aban57 wrote:Spearthrower wrote:This is simply bullshit, there's no other way to say it. This is contrary to the Mueller report, contrary to intelligence reports, and contrary to bipartisan readings of the evidence available.
Wrong. The Muller report clearly says there is not active collusion.
Well, it doesn't - it says no such thing, because 'collusion' is a nonsensical misdirecting strawman kooky word made up by the Trump administration at some point.
In fact, the Mueller report directly addresses this:
In evaluating whether evidence about collective action of multiple individuals constituted a crime, we applied the framework of conspiracy law, not the concept of "collusion." In so doing, the Office recognized that the word "collud[ e ]" was used in communications with the Acting Attorney General confirming certain aspects of the investigation's scope and that the term has frequently been invoked in public reporting about the investigation. But collusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the United States Code, nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law. For those reasons, the Office's focus in analyzing questions of joint criminal liability was on conspiracy as defined in federal law. In connection with that analysis, we addressed the factual question whether members of the Trump Campaign " coordinat[ ed]"-a term that appears in the appointment order-with Russian election interference activities. Like collusion, "coordination" does not have a settled definition in federal criminal law. We understood coordination to require an agreement-tacit or express-between the Trump Campaign and the Russian government on election interference. That requires more than the two parties taking actions that were informed by or responsive to the other's actions or interests. We applied the term coordination in that sense when stating in the report that the investigation did not establish that the Trump Campaign coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.
Rather, it talked about
coordination with a foreign government, particularly Russia, and it found multiple instances of attempted coordination that all failed for one reason or another.
But anyway, that's all by-the-by, I think you misread what you were replying to. What that post was about was:
Despite the collusion conspiracy theory having been put to rest, many Americans, including members of Congress, right and left, continue to accept the evidence-impoverished, media-cum-“former-intelligence-officer” meme that the Kremlin interfered massively in the 2016 presidential election.
My bold
Russia's interference in the 2016 Presidential election is already evidenced completely independently of the Mueller report, however, again the Mueller investigation details multiple instances of Russia's interference... to give just a few examples:
The Internet Research Agency (IRA) carried out the earliest Russian interference operations identified by the investigation-a social media campaign designed to provoke and amplify political and social discord in the United States.
At the same time that the IRA operation began to focus ·on supporting candidate Trump in early 2016, the Russian government employed a second form of interference: cyber intrusions (hacking) and releases of hacked materials damaging to the Clinton Campaign. The Russian intelligence service known as the Main Intelligence Directorate of the General Staff of the Russian Army (GRU) carried out these operations.
In March 2016, the GRU began hacking the email accounts of Clinton Campaign volunteers and employees, including campaign chairman John Podesta. In April 2016, the GRU hacked into the computer networks of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) and the Democratic National Committee (DNC). The GRU stole hundreds of thousands of documents from the compromised email accounts and networks. Around the time that the DNC announced in mid-June 2016 the Russian government's role in hacking its network, the GRU began disseminating stolen materials through the fictitious online personas " DCLeaks" and "Guccifer 2.0." The GRU later released additional materials through the organization WikiLeaks.
All sources taken from:
https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf aban57 wrote:Which mean; Tump and associates actively trying to get dirt on Clinton.
That's not actually the scope at all. Coordination could have meant many other things, the dirt on Clinton one just comes from something Trump said on tv.
aban57 wrote: That's because there isn't any evidence that the Tump tower meeting with te Russian woman didn't get anywhere.
Double negative.
It doesn't need to get anywhere for it to be suggestive of attempted coordination.
While the Mueller report could not establish beyond credible doubt that Russia and the Trump team coordinated, there are so many lines of evidence that the will was there, whether or not anything actually happened. Chances are that some low level coordination did occur, but it's too difficult to establish to a sufficient degree of evidence.
aban57 wrote:Either because they didn't procede, or because they buried the evidence. Trump himself claimed Russians helped him get elected.
Dozens of times, but then he's also said the opposite dozens of times too.
by 
