Trump's staff coordinated with the Russians during the election

Apparently to get the Sessions controversy off the front page, Trump decided to start another controversy. Inexplicably, he tweeted Thursday morning, "Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my "wires tapped" in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism!"

This was followed by another incomprehensible tweet. "Is it legal for a sitting President to be "wire tapping" a race for president prior to an election? Turned down by court earlier. A NEW LOW!"

And still another, "How low has President Obama gone to tapp [sic] my phones during the very sacred election process. This is Nixon/Watergate. Bad (or sick) guy!"

He offered no evidence to the surreal claim and told no one where he got the information. It took a full 24 hours for the White House to react to Trump's allegations, and it did so with still another odd twist. The New Yorker reports, "Trump asked Congress to investigate his own seemingly baseless allegation that President Obama ordered a wiretap on him in the run up to the 2016 election, despite the fact that the White House is refusing to provide any evidence that such a wiretap even happened. Press Secretary Sean Spicer, in a statement released Sunday morning, instead insisted that 'reports concerning potentially politically motivated investigations immediately ahead of the 2016 election are very troubling,' though he, like Trump, did not cite any sources for that claim."

It is shameful that a sitting President would accuse his predecessor of wrongdoing without a shred of evidence then call him a "bad (or sick) guy!" Is our President a well man?

What are the ramifications of all this? That is the strange part. The White House does not order wire taps. Law enforcement agencies, like the FBI, do, and they must obtain a warrant. Did Trump just admit to the whole world that a member or members of his staff were under investigation by the FBI? Or was he lying? Those are the only two choices.

A Breitbart article told its readers about a Mark Levin statement. Levin is a conservative radio talk show host. He said, "The evidence is overwhelming. This is not about President Trump’s tweeting. This is about the Obama administration spying, and the question is not whether it spied. We know they went to the FISA court twice. The question is who they did spy on and the extent of the spying that is the Trump campaign, the Trump transition, Trump surrogates.”

This is further indication that Trump let it out that his staff was under investigation by the FBI. At the very least it means, the basis for Trump's astonishing tweets were the comments of an entertainer.

As the chief law enforcement officer in the land, it is perfectly ludicrous for Trump to ask Congress to investigate wiretaps. Ultimately, he is in charge of the FBI, CIA, and the other fifteen law enforcement agencies. He can simply order them to disclose any relevant wiretaps.

This whole episode was designed by Trump to get the media to turn the page on Sessions. In that sense, it worked. He may have gotten rid of the Sessions controversy by creating a bigger controversy. Allow me to ask, how bright was that?

 

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.

 

If you claim there is, then explain what the Russians did that caused Pennsylvanians to vote for Trump.

If influence does not change votes, how does it affect the election?

The Clinton Campaign was caught cheating Bernie, and the DNC was caught feeding Hillary debate questions. She also fell over in public a few times, threatened to put coal miners out of work, called half the electorate "deplorable and irredeemable" and never set foot in Michigan even while she was campaigning in Arizona. She was a stupid crooked drunk who ran a stupid campaign and lost. Every time, recently, that a two term Democrat president isn't followed by another Democrat, Democrats freak out for several months. You did after the 2000 election, and you are now.

A joke. Hillary had bleachbitted everything several months earlier, even hardrives under congressional subpoena and preservation orders, other devices her aids destroyed with hammers.

Only dead enders are mystified that she lost, the rest of us are mystified that you robbed Bernie to run the ugly fat kleptocrat that nobody liked.

 

A few things to consider.

1. The question is not whether or not the Wikileaks influenced the election. Clearly it did. The question is actually two-fold. (A) Was the information provided within the Wikileaks releases true and correct? By every indication, it was. (B) Was the information provided within the Wikileaks useful in helping voters decide which candidate was best suited to lead the country? By every indication, it was.
2. Your characterization of the voting public being bombarded by anti-Clinton disclosures is true. But what you leave unsaid is that these disclosures were absolutely true. That's an important detail that shouldn't be left out.
3. The FBI went to both the RNC and the DNC with the news that there were indications that hackers were looking to exploit security weaknesses within their systems. The RNC took the threat seriously, the DNC did not. The DNC ended up paying a hefty price for this poor judgement.
4. It is not just Republicans who keep saying there is no evidence of any collusion on the part of the Trump campaign and the Russians. Per an exchange between James Clapper (Director of National Intelligence under President Obama) and Chuck Todd on Meet the Press:

TODD: Does intelligence exist that can definitively answer the following question: whether there were improper contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian officials?​

CLAPPER: We did not include any evidence in our report, and I say our, that's NSA, FBI, and CIA, with my office, the Director of National Intelligence, that had anything, that had any reflection of collusion between members of the Trump campaign and the Russians. There was no evidence of that included in our report.​

TODD:I understand that. But does it exist?​

CLAPPER:Not to my knowledge.
​

These points should prove useful to anyone willing to think clearly about the issue of Donald Trump and his so-called involvement with Russian hackers.

 

Killer question - well done. The 'Russian hacking' accusation is a load of crap; although it guess it could have been some Russian kid like Gary McKinnon who, much to his surprise, got lucky while messing about on his PC in his bedroom.

 

Does it not bother you that Hillary gave clearance to sell control of almost 1/4 of US uranium supplies, we actually know that happened and an FBI assistant director whose wife was once a Dem candidate for public told a Trump cabinet official that published reports of collusion between Trump campaign officials and the Russians were grossly over stated.

 

Yet still no proof.

 

Please tell me exactly how one goes about exposing 'nothing'. The media is not subservient to Trump talking points. In fact, they'd love nothing more than to hang him, though some would prefer drawing and quartering. In fact this non story only exist because the media so fervently wishes it were true.

 

Thank you! Why is it so difficult to understand the people's rejection of an underhanded, corrupt, manipulative, untrustworthy candidate? It's a shame that most of the evidence had to be provided to us by way of Russian hackers and Wikileaks, but if you honestly believe that Hillary Clinton still should have won the Presidency, even after reviewing all the evidence provided by Wikileaks to the contrary, there's really not a whole lot to discuss...

 

Of course, I admit they were true for the most part. That is irrelevant to my argument. My argument is the leaks severely damaged the Clinton campaign, greatly aided the Trump campaign, and that they influenced the election, to which you agreed.

Whether or not the leaks resulted in the better candidate being elected is in very serious question and is a subjective appraisal.

I appreciate your support.

 

It may be irrelevant to your argument, but it is definitely not irrelevant to the results of the election. Yes, the question of which was the better candidate is subjective, and based on the election results, after weighing all the information made available to them, the conclusion of the American voters in a majority of counties throughout the country is that Donald Trump was the better candidate. Now if the information provided in those leaks was true, if the information was relevant in the decision making process of voters, and if the Donald Trump campaign had nothing to do with that information being released, what is your objection? I mean, other than the fact that your candidate lost?

 

You still ignore the evidence. Denying the evidence does not make it so. Do you expect a member of the Trump team to come forward and admit coordination with the Russians? That is very unlikely. Do you expect the FBI to release the transcript of the conversation between Flynn and Kislyak? Again, not likely, the White House controls the FBI. Do you expect the Senate and House investigating committees to be more forthcoming? Not likely, they are controlled by the President's party. Perhaps a review is in order. What do we know?

We know one member of Trump's staff coordinated with the Russians and made a deal. Flynn spoke with Kislyak the same day the sanctions were imposed; they spoke about the sanctions, and the very next day Putin refused to retaliate, an extraordinary out of character decision. For this Flynn was fired.

We know Sessions spoke with Kislyak twice during the election campaign and never spoke with him prior to the campaign.

We know that, of the 26 members of the Armed Services Committee, only Sessions spoke with the Russian ambassador in 2016.

We know that Sessions either lied in the Senate confirmation hearing or was too incompetent to provide an accurate and complete answer despite being a former prosecutor and knowing full-well the importance of a complete answer under oath.

We know that other members of Trump's staff coordinated with the Russians. They would include D. Gordon, Carter Page, Paul Manafort, and Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner.

We don't know if Trump has any business dealings with Russia because he is hiding his tax returns from Congress and the American people.

We know these are all facts, not speculation or opinion.

Did Trump's staff coordinate activities with the Russians? You be the judge.

 

No. I simply asked you for a your theory on what the Russians did that caused Pennsylvanians to vote for Trump. The question of if they actually did that, is a separate question. It does not even appear that you can even articulate a coherent case of what you suspect the Russians did that caused anyone to change their vote.

So against your theory, that you can't even articulate beyond "Well, the Russians did something!" I have very clear actions by Hillary and Obama who she used as a surrogate, that it is quite reasonable to believe caused votes to shift from her to Trump.
A. The Russians did something that cost Hillary Pennsylvania.
1. Obama directly insulted Pennsylvanians, called them bitter clingers, gun nuts, religious fanatics and racist bigots.
2. Hillary directly threatened their jobs.
3. Hillary lost the state.

3 flows quite naturally from 1 and 2. A is too incoherent to even evaluate.

 

Of course, I admit they were true for the most part. That is irrelevant to my argument. My argument is the leaks severely damaged the Clinton campaign, greatly aided the Trump campaign, and that they influenced the election, to which you agreed.

Whether or not the leaks resulted in the better candidate being elected is in very serious question and is a subjective appraisal.

I appreciate your support.

Well, leaks you say? It was the leaks that hurt her? Nah. For folks who didn't vote for her it wasn't the leaks. It was her arrogance.. It was her entitlement. What the leaks showed us was this behavior that frankly the media never commented on, and illustrated it in a way that only her words, the words of her associates, and her acquaintances could. Her folly was to ever write it down in the first place.

 

AWKWARD: The Russia approach that Democrats now depict as treasonous was one of the defining traits of Obama’s foreign policy.

 

If I am making an argument, than what I say is irrelevant to my argument is irrelevant to my argument. The veracity of the leaks is not related to the fact that the leaks influenced the election, which I have proven and you agreed.

"Now if the information provided in those leaks was true, if the information was relevant in the decision making process of voters, and if the Donald Trump campaign had nothing to do with that information being released, what is your objection? I mean, other than the fact that your candidate lost?" Now that is a valid issue.

Keep in mind the leaks had absolutely nothing to do with Clinton's private server or her emails. They had nothing to do with the FBI. The leaks did not contain one email from Clinton herself. They were from members of the DNC and her campaign staff. The second set of leaks were from Podesta's computer. Podesta was Clinton's campaign chairman.

What did the leaks contain? Well, they revealed that the Democratic National Committee backed a Democrat, instead of an Independent socialist who had never been a member of the Democratic Party. They also contained gossip, rivalries that can be expected of a Presidential campaign staff, and hearsay comments by Clinton never meant for public consumption. Clinton has been in Washington politics for 25 years and she was the First Lady of President who couldn't keep it in his pants. Did she have dirty laundry. Hell, yes.

How much dirty laundry was there with Trump's campaign staff? Through the first year of his candidacy he fired scores of people. Clinton had one campaign manager. Trump had three during a span of two months. His sex life would make Bill Clinton blush. If a person or persons hacked Trump's campaign computers, we can accurately guess they would put the Clinton leaks to shame.

But we will never know, will we? The Russians only hacked Clinton's computer because Putin wanted Trump to be President.

Every politician in the world has dirty laundry they don't want exposed to the public. That was what the Russians did to the Clinton campaign. Were the leaks truthful? Yes, but filled with a lot of innuendo and speculation. Did the public need to know all this? Say yes to that and you are saying every election campaign should consist of down in the gutter-style campaigning. Say yes to that and you are saying campaigns should be all about who has the most dirt rather than discussing issues important to Americans.

Wow! I guess I got a little carried away.

A little?

 

"It does not even appear that you can even articulate a coherent case of what you suspect the Russians did that caused anyone to change their vote." You are a strange person. I did exactly that, at your behest. You simply avoided all the evidence then said it doesn't exist. That is really weird. Are you related to Trump?

Why are you fixated on PA? Trump won 60% of the states. That's really weird, too.

 

Would you care to explain that, or are just making this stuff up as you along?

 

Back to the topic at hand, Trump and his merry band of misfits.

I am not suggesting this, not yet, anyway, but Trump can be removed without impeachment. This according to the 25th Amendment, Section Four.

Section 4. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

"How low has President Obama gone to tapp [sic] my phones during the very sacred election process. This is Nixon/Watergate. Bad (or sick) guy!"

The accusation against his predecessor was offered with no evidence. Then, still without any substantiation, Trump asked Congress to investigate President Obama. As of this writing, neither Trump nor the White House has offered any evidence to support Trump's allegation. The White House did say it will not comment any further on the matter until Congress completes the investigation. As it turns out, the initial source of Trump's allegation came from an entertainer, Mark Levin, a conservative radio talk show host. Spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders said, “I think he firmly believes that this is a storyline that has been reported pretty widely by quite a few outlets.

Now I ask you, are these the words and actions of a well man?

To be sure, no one is talking about Sessions anymore, Trump's transparent objective. Everyone is talking about a larger controversy created by Trump himself, the sagacity of the U.S. President.

 

It is amazing how blissfully ignorant Trump fans can be. You are in total denial of events that are swirling around you.

A CNN/ORC poll found that 65 percent of respondents believe an "independent special prosecutor should be appointed." Democratic leaders including Senate Minority Leader Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., have called for such an inquiry. Nearly a third of respondents, 32 percent, said "Congress is capable of handling," while 3 percent expressed no opinion
But a majority of Republicans say Congress can handle the matter, given the choice between the two options.

This poll suggest three things.

1. Right off the bat, Trump admirers will claim it is a liberal poll, thus fake news and shouldn't be believed. Being a Trump fan means never believing anything you hear in the news media because their hero says the media is dishonest, an enemy of the people, and it is all fake news. Can you imagine going through life and not being able to believe anything you hear?

2. The Republican Congress will continue to support Trump ... for now, but, after this weekend, that has to be increasingly difficult.

3. It does not matter what Trump does, what ludicrous tweets he sends, what ludicrous statements he makes, his diehard base, roughly 35 to 40% of Americans will stick by him. His behavior is much like their own, erratic, sometimes less than truthful, lacking intelligence and due diligence, and narcissistic. They love him for it.

 

Again there is no proof of anything. There never has been. This exists only in the mind of leftist and a few extraordinarily desperate establishment Republicans. Please how much of that poll was taken in California? And with the alphabet soup media screaming bloody murder for the last two months and you can only get 65% of people who are so lonely they'll answer a phone call from a number they don't recognize? And of course when the investigation, is over what I'm telling you now is confirmed what will you call for then assassination?

 

Its obvious, the Russians wanted Mr. Trump to win. There is no doubt about it.
It's pretty obvious that Mr. Trump's campaign colluded with Russia to that end. There is little doubt remaining about it.
Why those who cloak themselves as "patriots" are not upset that Russia played such a large role in the Trump campaign and in the election of 2016 is a textbook example of "patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel"; Since elections are only held every 2 years and Presidential contests every four, we will have to wait to see if the electorate has learned anything from this. Going forward, however, one has to expect that there are no longer any boundaries in our politics. It is only a matter of time until those deposed at the ballot box result to violence to get satisfaction.

When this strain of politics makes its way into the Statehouses and commonwealth where there are no rules and absolutely no trust between factions; losing Parties with a sympathetic ear in the national guard will not hesitate to utilize that apparatus to remain in power.

As an old man, this burden is lighter on me than many; I won't have to see the nation torn asunder again as my great, great grandparents did. Lincoln's ascent to the Presidency was likely the most beneficial accident of the American experiment. A more jaundiced official who lived through war will likely not be present when the last fort in the South is burned and the last body is buried or burnt. Will they call for "malice toward none and charity for all"? I doubt it.

 

Still pushing that lie?

That deal had to be signed off by NINE different government agencies. Were they all on the take? Show me da money.

Oh and they didn't have licenses for the uranium to leave the country

 

The Russians Are Coming! The Russians Are Coming!

 

Dude she had the power to quash that deal at any point in the process. she chose not to any no agency is going to quash a deal of which the State department approves. That unfortunately is how Washington works.