Russian ambassador met with advisers to Clinton campaign too

[EnglishPete]

And the Democrat apologists and excuse makers begin..........

The source is literally the Kremlin. Not to mention the controversy surrounding the ambassador is not the meeting itself, but the lies told under oath regarding meetings with Russians.

As has been pointed out many times here there has been no lies told under oath about meetings with the Russians. There have two accusations made about this. General Flynn, who did indeed lie about this to the Vice President but not under oath, after which he was promptly sacked.

And Jeff Sessions who was under oath but who did not lie. He was asked about contacts between Russia and the Trump campaign and he answered that he had had no such meetings as a campaign surrogate, which was true.

Oh and Trump himself for failing to classify shaking hands with someone at a reception as a 'meeting'.

That's it. That's the 'scandal' around the Trump campaign.

[EnglishPete]

we don't know yet how far the trump scandal goes but that all this distractions are thrown around is somehow telling.

I thought you were in favour of all these distractions getting thrown around by the Dems and their media cheerleaders?

[EnglishPete]

I thought you were in favour of all these distractions getting thrown around by the Dems and their media cheerleaders?

nah, i am in favor of an independent investigation into the many open questions around the trump campaign - russiy - wikileaks - guccifer2 -universe, without the daily need to either re-fight the 2016 election or deal with straw men.

luckily this investigation is going on anyway, even while most republicans are only talking about absurd claims (like trump being a FSB officer or russians SUCCESSFULLY hacking voting machines), no serious trump critic would ever use.

No, plenty of Republicans are talking about the claim that the Trump campaign had links with the Russian government and the fact that these claims have absolutely zero evidence to support them.

[EnglishPete]

No, plenty of Republicans are talking about the claim that the Trump campaign had links with the Russian government and the fact that these claims have absolutely zero evidence to support them.

yeah and they are not convincing anyone, before the investigation is finished....especially mister page and mister manafort are in for short-term problems, we are going to see if that is the end of it.

Right so if you are not convinced that there is zero evidence of such links then what do you think the evidence is? Why haven't we seen any of this 'evidence' if it really exists?

[EnglishPete]

Spin is spin.

Lies are lies. Why did Sessions and Flynn lie? What did Trump know and when did he know it? To take Trump's reaction to the Comey letter, this is worse than Watergate.

Oh FFS. For the umpteenth time Sessions did not lie. Even Politifact, hardly a right wing source, was forced to admit that he did not lie

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/mar/02/context-what-jeff-sessions-told-al-franken-about-m/

[EnglishPete]

Spin is spin.

Lies are lies. Why did Sessions and Flynn lie? What did Trump know and when did he know it? To take Trump's reaction to the Comey letter, this is worse than Watergate.

Oh FFS. For the umpteenth time Sessions did not lie. Even Politifact, hardly a right wing source, was forced to admit that he did not lie

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/mar/02/context-what-jeff-sessions-told-al-franken-about-m/

That's not even what it says. It says that it's possible to make the argument that he didn't perjure himself based on Franken's question but it seems that he omitted relevant information. The fact that he answered "No" to Leahy directly could even be construed to show intent.

Yes they say, evidently through gritted teeth, that 'its possible to make the argument' that he didn't perjure himself. However nowhere in this 'fact check' do they say that its possible to make the argument that he did perjure himself, evidently because it isn't.

The reply to Leahy is a clear and honest answer. The Trump haters are really clutching at straws in their desperation to prove that the Trump campaign had links to the Russians and that they covered this up.

[EnglishPete]

At best, Sessions misled Congress. He lied about Russia, though he may not first the legal definition of perjury.

No not even close. What was misleading was the way that his words were quoted out of context to make it look as though he had lied when he hadn't

[EnglishPete]

Fine, look into it.

If it happened, let's see what the meetings were about.

At the same time, we can investigate Trump's team's meetings too.

Has anyone from the Clinton team lied under oath (or not) about it?[/quote]We'll see. Certainly no one in the Trump team has lied under oath (or not) about such meetings

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The possible links between a Trump server and an Alfa bank address are still being investigated. This may be evidence of a link but this hasn't been proven so far and this analysis is controversial (see: https://theintercept.com/2016/11/01/heres-the-problem-with-the-story-connecting-russia-to-donald-trumps-email-server/ ). What is not controversial is that the largest bank in Russia, the state owned Sberbank hired the Podesta group (run by Tony podesta and founded by John and Tony Podesta) to lobby against sanctions

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Did the Clinton Foundation or Bill Clinton ever accept Russian donations or speaking fees? Did she have anything to do with the 'Russian reset' or the Uranium deal? All interesting questions

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Lets see, there certainly hasn't been with regard to the Trump campaign.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Oh me too. I'm beginning to think that this is another case of the Wile E Coyote Democrats trying to set a trap for Road Runner Trump only to end up getting hit by their own anvil.

[EnglishPete]

Outright denial of there even being the sheer possibility that Trump and his campaign acted in an illegal manner with regard to the Russia scandal.

I've seen spin, and I get it.  Politics is politics.

This business with Russia, if true, is outside of all that.  I don't get why it's so hard to comprehend.  Had Hillary won, and all of this Russia stuff started coming out, I would at the very least call for an investigation to see what exactly happened.  Doesn't matter what party they're in--if anyone collaborated with a foreign power to tamper with an election, that's criminal, and is not worthy of your blind devotion.

There's no more evidence of the Trump campaign collaborating with the Russians than there is of the Clinton campaign collaborating with the Russians. Are you not able to comprehend that fact?

The dems and their media supporters are working themselves up into a lather when there's no there there.

[EnglishPete]

Outright denial of there even being the sheer possibility that Trump and his campaign acted in an illegal manner with regard to the Russia scandal.

I've seen spin, and I get it.  Politics is politics.

This business with Russia, if true, is outside of all that.  I don't get why it's so hard to comprehend.  Had Hillary won, and all of this Russia stuff started coming out, I would at the very least call for an investigation to see what exactly happened.  Doesn't matter what party they're in--if anyone collaborated with a foreign power to tamper with an election, that's criminal, and is not worthy of your blind devotion.

BTW that's a nice little demonstration of the art of concern trolling. Start out with insulting me by asserting that I'm arguing in bad faith, then follow this up with an expression of 'concern' that I'd be better to stop doing so.

[EnglishPete]

Not meant to insult you.  It's genuinely concerning to me that people in this country can be so devoted to an authoritarian figure, and actually elect him their leader.  Then, when the stuff about Russia starts trickling out, you all just act like it's not a thing, it didn't happen, it doesn't warrant investigating, nothing to see here.  Not you personally, although you certainly are guilty of it; I'm referring to all of Trump's voters.  Many are in my own family.  I just don't get it.  If you'd like to try and explain it to me (with legitimate sources--not something like Breitbart) then I'd be grateful.

Oh I see. You say that you're not insulting me by asserting that I'm arguing in bad faith because you say I really am arguing in bad faith. That's like saying "I'm not insulting you by calling you an arsehole, you really are an arsehole. Many of my own family are being arseholes and I'd be grateful if you could explain to me exactly why they're doing this. I'm not insulting you really"

Well lets just take your question at face value, just for the sake of argument. The point people are making is that not only is their no proof of the Trump campaign being connected with the Russian government in this election, there isn't even any evidence that points to this being the case. I don't know which sources you would consider 'legitimate' (although I'm guessing you think the Jeff Bezos blog and the Carlos Slim blog count as legitimate) but if you give me a list I can explain my point using sources you consider 'legitimate'.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The fact is that there are no very strong signals that lead to a connection between Trump and Russia. Every time an argument is made that this or that does lead in that direction that argument turns out, on closer inspection, to be insubstantial smoke and mirrors. You are avoiding dealing with that point by asserting that everyone who makes it is arguing in bad faith.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I would love for BOTH campaigns to be thoroughly investigated. As I say I have a feeling that that would result in the Dems looking like Wile E Coyote yet again.

[EnglishPete]

If Hillary Clinton had done one tenth of the things Trump did with Russia impeachment would have already passed the House and blue avatars would be demanding blood.

Yep.  Just like when Bill had the affair and lied under oath, they were all over it.  Meanwhile, Trump grabs women by the p*ssy, and his people lie left and right--at least one of which was under oath.

Well apart from the fact that there is no evidence that Trump 'did' anything 'with Russia' and apart from the fact that there is no evidence that any of Trump's team have lied under oath.