Russian Collusion

For months all I've been hearing is "Russian Collusion" "Russian Interference" "Russian Influence" without any real definition of what they mean. (maybe I missed it among all the noise)

Finally, Here's an article that at least defines one vector of possible collusion/interference/influence.

With regards to Facebook:
... anyone from the Trump campaign helped Russians boost fake news articles targeting Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton. Warner is testing the theory popular among Democratic operatives that Russia was behind spikes in fake news that were anti-Clinton and that Russia had help targeting those articles from US political operatives.
... Russia had help from domestic political operatives to micro-target fake news articles.

So this makes some sense.
Anyone on Facebook that may be on the fence - and vocal Trumpsterf***s - would get blasted with fake news articles. Those who couldn't discern the fake crap may have been eventually swayed. (reading between the lines - look at the education levels of who voted for which candidate)
Strong Clinton supporters probably didn't see all the BS, so they didn't know to set the record straight.


And to play the Trumpsterf*** game: "I think It happened .. well Maybe it happened. It could have happened - Prove that it didn't
...
I think it happened"

Why is everyone blaming Trump for what he has done, admitted doing, implied that he has done...or what his team and/or son has done.....Witch Hunt!

Theodore Roosevelt won a Nobel Prize for colluding with the Russians. Andrew Jackson tried to collude with the Japanese, but the ambassador died of a heart attack somewhere in the Middle East.

I think your use of the word "colluding" is incorrect.

Of course the Trump campaign and the Russians colluded. And it's likely Trump is hiding things regarding this and illegal activity regarding himself. I don't think anyone doubts this.

The question is, how many people care? Thing is, we all knew Trump was a sleazeball before he got elected. Yet he got elected anyways. So the shock factor simply isn't going to be there like it was for Gary Hart (remember him?) or Richard Nixon. And the real important thing is, the GOP in charge know this. This is why they can sell their souls and stand by him on the camera while pushing their agenda and still expect to get re-elected.

The Democrats really should end their calls for impeachment and even their focus on the investigation itself. Trump is doing a good job of derailing himself without their help. Let Mueller investigate and do his job and let the pieces fall where they may. If it results in charges being filed, so be it. If impeachment does not occur, so be it. Putting Pence in charge of the Oval Office is actually a scarier prospect, because, under him, the sinister GOP agenda has a chance of getting passed without the circus sideshow currently in there.

What the Democrats should be 100% focused on, besides taking the high road here, is on the ISSUES. With 80% of the American people hating the current health care law proposals, and the majority siding against the GOP on issues such as climate change and education, it really wouldn't take much for the Democrats to come up with better ways to deal with these issues that rally the public support and get them elected.

Nobody really cares about the Russian thing. It's tabloid fodder at best. The Democrats should know better.

I think that's what many thought during the campaign.
... At least it's what I thought.

People also thought he would tone it down once in. And people thought he would drain the swamp and accomplish all the things he promised.

Yes, most likely, but words change meaning. For example in Shakespeare or Adam Smith, the word, prodigal, means spendthrift. In common speech, people use it to mean missing or out of town. For example, the prodigal horse finished out of the money. The prodigal politician returned to politics. John Kennedy colluded with Sam Giancana's girlfriend. Or maybe that was canoodle.

Many words have multiple meanings. Many more have not changed their meaning over time.

Still, had the word "colluding" changed its meaning from Teddy to Donnie, there would be no comparison...well there might be a comparison of contrast but not in similarity of actions.

and your proof is????

Trumps tweets and videoed interviews....and what his team have either tweeted and/or stated in interviews and (in a few cases) stated in testimony before Congress, which I watched and listened to.

One really can't trust the media on either the left or right, so I go with what Trump says and has said.

Of course, when Roosevelt won the Nobel Prize, his dealings with the Russians would not have been collusion because his actions must have been publicly known. Otherwise he could not have won the prize.

The collusion discussion has some irony in that the Democrats have taken the chicken little position with regard to the Russians. During the Cold War, they encouraged cooperation with the Russians.

In my American History class two years ago we watched a video of Alan Cranston, a Democrat Senator from California, interviewing Secretary of State, (I think it was George Shultz) about why the United States had so bad relations with the Russians. Cranston wanted to know, "What are we doing wrong." He might have asked because at the time, President Reagan liked to refer to the Russians as the "Evil Empire." A phrase the Democrats liked to ridicule.

Shultz told him something like, "Nothing. It's the Russians. They are just difficult."

During the Cold War, the Democrats wanted better relations with the Russians while the Republicans preached against it. President Reagan claimed to have switched to the GOP because of the Democrat's fuzzy wazzy notions about the Russians.

I read in a biography of Roosevelt, that after dealing with the Russians, he might have agreed with President Reagan.

Past "dealings" with the Russians did not include propaganda against a presidential candidate

Some Democrats/Liberals have done this. Not all, but many. To be fair to them (not that we need to be "fair" ), many Republicans/Conservatives took the "chicken little position with regard to" Obama and also with Hillary.



This is only partially true. The "cooperation", which in large part started with Nixon (a Republican, was ultimately relative to the threat of nuclear war, which unbeknownst to many came pretty close on a few different occasions.

On the other hand the idea of "collusion with the Russians" now is more about whether or not a foreign country tried to have a substantive impact on our 2016 Presidential election and if so to what extent.

If Trump and/or his team did in fact collude with Russia in an effort to become the President of the USA, this would be very bad... IMO.

"We" do not yet have a complete answer yet.

As it turns out, Trump Jr has publicly admitted to trying to obtain information from Russia, which could be used to assist the Trump Presidential Campaign.

Yes, his efforts failed, but he attempted it.

The question of whether or not his actions amount to "collusion" and the question of whether or not his actions went far enough to be a criminal act are in the hands of federal prosecutors and their investigators. We can debate this, our opinion of this, all we want, but "we" do not yet have the answer.

Manafort and Kushner were also with Trump Jr. If Trump Jr is actually found to have committed a crime, Manafort and Kushner could be in a lot of trouble as well. Yet another question that we don't have an answer for...yet.

According to the horrid fake media, Trump has been considering the extent of his powers to pardon people. If Trump decides to pardon anyone on this matter, I think that "we" will all have an answer. After all, one does not need to be pardoned, if one did nothing wrong.