'No evidence of collusion’ between Trump campaign, Russia

[jg121783 3,915]

http://www.breitbart.com/news/no-evidence-of-collusion-between-trump-campaign-russia/

[ready4ONE 5,400]

This the same outfit that brought the so called president to tweet he was being spied on? The same "news" organization Reich Unter-Fuher Steve Bannon used to be at?

[Dakine10 5,452]

   If the people who want to cut the education department's funding were forced to read the comments section of that article, they would surely realize the need to rethink their decision.

[jg121783 3,915]

You can attack the the website reporting the story all you want but unless you can refute what Rep. Nunes has said about there being no evidence it doesn't really matter what website is reporting it. I intentionally picked that website because I suspected you would ignore the facts and instead attack the website. My suspicions were confirmed. Can you cite any evidence to support the Russian conspiracy theory? Didn't think so.

[Dashinka 24,492]

33 minutes ago, jg121783 said:

You can attack the the website reporting the story all you want but unless you can refute what Rep. Nunes has said about there being no evidence it doesn't really matter what website is reporting it. I intentionally picked that website because I suspected you would ignore the facts and instead attack the website. My suspicions were confirmed. Can you cite any evidence to support the Russian conspiracy theory? Didn't think so.

That is generally the case with the 'progressives'.  If they don't like the message and cannot refute any of the items presented, then attack the source.  The interesting thing is that the NYTs has been saying pretty much the same thing the past couple of months even though their spin is to make it negative for Trump, then reveal the fact that there are no connections in one of the later paragraphs.

Edited March 20, 2017 by Bill & Katya

[Jacque67 7,328]

What is the real story of Donald Trump and Russia? The answer is still unclear, and Democrats in Congress want to get to the bottom of it with an investigation. But there’s no doubt that a spider web of connections—some public, some private, some clear, some murky—exists between Trump, his associates and Russian President Vladimir Putin. 

These charts illustrate dozens of those links, including meetings between Russian officials and members of Trump’s campaign and administration; his daughter’s ties to Putin’s friends; Trump’s 2013 visit to Moscow for the Miss Universe pageant; and his short-lived mixed martial arts venture with one of Putin’s favorite athletes. The solid lines mark established facts, while dotted ones represent speculative or unproven connections. 

There’s nothing inherently damning about most of the ties illustrated below. But they do reveal the vast and mysteriously complex web behind a story that has vexed Trump’s young presidency from its start—and is certain to shake the White House for months to come.

[Jacque67 7,328]

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/03/connections-trump-putin-russia-ties-chart-flynn-page-manafort-sessions-214868

 

meanwhile grassley frantically tweeting to trump.

nunes says one person under investigation.

manafort missing in action.

lots more.

popcorn.

 

apologists unable to sleep....

[Dashinka 24,492]

3 minutes ago, Jacque67 said:

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/03/connections-trump-putin-russia-ties-chart-flynn-page-manafort-sessions-214868

 

meanwhile grassley frantically tweeting to trump.

nunes says one person under investigation.

manafort missing in action.

lots more.

popcorn.

 

apologists unable to sleep....

So is Politico an unbiased respected news source?  Here is the only sentence from the Politico story that seems to correlate with the Breitbart story.  "There’s nothing inherently damning about most of the ties illustrated below."

 

Edited March 20, 2017 by Bill & Katya

[jg121783 3,915]

9 minutes ago, Jacque67 said:

What is the real story of Donald Trump and Russia? The answer is still unclear, and Democrats in Congress want to get to the bottom of it with an investigation. But there’s no doubt that a spider web of connections—some public, some private, some clear, some murky—exists between Trump, his associates and Russian President Vladimir Putin. 

These charts illustrate dozens of those links, including meetings between Russian officials and members of Trump’s campaign and administration; his daughter’s ties to Putin’s friends; Trump’s 2013 visit to Moscow for the Miss Universe pageant; and his short-lived mixed martial arts venture with one of Putin’s favorite athletes. The solid lines mark established facts, while dotted ones represent speculative or unproven connections. 

There’s nothing inherently damning about most of the ties illustrated below. But they do reveal the vast and mysteriously complex web behind a story that has vexed Trump’s young presidency from its start—and is certain to shake the White House for months to come.

A lot of wild speculation but still no evidence whatsoever that the Russians influenced the elections or Trump in any way. If Trump has Russian dressing on his salad it will probably be on the front page of the NY times. This takes McCarthyism to a whole new level.

[Jacque67 7,328]

Ooh...kremlin apologists attacking politico. What a surprise!!! Up early!!!

 

In his short White House tenure, President Trump has already set a record for histrionic tantrums against the media — whether attacking CNN, The Washington Post, The New York Times or MSNBC for revealing his 2005 tax return, as he did last week. He’s actually pursuing a well-worn path of American presidents blaming the press for their problems.

Five decades of reporting have taught me that whenever a president starts screeching about the media, it’s a sure sign he’s in hot water and fearing revelations about some policy disaster, damaging mendacity or political villainy. Even popular presidents with reputations for charming the press occasionally stoop to blaming the press for quagmires of their own making.

John F. Kennedy, for example.

In September 1963, with the Vietnam War escalating and the pro-American authoritarian regime of President Ngo Dinh Diem besieged by popular protests, President Kennedy used a private meeting with The New York Times’s publisher, Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, and James Reston, the Washington bureau chief, to charge that David Halberstam, the Times correspondent in Saigon, was undermining the American war effort and to pressure the publisher to pull Mr. Halberstam out of Vietnam. President Kennedy was particularly angered by a stream of front-page articles by Mr. Halberstam graphically describing battlefield defeats and the self-immolations of Buddhist monks.

[Jacque67 7,328]

https://www.google.co.jp/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwj10I-89OTSAhWEoZQKHbW1AxMQqOcBCAwwAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2017%2F03%2F18%2Fopinion%2Fsunday%2Fso-what-is-trump-hiding.html&usg=AFQjCNEfac86bFsZSXccY0bzGxN1lBYKoA&sig2=Gxe8y5rST_rxHrPXkMAJfw

first 90 days should be a honeymoon period.

disrespected by allies.

disaster.

one year, max.

[jg121783 3,915]

Ok you win. The head of the the House intelligence committee must be wrong because politico says Trump might have talked to some Russian people at some point in his life. Let's just have politico take over the investigation because the House intelligence committee doesn't know what they are doing and politico has uncovered damning evidence.

[Jacque67 7,328]

3 trump tweets from trump so far this morning.

the rebuttal 10 am Comey.

 

methinks he....

leaks imply some truth, but whatever, donnie!!!!

[Dashinka 24,492]

1 hour ago, Jacque67 said:

Ooh...kremlin apologists attacking politico. What a surprise!!! Up early!!!

 

In his short White House tenure, President Trump has already set a record for histrionic tantrums against the media — whether attacking CNN, The Washington Post, The New York Times or MSNBC for revealing his 2005 tax return, as he did last week. He’s actually pursuing a well-worn path of American presidents blaming the press for their problems.

Five decades of reporting have taught me that whenever a president starts screeching about the media, it’s a sure sign he’s in hot water and fearing revelations about some policy disaster, damaging mendacity or political villainy. Even popular presidents with reputations for charming the press occasionally stoop to blaming the press for quagmires of their own making.

John F. Kennedy, for example.

In September 1963, with the Vietnam War escalating and the pro-American authoritarian regime of President Ngo Dinh Diem besieged by popular protests, President Kennedy used a private meeting with The New York Times’s publisher, Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, and James Reston, the Washington bureau chief, to charge that David Halberstam, the Times correspondent in Saigon, was undermining the American war effort and to pressure the publisher to pull Mr. Halberstam out of Vietnam. President Kennedy was particularly angered by a stream of front-page articles by Mr. Halberstam graphically describing battlefield defeats and the self-immolations of Buddhist monks.

The Politico article even says there is nothing there just like many of the NYTs articles written about this subject.  This has nothing to do with apologizing for the Kremlin, it has more to do with being bored by the endless pushing of a negative.  If Hillary had been elected, would the press (mainstream supposedly unbiased press) be hammering her with stories about the dealings of the Clinton foundation.  I suspect not, and the news sources that did would be labeled negatively (Alt Right, anti-progressive, etc.) and anyone pushing them would be labeled a conspiracy theorist.

 

That being said, what's good for the goose is good for the gander.  Now all the left is wearing foil hats with the only difference being that many in the mainstream media are also wearing the same hats.  It is clear that no one in the press can now claim to be unbiased at least with respect to US politics, so who cares if Trump attacks them.  His press enemies should be happy that the attacks are up front and in the open rather than in secret as most seasoned politicians do.  

[Dakine10 5,452]

4 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

The Politico article even says there is nothing there just like many of the NYTs articles written about this subject.  This has nothing to do with apologizing for the Kremlin, it has more to do with being bored by the endless pushing of a negative.  If Hillary had been elected, would the press (mainstream supposedly unbiased press) be hammering her with stories about the dealings of the Clinton foundation.  I suspect not, and the news sources that did would be labeled negatively (Alt Right, anti-progressive, etc.) and anyone pushing them would be labeled a conspiracy theorist.

 

That being said, what's good for the goose is good for the gander.  Now all the left is wearing foil hats with the only difference being that many in the mainstream media are also wearing the same hats.  It is clear that no one in the press can now claim to be unbiased at least with respect to US politics, so who cares if Trump attacks them.  His press enemies should be happy that the attacks are up front and in the open rather than in secret as most seasoned politicians do.  

  Hillary wasn't elected in part because of that. If she was, no doubt we would be dealing with that right now. Sorry but Trump doesn't get a pass either, and neither of them should. Lack of integrity does have consequences in the real world.