Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Claire.

Team Trump's Complex Web of Ties With Russia

584 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Claire.

The web of relationships between Team Trump and Russia.

In the most abstract sense, there is nothing noteworthy about a government official meeting with an ambassador from a foreign country. When such an interaction becomes important is when that official is an ally of a presidential campaign that’s got a complex set of possibly inappropriate relationships with other representatives of that ambassador’s country — and when that official while under oath says he did not have communications with representatives of that country.

What we’re going to endeavor to do here is to parse out that complex set of relationships, using the information we have at hand. In this case, as you’ve hopefully ascertained, the country at issue is Russia and the campaign is that of President Trump. The official, of course, is Attorney General Jeff Sessions. And the ambassador is, at this point, the linchpin of a lot of the interactions between Trump and the rest of his team.

Read more: The Washington Post

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77

Nice work by the post. Looks like they've channeled their inner Woodward and Bernstein. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
.ZZ.

Kislyak with Dems at the Trump speech the other night, so what?

03Kislyak-master768.jpg

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
5 minutes ago, .ZZ. said:

Kislyak with Dems at the Trump speech the other night, so what?

03Kislyak-master768.jpg

The dems didnt ask Russia to intervene in a presidential election on national TV

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AnchorSteam
24 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

The dems didnt ask Russia to intervene in a presidential election on national TV

As a joke.... but is a President allowed to have a sense of humor before he even becomes President? Apparently not.

 

Look, I try, but you guys are really getting me steamed with all this Resist for its own sake baloney, and you are way past the "Boy who cried Wolf" now. Instead of having a media and other people who are willing to hold a President accountable for the first time in a decade, you guys have been just throwing crap at the wall for months now, and you expect people to care what sticks?

Honestly, how can anyone tell?

IMHO, this is all happening because the Dems in Congress looked so very bad Tuesday night. They sat on their hands when Trump talked about some things that would be really good for all of us, they booed when he talked about support for the victims of illegal immigrant crime, and made snarky faces when a tearful widow was honored.... and the world saw it on live TV.

... so, I guess it's time for the Empire to Strike Back... yawn.

Edited by AnchorSteam
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lilly
9 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

The dems didnt ask Russia to intervene in a presidential election on national TV

Neither did Trump.

What he said (and it was a joke) is as follows: “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing, I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.”

This was pretty obviously an attempt at humor...obvious to anyone but the Democrats.

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dumbledore the Awesome

Oh give it up for 'goodness' sake. I;d rather have a complex web of  ties with Russia than the imbecilic state of desiring armed conflict like you people who support the "Democratic" party and your deranged warmonger of an ex-candidate wanted.

*Let's all try to remain within the constraints of the language filter'

Edited by Lilly
removed profanity
  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
10 minutes ago, Claire. said:

that’s got a complex set of possibly inappropriate relationships with other representatives of that ambassador’s country

This article is precisely the same as the NYT piece and all the others up until today.  "possibly inappropriate"  really?  They aren't even positing illegality? The writers are constructing a "case" built on assumptions that have no - you guessed it - EVIDENCE.  Now, I realize the refrain will be - "that's why we need an investigation".  But that really isn't the way this works, is it?  At least SOME evidence is required before millions can be spent to dig through all the trash.

Further, we have seen from a Boston Globe report that Obama's people in the intel community were so "concerned" over the things they were seeing that they moved expeditiously to save that "evidence" in several different locations so that it couldn't be lost or destroyed.  Question.  If they were concerned then why not act?  If there was really any evidence, do you honestly think they would have been sitting on some bombshell that would bring down the administration?  I expect a serious response to a serious question.  The leaks that have been coming fast and furious with impeccable timing, are from classified sources.  No doubt about that.  Do you honestly believe that if such sources had a smoking gun they wouldn't have presented it yet?  A reasonable person would wonder about that.  It's exactly like that lewd, ludicrous dossier that was shopped to everyone and his brother, for MONTHS, before CNN and BuzzFeed dumped it on the public like the toxic waste it was.  Do you know why it wasn't used in the campaign?  Or presented until after the election?  It was UNPROVABLE.  My sincerest desire is that those who are so eager to crucify this president will have, at some point, their life treated like his is being treated today.  Unending accusations with zero proof.  

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
2 minutes ago, Lilly said:

Neither did Trump.

What he said (and it was a joke) is as follows: “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing, I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.”

This was pretty obviously an attempt at humor...obvious to anyone but the Democrats.

No it wasnt a joke. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lilly
Just now, Farmer77 said:

No it wasnt a joke. 

Really? Sounds like one to me.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
2 minutes ago, Lilly said:

Really? Sounds like one to me.

Sorry for the one line response. 

I think it depends on your perspective, I mean It was definitely said as a funny line but I dont know that it was a joke. 

Edited by Farmer77
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dumbledore the Awesome
2 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

No it wasnt a joke. 

I really do think sometimes your paranoia about Trump overrides your critical faculties. Obviously he was being sarcastic, in fact I think a heck of a lot of things the "Democratic" party get all up in arms about about him are so obviously sarcastic or satirical if they didn't let their antipathy get in the way of being able to realize that. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AnchorSteam
2 hours ago, Manfred von Dreidecker said:

Oh give it up for 'goodness' sake. I;d rather have a complex web of ties with Russia than the imbecilic state of desiring armed conflict like you people who support the "Democratic" party and your deranged warmonger of an ex-candidate wanted.

:o

Well dang, tell us what you really think next time, okay?

Edited by Lilly
edited quote
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sweetpumper
9 minutes ago, Lilly said:

This was pretty obviously an attempt at humor...obvious to anyone but the Democrats.

They don't know what humor is.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
5 minutes ago, and then said:

This article is precisely the same as the NYT piece and all the others up until today.  "possibly inappropriate"  really?  They aren't even positing illegality? The writers are constructing a "case" built on assumptions that have no - you guessed it - EVIDENCE.  Now, I realize the refrain will be - "that's why we need an investigation".  But that really isn't the way this works, is it?  At least SOME evidence is required before millions can be spent to dig through all the trash.

A presidential candidate asked Russia to intervene in the election and they did.  Even if it was a joke its akin to joking about a bomb while in line at TSA - inappropriate and there needs to be an investigation to ensure it was a joke and there is no danger.  

 

6 minutes ago, and then said:

Further, we have seen from a Boston Globe report that Obama's people in the intel community were so "concerned" over the things they were seeing that they moved expeditiously to save that "evidence" in several different locations so that it couldn't be lost or destroyed.  Question.  If they were concerned then why not act?

Would you have believed it then? Would anyone have? Speaking personally I wouldnt have , it would have looked like meddling in the election. Now I imagine that had they realized Trump was going to win they probably would have played their hand differently. 

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
8 minutes ago, Manfred von Dreidecker said:

I really do think sometimes your paranoia about Trump overrides your critical faculties. Obviously he was being sarcastic, in fact I think a heck of a lot of things the "Democratic" party get all up in arms about about him are so obviously sarcastic or satirical if they didn't let their antipathy get in the way of being able to realize that. 

WHAT???? You're WAY off base. ......My paranoia about everyone overrides my critical faculties :D 

I completed the thought in a later post to Lilly. I do think it was said as a funny line, but im not sure it was a joke. Regardless as I said above a presidential candidate 'joking' about  a foreign nation intervening in an election - and then it happening - is much like joking about a bomb while in line at TSA. We gotta at least ensure it was a harmless joke and not an inside joke between offending parties. 

Edited by Farmer77
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Claire.
36 minutes ago, .ZZ. said:

Kislyak with Dems at the Trump speech the other night, so what?

They didn't meet with him, then lie about it. That's what.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
3 minutes ago, Manfred von Dreidecker said:

I really do think sometimes your paranoia about Trump overrides your critical faculties. Obviously he was being sarcastic, in fact I think a heck of a lot of things the "Democratic" party get all up in arms about about him are so obviously sarcastic or satirical if they didn't let their antipathy get in the way of being able to realize that. 

 

I've watched this Party change dramatically over the last 2 decades.  Frankly the same can be said of Republicans but with the Dems, they've gone so far off the rails that even some of their stalwarts are beginning to realize "that odor" is coming from their own leadership.  The hair on fire response to everything, LITERALLY EVERYTHING the man does, is making them stand out as desperate.  The scary thing is that they've got nothing else, so they won't stop until they completely collapse.  Country be damned.  Their actions meet the description of Sedition and they are headed in the direction of treason.  We hear yesterday that Valerie "the enforcer" Jarrett is actually moving into the private home of the Obamas to help him run the "resistance".  They've lost all sense of propriety or even sanity at this point.  Someone needs to remind them that what goes around comes around and they will never take total control of this nation by force of will.  They are completely bankrupt in the marketplace of ideas.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dumbledore the Awesome
5 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

Regardless as I said above a presidential candidate 'joking' about  a foreign nation intervening in an election - and then it happening - is much like joking about a bomb while in line at TSA.

"and then it happening"? Don't tell me you trust the Highly Confident Intelligence Services?!

Edited by Manfred von Dreidecker
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
3 minutes ago, Manfred von Dreidecker said:

"and then it happening"? Don't tell me you trust the Highly Confident Intelligence Services?!

Well I trusted Comey when he was investigating Hillary, itd be a little disingenuous of me not to trust him now wouldnt it? 

Edited by Farmer77
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ellapenella
6 minutes ago, Claire. said:

They didn't meet with him, then lie about it. That's what.

what exactly did they lie about?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dumbledore the Awesome
4 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

Well I trusted Comey when he was investigating Hillary, itd be a little disingenuous of me not to trust him now wouldnt it? 

"That she had done nothing worth prosecuting over", you mean? No, that clearly wasn't a whitewash at all

Edited by Manfred von Dreidecker
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AnchorSteam
1 minute ago, Farmer77 said:

Well I trusted Comey when he was investigating Hillary, itd be a little disingenuous of me not to trust him now wouldnt it? 

To my way of thinking, it would be utter stupidity to trust anyone that has flip-flopped as much as that weird little twerp has in the last 9 months.

Just sayin'... 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
Just now, Manfred von Dreidecker said:

"That she had done nothing worth prosecuting over", you mean?

Everyone has a boss unfortunately, I figured his releasing that they found more emails on Weeners laptop a week before the election was his way of handling Clinton and the AG's "backdoor" tarmac meeting. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
3 minutes ago, Ellapennella said:

what exactly did they lie about?

I know its been a while and the news is coming fast and furious but Jeff Sessions (the new attorney general) lied to congress about having met with Russian officials 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.