Who Meddled more Putin or Trump? The Collusion Thread visits Venezuela

nohero said:

paulsurovell said:
Jamie,

Before I respond, can you define what you mean by "collusion?" You are all over the map here, departing from its meaning in Russiagate and the Mueller investigation, which is coordination between the Trump campaign and the Russian government to influence the 2016 election.

 After 3,417 comments on the "Hillary Colluded, Not Trump" thread, we've finally arrived at "Define 'Collusion' ".   There's 15 months of posts down the drain ...
 

As you know, I queried Jamie about what he meant, not about the theme of this thread

Just another example where you're being intellectually dishonest to try to score a cheap point.

paulsurovell said:

nohero said:

paulsurovell said:
Jamie,

Before I respond, can you define what you mean by "collusion?" You are all over the map here, departing from its meaning in Russiagate and the Mueller investigation, which is coordination between the Trump campaign and the Russian government to influence the 2016 election.

 After 3,417 comments on the "Hillary Colluded, Not Trump" thread, we've finally arrived at "Define 'Collusion' ".   There's 15 months of posts down the drain ...
 

As you know, I queried Jamie about what he meant, not about the theme of this thread
Just another example where you're being intellectually dishonest to try to score a cheap point.

 You could of just answered based on how you define Hillary's "collusion", how Trump is not "colluding", or anything else that would be a declarative statement instead of just another question or detour to avoid making such statement.  

nohero said:

paulsurovell said:

nohero said:

paulsurovell said:
Jamie,

Before I respond, can you define what you mean by "collusion?" You are all over the map here, departing from its meaning in Russiagate and the Mueller investigation, which is coordination between the Trump campaign and the Russian government to influence the 2016 election.

 After 3,417 comments on the "Hillary Colluded, Not Trump" thread, we've finally arrived at "Define 'Collusion' ".   There's 15 months of posts down the drain ...
 

As you know, I queried Jamie about what he meant, not about the theme of this thread
Just another example where you're being intellectually dishonest to try to score a cheap point.

 You could of just answered based on how you define Hillary's "collusion", how Trump is not "colluding", or anything else that would be a declarative statement instead of just another question or detour to avoid making such statement.  

 Jamie asked me a series of questions about "collusion" but his use of the word was inconsistent and diverged from what has been taken to mean in public discourse (including this thread) for many months. In order to answer his questions, I need to know what he means by the word.

Not sure why you feel the need to intervene and in the process misrepresent what I said and why I said it. It's kind of like how @South_Mountaineer stalks and snipes at me on Twitter. Very similar obsession.

paulsurovell said:

nohero said:

paulsurovell said:
As you know, I queried Jamie about what he meant, not about the theme of this thread
Just another example where you're being intellectually dishonest to try to score a cheap point.

 You could of just answered based on how you define Hillary's "collusion", how Trump is not "colluding", or anything else that would be a declarative statement instead of just another question or detour to avoid making such statement.  

 Jamie asked me a series of questions about "collusion" but his use of the word was inconsistent and diverged from what has been taken to mean in public discourse (including this thread) for many months. In order to answer his questions, I need to know what he means by the word.
Not sure why you feel the need to intervene and in the process misrepresent what I said and why I said it. It's kind of like how @South_Mountaineer stalks and snipes at me on Twitter. Very similar obsession.

 And if that's what you meant initially, you could have said that in the first place. 

By the way, since my post simply included everything you wrote and didn't characterize it, I can't agree with your claim that "you … misrepresent what I said and why I said it."  You didn't say "why" until you responded to me.

I've been commenting on this thread for a while now.  If you don't like it when someone comments on a thread you start (without agreeing with you), you probably shouldn't start threads.  You probably shouldn't use the Twitter if you feel that way when people "snipe" at you.

Paul - perhaps you can provide a possible scenario where the evidence proves collusion.  What would you need to see?  I guess you don’t dispute Russia preferred Trump

jamie said:
Paul - perhaps you can provide a possible scenario where the evidence proves collusion.  What would you need to see?  I guess you don’t dispute Russia preferred Trump

 Here are two examples:

(1) The Trump campaign pays for an opposition research project in which Russian government officials provide derogatory allegations about Hillary Clinton that are promoted to the media and shared with the FBI.

(2) A paid Republican Party consultant goes to the Russian embassy in Washington where she receives derogatory allegations about Clinton campaign manager Robbie Mook and shares it with the media FBI.

nohero said:

 And if that's what you meant initially, you could have said that in the first place

As you know, I did.

nohero said:

By the way, since my post simply included everything you wrote and didn't characterize it, I can't agree with your claim that "you … misrepresent what I said and why I said it."  You didn't say "why" until you responded to me.

You know that's a falsehood.

nohero said:

I've been commenting on this thread for a while now.  If you don't like it when someone comments on a thread you start (without agreeing with you), you probably shouldn't start threads.  You probably shouldn't use the Twitter if you feel that way when people "snipe" at you.

 I didn't say I didn't like it. I just pointed out the strikingly strong similarity between your obsession with my posts and "@South_Mountaineer's" obsession with my Tweets.

paulsurovell said:
 

jamie said:
Paul - perhaps you can provide a possible scenario where the evidence proves collusion.  What would you need to see?  I guess you don’t dispute Russia preferred Trump

 Here are two examples:
(1) The Trump campaign pays for an opposition research project in which Russian government officials provide derogatory allegations about Hillary Clinton that are promoted to the media and shared with the FBI.
(2) A paid Republican Party consultant goes to the Russian embassy in Washington where she receives derogatory allegations about Clinton campaign manager Robbie Mook and shares it with the media FBI.

 And where did your “definition” of collusion come from?

jamie said:

paulsurovell said:

Rachel embellishes facts into allegations and innuendos that, by the time she's finished, have no resemblance to the facts she started with. And from there, the allegations and innuendos are presented as facts. She never challenged because she never invites anyone on her show to challenge her. And that's how her audience has been duped into thinking that there is evidence that Trump colluded with Russia, that Trump is a Russian agent, and that he is President only because Russian meddled in our election.

Can you post a full Rachel segment where she does exactly what you're saying?  You're saying her followers are duped - where's the proof?  Do you have a poll of Rachel viewers that demonstrates what they think and why they think that?

In this link there's a full segment of Rachel promoting the canard that Trump changed the GOP platform to make it more "pro-Russian" in part because of the efforts of a "Russian citizen.

http://www.msnbc.com/transcripts/rachel-maddow-show/2017-03-08

It's an opinion based on observations in many venues and basic logic.

I don't have such a poll, but I'd love to see one.

jamie said:

paulsurovell said:
 

jamie said:
Paul - perhaps you can provide a possible scenario where the evidence proves collusion.  What would you need to see?  I guess you don’t dispute Russia preferred Trump

 Here are two examples:
(1) The Trump campaign pays for an opposition research project in which Russian government officials provide derogatory allegations about Hillary Clinton that are promoted to the media and shared with the FBI.
(2) A paid Republican Party consultant goes to the Russian embassy in Washington where she receives derogatory allegations about Clinton campaign manager Robbie Mook and shares it with the media FBI.

 And where did your “definition” of collusion come from?
 

From the consensus view that "collusion" in the context of alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election refers to coordinated activities between the Trump campaign and the Russian government to influence the election.

Why are we even discussing collusion?   The term is not used in the Mueller special counsel appointment order.

Who colluded more: Hillary, Trump, Boris, Bill or StarKist?

jamie said:
Why are we even discussing collusion?   The term is not used in the Mueller special counsel appointment order.

 Because the Trump chant is "no collusion" so that they can try to downplay any other finding. 

jamie said:
Why are we even discussing collusion?   The term is not used in the Mueller special counsel appointment order.

Mueller was appointed to investigate coordination between the Trump campaign and the Russian government to influence the 2016 Presidential campaingn.

"Collusion," has been substituted for "coordination," by the media, pundits, elected officials and the public, to describe what Mueller was appointed to investigate.

That's why the term "colluded" was chosen for this thread's title 15 months ago, about 5 months after Mueller was appointed.

paulsurovell said:

jamie said:
Why are we even discussing collusion?   The term is not used in the Mueller special counsel appointment order.

Mueller was appointed to investigate coordination between the Trump campaign and the Russian government to influence the 2016 Presidential campaingn.

"Collusion," has been substituted for "coordination," by the media, pundits, elected officials and the public, to describe what Mueller was appointed to investigate.

That's why the term "colluded" was chosen for this thread's title 15 months ago, about 5 months after Mueller was appointed.

 If y'all want to be precise, this is the purpose for which Mueller was appointed (Emphases added):

By virtue of the authority vested in me as Acting Attorney General, including 28 U.S.C. §§ 509, 510, and 515, in order to discharge my responsibility to provide supervision and management of the Department of Justice, and to ensure a full and thorough investigation of the Russian government’s efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election, I hereby order as follows:

(a) Robert S. Mueller III is appointed to serve as Special Counsel for the United States Department of Justice.

(b) The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation confirmed by then-FBI Director James S. Comey in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on March 20, 2017, including:

   (i) any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and

   (ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and

   (iii) any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a).

(c) If the Special Counsel believes it is necessary and appropriate, the Special Counsel is authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters.

So, perhaps you could retitle it "Who had more links and/or coordination between a foreign government and individuals associated with their campaign: Hillary or Trump, or Bill and Boris?"

I was just about to post that!  Paul and the press have fallen prey to a common Trump misdirection.  He rewrites practically everything to favor himself and create division.

Nohero shoots.

Nohero scores!

Again.

Ouch.

jamie said:
I was just about to post that!  Paul and the press have fallen prey to a common Trump misdirection.  He rewrites practically everything to favor himself and create division.

 I only hope I don't get a response this time from Mr. Surovell for playing in his sandbox, like the last time:

paulsurovell said:

Not sure why you feel the need to intervene and in the process misrepresent what I said and why I said it. 

nohero said:

paulsurovell said:

jamie said:
Why are we even discussing collusion?   The term is not used in the Mueller special counsel appointment order.

Mueller was appointed to investigate coordination between the Trump campaign and the Russian government to influence the 2016 Presidential campaingn.

"Collusion," has been substituted for "coordination," by the media, pundits, elected officials and the public, to describe what Mueller was appointed to investigate.

That's why the term "colluded" was chosen for this thread's title 15 months ago, about 5 months after Mueller was appointed.

 If y'all want to be precise, this is the purpose for which Mueller was appointed (Emphases added):

By virtue of the authority vested in me as Acting Attorney General, including 28 U.S.C. §§ 509, 510, and 515, in order to discharge my responsibility to provide supervision and management of the Department of Justice, and to ensure a full and thorough investigation of the Russian government’s efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election, I hereby order as follows:

(a) Robert S. Mueller III is appointed to serve as Special Counsel for the United States Department of Justice.

(b) The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation confirmed by then-FBI Director James S. Comey in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on March 20, 2017, including:

   (i) any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and

   (ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and

   (iii) any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a).

(c) If the Special Counsel believes it is necessary and appropriate, the Special Counsel is authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters.

So, perhaps you could retitle it "Who had more links and/or coordination between a foreign government and individuals associated with their campaign: Hillary or Trump, or Bill and Boris?"
 

Well clearly  Bill Clinton had the most collusion -- or links and coordination -- with the campaign of Boris Yeltsin in personal support and especially in financial assistance. Hillary topped Trump, on a much smaller scale.

jamie said:
I was just about to post that!  Paul and the press have fallen prey to a common Trump misdirection.  He rewrites practically everything to favor himself and create division.

 Jamie, the term "collusion" was introduced by the Hillary campaign, not by Trump:

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/podesta-trump-russian-hackers-232786

Good article:

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/10/19/mueller-investigation-findings-914754

paulsurovell said:

jamie said:
I was just about to post that!  Paul and the press have fallen prey to a common Trump misdirection.  He rewrites practically everything to favor himself and create division.

 Jamie, the term "collusion" was introduced by the Hillary campaign, not by Trump:
https://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/podesta-trump-russian-hackers-232786

 ok, but you can concede - the term collusion is NOT in the Mueller investigation directive - correct?  And it doesn't say Trump and Russia - it says:  "individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump"

So in essence - it's not naming Trump directly at all.  All this time - you have been parroting Trump that he didn't collude and the investigation is a hoax  - when it's not really the main mission of the special counsel.  (We could have saved at least 3,000 posts.)

paulsurovell said:
Well clearly  Bill Clinton had the most collusion -- or links and coordination -- with the campaign of Boris Yeltsin in personal support and especially in financial assistance. Hillary topped Trump, on a much smaller scale.

 Not this bull caca again. We discussed this here two months ago.

nohero said:

paulsurovell said:
The Clinton Presidential Library has recently declassified a number of transcripts between Boris Yeltsin and Bill Clinton including the attached which shows Boris begging Bill for money to fund his election campaign, and Bill reciprocating.
This exchange sheds light on nohero's claim that it's "stupid" to claim that Bill Clinton made the difference for Yeltsin's election victory.
https://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/show/57569

 The exchange sheds no light on what I wrote (which was on the Magnitsky-palooza thread).  It doesn't detract at all from the contemporaneous sources I described:

As I wrote before, Yeltsin had the levers of power, including state media.  He also had excessive campaign spending, and the support of the oligarchs against a candidate who represented a return to the Communist system that the oligarchs didn't want to see happen.  There are contemporaneous studies which attribute that combination of business support and abuse of government power to Yeltsin's victory, not Bill Clinton.  Some examples:

"Russian Election Watch" in "The Russian Elections Compendium"
"Report on the Election of the President of the Russian Federation" by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe "
In pursuit of the Russian presidency: Why and how Yeltsin won the 1996 presidential election"

The last is just an abstract of an article behind an academic paywall, but the abstract sums it up: "This article seeks to explain why Boris Yeltsin was able to win 1996 Russian presidential election despite prolonged economic crisis and the war in Chechnya. The paper advances the argument which emphasizes Yeltsin's ability to recreate political and social alliances which were crucial to his previous electoral successes, on the one hand, and poor electoral strategy and political beliefs of Yeltsin's main challenger, the head of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation Gennady Zyuganov, on the other. In particular, the paper highlights Yeltsin's campaign strategy of turning the election into a referendum on communism rather on his own record and the success of his two candidates only strategy. The paper also argues that Zyuganov communist-nationalist, rather than social-democratic, world view determined his electoral strategy and played a major role in his electoral defeat."

So lots of people have their opinions.  The experts and those who were on-the-ground aren't big on the "Bill Clinton did it" theory.

I note (as I did on the other thread) that you seemed not to have bothered to look at the contemporaneous sources, since if you did you would have noted a discussion of IMF funding.
As for the transcript of the call that you rely on, see next post.

 And, the next post ...

nohero said:

paulsurovell said:
The Clinton Presidential Library has recently declassified a number of transcripts between Boris Yeltsin and Bill Clinton including the attached which shows Boris begging Bill for money to fund his election campaign, and Bill reciprocating.
This exchange sheds light on nohero's claim that it's "stupid" to claim that Bill Clinton made the difference for Yeltsin's election victory.
https://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/show/57569

 So here's what they say in the transcript -

The President: Let me ask this: didn't it help you a lot when the Paris Club rescheduled Russia's debt? I thought that would have caused several billions of dollars to flow into your country.

President Yeltsin: No. It will be coming in the second half of the year. And in the first half of the year, we will only have $300 million due to conditions set by the IMF. You know when Mr. Camdessus was here I talked to him. But he said only $300 million in the first half and $1 billion in the second half. But the problem is I need money to pay pensions and wages. Without resolving this matter of pensions and wages, it will be very difficult to go into the election campaign. You know, if we could resolve this subject in a way with him providing the $2.5 billion in the first half, we could perhaps manage. Or if you could do it under your banks with Russian government guarantees.

The President: I'll check on this with the IMF and with some of our friends and see what can be done. I think this is the only way it can be done, but let me clarify this. I had understood that you would get about $1 billion from the IMF before the election.

President Yeltsin: No, no, only $300 million.

The President: I'll check.

President Yeltsin: Okay.

The President: Now if I could raise CFE. I know we made important progress in Moscow on a CFE flank solution. I appreciate your flexibility. It seems to me that we're now down to a final set of issues on numbers: total numbers of armored combat vehicles to be allowed ..

"I'll check"?  That's the "money quote" which "sheds light"?  I think the extensive sources I provided you outweigh the "I'll check".
Did you notice the topic Clinton was moving on to?  "Now if I could raise CFE. I know we made important progress in Moscow on a CFE flank solution."  After he finished making friendly talk with Yeltsin, Clinton moved on to a serious arms control issue.  The CFE is of interest to anyone concerned about "a new Cold War", with respect to controls on the staging of conventional forces:

The Flank Agreement to the Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE) Treaty went into effect in May 1997, shortly after the U.S. Senate approved it and President Clinton signed the resolution of ratification. The agreement retains CFE limits on tanks, armored combat vehicles, and artillery in the Russian and Ukrainian flank zone, but applies them to a smaller area. The regions removed from the original flank zone will be subject to new constraints and additional verification and transparency measures.

Of course, Putin later withdrew from that treaty.  But the exchange is important in showing the interests of the United States with respect to who runs Russia.  Yeltsin was continuing discussions on conventional arms limits; the old Communist Party, if it took control, would be a problem with respect to that.  This is not to say that the United States had influence within Russia (see prior post), but that the interest was more than what some have suggested (helping the oligarchs loot the country, or something like that).

Gallopin'!

nohero said:

paulsurovell said:
Well clearly  Bill Clinton had the most collusion -- or links and coordination -- with the campaign of Boris Yeltsin in personal support and especially in financial assistance. Hillary topped Trump, on a much smaller scale.

 Not this bull caca again. We discussed this here two months ago.

Yes, the conversation between Clinton and Yeltsin in which Yeltsin asks Clinton for help in getting a $2.5 billion loan to improve Yeltsin's re-election chances and Clinton says he'll "look into it" constitutes collusion to influence the 1996 Russian presidential election.

There are also a couple of conversations cited in which Yeltsin thanks Clinton for US economic aid that helped turn regional political leaders from Yeltsin opponents into supporters, and Clinton says he will tell "his people" to contact Yeltsin's "people" to see if they can do more in this regard.

These conversations, which took place in 1996 during the Russian presidential election, were classified "Secret" until July 2018, and were thus unavailable to the "contemporaneous" analysts that @nohero mentions.

paulsurovell said:

nohero said:

paulsurovell said:
Well clearly  Bill Clinton had the most collusion -- or links and coordination -- with the campaign of Boris Yeltsin in personal support and especially in financial assistance. Hillary topped Trump, on a much smaller scale.

 Not this bull caca again. We discussed this here two months ago.

Yes, the conversation between Clinton and Yeltsin in which Yeltsin asks Clinton for help in getting a $2.5 billion loan to improve Yeltsin's re-election chances and Clinton says he'll "look into it" constitutes collusion to influence the 1996 Russian presidential election.
There are also a couple of conversations cited in which Yeltsin thanks Clinton for US economic aid that helped turn regional political leaders from Yeltsin opponents into supporters, and Clinton says he will tell "his people" to contact Yeltsin's "people" to see if they can do more in this regard.
These conversations, which took place in 1996 during the Russian presidential election, were classified "Secret" until July 2018, and were thus unavailable to the "contemporaneous" analysts that @nohero mentions.

And Mr. Surovell knows that his comment was already responded to in the other thread.  To sum it up:

• Yes, the conversations were unavailable to contemporaneous analysts; they were also unavailable to voters.
• The topics of the conversations were available and visible to the contemporaneous analysts and to the voters.
• The topics of the conversations were considered by the contemporaneous analysts, and addressed in the papers cited.  However, they concluded that other factors were behind Yeltsin's victory.  I'll repeat the quote from the quoted abstract that was quoted in the post you quoted from but cut out by you when you quoted it:
  • "This article seeks to explain why Boris Yeltsin was able to win 1996 Russian presidential election despite prolonged economic crisis and the war in Chechnya. The paper advances the argument which emphasizes Yeltsin's ability to recreate political and social alliances which were crucial to his previous electoral successes, on the one hand, and poor electoral strategy and political beliefs of Yeltsin's main challenger, the head of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation Gennady Zyuganov, on the other. In particular, the paper highlights Yeltsin's campaign strategy of turning the election into a referendum on communism rather on his own record and the success of his two candidates only strategy. The paper also argues that Zyuganov communist-nationalist, rather than social-democratic, world view determined his electoral strategy and played a major role in his electoral defeat."

So, in conclusion, it wasn't the secret chats between Bill and Boris.  

[Edited to add] I'll leave it to others to diagram "the quote from the quoted abstract that was quoted in the post you quoted from but cut out by you when you quoted it", or figure out where to put the parentheses if necessary to untangle that.  I think you all get the drift.

Just so I’m clear, because I do enjoy a provocative thesis: Am I supposed to give serious thought to the idea that talk of government assistance between two heads of state ahead of an election is akin to, or even more egregious than, the efforts to tilt an election that are alleged to have occurred between the Russian government and the Trump campaign?

DaveSchmidt said:
Just so I’m clear, because I do enjoy a provocative thesis: Am I supposed to give serious thought to the idea that talk of government assistance between two heads of state ahead of an election is akin to, or even more egregious than, the efforts to tilt an election that are alleged to have occurred between the Russian government and the Trump campaign?

The talk was about US government assistance to help Yeltsin's election campaign.

nohero said:

paulsurovell said:

nohero said:

paulsurovell said:
Well clearly  Bill Clinton had the most collusion -- or links and coordination -- with the campaign of Boris Yeltsin in personal support and especially in financial assistance. Hillary topped Trump, on a much smaller scale.

 Not this bull caca again. We discussed this here two months ago.

Yes, the conversation between Clinton and Yeltsin in which Yeltsin asks Clinton for help in getting a $2.5 billion loan to improve Yeltsin's re-election chances and Clinton says he'll "look into it" constitutes collusion to influence the 1996 Russian presidential election.
There are also a couple of conversations cited in which Yeltsin thanks Clinton for US economic aid that helped turn regional political leaders from Yeltsin opponents into supporters, and Clinton says he will tell "his people" to contact Yeltsin's "people" to see if they can do more in this regard.
These conversations, which took place in 1996 during the Russian presidential election, were classified "Secret" until July 2018, and were thus unavailable to the "contemporaneous" analysts that @nohero mentions.

And Mr. Surovell knows that his comment was already responded to in the other thread.  To sum it up:

• Yes, the conversations were unavailable to contemporaneous analysts; they were also unavailable to voters.
• The topics of the conversations were available and visible to the contemporaneous analysts and to the voters.
• The topics of the conversations were considered by the contemporaneous analysts, and addressed in the papers cited.  However, they concluded that other factors were behind Yeltsin's victory.  I'll repeat the quote from the quoted abstract that was quoted in the post you quoted from but cut out by you when you quoted it:
  • "This article seeks to explain why Boris Yeltsin was able to win 1996 Russian presidential election despite prolonged economic crisis and the war in Chechnya. The paper advances the argument which emphasizes Yeltsin's ability to recreate political and social alliances which were crucial to his previous electoral successes, on the one hand, and poor electoral strategy and political beliefs of Yeltsin's main challenger, the head of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation Gennady Zyuganov, on the other. In particular, the paper highlights Yeltsin's campaign strategy of turning the election into a referendum on communism rather on his own record and the success of his two candidates only strategy. The paper also argues that Zyuganov communist-nationalist, rather than social-democratic, world view determined his electoral strategy and played a major role in his electoral defeat."

So, in conclusion, it wasn't the secret chats between Bill and Boris.  
[Edited to add] I'll leave it to others to diagram "the quote from the quoted abstract that was quoted in the post you quoted from but cut out by you when you quoted it", or figure out where to put the parentheses if necessary to untangle that.  I think you all get the drift.

 Of course there were "other factors" involved in Yeltsin's victory.

That doesn't detract from the fact -- proven by the declassified Secret conversations -- that Clinton colluded with Yeltsin in a big way to influence Russian presidential election of 1996.

Real, serious collusion.

And thus the factual basis for the title of this thread.