Russian ambassador met with advisers to Clinton campaign too

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

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.

This is the part that I don't see the Trumpsters addressing. They don't seem to care about the lying.  If there's nothing to cover up then why lie about it? That is the questionable behavior.

To be fair to the Trump-cult, their leadership lies to them continually, so lying by their leadership to anyone probably doesn't seem worthy of note. They may even be completely mentally blind to it.

[HAnnA MArin County]

Blue avatars now using Russian propaganda (real "fake news")  to deflect from their party's own Russian scandal. Sad!

[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/

[Citizen (The) Doctor]

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.

[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.

[Pericles]

Sessions went to the RNC on the Trump campaign budget and was one of Trump's earliest endorsers, plus he met Kislyak twice. That means the idea he was not a campaign surrogate doesn't hold water. And he misled Congress. Why did Flynn, and now Sessions, lie? Why is Trump so close to Putin? There are so many unanswered questions, the American people need an investigation.

[Pericles]

Trump should be treated like Hillary Clinton and investigated until the cows come home. NO DOUBLE STANDARD!

[Inmate Trump]

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?

Are there any links between the Clinton campaign and a Russian bank, as there is with Trump?

Did Hillary praise Putin?  Did she deflect from questioning regarding the dictator's murders, and say that the US has some bad people too?  Has she ever shied away from calling Putin exactly what he is, a ruthless dictator?  Did Putin ever praise her back?  (For that matter, did Hillary receive praise from any other world dictators?...or praise any others herself?  Trump received such praise, and returned it.)

Is there a constant stream of one thing after another with regard to Hillary's campaign getting help during the election from Russia?

Anyway, yes, let's investigate both campaign's connection to Russia.  I'm all for it.

I, for one, would like to know if either candidate did indeed have any shady dealings or in fact collaborated with a foreign government during the election.  I would love to have absolute transparency when it comes to things like this, and as citizens and voters, we all have a right to know.  (We also have a right to see our candidates' tax returns; I know that's randomly thrown in here, but then again, it might not be so random.)

[cinyc]

A campaign having contact with foreign authorities?  Logan Act!  Logan Act!  Logan Act!

So what if the Logan Act is likely unconstitutional and all of this Russian nonsense is much ado about nothing on both sides?

[ApatheticAustrian]

So what if the Logan Act is likely unconstitutional and all of this Russian nonsense is much ado about nothing on both sides?

then it still would be an ethics case, but i guess today the partisan hyperbole is protecting corruption at every turn.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

HRC has never shied away from calling Putin who he is not. Trump has never shied away from calling Putin who he is. There's a difference there, and it may not be evident to unsophisticated consumers if media lies, like many McCain-Hillary voters.

[ApatheticAustrian]

HRC has never shied away from calling Putin who he is not. Trump has never shied away from calling Putin who he is. There's a difference there, and it may not be evident to unsophisticated consumers if media lies, like many McCain-Hillary voters.

i am often fascinated by the question, if you are just someone with a 180° different value system or just the most advanced kind of double-thinking paid bots.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

HRC has never shied away from calling Putin who he is not. Trump has never shied away from calling Putin who he is. There's a difference there, and it may not be evident to unsophisticated consumers if media lies, like many McCain-Hillary voters.

i am often fascinated by the question, if you are just someone with a 180° different value system or just the most advanced kind of double-thinking paid bots.

-My views on the vast majority of issues are completely identical to http://www.unz.com/akarlin/
So you might wanna start there.

[ApatheticAustrian]

oh, i understand well.

you are right-wing in a russian way, which is why you assume, your opponents shoudl be left-wing in a russian way and not the strange liberal-cross-over-thingie, which is hated by the left and the right in russia.

[Pericles]

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

[I Won - Get Over It]

oh, i understand well.

you are right-wing in a russian way, which is why you assume, your opponents shoudl be left-wing in a russian way and not the strange liberal-cross-over-thingie, which is hated by the left and the right in russia.

Right/left-wing in a Russian way? What does it mean?

[Inmate Trump]

HRC has never shied away from calling Putin who he is not. Trump has never shied away from calling Putin who he is. There's a difference there, and it may not be evident to unsophisticated consumers if media lies, like many McCain-Hillary voters.

Fine, whatever. I guess I just have to accept that you do not believe in any American values, and that you genuinely admire leaders who have their detractors killed. So...that's you, and I just have to get used to knowing there are a lot of other people in my country like you. And that's why America is becoming less and less what our founding fathers envisioned.

But back to my post, as a Clinton voter, I back an investigation into what (if any) kind of involvement her campaign had with Russia, as alleged in the OPs article. If something happened during the election, I want to know what it was--as an HRC voter, and someone who even contributed money toward her campaign, I am owed that.

Would you be in favor of investigating the same involvement of the Trump campaign, where all is revealed? After all, if nothing happened, then why not put this matter to rest once and for all?

Amd say such an investigation occurs, and it is discovered that the Trump campaign DID collaborate with Russia to win the election...would you still support Trump?

[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.

[Inmate Trump]

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.

[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.

[Inmate Trump]

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.

From what I understand, your position is that because we lack hard evidence we shouldn't question.  Even when there are very strong signals that all lead to a connection between Trump and Russia.  Trump's deep admiration of Putin alone is concerning.  But it isn't just that, and you (and all your Trump supporting peers) know it.

And back to a point I just made--"because we lack hard evidence we shouldn't question"--since this seems to be your position with Trump/Russia, I must assume it was your position on any number of the supposed Hillary scandals?  Benghazi, e-mails, etc.?

[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.

[Pericles]

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.