Personally, I’d describe colluding with Russia to “win” or “affect the outcome of the election”, a situation where Russian government hackers got into electronic voting machines and tampered with votes. I certainly wouldn’t use those terms to describe a situation where emails were released showing how the DNC doctored their nomination process, or colluded with CNN regarding debates.
I don’t understand - why is it OK for the Dems, Hillary, and news organisations to want to find Trump “links” with Russia, but Trump Jr being presented with information pointing to Hillary actually being involved in incriminating dealings with Russia, not OK? There’s a weird double standard here regarding both campaigns - that’s why Hillary is relevant.
That’s just a personal definition, and therefore meaningless. Other people could define Russia affecting the outcome as hacking the DNC and spreading misinformation.[quote=“Firetorch, post:769, topic:1886”]
colluded with CNN regarding debates.
[/quote]
This has been time and time debunked as some right wing conspiracy. One analyst from CNN, now fired, gave the questions to the Clinton campaign.[quote=“Firetorch, post:769, topic:1886”]
I don’t understand - why is it OK for the Dems, Hillary, and news organisations to want to find Trump “links” with Russia, but Trump Jr being presented with information pointing to Hillary actually being involved in incriminating dealings with Russia, not OK?
[/quote]
Russia is a foreign government and one with a long history of poor human rights abuses and civil liberties. Either side should not deal with them.
Even Donald Jr. noted the meeting was a desperate ploy to try to set up a meeting about adoption. What matters here to me was that the Trump campaign was willing to listen to a foreign government with stakes in the game.
Oh yeah there’s a mistake with my post before but can’t be fucked to change it.
It’s a common sense definition, actually. Trump won states where Trump campaigned and had a specific message, and where Hillary was absent.
Saying it amounted to the spreading of misinformation…are you now doubting the veracity of the DNC emails that were leaked? This is a new conspiracy theory from you…
And, to check against my common sense definition, ask yourself - if Americans were influenced by what you say they were - why did the Dems increase their vote in Dem states?
LOL the fact she is fired now doesn’t discount what she did! You can’t say something has been debunked when in the next breath you say there were repercussions for the misconduct!
As I’ve said before, the Trump campaign was clear with the American people - they wanted closer ties with Russia. It is up to voters to decide who a country should deal with…maybe politicians who seek to amend the clear will of the electorate are the ones “affecting” the result…
That’s why I asked before on what basis did this individual have any authority to speak on behalf of the Russian government.
Even so, if someone on the Hillary campaign had spoken with a “foreign government” but one that was called France, or Germany…instead of Russia…there would be no problem.
Look I’m trying my hardest not to get personal and to be respectful. If you want to bring down the tone and start getting muddy again I suggest you go elsewhere.
…that was all in the NYT article you linked. Further, she could be simply lying.
The point was Kushner, Manafort and DJTJ all went to the meeting believing that she had information on Hillary. They willingly entered into the meeting with the sole intent of getting information from the Russians and therefor colluding with a foreign and longtime hostile power.
Legally they may have just scraped in above the electoral laws (which ban paid advice from a foreign power), but this is still ethically and morally wrong on a number of fronts at the very least.
Apparently Kushner did not declare this meeting, which he believed to be with a Russian representative, despite being required to do so as he has security clearance.
Instead of the artificial threats and outrage, how about you just clarify what you mean, because you very specifically said “hacking the DNC and spreading misinformation”.
What was so explosive about the DNC leaks? I was under the impression little came from them.
Nevertheless, Russia merely doing the act of hacking and showing intense interest in sharing these with Wikileaks demonstrates a desire to influence, or affect, the outcome of the election.
Legitimate fake news sites and so forth (not the hijacked version the right wing now uses), which we have already discussed many times.
Using Wikileaks as a platform also could constitute fake news, especially considering a) Wikileaks didn’t divulge the source at first, and b) some documents were tampered with before they were released but after they were hacked.
Does anyone actually stop to think that the only way the hacked information may possibly influence, or affect, the outcome of the election is if the information portrays the concerned candidate in a negative light?
Hmm, no, it’s well established that those came from the FYR of Macedonia. I really don’t think this is what you meant when you used “misinformation” in that context.
Right wing press hyped up the emails, so even when they were a disappointment, lots of people still thought negatively of Clinton.
Lots of people believed the emails to be incriminating because the right wing press said so, even though there was nothing in the leaks nearly as incriminating and the FBI cleared her twice. It’s a classic political strategy of misinformation.
I still can’t get past the fact that American voters being able to make a more INFORMED choice at election time, is a clear plus in my eyes and not a negative, as some people seem to see it?!
Further, every media outlet has been desperate to obtain info regarding “Russian links”, yet somehow Donald Trump Jr hearing out someone claiming to have similar info re: Hillary is a problem?
“Colluding”, meaning Hillary’s (supposed) incriminating dealings with Russia were made public, or the DNC’s dodgy activities were made public.
If this is “collusion” then give me more of this, please. It’s wonderful for democracy and informed decision making.
If however we’re talking about collusion whereby, for example, Donald Trump paid the Russian government a sum to hack into voting machines and tamper with vote totals, then yeah, I’d have a problem.
