MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Republicans Conclude Republican President Did Nothing Wrong in Russian Collusion Probe

A GOP committee says the Trump campaign didn't collude with Russia and that Russian agents were working to "sow discord," not to elect Trump.

Mark Reinstein/ZUMA Press/NewscomMark Reinstein/ZUMA Press/NewscomRepublicans on the House Intelligence Committee say there's no evidence the Trump campaign colluded with Russia during the 2016 election.

Rep. K. Michael Conaway (R-Texas), who headed the GOP investigative committee, told reporters yesterday that their report will be turned over to Democrats today and that it mirrors the U.S. intelligence community's finding that Russian state actors attempted to influence the 2016 election outcome.

But the House Republicans differ from the nation's top spies on the point of whether Russia wanted Trump to win. They say that Vladimir Putin and his allies were simply working to "sow dischord," not in order to boost Trump's prospects.

Their finding stands in direct contradiction of the intelligence community report (backed by soon-to-be Secretary of State Mike Pompeo), which said Russia initially started meddling out of anti–Hillary Clinton animosity but eventually became actively pro-Trump.

The idea that Putin was driven purely by animosity for Clinton, as opposed to love for (or secret ties to) Trump, isn't entirely implausible. That certainly seems to be the American electorate's position: The 2016 election turned out the way it did not because American voters loved Trump so much but because they weren't crazy about Clinton.

All the same, the House Republican report might appear less like a clearly partisan press-release if the committee hadn't avoided questioning key people, such as former Trump campaign bigwigs Paul Manafort and Rick Gates, or if they had waited to draw firm conclusions until after special counsel Robert Mueller finishes his investigation (as Democrats had requested).

Conway said he'll work to get his committee's report quickly declassified and made public.

Photo Credit: Mark Reinstein/ZUMA Press/Newscom

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Collusion may not be legally relevant but the fact that The Dotard has been in a full time French kiss with Vlady lends to the notion that he is owned by the Russian mob.

    #TrumpMoneyLaundering

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    One way or another, you're gonna make this conspiracy theory work!

  • Novichok||

    They literally colluded with a Russian state prosecutor to get dirt on Hillary. It was all written down, memorialized, inescapably clear intent and yet you somehow can pretend like there was no collusion.

  • Burcu||

    I'm convinced.

  • Microaggressor||

    I mean, the collusion was literal. Not figurative. This is unprecedented.

  • Novichok||

    The point being that it couldn't be a clearer case of collusion. "A Russian govt official wants to help you win the election".

  • swizzlestick||

    Well then, apparently a ton of people are colluding with me to give me a huge dong and get rid of my beer gut.

  • BYODB||

    So this means that the Hillary campaign and high ranking FBI officials also colluded. Lock them all up, or should only Republicans be held to this standard?

  • Just Say'n||

    When he armed Ukraine I knew that it was all part of the three dimensional chess that he and Putin have going on. Absent any evidence whatsoever, I'm convinced that collusion happened.

  • Cy||

    What's it like to work for CNN? Good benefits?

  • JoeBlow123||

    "Dotard has been in a full time French kiss with Vlady lends to the notion that he is owned by the Russian mob."

    Where is the evidence for this? I see very little evidence we have changed course or budged an inch with Russia. We are inches away from waging a proxy war with them in Syria, sold weapons to Ukraine, keep moving military forces deeper into East Europe, and name them one of he biggest strategic threats in our national defense review.

  • Novichok||

    Do you remember whem Trump tried to lift the sanctions early in his administration but it was leaked and all hell broke loose with Senators threating action.

  • H-daddy||

    ...and why are there sanctions against Russia? Clinton idea? What good do they do?

  • Cy||

    Under Trump, our military literally bombed/shot/shelled their military contractors killing quite a few. But we're all chummy with Russia?

  • The Last American Hero||

    A true Russian pawn would move to reduce fracking and offshore drilling, thus driving up oil prices and taking the economic pressure off of Putin.

  • Mickey Rat||

    Which would just show that Vlady was working both ends against the middle, considering he owned Hilary too.

  • Sigivald||

    Apart from all his actual actions seeming to undercut Russian strengths and goals, he's obviously their puppet!

    (The man's a giant douchecanoe, but "Russia!!!!" was always untenable.)

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    They say that Vladimir Putin and his allies were simply working to "sow dischord," not in order to boost Trump's prospects.

    Dischord or discord?

    In either case, that's totally not believable at all. Who would do such a thing?

  • Sal Paradise||

    They really like Minor Threat.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

  • Weigel's Cock Ring||

    The left has gone batshit crazy. They were actually blaming the Italian election results on Putin and the Russians too.

    Not even Senator Joe McCarthy went so far as to say that every election outcome on the planet that he didn't like had to have been the result of a Soviet plot.

  • Tony||

    Get this though. The right elected Donald Trump for president. You'd think they'd jump at the chance to blame someone else for that nonsense.

  • Microaggressor||

    You're not so good at thinking outside of your bubble.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    This could be said for almost for everyone here. Even OBL is just a Chinese room.

  • Cy||

    Voters of the right, even the insane ones, tend to take more responsibility for their actions. Curious, has the right ever tried to blame another country for a federal election out come?

  • Tony||

    Sure they do. I remember once it became clear what a disaster Bush was all of a sudden there wasn't a single person to be found who voted for him.

    Trump was ready to blame... whatever, a Democratic conspiracy, should he have lost. He said so in plain English, or whatever that shrill baby-talk is he employs.

    Russian interference is a fact. I get that you guys think those are optional.

  • The Last American Hero||

    So we've moved from "collusion" to "interference" in a matter of 2 posts. Keep sliding those goalposts.

  • Michael S. Langston||

    Sure they do. I remember once it became clear what a disaster Bush was all of a sudden there wasn't a single person to be found who voted for him.

    Not to speak for Cy, but that wasn't an answer to his question, as a similar phenomenon could be seen where no one in Arkansas ever voted for Bill. Neither are examples of either party blaming outside forces.

    Having said that, I would say Republicans have blamed outside forces such as the mainstream media, though to my knowledge only the Democrats have laid blame on a foreign country.

    I don't believe Russia actually impacted the election and to date, no evidence has been found, but even if the Republicans and Democrats are correct in both places, they should focus the blame on any loss internally.

    As in the end, whoever lost didn't provide enough evidence to enough people to win. Additionally, since Republicans are unlikely to ever have any control over the mainstream media and Democrats will never have control over Russia, it would make more sense if they focused on that which they do control: themselves.

  • Michael S. Langston||

    An example: heard James Carville give a speech in early 2000, where he admitted a consistent complaint of the Democrat party that they should pay attention to is they come off arrogant and elitist.

    So question: do you think it would help Hillary and the Ds more to work on that, or for them to blame Russia while continuing to talk down to voters as Hillary did with "states moving forward voted for me, those moving backwards, did not"?

  • Just Say'n||

    You're a bot! Greenwald is a bot!

    Russia collusion is the white liberal equivalent of 'pizza gate', except with even less evidence

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Jill Stein is a Russian Sparrow!

  • Microaggressor||

    The evidence is that CNN thinks every piece of circumstantial evidence is evidence. Are you saying they're less reliable/honest than Alex Jones?!

  • Just Say'n||

    Is there literally any evidence that collusion occurred? The Senate committee seems to be coming to the same conclusion as the House.

  • Novichok||

    Just an email with the heading "Russian state prosecutor wants to help you beat Hillary but we want sanctions lifted in return. Can we meet?"

  • Just Say'n||

    Link?

  • swizzestick||

    Is that the Trump Jr stuff, where it turned out he was being played?

  • Microaggressor||

    Yeah, he was the one being solicited. His crime was failing to reply "Sorry, I don't do business with known Russians."

  • Sigivald||

    Colluuuuuuuusion!

  • Social Justice is neither||

    Is this the same meeting with the Russian lawyer that was being paid by Fusion GPS and when visa issues came up for her Loretta Lynch intervened to make sure she got into the country?

  • The Last American Hero||

    Yep.

  • DajjaI||

    On the one hand I feel like I was manipulated into voting for him but on the other, I don't really regret it either.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    Well if anyone was manipulated by some silly meme. It's on them for their stupidity.

  • DajjaI||

    True dat. Someone said Trump would push for universal paid zapoi leave and I fell for it. So far not a word.....

  • Tony||

    This has all the credibility of a kid in a candy store with candy all over his face saying he didn't eat any candy.

  • Just Say'n||

    Except the kid has no candy on his face and no one can prove he was ever in the candy store. That pretty much sums up all the evidence provided on the Russia collusion story.

  • Tony||

    That's because their idea of investigating was to ask people if they committed a crime and taking "no" for an answer.

  • Just Say'n||

    Ummm....yeah. So, this conspiracy is so grand and the Trump team was so sophisticated to hide its tracks that the Senate, House, FBI, and the entire media has yet to find any evidence to support the wild accusations made. But, at the same time this is such an incompetent administration that staffers are constantly getting re-shuffled.

    Makes perfect sense.

  • swizzestick||

    They're running the GWB playbook again.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    Wasn't a lesson from the GWB playbook to NOT take the intel agencies at their word?

  • Tony||

    The real investigation is ongoing, even if the partisan dog-and-pony show has ended.

  • The Last American Hero||

    Yes. They've now moved on from treason to collusion to something to something to some jackass didn't fill out the TPS report properly. It's time for me to start collecting on those impeachment bets.

  • Sigivald||

    That would be fair if ... any of the other investigations not run by Republicans had anything either.

    But so far, we got nothin'.

    "Where there's smoke there's fire" is not a valid inference in politics, see.

  • ||

    This has all the credibility of a kid in a candy store with candy all over his face saying he didn't eat any candy.

    Politicians influencing elections is a crime the same way kids eating candy in a candy store is a crime. Good example!

  • Ken Shultz||

    "The idea that Putin was driven purely by animosity for Clinton, as opposed to love for (or secret ties to) Trump, isn't entirely implausible."

    Not entirely implausible?!

    LOL

    Putin's hatred for Hillary goes back (at least) to her condemning the legitimacy of the Russian election that put Putin back into power. He blamed her speech denouncing his legitimacy for the unrest that erupted after he was elected, too.

    Here's a story from Politico dated July 25, 2016--three months+ before Hillary lost the presidential election to Trump--titled "Why Putin Hates Hillary"

    https://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/ clinton-putin-226153

    Hillary Clinton later compared Putin to Hitler.

  • Just Say'n||

    Dude, no one was paying attention during the last eight years. Stop ruining the narrative

  • Sigivald||

    "Russia is basically our friend! Reset button! Romney's a paranoid fool for thinking Russia is our rival!"

    Later ...

    "Russia has always been our biggest enemy!"

  • Ken Shultz||

    By the way, this is far more relevant to real policy than any ridiculous accusations of Trump conspiring with the Russians to defeat Hillary.

    The fact is that Hillary Clinton not only wouldn't have worked with Putin to defeat ISIS in Syria, she couldn't have done so. The reason she advocated a direct role and boots on the ground in Syria wasn't only because she's a philosophical neocon. It's also because there would have been no collaborative option with Putin available with Hillary in the White House.

    Trump may have campaigned on working with Putin to defeat ISIS because it made good sense, but it's also a fact that he was pushing a policy that Hillary Clinton couldn't have pursued even if she'd wanted to do so.

    People who focus on Hillary's piss poor leadership when she was secretary of state tend to focus on Benghazi. That wasn't even close to being the worst of it. Accepting donations from foreign governments while she was secretary of state was probably the worst thing she did--but at least corruption for cash is understandable. On the other hand, why did she go out of her way to alienate Putin, with whom we needed to work on so many different issues?

    Simple incompetence.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Accepting donations from foreign governments while she was secretary of state was probably the worst thing she did--but at least corruption for cash is understandable."

    For those of you who don't remember, let's take a walk down Memory Lane:

    "In all, governments and corporations involved in the arms deals approved by Clinton's State Department have delivered between $54 million and $141 million to the Clinton Foundation as well as hundreds of thousands of dollars in payments to the Clinton family, according to foundation and State Department records."

    ----Mother Jones

    https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/05/ hillary-clinton-foundation-state-arms-deals/

  • Microaggressor||

    I'm sure they were just so impressed with their charity work that they decided to chip in and expect nothing in return.

  • Ken Shultz||

    The quid pro quo might matter from a criminal investigation standpoint, but from a common sense standpoint?

    I think the secretary of state accepting any money from foreign governments is completely unacceptable.

    It may be one of those things that so bad, no one ever thought it would need to be made illegal.

    I don't care if it's legal! How can it ever be acceptable for the secretary of state to accept donations from foreign governments?

  • ||

    I think the secretary of state accepting any money from foreign governments is completely unacceptable.

    It may be one of those things that so bad, no one ever thought it would need to be made illegal.

    I don't care if it's legal! How can it ever be acceptable for the secretary of state to accept donations from foreign governments?

    Ken, you're fudging the nuance/hypocrisy. It was legalized, inoculated against emoluments, by through the disclosing and assent from the Obama White House. Now, it's not exactly written down anywhere that this is how the government was supposed to work and there were several serious lapses in disclosures as well as donations to foreign subsidiaries of the Clinton Foundation but, pen and phone bitches, elections have consequences.

  • Ken Shultz||

    You don't have to embrace Putin on every issue, but pursuing the best interests of the U.S.A., sometimes you gotta shake hands and smile with a guy like Putin on camera. It's called "diplomacy", and the secretary of state is supposed to be good at it. Where in any book of diplomacy does it suggest that calling the legitimacy of a partner's election into question strengthens their willingness to work with you--on Iran, Syria, the Balkans, Ukraine, central Asia, etc., etc.?

    She got her job as secretary of state by horse trading with Obama to drop out of the race so Obama could move to the center and no longer worry about someone to the left of him in his fight for the nomination. She got her prominence in the national eye by being married to the president--not for anything she ever achieved for herself. The only private legal case she ever worked on professionally was so bad, 15 of the partners were convicted of 40 crimes. It's a shame that this buffoon of first lady was ever put in a position where she could create such havoc in our international relations. Thank god she isn't the president.

  • The Last American Hero||

    Actually, you forgot about the pedo case she defended - and laughed at the victim.

  • John||

    Before anyone concludes Trump did something wrong, it would be nice if someone could articulate what he was supposed to have done wrong. It is not a crime to talk to the Russian government. I would think a Libertarian publication would be acutely aware of the 1st Amendment right to speak to anyone even evil foreigners.

  • Ken Shultz||

    It's like I was saying the other day with the stories about the steel tariff. They wrote about it every day for two weeks--but I don't think they ever mentioned that NAFTA renegotiation talks were going on, much less what Trump was demanding in those talks.

    Yeah, Trump was talking with the Russians, and a lot of it had to do with working out a plan to collaborate on defeating ISIS in Syria. That's why what Reason was calling the "deep state" was upset with Trump. They wanted Syria for themselves.

    Has any Reason writer ever talked about what Trump discussed with the Russians, what they were working on, or why?

    Every time I start talking about this stuff, people around here start pointing the finger at me saying that I think Trump is playing 3-D chess, when, actually, all I'm doing is reading the news. People who rely on Reason for information anymore are coming out other end more ignorant than they were before they read this coverage.

    It didn't used to be this way. Part of it is the new batch of writers, but part of it is TDS. They don't care about the issues so much as they care about Trump. I don't think they're being devious or evasive on the issues. I think they genuinely can't see the issues because when they look at Trump, to them it's like staring into the sun.

  • BigT||

    It's called virtue signaling. The same disease as the SJWs.

  • Microaggressor||

    I think it's because so much of what they do is reading other media. And the priorities of the unhinged rub off on them. I mean fucking Robby thought Sargon of Akkad is alt-right. They're getting really out of touch and it shows.

  • Ken Shultz||

    It's more basic. It's like they're missing big facts.

    What is Trump asking for in his negotiations?

    Were they aware that there were ongoing negotiations?

    That there was a meeting in Mexico City?

    That there's another meeting scheduled for early April?

    If Trump's ploy works, and it ends up opening Canada to more American imports, are they suddenly going to change their position on steel tariffs or Trump?

    I oppose steel tariffs no matter who is using them--even if Trump risks starting to trade war and wins.

    Have they even considered any of these questions?

    I think they're just ignorant of the facts. They see Trump tweeted something about trade, and that's all that matters.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I once questioned whether an article Robby wrote was pro-free speech or anti-free speech. You couldn't tell from the text.

    He responded in comments that I could tell because of the masthead.

    That's not the way libertarian brains work. The appeal to authority is the fallacy to which we are probably least susceptible.

    And there's an element of elitism buried in there somewhere.

    I think they assume they're writing for an audience that's less knowledgeable than they are, but this comment section was rife with lawyers, industry executives, engineers, scientists, gun enthusiasts, entertainment people, academics, people who've started their own businesses, etc., etc.

    You're not impressing these people with your masthead authority.

  • John||

    I think the majority of people who comment on this board are more qualified to speak about most issues than Soave. Soave is just a liberal arts major who gets paid to talk out of his ass. He has no special qualifications about much of anything.

  • Microaggressor||

    You're right that we aren't the target audience of Reason. Their mission statement is to convert the normies, which I don't mind one bit.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Convert them to what?

  • BYODB||

    From the evidence I'd suggest they're trying to appeal to Classical Liberals, of which there are apparently four or five left nationwide.

  • Nardz||

    From what I see, progressivism.
    Small doses, sneak it in, disguised intent - but progressive

  • BigT||

    Free speech and free association?? Where do you think we are? Libertopia?

  • Just Say'n||

    Just to recap, more column space has been wasted on Russia fever dreams than on FISA renewal and the American backed starvation of Yemen, combined. It is impressive how well they avoid liberty-minded stories in favor of a narrative

  • John||

    And Reason hasn't said a word about the land confiscation going on in South Africa. South Africa walking away from post Apartheid reconciliation and going full Marxist is a massive tragedy and something you would think a libertarian magazine would want to cover.

  • Get To Da Chippah||

    All the same, the House Republican report might appear less like a clearly partisan press-release if the committee hadn't avoided questioning key people, such as former Trump campaign bigwigs Paul Manafort and Rick Gates, or if they had waited to draw firm conclusions until after special counsel Robert Mueller finishes his investigation (as Democrats had requested).

    That'll be about seven years from now, Liz.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Mueller's special prosecution appears to be moving more quickly than others, judged by (1) the number and strength of charges and pleas and (2) the number and quality of witnesses enlisted.

  • AustinRoth||

    You are like the little girl digging through a huge pile of shit convinced there is a pony in it.

  • swizzlestick||

    1) the number and strength of charges and pleas

    For process crimes? Are you joking? Did I miss a /sarc tag?

  • Sigivald||

    It's implied, when it's Mr. Kirkland.

  • John||

    The Hillary Clinton campaign paid a British National to create a dossier of opposition research of dubious veracity that was created by collecting information from agents of the Russian government. This dossier was then turned over to the FBI who then lied to the FISA Court about its reliability and origins in order to spy on Americans associated with Trump.

    So Hillary funded opposition research that collected information about Trump from Russian agents and then turned it over to the FBI who used it to spy on Trump and Trump was the one who colluded with the Russians during the campaign? Really?

  • Ken Shultz||

    But the Trump campaign is the one being investigated?

    Ultimately, this is about some people still not being able to come to terms with the fact that Hillary lost.

    The American people did not want green eggs and ham.

    They did not want her in here or there.
    We did not want her anywhere.

  • Tony||

    Not an argument supported by the vote numbers.

    And Bob Mueller isn't a Clinton fanatic doing a sham investigation.

    I can only imagine the heads you'd be calling for if a Clinton administration had 1/1000th the appearance of corruption as this one does.

  • Just Say'n||

    I can only imagine your complaints if such a story continued for a year after the fact with still zero evidence supporting its claims

  • Tony||

    You keep saying zero evidence as if you know that Mueller's team is just sitting around doing origami all day.

  • John||

    The FBI has been spying on Trump since October of 2016. They have found all this evidence but not leaked to the media out of kindness or something. If Meuller had anything, we would know about. And more importantly, there is nothing to find. Mueller can't even articulate what he is looking for or what wrongdoing Trump is supposed to have done.

  • Tony||

    Why do you take positions that will inevitable result in you looking like an ass? I for one am not going to sit here and do nothing as you Republican water carriers try to propagandize your president out of legal accountability. Turn someone else's country into a banana republic. You're good at that.

  • Deplorable||

    Look at this asshole trying to look indignant.

  • John||

    Tony you can't even explain what crime Trump was supposed to have committed. Acting indignant doesn't make that any less obvious.

  • Kivlor||

    I'm sure they'll find some process crime John. Because every man has done something worth being hanged for, and they have an investigation with an unlimited scope. They can look at whatever they want, however far back they want, and torture the "evidence" until they finally arrive at the conclusion of "guilty" that they started with.

    My only real hope out of this is that somehow we see some judicial reform over the fact that you can't possibly know all the laws and prevent yourself from having done something illegal. And that's a pretty dim hope.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Not an argument supported by the vote numbers."

    She couldn't even carry the blue collar vote in rust belt states, which have been Democrats since before World War II.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    The Mueller investigation was supposed to be a counter intelligence investigation to begin with - not a criminal probe.

    Andrew McCarthy over at National Review has some good detailed articles about the Mueller investigation and also articles about all the shenanigans that let Hillary off the hook in the FBI investigation of her.

  • colorblindkid||

    I still don't understand how the Steele Dossier isn't evidence of collusion with Russians (not that I care or think that it's illegal to get dirt from the Russians, just irritated by the standards that the press has for what is considered "collusion"). Does anybody really think Russians didn't intentionally feed Steele false information in addition to real information, solely to wreak havoc and undermine the report? Because Steele's contacts were shady secret unknown Russians, does that makes it better than Trump's meeting with known Russians?

  • The Last American Hero||

    It apparently would have been fine it Trump's son had paid Perkins Coie to hire a British spy to meet with the Russians to get dirt on Hillary.

    Just like it's illegal for a Sec of State to take bribes, but totes cool if the bribes are laundered through your "Foundation".

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    I've heard the issue is because Russia is not an ally and considered hostile against the US.

    Of course, the same people that say that don't understand why some people were upset that Obama gave Iran a pallet full of money.

  • dk12345||

    Is your real name Devin? Or is it Sean?

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    The biggest issue I've had with this probe is that the definition of what would be considered collusion keeps changing. I remember early on they were called "Russian Hackings", which to me implied a pretty significant intrusion. One that I would have considered pretty damn important.

    Since then, we've changed more and more what the smoking gun would be. There's been a lot of stuff where I've seen evidence put forth as damning that I wonder why it matters at all? That's my biggest confusion here.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    The biggest issue I've had with this probe is that the definition of what would be considered collusion keeps changing.


    So...politics as usual?

    Keep the Team enraged.

  • Tony||

    It's a bit confusing because there are so many crimes being investigated.

  • Just Say'n||

    Dude, give it a rest. You look dumber than the MAGA people. The House, the Senate, the FBI, and the entire media have yet to find any crime. We get it. You and ENB desperately want Democrats to retake Congress because of their unbelievably libertarian positions. But, just be realistic on this point.

  • Tony||

    Um 23 people have been indicted so far.

  • Just Say'n||

    For lying to the FBI about meetings that were not illegal in the first place and financial improprieties that had nothing to do with the Trump campaign. You can't be this dumb. At least ENB is just parroting this nonsense because she desperately wants that job with WaPo. You just do it, because you're a Team Blue hack

  • Tony||

    Is Bob Mueller a Team Blue hack?

    Would you be defending a Democratic administration with this much pathetic breathlessness? Who's the hack, really?

  • John||

    Mueller is an establishment hack you moron. The FBI was sure Hillary was going to win and engaged in all kinds of criminal misconduct trying to cover up Hillary's crimes and spy on Trump. Mueller is there to find something, anything, on Trump to avoid the FBI being held accountable for this.

  • Tony||

    It's more convincing when you don't invent bullshit conspiracy theories to counter what you're claiming is a bullshit conspiracy. And Jeff Sessions is in on it!

  • John||

    It is a known fact that the FBI presented the Steele Dossier as a US intelligence product to the FISA court in order to get a FISA warrant on Carter Page. That is a felony. And it is also the most serious misuse of the LEO community since Watergate.

  • John||

    That is just it, they don't seem to be able to articulate a consistent answer to the question of what Trump is supposed to have done wrong

  • ||

    I remember early on they were called "Russian Hackings", which to me implied a pretty significant intrusion. One that I would have considered pretty damn important.

    I remember this as well except I was biased against the "Hacking" narrative from the beginning. During the campaign, Trump ran at least in part on the fact that the election was rigged and that the democratic electoral process couldn't be trusted. A claim echoed when Bernie tanked, in accordance with the rules, against Clinton in the primaries. I suppose as a side effect, the media was quick to point out after the election that no tomfoolery had occurred at the ballot boxes. So, the "Hacked!" seemed like a non-starter from the get go.

  • Sigivald||

    "Russians hacked the DNC email server, we're assured! And the DNC had something to do with the election, sorta, so they hacked the election!

    Also we need something to explain why Clinton lost that isn't she was a godawful candidate!"

  • ||

    +1 Carlos Danger phone hack

  • Vernon Depner||

    My theory is that the Russians were helping Trump because they wanted Hillary to win.

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    Alternative Reality Headline: Democrats conclude that Democratic President did nothing wrong in regard to uranium deals, UBS, foundation play for pay "donations," or security breaches on email server.

  • Rich||

    Rep. K. Michael Conaway (R-Texas), who headed the GOP investigative committee

    "Conaway", eh? You can't make this stuff up.

  • Incomprehensible Bitching||

    So, Republicans are colluding with the president to try to white wash all this collusion, huh?

    IT'S COLLUSION ALL THE WAY DOWN!

  • I am the 0.000000013%||

    Unless they can tie something of a concrete nature directly to an an official arm of the Russian government, what can they possibly come up with that's actionable.

    If the charge is that someone with a Russian citizenship or who was on Russian soil said something nasty about Clinton or nice about Trump, what does that have to do with anything?

    Doesn't this all go back to Hilary's closet server, and the story refusing to spin the way she wanted it to? If the Russians were behind that, they deserve a Pulitzer prize for the same reason as the Washington Post won it for it's Watergate coverage.

    Crazy.

  • Azathoth!!||

    Robert Mueller's never going to finish his 'investigation'--it exists solely to create quasi-official mud for the media to fling at Trump. Why would they end it? It's there for the full 8 year run.

  • BYODB||

    ^ This. I'll be shocked if the investigation ends before the end of Trump's term, and I suspect it will last a bit longer than his actual term.

    They're saving this bullet for his reelection campaign.

  • BYODB||

    I like how this is couched as 'Republicans conclude' when in reality no one anywhere has any evidence that any of this has anything more to it than what we already know I.E. an utterly failed opposition research turned illegal by insiders that couldn't stand the notion of a Trump administration telling their pristine little enclaves what to do. You know, nevermind the fact that their little enclave is specifically in the Executive branch.


    It was a gleeful attempt to help Hillary by the deep state. To say otherwise is to ignore the entire past two years.


    If Trump was a popular President, you can bet your ass head's would be rolling but so far the Democrats have managed to keep their hands on the administrative states power thus they continue to be insulated from real repercussions for anything they do.


    I might loathe Trump, but I'll tell you one thing he's not half as loathsome as the cockroaches we don't see.

  • Bowfish||

    This wasn't a "Republican Committee." It was a bipartisan House Committee led by a Republican because they are the majority in the House. The fact that Democrats on the committee disagree with the results is is the real story - because it's partisan politics.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online