Manafort: "If [Oleg Deripaska] needs private briefings" on the Trump campaign "we can accommodate."

[Anonymous]

There's too much obfuscation, partisan sniping, media bias, and an earnest desire by BOTH parties to see Trump destroyed to ever allow a true finding of what did or didn't happen to ever be known. The whole thing is as fncked up as a soup sandwich.

You are nuts. If "BOTH parties" wanted to see Trump destroyed he would have been impeached and convicted already by the one that's currently in charge of the House and the Senate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You guys can't see the forest for the trees here.

What if Manafort was actually spying on the Trump campaign for Russia, who was in turn feeding that intel back to Clinton?

Why else would Manafort be briefing the Russians on Trump? If Russia were helping, wouldn't the briefings be coming FROM them, as opposed to going TO them?


That's the problem with demanding investigations when your own side is dirty. You never know where or when something might lead back to you.


This is getting REAL interesting.

So Manafort, whose days with he GOP go back to before Lee Atwater, was a Clinton operative? I want what you're drinking.

The third act twist no one saw coming!

No. That the Russians would've much rather seen a Clinton presidency because of the previous arrangements with the Clintons (Uranium One, etc)

It was in the interest of Russia to have her in the Whitehouse rather than Trump. So spying on his campaign with a long time asset (Manafort) to pass info back to the Clintons to use to defeat Trump makes sense.

Complicating this whole mess was the hacked email scandal though, which may or may not have been done by the Russians, but pushed Clinton into a face-saving escalation of hostilities against them.

I shudder to think that we'd literally fight a war - a NUCLEAR WAR - with Russia over something so trivial as hacked emails, but with the way she was ratcheting up the rhetoric, it was conceivable. Thank God that crazy harpy didn't get elected.

Whatever propaganda sources you've been stewing in, I suggest you get out of the pot. Literally none of that blather is true.

You know who has a LOT of connections to Russia? Trump. Here's what we knew back in the spring: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/03/connections-trump-putin-russia-ties-chart-flynn-page-manafort-sessions-214868

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You guys can't see the forest for the trees here.

What if Manafort was actually spying on the Trump campaign for Russia, who was in turn feeding that intel back to Clinton?

Why else would Manafort be briefing the Russians on Trump? If Russia were helping, wouldn't the briefings be coming FROM them, as opposed to going TO them?


That's the problem with demanding investigations when your own side is dirty. You never know where or when something might lead back to you.


This is getting REAL interesting.

So Manafort, whose days with he GOP go back to before Lee Atwater, was a Clinton operative? I want what you're drinking.

The third act twist no one saw coming!

No. That the Russians would've much rather seen a Clinton presidency because of the previous arrangements with the Clintons (Uranium One, etc)

It was in the interest of Russia to have her in the Whitehouse rather than Trump. So spying on his campaign with a long time asset (Manafort) to pass info back to the Clintons to use to defeat Trump makes sense.

Complicating this whole mess was the hacked email scandal though, which may or may not have been done by the Russians, but pushed Clinton into a face-saving escalation of hostilities against them.

I shudder to think that we'd literally fight a war - a NUCLEAR WAR - with Russia over something so trivial as hacked emails, but with the way she was ratcheting up the rhetoric, it was conceivable. Thank God that crazy harpy didn't get elected.

Time to put down the pipe. Crack is Wack!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not Russian. I'm an American. A combat Veteran of two wars. I have an MBA. I'm a small business owner and I coach wrestling. I'm so American I bleed apple pie.

The "Vlad" jokes reveal that you have no substantive retort. Snark is all you've got. It's a white flag.

I was married to an Intel Analyst, Ranger, Green Beret (we're still good friends). He and his buddies would agree with your assessment as a very distinct possibility.

'

What assessment - that your wrestling coach friend has delicious blood that goes great with ice cream?

Certainly not yours. I'm the one that responded not the original PP

[Anonymous]

Why is there never any refutation of points ? Only ridicule of the posters for being crazy, on drugs, russian, or whatever.

As someone who could been seen as an outsider trying to gain a better understanding of both sides of this, it's extremely disheartening to me to see compelling, reasoned posts responded to with "crack is whack". It's silly and immature, and does nothing to increase the overall level of understanding.

If you don't have anything substantive to add, please refrain from posting and wasting everyone's time with your childish rubbish.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why is there never any refutation of points ? Only ridicule of the posters for being crazy, on drugs, russian, or whatever.

As someone who could been seen as an outsider trying to gain a better understanding of both sides of this, it's extremely disheartening to me to see compelling, reasoned posts responded to with "crack is whack". It's silly and immature, and does nothing to increase the overall level of understanding.

If you don't have anything substantive to add, please refrain from posting and wasting everyone's time with your childish rubbish.

New poster. I agree. But I also wish that people would stop posting opinion pieces from Circa and Conservative Review as if they are evidence of anything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why is there never any refutation of points ? Only ridicule of the posters for being crazy, on drugs, russian, or whatever.

As someone who could been seen as an outsider trying to gain a better understanding of both sides of this, it's extremely disheartening to me to see compelling, reasoned posts responded to with "crack is whack". It's silly and immature, and does nothing to increase the overall level of understanding.

If you don't have anything substantive to add, please refrain from posting and wasting everyone's time with your childish rubbish.

Which points do you want refuted?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is there never any refutation of points ? Only ridicule of the posters for being crazy, on drugs, russian, or whatever.

As someone who could been seen as an outsider trying to gain a better understanding of both sides of this, it's extremely disheartening to me to see compelling, reasoned posts responded to with "crack is whack". It's silly and immature, and does nothing to increase the overall level of understanding.

If you don't have anything substantive to add, please refrain from posting and wasting everyone's time with your childish rubbish.

Which points do you want refuted?

For one thing, I'd like to know what the uranium thing is. Did America sell uranium to Russia? Why? Russia has plenty of its own sources for uranium. Why did this happen, if it did?

[Anonymous]

This is a great development. We have proof that the head of Trump's campaign reached out to a Russian oligarch with clear and present ties to Putin during the campaign. This is smoke. I predict (partly based on the vitriol coming from the right/russians on this thread) that soon we'll see fire.

Russian response:
Vera Kurochkina, a spokeswoman for Rusal, the company led by Deripaska, on Wednesday derided inquiries from The Post that she said “veer into manufactured questions so grossly false and insinuating that I am concerned even responding to these fake connotations provides them the patina of reality.”

Sound familiar?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why is there never any refutation of points ? Only ridicule of the posters for being crazy, on drugs, russian, or whatever.

As someone who could been seen as an outsider trying to gain a better understanding of both sides of this, it's extremely disheartening to me to see compelling, reasoned posts responded to with "crack is whack". It's silly and immature, and does nothing to increase the overall level of understanding.

If you don't have anything substantive to add, please refrain from posting and wasting everyone's time with your childish rubbish.

Ah, the famed "both sides" argument. Did you read OP's linked article? Using coded language and Oleg Deripaska's initials, Paul Managort, at that time Trump campaign chair, offered the Russians private briefings into the Trump campaign. Now layer this atop the Trump campaign insisting that the GOP platform be changed regarding Ukraine to make it better for Russia, the server in Trump Tower communicating with Alfa Bank in Russia, about a million connections between Trump, Trump associates and Russia, Trump laundering money for Russia.... I mean do you want sources citing this stuff again? And much of what the "Republican " side is posting here is either gibberish or Kremlin talking points; you can read them on Sputnik and a few other English language Russian sites.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is there never any refutation of points ? Only ridicule of the posters for being crazy, on drugs, russian, or whatever.

As someone who could been seen as an outsider trying to gain a better understanding of both sides of this, it's extremely disheartening to me to see compelling, reasoned posts responded to with "crack is whack". It's silly and immature, and does nothing to increase the overall level of understanding.

If you don't have anything substantive to add, please refrain from posting and wasting everyone's time with your childish rubbish.

Which points do you want refuted?

For one thing, I'd like to know what the uranium thing is. Did America sell uranium to Russia? Why? Russia has plenty of its own sources for uranium. Why did this happen, if it did?

The uranium issue is totally off-topic for this thread AND has been fact-checked out the wazoo and determined to be false.
http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-uranium-russia-deal/
http://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-russia-hillary-uranium-575071
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/mar/28/fact-checking-donald-trumps-tweets-about-hillary-c/
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/16/trump-claims--falsely--that-clinton-gave-russia-20-of-us-uranium.html
https://www.cbsnews.com/videos/fact-checking-trumps-claim-that-russia-paid-hillary-clinton-for-uranium/

[Anonymous]

Putin is just like anyone else, when he pays someone to do a job he expects that job to get done. Manafort has acted very honorably in this case by doing the work he was hired to do at the agreed price. I don't see why that upsets people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Putin is just like anyone else, when he pays someone to do a job he expects that job to get done. Manafort has acted very honorably in this case by doing the work he was hired to do at the agreed price. I don't see why that upsets people.

Gtfo. Because it's TREASON.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Putin is just like anyone else, when he pays someone to do a job he expects that job to get done. Manafort has acted very honorably in this case by doing the work he was hired to do at the agreed price. I don't see why that upsets people.

Lol!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is there never any refutation of points ? Only ridicule of the posters for being crazy, on drugs, russian, or whatever.

As someone who could been seen as an outsider trying to gain a better understanding of both sides of this, it's extremely disheartening to me to see compelling, reasoned posts responded to with "crack is whack". It's silly and immature, and does nothing to increase the overall level of understanding.

If you don't have anything substantive to add, please refrain from posting and wasting everyone's time with your childish rubbish.

Which points do you want refuted?

For one thing, I'd like to know what the uranium thing is. Did America sell uranium to Russia? Why? Russia has plenty of its own sources for uranium. Why did this happen, if it did?

The uranium issue is totally off-topic for this thread AND has been fact-checked out the wazoo and determined to be false.
http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-uranium-russia-deal/
http://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-russia-hillary-uranium-575071
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/mar/28/fact-checking-donald-trumps-tweets-about-hillary-c/
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/16/trump-claims--falsely--that-clinton-gave-russia-20-of-us-uranium.html
https://www.cbsnews.com/videos/fact-checking-trumps-claim-that-russia-paid-hillary-clinton-for-uranium/

Those are not credible sources. All have an obvious leftist bias.

You'll have to do better.