Trump and His Associates Had More Than 100 Contacts With Russians Before the Inauguration

[Cardinal]

When future American history professors tell their students that the 45th President was an agent for Russia, all of the students will say in unison, "Yeah, no ****, Sherlock." The professor will silently nod until the students are quiet again, and will launch into a lecture on how populism and the electoral college allowed for a Russian asset to be made President in the first place.

During the 2016 presidential campaign and transition, Donald J. Trump and at least 17 campaign officials and advisers had contacts with Russian nationals and WikiLeaks, or their intermediaries, a New York Times analysis has found. At least 10 other associates were told about interactions but did not have any themselves.

Among these contacts are more than 100 in-person meetings, phone calls, text messages, emails and private messages on Twitter. Mr. Trump and his campaign repeatedly denied having such contacts with Russians during the 2016 election.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/01/26/us/politics/trump-contacts-russians-wikileaks.html

I would only point out that the graph is slightly confusing in that it distinguishes between "had contact" and "denied contact" as though the "had contact" incidents were not denied. Those incidents marked as "had contact" only mean that the person having contact with Russians didn't directly deny those contact, just that those contacts probably weren't disclosed.

 

[Tanngrisnir]

When future American history professors tell their students that the 45th President was an agent for Russia, all of the students will say in unison, "Yeah, no ****, Sherlock." The professor will silently nod until the students are quiet again, and will launch into a lecture on how populism and the electoral college allowed for a Russian asset to be made President in the first place.





https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/01/26/us/politics/trump-contacts-russians-wikileaks.html

Golly. That makes one ponder why they would continually and complusively lie about those contacts where there was no rational reason for doing so.

 

[Cardinal]

Golly. That makes one ponder why they would continually and complusively lie about those contacts where there was no rational reason for doing so.

If I have to guess a trump supporter response to this, it will either be

a)It was none of our business so it was okay to lie about those contacts, or
b)Obama said that if we liked our doctor we could keep our doctor

 

[Captain Adverse]

When future American history professors tell their students that the 45th President was an agent for Russia, all of the students will say in unison, "Yeah, no ****, Sherlock." The professor will silently nod until the students are quiet again, and will launch into a lecture on how populism and the electoral college allowed for a Russian asset to be made President in the first place.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/01/26/us/politics/trump-contacts-russians-wikileaks.html

I wonder how many such "contacts" we might see revealed...if the NYT and other "news" sources spent similar time and effort "researching" Democrat and other party "contacts" with "Russians" prior to the 2016 election.

Next up, Chinese "contacts." :coffeepap:

 

[Tanngrisnir]

If I have to guess a trump supporter response to this, it will either be

a)It was none of our business so it was okay to lie about those contacts, or
b)Obama said that if we liked our doctor we could keep our doctor

 

[Tanngrisnir]

I wonder how many such "contacts" we might see revealed...if the NYT and other "news" sources spent time and effort "researching" Democrat and other party "contacts" with Russian prior to the 2016 election. :coffeepap:

I wonder why anyone would consider that relevant to the actual subject of this thread if they weren't trying to derail it.

 

[Cardinal]

I wonder how many such "contacts" we might see revealed...if the NYT and other "news" sources spent time and effort "researching" Democrat and other party "contacts" with "Russians" prior to the 2016 election.

Next up, Chinese contacts. :coffeepap:

Well, I suppose it would be fair to point out previous administrations and campaigns that had over a hundred contacts with a hostile foreign government and lied about those contacts (and business interests) 100% of the time. Do you have such an example that you could share with us?

I'm not sure how that example could be especially valuable to the discussion at hand, but I can't deny that I'm curious.

 

[Captain Adverse]

I wonder why anyone would consider that relevant to the actual subject of this thread if they weren't trying to derail it.

IMO the "subject" is a smear campaign. Much like a chart one of our foreign Forum members posted elsewhere on "links" to Russia which included the Russian Ambassador and "non-Russian business interests with 'links' to Russian business interests."

That would pretty much cover most high ranking personnel in the State Dept.'s Russia desk, many members of Congress from both Parties, many American businesses, and a whole slew of common citizens from cashiers to coffee shop baristas to name a few. Not to mention all those "Russia bots" on Twitter, Facebook, etc. many common citizens are "linked" to.

 

[Tanngrisnir]

IMO the "subject" is a smear campaign. Much like a chart one of our foreign Forum members posts on "links" to Russia which included the Russian Ambassador and "non-Russian business interest with 'links' to Russia."

Yes, I fully understand your need to pretend that it's a smear campaign, when absolutely no credible evidence indicates that it is.

That would pretty much cover most high ranking personnel in the State Depts. Russia desk, many members of Congress from both Parties, and a whole slew of common citizens from cashiers to coffee shop baristas.

Irrelevant to the matter at hand. Rationalizations are most unbecoming.

 

[Cardinal]

IMO the "subject" is a smear campaign. Much like a chart one of our foreign Forum members posted elsewhere on "links" to Russia which included the Russian Ambassador and "non-Russian business interests with 'links' to Russian" business interests."

That would pretty much cover most high ranking personnel in the State Dept.'s Russia desk, many members of Congress from both Parties, many American businesses, and a whole slew of common citizens from cashiers to coffee shop baristas.

How is pointing out over a hundred contacts with a hostile foreign government, and the fact that everybody in the campaign lied 100% of the time about those contacts, a "smear?"

 

[RealityNow]

I think as the future unfold... it will acknowledge that even grade school kids are aware of the political, social and the acts of adversarial promotions of social and political divisiveness, the collusive acts, the criminal conduct and the gangster mentality that is being displayed today by the Republican and the Trump Administration; and the damages it cost to every aspect of American life and Governance Systems.


It will... Usher in a New Era of Civics Education, that may well now start before the 4th grade.. and be a centerpiece in educational programming through out even the post graduate sectors of society. "This Can't Be Sanitized Away" !!! Civics Education will learn to and drive society to "enforce the Advise and Consent" and Curtail the Presidential Powers.. where "Advise and Consent" is mandated !!!! before any acts that can be engaged to impact National Society, International Relations and Governance Operations.

America is learning it cannot rely on the concept of "good will" to be the conscience of the President alone. This 'quasi-dictatorial powers" that Trump has uncovered by abuse of authority that was given to Presidents, will be reigned in.. and brought back to "respect the branches of government", to adhere by mandate to the "advise and consent" principle. In the future, "Executive Orders" will mandate the "triggering of Advise and Consent" process within a prescribed time frame. there will become a new framework around what is an "Executive Order" and how and what it can do. It won't be allowed to waste away billions of dollars, as what Trump did, when he used them to damage programs by the Previous Administration which cost us Billions to Implement. That won't be possible in the future and certainly not when society is raised on Civics Education and Mandatory Education Requirement. Political Science will become to start at the 6th grade level..

These things are necessary to advance a Democracy, because a Democracy can't thrive in an uneducated society...and certainly not in a society that does not have civics educations and understand the principles and practices of political ideology.

 

[Helix]

but Obama wore a tan suit that one time.

 

[trixare4kids]

When future American history professors tell their students that the 45th President was an agent for Russia, all of the students will say in unison, "Yeah, no ****, Sherlock." The professor will silently nod until the students are quiet again, and will launch into a lecture on how populism and the electoral college allowed for a Russian asset to be made President in the first place.





https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/01/26/us/politics/trump-contacts-russians-wikileaks.html

I would only point out that the graph is slightly confusing in that it distinguishes between "had contact" and "denied contact" as though the "had contact" incidents were not denied. Those incidents marked as "had contact" only mean that the person having contact with Russians didn't directly deny those contact, just that those contacts probably weren't disclosed.

I stopped at your first sentence. I pray those students have better critical thinking skills than you have demonstrated...
Sorry but until there is concrete proof that the POTUS is an agent for Russia, you're simply spreading horse manure.
Even the NY Times showed more restraint than you have...

 

[Cardinal]

I stopped at your first sentence.

What a coincidence; I stopped at yours.

 

[trixare4kids]

What a coincidence; I stopped at yours.

Cant stand constructive criticism, can you?

 

[trixare4kids]

I wonder how many such "contacts" we might see revealed...if the NYT and other "news" sources spent similar time and effort "researching" Democrat and other party "contacts" with "Russians" prior to the 2016 election.

Next up, Chinese "contacts." :coffeepap:

:thumbs:
Oh stop making so much sense, the Trump resistors don't like it.

 

[Tanngrisnir]

I stopped at your first sentence. I pray those students have better critical thinking skills than you have demonstrated...
Sorry but until there is concrete proof that the POTUS is an agent for Russia, you're simply spreading horse manure.
Even the NY Times showed more restraint than you have...

There is a screaming maelstrom of evidence and totality of circumstance that his closest associates all lied about knowledge of Russians and interactions and meetings with Russians to the point of criminal liability with absolutely no good or rational basis for having done so.

Many of those associates are now either in prison or going to prison because of this. At some point, the amount of felons and criminals that surround Trump becomes far more than simple coincidence, esp. given Trump's criminal past. For rational adults, that point was well before the election.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled rationalization and Trump-worshiping programming.

 

[Tanngrisnir]

Cant stand constructive criticism, can you?

Can't actually make any constructive criticism, cany you?

 

[What if...?]

I wonder how many such "contacts" we might see revealed...if the NYT and other "news" sources spent similar time and effort "researching" Democrat and other party "contacts" with "Russians" prior to the 2016 election.

Next up, Chinese "contacts." :coffeepap:

You forgot the lying about it part. Which is really the key.

"Yeah, I spoke to "Russian "A"" at a party for about ten seconds. So what?".

Even "Maybe. I have been places where there were Russians. I don't recall anything of moment being discussed. Just pleasantries." Would have been OK. (Cover for "process crimes", right?)

But what we got were strong declarative denials of ANY contact with Russia.

 

[Crovax]

How is pointing out over a hundred contacts with a hostile foreign government, and the fact that everybody in the campaign lied 100% of the time about those contacts, a "smear?"

Hostile?

 

[Cardinal]

Hostile?

[video=outube;N0IWe11RWOM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0IWe11RWOM

Called it in post 3.

Is it your position that the Trump campaign's contacts with Russia were legitimate?

 

[Crovax]

Called it in post 3.

Is it your position that the Trump campaign's contacts with Russia were legitimate?

No my position is that prior to Trump being elected that democrats were lining up to suck Putin’s **** and get that Russian oligarch money facial.

It was wrong when the democrats did it and it was wrong when Trump did it.

I’m just sick of democrats acting like Russia has always been their enemy when they were cheering Obama for cozying up to them

 

[Cardinal]

No my position is that prior to Trump being elected that democrats were lining up to suck Putin’s **** and get that Russian oligarch money facial.

It was wrong when the democrats did it and it was wrong when Trump did it.

I’m just sick of democrats acting like Russia has always been there enemy when they were cheering Obama for fixing up to them

Okay, so you're going with the "normalizing" position then. Post #7 would apply to you.

 

[JackA]

I wonder how many such "contacts" we might see revealed...if the NYT and other "news" sources spent similar time and effort "researching" Democrat and other party "contacts" with "Russians" prior to the 2016 election.

Next up, Chinese "contacts." :coffeepap:

The satisfaction of wonder. It enables you to dismiss a disagreeable fact without knowing if it matters.

 

[Crovax]

Okay, so you're going with the "normalizing" position then. Post #7 would apply to you.

I’m not normalizing anything. Im pointing out it’s wrong and I’m pointing out that I’ll call it out even when it’s my side and you didn’t have the huevos to do it when your side did