[naiveprogrammer]

The media has been pedaling the Russian collusion story for 4 years and you don't seem to care because it fits your priors and political agenda. The bigger lesson here is that everybody is ready to accept censorship as long as they are not bearing the (immediate) costs of it.

[ptaffs]

"The media has...", really? There's no coordinated media, there are several media corporations (like Twitter, BBC, News Corp (NY Post owner)) with their own bias and their own audience.

[parliament32]

>there's no coordinated media

Ahem. https://www.youtube.com/watch?reload=9&v=x6U2Un5kEdI

[paul7986]

Exactly all the sheep follow and believe what their side says.

To me from pizzaGate to RussiaGate to the impeachment to this Hunter Biden thing is all junk ... arbitrary distractions to the issues that are important ... the economy, healthcare, equality, etc.

Each side will do whatever it takes/strategy to try and win and too many sheep follow along/get soaked up in the soap opera drama.

For me it's all transparent and tiresome!

[donmcronald]

I'm not American, but the same thing is happening in many countries. A stable country where the citizens trust the government and judicial systems is resistant to corruption. If you can destabilize those countries by spreading lies, hate, disinformation, etc. there's an opportunity for the most corrupt morally bankrupt scumbags on the planet to come in and seize control of important assets and infrastructure.

Just watch closely for a while and you'll see it happening everywhere. There are lies and misinformation and hate and fear directed _everywhere_ no matter what "side" you're on and the volume of it is massive. Then the media and influencers and regular people amplify it and spread it and debate it until they all hate each other and don't trust anyone.

It's working too. America is imploding. The UK got duped into Brexit. Several countries have a growing following of citizens that think immigrants and minorities are the cause of their misfortune even though those tend to be vulnerable groups that are exploited the most. Cancel culture is dialed up to 11. It's crazy and scary.

[jonnycomputer]

The evidence that there was some kind of attempted coordination between the Trump campaign and various Russian individuals is actually stronger than you give credit for. I feel like you didn't actually read the Special Counsel report.

[wwright]

Well, multiple members of the Trump campaign have literally pleaded guilty to lying about involvement with Russia; that story does have that going for it :)

[zalkota]

You sir are the problem.

[dang]

We've banned this account for repeatedly breaking the site guidelines.

If you don't want to be banned, read https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html over, and you're welcome to email [e-mail] and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future.

[triceratops]

Telling the truth is a problem? What times we live in!

[dang]

Please don't perpetuate flamewars on HN. They're tedious and we're trying for curious conversation here.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

[triceratops]

You're right. Sorry dang!

[dang]

Appreciated!

[messick]

Lol. Although I guess that’s true in a “not letting Trumpers forget he is a Russian stooge” kind of sense.

[dang]

Please don't perpetuate flamewars on HN. We're trying for curious conversation here.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

[naiveprogrammer]

You'd think that after 4 years of intense scrutiny by the media, with a 2-year Special Counsel Investigation, people would finally let this go. If you don't see the parallel between this pipe dream and the QAnons of the world, I can't help you.

[delfinom]

We had like what? 6 congressional committees over finding Mr. Ben Ghazi for years? And what, we can't have our own go at it?

[wwright]

Well, it doesn’t help that the “infamous dossier” literally states that a sitting President can’t be charged for the crimes that were investigated. And the author explicitly stated that he did not find Trump or his campaign innocent of the described crimes.

[j_walter]

You don't have to be found innocent of the crimes...you are presumed innocent until proven guilty (except in the court of public opinion).

[veridies]

Note: this opinion is independent of the current president, and I'm not stating any opinion on President Trump's conduct.

This seems like a really bad standard to apply to the president. I'd argue that morally there are two relevant factors when it comes to finding someone guilty: the damage that would be done to others by failing to punish the perpetrator, and the damage that would be done to the alleged perpetrator by punishing them. We choose different standards depending on those two factors. For example, in civil cases, someone specific has lost something and someone else has gained at their expense. And you're not seeking to imprison someone, but to take away some of their wealth. So we pick a standard of evidence (preponderance of the evidence) that's lower than in criminal cases (with a very high injury to the perpetrator and typically lower injury to the community).

In contrast, an impeachment is not a prison sentence. It would injure a president only insofar as that president would no longer keep the most prestigious title and position of power in American society. And failing to impeach for serious corruption or crimes (say, if a president were conspiring with China to weaken America's standing overseas) could be catastrophic. So I think a much weaker presumption of innocence is in order.

[djsumdog]

If you're talking about Flynn, he was entrapped by the FBI, his lies weren't material, his lawyer had a conflict of interest, when his new lawyer uncovered all of that in discovery, the prosecutor moved to dismiss (because they had committed misconduct), Sullivan, in AN UNPRECEDENTED MOVE, appointed his own Amicus to say they couldn't dismiss the case.

Flynn was then charged for lying when he plead guilty, because ht wasn't actually guilty. Seriously. This is a Kafka trap.

On top of that, it's now clear Sullivan was getting e-mail, exparte, and ENTERING THEM into evidence!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFMk48KA608

[hackinthebochs]

There's a conflation of issues whenever someone comes along claiming the "Russia collusion" story is fake news. Russia did meddle in the election and did hack the DNC. Russia also had close ties to high level members of the Trump campaign. It is not reasonable to dispute these facts. The question of whether Trump personally colluded with Russia is in doubt. But I don't see this specific claim made much at all from legitimate news organizations. The dishonesty is how people want to cast doubt on Russia's efforts to elect Trump by conflating it with the issue of whether Trump personally colluded with Russia.

[rayiner]

> But I don't see this specific claim made much at all from legitimate news organizations.

You really missed all of 2017-2018. My wife is a never-Trumper and this issue got her to tune into Rachel Maddow and all the podcasts and the idea that the collusion was two-sided and went to the highest levels in the Trump campaign was pervasive.

See: https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/russ...

[hackinthebochs]

Yeah, I meant to add 'recently', as in after the Mueller report didn't find any specific evidence of collusion between Trump and Russia.