The Putin - Trump Controversy: Here to Stay - Links between Trump and Russia are being officially investigated by the FBI

[WhiskeySykes]

https://apnews.com/122ae0b5848345faa88108a03de40c5a/Manafort's-plan-to-'greatly-benefit-the-Putin-Government

"Manafort proposed in a confidential strategy plan as early as June 2005 that he would influence politics, business dealings and news coverage inside the United States, Europe and the former Soviet republics to benefit the Putin government, even as U.S.-Russia relations under Republican President George W. Bush grew worse. Manafort pitched the plans to Russian aluminum magnate Oleg Deripaska, a close Putin ally with whom Manafort eventually signed a $10 million annual contract beginning in 2006, according to interviews with several people familiar with payments to Manafort and business records obtained by the AP."

I was hoping only the little guys like Saudi Arabia, Israel, Big Oil, Big Banks, and Wall Street would have ties to Trump. Mother Russia? Now that's news.

[ggsimmonds]

So can you post the evidence?



After you post the evidence, please explain why in this video the head of the FBI agrees that there is currently no evidence of collusion between Russia and Trump

I wonder if your inability to understand what Comey said is due to bias or do you always struggle at comprehending statements?
Comey only answered about the characterization of the report that was released when Obama was in office. That report only concluded that Russia sought to influence the election.

[tgoodenow]

I wonder if your inability to understand what Comey said is due to bias or do you always struggle at comprehending statements?
Comey only answered about the characterization of the report that was released when Obama was in office. That report only concluded that Russia sought to influence the election.

So you have evidence?

[ggsimmonds]

So you have evidence?

I don't know what would be worse, that you think a random poster on a videogame message board would be in possession of evidence from a highly classified investigation undertaken by the very top of the intelligence community and would be willing to share such information, or that you are being disingenuous for political reasons.

Regardless to that question, your assertion that the FBI agrees that there is no evidence is factually wrong. He only agreed that the earlier report addressed Russian interference, not possible collusion.

[tgoodenow]

I don't know what would be worse, that you think a random poster on a videogame message board would be in possession of evidence from a highly classified investigation undertaken by the very top of the intelligence community and would be willing to share such information, or that you are being disingenuous for political reasons.

Regardless to that question, your assertion that the FBI agrees that there is no evidence is factually wrong. He only agreed that the earlier report addressed Russian interference, not possible collusion.

Man that is a long winded response to say there is no evidence.

[Cyclops]

Man that is a long winded response to say there is no evidence.

You'll just have to choose between the plausibility of the dodgy real estate turned orange reality TV guy and the top cop.

[ggsimmonds]

Man that is a long winded response to say there is no evidence.

Yep, it is obvious the FBI is carrying out the investigation out of boredom

[ABH2]

It's incredibly entertaining to me that the only evidence of any criminal activity here on the part of any Americans is from Obama era holdovers in government who have unmasked Americans in intelligence reports, continued to leak classified material to the media at record rates, and who, in the NYT's own coverage, basically had a conspiracy to do this to sabotage the incoming administration. The media is in fact reporting on actual crimes here, but their being committed by the parties feeding them information.

Man that is a long winded response to say there is no evidence.

In their rush to breathlessly report the latest gossip on Trump yesterday, CNN themselves had to admit there was no actual evidence. After they got all their weasel words out of the way, it was right there at the end that there was nothing but circumstantial evidence at best for anything. And this despite the fact that they never even hint at who their sources are or what that circumstantial evidence was. The last time they tried to report like this, it was on the discredited dossier/piss-gate.

I was hoping only the little guys like Saudi Arabia, Israel, Big Oil, Big Banks, and Wall Street would have ties to Trump. Mother Russia? Now that's news.

The same media outlets that are acting like this is some big development (and to be frank, the AP report misrepresented or at the least didn't actually provide any proof of its claims - none of the quotes in the article from sources or the documents described said what their headlines and narrative claimed) told us that Hillary taking tens of millions over half a decade from a pro-Kremlin Ukrainian firm that was looking to buy up vast reserves of Uranium was a non-story.

Maybe Putin is behind all of this, and it's because he didn't feel he got his money's worth from Hillary.

[ggsimmonds]

It's incredibly entertaining to me that the only evidence of any criminal activity here on the part of any Americans is from Obama era holdovers in government who have unmasked Americans in intelligence reports, continued to leak classified material to the media at record rates, and who, in the NYT's own coverage, basically had a conspiracy to do this to sabotage the incoming administration. The media is in fact reporting on actual crimes here, but their being committed by the parties feeding them information.



In their rush to breathlessly report the latest gossip on Trump yesterday, CNN themselves had to admit there was no actual evidence. After they got all their weasel words out of the way, it was right there at the end that there was nothing but circumstantial evidence at best for anything. And this despite the fact that they never even hint at who their sources are or what that circumstantial evidence was. The last time they tried to report like this, it was on the discredited dossier/piss-gate.



The same media outlets that are acting like this is some big development (and to be frank, the AP report misrepresented or at the least didn't actually provide any proof of its claims - none of the quotes in the article from sources or the documents described said what their headlines and narrative claimed) told us that Hillary taking tens of millions over half a decade from a pro-Kremlin Ukrainian firm that was looking to buy up vast reserves of Uranium was a non-story.

Maybe Putin is behind all of this, and it's because he didn't feel he got his money's worth from Hillary.

Is there no evidence or only circumstantial evidence? Amazing that you contradicted yourself in your very next sentence. Oh and here is some information for you guys -- circumstantial evidence is not interchangeable with weak evidence. You are at the park and see a man walk into the bathroom. You then see me follow into the bathroom carrying a knife. A few seconds later you hear a scream and then I come running out still carrying a now bloody knife. There is your circumstantial evidence. Something else, evidence =/= proof.

[ABH2]

Given that no nouns of any kind were attached to CNN's reporting, it's "no evidence." Absolutely none has been revealed publicly. I didn't contradict myself - I referenced CNN's own description of what they were reporting.

[Heathen Hammer]

[/INDENT]I was hoping only the little guys like Saudi Arabia, Israel, Big Oil, Big Banks, and Wall Street would have ties to Trump. Mother Russia? Now that's news.

Yeah, surprising no investigations for Obama and his cronies and their ties to these wonderful countries and institutions.

[ABH2]

People should actually be adding Russia to that list. Hillary was a big advocate of a "reset" with Russia. Earlier, I drastically underestimated how much was donated to her foundation by friends of the Kremlin from 2006 through her time as Secretary of State. It was actually $145 million. The same people who claim to demand hard evidence when Democrats do something are perfectly fine accepting the word of anonymous sources employing innuendo and who avoid leaking any hard details to support their claims.

This isn't even a double standard. There's far more smoke coming from things like the Uranium One deal than there are the Trump campaign. The internal logic of the left on this doesn't even come close to holding up. You have Comey sitting there and telling Congress that the Russians were unusually careless in covering their tracks in conducting this operation, which implies they almost wanted us to know about it. This while the media (and Comey previously) went on record to say they believe the Russians were aiming to get Trump elected. And then they want us to believe that the Russians coordinated with the Trump campaign even though no coordination was actually necessary or beneficial and almost certainly would have backfired on the Trump campaign if they took place. If someone puts a bit of thought into this, they may start to see that those actions don't really add up.

The intelligence agencies have still not provided a shred of evidence publicly to show that the Russians did anything.

No one has provided any evidence that the Trump campaign coordinated with anyone.

No one can provide a sensible answer as to what either the Trump camp or the Russians, supposedly in the tank for Trump, stood to gain by coordinating anything with Trump. Did the Russians really desperately need to be told the best time to leak documents through Wikileaks? No. They most certainly did not. So the argument is that someone somewhere has some smoking gun evidence to show a quid pro quo relationship that was neither necessary or smart to achieve the stated purposes of either party if they were operating under the assumed motivations being outlined by the Democrats and their whores in the media.

I could, for a moment, assume that the Russians hacked the DNC and Podesta's emails. That they are the Wikileaks source. But the only way it makes sense for them to coordinate anything related to that with the Trump campaign would be if they were trying to compromise it and delegitimize the election no matter the result. Or the Russian boogieman we are supposed to fear is grossly incompetent.

But nothing in this thread right now is about reality or genuine concern about Russian interference in American democratic processes. It's petty partisan bitchiness with a very thin coat of cheap spray paint on top so it can masquerade as such. If the Russians are the guilty party here, as claimed, it's the Democrats and the media who are the playing the most important part in achieving Russian objectives outlined by Comey most recently. They are the ones desperately trying to delegetimize their humiliating election defeat in this tantrum.

If Putin did plan all of this, he's really shown that without a shadow of a doubt that he can think circles around the ruling class of the West. In their rush to discredit Trump in the hope of scoring cheap and short term political points, they are discrediting themselves. Though I remain terribly unconvinced that the Russians really did much of anything and will remain so until I see the case against Russia outlined publicly. From that point, I'll be open to discussing any possibly coordination with the Trump campaign, though still have the same standard of proof. Right now, the entire discussion is one pathetic attempt to argue from one faulty premise after another.

[onmy6]

What controversy, it's only such if you continue to watch and read and believe the fake news ie CNN, WP, ABC, MSNBC etc etc, they're all rubbish now, no journalistic integrity left whatsoever, quite frankly the fake news has became all rather a yawn and quite boorish

[irontaino]

What controversy, it's only such if you continue to watch and read and believe the fake news ie CNN, WP, ABC, MSNBC etc etc, they're all rubbish now, no journalistic integrity left whatsoever, quite frankly the fake news has became all rather a yawn and quite boorish

This reads exactly like a Trump tweet

[Telamon]

I'm pretty confident that Comey will redeem himself and expose the uncomfortable truth surrounding Comrade Trump, even with Nunes trying to cover for him.

[Basil II the B.S]

So, Wall Street Journal joins the club of fake news mainstream media with the latest .

Their story:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/mike-fl...ity-1490912959
Mike Flynn Offers to Testify in Exchange for Immunity

The actual statement from Flynn lawyers:

https://twitter.com/ChuckRossDC/stat...90500056137728

None of what the WSJ claims whatsoever. Pathetic.

[irontaino]

Nowhere does it deny WSJ's claims. It's also pretty hilarious that the statement complains about a "highly politicized witch hunt environment"...he didn't seem particularly concerned about that when shouting "lock her up". It's also pretty funny when he said in an interview "if you've been given immunity, you probably committed a crime". GG, Flynn, GG. But ya know, "muh establishment" or "muh MSM" or some other third thing.

[Basil II the B.S]

Except that it doesn't ask for immunity in any way. It says he's not interested in participating in a witch hunt.

The story is complety spun to the absurd to justify this Russophobe narrative.

[PointOfViewGun]

So, Wall Street Journal joins the club of fake news mainstream media with the latest .

Their story:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/mike-fl...ity-1490912959
Mike Flynn Offers to Testify in Exchange for Immunity



The actual statement from Flynn lawyers:

https://twitter.com/ChuckRossDC/stat...90500056137728

None of what the WSJ claims whatsoever. Pathetic.

Can you quote from the WSJ article the part where they base their claim on?

[Basil II the B.S]

The headline? It's just false. And they likely took it from Fake News CNN anyway since they have been reporting it as well.
Fully expect you to try to spin it around anyway.