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

[Cardinal]

No not accidentally but I can easily see a scenario where Trump's team tell him they arent pursing business interests in Russia and he is stupid enough to believe him despite all evidence to the contrary

Yes, there are all sorts of scenarios, but is that what you personally believe is the likely one?

 

[Athanasius68]

Or maybe your example was idiotic, because you've opened up the definition of "collude" so broadly that literally any kind of interaction at all can be placed into the "collusion" folder. Which was your point, of course: to dilute the meaning of "collude" until it's meaningless.

The claim against Trump was that he and/or his campaign worked with Russia so as to influence the election. I mean, what exactly wss Obama doing there? And he is on tape doing so.

 

[ecofarm]

What a coincidence; I stopped at yours.

Stuff like that makes this place worthwhile. Well played.

 

[Bullseye]

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.

Given the ultra-liberal looniness of academia you're probably correct - they'll all participate in a giant circle jerk about it - even though it's never been proved.

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.

So what? That's common with Presidents elect - making contact with foreign governments is part of preparing to assume the job.

 

[Cardinal]

So what? That's common with Presidents elect - making contact with foreign governments is part of preparing to assume the job.

Do you think there's a legitimate theory for why he and everybody in his campaign would lie 100% of the time about their contacts with a hostile foreign government? And if so, what would that theory be?

 

[What if...?]

There is a literal video of Obama colluding with the Russian president



and of course the quid pro quo in return

White House rebuffs Ukraine appeal for weapons

Did Obama lie about that statement? That would be relevant.

 

[ecofarm]

So what? That's common with Presidents elect - making contact with foreign governments is part of preparing to assume the job.

In politics the currency is ignorance.

 

[Bullseye]

Do you think there's a legitimate theory for why he and everybody in his campaign would lie 100% of the time about their contacts with a hostile foreign government? And if so, what would that theory be?

"Lie 100% of the time"? Seriously. Well never mind, I'll leave you to your latest Trump Derangement saga.

 

[sangha]

The only thing in relation to collusion you need to open up is a dictionary

I would rather open a law book and read about conspiracy

 

[Cardinal]

"Lie 100% of the time"? Seriously. Well never mind, I'll leave you to your latest Trump Derangement saga.

Can you provide an example in which Trump and people in his campaign did not lie? And I'm not referring to any statements made as a result of a newspaper or prosecutor shoving the truth in their faces so aggressively that lying was no longer a possible avenue.

 

[Bullseye]

Can you provide an example in which Trump and people in his campaign did not lie? And I'm not referring to any statements made as a result of a newspaper or prosecutor shoving the truth in their faces so aggressively that lying was no longer a possible avenue.

I'm sorry, did I give you the impression I was interested in pursuing this topic? I assumed the phrase "I'll leave you . . ." was clear.

 

[Cardinal]

I'm sorry, did I give you the impression I was interested in pursuing this topic? I assumed the phrase "I'll leave you . . ." was clear.

Do you find it odd that you’re not able to come up with a single example of trump and his campaign being forthright in their interactions with a hostile foreign government?

 

[Puigb]

Corrupt or incompetent. Im not sure if Trump is smart enough to be corrupt.

Trump, a Reality T.V. Star with ZERO political experience, and no history of EVER supporting conservative policies or positions, managed to completely hi-jack the GOP in about a year and a half. He may not be the smartest man around, but he's not stupid either. I think the obvious answer is yes, he's certainly very corrupt, and has been that way for many years.

 

[Cardinal]

Trump, a Reality T.V. Star with ZERO political experience, and no history of EVER supporting conservative policies or positions, managed to completely hi-jack the GOP in about a year and a half. He may not be the smartest man around, but he's not stupid either. I think the obvious answer is yes, he's certainly very corrupt, and has been that way for many years.

This is a point I've made before. People like to point to his stupidity, forgetting that stupidity on some matters isn't evidence of stupidity in all matters. To echo your point, Trump won the primary against over a dozen experienced Republican opponents, won the election against an extremely experienced and smart national election opponent, and took less than a year after inauguration to completely crush all resistance to him within the GOP (McCain being the lone holdout).

Anyone still holding on to the belief that he can't be corrupt because he's just dumb is in a toxic state of denial.

 

[Puigb]

This is a point I've made before. People like to point to his stupidity, forgetting that stupidity on some matters isn't evidence of stupidity in all matters. To echo your point, Trump won the primary against over a dozen experienced Republican opponents, won the election against an extremely experienced and smart national election opponent, and took less than a year after inauguration to completely crush all resistance to him within the GOP (McCain being the lone holdout).

Anyone still holding on to the belief that he can't be corrupt because he's just dumb is in a toxic state of denial.

In fairness, this had more to do with Democrats who voted for Obama twice not voting for Clinton in 2016, in the 3 blue states that Trump won by razor thin margins. But your point still stands, especially with regards to him completely dominating the GOP primaries. The 2015/2016 GOP primaries will be studied and analyzed for many years to come.

 

[apdst]

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.

We aren't at war with Russia. There's nothing illegal about it, if it even happened; the accuracy of the restatard media hasn't been too good, up to now.

 

[Mach]

In fairness, this had more to do with Democrats who voted for Obama twice not voting for Clinton in 2016, in the 3 blue states that Trump won by razor thin margins.

Considering Stone and company believed the stolen Wikileaks reveals would end her campaign, not surprising.
Damaging information about Hillary and the DNC in pushing around Bernie Sanders...who had been fairly popular...not good for Democrats.

 

[Vern]

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...

Its funny you talk about "critical thinking" as you whine about "concrete evidence". there was ample evidence to open an investigation. there was ample evidence to put numerous trump aides in jail. There was not "ample evidence" to open an investigation into President Obama's birthplace, religion or tan suit. But the good news is you've come along way from the obedient lying conservative narrative of "wah wah witchhunt"

My opinion won't be very popular. I don't think there is any collusion, any obstruction of justice, and after a year of a very expensive and long investigation aka a witch hunt,

and trump attacking Nato exactly as predicted by the Steele Dossier seems pretty concrete to me.

 

[Puigb]

Considering Stone and company believed the stolen Wikileaks reveals would end her campaign, not surprising.
Damaging information about Hillary and the DNC in pushing around Bernie Sanders...who had been fairly popular...not good for Democrats.

Yep. That damaging information could have easily swung a very close election in Trump's favor, which is what Putin and his thugs wanted.

 

[OscarLevant]

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.

I simplify your data/reality driven comment by putting it this way:

If your neighbors live in a swamp, then where to you live?


I.e, what are the Odds Trump is guilty as hell. I mean, he sure acts like it. Methinks the proverbial big shoe is about to drop on the prez.

Until Mueller completes his investigation, pass the popcorn, this is one helluva reality ( er.. unreality ) show !

 

[OscarLevant]

Can't access the NY TIMES until Feb 1. I have no idea who and the nature of the contact the paper is referring to.

But we all know that Mueller has indicted NOBODY from the Trump campaign for contacting Russians. Not Manafort, or PapaD, or Flynn, or even Stone.

Nor these 100 people in the TIMES article.
One ought wonder why Mueller has passed on such a target rich environment. One ought wonder why the TIMES hasn't been able to pry the 'goods' from one of these guys.

I don't care if the crime is colluding with russia to meddling in the election, or the crime is robbing a bank. Crime is crime.


I don't want criminals governing America, period. Mueller's mandate was to find out about russia, and any crimes that arise from the investigation. The goal is to indict criminal activity. If our prez is a crook or a criminal, I should think citizens would want to know, and would want to get rid of him ( assuming they are rational, and apparently some 38% or so are not ) .

 

[JustHanging]

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

c) Obama used Dijon mustard.

 

[JustHanging]

This is a point I've made before. People like to point to his stupidity, forgetting that stupidity on some matters isn't evidence of stupidity in all matters. To echo your point, Trump won the primary against over a dozen experienced Republican opponents, won the election against an extremely experienced and smart national election opponent, and took less than a year after inauguration to completely crush all resistance to him within the GOP (McCain being the lone holdout).

Anyone still holding on to the belief that he can't be corrupt because he's just dumb is in a toxic state of denial.

I think ignorant is a better way of describing Trump. He is too lazy to put in even the smallest amount of effort to learn the most basic aspects of important topics. For example, he met the Canadian PM to discuss trade, and didn't even know if the USA had a trade surplus or deficit with Canada. He was literally too lazy to spend 5 minutes learning about something as important to the American people as trade.

That's how much he respects American citizens, they weren't even worth five minutes of his time.

 

[j-mac]

I don't care if the crime is colluding with russia to meddling in the election, or the crime is robbing a bank. Crime is crime.


I don't want criminals governing America, period. Mueller's mandate was to find out about russia, and any crimes that arise from the investigation. The goal is to indict criminal activity. If our prez is a crook or a criminal, I should think citizens would want to know, and would want to get rid of him ( assuming they are rational, and apparently some 38% or so are not ) .

Just curious, were you going to vote for Hillary?

Sent from my SM-T587P using Tapatalk

 

[Saladin4]

Stone was open about his contacts and collusion with WikiLeaks and Russia...Both foreign agents ....Stone is traitor....Traitors if convicted should be executed