[NYT] Trump Campaign Aides Had Repeated Contacts With Russian Intelligence

Not a single person in the committee other than him has talked to the ambassador. Pence is going to end up being the president. If he stays above the fray.

 

I'll go ahead and say I don't have a clue why anyone would vote for Clinton. She was a horrible candidate that was the wife of a freaking former president. Right after having a son of a former president being in the white house. And now they have a complete buffoon in the position. I don't like any of it.

In saying all that. How could anyone at this point not want to know in detail what is in Trump's tax returns. After every single other president has disclosed them. I mean give me a freaking break. Can there be that many people out there that really just want their team to win, or even better the other team to lose that they are able to completely ignore this still. It truly blows my mind.

 

Jeff Sessions tomorrow:

"I did not have relations with that Russian."

 

This certainly feels like another fake news story form the WaPost. They cant seem to get anything right these days.

https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4659119/franken-sessions-exchange-russia

 

Not to be all technical and lawerily: what is the context of "in the course of the campaign"?

 

he was the ranking member, and regardless, why would it be improper?

the Red Scare is alive and well among the left

 

Amazes me the depths Trump supporters will sink to defend Trump and his administration. Here we have the country's chief law enforcement officer justifying perjury by saying "when I said I didn't talk with the Russians, I meant I didn't talk with them about the campaign." With all of the whining about past attorney generals, less than one month in and this attorney generals has been shown to perjure himself.

 

Hey, it "worked" in Argentina.

 

Bill Clinton lies about sex - impeach him. Trump and Sessions lying about contacts with Russia - why is the left so crazy?

 

Conservatives are far more hypocritical than Liberals.

 

It depends on what the definition of "is" is.

 

I don't speak for everyone on the left, but playing this off as the Cold War era, "Red Scare" is disingenuous. I agree with you that it isn't improper for a Sentaor to speak with the Russian ambassador--if that's all it was, there would be no "there" there.

The concern is that it seems that he understood the optics are bad so he flat lied to the senate when asked directly about meeting with Russian officials on at least two occasions. Had he not been asked and on the record, this wouldn't be a story. Heck, it might not be a story regardless. I can give benefit of the doubt if he and the administration had a reasonable response and there weren't all the other Russian "coincidences".

 

that's incorrect. go read the transcripts.

 

What transcripts? Did I imagine the article I just read that he was asked about contacts with the Russians and he said there were none? Serious question

 

keep defending a man who lied under oath to hid how he was betraying his country. Conservatives are showing they only have "moral fiber" when it comes to Bill Clinton's sex life and Hillary Clinton's emails - but there side can do much worse and get a pass.

 

we need to find out if any cf.net members had any contact with russians before being allowed to register or create/post threads.

 

That depends on what the definition of "is" is.

 

I think we all know that at least one did.

 

Really, though: why won't the usual suspects here acknowledge that it's, well, a bit strange that the Attorney General and former National Security Advisor both lie about speaking with the Russian ambassador to the US? Why won't they acknowledge that it's odd that the only platform change the Trump campaign requested at the GOP convention related to anti-Russian Ukrainians? Why is it so hard to say that the people in Donald Trump's orbit seem to have a heightened attachment to a hostile foreign government that has evolved from the USSR in name only?

Y'all b****ed and moaned for years about President Obama releasing a birth certificate, but don't feel compelled to apply the same scrutiny to President Trump's tax returns (documents that could put this matter to bed)? If all President Obama had to do was "prove he was born in this country" to you, then all President Trump has to do is prove that he's interested in protecting and serving this nation to us. Doesn't seem like to much to ask.

Unless you think that there's some undisclosed rubles in the long-form tax returns. Then we're back to square one.