Yes, people on here are completely and unshakeably convinced of some nefarious Russian connection. Very Cold War old school, and no doubt the military industrial complex will be the ultimate benefactor of any ratcheting up of tensions.
You’ve lost me though when you talk about a preponderance of evidence. What do you think is the single best piece of evidence that Trump is in nefarious secret cahoots with Russia?
That Trump is scared to death of confronting this situation straight on, that he does not call for a special bipartisan investigation to clear his name, and that all he does is try to kill the messenger by vehemently disparaging the leakers, the “enemy of the people” media, the FBI and the IC for their pursuit of the truth.
Trump could clear this all up in a minute by making available to a special commission himself and all tangentially involved, but he cannot since it would be his ruination, being guilty of Treason as he well knows.
No, there really isn’t. It’s only in the minds of partisans like yourself, trying desperately to muddy the water, that things are confused. What Priebus did was improper, period. There is no version of the facts in this case that make this contact appropriate.
Not really, which is why you never actually cite anyone when you make such silly claims. What the “people on here” are convinced of is that we have sufficient data to warrant a full, unbiased, and non-partisan investigation. There is no smoking gun that we know of, at least not yet, but there are a couple of dozen bits of data that make an intriguing puzzle.
With respect, nothing you cited there was evidence. If politicians opened an inquiry into themselves every time there was some hare-brained conspiracy theory (cf Benghazi, birtherism, the illuminati etc), it would (1) tie up all their time, (2) never satisfy the conspiracy theorists anyway, and (3) solely provide ammo to political opponents. There is zero upside. Absent any evidence, what you propose would be a stupid thing for Trump to do.
If this is a hare-brained conspiracy and it could be easily proven as such, what better opportunity would Trump have to once and for all completely vanquish his enemies in the greatest political victory of all time by just opening Himself to direct inquiry by a special commission which He initiated. What greater act of patriotism could Trump display than offering Himself up to remove the dark cloud that hangs over the Republic.
He would choose this course in a heartbeat if in his heart he truly knew he would be exonerated of all and every charge levied against Him with regard to nefarious dealings with Russia. It would be Hail the Conquering Hero and smooth sailing for four fabulous Trumpian years.
He could not resist the prospect of unwavering adulation after putting the good of the country above Himself and coming out squeaky clean after a thorough investigation.
So why does he not take this most honorable and righteous path into patriotic immortality?
The question answers itself.
And to your assertion that nothing I cited was evidence, that is correct. What it was, though, is Checkmate.
We have multiple contacts with Russia from multiple people in Trump’s campaign and administration, including highly questionable contacts that have resulted in two resignations.
We have, at least in one case, a contact that arguably broke the law, followed by lying to the FBI about said contact.
We have the unanimous verdict of all of America’s various federal intelligence and law enforcement agencies that Russian agents, directed by Russia’s leaders, interfered in the U.S. election with the goal of electing Donald Trump.
We have the Trump campaign’s change to the Republican Party platform with regard to Russia and Ukraine, the only change in that platform that they were actively involved in.
We have Trump’s language with respect to Putin, Ukraine, and Russia.
We have Trump’s views on Russian sanctions.
We have the Trump camp’s conflicting stories about Russian cash in Trump business activities.
We have the reports of millions in secret cash payments to then Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort from a pro-Russian party in Ukraine.
We have Russian attempts to blackmail Paul Manafort.
We have a dossier of information about Trump’s involvement with Russia, gathered by a source that U.S. intelligence agencies take seriously. The dossier includes both established facts and rumor, some of which has been corroborated, some of which appears to be false, and the rest of which remains to be investigated. The latest, as reported by the New Yorker, is that, “But, in the weeks that followed, they confirmed some of its less explosive claims, relating to conversations with foreign nationals. ‘They are continuing to chase down stuff from the dossier, and, at its core, a lot of it is bearing out,’ an intelligence official said.”
We have reports of a Trump campaign server’s connection to a Russian server.
We have the conflicting stories from Trump about his business connections in Russia and about his connection with Putin.
We have admissions from Russia’s foreign service about repeated and continuing communications with the Trump campaign.
We have Tillerson’s connections to Russia and Putin.
We have Trump’s attacks on the U.S. intelligence community.
We have multiple intelligence officials who have insisted that “members of the Trump campaign and other Trump associated had repeated contacts with senior intelligence officials in the year before the election.”
We have the Trump team’s initial refusal to do anything about Flynn even after they knew he had acted inappropriately and lied about it. Instead, they attempted to stonewall and lie.
Edited to add the stories that Josh has been commenting on about Felix Sater, Michael Cohen, and Paul Manafort, where the various parties cannot seem to get their story straight.
Edited to add the story that commenter randyabraham pointed out below: “Also, Russia paid Michael Flynn $40,000 to attend the 10th anniversary banquet for the English-language propaganda channel Russia Today, which seems like a lot of money for a disgraced and fired ex-military figure.”
We have zero credible explanations from the Trump camp on these various activities. Instead, their only responses thus far have been to attack the intelligence community and vow to go after “leakers.”
If politicians opened an inquiry into themselves every time there was some hare-brained conspiracy theory (cf Benghazi, birtherism, the illuminati etc)
See above. The various pieces of this puzzle taken individually do not make a smoking gun, perhaps, but, when viewed collectively, they present a picture that absolutely warrants further investigation. You have no answer for this, which is why you’re lying about what the people here believe and why you’re trying desperately to chalk all of this up to some “conspiracy theory.”
There is zero upside.
Well, aside from our national security…
True, but that’s because you refused to do our dear little friend’s homework for him. See above for a more concrete set of facts which I obtained in a 3-minute web search. There is no way that any credible observer can look at that list and decide that there’s nothing there that warrants further investigation.
What it was, though, is Checkmate.
Of course it is but don’t ever expect him to acknowledge that. He’s been playing these silly games for weeks. The actual position of the vast majority of the commenters here is that we have sufficient data to warrant a full investigation, a perfectly reasonable position that warrants nothing more than, “Duh.” Since that doesn’t fit into the narrative our dear little friend is trying to establish, he has to resort to such silly statements as:
“hare-brained conspiracy theory”
“people on here are completely and unshakeably convinced of some nefarious Russian connection.”
“everything in this (and most Trump stories) is from anonymous officials of one sort or another. It’s not like TPM journalists have witnessed anything”
"there are very few credible facts to go on, and where there are facts they are completely lacking in context. But that doesn’t stop people thinking they know what’s happening, based on a combination of incendiary media reports and their imagination run amok
“more concerned about the NYT, and whoever their ‘source’ was, peddling misinformation to try and destabilise the US government.”
“Has it occurred to anyone that it might not be US intelligence agents leaking these carefully selected stories to the press?”
And the best one yet: "But honestly, could everyone stop being dickheads to me? I’m much more interested in discussing issues seriously with people who disagree with me than trading insults. I’m not here to troll you, although it is an occasional fringe benefit.
Very impressive list, which could certainly be seen as circumstantial evidence.
Also, Russia paid Michael Flynn $40,000 to attend the 10th anniversary banquet for the English-language propaganda channel Russia Today, which seems like a lot of money for a disgraced and fired ex-military figure.
Flynn, who sat at Putin’s table, went on to join Trump’s campaign several months later.
Excellent work and just plain crushing to our friend.
Double checkmate!
It is impressive, if you value quantity over quality. What do you think is the most compelling item in the list? I read ‘evidence’ like “We have Trump’s language with respect to Putin, Ukraine, and Russia.” and think @kumquat16 has a screw loose. You obviously seem to have seen something interesting amongst that confused combination of random facts involving people with the audacity to have any dealings in Russia and unsubstantiated assertions - pick one or two and let’s talk about it.
Keep whistling past the graveyard.
Hmmm. About as compelling as one of those YouTube videos on 9/11 being an inside job. As to your description of how Trump could exonerate himself, wouldn’t it be great if that was loosely based in reality? A beautifully simplistic and idealistic view of the world, but I think we know post-Benghazi, Hilary’s email ‘scandal’, Ken Starr etc how it would actually go in practice.
Yeah, I didn’t see anything compelling either.
So much for your assertions about how little data there was. And it’s less about “quantity,” of course, and more about providing sufficient data to demonstrate the need for the deeper investigation, a bar that has clearly been met.
What do you think is the most compelling item in the list?
None of them, actually. It’s about the aggregate, about how these things keep turning up in the Trump world, over and over and over again. At some point, one has to wonder why and to think that perhaps there is sufficient smoke to warrant looking for a fire. This is the way investigations start, cupcake; not from a wholly-formed picture but from pieces of a puzzle that are out of place.
I read ‘evidence’ like “We have Trump’s language with respect to Putin, Ukraine, and Russia.” and think @kumquat16 has a screw loose.
Of course you do. Heaven forbid that you actually think about the data provided or address the real issues raised or try to defend the silly assertions you’ve made. The fact that you have to go on the attack because you cannot handle the data demonstrates what we already know about you.
You obviously seem to have seen something interesting amongst that confused combination of random facts involving people with the audacity to have any dealings in Russia and unsubstantiated assertions - pick one or two and let’s talk about it.
[/quote]
ROFL… Sorry, cupcake, but I don’t play silly games like that. This is just another rather pathetic attempt to deny reality. It’s never been about any single item of data, no matter how much you want it to be. That would be akin to having a discussion about the Watergate affair and concentrating only on the first break-in, and deciding that there just wasn’t anything there to warrant such a fuss. Not the way it works, kiddo.
ROFL… Except, of course, that the data provided are from reputable news organizations that have vetted and corroborated the information. But, hey, other than that, it’s absolutely identical!
Hey, cut him some slack. He’s got a losing hand here and he knows it. It’s not like he can actually argue anything on the merits, which is why he has to play these transparent, and ultimately pathetic, games.
Ha. By your own admission there’s no compelling evidence. You’ve just admitted to peddling a kangaroo court conspiracy theory, presumably unwittingly. Your argument about ‘smoke’ is on precisely the same level as Benghazi or birtherism or Obama being Muslim. I suppose it’s nice that the lunatic wing of the Democratic Party has found some common ground with the lunatic tea party wing. Come back when you have something compelling to share.
ROFL… Reading comprehension still eluding you, is it?
You’ve just admitted to peddling a kangaroo court conspiracy theory, presumably unwittingly.
No, dear, I didn’t. I realize that you have to try to play silly games because you can’t deal with the actual data but do you have to be this bad at it? This is just pathetic!
Your argument about ‘smoke’ is on precisely the same level as Benghazi or birtherism or Obama being Muslim
You’re forgetting one thing, cupcake; that these stories have all been properly vetted, unlike your other examples. You can’t deal with that, which is why you have to continue to play these silly games.
I suppose it’s nice that the lunatic wing of the Democratic Party has found some common ground with the lunatic tea party wing. Come back when you have something compelling to share.
ROFL… Already done, dear. That you are pretending otherwise speaks volumes about you. You cannot handle the data, which is why you are desperately trying to ignore it, wish it away, pretend it doesn’t exist, pretend that it’s all conspiracy, pretend that it doesn’t come from reputable news organizations, pretend that there hasn’t been credible evidence of laws broken, pretend that there haven’t been admissions of wrongdoing, pretend … well, pretend everything.
Come back when you’re ready to discuss the data. Until then, the only person you’re fooling is yourself and, frankly, I doubt that you’re even managing to do that.
" You’ve just admitted to peddling a kangaroo court conspiracy theory,"
Tell that to the 17 US intelligence agencies.
All we are saying is there is enough grounds to warrant an investigation. Why would you, as an observer from the UK, be so concerned about that prospect?
Couldn’t agree more.