United States of Russia?

[DavidAnnArbor]

Shouldn't Nunes be required to step down as chairperson of the intelligence committee if he played a role in trying to get Ukraine to falsely claim that Biden was involved in corruption?

[six-car-habit]

Shouldn't Nunes be required to step down as chairperson of the intelligence committee if he played a role in trying to get Ukraine to falsely claim that Biden was involved in corruption?

  Hopefully Schiff calls Nunes out on his naughtiness in a public hearing.  Makes me wonder what is neccessary to have a person pulled off of a commitee. Can it be done within the commitee itself ?,  or would there need to be an ethics investigation 1st [ in which case i won't hold my breath, given the amount and # of appeals all things not agreeable to this administration go thru ] 

  Nunes hasn't answered the question of what he was doing in Europe , in Nov-Dec.2018 when directly asked by news outlets....Federal records show he was there with 3 other staff members.

[Just Joe]

I'm surprised at how much the GOP members can lie without getting absolutely roasted by the Dems and the media.

[Dancin'Dog]

I'm surprised at how much the GOP members can lie without getting absolutely roasted by the Dems and the media.

It does make you wonder whether we actually have a government or a bunch of actors playing their parts (poorly).   

[Glenstache]

Lot's of Kremlin propaganda in here, but interesting to see how Trump is covered on Russian state media:
https://news.yahoo.com/russias-state-tv-calls-trump-151254712.html

[DavidAnnArbor]

Lot's of Kremlin propaganda in here, but interesting to see how Trump is covered on Russian state media:
https://news.yahoo.com/russias-state-tv-calls-trump-151254712.html

Trump really is a stooge for Putin. It's shocking how the Republicans have completely turned 180 degrees with respect to Russia and the US is less safe as a result if democracies in Europe are undermined, and our own democracy is at stake too.

[dang1]

Trump The Traitor is a Russian agent

[HPstache]

Edit: reaseached my dumb question

[Just Joe]

Makes a person wonder how much of the GOP activities have Russian donors...

[JLee]

Makes a person wonder how much of the GOP activities have Russian donors...

Never fear! https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/commentary/2018/05/08/how-putin-s-oligarchs-funneled-millions-into-gop-campaigns/

[bacchi]

Putin has stated that Trump was impeached for far-fetched reasons. Lol.

[nereo]

Putin has stated that Trump was impeached for far-fetched reasons. Lol.

Well, it *is* about 8,000km from DC to Ukraine.  So... that's definitely far.

[PathtoFIRE]

Putin has stated that Trump was impeached for far-fetched reasons. Lol.

He also is confident that our Senate will acquit Trump. Wonder why he's so confident?

[Glenstache]

Putin has stated that Trump was impeached for far-fetched reasons. Lol.

He also is confident that our Senate will acquit Trump. Wonder why he's so confident?

#MoscowMitch

[bacchi]

Trump and his team strongly oppose the DASKA Russian sanction bill and think it's "unnecessary." The bill would also require a 2/3 Senate vote to leave NATO.

https://thehill.com/policy/international/475173-senate-committee-approves-legislation-to-sanction-russia

And for the Russian point-of-view:

https://sputniknews.com/us/201912191077623132-trump-administration-opposes-daska-bill-targeting-russia-warns-of-harm-to-us-allies-in-europe/

Here's hoping it gets a veto-proof vote.


(It is hard not to think of Trump as a Russian asset.)

[gentmach]

Did you folks discuss the FISA report anywhere? I would like to see your takes on it.

[talltexan]

Are you referring to the Inspector-General's report about whether the FISA warrants to surveil Carter Page were proper?

[gentmach]

Are you referring to the Inspector-General's report about whether the FISA warrants to surveil Carter Page were proper?

Yes.

[talltexan]

When I heard it come out in Mid-December, I heard that it found now apparent political motivation, but it did document several instances in which bad decisions were made. The most important conclusion was that--in the absence of information from the Fusion GPS dossier--there was still enough evidence of Page's activities that surveillance was warranted. In particular, the work of Peter Strzok was adequate and unbiased (even if Strzok himself had obvious personal bias).

I believe Christopher Wray's statements about it, and I think Bill Barr's statements were (generously) "spin".

[talltexan]

I asked the office Trump apologist, and he told me that the investigation is being continued by a guy named John Durham, who has indictment power, and he's really going to make the corruption clear to everyone in a way the IG wasn't able to.

My co-worker generously provided a list of all the people Durham will be indicting:

McCabe, already under referral
Strock (sic)
Page
Comey
Rosenstein
Ohr, Bruce and Nellie
Anyone who signed or had direct knowledge of FISA Warrant

Possibly….
Brennen
Clapper

[RangerOne]

I am not surprised at all at the level of lying and ass kissing that the GOP is engaging in right now.

I would caveat that by saying, while I think Trump did something very wrong. I think it would be appropriate if there was some way of putting a president in their place that did not require removal. Because its possible impeachment too extreme and or difficult.

With regard to party behavior it, seems like we are witnessing the reality that the major parties are powerless in choosing their leaders. The GOP would have never put someone like Trump at the head of their ticket. He is too ill tempered and volatile. While the part may appropriate the victories Trump gets them at home, he is killing our reliability as an ally to our international neighbors.

The GOP congress is fully at the mercy of their voter base if any of them want to keep their jobs. So they are all pretty much stuck sticking their necks out for the President or losing their seat when they go up fore reelection... Most life long politicians will do and say what is necessary to keep their jobs.

NPR actually had some pretty interesting podcasts about how the erosion of party power in choosing their presidential candidates has effectively lead to a president like Trump being possible. I think there are also cases where a corrupt party would make very bad choices, but in this instance we are really seeing the effects of getting fucked by voters and current make up of the electoral college. Not the GOP and its members specifically. Career politicians in general cant be expected to sacrifice their careers for idealism.

[Glenstache]

I am not surprised at all at the level of lying and ass kissing that the GOP is engaging in right now.

I would caveat that by saying, while I think Trump did something very wrong. I think it would be appropriate if there was some way of putting a president in their place that did not require removal. Because its possible impeachment too extreme and or difficult.

With regard to party behavior it, seems like we are witnessing the reality that the major parties are powerless in choosing their leaders. The GOP would have never put someone like Trump at the head of their ticket. He is too ill tempered and volatile. While the part may appropriate the victories Trump gets them at home, he is killing our reliability as an ally to our international neighbors.

The GOP congress is fully at the mercy of their voter base if any of them want to keep their jobs. So they are all pretty much stuck sticking their necks out for the President or losing their seat when they go up fore reelection... Most life long politicians will do and say what is necessary to keep their jobs.

NPR actually had some pretty interesting podcasts about how the erosion of party power in choosing their presidential candidates has effectively lead to a president like Trump being possible. I think there are also cases where a corrupt party would make very bad choices, but in this instance we are really seeing the effects of getting fucked by voters and current make up of the electoral college. Not the GOP and its members specifically. Career politicians in general cant be expected to sacrifice their careers for idealism.

I Trump is a strong argument for ranked choice voting, especially in primaries where the fields are large. Trump consistently came in very low relative to most of the other candidates, but because the votes were split among the others, Trump managed to get high overall standing. He would have been decimated by ranked choice voting because he was viewed by most primary voters as a terrible choice relative to pretty much all of the other options.

[nereo]

I am not surprised at all at the level of lying and ass kissing that the GOP is engaging in right now.

I would caveat that by saying, while I think Trump did something very wrong. I think it would be appropriate if there was some way of putting a president in their place that did not require removal. Because its possible impeachment too extreme and or difficult.

With regard to party behavior it, seems like we are witnessing the reality that the major parties are powerless in choosing their leaders. The GOP would have never put someone like Trump at the head of their ticket. He is too ill tempered and volatile. While the part may appropriate the victories Trump gets them at home, he is killing our reliability as an ally to our international neighbors.

The GOP congress is fully at the mercy of their voter base if any of them want to keep their jobs. So they are all pretty much stuck sticking their necks out for the President or losing their seat when they go up fore reelection... Most life long politicians will do and say what is necessary to keep their jobs.

NPR actually had some pretty interesting podcasts about how the erosion of party power in choosing their presidential candidates has effectively lead to a president like Trump being possible. I think there are also cases where a corrupt party would make very bad choices, but in this instance we are really seeing the effects of getting fucked by voters and current make up of the electoral college. Not the GOP and its members specifically. Career politicians in general cant be expected to sacrifice their careers for idealism.

I Trump is a strong argument for ranked choice voting, especially in primaries where the fields are large. Trump consistently came in very low relative to most of the other candidates, but because the votes were split among the others, Trump managed to get high overall standing. He would have been decimated by ranked choice voting because he was viewed by most primary voters as a terrible choice relative to pretty much all of the other options.

+1.
Ranked choice voting is best at preventing the most extreme or divisive candidate from winning via a plurality (but not a majority) of votes.  If centrist candidates are what we seek, ranked-choice voting is one easily implemented means of getting there.

[gentmach]

When I heard it come out in Mid-December, I heard that it found now apparent political motivation, but it did document several instances in which bad decisions were made. The most important conclusion was that--in the absence of information from the Fusion GPS dossier--there was still enough evidence of Page's activities that surveillance was warranted. In particular, the work of Peter Strzok was adequate and unbiased (even if Strzok himself had obvious personal bias).

I believe Christopher Wray's statements about it, and I think Bill Barr's statements were (generously) "spin".

The reason that the surveillance was warranted was because Page was working for the CIA.

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/474570-an-apology-to-carter-page

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/ex-trump-campaign-aide-carter-page-notches-victory-after-inspector-general-hammers-fbi-for-surveillance-missteps/2019/12/14/6daac5f2-1dda-11ea-b4c1-fd0d91b60d9e_story.html

https://theintercept.com/2019/12/12/the-inspector-generals-report-on-2016-fb-i-spying-reveals-a-scandal-of-historic-magnitude-not-only-for-the-fbi-but-also-the-u-s-media/

So, that shady behavior was state sanctioned.

[DavidAnnArbor]

Yes ranked choice voting is the way to go, and I believe is how California does voting.

I believe Maine now used rank choice voting for the governorship.

[talltexan]

I'm gently trying to train my children toward ranked-choice voting.

"Is Carcasonne the only game you're willing to play, or are there others, such as Pick-me-Pop Chase, which your sister wants to play? "

[sui generis]

Yes ranked choice voting is the way to go, and I believe is how California does voting.

I believe Maine now used rank choice voting for the governorship.

CA doesn't, unfortunately, do ranked choice voting, although some cities within the state do.  Most famously, you may be familiar with San Francisco doing it.  This last November they had an election for DA that was dramatic and the results were quite close...and iirc correctly, the outcome was different than the straight vote.

Interestingly, to @nereo's point, the candidate that won in the SF DA race was definitely not the more moderate one.

CA has a jungle primary (if we're talking about statewide things that are done slightly differently here).  So you can definitely end up with two Dems or two Reps on a ballot in the general election, depending on the composition of the primary field and how blue or red the district is where it's being held.

[nereo]

Somehow this administration can't seem to get away from scandals involving Russia

This time it's about Russia paying bounties to Taliban militants for killing US soldiers.  The official line from the WH is that Trump was never briefed on the matter, though reports refute this notion, detailing briefings going back to at least Feb 2020. 

So either our own intelligence agencies did not brief the President, or they did and Trump has done nothing and denies knowing anything about it before this week.

take your pick of news outlets, none of them are particularly kind to Trump in this matter...
https://www.npr.org/2020/06/30/885033809/dems-fault-trump-over-russia-bounty-allegations-ask-for-more-information
https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-wasnt-briefed-on-russian-bounty-intelligence-because-it-wasnt-verified-white-house-says-11593455761
https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/29/politics/russia-bounties-presidential-daily-briefing/index.html
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/505153-cnn-russian-bounty-intel-was-included-in-trumps-daily-briefing
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/multiple-intelligence-streams-russian-bounties-for-us-troops-trump-not-briefed
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/06/29/timeline-russia-bounties-us-troops-afghanistan-trump-response/
https://fox59.com/news/politics/white-house-trump-not-briefed-on-unverified-bounties/

[talltexan]

I'm definitely anti-Trump. I participate frequently on another thread here about the daily Trump scandals (often more than one).

But I cannot see why this is such a big deal. Russia devoting resources to kill US soldiers in a proxy war in Afghanistan? Why wouldn't they? Is this supposed to be treated as an act of war? If we send Americans into a combat theatre, aren't we supposed to take steps to guard their safety?

[nereo]

I'm definitely anti-Trump. I participate frequently on another thread here about the daily Trump scandals (often more than one).

But I cannot see why this is such a big deal. Russia devoting resources to kill US soldiers in a proxy war in Afghanistan? Why wouldn't they? Is this supposed to be treated as an act of war? If we send Americans into a combat theatre, aren't we supposed to take steps to guard their safety?

Yes, I believe it should be treated as an act of war.  When a country pays soliders to attack the troops from another country, they are effectively sending mercenaries.
You can't pay someone to do the killing and then claim you aren't committing a hostile act.

To be fair Trump's response of 'I know nothing about this / I wasn't briefed" is small potatoes.  The real outrage is that Russia feels it can attack US soldiers with impunity. So far they seem to be correct.

[DoubleDown]

I'm definitely anti-Trump. I participate frequently on another thread here about the daily Trump scandals (often more than one).

But I cannot see why this is such a big deal. Russia devoting resources to kill US soldiers in a proxy war in Afghanistan? Why wouldn't they? Is this supposed to be treated as an act of war? If we send Americans into a combat theatre, aren't we supposed to take steps to guard their safety?

I'll take a stab at an answer from my perspective:

The issue (to me at least) is not whether Russia would do such a thing (they definitely would). It's what our alleged commander-in-chief does about it (or doesn't, in this case).

Russia, as far as I know, is not a declared combatant in the Afghanistan theater. So, "going to war" with U.S. troops or backing those at war with the U.S. is a pretty serious, albeit completely expected, action for Russia to take. And the taliban is certainly not a righteous regime or cause in most civilized nations' eyes. Russia is supporting a proxy war for a murderous regime that would impose a society with perhaps the worst kinds of human rights abuses. It was not that many years ago when the taliban was hosting mass public hangings and beheading in soccer stadiums for those who would dare not follow their warped views of instituting Sharia laws. Of course, Russia backs all kinds of unrighteous regimes (see: Syria).

So sure, Russia is a very bad actor. Question is, why is our President seemingly so comfortable with that? In case after case, Trump bends over backwards not to offend Putin, even when they are paying bounties to having U.S. soldiers killed in a conflict which Russia is not a party to. Why? What does Russia have on Trump?

[GuitarStv]

I'm definitely anti-Trump. I participate frequently on another thread here about the daily Trump scandals (often more than one).

But I cannot see why this is such a big deal. Russia devoting resources to kill US soldiers in a proxy war in Afghanistan? Why wouldn't they? Is this supposed to be treated as an act of war? If we send Americans into a combat theatre, aren't we supposed to take steps to guard their safety?

Agreed.  These are the same Afghani forces that the US gave money, training, and weapons too under Reagan to kill Russian soldiers.  Kinda hypocritical to get upset that Russia's doing it back.

[Kris]

I'm definitely anti-Trump. I participate frequently on another thread here about the daily Trump scandals (often more than one).

But I cannot see why this is such a big deal. Russia devoting resources to kill US soldiers in a proxy war in Afghanistan? Why wouldn't they? Is this supposed to be treated as an act of war? If we send Americans into a combat theatre, aren't we supposed to take steps to guard their safety?

Agreed.  These are the same Afghani forces that the US gave money, training, and weapons too under Reagan to kill Russian Soviet soldiers during the Cold War.  Kinda hypocritical to get upset that Russia's doing it back.

Except, it was a different circumstance.

You can argue (and I probably would) that that was wrong, but it's not "the same". Inexact analogies are inexact.

[nereo]

I'm definitely anti-Trump. I participate frequently on another thread here about the daily Trump scandals (often more than one).

But I cannot see why this is such a big deal. Russia devoting resources to kill US soldiers in a proxy war in Afghanistan? Why wouldn't they? Is this supposed to be treated as an act of war? If we send Americans into a combat theatre, aren't we supposed to take steps to guard their safety?

Agreed.  These are the same Afghani forces that the US gave money, training, and weapons too under Reagan to kill Russian soldiers.  Kinda hypocritical to get upset that Russia's doing it back.

That's making two unverified assumptions

• It was 'just' for the US to arm and train troops in our proxy-war with Russia (aka the Cold War) - something you've argued against multiple times
• that directing/rewarding kills is ethically the same as selling arms but not instructing the recipient to kill your advicary.  /li]
  

[Poundwise]

"Suspicions of Russian Bounties Were Bolstered by Data on Financial Transfers

Analysts have used other evidence to conclude that the transfers were likely part of an effort to offer payments to Taliban-linked militants to kill American and coalition troops in Afghanistan."

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/30/us/politics/russian-bounties-afghanistan-intelligence.html

[GuitarStv]

I'm definitely anti-Trump. I participate frequently on another thread here about the daily Trump scandals (often more than one).

But I cannot see why this is such a big deal. Russia devoting resources to kill US soldiers in a proxy war in Afghanistan? Why wouldn't they? Is this supposed to be treated as an act of war? If we send Americans into a combat theatre, aren't we supposed to take steps to guard their safety?

Agreed.  These are the same Afghani forces that the US gave money, training, and weapons too under Reagan to kill Russian soldiers.  Kinda hypocritical to get upset that Russia's doing it back.

That's making two unverified assumptions

• It was 'just' for the US to arm and train troops in our proxy-war with Russia (aka the Cold War) - something you've argued against multiple times
• that directing/rewarding kills is ethically the same as selling arms but not instructing the recipient to kill your advicary.  /li]
  

- I don't believe either Russia's or the US's action was just.  They are very similar though.

- I don't see much difference ethically.  Giving the Mujahadeen Stinger missiles (and training to use them) was directly responsible for an awful lot of Russian deaths, which was the reason that the CIA wanted to do it to begin with.  There was no question that the weapons would be used against the Soviets.  It was actually a big risk on the part of the US because there was a chance that the (then) new weaponry would fall into Soviet hands and be reverse engineered . . . and when Russia pulled out of Afghanistan the CIA created a 65 million dollar program to try and buy back the remaining Stinger missiles from the Afghanis.  So it was never about arming Afghanis for defense . . . it was always about killing Russians.

[Glenstache]

Just in time for the election, the Senate has released its report on Russian interference in the 2016 election.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/18/us/politics/senate-intelligence-russian-interference-report.html

direct link to the 900ish page PDF of the report:
https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/senate-intelligence-committee-russian-interference/8cf58e574d235164/full.pdf

I've only skimmed the first few dozen pages of the PDF report, but Manafort is very clearly corrupt and it is difficult to come to any conclusion except that he was leveraging his relationships with Ukraine, Russian, and the Trump campaign in both directions as much as he possibly could. I have a hard time to read that as anything but collusion.

There is also a section on how the Trump campaign chose to hire Manafort that I would like to go back to. It seemed like a plant. If, for the sake of argument, Trump was actually unaware of what was going on, then at a minimum the whole crew was a bunch of novices that were played by many actors (not just Russia) and exploited. It feels like they were so enamored of being at the grown up tables that they were eager to wheel and deal, but were in woefully over their head. See also, pretty much anything that Kushner has touched.

[nereo]

...
If, for the sake of argument, Trump was actually unaware of what was going on, then at a minimum the whole crew was a bunch of novices that were played by many actors (not just Russia) and exploited. It feels like they were so enamored of being at the grown up tables that they were eager to wheel and deal, but were in woefully over their head. See also, pretty much anything that Kushner has touched.

Putin was a counter-intellegence KGB officer for 16 years before becoming a politician for the next 25 years.  Four+ decades sparring with the United States over the span of six different administrations.

Why anyone would expect Trump - with zero political, military or policy experience - to be equipped to handle Putin is beyond me. 

But I guess he held a beauty pageant in Moscow and tried unsuccessfully to built another hotel there, so that was supposed to mean he could handle a cutthroat authoritarian?

[gentmach]

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/read-newly-released-russia-probe-transcripts-from-the-house-intelligence-committee

House Intelligence Committee transcripts were declassified. Fascinating stuff. Great reads. Mind blowing stuff in here.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/08/19/ex-fbi-lawyer-kevin-clinesmith-court-1st-durham-case-russia/3393941001/

Clinesmith plead guilty to falsifying evidence. Whatever your politics I think we can all agree that the FBI falsifying evidence and lying to the court is a grevious abuse of trust.

Also Michael Flynn's court case went en banc to the appeals court because the judge decided to ignore the separation between the executive and the judicial. (He decided to prosecute the case himself.)
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLSwm32hsWAtRdktdmBtZCy406tBLdwqoZ

[GuitarStv]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/08/19/ex-fbi-lawyer-kevin-clinesmith-court-1st-durham-case-russia/3393941001/

Clinesmith plead guilty to falsifying evidence. Whatever your politics I think we can all agree that the FBI falsifying evidence and lying to the court is a grevious abuse of trust.

Agreed.  I hope that his abuse of trust is dealt with very seriously.  It doesn't change all the evidence that was later found proving Trump's inappropriate actions, but certainly was an inexcusable thing to do.

[nereo]

By most official accounts Russia has pulled off the most disruptive hack of largely US systems in history...
...and Trump is noticeably silent on the matter.

Can’t help but point out the symmetry here: Trump’s presidency began with online Russian interference, and it ends with online Russian interference.

[Glenstache]

By most official accounts Russia has pulled off the most disruptive hack of largely US systems in history...
...and Trump is noticeably silent on the matter.

Can’t help but point out the symmetry here: Trump’s presidency began with online Russian interference, and it ends with online Russian interference.

Hoax or Hacks? They sound pretty similar. /s

The silence is indeed deafening. That it took an opinion piece in the NYT to surface this is a bit disturbing.

[GuitarStv]

By most official accounts Russia has pulled off the most disruptive hack of largely US systems in history...
...and Trump is noticeably silent on the matter.

Can’t help but point out the symmetry here: Trump’s presidency began with online Russian interference, and it ends with online Russian interference.

Hoax or Hacks? They sound pretty similar. /s

The silence is indeed deafening. That it took an opinion piece in the NYT to surface this is a bit disturbing.

To be fair to Trump . . . he worked really hard at firing, or pissing off the competent people in government for four years.  Maybe he doesn't know that it happened?  It's not like he reads newspapers like the 'failing New York times'.

[nereo]

By most official accounts Russia has pulled off the most disruptive hack of largely US systems in history...
...and Trump is noticeably silent on the matter.

Can’t help but point out the symmetry here: Trump’s presidency began with online Russian interference, and it ends with online Russian interference.

Hoax or Hacks? They sound pretty similar. /s

The silence is indeed deafening. That it took an opinion piece in the NYT to surface this is a bit disturbing.

To be fair to Trump . . . he worked really hard at firing, or pissing off the competent people in government for four years.  Maybe he doesn't know that it happened?  It's not like he reads newspapers like the 'failing New York times'.

FOr someone who claims not to pay any attention to newspapers like the NYT, he certainly comments on articles written therein an awful lot...

[Just Joe]

Trump probably has someone do his homework for him and then tell him about it.

[Zamboni]

There has clearly been Russian hacking of American computer systems this entire Presidency, but it was kept quiet bc Trump. Only the prior outgoing and new incoming administrations brought these things to light.

I don't see how there can be doubt any longer: Trump is a Russian asset.

[talltexan]

Confused. I thought the Mueller Report failed to find sufficient evidence of Trump coordinated directly with Russian Cyber-intelligence.

[former player]

Confused. I thought the Mueller Report failed to find sufficient evidence of Trump coordinated directly with Russian Cyber-intelligence.

Mueller was looking in a very limited way (didn't look at financials for instance) at whether specific actions amounted to criminal offences - for which he in any case followed the line that a President in office could not be subject to prosecution.  And even then he came up with several convincing instances of criminal obstruction surrounding Russia matters.  Not the same thing at all.  If you look at Trump's actions overall, not limited to specific criminal offences and taking into account all the available evidence, then the conclusion that Trump is a Russian asset becomes overwhelming.  And I expect a lot more evidence to emerge during future administrations.

[Glenstache]

Confused. I thought the Mueller Report failed to find sufficient evidence of Trump coordinated directly with Russian Cyber-intelligence.

Mueller was looking in a very limited way (didn't look at financials for instance) at whether specific actions amounted to criminal offences - for which he in any case followed the line that a President in office could not be subject to prosecution.  And even then he came up with several convincing instances of criminal obstruction surrounding Russia matters.  Not the same thing at all.  If you look at Trump's actions overall, not limited to specific criminal offences and taking into account all the available evidence, then the conclusion that Trump is a Russian asset becomes overwhelming.  And I expect a lot more evidence to emerge during future administrations.

Broadly speaking, I expect future administrations will find that the Trump administration deleted or destroyed an unprecedented number of documents, which will make reconstruction of what actually occurred difficult. Even if Trump is not a knowing asset, Russia must certainly be pleased at Trump's actions over the last 4 years. 

[sherr]

Broadly speaking, I expect future administrations will find that the Trump administration deleted or destroyed an unprecedented number of documents, which will make reconstruction of what actually occurred difficult. Even if Trump is not a knowing asset, Russia must certainly be pleased at Trump's actions over the last 4 years.

We already know today that they destroyed evidence and used apps designed to leave no trace. From the Mueller report:

Further, the Office learned that some of the individuals we interviewed or whose conduct we investigated-including some associated with the Trump Campaign — deleted relevant communications or communicated during the relevant period using applications that feature encryption or that do not provide for long-term retention of data or communications records. In such cases, the Office was not able to corroborate witness statements through comparison to contemporaneous communications or fully question witnesses about statements that appeared inconsistent with other known facts.