Who Meddled more Putin or Trump? The Collusion Thread visits Venezuela

The actual question in the poll: "Do you think the independent counsel has found actual evidence of Trump campaign officials colluding with the Russians or has he not found any evidence of such collusion?"

I'll leave it to others to parse the "coordination/collusion" difference, or how to relate responses to that question to the statement, "35 people have been prosecuted in the Inquest to identify Trump campaign workers who coordinated with Russia in the 2016 election, but none of those prosecuted were actually accused of coordinating with Russia in the 2016 election, but a wide swath of the population thinks that they were."

paulsurovell said:

nohero said:

ridski said:

dave23 said:

paulsurovell said:

The witch hunt moniker works because 35 people have been prosecuted in the Inquest to identify Trump campaign workers who coordinated with Russia in the 2016 election, but none of those prosecuted were actually accused of coordinating with Russia in the 2016 election, but a wide swath of the population thinks that they were. 

Is "wide swath" a scientific term? Or is it a rare bird?

 As of June 2018 in this poll only 35% of Americans believe Mueller has found evidence of collusion, with 24% saying they don't know. It's not hard numbers on how many believe those who have been prosecuted were accused on coordinating with Russia, but it's a start.

Thanks for digging out those numbers.  Not that it makes a difference.  Innumeracy is a characteristic of people who believe Trump's version of reality.

 35% of the voting population is about 82 million Americans. That's a pretty wide swath of Americans who believe that Mueller has prosecuted "witches." I'll bet a lot of them also believe what they're told about Russiagate on the MSM..

Note to Jamie: The poll asks whether Mueller has found "collusion."

dave23 said:

paulsurovell said:

35% of the voting population is about 82 million Americans. That's a pretty wide swath of Americans who believe that Mueller has prosecuted "witches." I'll bet a lot of them also believe what they're told about Russiagate on the MSM.

If your takeaway from that poll is that 82 million Americans believe there have been prosecutions for collusion, then you should reread the poll. And if your standard for whether something is right or wrong based on public opinion, then we have yet another thing we disagree about.

The 82 million Americans is just a rough estimate of 35% of the voting age population. Assumes the poll was reasonably accurate.

No that's not my standard for what's right or wrong.

Nowhere does the question ask whether people have been prosecuted for collusion. And even if it did, so what? 35% of Americans being wrong about something isn't exactly earth-shaking.

Why do we care about what people think?  Paul is taking the Trump/Giluliani tactic #1 - swaying the court of Public Opinion.  In the end - this means zilch.

Great fact checking on Trumps latest tweets:

https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/16/politics/fact-check-trump-tweet-russia/index.html

Fact-check of "found no collusion"
The investigation is ongoing, so it is premature for the President to declare that Mueller "found no collusion." The special counsel hasn't said anything public about whether there was or wasn't collusion. Mueller will detail his final conclusions in a report that is expected to drop sometime in the coming months.

Seems like Paul and Trump are ramping up their special counsel smear campaign as we get closer to a report.

jamie said:
Why do we care about what people think?

Not because they're a gauge of whether something is right or wrong. But because what they think may say something about breakdowns or malpractice in the spread of information, which can then affect public policy.

Very accurate Jamie.   Wouldn't surprise me to learn that the two of them have a conference call with Vladi every night.

sbenois said:
Very accurate Jamie.   Wouldn't surprise me to learn that the two of them have a conference call with Vladi every night.

 He's serious.

dave23 said:
Nowhere does the question ask whether people have been prosecuted for collusion. And even if it did, so what? 35% of Americans being wrong about something isn't exactly earth-shaking.

Sure, we can't assume that the 35% had in mind the 35 people Mueller has prosecuted when they said "Yes" to the question "Has Mueller found evidence of collusion?"  An interesting open-ended follow-up would have been "Why do you think Mueller has found evidence of collusion?"

paulsurovell said:

dave23 said:
Nowhere does the question ask whether people have been prosecuted for collusion. And even if it did, so what? 35% of Americans being wrong about something isn't exactly earth-shaking.

Sure, we can't assume that the 35% had in mind the 35 people Mueller has prosecuted when they said "Yes" to the question "Has Mueller found evidence of collusion?"  

So maybe it's more of a narrow swath than "a pretty wide swath of Americans who believe that Mueller has prosecuted 'witches'."

nohero said:

paulsurovell said:

dave23 said:
Nowhere does the question ask whether people have been prosecuted for collusion. And even if it did, so what? 35% of Americans being wrong about something isn't exactly earth-shaking.

Sure, we can't assume that the 35% had in mind the 35 people Mueller has prosecuted when they said "Yes" to the question "Has Mueller found evidence of collusion?"  

So maybe it's more of a narrow swath than "a pretty wide swath of Americans who believe that Mueller has prosecuted 'witches'."

 Perhaps. But the wider swath believes that Mueller has indeed "found" witches, which is the primary purpose of a witch hunt.

paulsurovell said:

Perhaps. But the wider swath believes that Mueller has indeed "found" witches, which is the primary purpose of a witch hunt.

No, a certain percentage answered "Yes" when asked, "Do you think the independent counsel has found actual evidence of Trump campaign officials colluding with the Russians or has he not found any evidence of such collusion?"  Nothing in there suggests "witch hunt", unless one adopts the Trump position.

The term "witch-hunt" accurately describes the Mueller investigation and what the respondents think Mueller has found in his investigation:

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/witch-hunt

an investigation carried out ostensibly to uncover disloyalty, subversive political activity, etc., usually conducted with much publicity and often relying upon inconclusive evidence and capitalizing on public fear of unpopular opinions

This has been covered on Spuknik for over a month, but now making it to the mainstream:

Hillary Clinton's Ukrainian connection a question worth exploring

https://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/national-party-news/348596-hillary-clintons-ukrainian-connection-a-question-worth#.W_KsCIAdZ5I.twitter

Back in January of this year, Politico reported that Democratic official met with Ukrainian officials to get information on the Trump campaign in an effort to boost Hillary Clinton’s presidential bid. While it didn’t get nearly the mainstream media scrutiny that the Donald Trump Jr.'s Russia meeting is getting, it did prompt President Trump to correctly ask why it was being swept under the rug.

Specifically, the complaint contends that, last year, Ukrainian-American operative and DNC consultant, Alexandra Chalupa met with Ukrainian government officials to get information in an effort to expose ties between Trump, his former campaign manager Paul Manafort and Russia. As reported, a political officer in the Ukrainian Embassy was instructed to help Chalupa conduct research on connections between Trump, Manafort and Russia. The DNC subsequently acknowledged that it had knowledge of the research.

First, according to federal law, an in-kind contribution consists of “anything of value, including information and leads, the fruits of paid research, or similar investigatory activity, to a political committee.” Second, federal law also prohibits accepting or receiving anything of value from foreign nationals and the Ukrainian government officials are foreign nationals.

Since Chalupa allegedly engaged in both activities as a DNC staffer, this collusion would constitute an illegal, in-kind contribution. And, even though the DNC claimed it “did not incorporate [Chalupa’s] findings in its dossiers on the subjects,” that would be irrelevant as the DNC solicited and received valuable opposition research.

Given what we know today about both situations, it’s clear they both merit serious investigation.

To date we have no proof that anything of value was received by the Trump campaign as a result of the Donald Jr. meeting. In fact, the Russian lawyer who meet with Trump’s son, Natalia Veselnitskaya, said: “I never had any damaging or sensitive information about Hillary Clinton. It was never my intention to have that.”

Foreign influence in our politics is nothing new but it is very concerning and should be investigated. The DNC/Ukraine connection is serious, and the public deserves answers.

nan said:
This has been covered on Spuknik for over a month, but now making it to the mainstream:
Hillary Clinton's Ukrainian connection a question worth exploring
https://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/national-party-news/348596-hillary-clintons-ukrainian-connection-a-question-worth#.W_KsCIAdZ5I.twitter

Check the date (especially the year) on the article.  

And also the author. 

South_Mountaineer said:

nan said:
This has been covered on Spuknik for over a month, but now making it to the mainstream:
Hillary Clinton's Ukrainian connection a question worth exploring
https://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/national-party-news/348596-hillary-clintons-ukrainian-connection-a-question-worth#.W_KsCIAdZ5I.twitter

Check the date (especially the year) on the article.  
And also the author. 

Oh JESUS.  Nan, you've outdone yourself with this one.  This is downright embarassing.   

What's next?  Are you going to tell us that Lincoln was assassinated?   

South_Mountaineer said:

nan said:
This has been covered on Spuknik for over a month, but now making it to the mainstream:
Hillary Clinton's Ukrainian connection a question worth exploring
https://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/national-party-news/348596-hillary-clintons-ukrainian-connection-a-question-worth#.W_KsCIAdZ5I.twitter

Check the date (especially the year) on the article.  
And also the author. 

 That is embarrassing.  I gave the mainstream media some credit for being on top of things and did not check the date.  There is more evidence available now on the Chalupa sisters and collusion so I thought they might have posted an update.  Guess not.  Coming soon?  Probably not.

And the author. 

nan said:

South_Mountaineer said:

Check the date (especially the year) on the article.  
And also the author. 

 That is embarrassing.  I gave the mainstream media some credit for being on top of things and did not check the date.  There is more evidence available now on the Chalupa sisters and collusion so I thought they might have posted an update.  Guess not.  Coming soon?  Probably not.

Nan  - never cares about the author - that one is a doozy though.  Wow, just wow. 

Not a surprise.   Nan has blinders on.

jamie said:
Nan  - never cares about the author - that one is a doozy though.  Wow, just wow. 

 Of course I care about the author, but you dismiss people outside of the mainstream media even when they provide evidence to back their claims.  You also seem to believe anything on mainstream media even when no evidence is supplied.  

The company we keep.

nan said:

jamie said:
Nan  - never cares about the author - that one is a doozy though.  Wow, just wow. 

 Of course I care about the author, but you dismiss people outside of the mainstream media even when they provide evidence to back their claims.  You also seem to believe anything on mainstream media even when no evidence is supplied.  

 If you "care about the author" then you know he's the political hack who is now acting as Attorney General. I agree that he's "outside mainstream media". 

South_Mountaineer said:

nan said:

jamie said:
Nan  - never cares about the author - that one is a doozy though.  Wow, just wow. 

 Of course I care about the author, but you dismiss people outside of the mainstream media even when they provide evidence to back their claims.  You also seem to believe anything on mainstream media even when no evidence is supplied.  

 If you "care about the author" then you know he's the political hack who is now acting as Attorney General. I agree that he's "outside mainstream media". 

 He is not the only one who has brought this up and evidence is evidence.  It was published in The Hill, not exactly a Republican hangout and basically mainstream.  

nan said:

South_Mountaineer said:

 If you "care about the author" then you know he's the political hack who is now acting as Attorney General. I agree that he's "outside mainstream media". 

 He is not the only one who has brought this up and evidence is evidence.  It was published in The Hill, not exactly a Republican hangout and basically mainstream.  

They allow all sorts of people to publish there. A critical reader knows that you can't use the fact that it's published there as their endorsement. That's why this is at the end of the piece.  "The views expressed by contributors are their own and are not the views of The Hill."

South_Mountaineer said:

nan said:

South_Mountaineer said:

 If you "care about the author" then you know he's the political hack who is now acting as Attorney General. I agree that he's "outside mainstream media". 

 He is not the only one who has brought this up and evidence is evidence.  It was published in The Hill, not exactly a Republican hangout and basically mainstream.  

They allow all sorts of people to publish there. A critical reader knows that you can't use the fact that it's published there as their endorsement. That's why this is at the end of the piece.  "The views expressed by contributors are their own and are not the views of The Hill."

 I'm sure they don't allow Neo-Nazis to publish. They may have a range of acceptable views, but it does not include everyone and has limits. They publish few real Progressive views, but evidently, "political hacks" are deemed mainstream enough.  And you know perfectly well that they add that disclaimer at the end for legal purposes. 

Russia forum infiltrating Humor forum:

https://maplewood.worldwebs.com/forums/discussion/russia-eight-legged-bus-caught-trying-to-cross-vehicle-only-bridge-in-russia

nan said:

South_Mountaineer said:

They allow all sorts of people to publish there. A critical reader knows that you can't use the fact that it's published there as their endorsement. That's why this is at the end of the piece.  "The views expressed by contributors are their own and are not the views of The Hill."

 I'm sure they don't allow Neo-Nazis to publish. They may have a range of acceptable views, but it does not include everyone and has limits. They publish few real Progressive views, but evidently, "political hacks" are deemed mainstream enough.  And you know perfectly well that they add that disclaimer at the end for legal purposes. 

I don’t know how that disclaimer would provide a publisher with any legal protection; if you can explain how it does, please do. Otherwise, the only reason that makes sense to me for it to be there is the one that South_Mountaineer gave.

DaveSchmidt said:

nan said:

South_Mountaineer said:

They allow all sorts of people to publish there. A critical reader knows that you can't use the fact that it's published there as their endorsement. That's why this is at the end of the piece.  "The views expressed by contributors are their own and are not the views of The Hill."

 I'm sure they don't allow Neo-Nazis to publish. They may have a range of acceptable views, but it does not include everyone and has limits. They publish few real Progressive views, but evidently, "political hacks" are deemed mainstream enough.  And you know perfectly well that they add that disclaimer at the end for legal purposes. 

I don’t know how that disclaimer would provide a publisher with any legal protection; if you can explain how it does, please do. Otherwise, the only reason that makes sense to me for it to be there is the one that South_Mountaineer gave.

 South_Mountaineer/nohero said that the disclaimer functioned as a way to show that the publication could publish anything and not have it affect the reputation of the publication.  This is nonsense.  Publications select pieces to publish that align with their basic philosophy and then if something goes wrong they cite the disclaimer and say it does not reflect them.  They don't just publish anything that gets submitted.  And they have not disavowed that piece, so one can assume it fits in with the principles of The Hill. 

nan said:

 South_Mountaineer/nohero said that the disclaimer functioned as a way to show that the publication could publish anything and not have it affect the reputation of the publication.  This is nonsense.  

That is indeed nonsense, but South_Mountaineer didn’t say that. 

Publications select pieces to publish that align with their basic philosophy and then if something goes wrong they cite the disclaimer and say it does not reflect them.  They don't just publish anything that gets submitted.  And they have not disavowed that piece, so one can assume it fits in with the principles of The Hill. 

Publications select pieces for various reasons, depending on the publication. One basic philosophy is “We print work that we think is worth reading, even if it doesn’t reflect our own editorial views.” A disclaimer like The Hill’s may then try to reinforce that distinction for readers. 

Maybe it works for some readers but not for others. In any case, you still haven’t given a legal reason for running it.

DaveSchmidt said:

nan said:


 South_Mountaineer/nohero said that the disclaimer functioned as a way to show that the publication could publish anything and not have it affect the reputation of the publication.  This is nonsense.  

That is indeed nonsense, but South_Mountaineer didn’t say that. 

Publications select pieces to publish that align with their basic philosophy and then if something goes wrong they cite the disclaimer and say it does not reflect them.  They don't just publish anything that gets submitted.  And they have not disavowed that piece, so one can assume it fits in with the principles of The Hill. 

Publications select pieces for various reasons, depending on the publication. One basic philosophy is “We print work that we think is worth reading, even if it doesn’t reflect our own editorial views.” A disclaimer like The Hill’s may then try to reinforce that distinction for readers. 
Maybe it works for some readers but not for others. In any case, you still haven’t given a legal reason for running it.

Yes, they print work they consider worth reading.  And what do they consider worth reading?  Stuff they agree with.  Unless it gets a bad reception, then they can cite the boilerplate disclaimer.  None of this is obscure, secret information.