Trump and Russia

[JimL]

Russia and Turkey discuss coordination in Syria after US withdrawal. What!?

No doubt their buddy Trump discussed it with them long before his announcement to pull out and leave our allies the Kurds to be slaughtered.

[One Bad Pig]

Oh he's a media savant - no question about it. I have said as much several times.

As for "no evidence," it requires a great deal of squinting and selective ignorance to actual say "there is no evidence of collusion with Russia." The legality of it may be in question - and its extent may be in question - but its existence is not.

Perhaps you could provide it, then.

[carpedm9587]

Perhaps you could provide it, then.

It has been provided numerous times, OBP. The meeting in Trump tower. The back-channel to Moscow Kushner attempted to setup. The continuation (and lying about) negotiations for Trump buildings in Moscow into the summer of 2016. Trump's leveraging of the hacked information (by Russian hackers) to further his campaign. Trump calling on Russia, in public, to hack the DNC to find the missing emails. The amazing, unbelievable fawning of this president towards Putin (and other strong-man leaders around the world). The meeting Don Jr. took in May 2016 with the deputy governor of Russia's central bank explicitly to create a back-channel communication with the Russian government. Links between Russia and Manafort (mostly taking the form of emailed communications and texts) after he stepped into the Trump campaign. The list goes on and on. Most on the right merely hand-wave away incident after incident. I don't. I also don't say that they prove collusion or that collusion is actually illegal. Frankly, I think it is more a political issue than a legal one. But the claim that there is "no evidence" is simply false on its face.

Perhaps what people are trying to say is that there is no proof? With that I would agree. We have evidence - but no definitive proof; for that we need to wait for the results of the Meuller investigation, and perhaps the investigations to be done by the new House of Representatives.

[Sparko]

Oh he's a media savant - no question about it. I have said as much several times.

which is why the media trashes him daily?

[JimL]

which is why the media trashes him daily?

No, that's not why.

[Sparko]

No, that's not why.

That was sarcasm, JimL. Glad it wasn't wasted on you.

[Mountain Man]

It has been provided numerous times, OBP. The meeting in Trump tower. The back-channel to Moscow Kushner attempted to setup. The continuation (and lying about) negotiations for Trump buildings in Moscow into the summer of 2016. Trump's leveraging of the hacked information (by Russian hackers) to further his campaign. Trump calling on Russia, in public, to hack the DNC to find the missing emails. The amazing, unbelievable fawning of this president towards Putin (and other strong-man leaders around the world). The meeting Don Jr. took in May 2016 with the deputy governor of Russia's central bank explicitly to create a back-channel communication with the Russian government. Links between Russia and Manafort (mostly taking the form of emailed communications and texts) after he stepped into the Trump campaign. The list goes on and on. Most on the right merely hand-wave away incident after incident.

It is perfectly normal for a presidential campaign to establish communications with foreign nations. It's all part of the peaceful transfer of power. Surely you're not under the impression that the process starts only after a candidate has won? Yes, the Trump campaign had contacts with Russia. What you're not saying is that it also had contacts with a number of other countries. Same with the Hillary campaign. You're just pulling the usual liberal sleight of hand where you list a bunch innocuous "connections" that are innocent individually but you imply are somehow questionable or sinister when taken as a whole.

[One Bad Pig]

It has been provided numerous times, OBP. The meeting in Trump tower. The back-channel to Moscow Kushner attempted to setup. The continuation (and lying about) negotiations for Trump buildings in Moscow into the summer of 2016. Trump's leveraging of the hacked information (by Russian hackers) to further his campaign. Trump calling on Russia, in public, to hack the DNC to find the missing emails. The amazing, unbelievable fawning of this president towards Putin (and other strong-man leaders around the world). The meeting Don Jr. took in May 2016 with the deputy governor of Russia's central bank explicitly to create a back-channel communication with the Russian government. Links between Russia and Manafort (mostly taking the form of emailed communications and texts) after he stepped into the Trump campaign. The list goes on and on. Most on the right merely hand-wave away incident after incident. I don't. I also don't say that they prove collusion or that collusion is actually illegal. Frankly, I think it is more a political issue than a legal one. But the claim that there is "no evidence" is simply false on its face.

Perhaps what people are trying to say is that there is no proof? With that I would agree. We have evidence - but no definitive proof; for that we need to wait for the results of the Meuller investigation, and perhaps the investigations to be done by the new House of Representatives.

Source: Merriam-Webster

Proof definition is - the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact.

© Copyright Original Source

As for the "evidence" provided, it requires a great deal of squinting and selective interpretation to actually say "there is evidence of collusion with Russia."

I agree there is enough for political fodder, but that's not exactly a high bar.

[carpedm9587]

Source: Merriam-Webster

Proof definition is - the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact.

© Copyright Original Source

I'm not sure what your point in posting this definition is. It pretty much aligns with my statement. There is evidence of collusion. There is not sufficient evidence (at this point) to establish proof. So the statement "there is no proof of collusion" is a correct one. The statement "there is no evidence of collusion" is not.

As for the "evidence" provided, it requires a great deal of squinting and selective interpretation to actually say "there is evidence of collusion with Russia."

I agree there is enough for political fodder, but that's not exactly a high bar.

It doesn't take nay squinting at all, OBP. One merely needs to look at what has already been published, look at the pattern of lies denying it before adequate evidence surfaced to show these things actually DID happen, and the shift in stories that occurred once the details were made public. There is definitely a political problem for Trump here. Whether or not there is a legal problem as well is for the courts to determine. Hopefully, if the investigations provide an adequate basis, this matter will be turned over to the courts at some point.

[carpedm9587]

It is perfectly normal for a presidential campaign to establish communications with foreign nations. It's all part of the peaceful transfer of power. Surely you're not under the impression that the process starts only after a candidate has won?

No - I am not. But I am also not under the impression that these contacts are attempted to be done in secret from our own existing government. Therein lies the problem, and the reason for concern. Both Jared and Don Jr. attempted to create covert, back-channel, communications with the Russian government without the knowledge of our existing government, as best I can tell.

Yes, the Trump campaign had contacts with Russia. What you're not saying is that it also had contacts with a number of other countries. Same with the Hillary campaign. You're just pulling the usual liberal sleight of hand where you list a bunch innocuous "connections" that are innocent individually but you imply are somehow questionable or sinister when taken as a whole.

See my previous comment. I have no knowledge of international connections by other candidates that were kept covert from our own government, or any attempts to establish such. If you do, I'd be happy to look at them. Please provide a less tedious source than Brietbart, because I doubt I will spend a lot of time trying to wade through their spin to get to the truth.

[Mountain Man]

No - I am not. But I am also not under the impression that these contacts are attempted to be done in secret from our own existing government. Therein lies the problem, and the reason for concern. Both Jared and Don Jr. attempted to create covert, back-channel, communications with the Russian government without the knowledge of our existing government, as best I can tell.

Pure speculation with no solid evidence.

As best I can tell.

[carpedm9587]

Pure speculation with no solid evidence.

As best I can tell.

Perhaps you don't follow all of the news?

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/...t-we-know.html
https://www.businessinsider.com/muel...-russia-2018-3
https://nypost.com/2018/03/07/muelle...l-with-russia/
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2...trump-campaign

[Mountain Man]

Perhaps you don't follow all of the news?

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/...t-we-know.html
https://www.businessinsider.com/muel...-russia-2018-3
https://nypost.com/2018/03/07/muelle...l-with-russia/
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2...trump-campaign

Like I said, pure speculation with no solid evidence. Look at the language used throughout those articles: "sources say"; "an unnamed witness"; "we've been told"; "reportedly"; "it seems"; and so on.

[carpedm9587]

Like I said, pure speculation with no solid evidence. Look at the language used throughout those articles: "sources say"; "an unnamed witness"; "we've been told"; "reportedly"; "it seems"; and so on.

You apparently don't understand how reporting is done. MM. Unlike so many on the right, I have not lost faith in our 4th Estate. I understand their processes and the reasons for them. If everyone was forced to provide information as a named source, we would have very little insight into the workings of our government. I realize that creates an avenue for people like you to attempt to cast the entire thing into doubt - but that is not going to work with me. Until I have reason to distrust - I trust.

[Cow Poke]

You apparently don't understand how reporting is done. MM. Unlike so many on the right, I have not lost faith in our 4th Estate. I understand their processes and the reasons for them. If everyone was forced to provide information as a named source, we would have very little insight into the workings of our government. I realize that creates an avenue for people like you to attempt to cast the entire thing into doubt - but that is not going to work with me. Until I have reason to distrust - I trust.

I would be happy if they provided fair representation of both sides of the issue.