The Trump/Russia connection thread

[Bill Peckham]

The most expensive house ever sold in the US is as good a place to start as anywhere. Trump buys a Florida mansion for 41.5 million dollars, sells it two years later for 95 million to a Russian oligarch with profound ties to Putin who then decides it is such a shit hole that it needs to be torn down.

What is the innocent explanation for Rybolovlev/Putin overpaying Trump?

[MooseMom]

It is useful, when trying to understand the Trump/Russia connection, to really think about what Putin wants:

1.  The dissolution of NATO and of the EU.  This is why he has funded Marine Le Pen and has had his people hack into Emmanuel Macron's campaign.  There are allegations that Russian helped to influence the Brexit vote.  I don't know if that's really true, but there are allegations for a reason.  We know for a fact that they hacked both the RNC and DNC but chose to leak emails only from the DNC.  The emails leaked were only embarrassing, but put "emails" and "hacked" and "Hillary Clinton" into the same talking point, and this just reinforces that idea that she was "untrustworthy", so yeah, the Russians DID influence the vote, and Trump becomes President.

2.  The dropping of sanctions.  I don't know if Trump will get his way with this because many GOP Congresspeople are very anti-Putin, but by god, this is a big deal for Putin.

3.  The destruction of the democratic process in the US so that his own "electorate" (like they have a choice!) can see how much better of they are, despite their lack of democracy.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/donald-trump-russia-media-235755

4.  Putin also wants to be very, very rich.  Follow the money.

[iolaire]

Trump personally met with Russian ambassador during campaign
https://thinkprogress.org/trump-personally-met-with-russian-ambassador-during-campaign-cc59ae305032#.mcxntpxnc

I don't have a Wall Street Journal subscription so I can not read the original post:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trump-goes-his-own-way-with-vladimir-putin-1463172396

Donald Trump has claimed repeatedly that he has had no contact with Russian officials as a presidential candidate.

He was lying.

Trump personally met with the Russian ambassador on April 27, 2016, prior to a major foreign policy speech. The Wall Street Journal, in a report that was little-noticed at the time but was recently picked up by AMERICABlog News, reported the meeting last year.

[Michael Murphy]

There is something rotten in trumpville.  Every time something is reveled that may lead back to home he starts tweeting fabricated nes stories about how some person for unknown reasons has done this to him.  When the press calls him on his fabricatin (it's a nicer way to say lies) he bans them from the White House.  Claims Obama was wire tapping him,  the list is endless.  I don't know if he has done anything wrong but where there smoke there fire, I imagine visibility is lacking at the White House from all it he smoke trump is blowing.  The deniers may claim there is no proof, but what is being asked is that a impartial investigation is conducted.  Never before has a foreign pow so influenced a American national election, and never berfor has a candidate and his team had such extensive contacts with a enemy of this countries.   By the way this is made more difficult because the overreach of the Ken Starr investigation into Bill Clinton turned into a debacle.  The smoke needs to be cleared from around the White House, a good start would be the release of trumps taxes and a new independent prosecutor.

[nursey66]

I am so amazed that the congress does not want to put a stop to this nonsense. Seems that no one can stand up to the Bully called Trump !!

[Rerun]

When you figure this one out... lets figure out the Obama/Iran connection!  Make them a deal with little or no oversight regarding Nuclear power, Give them over a billion dollars CASH in the middle of the night with a ransom prisoner exchange.     How dumb can we get?

[MooseMom]

When you figure this one out... lets figure out the Obama/Iran connection!  Make them a deal with little or no oversight regarding Nuclear power, Give them over a billion dollars CASH in the middle of the night with a ransom prisoner exchange.     How dumb can we get?

That's already been figured out!  Keep up!!!

[Rerun]

No, it has already been covered up.  Like a cat covers its sh$$$!

[MooseMom]

No, it has already been covered up.  Like a cat covers its sh$$$!

Rerun, you're just wrong.  You can post this over and over, but it doesn't change the fact that it's incorrect.

I'm curious.  Are you aware that other countries are involved in the Iran deal?

[Michael Murphy]

The billion in cash was. Iranian money held by the Federal Reserve since 1976 the Fed does not ship a billion in cash publicly.  What you are asking them to do is announce a billion dollar movement to cash prior to  the transfer.  That's like putting a big sign steal, me on the side of the truck.  That kind of transfer does not happen over night but requires months of planning.  This all stems from the settlement of Iranian nuclear ambitions.  The Iranians only came to the bargaining table when it was announced the US had successfully tested a  15 ton ground penetrating harden bomb.  Two of these beasts can be carried by a B2,  they are guided bombs designed to penetrate 200 feet before exploding, they also are tested to pile drive this occurs after one bomb goes off another hits in the crater.  Once this was announced the Iranians came to the table to negotiate rather then be pounded by the bombs.  In 2003 the US invaded Iraq in a phoned war that cost many American lives, Israel pushed for that war.  Now Israel wants us to invade Iran.  The fact is the US seems to have good intelligence on the state of the Iranian nuclear developements. We still have the bombshell and are in the process of generating the next generation of these bunker busters.

[Rerun]

Yes, MM I am.  Are YOU aware Russia is one of them?  Oh, now I suppose you like "Vlad"?  Good buddies?

Has the Nuclear deal improved relations with us?  NO!  Iran's behavior in the region is worse than ever.  Now they have money to fund ISIS.  Oh, good job.
Plus still holds Americans hostage.  Get your head out of the "sand"....

[MooseMom]

Yes, MM I am.  Are YOU aware Russia is one of them?  Oh, now I suppose you like "Vlad"?  Good buddies?

Has the Nuclear deal improved relations with us?  NO!  Iran's behavior in the region is worse than ever.  Now they have money to fund ISIS.  Oh, good job.
Plus still holds Americans hostage.  Get your head out of the "sand"....

Yes, of course I am aware that Russia is one of them, along with all of the members of the UN Security Council.  Russia certainly doesn't want a nuclear Iran located so close to their own borders.

That Iran still holds American hostages is a disgrace, but if they had been released as a "bargaining chip" in the Nuclear deal, imagine the uproar!  Aren't you already outraged about a "random hostage exchange"?  I am hoping that Rex Tillerson and the State Department are holding negotiations with Iran to have these people released. 

[Rerun]

Well if he calls Iran... he better watch his butt being accused of conspiring with a Foreign Government.

   

[MooseMom]

Well if he calls Iran... he better watch his butt being accused of conspiring with a Foreign Government.

   

He's not doing anything.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/03/10/rex-tillerson-might-be-the-weakest-secretary-of-state-ever/

[Rerun]

It is making me subscribe.  So.. Not.

I'm sure it is a mean article. 

I'm sticking with President Trump! 

[Michael Murphy]

This Blind Trumism reminds me of the Nixon supporters in the early 70's.  As the investigation unfolded the Nixonites became more and more convinced of his innocence.  By the end they were dismayed by the complete disgrace of their hero.  I am not saying trump is guilty yet, what I am saying is this is a matter that needs to be fairly and openly investigated.  Not like the last two republican lead witch hunts the ken star debacle and the never ending Hilary congressional hearings.  But with a investigation that says there is nothing here or one that begins to hand out indictments.  One must know if trump is our president or if he is putins president,

[Rerun]

Yes, we will see.    

[Simon Dog]

As far as I am concerned, both sides are guilty.

Just look at the huge donations the principals of Uranium One made to the Clinton Foundation just before they got state department approval for their big deal for US ore (no doubt so the Russians can fuel their nuclear power plans, it't not like they would use any of it to make nukes).

 Both sides have one thing in common - ignoring the very acts by their own person they accuse the opposition of.

[MooseMom]

False equivalency.  Saying that "both sides are guilty" is a whitewashing over the enormity of the possible consequences of Trump's campaign's conversations with Russia who we all know received hacked information for WikiLeaks.  Trump said that he loves WikiLeaks for a reason.

http://www.businessinsider.com/everything-we-know-about-the-hillary-clinton-russia-uranium-scandal-2015-4

[Michael Murphy]

This is another fabricated right wing lie about a Clinton.
From snopes
May 2015 saw the publication of a book called Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich, an exposé of alleged Clinton Foundation corruption written by Peter Schweizer, a former Hoover Institution fellow and editor-at-large at the right-wing media company Breitbart.
A chapter in the book suggests that the Clinton family and Russia each may have benefited from a “pay-for-play” scheme while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state, involving the transfer of U.S. uranium reserves to the new Russian owners of an international mining operation in exchange for $145 million in donations to the Clinton Foundation.
The Uranium One deal was not Clinton’s to veto or approve
 
Among the ways these accusations stray from the facts is in attributing a power of veto or approval to Secretary Clinton that she simply did not have. Clinton was one of nine cabinet members and department heads that sit on the CFIUS, and the secretary of the treasury is its chairperson. CFIUS members are collectively charged with evaluating the transaction for potential national security issues, then turning their findings over to the president. By law, the committee can’t veto a transaction; only the president can. According to The New York Times, Clinton may not have even directly participated in the Uranium One decision. Then-Assistant Secretary of State Jose Fernandez, whose job it was to represent the State Dept. on CFIUS, said Clinton herself “never intervened” in committee matters.
The timing of most of the donations does not match
 
Of the $145 million allegedly contributed to the Clinton Foundation by Uranium One investors, the lion’s share — $131.3 million — came from a single donor, Frank Giustra, the company’s founder. But Giustra sold off his entire stake in the company in 2007, three years before the Russia deal and at least 18 months before Clinton became secretary of state. 


If you think this is the equivalent off Trumps possible dealing withe the Russians you are sadly mistaken, look how Tump just fired the three most senior State Department employees who have served every president from Reagan, oh yes they have been the state department people charged with countering Russian expansion into neighboring countries. 

[Bill Peckham]

Yesterday the FBI confirmed there is an espionage investigation involving the White House.

[kickingandscreaming]

I'm pleased that it is ongoing.  But very disturbed that it has been going on since before the election and no one bothered to tell the public.  All the Trump people were so adamant about not voting for a candidate who was under FBI investigation when all that time it was Trump and not Hillary who was under investigation.  Shame on Comey.

[Simon Dog]

Nobody, on either side, is interested in holding their candidate "accountable" for malfeasance, but everyone jumps on reasons why those on the other side should desert their candidate.

For example, I know K&S is from Massachusetts, and I suspect she votes Democrat (I respect her despite this).   Chances are her state senator was in the vast majority that just voted itself a 40% (yes, 40%) pay raise.   I doubt she, or any other die hard Democratic voter, will give his/her vote to the Republican at the next election to hold the senator "accountable" for this gross dereliction of duty,  but would also be saying how Republicans should desert their senator if (s)he did the same thing.

It's just the way it is .... no need to pretend that "I would vote against my own candidate if (s)he did what your candidate did".  It doesn't work that way.

[Bill Peckham]

In 1973 Nixon was held to account because of the work of Republicans in Congress. Congressmen Hogan and Butler and Senator Baker put country before party.

Publicly going on record by voting for something or changing your public position on an issue is not in the same universe as hiding the nature and extent of contacts with a hostile foreign power. I think you are not so much equating apples and oranges as equating mosquitoes and grenades.

[MooseMom]

Nobody, on either side, is interested in holding their candidate "accountable" for malfeasance, but everyone jumps on reasons why those on the other side should desert their candidate.

That's a sweeping generalization.  You seem to be speaking on behalf of all of those who put party before country.

It's just the way it is .... no need to pretend that "I would vote against my own candidate if (s)he did what your candidate did".  It doesn't work that way.

Really?  Gosh.  If "my" candidate committed a crime during a campaign, I wouldn't vote for that person, no way, no how.

The problem with the current president is he refuses to be held accountable for anything at any time.  He takes no responsibility.  I cannot stand that in any human being, much less in an American President.