A New Report Adds Evidence That Trump Was a Russian Asset

[Phys251]

I hate to break it to you, but the Russians, and the Soviets before them, nearly always attempt to meddle in our elections.

Even if that were true, 2016 was the first time we had a major candidate and many of his followers welcome it.

And we sometimes do the same to both our enemies and our friends on occasion. It's nothing new. I guess your experts forgot to mention it.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

I hate to break it to you, but the Russians, and the Soviets before them, nearly always attempt to meddle in our elections. And we sometimes do the same to both our enemies and our friends on occasion. It's nothing new. I guess your experts forgot to mention it.

You would have to guess because you didn't read the source material.

Why not check it out and see if they use words like "unprecedented"?

just sayin'

 

[watsup]

I hate to break it to you, but the Russians, and the Soviets before them, nearly always attempt to meddle in our elections. And we sometimes do the same to both our enemies and our friends on occasion. It's nothing new. I guess your experts forgot to mention it.

How exactly did any of that make it okay for Putin to have his hackers inferfere in the election or for the Trump campaign to send internal polling data to Russia (Putin).

 

[Bullseye]

You didn't answer the questions directly. You deflected, which was what I expected. I'll try again. Why did Manafort, as Trump's campaign manager, send internal polling data to a Russian with close ties to the Kremlin (Putin)? Was it so that Putin's hackers would know where to concentrate their efforts in interfering in the US election? And why would the campaign of a US nominee for president be "cooperating" (to use your words) with Russia? That sure sounds like collusion to me! Please answer the questions directly and honestly instead of dancing around them. Thank you in advance.

I don’t run Presidential campaigns, I have no idea what Manafort did what he did, but he got fired. I’m not going to indulge in wide-ass speculations. If I remember correctly Mueller mentioned that some trump staffers communicated with Russians but nothing rose to the level of collusion. End of story.

 

[watsup]

I don’t run Presidential campaigns, I have no idea what Manafort did what he did, but he got fired. I’m not going to indulge in wide-ass speculations. If I remember correctly Mueller mentioned that some trump staffers communicated with Russians but nothing rose to the level of collusion. End of story.

Just as I expected, more deflection and refusal to directly answer relevant questions. There are no speculations here. i did not post anything that was not absolutely true. And no, the Mueller report did not say "no collusion". That was AG Barf who MISREPRESENTED the report such that Mueller than openly complained about him doing so. Again, these are facts.

 

[humbolt]

Even if that were true, 2016 was the first time we had a major candidate and many of his followers welcome it.



Two wrongs don't make a right.

It is unequivocally true, and nobody welcomed it, which is also true.

Tell Obama the two wrongs story.

 

[watsup]

It is unequivocally true, and nobody welcomed it, which is also true.

Tell Obama the two wrongs story.

Actually, the Trumpies have been defending any collusion between the Trump campaign and Putin's hacker henchmen from the beginning and right up to today, per this thread,often with examples of how "others do it", like we saw just a few posts ago.

To quote Phys, multiple wrongs don't make a right. Why not just admit that it happens, that it was wrong, and quit defending it, sometIme with obvious lies. I don't get it. FOX parrots.

 

[Bullseye]

Just as I expected, more deflection and refusal to directly answer relevant questions. There are no speculations here. i did not post anything that was not absolutely true. And no, the Mueller report did not say "no collusion". That was AG Barf who MISREPRESENTED the report such that Mueller than openly complained about him doing so. Again, these are facts.

I answered your question - you just don’t like the answer. What Trump knew or didn’t know doesn’t matter; Mueller found no collusion, period.
LOL, man, you are so indoctrinated into the loony left orthodoxy you can’t see straight.

 

[Phys251]

I answered your question - you just don’t like the answer. What Trump knew or didn’t know doesn’t matter;

Feel free to serve as trump's attorney. I'm sure that defense will hold up in court.

Mueller found no collusion, period.

False. Mueller had William Barr's gun to his head, who had donald trump's gun to his own head. Mueller said what he said under duress, and even then he gave enough to make it clear that trump was NOT in the clear on Russia.

LOL, man, you are so indoctrinated into the loony left orthodoxy you can’t see straight.

See my sig #2.

 

[Phys251]

It is unequivocally true

Just because the Fawks Nooz teevee tells you it's true does not mean it's true.

 

[Bullseye]

Feel free to serve as trump's attorney. I'm sure that defense will hold up in court.



False. Mueller had William Barr's gun to his head, who had donald trump's gun to his own head. Mueller said what he said under duress, and even then he gave enough to make it clear that trump was NOT in the clear on Russia.



See my sig #2.

LOL, glad to see there’s no conspiracy theories on the left.

 

[trixare4kids]

The Mueller Report said that Trump’s campaign manager, Paul Manafort, sent along internal polling data to a Russian acquaintance who had very close ties to the Kremlin (Putin). Why so you think that’s he did that? Was that an instance of cooperation between the Trump campaign and Russia? Do you think he did so without the knowledge of Trump? Please answer these questions honestly and without spin.

Mueller, whose career was shortlived as a campaign mgr., was fired by the Trump campaign long before Trump became president.

Stop embellishing.

 

[watsup]

Mueller, whose career was shortlived as a campaign mgr., was fired by the Trump campaign long before Trump became president.

Stop embellishing.

Deflection. Why won't you answer the very valid questions.

 

[humbolt]

You would have to guess because you didn't read the source material.

Why not check it out and see if they use words like "unprecedented"?

just sayin'

That horse has been dead and buried for a long time. I value my time, and I'm not going to spend it reading comments from a so called "expert" who's trying to resurrect it.

 

[humbolt]

How exactly did any of that make it okay for Putin to have his hackers inferfere in the election or for the Trump campaign to send internal polling data to Russia (Putin).

I didn't say it was okay, or anything of the sort. I said it is expected that foreign adversaries, like Russia, will attempt to muck up our elections. The advent of the digital age has made such attempts less costly and more pervasive than in the past.

 

[humbolt]

Actually, the Trumpies have been defending any collusion between the Trump campaign and Putin's hacker henchmen from the beginning and right up to today, per this thread,often with examples of how "others do it", like we saw just a few posts ago.

To quote Phys, multiple wrongs don't make a right. Why not just admit that it happens, that it was wrong, and quit defending it, sometIme with obvious lies. I don't get it. FOX parrots.

As I said to another here, the Trump collusion narrative died a good while back. Trump is no longer in office.

If you're truly interested, I suggest you take it up with Adam Schiff. He has proof of Trump's collusion.

 

[humbolt]

Just because the Fawks Nooz teevee tells you it's true does not mean it's true.

I don't follow any specific news source routinely. Just because somebody with an agenda writes a report doesn't mean it's true, either. It just means that someone like Phys251 will read it, hike up his skirts, and run into the street, screaming, "OMG' OMG!"

It's the intended result, and it attempts to distract from the train wreck of the current administration.

I

 

[Phys251]

I don't follow any specific news source routinely. Just because somebody with an agenda writes a report doesn't mean it's true, either. It just means that someone like Phys251 will read it, hike up his skirts, and run into the street, screaming, "OMG' OMG!"

It's the intended result, and it attempts to distract from the train wreck of the current administration.

I

You get your propaganda from more than one source?

 

[humbolt]

You get your propaganda from more than one source?

Interestingly, it's nearly all propaganda to some extent - some far less than others, but still, it's there. So if an arms control wonk offers an opinion on trade, for example, you're going to get trade issues discussed from his perspective, which is likely somewhat narrow.

 

[watsup]

I don't follow any specific news source routinely. Just because somebody with an agenda writes a report doesn't mean it's true, either. It just means that someone like Phys251 will read it, hike up his skirts, and run into the street, screaming, "OMG' OMG!"

It's the intended result, and it attempts to distract from the train wreck of the current administration.

I

Yes, those who consume FOX "News" are often too embarrassed to admit it. I have seen this time and again among right wingers.

 

[Phys251]

Interestingly, it's nearly all propaganda to some extent - some far less than others, but still, it's there. So if an arms control wonk offers an opinion on trade, for example, you're going to get trade issues discussed from his perspective, which is likely somewhat narrow.

Ah, the postmodernist take! You know that the only logical conclusion of postmodernism is that everything is meaningless, right?

 

[humbolt]

Yes, those who consume FOX "News" are often too embarrassed to admit it. I have seen this time and again among right wingers.

Since you already know all of this, and likely everything else knowable, there isn't anything to add.

 

[humbolt]

Ah, the postmodernist take! You know that the only logical conclusion of postmodernism is that everything is meaningless, right?

I'm not a postmodernist - just a realist about sources of information.

 

[Nilhus]

I don’t know about beat and kill, but at least three women have accused Trump of rape, and another twenty or so of sexual abuse of one kind or another. “They are all lying”, of course, according to the Trumpies.

Obviously they're all lying, and not only those who accuse Trump, but nearly all women who accuse men of rape or so-called "sexual assault/abuse" - deliberately ambiguous terms promoted by feminist propaganda! It's American culture that strongly promotes such horrific behavior. Evidence of rape is close to zero, and evidence of punishing harshly proven false accusers is literally zero.