Post by robeiae on Dec 18, 2016 9:09:36 GMT -5
I know we have a number of threads about the Russian hacking, Trump's response to it, Obama's response to it, etc. But I thought this particular angle deserved it's own thread. That angle being the idea that the Trump campaign was actively working with the Russians to "steal" the election.
Here's Michael Moore suggesting this may be the case: www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/12/17/michael_moore_trump_has_no_right_to_enter_that_house.html
Aside from the issue of collusion with the Russians--which would amount to treason, I think--Moore apparently thinks it is also the media's job to de-legitimize Trump's election.
Note too that Harry Reid basically made the same claim as Moore:
And Reid makes a rock-solid argument to back this up:
Now how can anyone question that bit of analysis? It's like a mathematical proof...
Seriously though, if there was a secret plan hatched between the Russians and Trump to steal the election, that would absolutely justify a move by the Electoral College, imo. But there just isn't evidence of such a thing. Tillerson being named as SoS is not evidence of this. Wikileaks getting some info from Russian hackers is not evidence of this. All there is is evidence of a potential, which isn't saying much at all. Hell, there's a ton more evidence of the Clinton Foundation selling access to Hillary Clinton. A ton more (which would be an impeachable offense, at the very least; the fact that it involved foreign governments might make it treasonous, as well). But of course, there was no smoking gun, which made the issue only something that might influence opinions on Clinton, not turn into a legally or constitutionally disqualifying thing.
And that's all there is so far with Trump and the Russians (only to a much lesser degreee, imo): it smells a little off to some people. But that was true two months ago. And it didn't impact enough people to matter. Them's the breaks. Get over it.
Here's Michael Moore suggesting this may be the case: www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/12/17/michael_moore_trump_has_no_right_to_enter_that_house.html
Protesting, obstructing, disrupting, civil disobedience. I mean, the man has no right to enter that house. There are too many questions about whatever collusion was going on. I mean, they admitted that they were in touch with the Russians during the campaign. They have said that.
So we would need to know as Americans what the hell was going on there and he does not have a mandate. He does not have a mandate. And that just needs to be said over and over and over again. And the media, for God's sake, please do your job.
So we would need to know as Americans what the hell was going on there and he does not have a mandate. He does not have a mandate. And that just needs to be said over and over and over again. And the media, for God's sake, please do your job.
Aside from the issue of collusion with the Russians--which would amount to treason, I think--Moore apparently thinks it is also the media's job to de-legitimize Trump's election.
Note too that Harry Reid basically made the same claim as Moore:
“Someone in the Trump campaign organization was in on the deal. I have no doubt. Now, whether they told [Trump] or not, I don’t know. I assume they did. But there is no question about that,” Reid said in an interview with The Huffington Post. “So there is collusion there, clearly.”
“Here is the deal: We have a situation where during the campaign, especially the last few months of the campaign, WikiLeaks was heavily involved in trying to hurt Hillary Clinton and it helped Trump. And you have Trump who said he likes Putin better than he likes Obama.”
Seriously though, if there was a secret plan hatched between the Russians and Trump to steal the election, that would absolutely justify a move by the Electoral College, imo. But there just isn't evidence of such a thing. Tillerson being named as SoS is not evidence of this. Wikileaks getting some info from Russian hackers is not evidence of this. All there is is evidence of a potential, which isn't saying much at all. Hell, there's a ton more evidence of the Clinton Foundation selling access to Hillary Clinton. A ton more (which would be an impeachable offense, at the very least; the fact that it involved foreign governments might make it treasonous, as well). But of course, there was no smoking gun, which made the issue only something that might influence opinions on Clinton, not turn into a legally or constitutionally disqualifying thing.
And that's all there is so far with Trump and the Russians (only to a much lesser degreee, imo): it smells a little off to some people. But that was true two months ago. And it didn't impact enough people to matter. Them's the breaks. Get over it.
