Trump's staff coordinated with the Russians during the election

This doesn't make any sense at all. Would people truly love and respect Hilary Clinton and the DNC if people learned their inner thoughts and dealing? Wouldn't the truth help her and them? I don't get it. Explain how the TRUTH hurt Clinton and the DNC?

 

New Flash: If Hillary had used secure communications, there would be no classified emails illegally sent and thus no need for her and her people to repeatedly lie and then get caught in lies via leaked emails. These emails, by the way, have never had their authenticity questioned, not even by the people hurt by them. So basically you are saying it isn't fair they got caught?

One other thing, and this is important and no one brings it up. The Democrats essentially STOLE the nomination from Sanders and selected Hillary despite the will of their voters.

The Republican power brokers on the other hand, largely HATED Donald Trump and had zero faith he could win yet still they let the process unfold and allowed their voters to decide who would represent them.

You can call the right corrupt all you want but in truth, it is the left that reeks foul and is twisted by hypocrisy.

 

Um............let's translate that. "I carefully research one sided talking points and hope no one notices".

Why is the media so subservient to the Trump talking points?

 

So what solid evidence do you base your premise upon? According to James Clapper no evidence has ever been found that Trump or any of his surrogates colluded with Russian operatives.

 

Okay, so I'm a bit confused. You don't deny the veracity of the information in the leaks. So do you believe that the voters would have been better off not knowing what the leaks showed? And do you deny that the FBI warned both political parties that hackers were trying to break into their systems? All indications point to the Russians attempting to hack into the systems of both political parties, but only being able to get into the Dem systems. That is not the same as what you seem to want to imply, which is that Clinton was targeted and Trump was not. While I agree with you that we need to secure our communications better, I don't think Wikileaks did anything wrong by publishing the information they did. (And remember, Donald Trump had more than his fair share of embarrassing remarks to deal with, so it's not like the GOP was immune to bad press...). Every person in the world has dirty laundry they would rather not have made public. That's a given. But hacking takes place every day. (Remember the Chinese stealing all those personnel records? Was President Obama outraged over that incident? It was a very blatant attack that was clearly orchestrated by a foreign government, yet it went largely unaddressed...). And as to your last comment, Hillary Clinton lost to a large extent because she refused to discuss issues that are important to Americans, choosing to focus instead on trying to make the case for Donald Trump being a bigoted fascist Nazi sexist misogynist homophobic islamophobic deplorable moron. Donald Trump kept talking about issues, especially towards the close ot the campaign. He won, she lost. People who want to blame her loss on Wikileaks need to really think about what they're saying, because that thinking is way too simplistic...

 

And many folks accepted without proof many previous assertions as facts that have ultimately been demonstrated as fantasy, and yet, without fact, you'd support the use of a FISA warrant to investigate based on nothing, right? So, the issue of factless posturing seems something you've already ceded as an appropriate method, why now are you whining about it?

Wow, there's that word again. "sagacity",.... word of the day project perhaps? How about this. I would assert that now that mr Trump is president that he can, and does have access to previous proceedings, including the FISA warrant. He should clearly be able to review that, and make comment on it. Clearly, the Obama administration asked for, was rejected, and then asked again using a pretext not disclosed to accomplish the approval of the FISA warrant for surveil and wiretapping privileges vis a vis the Trump campaign machine. These are empirical at this point. To continue to deny them is a refusal to accept truth, and avoid it to otherwise advance the fantastic which is the refusal to attribute culpability to the Obama administration for their use of the FBI et al to attempt to undermine a US presidential race. You get that right?

So while you can attempt to wrap yourself in the flag, ignore the truth, you're still willfully ignoring the real issue, which is the misuse of presidential power to effect a public election. Let that sink in for a while.

 

Ok, so, for a minute let us put the investigations to the side & lets just talk about trumps cabinet picks & trumps campaign people----"THINGS WE KNOW",no fact checking involved----Let's start with Manifort-trump fired him as campaign manager after news reports were out about Maniforts--Russian connections---(we "ALL" know that is true--Great lets move on---
Flynn resigned from trumps administration after just 24 days, why? Flynn's Russian connections ( we "all" know that is true-Great lets move on---
Tillerman- trump's Secretary of State-- We "all" know his Russian ties with oil,well (except who owns the 19% of the Russian oil stock)
Ross-trump's commerce Secretary-the go between with trump selling his mansions to the Russian fertilizer king to hide his money from his wife in divorce proceedings for a $60 million "CASH" profit---mmmm did trump pay taxes on that--who knows?(We "All" know this-Great lets move on-----
trump's son-in law Jared---met with Russian intelligence----We "all" know this-Great lets move on----
trump's son ---We have video of him saying something to the effect " in the crash of 2007 there wasn't enough capital here in the US,so we went to Russia for the capital---We "all" know this --great, lets move on----
Ivanka trump-We have video of her vacationing with Putin's girlfriend during the 2016 campaign---- We "all" know this -Great lets move on----
Sessions-trump's Attorney General----just recused himself from the investigations of trumps connections with Russia for lying about his contacts with Russia during confirmation hearings---We "all" know this -Great lets move on-----
So, I am not sure if I have listed everyone---BUT-if, you go back & look at what I have put in "BOLD" what do they all have in common with trump---(hint; it is not a trick question) & these are all facts we all know-----
So, although it is not nice to jump to assumptions,but in this case if it looks like a duck,quacks like a duck, walks like a duck----It's a DUCK----

 

She had one of NINE votes...any of which could have shut it down. Were they all bought off individually? Show m the money and the licenses that would allow the uranium to leave the country

 

Things we all know? No fact checking involved? Surely, you have posted the funniest comment of this thread. Congratulations! I think you should win some type of award for this whopper.

 

Of course not but as I said none of them are going to go against The sec of state.

 

Proof of what? You are beginning to sound like a broken record, and you ask silly questions. Your loyalty to Trump is sounding very fragile.

 

For an old codger, you make a lot of sense. I'm up there, too. Long enough to know Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Reagan, and Bush, Sr., and wonder where all the good Presidents went. From Clinton on, we have elected buffoons and novices and then we have the balls to complain about it.

 

So show us the e-mails that support this. We have all of Clinton's you know...

 

Eisenhower is likely as much of a buffoon as any in the last century with the exception of Harding. From Clinton on we've had highly magnified personal lives and a press animal that must be fed. Thus any detail is made to be "news". The current buffoon is a pervert who soils the sheets of liberty each moment he pretends to be President.

 

What have we been talking about from the beginning of this inane thread, proof that Trump or his immediate subordinates colluded with Russia in order to steal the election from Hillary. There is none there has never been one shred of evidence for any of that.

 

No E-mails needed. Sec of state is the senior agency head. If you think anyone is going to buck a senior head of state especially one with as many convenient bodies in her wake as Hillary, you are seriously delusional.

 

Here is your proof. You have seen it before. You simply say the proof doesn't exist, and you say nothing to challenge the proof. In other words, to you, it is all fake news just like your hero says about anything that is unpleasant. Well, it isn't fake news. These are facts and they are real.

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.

 

Ok when you see the OP go here with a slight "poke and a nudge" in two replies

it's a good indicator that it's time to move

 

If it change no votes then it's influence was minimal at best. In order to influence the election it had to change hearts and minds and therefore votes. There is little evidence that such happened. The problem you have is that both antagonists in the last election were very well known and only minorities of the population liked either of them. In addition to this there were a lot more people in the so the and between the mountains that were anyone but Hillary voters. And she scarcely even tried to change those minds.

2nd please Session was the only member of the Senate who was the ranking majority member on the armed forces committee. When Claire McCaskil held the same position under the Obama administration she also met with Kislev and their were 2 other people in the Room with Kislev and Sessions. In fact there are few people in Washington that haven't met with Kislev at one time or the other. the man seems to be as ubiquitous in Washington as water is in the ocean.

Oh and for what it's worth nothing you have stated in that is proof of anything accept your strong desire to believe evil of the current administration to the degree of shedding anything up to and including rationality and logic.

 

Both of your are correct.
Both of you are incorrect.

First, the fact that a foreign government actively participated in the election should be enough to set off the alarms. That it was done in clandestine fashion--as the pervert in the Oval Office has said--should show all Americans that any such alliance going forward with them is done so at our peril. They are the enemy; plain and simple.

Now did it turn the election? I'm sure it caused some votes to flip. But there are a zillion ways it could flip a vote. Maybe John Doe didn't vote at all? Maybe the vote went to a different party/person? Maybe it went to the Pervert? What the proven hacking didn't do was prevent Hillary from going to Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, etc... What it didn't do was prevent her from tapping into the uneasiness of the American voters.

Russia did not sway the outcome of the election in any measurable way. Much like having a rat in your house does not mean that you throw away all of your food and leave the residence. Still, you should be alarmed at the rat living there. What has apparently happened is that the rat (Russia) was invited by the Pervert and his trash associates. That is a new low in American politics.

 

We are waiting for evidence that the rat (Russia) was invited to the party. At this time, no evidence has been supplied, and people like James Clapper continue to say that no evidence of collusion has been found. Perhaps the new low in American politics is the continual harping on a President without any evidence of an issue actually existing.

 

It was good to expose some sunlight to the the cockroaches.

 

So, should I have said--Session's was "less" than truthful? He has stated that "he will correct the record"---so, you can call it what you want--He lied---
I find it very informative that this is the only statement I made that you find fault with---

 

Well, for the record (lest I be accused of lying), that isn't the only statement I found fault with, it's just the only statement I decided to comment on...