3 arguments to the disagreers part.
thereal, shubham90012, MrShine, ceedotrock, thecommunistmanifesto and 6 visitors agree.
historybuff, Nemiroff and 3 visitors disagree.
But not really. There is no reason to believe the information was stolen (in the end there was none) , there is no proof of a greater crime comparable to the baby-eater, and the agencies are three saying maybe not 17 as Hillary claimed... one of which being our CIA, which is known to disrupt foreign matters and start conflict. But the CIA's cleanliness is besides the point.
The Russians didn't pick the president, our people did. If it is that disturbing, check the voting machines, recount the votes, remember all the "election can't be hacked" articles and pundits. I wouldn't expect to much though... unless I'm mistaken by the statement that Russia hacked us, and it was a 'misinformation campaign'. I'm sure the Russians pay our reporters too.
think of it this way. someone walks up to you and ask if you want to buy a stolen tv. if you buy it that is a crime. In this case a hostile foreign government was offering stolen information. whether or not he committed a crime has yet to be determined, but the information was obviously obtained through underhanded methods. and they were offering it in order to interfere in the election.
no it does not matter who called whom first. if I said let's murder someone and you said that's a great idea, we are both guilty. the fact that I said it first would not make you less culpable. the moment he said I love it, he was agreeing to collude with a hostile foreign power.
I didn't say it was treasonous. it was pretty close but not quite. as to whether you should ignore a crime because of the source think of it like this. two people are running for office candidate 1 got drunk and involved in a hit and run. candidate 2 is a psychotic criminal who eats people. I leak candidate 1s lesser but still serious crime in order to get candidate 2 elected because it's in my self interest. have I done a good thing by reporting the crime or have I hurt the country to benefit myself?
Russia's leaking of democratic information, and all America's intelligence agencies agree it was them, was designed to sway the election. it had nothing to do with supposed crimes. they successfully got the candidate of their choice elected and he then tried to help Russia. any American should be very disturbed by this.
Clinton comparisons are partly done for banter, prtly because it was advertised as information regarding her, and also because it would be believed that the results would have been different without Russia.
WikiLeaks was the big contributor, not Russia. No clear link has been drawn between them, and the possibility of DNC insiders is pretty big.
Their meeting had no information that could sway the election, effect was not the same as damaged integrity, it is never proven and still does nothing against the actual interpretation or ruling of actual government council.
There is a difference with who solicited a meeting and who incites. He did not call other governments to come forth with, he was told it was there. Also, is that supposed to mean we should ignore information regarding a crime because of it's source? For this to be treason, something must be planned to be damaging to democracy, so where's the planned hack, trap, or cheat? Again, that is a ruling that doesn't match "crime" by our current legal council, interpretors of the law.
Trump Jr's advisor could be a link, but not Trump himself.
Trump JR campaigned alot for his father and was a close advisor. he was very involved in the campaign. also, Jared kushner and Paul manafort both got those emails and attended the meeting. saying that that this wasn't campaign collusion is a lie.
are you capable of having a single thought about Trump without comparison to Clinton? saying but Clinton was worse does not excuse terrible crimes.
whether or not Trump asked for the meeting is irrelevant. he was told an agent of a hostile foreign government wants to help you get elected and he said I love it. whether it was his idea or not makes absolutely no difference. when offered Russian help he jumped at the chance.
and the leaks about Clinton did sway the election. a month or two after the trump campaign met with a Russian agent to discuss damaging information about Clinton, a bunch of damaging information got released. this information was obtained by hackers, probably in the employ of Russia.
even if everything in that hacked information was true, you effectively allowed the Russian government to pick your president for you. and just because you like who they picked this time, maybe next time they release all transcripts of their collusion with trump to get a democrat elected.
Probably because the request for the meeting was not solicited but provided as an option, and the terms that you might define election interference may be different from, say, supreme Court justices.
Intention of gaining information on claimed criminal activity, not breaking into or compromising security of political parties - Not interference. They did not plan to find the information, it was claimed the information was available, ready, and pertaining to the election true. But no security breaches were planned or made, it would be not be private or necessarily secret information.
With a party that has claimed Hillary has done crimes, at least a few should believe she is guilty if not most. And it is known she has gone to trial, with "no recommendation". So yes, it would be useful in elections, but for any person following and noting an admission by investigation there is guilty without punishment, telling them "call the police" seems rather silly.
Noting the circumstances that say this collusion compromises nothing about elections should that be the case, the different opinion of a supreme Court Justice, and the information possibly being useful in probably only the election, it is possible to agree. So please tell us, how did this interference or damage the integrity of the election? If the information was available and true, it stops a criminal from being president. Since it was not, no severe difference. However, no breaches were organized, intention cannot be proved, and Trump Jr wasn't even on Trump's campaign team so even the collusion can be brought into question.
This is, of course, because Russian collusion hasn't been found anywhere else. No direct line of secret information or breaches, no money, no hackers. A nothing burger with a side of lies leaves a thin case.
I'm not certain how anyone could agree with this topic. they have already admitted to meeting with Russian agents to interfere in the election. The Trump campaign's collusion with Russia is now an established fact by their own admission. how could you possibly think otherwise?
National security like using a private email server and five hacked countries, and no damage control after said contents were deleted?
most people wouldn't do it because it's illegal and end their career... Not necessarily because of morals.
And it's not an issue about opposition research, it an issue of foreign actors. if they got their information from American hackers, this wouldn't have been nearly the same issue. But foreign players, especially from a country that can exert alot of influence on its citizens like China or Russia, it's a whole different level. this is national security, not politics.
The use of the word "collusion" is misleading in on itself. This is politics. People collude in politics. If you truly believe that Hillary or any other dead liberal candidate hadnt done that in the past, you are simply naive. American politics, just like America as a whole, is a mess. The fact that anybody was foolish enough to believe that any positive outcome was going to come from a Trump presidency is shocking in on itself. However on the other hand, the liberals act like the Clinton wouldnt have done the same. she is much more corrupt than Trump and has likely done worse. On one side you have "grab her by the p----" and on the other hand you have "I knew he was guilty haha, i got a hold of his boxers before the prosecution and cut out the part with his semen". I must finish off by stating that both fools are excellent representatives of the American population.
trump Jr has released an email in which he was told an agent if the Russian government wanted to meet with him and that the Russian government wanted to support Trump. trump Jr responded that he loved it. he and 2 other top members of the campaign then met with that Russian agent.
that is collusion. it is no longer a matter of if the trump campaign colluded with Russia, they've already released the evidence that they did. it's a matter of to what extent they colluded, was it criminal or just despicable, and did Trump know about it.
A hidden interview with a reporter from CNN revealed that there is no story. When asked about the Russia thing he said "oh thays nothing, theres nothing there". CNN as well as other media goatf***ers are literally just dedicating their sad lives to making him look worse than he is.