No, because that actually happened.
https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/512487-senate-p...
https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/512487-senate-p...
Still blown away how trumpism has infected the HN crowd this deeply.
The same people (YouTube employees) who don't agree with you in the first place are now in the position to decide whether your argument is reasonable enough to make. Nobody is rightly in the position to put guard rails on speculation over events, and I think we'll all be better off when we finally understand this.
> Among the probe's newest revelations is that Konstantin V. Kilimnik, an associate of Manafort's, was a "Russian intelligence officer." Manafort's contacts also posed a “grave counterintelligence threat,” according to the report.
> "Manafort worked with Kilimnik starting in 2016 on narratives that sought to undermine evidence that Russia interfered in the 2016 U.S. election," the report added.
> "At nearly 1,000 pages, Volume 5 stands as the most comprehensive examination of ties between Russia and the 2016 Trump campaign to date — a breathtaking level of contacts between Trump officials and Russian government operatives that is a very real counterintelligence threat to our elections," Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), the panel's vice chairman, added in a statement.
> “grave counterintelligence threat,”
Somebody's opinion about what could happen or might have happened.
> "very real counterintelligence threat"
The opinion of a member of the opposing political party about what could happen or might have happened.
> narratives
This sounds like something that could be part of collusion but I'd need to see the rest. It's open to interpretation and I don't trust the media enough to assume they wouldn't imply something like this without having something big behind it. Indeed they hint at things without actually stating them because they're not actually true all the time.
Anyway, it kind of sounds like Manafort is involved in a conspiracy of some sort to cover up wrongdoing by the Russians. But it just feels like weasel wording. It sounds bad but I'm not sure what it really means. Is the implication that the Russians did Trump the favor of the social media campaign, and Manafort is doing them the favor of helping them cover it up? That's the quid pro quo? I don't want to give anyone the benefit of the doubt here, I want to hear the point.
https://www.npr.org/2019/03/24/706318191/trump-white-house-h...
"Special counsel Robert Mueller did not find evidence that President Trump's campaign conspired with Russia to influence the 2016 election, according to a summary of findings submitted to Congress"
In August, of this year, the US Senate Special Committee on Intelligence concluded its investigation and found that collusion occurred with Russian nationals, and possibly Russian intelligence. _Separately_ from Mueller.
"Special counsel Robert Mueller did not find evidence that President Trump's campaign conspired with Russia to influence the 2016 election, according to a summary of findings submitted to Congress by Attorney General William Barr."
I think Attorney General William Barr did not correctly summarize the findings of the Mueller report, and was acting to drive an incorrect narrative.
Given that, I think it's entirely appropriate to also look at the Republican-controlled Senate report that the OP linked, which says it did.
Wrong, it said it did not find collision.
Here's the summary from the lead on the US Senate Special Committee on Intelligence:
https://www.rubio.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases...
“We can say, without any hesitation, that the Committee found absolutely no evidence that then-candidate Donald Trump or his campaign colluded with the Russian government to meddle in the 2016 election."
For Rubio to make this statement, he needs to explain this finding of his committee.
> The committee's findings are a more in-depth look at the interference than Mueller's investigation, but the findings run parallel to the conclusions of Mueller's probe, which found overwhelming evidence of Russia's efforts to interfere in the election through disinformation and cyber campaigns but a lack of sufficient evidence that the Trump campaign conspired with the Kremlin to impact the outcome of the 2016 election.
Mueller didn't indict a single US citizen for conspiring with Russia.
It didn't happen.
> the findings run parallel to the conclusions of Mueller's probe, which found overwhelming evidence of Russia's efforts to interfere in the election through disinformation and cyber campaigns but a lack of sufficient evidence that the Trump campaign conspired with the Kremlin to impact the outcome of the 2016 election.
That's from the article you linked.
a lack of sufficient evidence that the Trump campaign conspired with the Kremlin to impact the outcome of the 2016 election.
Do you see that part?
The _subject_ of that quote is the Mueller investigation, _not_ the Senate Committee.
> the findings run parallel to the conclusions of Mueller's probe, which found overwhelming evidence of Russia's efforts to interfere in the election through disinformation and cyber campaigns but a lack of sufficient evidence that the Trump campaign conspired with the Kremlin to impact the outcome of the 2016 election.
It's stating that _Mueller's probe_ found evidence of efforts, but not sufficient evidence of conspiracy. This is _not_ stating that the committee did not.
To quote The Intercept[1], on Paul Manafort in the Senate report:
One of Manafort’s closest aides during his time in Ukraine was Konstantin Kilimnik, who the Senate report identifies as a Russian intelligence officer. Kilimnik also served as Manafort’s liaison with Deripaska.
While he was working for Trump during the 2016 campaign, Manafort stayed in contact with Kilimnik and gave him the Trump campaign’s internal polling data, which showed that the key to defeating Clinton was to drive up negative attitudes about her among voters.
The Senate report says that the intelligence committee “obtained some information suggesting Kilimnik may have been connected to the GRU’s hack and leak operation targeting the 2016 election.” The report adds that “this information suggests that a channel for coordination on the GRU hack operation may have existed through Kilimnik.” The report adds that in interviews with Mueller’s prosecution team, “Manafort lied consistently about one issue in particular: his interactions with Kilimnik.” Manafort decided to “face more severe criminal penalties rather than provide complete answers about his interactions with Kilimnik.” The Manafort-Kilimnik relationship, the Senate report concludes, represents “the single most direct tie between senior Trump campaign officials and the Russian intelligence services.”
To emphasise a direct quote from the Republican-led Senate Committee: "the single most direct tie between senior Trump campaign officials and the Russian intelligence services."
Now it's possible that Manafort was doing this because he was greedy and getting money from the Russians (he was getting paid by them), and it's possible to argue that it wasn't collusion because Trump fired him.
And of course "collusion" is a messy thing anyway - there is no clear definition, and no crime called "colluding".
The whole report is worth reading[2].
[1] https://theintercept.com/2020/09/03/trump-russia-senate-repo...
[2] https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/docu...