Nice false equivalence. Judges have ruled that Trump's side has failed to show any evidence of fraud in Court, losing 50/51 court cases, with the "win" having nothing to do with fraud[1]. On the other hand, there are literally thousand of pages from the Senate Committee on Intelligence showing evidence of Russian Interference in 2016. [2] [3], along with the Mueller Report [4]. Russian Interference in 2016 is not comparable to Trump's false claims of fraud in 2020.

[1] https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-losing-election-laws...

[2] https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/docu...

[3] https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/docu...

[4] https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf

Funny how the comment you’re responding to said Russian collusion but you instead bring up the separate topic of Russian interference.

It doesn't change the fact that the courts have decided that there was no fraud over dozens and dozens of lawsuits. The proponent of the Russia collusion wanted it investigated, and there was very little talk about it after (the honestly poorly handled) Mueller report.

And while there was no clear evidence of Trump himself colluding, many were indicted and even admitted guilt. How many people have gone to jail for fraud in the 2020 election? Is there the equivalent to the Jr. email and the Trump Tower meeting when it comes to election fraud? Has there been a single real evidence of fraud shown in courts (not on News or social media where there are no consequences for lying)?

Really it is worse than that, the media narrative pushed by the litigants is about "fraud" but most of the losing lawsuits don't even allege fraud!

Wait who admitted guilt of russian collusion? No Russian collusion was ever proven.

Agreed. This shit is going to radicalize people, and all these big tech companies better be ready. There will be a backlash.

I read it. And what I found was nearly 200 pages describe various forms of collusion between Trump campaign officials and various Russian actors. True, there was no "treason." But that's moving the goalpost. If we stick with "Russian collusion," the Muller report confirms that it was, in fact, rampant--albeit not chargeably criminal. ("Collusion" is not a crime.)

"Not charegably criminal." So then what are we even talking about?

In fact "not chargeably criminal" as it is written in the report reads more like, "Reasonable Doubt exists, based on what we were able to find. We are out of time and resources, so if it is there, we may not find it." Paraphrasing of course.

What was "chargeably criminal" was the obstruction of justice.

I read it. It's in there, and it is damning on both counts, the second count enough to indict anyone but a president.

Exactly true. However the Russian investigation spanned years. These things take a lot of time to work through the investigative process. Take a look here, https://hereistheevidence.com, which provides significant questionable items that still need to be investigated.

Wait - was the "Russia collusion narrative" that one totally crazy massive investigation that ended up getting 34 people indicted? One of them Trump just pardoned Flynn for a week or so ago?

Are you just gonna sit here and pretend like they're even remotely the same thing to a bunch of people calling for the dismissal of our democratic institution of counting votes fairly? As if people were talking about "civil war" and kidnapping of government heads in the opposition party?

You're just like somebody arguing that intolerance of intolerance is itself intolerance. That is a path towards intolerance.

Now I'm not saying we shouldn't question Youtube's decision here, but the way you're doing it is straight up wrong.

They weren't indicted for russian collusion. Your comment should be deleted for misinformation.

Flynn was indicted for lying about his call with the Russian ambassador which happened to have been recorded. Also, a pardon means that even Flynn admits his guilt.

As you say, Flynn was indicted for, and was pardoned for, lying to the FBI, which is absolutely not the same thing as collusion with Russia. Thanks for proving my point.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Flynn

What's with the mental block all you people have? I am completely disgusted with Trump and am happy he is gone. That doesn't mean I'm going to ignore facts directly in front of my face if they don't fall in line with prevailing anti-Trump sentiment.

I think you missed the part about Russia, i.e. the subject of his lie. Also, Russia was wining and dining Flynn. Remember the photos of Flynn at the Russian propaganda event? I'm sure that has nothing to do with Russia, right? No Russian motive there, right? Just, you know, forget about Flynn pleading guilty in court and then acknowledging guilt by accepting the pardon. You forgot to mention those extremely relevant points.

I think you missed the part about him, nor anyone else getting convicted for colluding with Russians. Continue to change the subject and present circumstantial evidence or otherwise try to convince with your own personal court of law, but not one person was convicted of colluding with Russians. Let's say that again, no one was convicted of colluding with Russians. I don't take your personal circuitous deductions, anonymous internet stranger, over a very well financed and staffed team that was still unable to find evidence or convict.

Also, why do you continue to mislead about him pleading guilty to Russia collusion? He didn't - he pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI. I don't believe you are discussing in good faith with tactics like these.

The act of "collusion" isn't a crime. Conspiring with the Russians and then lying about it to the FBI when they are investigating Russian election interference is indeed a crime and it's precisely what Flynn says he is guilty of. Keep in mind too that this was meant to be a plea down from more major crimes. Flynn was getting off easy by only admitting to those crimes.

When you say, "but not one person was convicted of colluding with Russians": What criminal statute do you think would satisfy your criteria of "colluding with Russia"?

I think pleading guilty for lying to the FBI specifically around a call made to the Russian ambassador in which he coordinated Russian and incoming Trump Administration responses looks really bad. Rodger Stone was convicted on obstruction, making false statements, and witness tampering around his behavior coordinating the release of the hacked (by Russia) DNC emails, which also looks a lot like "Russian collusion".

U.S. Code, 18 USC §371.

Or the Logan Act would work as well.

Neither of these were pursued.

Your argument that the president's 34 indicted colleagues were actually guilty of X not Y is adorable.

I've only known two people to use the term "adorable" like this and they were both recognized to be huge assholes by everyone around them.

If you can provide a single shred of evidence that any of the 34 indicted colleagues were proven guilty of collusion with Russia I'll take everything back. But you can't, because they weren't.

Read up on the facts. The investigation found tons of wrongdoing by inept people who really didn’t know election law or the rules around government dealings, and consistently lied under oath. But it didn’t find any evidence of the alleged collusion with the Russians. People were fired or went to jail, but mostly over lying to the investigators and obstructing the investigation.

Note the Russians certainly did meddle in the election. But collusion requires active, willing collaboration by Trump’s campaign, promises of quid-pro-quo, etc. None of that happened outside of a handful of isolated, rogue or accidental, and not very impactful instances.

The problem with this comparison is that there actually was significant evidence of collusion with Russia. If you read the Muller report you'll see it all over the place. Here's a summary: https://www.justsecurity.org/63838/guide-to-the-mueller-repo.... Reading the actual report would be better, but it is very long. Trump's repeated claim that Muller's report somehow supported his claims of "no collusion" is simply fiction. It did the opposite.

You may have a reasonable higher level point out selective application of the rules, but this is a bad example.

The entire point of the SCO was to try and shore up / verify the allegations in the Steele dossier, of which it couldn't make a single connection.

Where are the pee pee tapes? When did Cohen go to Prague to get the emails again? You'd think the SCO could have at least interviewed Julian Assange and asked him where he got the emails.