[triceratops]

> Russiagate is just one prior example. It was patently false from the outset

What is "Russiagate"? What about it was "patently false"?

The Mueller investigation got multiple indictments against Russian nationals. They also obtained convictions of people working in the Trump campaign or administration for election-related offenses. They found evidence of Russian attempts to influence voters in swing states by illegally buying ads on social media. That Russia attempted to meddle in the 2016 elections isn't in doubt - only whether the meddling worked.

[tablespoon]

> What is "Russiagate"?

It's talk-radioese for the Mueller investigation.

> What about it was "patently false"?

IIRC, a lot of misunderstandings about it (e.g. misunderstanding the proven claims that Russia made signficant efforts to interfere with the election as a claim that they successfully rigged it).

[the_optimist]

This is a very interesting comment for future historians, as it shows how people convince themselves that they have absorbed substance when in fact there is no such substance.

Virtually no aspect of your statement extends beyond press headlines, where the content and follow-on of each of these stories entirely defused the substance of the respective headline. That is why the whole thing that you believe is very important amounted to a pile of dust.

[triceratops]

The irony of talking about substance when offering practically none in one's own comment.

> Virtually no aspect of your statement extends beyond press headlines

I didn't realize I was writing an exam with essay-type questions.

[tonystubblebine]

This comment would be more valuable if you’d made it in a constructive way with even one detailed example of defused substance.

[triceratops]

That's the irony. Their own views don't have any actual substance.

[the_optimist]

DOJ indicted ham-sandwich Russians, then later retreated. Only process crimes charged (lying, interfering). Buying ads on social media isn't illegal, and the amount was de minimus (< $30k). FARA crimes were reverse-engineered, selectively prosecuted, and didn't related to Russia in any way. Everything about these headlines is an utter farce.

[triceratops]

> indicted ham-sandwich Russians, then later retreated.

Citation needed.

> Only process crimes charged (lying, interfering).

Why lie or interfere if you didn't commit any crimes? These aren't random Joes with bad/no legal representation who didn't know what they were doing. You have to assume they were doing it to cover up more serious crimes and assumed they would be pardoned. Which turned out to be true.

> Buying ads on social media isn't illegal

Foreigners buying political ads is illegal. Citizens using money owned by foreigners to buy political ads is also illegal.

[the_optimist]

>Citation needed. read the docs > Why lie or interfere if you didn't commit any crimes? Fundamental misunderstanding of justice and the US justice system. > buy political ads "political"

Not here to open your eyes for you, but again I appreciate you exposing your perspectives to the light.

[the_optimist]

It seems you may be unfamiliar with the theoretical and practice application of the legal system. Here is some food for thought.

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

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1279681

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE

[triceratops]

> Fundamental misunderstanding of justice and the US justice system

Because the people committing those crimes didn't know the Fifth Amendment? You don't have to say anything. There's really no reason to lie; other than to cover up something worse. Explain the pardons.