For a story that many on the Right says is just fake news, it sure does have a lot of scope.
“Caputo… did not “have any contact” with Russian operatives or discussions about Russia with other campaign staffers while employed by Trump’s campaign, according to a written response reviewed by the Times.”
He’s sure, because he knew every one of the active Russian operatives at the time. If Russia ever learns to have operatives masquerading as, say Trade Reps or UN people, it will become more difficult to monitor suspicious contacts.
Hopefully that day is far in the future.
Yet another Russian connection. What is the number up to now? A baker’s dozen? No big deal. Routine for campaigns, right?
When it comes to Trump, his Russian money men, Caputo or the rat (censored) brigade, nothing is pure or unadulterated.
Because I have zero faith in the Republicans in Congress to do anything other than protect themselves, I am going to view committee actions regarding new or bit players cautiously and frankly somewhat suspiciously. There have probably been plenty of people in Trump’s orbit (before, during and after the campaign) that have some “connections” to Russia. I don’t believe all (or even most) of them had any direct roles in or knowledge about Russia’s interference in our election and/or collusion with Trump’s campaign. I would expect Republican-led committee “investigations” to invite plenty of these people in to help them perpetuate narratives around the Democrats being on a giant witch hunt for all things having to do with Russia. That narrative will likely be necessary for the congressional Republicans when their damage control (i.e. cover-up) activities eventually come to light.
With notably rare exceptions. The surveillance state creeps me right out, but I shouldn’t be surprised if the intelligence community knows exactly what contacts he had, and is ready to highlight the discrepancies between their list and his.
Is there anyone associated with Trump’s campaign that is not connected to Russia in some way?
…Worked for GazProm…which begs the question …why was he part of the Trump campaign?
he did not “have any contact” with Russian operatives or discussions about Russia with other campaign staffers while employed by Trump’s campaign,
Even assuming he’s not lying (and there’s no reason to assume that), he’s put that as delicately as McMaster did. “While employed”? “With other staffers?”
Join the line, Mikey, join the line. It forms to the right.
Pulling on the money thread. Who knows who’s next?
This is very large scandal that predates the Trounce campaign and eventual election but, these Russian connections and interludes precipitated the collusion, so are a vital part of it all.
Laying groundwork is essential in any operation be it legal or otherwise.
I think that the original long game was making money by hiding money and some atypical espionage on a compliant and desperate dupe named Trumpp.
As it turned out, the landscape for more ripened in America as we just about have completely divided and the dumber half, whoodaeverthunk, were dupes for the taking.
Propagandists extraordinaire with unlimited funds combined with half of American politicians working the suppression angles and half of the electorate willing to stab themselves in the back in order to register a win, brought us to this point.
The reality of it all is almost too much to handle but its real. The Republican Party is of no help and are drunk on power and stupefied after the fact of their willing enabling of the whole mess.
They’d have to take a mighty bold stand at this point and risk their ascendance in order to commit patriotism. That elephant won’t hunt.
Its US vs Them all over again and we had best make the most of the momentum and purge this bile from the American belly whilst we still even have one at all.
Is there anyone in NYC that’s in real estate that doesn’t have some connection to Russian (mob) money?
“purge this bile…” Nice metaphor.
he’s a flack.
Trump said that he wasn’t…but of course that was last week.
Chapman was a successful entrepreneur.
Oh, I trust her.. The less cover-up, the better.
To beg the question is to construct an argument that assumes the conclusion as a premise in the argument. It is a logical fallacy. An example of begging the question might be:
Trump: Flynn’s a good guy, you can let go of the Russia investigation.
Comey: How do I know Flynn’s a good guy? Can someone vouch for him in this?
Trump: Sure. I just did. He’s a good guy.
Rather than begging the question, this cries out for the question:
Mr Trump, this man worked for Gazprom. Why was he part of your campaign? (Which cries out for the question, Just what in the hell were you thinking?)