Trump Campaign Aides Had Repeated Contacts With Russian Intelligence

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

10 minutes ago, GiveEmElle said:

Rosie just tweeted it. The original was from  FB post. I just copied the tweet and pasted before I checked out the post on FB. Wadzinski links several articles on her FB page to Rosneft OC.  Like this one ....

 

https://www.google.com/amp/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN1582OH

Here's one on Tillerson...

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/12/12/world/europe/rex-tillersons-company-exxon-has-billions-at-stake-over-russia-sanctions.html

Rosie doesn't get absolved for "just retweeting it".  It's irresponsible no matter who does it and the same goes for being irresponsible on your part by copying and pasting a tweet without checking out the sourcing first.

However, the links you  provided are much more reliable. There's still a huge leap of faith being made from the content of the tweet and I have no idea how they ascertained those assumptions from either article.  For example, the Reuters article said:

More than a month after Russia announced one of its biggest privatizations since the 1990s, selling a 19.5 percent stake in its giant oil company Rosneft, it still isn't possible to determine from public records the full identities of those who bought it.

That's a far cry from Rosie's tweet where the FB post declares that Trump is the person benefitting from the 19% cut.  Eventually it could all turn out to be true.  But right now, it's uncorroborated and falls into the category of fake news.

[GiveEmElle 1,559]

43 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

Rosie doesn't get absolved for "just retweeting it".  It's irresponsible no matter who does it and the same goes for being irresponsible on your part by copying and pasting a tweet without checking out the sourcing first.

However, the links you  provided are much more reliable. There's still a huge leap of faith being made from the content of the tweet and I have no idea how they ascertained those assumptions from either article.  For example, the Reuters article said:

More than a month after Russia announced one of its biggest privatizations since the 1990s, selling a 19.5 percent stake in its giant oil company Rosneft, it still isn't possible to determine from public records the full identities of those who bought it.

That's a far cry from Rosie's tweet where the FB post declares that Trump is the person benefitting from the 19% cut.  Eventually it could all turn out to be true.  But right now, it's uncorroborated and falls into the category of fake news.

Ignore the tweet from Rosie. The content that I was pointing out is the ties to Russia that Wadinski's post addresses. Rex Tillerson has ties to oil and Russia. If we see Trump ease sanctions on Russia it lends more credibility to the accusation of an attempt to make money through government positions within his administration. Original post suggests that Putin subverted our government to make money. Only briefly mentions Trump could profit. He is a business man, so is the idea that he only ran for president for profit that far fetched?

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

14 minutes ago, GiveEmElle said:

Ignore the tweet from Rosie. The content that I was pointing out is the ties to Russia that Wadinski's post addresses. Rex Tillerson has ties to oil and Russia. If we see Trump ease sanctions on Russia it lends more credibility to the accusation of an attempt to make money through government positions within his administration. Original post suggests that Putin subverted our government to make money. Only briefly mentions Trump could profit. He is a business man, so is the idea that he only ran for president for profit that far fetched?

Tillerson's ties with Russia are well known and have been since he was announced as Trump's pick for Secretary of State.  This isn't new information.  As for Putin using our government to make money, the story would need a lot more fleshing out before it's proven to be true.  Do I think it's possible?  Absolutely.  Same goes for your idea that Trump only ran for profit.

However I come from a background that prefers less speculation and more fact-based reporting before throwing out these types of allegations.  To this point, the reporting suggests that there is smoke between the Russians and Trump administration.  Still, nothing illegal or subversive has been proven yet and until it is we should refrain from leaps of logic and speculation.

[icanthearyou 4,468]

21 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

Tillerson's ties with Russia are well known and have been since he was announced as Trump's pick for Secretary of State.  This isn't new information.  As for Putin using our government to make money, the story would need a lot more fleshing out before it's proven to be true.  Do I think it's possible?  Absolutely.  Same goes for your idea that Trump only ran for profit.

However I come from a background that prefers less speculation and more fact-based reporting before throwing out these types of allegations.  To this point, the reporting suggests that there is smoke between the Russians and Trump administration.  Still, nothing illegal or subversive has been proven yet and until it is we should refrain from leaps of logic and speculation.

I absolutely agree.  I would add though, based on what we do know, we should not be willing to casually dismiss the implications either.  IMO, this situation demands are real investigation, not a political one.

[GiveEmElle 1,559]

25 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

Tillerson's ties with Russia are well known and have been since he was announced as Trump's pick for Secretary of State.  This isn't new information.  As for Putin using our government to make money, the story would need a lot more fleshing out before it's proven to be true.  Do I think it's possible?  Absolutely.  Same goes for your idea that Trump only ran for profit.

However I come from a background that prefers less speculation and more fact-based reporting before throwing out these types of allegations.  To this point, the reporting suggests that there is smoke between the Russians and Trump administration.  Still, nothing illegal or subversive has been proven yet and until it is we should refrain from leaps of logic and speculation.

When a president absolutely refuses to answer repeated questions about ties to Russia and only calls on certain news agencies to ask questions then speculation is birthed.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

16 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

I absolutely agree.  I would add though, based on what we do know, we should not be willing to casually dismiss the implications either.  IMO, this situation demands are real investigation, not a political one.

100% agreed

[homersapien 12,215]

4 hours ago, Brad_ATX said:

I'm no Trump supporter, but this has as much credibility as Alabama claiming 16 national titles.

As much credibility as the Whitewater scandel and a hell of a lot bigger.  

[homersapien 12,215]

On 2/15/2017 at 11:15 AM, AURaptor said:

 

  Last I heard, there were no actual communications or anything illegal done. Much this is uncited, uncorroborated, and flat out fake news. 

 Maxine Waters and Elijah Cummings have both openly spoken about a fake tweet, as they are hoping to do nothing but project this false narrative. This is 100% politically driven. 

It's not fake news.  It's real news plus a lot of opinion.

You keep using this term as if it really applies. It's become a talisman for you.

[homersapien 12,215]

10 hours ago, Brad_ATX said:

Tillerson's ties with Russia are well known and have been since he was announced as Trump's pick for Secretary of State.  This isn't new information.  As for Putin using our government to make money, the story would need a lot more fleshing out before it's proven to be true.  Do I think it's possible?  Absolutely.  Same goes for your idea that Trump only ran for profit.

However I come from a background that prefers less speculation and more fact-based reporting before throwing out these types of allegations.  To this point, the reporting suggests that there is smoke between the Russians and Trump administration.  Still, nothing illegal or subversive has been proven yet and until it is we should refrain from leaps of logic and speculation.

Keep in mind this is a political forum meant to share opinion.  It's not a court room.

There is nothing wrong with what Ellie has posted.  It seems to me that a lot of people on this forum are inclined to examine every particular aspect of this story in isolation.  For example, mentioning Tillerson's ties with Russia as being well known, implies it's not relevant to the discussion.  It's highly relevant, especially in light of recent events.

Another thing a lot of people seem to be doing is confusing the investigation phase with "indictment phase", which may or may not happen.  

[homersapien 12,215]

1 hour ago, GiveEmElle said:

When a president absolutely refuses to answer repeated questions about ties to Russia and only calls on certain news agencies to ask questions then speculation is birthed.

Don't forget withholding his tax returns.  He's obviously hiding something.

 

[homersapien 12,215]

3 hours ago, Brad_ATX said:

Rosie doesn't get absolved for "just retweeting it".  It's irresponsible no matter who does it and the same goes for being irresponsible on your part by copying and pasting a tweet without checking out the sourcing first.

However, the links you  provided are much more reliable. There's still a huge leap of faith being made from the content of the tweet and I have no idea how they ascertained those assumptions from either article.  For example, the Reuters article said:

More than a month after Russia announced one of its biggest privatizations since the 1990s, selling a 19.5 percent stake in its giant oil company Rosneft, it still isn't possible to determine from public records the full identities of those who bought it.

That's a far cry from Rosie's tweet where the FB post declares that Trump is the person benefitting from the 19% cut.  Eventually it could all turn out to be true.  But right now, it's uncorroborated and falls into the category of fake news.

Good grief.  Et tu Brutus?

Are you seriously suggesting what Reuters said was invented and published as total fiction?

I figured you'd know what fake news is as compared to what might be inaccurate.

People are getting obsessed about this.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

8 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Keep in mind this is a political forum meant to share opinion.  It's not a court room.

There is nothing wrong with what Ellie has posted.  It seems to me that a lot of people on this forum are inclined to examine every particular aspect of this story in isolation.  For example mentioning Tillerson's ties with Russia as being well known, as if it's not really relevant to the discussion.  It's highly relevant, especially in light of recent events.

Another thing a lot of people seem to be doing is confusing the investigation phase with "indictment phase", which may or may not happen.  

My objection with what Elle posted was directly related to the Rosie tweet.  As I said earlier, that belonged in the smack talk forum and not here, as this particular forum is held to a higher standard.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

3 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Good grief.  Et tu Brutus?

Are you seriously suggesting what Reuters said was invented and published as total fiction?

I figured you'd know what fake news is as compared to what might be inaccurate.

People are getting obsessed about this.

Do you have reading comprehension issue?  I never said Reuters was fake news.  I said the Rosie tweet and the assumptions made in it that Trump is receiving a 19% kickback should be considered fake news as it's uncorroborated and complete speculation.

[AURaptor 1,137]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

It's not fake news.  It's real news plus a lot of opinion.

You keep using this term as if it really applies. It's become a talisman for you.

It applies, because it's valid. 100% completely fake news. 

Fake News: NY Times Journalist Touts Bogus Mike Flynn Twitter Account

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/scott-whitlock/2017/02/14/fake-news-ny-times-journalist-touts-bogus-michael-flynn-twitter

 

DNI Denies Withholding Intel From Trump as President Mulls Review

The office in charge of the nation's intelligence apparatus has flatly denied that intelligence officials are withholding sensitive information from President Donald Trump out of concern it could be compromised.

 

http://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2017-02-16/as-dni-denies-withholding-intel-from-trump-president-mulls-agency-review?context=amp

 

[homersapien 12,215]

1 hour ago, Brad_ATX said:

Do you have reading comprehension issue?  I never said Reuters was fake news.  I said the Rosie tweet and the assumptions made in it that Trump is receiving a 19% kickback should be considered fake news as it's uncorroborated and complete speculation.

What you said was quite ambiguous.  

[GiveEmElle 1,559]

2 hours ago, Brad_ATX said:

My objection with what Elle posted was directly related to the Rosie tweet.  As I said earlier, that belonged in the smack talk forum and not here, as this particular forum is held to a higher standard.

Good grief. What Rosie said was irrelevant. It was the post she included in her tweet that was relevant to the topic which I quoted about an oil connection. 

[AUFAN78 4,148]

8 hours ago, Brad_ATX said:

I'm no Trump supporter, but this has as much credibility as Alabama claiming 16 national titles.

I always felt you were a reasonable guy. This confirms it. Props on your non-partisan stance.

[AUFAN78 4,148]

7 hours ago, Brad_ATX said:

I think there are ties as well, but spreading uncorroborated social media crap like the above is no better than those who spread things like "Hillary supports child molestation pizzeria".  That post with Rosie really belongs in the smack talk forum.

Yep

[AUFAN78 4,148]

6 hours ago, Brad_ATX said:

Rosie doesn't get absolved for "just retweeting it".  It's irresponsible no matter who does it and the same goes for being irresponsible on your part by copying and pasting a tweet without checking out the sourcing first.

However, the links you  provided are much more reliable. There's still a huge leap of faith being made from the content of the tweet and I have no idea how they ascertained those assumptions from either article.  For example, the Reuters article said:

More than a month after Russia announced one of its biggest privatizations since the 1990s, selling a 19.5 percent stake in its giant oil company Rosneft, it still isn't possible to determine from public records the full identities of those who bought it.

That's a far cry from Rosie's tweet where the FB post declares that Trump is the person benefitting from the 19% cut.  Eventually it could all turn out to be true.  But right now, it's uncorroborated and falls into the category of fake news.

Brad on a roll. Nailed it again. Well done sir.

[AUFAN78 4,148]

5 hours ago, Brad_ATX said:

Tillerson's ties with Russia are well known and have been since he was announced as Trump's pick for Secretary of State.  This isn't new information.  As for Putin using our government to make money, the story would need a lot more fleshing out before it's proven to be true.  Do I think it's possible?  Absolutely.  Same goes for your idea that Trump only ran for profit.

However I come from a background that prefers less speculation and more fact-based reporting before throwing out these types of allegations.  To this point, the reporting suggests that there is smoke between the Russians and Trump administration.  Still, nothing illegal or subversive has been proven yet and until it is we should refrain from leaps of logic and speculation.

Brad needs to start the Independent News Journal. 

[AUFAN78 4,148]

4 hours ago, homersapien said:

As much credibility as the Whitewater scandel and a hell of a lot bigger.  

Or 911 or Pearl Harbor. 

[GiveEmElle 1,559]

37 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

Or 911 or Pearl Harbor. 

9/11 and Pearl Harbor weren't scandals. They were attacks on our country. 

[AUFAN78 4,148]

39 minutes ago, GiveEmElle said:

9/11 and Pearl Harbor weren't scandals. They were attacks on our country. 

Boom! Couldn't have stated it better Elle. Perhaps we should notify Chuck Todd and Thomas Friedman.

[GiveEmElle 1,559]

5 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

Boom! Couldn't have stated it better Elle. Perhaps we should notify Chuck Todd and Thomas Friedman.

I'm not certain what your implying.

[AUFAN78 4,148]

13 minutes ago, GiveEmElle said:

I'm not certain what your implying.

I need to do some research as I may have misspoke on Todd. I think he may have compared it to the Iran Contra scandal.

Friedman however, made the comparison I alluded to previously and you correctly stated. It was a lame comparison.

 

"And it gets … to two other issues,” he continued. “The first is, we have never taken seriously from the very beginning Russia hacked our election. That was a 9/11-scale event. They attacked the core of our very democracy. That was a Pearl Harbor-scale event.”

That’s right, he compared it to 9/11 and Pearl Harbor, where thousands of Americans died.