Trump and Russia - the problem

[homersapien 12,226]

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/03/the-untruths-of-president-trump-are-piling-up/518490/

President Trump's Untruths Are Piling Up

The need for Congress to figure out why he and his team keep misleading the public about Russia grows more urgent by the day, even if they are ultimately exonerated.

Let’s be clear from the start: There is no evidence that Donald Trump or his campaign coordinated with Russia to hack the Democratic National Committee’s emails or funnel them to Wikileaks; no evidence that they are puppets of Vladimir Putin; and no proof that the Kremlin possesses kompromat on the president.

There are suspicions voiced by members of Congress, leaked by parts of the intelligence committee, held by journalists at respected publications who are investing lots of time and money chasing down leads, and of concern to millions of Americans.

And that status quo is unhealthy for American democracy.

I would welcome proof that Trump is innocent of any wrongdoing in this matter, because the alternative is a compromised president, the possibility of a constitutional crisis, and consequences that are hard to predict.

If he is guilty of anything I want the truth to out.

Either way, the major obstacle is Trump’s untrustworthiness. He is a frequently mendacious man, and many of his associates possess the same deficiency in character. I do not know if the many untruths Trump and his team have uttered on this subject are making them appear guiltier than they are or obscuring a shocking reality.

But the contradictions cannot be ignored.

A couple weeks ago, Trump gave a lengthy, combative press conference where he was asked, “Can you say whether you are aware that anyone who advised your campaign had contacts with Russia during the course of the election?”

He said no, aside from Mike Flynn, who ostensibly resigned from the Trump administration for misleading Mike Pence about his conversations with the Russian ambassador.

Then Trump went much farther.

Russia is a ruse. I have nothing to do with Russia. Haven't made a phone call to Russia in years. Don't speak to people from Russia. Not that I wouldn't. I just have nobody to speak to. I spoke to Putin twice. He called me on the election. I told you this. And he called me a few days ago. We had a very good talk, especially the second one ... I have nothing to do with Russia. To the best of my knowledge no person that I deal with does. Now, Manafort has totally denied it. He denied it. Now people knew that he was a consultant over in that part of the world for a while, but not for Russia. I think he represented Ukraine or people having to do with Ukraine.

Even two weeks ago, Trump’s claims were highly dubious.

Now consider what we have learned in the last 24 hours.

“Three weeks before Election Day, Donald Trump Jr. left the campaign trail and the country to speak at a private dinner in Paris organized by an obscure pro-Russia group that promotes Kremlin foreign policy initiatives and has since nominated Russian President Vladimir Putin for the Nobel Peace Prize,” ABC reported.

Then CNN reported that J.D. Gordon, a former national security adviser to Trump, attended an event with the Russian ambassador at the GOP convention. Trump national-security advisers Carter Page and Walid Phares were there, too. And Jared Kushner and Mike Flynn met with Russia’s ambassador at Trump Tower in December.

One can imagine non-nefarious explanations for all of these meetings. USA Today’s writeup of the Cleveland RNC event makes it sound especially innocuous.

But they inevitably create suspicion when they directly contradict bygone untruths told by the president and his team; follow Manafort and Flynn resigning over matters related to Russia; concern a president who will not release his tax returns; and dovetail with a dossier that alleges alarming ties between Trump and the Kremlin.

Look again at Trump’s words from his press conference: “I have nothing to do with Russia,” the president said. “To the best of my knowledge no person that I deal with does.”

That is bull****. Among many other things, Russia’s ambassador clearly made a concerted effort to interact with many on the Trump team and succeeded spectacularly.

Nor do the contradictions end there.

On CNN, Jim Acosta reported more about his phone conversation with J.D. Gordon.

“Gordon said he was part of the effort pushed by the Trump campaign to put some language in the GOP platform that essentially said that the Republican Party did not advocate for arming the Ukrainians in their battle against pro-Russian separatists,” Acosta related. “He said that his is the language that Donald Trump himself wanted and advocated for back in March at a meeting at the unfinished Trump hotel here in Washington D.C. J.D. Gordon says then-candidate Trump said he did not want to ‘go to World War III over Ukraine,’ and J.D. Gordon says at the Republican convention in Cleveland he advocated for language in that Republican Party platform that reflected then-candidate Trump’s comment.”

Read the rest of the article at:

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/03/the-untruths-of-president-trump-are-piling-up/518490/

 

[SaltyTiger 8,568]

5 hours ago, homersapien said:

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/03/the-untruths-of-president-trump-are-piling-up/518490/

President Trump's Untruths Are Piling Up

The need for Congress to figure out why he and his team keep misleading the public about Russia grows more urgent by the day, even if they are ultimately exonerated.

Let’s be clear from the start: There is no evidence that Donald Trump or his campaign coordinated with Russia to hack the Democratic National Committee’s emails or funnel them to Wikileaks; no evidence that they are puppets of Vladimir Putin; and no proof that the Kremlin possesses kompromat on the president.

There are suspicions voiced by members of Congress, leaked by parts of the intelligence committee, held by journalists at respected publications who are investing lots of time and money chasing down leads, and of concern to millions of Americans.

And that status quo is unhealthy for American democracy.

I would welcome proof that Trump is innocent of any wrongdoing in this matter, because the alternative is a compromised president, the possibility of a constitutional crisis, and consequences that are hard to predict.

If he is guilty of anything I want the truth to out.

Either way, the major obstacle is Trump’s untrustworthiness. He is a frequently mendacious man, and many of his associates possess the same deficiency in character. I do not know if the many untruths Trump and his team have uttered on this subject are making them appear guiltier than they are or obscuring a shocking reality.

But the contradictions cannot be ignored.

A couple weeks ago, Trump gave a lengthy, combative press conference where he was asked, “Can you say whether you are aware that anyone who advised your campaign had contacts with Russia during the course of the election?”

He said no, aside from Mike Flynn, who ostensibly resigned from the Trump administration for misleading Mike Pence about his conversations with the Russian ambassador.

Then Trump went much farther.

Russia is a ruse. I have nothing to do with Russia. Haven't made a phone call to Russia in years. Don't speak to people from Russia. Not that I wouldn't. I just have nobody to speak to. I spoke to Putin twice. He called me on the election. I told you this. And he called me a few days ago. We had a very good talk, especially the second one ... I have nothing to do with Russia. To the best of my knowledge no person that I deal with does. Now, Manafort has totally denied it. He denied it. Now people knew that he was a consultant over in that part of the world for a while, but not for Russia. I think he represented Ukraine or people having to do with Ukraine.

Even two weeks ago, Trump’s claims were highly dubious.

Now consider what we have learned in the last 24 hours.

“Three weeks before Election Day, Donald Trump Jr. left the campaign trail and the country to speak at a private dinner in Paris organized by an obscure pro-Russia group that promotes Kremlin foreign policy initiatives and has since nominated Russian President Vladimir Putin for the Nobel Peace Prize,” ABC reported.

Then CNN reported that J.D. Gordon, a former national security adviser to Trump, attended an event with the Russian ambassador at the GOP convention. Trump national-security advisers Carter Page and Walid Phares were there, too. And Jared Kushner and Mike Flynn met with Russia’s ambassador at Trump Tower in December.

One can imagine non-nefarious explanations for all of these meetings. USA Today’s writeup of the Cleveland RNC event makes it sound especially innocuous.

But they inevitably create suspicion when they directly contradict bygone untruths told by the president and his team; follow Manafort and Flynn resigning over matters related to Russia; concern a president who will not release his tax returns; and dovetail with a dossier that alleges alarming ties between Trump and the Kremlin.

Look again at Trump’s words from his press conference: “I have nothing to do with Russia,” the president said. “To the best of my knowledge no person that I deal with does.”

That is bull****. Among many other things, Russia’s ambassador clearly made a concerted effort to interact with many on the Trump team and succeeded spectacularly.

Nor do the contradictions end there.

On CNN, Jim Acosta reported more about his phone conversation with J.D. Gordon.

“Gordon said he was part of the effort pushed by the Trump campaign to put some language in the GOP platform that essentially said that the Republican Party did not advocate for arming the Ukrainians in their battle against pro-Russian separatists,” Acosta related. “He said that his is the language that Donald Trump himself wanted and advocated for back in March at a meeting at the unfinished Trump hotel here in Washington D.C. J.D. Gordon says then-candidate Trump said he did not want to ‘go to World War III over Ukraine,’ and J.D. Gordon says at the Republican convention in Cleveland he advocated for language in that Republican Party platform that reflected then-candidate Trump’s comment.”

Read the rest of the article at:

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/03/the-untruths-of-president-trump-are-piling-up/518490/

 

Why is this not in smack? second sentence

"Let’s be clear from the start: There is no evidence that Donald Trump or his campaign coordinated with Russia to hack the Democratic National Committee’s emails or funnel them to Wikileaks; no evidence that they are puppets of Vladimir Putin; and no proof that the Kremlin possesses kompromat on the president.

 Mods. Can you start a Russian Only forum?

[TexasTiger 14,275]

5 hours ago, SaltyTiger said:

Why is this not in smack? second sentence

"Let’s be clear from the start: There is no evidence that Donald Trump or his campaign coordinated with Russia to hack the Democratic National Committee’s emails or funnel them to Wikileaks; no evidence that they are puppets of Vladimir Putin; and no proof that the Kremlin possesses kompromat on the president.

 Mods. Can you start a Russian Only forum?

Don't understand your first question.

In regard to the second, if you follow the news you'll know that issues related to Russia are definitely trending which is likely reflected in a political forum.

[Grumps 3,706]

This topic is still one of the most confusing things I have seen on this forum. "Trump talked to Russians and denied it." What if you have 100% proof? Sessions said he did not talk to Russians (even he knew 100% that it could be proven otherwise) and was shown to have actually talked to Russians. What if you have 100% proof?

WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED AS THE REASON FOR ALL OF THESE SECRET DISCUSSIONS? The worst that I can come up with is that the Trump campaign wanted to know what info Russia had on Mrs. Clinton and when said info might be released. His campaign might even want to know if Russia had anything on him. If so, then so what? Has anyone come up with an end game for all of the Russian discussions? I still think this is 100% democrat smoke and mirrors. If so, then the democrat party may be in for a further comeuppance.

[homersapien 12,226]

3 hours ago, AURaptor said:

This is why the attempt to separate 'smack' from ' serious ' political speak is flawed. None can decide on which info is ' unbiased  or objective '. We  SHOULD be able to trust the media and start with what is simply being reported. That's simply not possible. Even the use of a single word in a headline can change the tone and focus of a story, so what we're left with is everyone trying to decipher what the "truth" is, and going on from there to start the conversation. 

 

No one knows the "truth".

What we do know are a series of truths than by themselves may not carry a lot of weight but all together create a very suspicious pattern.

It will take an independent prosecutor to reveal the truth.

[homersapien 12,226]

15 hours ago, SaltyTiger said:

Why is this not in smack? second sentence

"Let’s be clear from the start: There is no evidence that Donald Trump or his campaign coordinated with Russia to hack the Democratic National Committee’s emails or funnel them to Wikileaks; no evidence that they are puppets of Vladimir Putin; and no proof that the Kremlin possesses kompromat on the president.

 Mods. Can you start a Russian Only forum?

I am confused.

First you call this article "smack" then you quote the opening disclaimer about the lack of 'proof'.  

That seems a disconnect to me.

[SaltyTiger 8,568]

17 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

Don't understand your first question.

In regard to the second, if you follow the news you'll know that issues related to Russia are definitely trending which is likely reflected in a political forum.

The first question is very simple and you understand TT. The Russian thing is nothing more than narrative from the left. hell it is everyday from MSM and countless post from our very own "Auburn Brother" on this forum. Granted they exposed Hillary.

If Trump,Sessions,Bannon,Flynn.....Goofy, Mickey, Minney, whoever ... conspired with the Russians I say hang them for treason.

You are a mod. Until then consider a Russian Only forum.

[autigeremt 7,204]

The more I read and see the more I hate the media. 

[LakeBum 187]

On 3/3/2017 at 2:49 PM, homersapien said:

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/03/the-untruths-of-president-trump-are-piling-up/518490/

President Trump's Untruths Are Piling Up

The need for Congress to figure out why he and his team keep misleading the public about Russia grows more urgent by the day, even if they are ultimately exonerated.

Let’s be clear from the start: There is no evidence that Donald Trump or his campaign coordinated with Russia to hack the Democratic National Committee’s emails or funnel them to Wikileaks; no evidence that they are puppets of Vladimir Putin; and no proof that the Kremlin possesses kompromat on the president.

There are suspicions voiced by members of Congress, leaked by parts of the intelligence committee, held by journalists at respected publications who are investing lots of time and money chasing down leads, and of concern to millions of Americans.

And that status quo is unhealthy for American democracy.

I would welcome proof that Trump is innocent of any wrongdoing in this matter, because the alternative is a compromised president, the possibility of a constitutional crisis, and consequences that are hard to predict.

If he is guilty of anything I want the truth to out.

Either way, the major obstacle is Trump’s untrustworthiness. He is a frequently mendacious man, and many of his associates possess the same deficiency in character. I do not know if the many untruths Trump and his team have uttered on this subject are making them appear guiltier than they are or obscuring a shocking reality.

But the contradictions cannot be ignored.

A couple weeks ago, Trump gave a lengthy, combative press conference where he was asked, “Can you say whether you are aware that anyone who advised your campaign had contacts with Russia during the course of the election?”

He said no, aside from Mike Flynn, who ostensibly resigned from the Trump administration for misleading Mike Pence about his conversations with the Russian ambassador.

Then Trump went much farther.

Russia is a ruse. I have nothing to do with Russia. Haven't made a phone call to Russia in years. Don't speak to people from Russia. Not that I wouldn't. I just have nobody to speak to. I spoke to Putin twice. He called me on the election. I told you this. And he called me a few days ago. We had a very good talk, especially the second one ... I have nothing to do with Russia. To the best of my knowledge no person that I deal with does. Now, Manafort has totally denied it. He denied it. Now people knew that he was a consultant over in that part of the world for a while, but not for Russia. I think he represented Ukraine or people having to do with Ukraine.

Even two weeks ago, Trump’s claims were highly dubious.

Now consider what we have learned in the last 24 hours.

“Three weeks before Election Day, Donald Trump Jr. left the campaign trail and the country to speak at a private dinner in Paris organized by an obscure pro-Russia group that promotes Kremlin foreign policy initiatives and has since nominated Russian President Vladimir Putin for the Nobel Peace Prize,” ABC reported.

Then CNN reported that J.D. Gordon, a former national security adviser to Trump, attended an event with the Russian ambassador at the GOP convention. Trump national-security advisers Carter Page and Walid Phares were there, too. And Jared Kushner and Mike Flynn met with Russia’s ambassador at Trump Tower in December.

One can imagine non-nefarious explanations for all of these meetings. USA Today’s writeup of the Cleveland RNC event makes it sound especially innocuous.

But they inevitably create suspicion when they directly contradict bygone untruths told by the president and his team; follow Manafort and Flynn resigning over matters related to Russia; concern a president who will not release his tax returns; and dovetail with a dossier that alleges alarming ties between Trump and the Kremlin.

Look again at Trump’s words from his press conference: “I have nothing to do with Russia,” the president said. “To the best of my knowledge no person that I deal with does.”

That is bull****. Among many other things, Russia’s ambassador clearly made a concerted effort to interact with many on the Trump team and succeeded spectacularly.

Nor do the contradictions end there.

On CNN, Jim Acosta reported more about his phone conversation with J.D. Gordon.

“Gordon said he was part of the effort pushed by the Trump campaign to put some language in the GOP platform that essentially said that the Republican Party did not advocate for arming the Ukrainians in their battle against pro-Russian separatists,” Acosta related. “He said that his is the language that Donald Trump himself wanted and advocated for back in March at a meeting at the unfinished Trump hotel here in Washington D.C. J.D. Gordon says then-candidate Trump said he did not want to ‘go to World War III over Ukraine,’ and J.D. Gordon says at the Republican convention in Cleveland he advocated for language in that Republican Party platform that reflected then-candidate Trump’s comment.”

Read the rest of the article at:

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/03/the-untruths-of-president-trump-are-piling-up/518490/

 

How would you suggest someone prove they are innocent?  

[TexasTiger 14,275]

2 hours ago, SaltyTiger said:

The first question is very simple and you understand TT. The Russian thing is nothing more than narrative from the left. hell it is everyday from MSM and countless post from our very own "Auburn Brother" on this forum. Granted they exposed Hillary.

If Trump,Sessions,Bannon,Flynn.....Goofy, Mickey, Minney, whoever ... conspired with the Russians I say hang them for treason.

You are a mod. Until then consider a Russian Only forum.

There's a long list of facts in that article. What all they mean, we do know yet. But there are valid questions to be explored. More objective Republicans see that.

[TexasTiger 14,275]

1 hour ago, autigeremt said:

The more I read and see the more I hate the media. 

That's what Trump wants.

[homersapien 12,226]

9 hours ago, LakeBum said:

How would you suggest someone prove they are innocent?  

Certainly not by lying and and then accusing the press for making up the whole thing.

[homersapien 12,226]

8 hours ago, AURaptor said:

Donna Brazile and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz both cheated and overtly tried to influence an election. That the media have and continue to play up this Russian non - issue, instead of focusing on the deeds of the past 2 DNC chairs, shows everyone just how corrupt and dedicated the media are to presenting only the news they want shown, so as to form an narrative which puts Trump, not the DNC , in the spotlight. 

 

This is being done w/ intent and purpose. 

Not exactly equivalent.

They tried to cheat and influence a party primary.  Not to make excuses for what they did, but there is a long history in both parties of "undue influence" for the sake of determining a candidate.  Heck, for most of their history both parties candidates were more or less designated in smoke-filled rooms. 

The current controversy may ultimately have no substance but the implications at issue are much larger than how the Democratic party ran their primary.

Regardless, it's hardly surprising the press isn't focusing on that.  It's old news.  Everyone already knows it.  All of the resulting consequences of it have been or are being played out.  The Democrats lost the election.  This is no longer a topic of major interest.

Focusing on the current question of Trump and Russia in no way indicates how "corrupt" the media is.  They are presenting the news they are because it is the news.

Hell, most of it is generated by Trump himself.  First he makes a earth-shattering claim about Obama wiretapping his campaign and an hour later he tweets about a reality show.

I would worry about the corrupt and conniving press.  Our president is unhinged.

[alexava 6,974]

8 hours ago, homersapien said:

Not exactly equivalent.

They tried to cheat and influence a party primary.  Not to make excuses for what they did, but there is a long history in both parties of "undue influence" for the sake of determining a candidate.  Heck, for most of their history both parties candidates were more or less designated in smoke-filled rooms. 

The current controversy may ultimately have no substance but the implications at issue are much larger than how the Democratic party ran their primary.

Regardless, it's hardly surprising the press isn't focusing on that.  It's old news.  Everyone already knows it.  All of the resulting consequences of it have been or are being played out.  The Democrats lost the election.  This is no longer a topic of major interest.

Focusing on the current question of Trump and Russia in no way indicates how "corrupt" the media is.  They are presenting the news they are because it is the news.

Hell, most of it is generated by Trump himself.  First he makes a earth-shattering claim about Obama wiretapping his campaign and an hour later he tweets about a reality show.

I would worry about the corrupt and conniving press.  Our president is unhinged.

Exactly.  Donna Brazile and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz  had a vested interest in Clinton. While it is crooked, it is pretty much expected. The huge question before us is obvious. We know Russia tried to influence the election. What is their interest?

[TexasTiger 14,275]

16 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

I think this was rule # 2. Drive by postings of editorials unaccompanied by your own thoughts are not permitted. 

Perhaps it depends on the poster? Or topic? Or political slant?

Perhaps I misinterpreted what I highlighted above?

Truly interested in MOD thoughts here.

Yes-- you're right, there should have been more commentary on the original post. I read your post first and thought your argument was more directly concerning the highlighted section and was trying to understand your concern.

[AUFAN78 4,156]

Just now, TexasTiger said:

Yes-- you're right, there should have been more commentary on the original post. I read your post first and thought you argument was more directly concerning the highlighted section and was trying to understand your concern.

Thanks for your response. Just insuring I correctly understand the forum rules.

[AUFAN78 4,156]

On 3/6/2017 at 11:33 AM, homersapien said:

Completely.   DIFFERENT.    Subject.

And no one knows if the Trump/Russia connection has merit.

 

 

No one. 

After 5 months we should know. The appearance is there is nothing there. Americans want something of substance, not continued speculation. 

[homersapien 12,226]

1 hour ago, AUFAN78 said:

After 5 months we should know. The appearance is there is nothing there. Americans want something of substance, not continued speculation. 

We haven't had an investigation yet.

How could we possibly know?

[AUFAN78 4,156]

10 minutes ago, homersapien said:

We haven't had an investigation yet.

How could we possibly know?

When the Director of National Intelligence tells you there is nothing there, there is nothing there.

[homersapien 12,226]

 

4 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

When the Director of National Intelligence tells you there is nothing there, there is nothing there.

Can you quote or link that please?

[AUFAN78 4,156]

8 minutes ago, homersapien said:

 

Can you quote or link that please?

How about a direct quote?

"We did not include anything in our report … that had any reflect of collusion between members of the Trump campaign and the Russians. There was no evidence of that included in our report," he said. "We had no evidence of such collusion."

 

 

[homersapien 12,226]

18 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

After 5 months we should know. The appearance is there is nothing there. Americans want something of substance, not continued speculation. 

Americans want an investigation to discover the facts.

[homersapien 12,226]

12 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

How about a direct quote?

"We did not include anything in our report … that had any reflect of collusion between members of the Trump campaign and the Russians. There was no evidence of that included in our report," he said. "We had no evidence of such collusion."

 

 

"That had any reflect" ??

How about a link?