Trump's staff coordinated with the Russians during the election

Why did you say Russia was no longer the enemy? Russia invaded a sovereign country, Ukraine, and annexed a part of it, Crimea. We are fighting a proxy war with Russia in Syria. Russia is an ally of the Assad government and played a role in the killing of 500,000 Syrians while destroying Syria's largest city, Aleppo, and damaging many more. Russia is an ally and arms supplier to Iran. Russia interfered in our elections.

Tell me, are those the actions of a friend?

 

I ignore the fact that Putin got his man because that's not important. It's like saying that Bill would be happy if Hillary had won. He even campaigned for her, so there was definitely an attempt to influence the election in her favor.

Does anybody deny that Bill attempted to influence the election? Maybe there was some sort of bedroom deal involved like maybe he could dust off his humidor again for old times sake if he helped her. The fact that he did campaign for her means that he tried to influence the election, and you aren't worried about that? Seriously? OMG!

That's how it sounds to me when people complain about Putin. It's a big fat 'so what?'

 

THE DIFFERENCE that seems to have escaped you is that one is a private American citizen and the other a foreign dictator.

My Gawd....

 

For cryin' out loud, Sandy. Members of congress and administration officials have contacts with the Russians. Democrats too.

Sandy, both militarily and economically, the U.S. is the heavyweight champion of the world. This manufactured paranoia about the Russians is ... well ... no offense ... but it's idiotic.

Can't you see what this is really all about? Seriously?

 

There is a vast difference between a private citizen making contact with an enemy of the state and let us be honest though, even that is suspect and officials doing it as part of an official arrangement - above board and open to scrutiny

And I think this is the issue that is being clouded here - not so much that it happened but that it was not above board and open

 

And why is this important?

 

I am no longer concerned about the Clintons and Podesta. They are past tense. You just won't stay on topic. Review the OP. Please address the issues of this thread. They are quite important. They involve our President while the Clintons and Podesta have little bearing on the present, and, besides, they don't matter to me one bit. I don't care what they say or do. My concern is the current leadership.

Speaking of which, returning to the topic at hand, I noticed you have made no comments of the strong evidence that Sessions committed an indiscretion. Look at his answer to Franken. Sessions is a former prosecutor. He knows the importance of an accurate and complete answer under oath. His answer was either a lie or he was confused. Those are the only two choices.

Which means he is either stupid or he committed perjury, a felony.

Those are the only two choices.

In either case, he should resign. He either committed a crime or he is too stupid to be the nation's attorney general.

 

I don't consider speculation and talking point as 'evidence'. If they have evidence, then there needs to be talks of impeachments and indictments. The same standard used on Hillary's guilt or non-guilt. So I'm waiting.

 

That is a problem with Trump admirers. Saying it doesn't make it true. I noticed you couldn't challenge any of the evidence. So, where is the "crock?" You didn't say.

 

"I don't consider speculation and talking point as 'evidence'." I don't either.

 

Seth, these are the issues. Deal with them specifically. Broad generalities are meaningless.

The Republicans keep saying there is no evidence the Russian hacking influenced the election. They say they are not aware of anyone changing their vote because of the leaks. How ridiculous is that, and who said anything about changing votes? The issue is influencing the vote, not changing it.

The Wikileaks campaign began in July. For four straight months, every single day, and right up to election day the voting public was bombarded by anti-Clinton disclosures, many quite damaging. Trump, himself, even encouraged the Russians. “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” Mr. Trump said during a news conference. “I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.”

It is inconceivable that all this did not have an effect on the election.

As organized as Trump claims he is, it is perfectly conceivable that the Russian hacking campaign was in coordination with the Trump election committee. Of the 26 members of the Senate Armed Services Committee, only one spoke with Kislyak in 2016. That one was Sessions. By his own admission, prior to joining the Trump election team, he had never spoken with Kislyak.

All this brings up some important facts. Sessions himself admitted that the only time he has met with Kislyak was during the election season, never before July. Of the 26 members of the 2016 Armed Services Committee who met with Russian envoy Kislyak in 2016, Sessions was the only one.

Two more members of the Trump campaign’s national security officials also spoke with Kislyak in July, J.D. Gordon and Carter Page. Paul Manafort, the former Donald Trump campaign manager resigned over his lobbying work in Ukraine for the pro-Russian government. Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner met with Russia's ambassador to the U.S. in December.

Throughout the election campaign and beyond, Trump has lavished praises on the Russian leader. "If he says great things about me, I'm going to say great things about him." "I've already said he is very much of a leader. The man has very strong control over his country."

On the very same day that Sessions met with Kislyak, Sept. 8th, Trump appeared on the Russian propaganda network, RT.

During the four-month period in which Russia was actively interfering in our election for Trump's benefit, according to our 17 intelligence agencies, are we to believe this interaction between Trump's staff and Trump himself was innocent talk about future relationships? That is a bit too much. to swallow.

Why can't the so-called liberal media make all this more clear to the general public? Why is the media so subservient to the Trump talking points?

 

Then you'll wait for this so-called "investigation" to unfold. At some point, the radical Dems will have to go from obstruction and defamation, to actual indictments or wagging their damn tails between their legs.

Everything I've read, hasn't pointed to a single shred of conclusive evidence on anything. Just "OMG, he talked to this Russian Ambassador!" And the Russians rightly pointing out: "Well, if that's how you see our ambassadors, there's no point in diplomacy."

Seriously, the Dems are going to kill any formal contact with the Russians that could resolve a conflict, and head us straight into one. We MIGHT as well have elected Hillary Clinton. They will do from the bench, what they couldn't do from the executive. And rather than have it on Trump's hands, I'd rather have it on the Democrats and Hillary.

 

Seth, these are the issues. Deal with them specifically. Broad generalities are meaningless.

If there is nothing to hide, what are they hiding?

One thing Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell keep saying over and over again is that there is no evidence. Ryan, "We have seen no evidence from any of these ongoing investigations that anybody in the Trump campaign or the Trump team was involved in any of this."

Well, that is true, but why is it true? The FBI has not disclosed anything regarding their investigation into this matter. The Senate and House investigating committees have not disclosed anything with regard to this matter. Nunes has said there is no evidence that Trump campaign staff discussed the election with the Russians, disregarding the rather important fact that his investigating committee is tasked with finding that evidence if it exists. It is like a cop saying there is no evidence before he investigates to see if there is evidence. Kinda dumb, huh?

Obviously, we know the Republican-led investigating committees are politicized. Now we know, as a result of Loretta Lynch's indiscretions, that the justice department which runs the FBI is politicized, and it can be argued that Director James Comey had a direct hand in Trump's election.

That is where the evidence is and the Republican committees and FBI are not forthcoming. So much for lack of evidence. The evidence is controlled by Trump's political party. How convenient. A self-fulfilling prophecy.

 

That's different. It involves a Democrat or more than one of them. What is happening here is this mole alleges to be a conservative. Not a single word typed seems a bit conservative.

He claims to be a top rated news snoop. Excellent beyond reproach. But ignores what Democrats do and what Hillary did.

That is a genuine conservative is you ask me.

 

Sure it is. You are claiming that the Russians affected the outcome of the Pennsylvania election ignoring Obama's slanders of Pennsylvians as "Bitter Clingers to the bibles and racists that didn't like folks different from them." Hillary claimed that these folks were irredeemable, deplorable and they she would put the coal miners among them out of work, and instead, they stepped up and put her out of work. Unable to admit that you threw away a winnable election by being stupid, saying stupid things, running a stupid candidate who ran a stupid campaign and struggled to even stay upright, you instead claim that the Russians caused Pennsylvanians to turn out in sufficient numbers to elect the Trumpster, and absurd claim that avoids coming to grips with your own candidates ineptness, continual falsehoods and short comings.

FBI Confirms That The Obama Administration sought and obtained a FISA Warrant To Wiretap TRUMP Tower? Oh My!

Contrary to earlier reporting in the New York Times, which cited FBI sources as saying that the agency did not believe that the private server in Donald Trump’s Trump Tower which was connected to a Russian bank had any nefarious purpose, the FBI’s counter-intelligence arm, sources say, re-drew an earlier FISA court request …

https://heatst.com/world/exclusive-fbi-granted-fisa-warrant-covering-trump-camps-ties-to-russia/

The original FISA request sought by the Obama Administration against his political opponent during the height of the campaign, specifically named and broadly targeted Donald Trump was denied, a second request was redrafted months later which narrowed down on equipment in Trump Tower. The second request is said to have been granted, despite the fact that FBI sources did not believe these servers to be of actual national security or possess any illegal ties to Russia. The notion that this second FISA warrant was granted is highly significant as they exist to investigate cases when Foreign Intelligence is suspected of operations in the US.

The implication is that Trump or one of his employees was secretly functioning as a Russian-sanctioned spy, which is obviously absurd. However illegitimate the request was, the granting of said FISA request allows the government major access:
[/i]
Dirty Dirty Dirty! The political weaponization, by The Obama Administration, of our security apparatus to weaponize them against Americans and the American Electoral Process.

Pursuant to FISA, the Court entertains applications submitted by the United States Government for approval of electronic surveillance, physical search, and other investigative actions for foreign intelligence purposes.

The FISA request was issued with no definitive proof/evidence that Trump had any nefarious ties to Russia – instead, it bears the hallmarks of a political witch hunt.

If proven, there is a good chance the issuing judge and corresponding FBI personnel will soon face serious jail time.

 

An enemy of the state? If Russia is an enemy of the state, why didn't Obama declare war on Russia? The truth is, the closest thing we have to an enemy of the state right now is AQ. In 2001, Congress passed an AUMF to basically kill them all. We are also killing off ISIS, an offshoot of AQ. Russia is just another nation with whom we have disagreements, but Russia is not now "an enemy of the state". We have problems with other countries in the world as well. North Korea, Iran, Venezuela, and for decades, Cuba. Shall we start the bombing on them too? Would you sign up and go fight these wars you seem to want so badly? If you have children, how about them?

Sandy, it does matter. It shatters the legitimacy of all this wide-eyed paranoia you guys are trying to spread.

- The left didn't care about the Clintons' $145 million deal with the Russians for uranium.
- The left didn't care that she was receiving classified emails on an insecure server.
- The left didn't care that she lied about the classified emails.
- The left didn't care that she deleted 30,000 emails and scrubbed the computer when it came to light.
- The left didn't care that she and others perpetrated the YouTube movie lie about Benghazi.
- The left didn't care about the tens of millions of dollars given to the Clintons from Saudis, other Gulf States, and corporations.
- The left didn't care that Eric Holder refused to turn over documents to a congressional committee about Fast and Furious.
- The left didn't care that the IRS was being used as a political weapon. They didn't care that Lois Lerner was never punished and that all her emails "got lost by accident".
- The left didn't want to know or investigate who else, besides Lois Learner, was involved.
- The left didn't care that Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch met on an airport tarmac days before the Hillary email matter was to be decided.

And I will tell you this ... If Wikileaks had been exposing embarrassing stuff about the Trump campaign, the left wouldn't care. You know it, and I know it. They would have lauded them as heroes. You know what I am saying is absolute, unvarnished truth. You know it, Sandy.

But now we are told by those same people how concerned they are, how disturbing it is, how terrible it is, oh my god, the righteous outrage ....... They want investigations, they want resignations. All of a sudden, nothing matters except this. Obamacare doesn't matter, the budget doesn't matter, the Supreme Court doesn't matter, ISIS doesn't matter, immigration doesn't matter, taxes don't matter, trade doesn't matter. Only the evil, godless, conniving, commie Rooskies matter.

Sandy, do you not know Washington? Do I need to spell this out for you? Come on, man. How can someone of your age, being a news junkie, not see what this is all about? Explain to me why I should give even one ounce of credibility to any of this outrage and paranoia.

I have listened to the conversation leading up to the question. It has to do with the Trump campaign. In context, it doesn't sound to me like Sessions was lying.

Honestly, I don't think the hacking and the embarrassing emails even influenced the vote. I think the election was decided by Rust Belt voters who wanted jobs.

Really? How many California Democrats voted for Trump because of the emails? The answer is zero. Why would that be any different nationally? It was jobs in the Rust Belt, Sandy. Jobs, not emails.

I have seen absolutely no indication from Trump that he is going to just inexplicably bend over for Putin. What I have seen is a willingness to talk and negotiate and treat Russia respectfully. You may recall that Hillary was ready to go to war with Russia over the skies of Syria, in support of a civil war we never should have had anything to do with. Does it surprise you that the Russians would prefer to deal with a leader who wants to deal with them, or should they prefer a candidate who wants to go to war with them? And how would the U.S. react if the situation were reversed?

You have got to be kidding.

Sandy, you're assuming that there is evidence. If there is no evidence, there will be no evidence.

And I can assure you that there is no way any real evidence will remain secret. There are tons of Trump haters and Democratic partisans in the federal bureaucracy. It doesn't matter who is at the top. Nothing that can hurt the Trump administration will stay secret. If no evidence is revealed, it will be a good indication that there is no evidence.

Seth

 

Your idea of a lack of evidence is to simply say it doesn't exist. That doesn't work. Keep your day job. You'll never make a lawyer.

 

I was unaware you provided evidence. Care to point it out?

 

"If Russia is an enemy of the state, why didn't Obama declare war on Russia?" That is a silly exaggeration in a weak attempt to prove a point.

I strongly oppose the Russians and Wikileaks interfering in our elections. Period.

"How can someone of your age, being a news junkie, not see what this is all about?" I am telling you what it is all about. You just don't like it. If there is any paranoia, it is on Trump's part. Is it my paranoia that a sitting President accused his predecessor without evidence of wiretapping his home.? Is it my paranoia that Trump did this based on the remarks of a conservative entertainer?

Sessions was a prosecutor. He knows the importance of accurate and complete answers while under oath and before Congress. He was either lying or he is incompetent. Those are the only two choices.

"How many California Democrats voted for Trump because of the emails?" A ludicrous question that proves my point. The four-month, day in day out, campaign had to to have some impact on the voters. To assume otherwise is foolish.

"I have seen absolutely no indication from Trump that he is going to just inexplicably bend over for Putin." That's because he got caught. Why hasn't he turned over his tax returns like every other President in recent memory? Is he hiding something? Does he have business interests in Russia. We know he ran a beauty contest there.

"And I can assure you that there is no way any real evidence will remain secret." Oh, really, are you that naive? Who is responsible for the evidence? The FBI, and who is the ultimate boss of the FBI? Trump. Who else? Congressional investigating committees. And who controls them? Trump's party. The chain of evidence is a typical self-fulfilling prophecy.

I have provided a great deal of circumstantial evidence. Denying it doesn't make it so.

 

Sure. The Republicans keep saying there is no evidence the Russian hacking influenced the election. They say they are not aware of anyone changing their vote because of the leaks. How ridiculous is that, and who said anything about changing votes? The issue is influencing the vote, not changing it.

The Wikileaks campaign began in July. For four straight months, every single day, and right up to election day the voting public was bombarded by anti-Clinton disclosures, many quite damaging. Trump, himself, even encouraged the Russians. “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” Mr. Trump said during a news conference. “I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.”

It is inconceivable that all this did not have an effect on the election.

As organized as Trump claims he is, it is perfectly conceivable that the Russian hacking campaign was in coordination with the Trump election committee.

All this brings up some important facts. Sessions himself admitted that the only time he has met with Kislyak was during the election season, never before July. Of the 26 members of the 2016 Armed Services Committee who met with Russian envoy Kislyak in 2016, Sessions was the only one.

Two more members of the Trump campaign’s national security officials also spoke with Kislyak in July, J.D. Gordon and Carter Page. Paul Manafort, the former Donald Trump campaign manager resigned over his lobbying work in Ukraine for the pro-Russian government. Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner met with Russia's ambassador to the U.S. in December.

Throughout the election campaign and beyond, Trump has lavished praises on the Russian leader. "If he says great things about me, I'm going to say great things about him." "I've already said he is very much of a leader. The man has very strong control over his country."

On the very same day that Sessions met with Kislyak, Sept. 8th, Trump appeared on the Russian propaganda network, RT.

During the four-month period in which Russia was actively interfering in our election for Trump's benefit, according to our 17 intelligence agencies, are we to believe this interaction between Trump's staff and Trump himself was innocent talk about future relationships? That is a bit too much. to swallow.


If there is nothing to hide, what are they hiding?

One thing Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell keep saying over and over again is that there is no evidence. Ryan, "We have seen no evidence from any of these ongoing investigations that anybody in the Trump campaign or the Trump team was involved in any of this."

Well, that is true, but why is it true? The FBI has not disclosed anything regarding their investigation into this matter. The Senate and House investigating committees have not disclosed anything with regard to this matter. Nunes has said there is no evidence that Trump campaign staff discussed the election with the Russians, disregarding the rather important fact that his investigating committee is tasked with finding that evidence if it exists. It is like a cop saying there is no evidence before he investigates to see if there is evidence. Kinda dumb, huh?

Obviously, we know the Republican-led investigating committees are politicized. Now we know, as a result of Loretta Lynch's indiscretions, that the justice department which runs the FBI is politicized, and it can be argued that Director James Comey had a direct hand in Trump's election.

That is where the evidence is and the Republican committees and FBI are not forthcoming. So much for lack of evidence. The evidence is controlled by Trump's political party. How convenient. A self-fulfilling prophecy.

Always be careful what you ask for.

 

That's not evidence. That's simply one's partisan opinion.

 

You got it all wrong, as usual.

 

Enlighten me. How did Russia get Pennsylvanians to vote for Trump?