NY Times: US Officials DOUBT Donald Trump has direct link to Russia

That's a relief if true. I hope to god it's true but the Slate reporting is still very odd, especially the Trump server being taken off line as soon as Alfa bank learned of the investigation. But whatevs.

But on a more important level than this little redundant thread: how do y'all digest the "mainstream liberal media" (TM) (sic) hammering repeatedly on Clinton's email issue 8 days before the election & vaguely exonerating Trump's odd dance with Russia? You'd think "liberal media" (TM) (sic) would close ranks keep their eyes on the prize. I mean, right? Aren't they out to get Trump?

Or no.... (gasp)... maybe they just report findings that will lead to clicks and viewership... which means some semblance of, you know, "news" and what's new today that wasn't new yesterday. Just a thought. I know it's crazy talk.

 

Go read my post in the Slate thread, you might learn a thing or two. You're welcome.

 

Oh, like Fat Albert, learning a thing or two? I guess a guy can dream.
I did read your post and honestly -- no offense -- it didn't offer any caveats that weren't offered in the article. But you are I guess saying you know a lot more than all the computer experts quoted in the article. Okay.

Clutchfans gonna clutchfan.

 

I bet that 15 year old girl that Anthony Weiner was texting - is RUSSIAN.

 

I don't know more but I don't have an agenda. Big difference.

 

Can someone tell me when and why did these rumors of Trump ties to Russia started? Was it because Trump said Putin is a stronger leader than Obama?

 

Trump said that because Putin complimented him. The Putin compliment is what started it.

But the Putin boogey-man's run its life. People, outside of the really gullible ones, are tired of listening to it.

 

When his campaign advisor was fired after it came out he was traveling to Moscow and working with Putin's organize crime division?

 

Question is have the FBI closed this investigation into potential link?

And if not, will new information from a separate investigation, even if not yet obtained and analyzed by the FBI, be reported to Congress and to internal employees about why it was reported?

 

One was reported because circumstantial evidence was found by the NYPD.

The other wasn't sent in a memo because it's already been deemed to not be likely.

That is why.

 

To scoreboard the last 2 weeks.

Trump is pally pally with organized crime (hate groups, leaders sanctioned by the world community, the mafia)
Hillary is winky winky with legitimate crime (Wall Street, DNC part machine being mean to pale-white-Bernie, Federal email neglect)

Any additions to the wiki?

T -7

 

You took that seriously . But your answer is very wrong. The most reasonable reason why one was reported to Congress and the other wasn't is because of Congress and a man of poor judgement, not because of their investigations. The other possible reason is partisanship.

 

Can we just have a do over and have a Kasich vs Bernie run?

 

soros just now finding out the truth that in fact these hoes aint loyal

 

Maybe it was when the only change the Trump campaign insisted on making to the RNC platform at the convention was about Russian interference in Ukraine.

 

Comey did have poor judgement that we can agree on. And that was by not indicting Clinton last year.

 

Bernie as president would destroy America.

He scares me.

 

I have been told that being a Trump supporter can distort reality, but it wasn't that long ago

Nope. Comey's decision a few months ago was based on an actual investigation and findings of the facts. Why would anyone that is non-partisan question that? His recent decision to go against very clear tradition and policy (and with the knowledge that the FBI has yet even to look at the set of emails found on Weiner's computer) is a very poor judgement. I'm sure he's regretting it already, if indeed it wasn't intended.

 

Of course not. The DNC was paid big money to put Hillary on the ticket.