If you don’t think private polling data is a thing of value, I’d like to welcome you to the 21st century.
And if you don’t think Trump campaign chair willingly giving this thing of value to Russian intelligence constitutes collusion, you’ve moved the goalposts out of the stadium.
And if you don’t think Trump campaign chair willingly giving this thing of value to Russian intelligence constitutes collusion, you’ve moved the goalposts out of the stadium.
Manafort giving private campaign data to Kilimnik = Trump campaign colluding with Russian intelligence.
It's obvious. Which means it inspired some interesting responses. Addressing them highlights how "was their collusion?" is now settled. "Who?" and "how much?" are still open.
It's obvious. Which means it inspired some interesting responses. Addressing them highlights how "was their collusion?" is now settled. "Who?" and "how much?" are still open.
1. Whether or not you personally believe private polls are valuable, they are a thing of value. The Trump campaign spent resources getting this data and then kept it private. The data is a thing of value. And the campaign chair gave it to Russia.
2. How Russia used the data doesn't matter for the question of collusion. It was valuable to Russia's influence ops for the same reason it's valuable to the Trump campaign. Or why anyone values data. Manafort giving this thing of value is itself collusion.
3. Manafort giving this data to Russia didn’t single-handedly decide the election, and maybe didn’t affect it at all.
So? Shooting Tom Brady wouldn’t single-handedly decide the Super Bowl—and with the way New England’s playing, might not affect it at all—but it’d still be wrong.
So? Shooting Tom Brady wouldn’t single-handedly decide the Super Bowl—and with the way New England’s playing, might not affect it at all—but it’d still be wrong.
4. The data Manafort gave to Russia wasn't all that valuable, so it's no big deal.
First, a top campaign official giving Russian intelligence anything of any value constitutes collusion. This frame concedes that the question is no longer "if," but "how much?
First, a top campaign official giving Russian intelligence anything of any value constitutes collusion. This frame concedes that the question is no longer "if," but "how much?
Why assume this data Manafort gave Russia is the whole collusion?
How many times have you declared that whatever we know today about Trump-Russia is everything there is to know--and it's no big deal--only for something new to come out?
Maybe, perhaps, today's news isn't the end.
How many times have you declared that whatever we know today about Trump-Russia is everything there is to know--and it's no big deal--only for something new to come out?
Maybe, perhaps, today's news isn't the end.
5. There's no evidence proving Trump personally colluded with Russia.
True.
There's evidence his campaign chair colluded with Russian intel, and that his son tried to collude with Russian gov reps.
But no public evidence Trump knew about or was in on any of that.
We'll see
(END)
True.
There's evidence his campaign chair colluded with Russian intel, and that his son tried to collude with Russian gov reps.
But no public evidence Trump knew about or was in on any of that.
We'll see
(END)
