What did the left actually say about Trump and collusion?

I read it all the time from conservatives: The left was sure Trump colluded with Russia in the 2016 election. 

Did the left actually believe that? Ok, I'll use google to find out. Looking at June 2016 until mid-September, I don't see declarations that Trump was colluding. I see discussions of Trump's financial ties, his statements about Russia, his choices of advisers, and how Russians apparently hacked the DNC and gave the documents to Wikileaks. I don't see claims that Trump colluded with Russians. 

CNN 7/26/16. Discussion on Russian meddling, no accusation of collusion or conspiracy involving Trump. 

Lawfare 7/27/16. Q&A, no charges of conspiracy or collusion.

Washington Post 7/29/16. Q&A, no charges of conspiracy or collusion.

The Guardian 7/30/16. Long article. Direct collusion "probably not happening."

Vox 8/15/16. Conspiracy theorizing is wild but grounded in Trump's Russia ties. 

Reuters 8/25/16. Focus on Carter Page, who was one of many advisers who had close Russian ties. 

Politico 9/5/16. Russia is interfering, but no accusation against Trump except for spreading hate. 

After leaks of the Steele dossier

So now I'll look for how it was discussed after parts of the Steele dossier was leaked to Yahoo, and was published in its entirety in January 2017. 

NPR 1/10/17. Reports on the dossier, which was published that day by Buzzfeed. "NPR is not detailing the contents of the brief because it remains unverified....." but characterized it as discussing efforts to cultivate Trump, blackmail possibilities, and secret mettings with aides. 

NYT 2/14/17. Unnamed sources say Trump campaign had repeated contacts with Russian intelligence. Alarming, but sources say no evidence of collusion this far. 

USA Today 2/15/17. Timeline of contacts. Not veering into speculation. 

Politico Magazine March/April 2017. Trump/Russia connections in 7 charts. Looks solid and not veering into speculation. 

The Guardian 3/22/17. Comey testifies that Trump is being investigated. Speculation on effect of that news, but not about possible actions by Trump and his campaign. 

Politico 3/22/17. Schiff claims the evidence for collusion is more than circumstantial. He can't say what it is. 

PRI 3/30/17. Very accusatory tone, but still couched as investigations and suspicions. 

CNBC 4/6/17. Clinton says potential collusion should be looked into. 

The Guardian 4/13/17. British spy services warned US intelligence dating back to 2015. An unnamed source states there is "concrete.... evidence of collusion" and that's the strongest statement in the article. 

Reuters 5/18/17. More contacts between Trump officials and Russians disclosed. Sources say no evidence of wrongdoing or collusion. 

I also checked some further left media. Many have told me that Rachel Maddow pushed the collusion story night after night. This video would be one example. I didn't watch her so I don't know how representative it is, but it does push the story hard, with statements like the evidence is growing and the Repubs were meeting with Russians just as Russians were hacking the elections. 

Keith Olbermann was always a human flamethrower and he continues it, though from a very shoddy video studio with terrible lighting. He latches onto the accusations from Louise Mensch, a name I had forgotten. Well, she was a bit correct but also going deep into nutcase territory. 

Personal memories

What I recall about the Russian collusion story: I was tentative on it, preferring to wait for hard evidence. Evidence was being uncovered frequently, so it was very reasonable to wait and see. I was dubious about the Steele dossier and the way it was released encouraged wariness. It was labeled as unverified from the very beginning. 

In contrast, most of the information covered in the Mueller report had been leaked beforehand, and the solid news organization were right on most of it. I read the indictments as they came out, and they were loaded with info. So I never had to correct mistaken claims I made because I was cautious and conservative. The Mueller report wasn't a relevation. The good MSM sources continued being fairly good, including when they reported that the Steele dossier was financed by the Clinton campaign. Now that was quite an Aha! moment. 

So I was cautious in what I believed, and I recall most on the left being that way too. Maybe because I don't watch MSNBC or Keith Olbermann. My conclusion is that conservatives downplay the actual events of Russian interference and overhype the collusion/conspiracy speculation on the left. 

Image: The Intercept

Reflections on spouting

This reflection was inspired by the Lubbock County judge and his concerns about Obama sending in the UN troops. While watching him, I wondered if he was for real. Some people in America actually believe talk like this, that Obama is a hair's breadth from being a dictator, and that civil war will erupt if he's reelected. These are true tin-hat paranoids. But many more (I'm guessing) say these kinds of things without really believing them. Unfortunately, it's hard to identify the true crazies from the more numerous people in America who are simply spouting.

The spouters do so because it's cathartic to express their hate of Obama and America's liberals. Expression is such a cathartic experience because we are usually constrained by manners, religion, social relationships, risk aversion, etc. from saying a hell of a lot of the thoughts that stream through our heads. Inside everyone of us is a person who would love to spout out everything if we could do it with impunity.

And we actually see people who get to do this: Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Keith Olbermann, and innumerable screaming heads on cable news. Who doesn't want to be able to do some of that?

There is a drawback to all this spouting. Well, many drawbacks, but I'll focus on two of them. There's a kind of one-upmanship that can occur that is most often seen in "Yo Mama" insults or southern insult contests-- "I'll beat you so bad you'll have to ..." So in all the red parts of the country, people have been talking about how awful it will be if Obama is reelected, and the predictions have been ramped up many times. It's no wonder that there's an elected official in Texas who says such things.

Another problem is that some people aren't in on the joke, so to speak, and don't realize the level of exaggeration. They take it as gospel. But we can't tell those who are serious from those who know it's a bunch of over-the-top claptrap.

When Obama wins (more likely when than if), we have to hope that there are a lot of people in these camps who know how to de-escalate. The example of 2009 doesn't give me much hope, but I'm a silly optimist anyway. I'm the last one you want to invite to your gloom-and-doom survivalist compound, which I guess accounts for the lack of invitations I've received. I guess they weren't lost in the mail.

 Does she or doesn't she?

Image: indiedesign.typepad.com

(First appeared as part of another post.)

Update 9/1/12. Yikes. Three soldiers killed two people to prevent them from leaking their plot for killing Obama, allegedly. Extreme speech has consequences, folks.