>The report was the culmination of two years of investigation by Mr Mueller which saw some of the president's closest former aides prosecuted and, in some cases, imprisoned, although not on charges related to the alleged Russian collusion.
I am glad that we investigated and charged people with crimes that they would have otherwise gotten away with but if the same standard was applied the investigation would have been shutdown as a conspiracy.
Edit to add: I have not followed the news that closely, so I am open to new information. But I think this exchange proves the overall point on censorship, there were extraordinary claims that were refuted for having no evidence. Investigations were had, preliminary reports said no misconduct but now you say that later reports are more damming.
If we treated the situation the same, the news and twitter would have not amplified the voices but silenced them and we would have had no investigation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mueller_report
Note the second paragraph:
"... the report states that Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election was illegal and occurred "in sweeping and systematic fashion" but was welcomed by the Trump campaign as it expected to benefit from such efforts. It also identifies links between Trump campaign officials and individuals with ties to the Russian government, about which several persons connected to the campaign made false statements and obstructed investigations."
There are always "buts" in all of human rights. No right is absolute because we don't live in a world of absolutes. Free speech, without any limits at all, becomes libel, harassment, hate speech, incitement to violence, sedition, etc.
Absolutism in rights is a thought-terminating cliché, evidenced by the fact that there are literal lifetimes of scholarship in regards to when rights begin and when they end, and which right to prioritize when multiple people's rights are conflicting with each other.
> The democrats were claiming fraud 4 years go due to a supposed Russian influence.The evidence was tenuous and circumstantial at best. I dont remember seeing a similar cry for censorship.
There was a claim that ended up in a Special Counsel investigation in which _multiple_ people associated with the Trump 2016 campaign ended up going in prison for, including Michael Flynn.
Comparing claims of potential fraud, followed up by investigation and mostly finished when such investigation discovered some things and disproved others, is an eminently healthy level of questioning over the complete insanity of fraud claims.
The current claims of fraud are not of anyone with a sound mind. Do not conflate one thing with the other; they're not anywhere near the same league.