You mean other then " we helped you get elected you owe us"?
itsbaddude wrote:
What is Russia's leverage against Trump?
BobbyAxelrod wrote:In Trump's own word - 'America First' - not my campaign.
It makes us like weak and petty in the public eye. It also now give Russian leverage against the Trump administration. Its not complicated.
And as what others have posted there is about 0% chance you did NOT vote for the orange buffoon.
just might be rojo wrote:
Also, didn't the Russian govt create a fake dossier on TRUMP that the FBI used? How is that any different?
No. A former British intelligence officer named Christopher Steele compiled the Trump dossier. So far none of it has been debunked and large parts of it have been verified.
If you recall any stories about a fake dossier that is just the conservative media lying to you.
http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/03/how-the-explosive-russian-dossier-was-compiled-christopher-steeleTypical liberal wrote:
There is no evidence of anyone in the campaign colluding with the Russian government.
The first excuse there was no meeting of any kind.
And then it turns out there was a meeting and it was about "orphans."
Now we know there was a meeting, and senior campaign officials sought it out and attended.
We also have some very specific tweetings from the clown hours after the meeting.
What will the next revelation bring?
Sadly, you probably believe this.
Coach wrote:
remarakable stupidity wrote:As I'm not American it's just fun for me to read the remarkably stupid things Trump supporters write. Not only did Hillary not personally sell any uranium to Russia, but, can't any part of you see the massive logical problem you have if that is upsetting to you? Is Russia bad or not? How can you be ok with the Trump campaign colluding with Russia and Russia clearly wanting Trump to be your president, yet you have a problem with Russia purchasing Canadian uranium mines which was given the ok by the US (not just Hillary, many US politicians signed off on it).
I know you are an idiot, I get that, but just pick a position and stick with it. If you believe Russia is bad, and on that basis you want to make Hillary bad because she was one of many American politicians who signed off on a deal that allowed Russia to buy a Canadian Uranium mine, then stick with Russia being bad. How can having Russia, who is bad, wanting and helping Trump to become your president be a good thing to you?
Anyway, I know thinking isn't something you do, so I've just wasted my time, but, one day you ought to give it a try.
Sadly we letsrun Americans are among this country's brightest and most educated.
Money Laundering disguise as easy-to-get loans funded by the Russian Mob. Only the Russian Mob will loan money to Trump.
BobbyAxelrod wrote:
You mean other then " we helped you get elected you owe us"?
itsbaddude wrote:What is Russia's leverage against Trump?
Good luck crying to a judge when you claim that you tried buying illegal drugs from someone who turned out to be an undercover cop, that you are innocent because the cop didn't give any illegal drugs.
exthrower wrote:
Jeez...What a bunch of deluded liberals....No laws were broken...There was no collusion because no information was attained...Do you honestly think Hilary would not have consorted with Russia to attain dirt on Trump? Of course she would...You liberal losers are still enraged about losing....
I'm sorry. You are incorrect. Nothing has been verified and many things have been proven wrong. Buzzfeed is about to get sued for defamation.The source claims not of it can be verified.http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/apr/25/christopher-steele-admits-dossier-charge-unverifie/If you search google for some of the most crazy claims, it has been debunked by various outlets.
stateroftheoblivious wrote:
just might be rojo wrote:Also, didn't the Russian govt create a fake dossier on TRUMP that the FBI used? How is that any different?
No. A former British intelligence officer named Christopher Steele compiled the Trump dossier. So far none of it has been debunked and large parts of it have been verified.
If you recall any stories about a fake dossier that is just the conservative media lying to you.
http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/03/how-the-explosive-russian-dossier-was-compiled-christopher-steele
So there's crap on Hillary and people care about who supplies the info?
Russia is not an enemy of the state and even if they were, who gives an F.
I want to know all the dirt I can to make the best choice I can for my country.
To believe that only Russia gives our officials, CIA, etc information is stupid.
If Hillary won cause the North Koreans found out Trump killed and raped people, I better know about it!
Why people give an F of whether or not Trump found out information is because they wanted him to lose.
I'm sure it would be the opposite if Hillary won.
If you know someone is a really bad person handling your kids, I don't care how they found out, they Better tell me.
Hillary would have been in charge of the policies effecting your kids.
It's so stupid and anyone who cares is an idiot cause all politicians are corrupt b's.
If you replaced Trump's name with Clinton's what would you think?
On the east side wrote:
So there's crap on Hillary and people care about who supplies the info?
Russia is not an enemy of the state and even if they were, who gives an F.
.
Are you insane? 100% of Trump supporters lost their minds over a fictitious story of Hillary selling uranium to Russians. Now Russia is not an enemy of the state? So why the hell did everyone get so worked up over that fake news generates by the Trump camp?
The interesting question is since all those Trump supporters endlessly went on about Hillary selling uranium to Russians, accepting donations from Russians, etc. if all that was true, that Hillary was in bed with the Russians, why did the Russians want to sewer her campaign and get Trump elected? Not that it matters anymore, apparently, since the new official position of Trump supporters is that Russia are our good buddies.
Trump supporters have the mental capacity of gold fish.
Hillary thinks that the Wikileaks cost her the election, yet she doesn't realize that Trump's campaign was equally damaged (if not more damaged due to the liberal media's coverage)by the leaking of the Hollywood access live tape. Leaks happen and they happened to both sides. Why don't people realize that Hillary lost because she was one of the most corrupt candidates ever and simply unelectable. Her campaign was horribly run (she didn't even campaign in Wisconsin while Trump was holding rallies). There's also bit of a double standard amount democrats as Obama meddled in Israel's elections. There has been no proven evidence of the Trump campaign "colluding" with the Russians, and if anything the Wikileaks proved what we already knew about Hillary, that she was a terribly corrupt establishment politician.
Your insane as you think I care about Trump or anyone. I only care about my country.
Why d f do I care if Trump supporters get upset about Hillary information. Good, I hope we know all can about Hillary and Trump.
Again, if Hillary won cause North Korea told us some caca about Trump, GOOD!!! Freaking tell me the dirt (I'll decide what to believe anyways)
All politicians suck and choosing which sucks less is what smart people try to do.
Who gives an F if Trump OR HILLARY n Putin plan Sunday trips together. We are not at war with them and have billions of dollars of trade with them.
All I care is do I believe my President is looking out for me. That's for me to decide and trying to stop information for me to decide that is stupid!!
How do you feel about an adversarial country illegally hacking and spreading news only about the candidate they didn't want elected. Giving the candidate their huge advantage.
Can you possibly see how this is a very bad thing?
Typical liberal wrote:
Hillary thinks that the Wikileaks cost her the election, yet she doesn't realize that Trump's campaign was equally damaged (if not more damaged due to the liberal media's coverage)by the leaking of the Hollywood access live tape.
Wikileaks did not release the Hollywood Access tape. Wikileak$ gets paid to release dirt, or they don't release--Trump's BFF paid; Putin. The Hollywood Access tape was given up without wikileaks being involved--for nothing.
Hollywood Access wrote:
Typical liberal wrote:Hillary thinks that the Wikileaks cost her the election, yet she doesn't realize that Trump's campaign was equally damaged (if not more damaged due to the liberal media's coverage)by the leaking of the Hollywood access live tape.
Wikileaks did not release the Hollywood Access tape. Wikileak$ gets paid to release dirt, or they don't release--Trump's BFF paid; Putin. The Hollywood Access tape was given up without wikileaks being involved--for nothing.
You are fake news. I never said that Wikileaks leaked the Hollywood access tapes, I stated that there were leaks that went against both candidates. The tapes were not leaked by Wikileaks, but nevertheless were still a big release of information that had a huge negative impact against Trump. Wikileaks didn't change people's minds, the silent majority of Trump voters already knew Hillary was corrupt. Are you going to blame the Russians for the email server? What about Hillary's lies about the gunfire in Bosnia while she was taking pictures with everyone? Was that also Russia's fault? The Russians didn't cost Hillary the election, her crooked actions in her years of politics did.
The charge is that it's illegal for a "member of a campaign team" to get campaign "help" from a "hostile" foreign power. One of the reasons why this makes no sense to me is because all the terms I put in quotes are vague. Another reason why this makes no sense to me is because I don't see what difference it makes whether someone works for a campaign. I guess it's ok if the Russian government gives me inside info on a U.S. politician and I give it to a U.S. newspaper, but if I am volunteering for that politician's campaign then suddenly it's illegal?
It's treason to collide with a foreign power in an attempt to gain something of value (opposition research) in an American election. If you don't care that the president's potentially (definitely) at least tried to do something that would constitute treason in an attempt to help his father (the president) win the election, then that's your choice.
You should, if for no other reason, because of the line that Stephen Colbert delivered: "Donald Jr. is now deeptjroating himself" (not an exact quote), in reference to the fact that DT jr. actually released the damning email evidence himself on twitter.
If it doesn't matter, then why do all the Trump people keep lying about their meetings with Russians?
just might be rojo wrote:
Kung Pow wrote:Whether someone should be outraged at this particular point in time is more a matter of individual moral standards, since insufficient evidence has been presented thus far to the American public to support the notion that a crime has been committed by Trump Jr. or others in choosing to meet with the Russian attorney.
As one example, the New York Times acknowledges that the law that would most likely apply in this situation based on what we know so far is Section 30121 of Title 52, which essentially prohibits a foreigner from donating money or anything else "of value" in connection with an election, or for someone to solicit this of a foreigner. This is the crux of the issue: is dirt on Hillary considered something of value under this law? The experts are divided on this, and there appears to be no real legal precedent that would answer this.
Furthermore, the charge of conspiracy - the likely most appropriate charge in this matter, if indeed one applies - requires that two or more people conspired to actually commit a particular crime (regardless of whether they carried out said crime). Therefore, if it is ultimately determined that the Russians' dirt on Hillary is not considered something "of value", then it would seem difficult for a charge of conspiracy to stick unless another law besides Section 30121 of Title 52 has been broken... and the events published by the media so far do not suggest this.
You aren't answering the mu question. Even if it's illegal, he's asking why should we care? It seems like it would be a good thing to know that the dirt existed as HRC could be blackmailed.
Also, didn't the Russian govt create a fake dossier on TRUMP that the FBI used? How is that any different?
The Russians were willing to provide dirt on Hillary because they wanted something in return. The issue is whether there was a quid pro quo.
What did the Russians want in return? They wanted sanctions lifted which were hurting their economy and placing financial and travel restrictions on top officials and wealthy people.
Those sanctions were voted on by congress in retaliation for Russia invading Ukraine and human rights violations. If Russia can assist in electing a president that is likely to look the other way when they pursue their own interests that is a big win for them.
So this is not about dirt on Hillary - it's about what Russia stands to gain from a Trump presidency.
Have you considered... wrote:
It's treason to collide with a foreign power in an attempt to gain something of value (opposition research) in an American election. If you don't care that the president's potentially (definitely) at least tried to do something that would constitute treason in an attempt to help his father (the president) win the election, then that's your choice.
You should, if for no other reason, because of the line that Stephen Colbert delivered: "Donald Jr. is now deeptjroating himself" (not an exact quote), in reference to the fact that DT jr. actually released the damning email evidence himself on twitter.
Ok I misspoke in writing treason (just re-read what I wrote), but it is criminal conduct. And also very bad. It's about the idea that the Russians would influence an American election. To those that say Russia's not an enemy, look at Putin's track record. I don't think any American should be in the business of working with people like that to win elections.