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.
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.
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 time and effort "researching" Democrat and other party "contacts" with Russian prior to the 2016 election. :coffeepap:
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:
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 posts on "links" to Russia which included the Russian Ambassador and "non-Russian business interest with 'links' to Russia."
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.
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.
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.
What a coincidence; I stopped at yours.
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:
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...
Cant stand constructive criticism, can you?
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:
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?
[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?
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
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:
Okay, so you're going with the "normalizing" position then. Post #7 would apply to you.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?