Hacker News Reader

Comment by roenxi | Hacker News Reader

[flagged]

The white house recently released reports into electoral interference that showed that the majority of Russian influence was targeted at supporting trump. I assumed that people would notice this massive foot in mouth moment, but it seems people don't actually read the source material, and just claim that it supports their position. Unfortunately, this stance seems to work.

What is going on? How does a government release a report that directly contradicts what they claim they're releasing the report for, and then steadfastly stand by the claims that were disproven by the report they released?

We truly are living in the post truth era...

Everyone already made up their minds. People who know Russiagate happened looked at the evidence. People who believe it didn’t listened to Trump’s denials. New evidence won’t cause them to not believe Trump, because the old evidence was sufficient.

As always you can’t logic people out of a position they didn’t logic themselves into.

That's a horribly defeatist, but unfortunately accurate summary of the current state of the world.

Here's to the changing of the tide.

Well the 2017 prize (one year before) was for the Panama papers. No dramatic consequences for that, either.

I’m not sure where you are getting your sources but the reporting that the Times and Post won the Pulitzer for was validated by both the Mueller report, Congressional investigations and 2 different reviews by the Pulitzer board.

Rather than moving on from this the Pulitzer Board is vigorously defending their decision in court as we speak.

There certainly hasn’t been a retraction. You’ll also note Trump never sued the papers over their coverage.

Journalists (un)covered everything that would be in a Special Counsel report months/years later - in what world is that bad reporting? It's the exact opposite.

In addition to everyone else telling you you're wrong, because you're a persistent Trump shill, I would like to point out that a number of Trump associates did actually go to prison: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politic...

One of whom pled guilty to lying about the proposed Trump Tower Moscow scheme: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_Tower_Moscow

I wasn't expecting to reply, but then I realised that the last time [0] I described Trump was too charming not to tack on the thread.

> [Donald Trump] at once put on an extremely arrogant demeanour instead of the modest gait and bearing proper to --the gentle sex-- [his office], began to walk and speak and do all things more stiffly and haughtily than [he] had been wont … [he] arranged everything as [he himself] thought fit and according to [his] own arbitrary will.

And it has to be admitted is a fair description of the man.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49680033

I wrote a whole comment yesterday to someone else explaining to them how what you said about Russiagate is wrong:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50194105

In short, the facts are:

- Trump's campaign met repeatedly with Russians and lied about it.

- Trump's inner circle took meetings with a Russian spy in hopes of getting dirt and lied about it.

- Russia actually did release dirt to help Trump campaign and lied about it.

- Trump's campaign eagerly accepted that help and asked for more publicly, and Russia obliged.

- Trump's campaign shared internal campaign data with Russian intelligence officers.

- If they could have exonerated Trump they would have, but they couldn't.

These are cold hard facts available in the mueller report and the senate intel committee report, both authored by Republicans.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com