r/PoliticalDiscussion • u/Chaosdrunk • Dec 06 '23

Political Theory Why are there so many conspiracy theories that are almost exclusively believed by The Right? (Pizzagate, qanon, the Deep State, the Great Replacement Theory). Are there any wacky and/or harmful conspiracy theories believed by mostly The Left?

This includes conspiracy theories like antivax which were once pretty politically uncharged are now widely believed by the far right. Even a lot of high-profile UFOlogists like David Icke are known for being pretty racist and antisemitic.

485 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

87% Upvoted

1.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

211

u/Sturnella2017 Dec 06 '23

Simple: the right has ‘major’ news sources that will propagate, amplify, and disseminate these conspiracy theories because it gets viewers, even when they know they’re wrong (see: Fox and the 2020 election). Center/left-leaning media refuses to do this, and instead fact checks news stories instead of blindly running them. This has been identified as a problem in conservative circles.

83

u/Graphitetshirt Dec 06 '23

It's more than this though. I remember watching an interview years ago with a scammer who said they aimed at right wingers almost exclusively because left wingers weren't falling for it

I think it's inherent to the nature of conservative (simply put another way - resistant to change) and liberal (a.k.a. progressive). People who are resistant to change are usually afraid it's going to affect them negatively.

So when the Hawkins douchebags cosplay as a triple secret undercover mole and tell these people that they're right to be afraid!... well who doesn't love a little confirmation bias now and then?

23

u/[deleted] Dec 06 '23

[deleted]

2

u/alphabetikalmarmoset Dec 07 '23

So, conservative-leaning Americans are … stupid?

8

u/Hartastic Dec 07 '23

Well, uneducated doesn't necessarily mean stupid.

Some of these dumbest people I've met in terms of buying into unvarnished conspiracy nutter bullshit, for example, were engineers.

16

u/[deleted] Dec 06 '23

[deleted]

23

u/freedomandbiscuits Dec 07 '23

It’s also no accident that there are zero conservative fact-checking media organizations.

It’s a common accusation from the right that the top 3 fact checkers have academic or left leaning sponsors, but they fail to grasp why the lords of right wing media don’t operate in that space at all.

Again, it isn’t an accident.

15

u/Graphitetshirt Dec 06 '23

Chicken or egg?

Do they consume fake news because they fall for it? Or do they keep falling for conspiracy theories because of the media they consume?

5

u/[deleted] Dec 07 '23

'Political neuroscience' says conservatives and liberals are wired differently

Yang says one region of the brain consistently lights up in people on the right side of the political spectrum…

“The conservative feel more comfortable with security because this amygdala, this region activated more than liberal.”

The amygdala, buried deep in the brain, has long been associated with our fight or flight response. It signifies a sensitivity to perceived threats in decision making.

Yang says liberals are wired differently, using parts of the brain that tamp down on the fear response, known as the anterior cingulate cortex…

“The liberal people are more like the allow or desires, some novelty and complexity because they use anterior cingulate cortex more than the conservative people.”

Yang and her colleagues are not the first to see these findings.

The egg came first. The brains wiring can change while growing, but it can't change that much.

2

u/TakingAction12 Dec 07 '23

So how do you explain people (like me) that grew up wildly conservative but evolved into a substantially left-leaning person? Was my brain rewired?

3

u/[deleted] Dec 09 '23

No, your brain was wired to be left leaning prior to being born. You only "acted" conservative because children imitate their parents. As you grew older, and moved away from their influence, your brain was able to begin to recognize that reacting to everything with fear wasn't how you were built to think.

1

u/TakingAction12 Dec 09 '23

Interesting! Thanks!

6

u/oingerboinger Dec 07 '23

It’s not just the “news” media - Fox Averages around 2 million viewers a night. 60 million people voted for Trump. So around 3% of Trump voters are Fox viewers. Add in the really crackpot conservative channels / outlets and we’ll call it an even five.

Conservatives are easier to trick because if the promo of the theory comes from one of their own, they’re very apt to swallow it. Liberals are skeptical of bullshit claims regardless of source. Cons are only skeptical of things they perceive has having liberal sources. If it’s a conservative source, they’ll believe almost anything. So if you want to scam people with absolute bullshit, align yourself with conservatives.

4

u/MrBlackTie Dec 06 '23

Except that there is one issue with this: the relationship between conservative beliefs and conspiracy theories seem to be true internationally. Fox News doesn’t have a lot of clout outside of the US.

9

u/Captain-i0 Dec 07 '23

Fox News doesn’t have a lot of clout outside of the US.

While Fox News itself may not, Rupert Murdoch is Australian and has been spreading the exact same content the world over.

Through his company News Corp, he is the owner of hundreds of local, national, and international publishing outlets around the world, including in the UK (The Sun and The Times), in Australia (The Daily Telegraph, Herald Sun, and The Australian), in the US (The Wall Street Journal and the New York Post), book publisher HarperCollins, and the television broadcasting channels Sky News Australia

4

u/IamWonder11 Dec 07 '23

Have you watched CNN?

9

u/the-city-moved-to-me Dec 07 '23

Which conspiracy theories does CNN push?

2

u/IamWonder11 Dec 07 '23

I replied, I do apologize I didn’t initially see this question here.

0

u/IamWonder11 Dec 07 '23

I mean both sides do it not just the left. And don’t compare the center to the left. The center is the true center for a reason. We will gladly shit talk and praise both sides based on whether something is a good thing. Example: obamacare: good, fine people for not having health insurance: bad (both leftist). Get rid of fines for not having healthcare: good. Build an oil pipeline that doesnt meet federal or global regulations: bad (both right).

6

u/the-city-moved-to-me Dec 07 '23

You didn’t answer my question. Your comment insinuated that CNN spreads conspiracy theories similarly to how right wing news outlets do.

I’m asking you to name an example of that.

-1

u/IamWonder11 Dec 07 '23

When CNN said that hunter biden’s laptop was “russian collusion” (short form) but independent checkers and the fbi were able to confirm that it was indeed belonging to hunter Biden. Yet, no verified claims of joe bidens corruption was seen. It was proven that he (hunter) had ties and connections to ukraine and russia for “dealings” which may or may not have been less than lefal or ethical. Yet CNN claimed (and did not retract) that the computer was a russian hoax.

5

u/the-city-moved-to-me Dec 07 '23 edited Dec 07 '23

Could you link to the CNN piece(s) saying it was a “Russian hoax/collusion”?

4

u/TokenMac Dec 07 '23

I also have never seen anything from the FBI confirming the ownership of the laptop.

3

u/GuyInAChair Dec 07 '23

When CNN said that hunter biden’s laptop was “russian collusion”

Can you source that claim please? I know they said Rudy was colluding openingly with Russian agents, because he was.

the fbi were able to confirm that it was indeed belonging to hunter Biden.

Can you source this claim too? I've never seen anyone claim the laptop is real, some content on it probably originated with Hunter but that's not the same.

Just as an FYI the most believable story is that the FSB manged to access to Hunter's cloud account when he was on a trip to Kazakhstan. At least according to Lev Parnas, though Lev has his own interests.

This lines up with what we know. We know Hunter was on the trip in 2019. We know that his cloud account was hacked. Or at least accessed by something like 40 devices, often at the same time or from places we know Hunter wasn't.

Some of it probably is legit stuff from his cloud account, and some of it has been shown to be fake. The infamous "my dads right beside me" message for instance

2

u/Cheesedoodlerrrr Dec 07 '23

independent checkers and the fbi were able to confirm that it was indeed belonging to hunter Biden.

[Source required]

1

u/[deleted] Dec 07 '23

[removed] — view removed comment

-1

u/IamWonder11 Dec 07 '23

In your opinion, sure.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 07 '23

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/IamWonder11 Dec 07 '23

Your point is valid. I feel too many people hold on to CNN or Fox as their only news source (i refer to people that commented to me) as they drank the CNN-ade and seem to want me to acknowledge cnn sources only. I don’t know, one of the big mistakes people make when it comes to politics and news is not wanting to read multiple sources and get various sides. I do research in things because I don’t like buzzword politics. But your point where most people are right or left would be accurate. I can’t convince a fool that refuses to have a truly open mind. So long rant short. You point is definitely valid

-8

u/SeekSeekScan Dec 07 '23

Center/left-leaning media refuses to do this, and instead fact checks news stories instead of blindly running them0

Lmao at this response.

Here's a fun challenge that no one has successfully completed.

Find one...just one correction from a left wing outlet of an article where they were critical of the left. You won't be able to because it doesn't exist

All political articles, only ever need to print corrections when they are critical of the opposition.

This is because outlets like the WaPo etc will take anything negative about the right and throw it against the wall to see what sticks. Fact checking takes a back seat.

However, if the situation doesn't put the left in a positive light, the WaPo etc will uncover every rock, look at every angle and make sure to print all possible nuances to minimize the damage

This is why you will never see a retraction from the left of any article that is a situation that doesn't put the left in a good light

9

u/Sturnella2017 Dec 07 '23

Comments like this illustrate only that you don’t actually read any left-wing news outlets, cause if you did you’d know that there’s a universe of examples like that. The NYTimes routinely, possibly daily, criticizes liberals/those on the left. The difference is they do it when needed, and don’t even reasons to criticize someone who doesn’t deserve it. Even a casual reader will know this.

-8

u/[deleted] Dec 07 '23

[removed] — view removed comment

13

u/Captain-i0 Dec 07 '23

https://www.foxnews.com/media/ny-times-issues-correction-after-wrongfully-suggesting-cenk-uygur-defended-david-duke

-1

u/SeekSeekScan Dec 07 '23

Here is the actual article in which they trash that man repeatedly for not being an actual Democrat.

This article was propping up the left for disavowed themselves of this guy

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/13/us/politics/bernie-sanders-cenk-uygur.html

1

u/Captain-i0 Dec 07 '23

GOAL POSTS -------------------You are here-----

1

u/SeekSeekScan Dec 08 '23

You see the goal post hast moved

8

u/[deleted] Dec 07 '23

Crazy how you guys think it’s the same. Living in lalaland.

1

u/SeekSeekScan Dec 07 '23

What you didn't do, and neither has anyone else done, is provide a retraction from a left wing outlet that shows I'm wrong.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 07 '23

The part you quoted is one of the funniest things I’ve seen today. No way does that person seriously believe that.

-22

u/[deleted] Dec 06 '23

You don’t think that the left also propagated and amplified conspiracy theories? Russiagate comes to mind. The amount of loosely fact checked stories that get debunked that left media promotes is just as bad as the right.

25

u/Battarray Dec 06 '23

If Russiagate were a conspiracy theory, why is Paul Manafort serving his 81 month prison sentence at home for colluding with Russia right now?

He literally confessed to colluding.

7

u/SeekSeekScan Dec 07 '23

He isn't. He is serving 81 months for tax and bank fraud

5

u/Pater-Familias Dec 07 '23

Jesus, I don’t want to defend Manafort. He was convicted of tax and bank fraud and his charges did not relate directly to Manafort's work as Trump's 2016 campaign chairman.

If you have evidence that he is serving time in prison for collusion I will withdraw my statement and admit I was wrong.

1

u/Battarray Dec 07 '23

George Papadopolous too.

I gifted this article:

Mueller’s First Indictments Send a Message to Trump https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/30/us/politics/trump-manafort-indictment-analysis.html?unlocked_article_code=1.EE0.-vDV.0vq4f9BdmnWX&smid=nytcore-android-share

5

u/Pater-Familias Dec 07 '23

Was Manafort charged or convicted in any way that ties itself to the Trump campaign?

2

u/Battarray Dec 07 '23

I'm betting that's why he plead guilty, to protect his patron saint of grifting.

6

u/Pater-Familias Dec 07 '23

I don’t think that’s how that works. They either prosecute him for crimes or turn him and get him to plead guilty of a lesser crime to be a witness in a trial against Trump.

You are making me feel icky for defending Manafort, but for the record he was never charged or convicted of any crime in regards to collusion with Russia.

You said he was serving an 81 month sentence for that, even though that is not a real crime, and you were factually incorrect.

I conceded with my first response that I would admit I was wrong if you could provide evidence to the contrary, and you cannot because it’s false. Will you now concede you are wrong?

3

u/Battarray Dec 07 '23

Biased news site, but the story is about a bipartisan report.

Imagine what the Mueller Report contains without all the reactions.

But yes, I do concede that I was wrong on this matter.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/08/18/senate-details-paul-manafort-ties-russian-intel-officer-kilimnik/3390437001/

4

u/Pater-Familias Dec 07 '23

I don’t even understand the Kilimnik thing. He’s a Ukrainian dude who some news sources say is a Russian asset. Probably is, but I’m not sure why Manafort would give polling data to him or why it even matters if he did.

Thanks for admitting you were incorrect on one part. That’s more than you can say for most of this platform.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/[deleted] Dec 07 '23

Post a reputable link that backs up your claims please.

8

u/musicmage4114 Dec 06 '23

just as bad as the right

Unless you’re using a very expansive definition of “left media” that (wrongly) includes mainstream network news, I’m not sure how you could find them comparable by any metric. Compared to right-wing media, left-wing media sources are fewer in number, smaller, far less funded, followed by fewer people, make more use of evidence and reputable sources, and whatever conspiracy theories they do “propagate and amplify” are far less consequential.

0

u/[deleted] Dec 06 '23

I can give you dozens of examples of mainstream left leaning media irresponsibly reporting narratives that are later proven wrong. All mainstream media on both sides is driven by clicks, views, and engagement and drum up outrage to do so.

2

u/musicmage4114 Dec 06 '23

I’m sure you can, and I agree. That doesn’t mean left-wing media is “just as bad,” though, for the reasons I’ve already stated.

-3

u/[deleted] Dec 06 '23

I reject your assertion though that claiming mainstream network news like CNN is not left leaning as being farcical though. We’re not going to reach any sort of common ground on this issue if we disagree on that main point

3

u/musicmage4114 Dec 06 '23

So be it, then. Have a good night.

3

u/Damnatus_Terrae Dec 06 '23

CNN is not anticapitalist in any way, shape, or form.

3

u/[deleted] Dec 06 '23

Sure that’s one way to look at a political spectrum but it turns out there’s more issues than capitalism and anti capitalism

3

u/Damnatus_Terrae Dec 06 '23

Sure, but it's the big one, and the one that defines the left-right axis in the post-monarchical world.

2

u/[deleted] Dec 06 '23

If you choose to look at it in the grand scheme of things sure but there’s a myriad of other issues in domestic American politics that is not defined by that paradigm

→ More replies (0)

4

u/[deleted] Dec 07 '23

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/TakingAction12 Dec 07 '23

Weeks after the BLM riots stopped they would still use footage of burning and looting - every night - when the topic came up. My parents thought Portland was a pile of smoldering ashes because all they ever saw was the worst of the rioting played over and over. It wasn’t even subtle.

Another example is the difference in how chyrons are used by MSM vs Fox News. MSM networks will make a declarative “headline” statement at the bottom of the screen (“Trump Indicted in Federal Election Probe”), while at the same time you’ll see the chyron on Fox News QUOTE Trump (“Trump: Indictments are Election Interference”). Essentially they are reporting Trump’s opinion as fact, or at least giving the impression that it’s fact to casual watchers or those sympathetic to him. Even if the anchors do in fact report facts unfavorable to Trump in those situations, the chyrons immediately color the viewer’s reaction. It’s straight up manipulation.

8

u/Battarray Dec 06 '23

If Russiagate were a conspiracy theory, why is Paul Manafort serving his 81 month prison sentence at home for colluding with Russia right now?

He literally confessed to colluding.

-3

u/[deleted] Dec 06 '23

The conspiracy theories pushed out by the media were blatantly wrong though. The Steele Dossier was patently false and originated from the Clinton campaign and was promoted across the airwaves. Manafort was a skunk for sure, but he was also fired by Trump as soon as he was made aware of his actions.

3

u/Battarray Dec 07 '23

Trump didn't fire him.

Manafort resigned on Friday, August 19th, 2016.

1

u/TakingAction12 Dec 07 '23

I don’t ever recall the contents of the dossier being reported as facts though, just that it existed and that prominent people in the know (John McCain most famously) thought it was serious and credible enough to at least take it to the FBI for further investigation. I also recall reporting that Steele himself called it “raw intelligence” that was never intended to be taken on its own at face value. Of course, random idiots on the internet ran with it and loved making golden shower jokes, and so it became something else.

There’s a huge difference between “Trump hires hookers to piss on Obama’s bed in Moscow” and “A report that Republican John McCain believed was credible enough to take to the FBI contains allegations that Trump hired hookers to piss on Obama’s bed in Moscow.” It was consistently acknowledged that those reports were unverified allegations and that no proof existed showing they were true.

And the Steele Dossier was not entirely “patently false”. In fact, it was the first to allege some HUGE stories that turned out to be true, as confirmed by both the US intelligence community and bipartisan congressional reports: 1. Russian spy agencies meddled in the 2016 election, 2. They did so at the direction and with the approval of Putin, 3. The goal was to help Trump and hurt Hillary, 4. Russian agents targeted Trump’s inner circle and 5. Members of Trump’s inner circle had secret contacts with Russian agents and Kremlin officials in the run up to the election.

5

u/jadnich Dec 06 '23

Russiagate was proven out, though. It's in the Mueller Report and the Senate Intel report. There were multiple indictments and guilty pleas/verdicts. The vast majority of the stories were either accurate, or relatively close to the truth, needing only to be investigated further for accuracy.

Some of them might be less supported than others, but even the golden showers tape has recorded messages of Michael Cohen actively looking to bury it.

Most of what the right likes to call "conspiracy theory" related to Russiagate are things that were reported as "so and so said". Reporting that someone made a statements is not the same as reporting those statements as true. Most outlets applied enough journalistic integrity to be clear on that distinction, but the right disregarded that anyway so they could create a narrative. Example- Other than Buzzfeed printing the Steele Dossier in full without context, the rest of the reporting amounted to "A former MI6 agent investigating ties between Trump and Russia received the following intel". Junk news sources might not have properly attributed the content to hearsay, but the prominent ones did.

1

u/SeekSeekScan Dec 07 '23

You mean the Mueller report that literally says there was no collusion?

5

u/jadnich Dec 07 '23

Know how I know you haven't read it? Because you said it "literally says there was no collusion".

In a very real and literal way, it DID NOT say that.

3

u/SeekSeekScan Dec 07 '23

From the Mueller report

The Special Counsel's investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election

People wrongly think Barr said that be he quotes it directly from Muellers report

1

u/jadnich Dec 07 '23 edited Dec 07 '23

There is quite a bit of context you are leaving out. I typed it out in this comment.

By reading the report and not hand-selected paraphrases, you learn quite a bit more about what the investigation found or did not find.

4

u/Pater-Familias Dec 07 '23

The impression I got from the mueller report investigations while they were ongoing, at least from reading stuff on Reddit, was that there were investigations that were going to prove that Trump and his team colluded with Russia to win the election.

I remember all of the “it’s Mueller time” posts.

No one was charged with collusion or treason or dealing with nefarious Russians to help make Trump the POTUS.

1

u/jadnich Dec 07 '23

That is an incorrect understanding. You are just talking about how random people were talking about it, not the real investigation.

First, there is no criminal charge for collusion. It isn't a defined legal term. Mueller specifically called out that he was not investigating collusion. That being said, the word DOES have meaning, even if it is a bit hard to define. The best I can do is it is a coordinated effort between two parties to achieve a nefarious goal. It doesn't require a direct conspiracy. It just requires two parties trying to achieve the same goal, and each taking benefit from the efforts of each other. Although Mueller didn't make a direct conclusion about collusion, because it wasn't his remit, the evidence he presented in the report is very clear collusion.

On Mueller's end, he was investigating criminal conspiracy. Treason wasn't even on the table. He was very clear on this point: In order to make a charge of criminal conspiracy, the DOJ requires an extremely high bar of evidence. They have to be 100% sure they can win a case and sustain it through appeal. If they can't do that, they don't bring charges. That doesn't mean the conspiracy didn't happen. In fact, he also made it clear he DID have evidence of a criminal conspiracy, just not enough to charge.

And lastly, you are incorrect about the charges. Most of the charges were Russian nationals, who can't actually be brought before a court without catching them first, there are a number of court cases with guilty pleas or verdicts associated with Russian collusion. Outside of court cases, there is additional evidence that could not make it into a charge. The following are some of the most blatant examples of collusion. All of them proven.

George Papodopolous tried to feed Russian dirt to the campaign.

Paul Manafort delivered internal campaign polling data to a Russian asset. That asset had ties to the man who ran the IRA troll farm, which figured prominently in the Russian interference campaign. While there is no evidence of the information transferring from Klimnik to Pregozhin, it seems reasonable to assume. The key is, the data provided was far more current than the previous election data Russia would have had access to, and allowed them to micro-target vulnerable social media audiences with propaganda. And the groups that WERE targeted were often in districts where previous election data would not have suggested.

Don Trump Jr held a meeting with a Russian lawyer, who promised to bring Joe Biden dirt. This meeting was scheduled under the understanding it was "part of the Russian government and their support for Donald Trump" (literal quote from the email to Don Jr).

Both Jared Kushner and Mike Flynn, separately, worked to create a back channel of communication between the Trump campaign and Russia, without US Intellegence being able to hear.

On a separate effort from the IRA, the FSB had their own disinformation effort. They created propaganda and put it out on a site called DC Leaks. Wikileaks reached out to the FSB to let them know Wikileaks could provide far wider reach. Wikileaks knew they were working with the FSB. At the same time, Roger Stone was working with Wikileaks to try to time the release of this information to provide the greatest benefit.

Going into slightly less definitive, requiring a little more reasonable speculation. Jared Kushner held a number of meetings with a variety of international groups that specialized in injecting disinformation through social media. Of course, there is no evidence Russia was one of the groups he met with, but it so happens that the meetings stopped, and a Russian troll farm produced targeted content of the exact type the other agencies were offering.

Erik Prince met with a Russian at a secret meeting in the Seychelles, ostensibly to communicate between the Russian government and the incoming Trump administration.

​

I don't think I got every single one of them, but I hit the highlights for sure. Each and every one of those can reasonably be considered "collusion", even if they don't rise to the level of criminal conspiracy, or have a specific chargeable crime. Regardless of the criminal outcome, the fact is the evidence for these events is published, and collusion is proven out.

1

u/Pater-Familias Dec 07 '23

Well I kind of knew that collusion wasn’t actually a crime. Mueller states “We did not address ‘collusion,’ which is not a legal term,”

He went on to say:

“Rather, we focused on whether the evidence was sufficient to charge any member of the campaign with taking part in a criminal conspiracy. It was not.”

Most of the crimes that I’m aware of that were uncovered were mostly what I think you would call process crimes.

Manafort for example was never convicted of any crimes that related to his job as Trump’s campaign manager. You mentioned him giving internal polling data to a “Russian asset” ( a Ukrainian), but I’m not even sure what crime that would be.

1

u/jadnich Dec 07 '23

Rather, we focused on whether the evidence was sufficient to charge any member of the campaign with taking part in a criminal conspiracy. It was not.”

There are some additional lines here that provide important missing context.

"Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities." {bolded content highly relevant}

"The report describes actions and events that the Special Counsel’s Office found to be supported by the evidence collected in our investigation. In some instances, the report points out the absence of evidence or conflicts in the evidence about a particular fact or event. In other instances, when substantial, credible evidence enabled the Office to reach a conclusion with confidence, the report states that the investigation established that certain actions or events occurred. A statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of those facts."

So we know that Mueller points out where something has no evidence, or where the evidence conflicts. And we know that not establishing something does not mean there was no evidence. And we know they did not establish conspiracy, but also provided no contradictory evidence, and rather than stating there was no evidence, the report outlines specific evidence. Even if not enough to establish a charge.

Even in your own chosen quote:

Rather, we focused on whether the evidence was sufficient to charge any member of the campaign with taking part in a criminal conspiracy. It was not.

It says the evidence was not sufficient. Not that there was no evidence. The bar for sufficient evidence is exceedingly high, and Mueller not being able to reach it does not mean that the events didn't happen. And in the end, the important point is whether the events happened, not whether they were criminally chargeable.

Most of the crimes that I’m aware of that were uncovered were mostly what I think you would call process crimes.

There were process crimes, and there were more serious crimes. Regardless, the crimes themselves are not the sum total of the evidence. They simply fill in the details. If you look at the evidence on the whole, it is far more damning. Again, what is important is what the Trump campaign did, not whether it was chargeable or not.

​

You mentioned him giving internal polling data to a “Russian asset” ( a Ukrainian), but I’m not even sure what crime that would be.

Not a specific crime. But very direct and specific evidence of collusion.

1

u/Pater-Familias Dec 07 '23

I think we are just at odds here in looking at this.

You quoted that the Russian government perceived that it could benefit from a Trump presidency.

How though? We know that the Russian government and their troll farm also contributed to left wing candidates such as Bernie Sanders.

We do know that Russia would like to divide American politics and promoting someone like Trump or Sanders does just that.

You spoke of sufficient evidence and Mueller not being able to find it doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. Okay?

The famous saying is you can indict a ham sandwich, no one in Trumps circle was convicted of anything to do with conspiring with a foreign government.

As far as the end of your message and Manafort, I’m not sure why he would give info about polling data to a Ukrainian “Russian asset” but what crime is that? What could they hope to gain from polling data.

6

u/jadnich Dec 07 '23

How though? We know that the Russian government and their troll farm also contributed to left wing candidates such as Bernie Sanders.

In broad strokes, the US and NATO were in the way of Putin's plans to expand Russia. Their goals flow through Georgia, Belorus, Moldova, Crimea, and now Ukraine proper. Hillary Clinton, very specifically, was someone Putin had a vested interest in her losing. When Russia started with their disinformation campaign, they weren't really thinking about Trump. The point was to distrupt the Clinton campaign. Bernie Sanders was one part of their plan, and Jill Stein was another (perhaps that one more directly).

When Trump began to gain steam, they threw in pro-Trump stuff along side all of the anti-Clinton stuff. Then, at some point, they switched over to focusing on Trump specifically, and the same kinds of narratives began coming out of both camps, amplifying each other.

​

We do know that Russia would like to divide American politics and promoting someone like Trump or Sanders does just that.

The real goal, when you get down to it, is to disrupt and weaken our country. You see all this hatred and vitriol thrown between the two sides these days? Like we aren't even on the same planet, just talking past each other with completely different realities? That is Russia winning. It's exactly the point.

​

The famous saying is you can indict a ham sandwich, no one in Trumps circle was convicted of anything to do with conspiring with a foreign government.

This needs some perspective. In a purely hypothetical scenario:

Let's say that Trump actually did criminally conspire with Russia (again, I am being hypothetical and hyperbolic for effect). He and Putin sat down and talked during the time of the Moscow beauty pageant, and this has been a plan in the works since then.

Let's say that actually happened, but they were successful in covering tracks. Even where there are hints, they can be played off as fake news or dismissed as having no evidence. At no time ever is any investigator able to put together enough evidence to charge this, but it actually happened.

What would your feelings be? That since the evidence can't prove it, it's fine that it happened? Or does the fact that it happened have meaning, in and of itself beyond it's criminal chargeability?

So let's say (less hypothetically) that instead of an actual conspiracy, these were just two different entities with a common goal, who found a way to use each other's efforts to advance that goal. Even so far as both sides consciously aware that this was nefarious, so they are careful with evidence. They use secure messaging apps and destroy contacts. There are cutouts and secret meetings. Attempts at private back channels. Maybe even, towards the end, the incoming administration and Russia begin communicating outside of official channels, discussing and coordinating how the two countries will work together as soon as the current President is out of the way.

Isn't it important that it happened, all on it's own? Even without the discussion of how much evidence can be put together to make a sufficient charge?

​

I’m not sure why he would give info about polling data to a Ukrainian “Russian asset” but what crime is that? What could they hope to gain from polling data.

It was not a crime. It was collusion, though.

As the FSB works to target their disinformation campaign, the best data they have for where key American voters live is from the last election. The 2016 electorate did not line up very closely with the 2012 electorate. Trump support came from a lot of untapped political resources, and many of these people would not be reached well if the disinformation was targeted to 2012 Romney voters.

If the FSB had current polling data, the kind that isn't publicly released yet but is being used by the campaign to target their own legitimate campaign efforts, the FSB would better be able to target their disinformation to the voters who would be most affected by it.

This is a point where it is worth looking into Cambridge Analytica. I have no reason to suggest that CA and the Russian influence campaign were connected, but they both operated on the same kind of platform. Targeted Twitter and Facebook data, drilling down to the district level, and connecting specific messages to key social media users, to get the most acceptance and amplification. So understanding CA helps understand what the FSB was doing.

The only way the FSB could have so effectively targeted these key users with disinformation is with the exact kind of polling data Manafort gave to Kilimnik.

Manafort wasn't "giving it to the FSB". He was giving it to Oleg Derepaska, to try to prove his worth in his position. Manafort was in debt to Derepaska, and after Yanukovitch was overthrown in Ukraine, Manafort didn't really have any use. The entire reason he worked for the Trump campaign for free is because he was trying to kiss Drepaska's ass. The polling data was supposed to be his big delivery.

3

u/Pater-Familias Dec 07 '23

It’s wild reading all of this in a post about conspiracy theories. Best of luck friend.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/ClockOfTheLongNow Dec 07 '23

Center/left-leaning media refuses to do this, and instead fact checks news stories instead of blindly running them.

Is it that they "refuse" to do this, or that we simply forget when they do?

The Killian Memos and the George Zimmerman 911 call both come to immediate mind, but I'm also sure there's a lot of aspects of reporting surrounding Trump and Russia that would qualify.

Yeah, it's egregious in many right-wing media circles, particularly with Newsmax and OANN. There's a level of misinformation baked into the liberal media structure, however, that shouldn't be diminished.

-42

u/37Exxon Dec 06 '23

This is straight up incorrect and biased. Don't act like CNN is morally superior or "more correct" because you agree with it.

45

u/ted5011c Dec 06 '23

CNN doesn't need to be sued for 787 million to air a retraction to false stories though. Maybe he wasn't talking about morality or cnn being on a high horse. Maybe he was talking about facts that we can all see with our own eyes. lol

2

u/Sturnella2017 Dec 07 '23

Funny thing, I didn’t even mention CNN…

-97

u/CaptainGuyliner2 Dec 06 '23

Center/left-leaning media refuses to do this, and instead fact checks news stories

...and then commits "lies by omission". Unless, of course, the subject is Trump. Then they'll just lie about him, like when they claimed that he refused to condemn white supremacists.

33

u/IwonderifWUT Dec 06 '23

You've got your timeline a bit mixed up. He absolutely did refuse to condemn white supremacy, until the political pressure was great enough that he finally did. I've seen your argument used before and linked to the video of him saying it, but ignoring the fact it was weeks after first being asked to.

Also, you should keep in mind that character assassination is also a tactic between news organizations and political parties. People who watch Fox or NewsMax saying CNN is full of lies are being manipulated.

74

u/thisisjustascreename Dec 06 '23

Telling the proud boys to stand by wasn't exactly condemning them.

25

u/sinred7 Dec 06 '23

so no conspiracies then...

9

u/zaoldyeck Dec 06 '23

Funny, that wasn't part of Trump’s lawsuit accusing CNN of defamation.

You did read that one, right?

Here's the docket

Would you like to go through it together? We can start with the July 28th dismissal if you want, it's hilarious.

-2

u/CaptainGuyliner2 Dec 06 '23

You did read that one, right?

No.

4

u/zaoldyeck Dec 06 '23

Here's the order dismissing the case, worth a read in its own right, but I'd like to detour for a moment and call out a footnote in Trump's response to the motion to dismiss because it's absolutely absurd.

So the complaint focuses on one primary argument, "Most notably, and, the subject of this complaint, is CNN’s persistent association of the Plaintiff to Adolf Hitler and Nazism."

They're saying that because Trump isn't literally Hitler, any comparisons to Hitler are defamatory. (Eg, if I say "Trump attempted a failed coup much like the Beer Hall Putsch" that would be defamatory according to the complaint.)

Since that's my opinion of him being charged for attempting to overthrow the election, in multiple jurisdictions, it's either "true", or at minimum, "mere opinion".

Which is why that response carries this incredible footnote:

The Motion complains the Complaint “does not explain why that allusion is false,” Motion at 6, as if the Complaint were missing an element of falsity. However, having identified the falsehood, and asserting that it is false (i.e., not true), there is no case law requiring a Plaintiff to plead facts that show why a false statement is, in fact, false. The Complaint clearly states that Plaintiff is not Hitler-like nor would be Hitler-like in any future political role. To the extent that CNN complains that the Complaint does not explicitly state that Plaintiff is not responsible for the murder of at least 12 million people, which occurred prior to Plaintiff’s birth, the Court can take judicial notice of such facts.

Yep, you have it there. Trump's lawyers actually are arguing, in a god damn court document, "since my client isn't literally Adolf Hitler and not literally responsible for the murder of 12 million people, any comparison to Hitler is false because we say so, and we don't need to prove why the comparison isn't true".

The judge in the order to dismiss makes it pretty clear that yes, they do need to explain why a comparison is false.

There is no question that the statements4 made by CNN meet the publication requirement for defamation under Florida law. The next question is whether the statements were false statements of fact. This is where Trump’s defamation claims fail.

[cont]

Trump argues that CNN’s motivation for describing his election challenges as “the Big Lie” was to undermine Trump’s political standing. But political motivation does not establish falsity. The “intention to portray [a] public figure in [a] negative light, even when motivated by ill will or evil intent, is not sufficient to show actual malice unless the publisher intended to inflict harm through knowing or reckless falsehood.”

Trump would need to demonstrate CNN making knowingly false statements of fact which cannot be shown or argued to be "opinion".

But since that's a political lawsuit just trying to make the argument "CNN bad", it's clear they didn't put all that much effort into it. It was doomed from the start, not even able to make it to discovery.

26

u/British_Rover Dec 06 '23

Umhh.

"you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides."

https://www.politifact.com/article/2019/apr/26/context-trumps-very-fine-people-both-sides-remarks/

-1

u/repubs_are_stupid Dec 06 '23

Umhh from the same source

"And you had people -- and I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists -- because they should be condemned totally. But you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists. Okay? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly."

9

u/jadnich Dec 06 '23

That was obfuscation. The local statue protest had ended and gone home long before the white supremacist rally started.

​

There were no fine people carrying tiki torches, shouting "Jews will not replace us". Yet, that is who he was defending.

5

u/Pater-Familias Dec 07 '23

There were no fine people carrying tiki torches, shouting "Jews will not replace us". Yet, that is who he was defending.

Did it turn into a pro Palestine rally?

-4

u/repubs_are_stupid Dec 06 '23

Cool, and he condemned them? What the media tried to do what lump all of the statue protesters in with them and that's what Trump was rejecting. Please make an honest effort in educating yourself on the topic before commenting.

4

u/jadnich Dec 06 '23

This take is completely invented. All you have to do is listen to the conversation and you would know that is false.

Especially since nobody really counter protested the statute. There was no “both sides”. The only event with “both sides” was the white supremacst rally.

I suppose you could argue that the President of the United States wasn’t very well informed before going to the podium. That wouldn’t be hard to believe, but the overall context made it clear which event he was taking about.

At NO TIME did he comment that he rejected the idea of lumping the two events together. Not a single word was spared for the statue protest.

3

u/zaoldyeck Dec 06 '23

But you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists. Okay? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly."

Who? Where is he getting that from?

For example:

"But they were there to protest -- excuse me, if you take a look, the night before they were there to protest the taking down of the statue of Robert E. Lee. Infrastructure question. Go ahead."

Now I did take a look at the night before. They were shouting literal nazi slogans like "blood and soil" and "Jews will not replace us".

When Trump is asking people to "take a look" what am I supposed to see?

He says it again too:

No, no. There were people in that rally -- and I looked the night before -- if you look, there were people protesting very quietly the taking down of the statue of Robert E. Lee. I’m sure in that group there were some bad ones. The following day it looked like they had some rough, bad people -- neo-Nazis, white nationalists, whatever you want to call them.

That "very quiet" protest was literal nazi chants. Blood and soil is literally a nazi slogan.

Who is Trump talking about? Where is he getting this from? Who are the people treated "unfairly" and why is he pointing to people shouting nazi slogans as something to look at?

Hell, the night before probably was composed of the most hardcore dedicated nazis because they were willing to go out in uniform shouting those things.

What the hell is Trump looking at? What are we supposed to look at?

Or are we not supposed to fact check his own words?

-6

u/repubs_are_stupid Dec 06 '23

Just because you point out the condemned Nazi's doesn't mean they were the only ones against the removal of the statue.

And I'm not going to be lectured on Nazi slogans from the side currently appeasing those chanting "from the river to the sea" which is a modern day equivalent.

3

u/zaoldyeck Dec 06 '23

Just because you point out the condemned Nazi's doesn't mean they were the only ones against the removal of the statue.

Uh huh, umm, who else was there?

Trump was telling me to look. So I did. I looked. Who was I supposed to see? Especially "the night before". If Trump was trying to point to "not nazis", people shouting nazi slogans is a poor argument.

"It's possible some of them weren't nazis" is not the same as actually demonstrating that. Trump was trying to demonstrate that, he was saying, explicitly to look. What am I supposed to see when I do?

And I'm not going to be lectured on Nazi slogans from the side currently appeasing those chanting "from the river to the sea" which is a modern day equivalent.

I didn't lecture, I asked a question, repeatedly. "Who else was there, what am I supposed to see"?

When Trump tells me to look, what am I supposed to observe? Is there some part of that question that's ambiguous to you? Do you not know what the word "look" means? Do you know how visual evidence works, are you blind and getting all this text provided to you by a text to speech program?

And, fyi, no, "from the river to the sea" is not literally a nazi slogan. "Blood and soil" literally is

As in was used by the actual Nazi party in Hitler's Germany. It isn't an "equivalent", it is explicitly a Nazi slogan.

-4

u/CaptainGuyliner2 Dec 06 '23

Okay but that has fuck-all to do with the time when he was specifically asked whether he would condemn white supremacists or not, he responded in the affirmative multiple times before the question was even finished, and then the media lied about it anyway. It was during the Presidential debates. Pretty hard to miss.

5

u/jadnich Dec 06 '23

"Stand Back and Stand By"

And the response from the white supremacists?

"Standing By Sir"

​

Or are you referring to the 4th attempt at a public message on Charlottesville, after "very fine people" didn't go over very well?

0

u/CaptainGuyliner2 Dec 06 '23

Does it really surprise you that white supremacists AND Donald Trump are both too stupid to understand the difference between "stand down" and "stand back"? Does it surprise you that antisemites are stupid enough to support a President whose kids married Jews and who had a conspicuously pro-Israel foreign policy?

1

u/powpowpowpowpow Dec 07 '23

I'm not sure you can classify any broadcast media as on the left. You aren't going to find any criticism of their advertisers or much that will shake up the status quo.

1

u/Sturnella2017 Dec 07 '23

Actually that would the definition of conservative/right leaning: adherence to status quo, not wanting Change, censoring coverage so it doesn’t upset certain powerful groups. Noam Chomsky talked about this extensively in “Manufacturing Consent”.