Trump Tower in Moscow

1. 60

   Randy Godwinposted 7 years ago

   
   The NYT reported today Trump was involved with several Russian banks to finance a Trump Tower in Moscow. The deal stalled in the middle of last year's presidential campaign when Trump was denying any business deals with the Russians. Conincidentally, Trump's lawyer is handling a law suit against a Russian business which means he can have a client/attourney privilege with both Trump and the Russians. Convenient eh

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Randy Godwinposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Well, I suppose everyone is accustomed to the prez telling whoppers already. It's like, "so what if he lies all of the time?" 

      replyreport
      1. 89

         wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         Old news: we already knew Putin conspired to throw the election to Trump.  Don't know what he actually DID, but he had to do something because without Putin's illegal actions he would not have won.  And, of course, we already knew they were in each other's pockets, though we haven't figured out just how yet.  Maybe that they didn't meet over the tower will prove that once and for all.

         replyreport
   2. 70

      Ken Burgessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      The Trump - Russia connection is malarkey, I don't care if he met with them or not.
      Clinton met with them, Podesta met with them, they collected millions from the Russians one way or another... where is the outrage over that?
      
      Anyways... the media, CNN, NYTimes are playing their audience for dupes.  This has been proven time and again, and anyone who wants to uncover this truth will not find it hard to do so.  Here, I'll even help you get started, watch this video and become aware...
      
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4dRGMME4VnM

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Randy Godwinposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         You apparently don't care if the POTUS lies about everything, Ken.

         replyreport
      2. 91

         crankaliciousposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         We're really going to reference an organization that's been proven in court to just make things up out of thin air? Can you at least reference a legitimate source of news and not some hack organization?

         replyreport
      3. 81

         GA Andersonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         Hi Ken, your link was quite a 'hit piece'.  And since I am searching for opennings to join the conversation, this offering seems like a ready-made opportunity chime in with a Tsk! Tsk!
         
         To be clear, I agree with your point about the media playing to its audiences. And I agree that it has been proven "time and time again." But geesh, a video basing its premise on one producer's obviously biased opinion? You have set a higher bar for yourself, (I especially liked your Red Pill Black Girl links).
         
         GA

         replyreport
         1. 70

            Ken Burgessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            Hello GA,
            
            Was just making a brief note, giving something to consider, not sure what prompted me to inject myself into this conversation, as it is such a mash of few facts against Trump, and a whole treasure trove of facts against Clinton, Podesta, members of Congress that gets buried and ignored.
            
            To include the fact that Clinton as SoS and the CIA went out of their way to interfere with the elections of Georgia, and Russia back in 11(?), and chose to stick their nose into Russia's business in the Ukraine... which would almost be the same as if Russia stuck its nose into America's business if it decided to declare martial law in Alaska. But hey... lets not confuse history and facts with what the Obama Administration and the media was selling the American people... 
            
            You know... like that YouTube video that caused riots in the streets across the Middle East, and in particular Benghazi...  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article … ttack.html
            
            
            And if you like the RedPillBlack video(s)  you should really like ol'Lionel here, especially on this topic of how Comey covered up for Clinton from the get go:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9m_Eu17wx0

            replyreport
            1. 91

               crankaliciousposted 7 years agoin reply to this

               If you watch factually inaccurate stuff like Project Veritas, you're inevitably going to end up with very questionable opinions. Might as well get your news from the National Inquirer. This sort of "news" feeds the type of paranoia and hatred spouted by its adherents. It's all just a big loop feeding on itself.

               replyreport
               1. 70

                  Ken Burgessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  To be clear, the most fabricated and false information you can find anywhere, regarding news and information is CNN.  This is fact, those who deny this fact are choosing to accept a source of falsehood for their news.
                  
                  As for what is "paranoia and hatred spouted by its adherents"  this fits CNN, those who own it, run it, and host shows on it.  The sources of completely biased information and disinformation, are the ones you are attempting to defend.
                  
                  But if you would like to pull up some sources you consider reputable, that support your opinion that CNN is indeed a source of honest and unbiased news, by all means knock yourself out.

                  replyreport
                  1. 60

                     Randy Godwinposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                     Where do you get your "unbiased" news from, Ken? And I assume you have lots of supporting evidence that it/they give factual news, unlike CNN.

                     replyreport
                     1. 70

                        Ken Burgessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                        Despite your love for the completely ignorant spammed and canned idiocy. I will reply.
                        
                        1) Common Sense - IE - Benghazi was not caused by a YouTube video. A fabricated story that CNN supported rather than actually investigated to disprove.
                        
                        2)  Real World Experience - IE -  in those incidents/occasions that CNN covered, where I was on the ground dealing with the actual event, what they reported was falsified information, opposite of the truth, changed completely for the purposes of forwarding a political or ideological end.
                        
                        3)  Plenty of sources of info out there - Just type into any search
                        "Proof that CNN is fake news"
                        One example - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gqYcQTpq_c
                        
                        Or better yet, one of the more brilliant minds of today explains it, here, at about the 5 min mark:
                        
                        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nt38cOvYtHo

                        replyreport
         2. 60

            Randy Godwinposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            GA, somehow in all of your forum posts I've not discovered who you voted for in the last Presidential election. Who did you vote for?

            replyreport
            1. 81

               GA Andersonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

               Gov. Kasich as a write-in
               
               GA

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  Randy Godwinposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  That explains a lot!

                  replyreport
                  1. 81

                     GA Andersonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                     That's it? "That explains a lot?"
                     
                     I suppose I should go look-up what that particular smiley means - but no, I probably wouldn't be any more enlightened even if I did.
                     
                     GA

                     replyreport
2. 60

   Randy Godwinposted 7 years ago

   Ha! Did you hear about Ivanka seeming to remember getting to sit in Vladimir's chair in the Kremlin? But she was simply visiting as a tourist. I'll bet you believe that as well, Dan.

   replyreport
   1. 89

      wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Well, it certainly fits in with being in Putin's pocket...at least if the tale is true and if she lied about being a tourist, albeit a billionaire one.  We all know all the rich and powerful support each other!

      replyreport
3. 60

   Randy Godwinposted 7 years ago

   You're probably right. The Special Prosecutor had to lie about the Probable Cause evidence offered for the search warrant on Manafort's home as well. And his attorneys have been subpoenaed based on nothing, I suppose? All that fake news out there..... 

   replyreport
   1. 89

      wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Oh, it's not fake!  All the Trumpaphobes say Putin interfered!  It is a known fact, even though we don't know what he actually did!

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Randy Godwinposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         We will Dan, we will. Mueller will burn him a new......well.....you know, before it's all over. He is no slouch at getting to the bottom of sleazy deals by arrogant thieves.

         replyreport
         1. 89

            wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            I'm absolutely positive we will.  Witch hunts always do - witness that the inquisition almost ALWAYS got a conviction and almost EVERY accused witch was found guilty. 
            
            Truth doesn't matter much in such matters, which is a very good thing because...Putin (and Trump) are guilty of fixing the election.  We don't know how, but we'll find out even if we have to make it all up.

            replyreport
4. 60

   Randy Godwinposted 7 years ago

   Okay Dan, so you don't trust anyone in the govt. or the MSM, but you do trust a known liar? You will see in the end, Trump is dirty but you still won't believe it.

   replyreport
   1. 95

      Readmikenowposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      When Hillary supporters talk about Trump lying it makes me laugh.  If they were okay with the massive amount of proven lies told by Hillary, why would these people care about Trump?  A Hillary supporter has proven they have no problem supporting a pathological liar.  Why would they care what Trump does? Again, I ask, do Hillary supporters grasp the concept of their double standards and hypocrisy?

      replyreport
5. 60

   Randy Godwinposted 7 years ago

   And why is it a witch hunt if Trump lied about doing business with the Russians?

   replyreport
   1. 89

      wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Produce the business he did, please.  Not a failed meeting to, supposedly, make a business deal, but an actual deal.
      
      But even if you could (and you can't) it is a witch hunt because it started with the claim Trump had a personal connection to Putin.  And when that couldn't be proven, to his campaign that had one that fixed the election.  And when that couldn't be proven that Putin fixed it without American help.  And when that couldn't be proven, to his son that had a connection to Russian intelligence.  And when that couldn't be proven, to anyone remotely connected to Trump that knew and actually spoke to any Russian alive or dead. 
      
      It just keeps going, changing the goal every now and then when what is wanted can't be found.  Just as the witch hunts did, just as the inquisition did.  That's why I'm absolutely sure it will be found; it isn't possible that no person known to Trump or anyone in his campaign ever had a conversation with any Russian whatsoever.  So a "connection" WILL be found.  No proof of collusion between Trump and Putin, no association between the two and no proof that Putin did, or ordered done, anything that had any effect on the election, but a "connection WILL be found.  It's American politics at it's best!

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Randy Godwinposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         In other words, you're privy to all the info from the intelligence committees and the Special Prosecutor, unlike us lefties, eh? Simply coincidental all of the Russian connections as well? Tell you what Dan, I'll personally apologize to you and others if Trump escapes the Russian investigation. But I don't expect you guys to do the same if it turns out the other way.

         replyreport
         1. 89

            wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            LOL  Trump has already escaped.  The current effort is to hurt him by hurting those he cares about or has connections with.
            
            But the lefties WILL win - I said that.  Somewhere, someone Trump knows spoke to a Russian.  And thats the evil connection, right there.  We've already seen his son did that, and there will be more.  See, it's really, really easy to prove "connections" when the term means speaking to a citizen of Russia.  Why, even talking to a spy, unknown to anyone else, would qualify!
            
            (You didn't supply any business deals, though.  Why not, if they are known to exist?)

            replyreport
            1. 60

               Randy Godwinposted 7 years agoin reply to this

               I didn't supply any business deals because the info was all over the news, and by news, I don't mean Fox or right wing radio. They tend to forget to report on things which make Trump look bad. Lots of things.
               
               It won't take fake evidence for Trump to go down as the smoke has gotten too thick to ignore for logical people. As my grandma used to say, "It'll all come out in the wash."

               replyreport
               1. 89

                  wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  Odd - I've about quit watching the national news because every night the first few tales are about how bad a person Trump is.  About the only exception was been since Harvey came ashore.  But I have yet to see any business deal Trump as made with any Russian or in Russia.  How about you post a link to some of those business deals he's made in Russia - they aren't coming through either Google OR the net.
                  
                  Yes, it will (come out in the wash).  It already has, for that matter - to date there has been nothing but empty claims, and I expect that's all we'll ever see.  That and a reduction in the number of illegals coming in, an increase in the number leaving, more jobs, etc.

                  replyreport
6. 60

   Randy Godwinposted 7 years ago

   Odder still, I simply searched for Trump tower deal in Russia and found plenty. Here's just one and perhaps you can find the rest by yourself.
   
   http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-kn … d=49472342

   replyreport
   1. 89

      wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      You mean the "deal that never happened"?  Thats what you produce to show all the business deals Trump has in Russia?  A single one that never went beyond the visionary, talking stage?
      
      But that's what I said, isn't it - it will come out in the wash.  The left has  lots and lots of empty talk but nothing to show.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Randy Godwinposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         Did Trump claim he'd never met any Russians or hadn't any business with them at all? He said none of his people has either and now there's Flynn, Manafort, and the list goes on and on. At what point do you admit Trump's a common liar, Dan? Just give me that if you can...

         replyreport
         1. 89

            wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            What has that to do with your claim (along with many others) that Trump has business dealings in Russia?  Or that he and Putin are tight?  Or that Putin fixed the election?
            
            Trump said, as I recall, that he had no "connections" in Russia.  Depending on how you wish to define "connection" I'm sure that could be true or false.  If it means a Russian that was spoken to, it's certainly false.  If it means a business partner, likely true.  If it means a strong political connection that can be depended on, certainly false.
            
            But you might want to think about the ramifications of claiming Trump is a liar while making claims you can't support...like the one that he has business deals in Russia.

            replyreport
            1. 60

               Randy Godwinposted 7 years agoin reply to this

               Did you even read the article or watch any of the videos, Dan? Never mind, we're both wasting our time...

               replyreport
               1. 89

                  wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  Actually I did skim over it.  But tell me - the article states; "The involvement of then-candidate Trump in a proposed Russian skyscraper deal contradicts repeated statements Trump made during the campaign, including telling ABC’s George Stephanopoulos that his business had “no relationship to Russia whatsoever.”
                  
                  So tell me just how some representative meeting to discuss a possible venture, a venture that never happened, constitutes a "business deal".  Can you explain that?  Or is investigating a possibility equivalent to a done deal, as if when you look at buying a new car it means you bought one even if title never transferred?  Explain, please, how looking into a possibility, with no money, materials or anything changing hands and no agreement made, constitutes a "business deal".  Or even a "relationship", for that matter (Trumps words, which you transformed into "business deal").
                  
                  Heck, we even see: "In a separate statement texted to ABC News, Cohen says, “The Trump Moscow proposal was simply one of many development opportunities that the Trump Organization considered and ultimately rejected.”  No deal, and not even a relationship.

                  replyreport
                  1. 60

                     Randy Godwinposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                     So you're claiming all of the Russian connections, Flynn, Don Jr., son-in-law, Manafort, and others do not constitute Trump being connected to the Russians. Heck, the Russian Rep. claimed he got permission for Ivanka to sit in Putin's chair at the Kremlin. When queried about it she said, "I might have sat in his chair, but I was only there as a tourist." LOL!

                     replyreport
                     1. 89

                        wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                        What connections?  Truthfully, they seem much like your business deal - a fleeting moment, a discussion, an evaluation of a possibility.  Nothing more, but that matters little to the witch hunter.
                        
                        Speaking of which, have you given up yet on the business deals Trump made in Russia?  It's down to tenuous "connections" defined as a brief discussion now? 
                        
                        LOL - you hunters are comical, I swear!  How the mighty claims have folded and slumped, like a dying flower in winter - from a close partnership with Putin known to fix the election to someone in his business empire talking to some nondescript Russian for an hour and deciding it was't worth pursuing any further!

                        replyreport
                        1. 60

                           Randy Godwinposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                           Once again Dan, are you privy to the investigations going on re the Russian connections? I've seen no news they've ended, but perhaps with your inside knowledge you have?

                           replyreport
                           1. 89

                              wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                              Nope.  Are you?  You're the one claiming knowledge - all I've got is what we hear in the news, but you seem to know there are hidden business connections.  You won't produce them, but you seem to know they're there.
                              
                              As far as being ended, "“The Trump Moscow proposal was simply one of many development opportunities that the Trump Organization considered and ultimately rejected.”, from your link.  Sounds like "ended" to me!

                              replyreport
7. 60

   Randy Godwinposted 7 years ago

   If it is ended why is the house committee wanting Trump himself to appear before them to answer questions about this particular deal? Or did you even hear about this possibility?

   replyreport
   1. 89

      wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Because Dem's hate him and so do most of the R's.  As do far too many liberal citizens, pushing their representative to impeach him, murder him, do whatever is necessary to get a legally elected official out of office.  That's reason enough in the hallowed halls of congress - we've seen it far too many times.
      
      It's called a "witch hunt", isn't it?  If not, can you describe what is illegal about a presidential candidate's international business building a hotel in Russia?  Or anywhere else, for that matter?  In other words, why does anyone care?

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Randy Godwinposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         I don't hate Trump at all and never have. I'd have to respect him first and that has never been the case with any known liar and braggart I've observed. Some don't care at all the way he tries to bully and criticize anyone who disagrees with him. This is because they are exactly the same in their attitudes towards others. Mores the pity..

         replyreport
         1. 89

            wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            Randy, why is it you never answer questions?  Like "Why would anyone care", or "what's illegal about building a hotel in Russia".

            replyreport
            1. 60

               Randy Godwinposted 7 years agoin reply to this

               The answer is obvious to many people, he repeatedly said he doesn't know anyone from and had no business dealings with Russia. He also said that about those involved in his campaign. Do I have to list them again? If you believe the BS excuse by Jr. and son-in-law about their meeting then you will believe anything. Now their going back before the committee again. For absolutely nothing....from your view.

               replyreport
               1. 89

                  wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  Right.  He said he had no business dealings with Russia (or, presumably, with anyone residing in the country), which means it is almighty important to prove he lied...to anyone wishing to tarnish the President or the country he represents anyway.
                  
                  You're right - for absolutely nothing.  Because I don't particularly care if another lie from a politician is exposed, as long as it doesn't involve illegal activities...and there isn't even a hint from anyone that building a tower in Russia was illegal even if it happened.

                  replyreport
   2. 91

      crankaliciousposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      If Trump releases his tax returns, which he can do to some kind of closed committee so that the public never sees them, then that would prove any Russian connections, positive or negative. Pretty simple.

      replyreport
8. 60

   Randy Godwinposted 7 years ago

   The Special Prosecutor will get his tax returns, never fear. And that's when things will really get interesting.

   replyreport
   1. 89

      wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      You're probably right - as the insatiable curiosity of the public and the greed of competitors wanting an edge demands those private returns it will be interesting.  Of course, the investigator's integrity may not allow them to be released to the general public, but that's a forlorn hope in todays political climate, isn't it?  We can pretty much guarantee that they will be seen by congress, and that some idiot politician will "leak" it to the media.  After all, politicians have no integrity.
      
      If detailed information is in them - I've never seen the tax return of a major corporation and don't have a clue what's in there outside of a 1040 form.  I know when I had a small business I didn't submit information as to every vendor or customer and what was paid/received.  Available for audit, yes, but not on the tax return.

      replyreport
      1. 91

         crankaliciousposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         Robert Mueller is respected by those on both sides of the aisle, so we'll see what he finds out.

         replyreport
         1. 89

            wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            Meaning he has political friends on both sides.  Meaning if he gets the tax returns they WILL be made public.  Yes?

            replyreport
      2. 60

         Randy Godwinposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         I'm quite sure your business was a lot less congested than Trumps. Why do you care if Trumps taxes gets released anyway? He said he was going to release them after the audits were finished, and we both know he doesn't fib about stuff like that. 

         replyreport
         1. 89

            wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            Why do I care if someone is murdered?  Or a thief gets away with their loot?  Or if grafitti is painted on a fence?  Why should we care if anything happens, as long as it doesn't happen to us?
            
            Is that it?  It's OK as long as the bad things happen to the President?
            
            And yes, it was a lot less congested.  Not even a glass of water compared to his olympic swimming pool.  Which is why I said I don't have the foggiest what it would show, compared to what the public wants to see (massive dirt, methods to thwart his business, ways to hurt him financially, etc.)

            replyreport
9. 60

   Randy Godwinposted 7 years ago

   LOL! He's been "tarnished" long before he ran for POTUS. And I, for one, care if the POTUS is untrustworthy. I never claimed building a Trump Tower in Moscow was illegal, just that Trump was, at best, untruthful in his claims.

   replyreport
   1. 89

      wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      And you're happy to spend a few million $$ to find another lie.  Or at least try to find another lie - so far there is nothing to show for the efforts.  After all, "I did not have sex with that woman"!  "I did not put classified information on my own server"!  "Iraq has WMD's"!  And so on, ad infinitum - we always need more ways to discredit a president or other politician.
      
      Myself, I'd rather give it to Texas.  Or re-build a bridge.  Or build another VA hospital.  Or even send a man to mars.  I could find a thousand better uses for that money than to sling some more mud, but to each their own.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Randy Godwinposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         I suppose you were against Hillary's investigations which cost millions as well? Did you speak out against them at the time, or did you remain silent?

         replyreport
         1. 89

            wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            Both, if that makes sense.
            
            HRC is a criminal, with multiple violations of the rule to use only govt. servers.  Plus she lied to congress about it, another crime.  In that respect (finding criminal activity) it was worth it to prove these facts.
            
            At the same time I never expected to see her censured at all, and that was proven true.  In spite of the crimes she will suffer no penalty whatsoever, as I expected.  In that respect the investigation was not only useless it was contrary to good practices as it opens the double door wide to future violations of a similar kind.  Precedent has been set, in other words, and courts look at that.
            
            The Benghazi thing, however, was stupid from the start.  There never was a chance that anything significant would be found OR that anything would come of it.  Yes, she made mistakes; we ALL make mistakes no matter how hard we might try in an emergency.  It was never any more than a partisan effort to dirty a member of a different party, just like the Russian thing is.

            replyreport
10. 60

    Randy Godwinposted 7 years ago

    No, you probably wouldn't be. Just pullin' yore leg, GA! Kind of a cop out on the election, eh? Smart move, as this leaves you free to play either side. You sneaky ole coot!

    replyreport
    1. 81

       GA Andersonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

       In the same friendly spirit of your response, I will say it is good to have another voice in the forums, glad to see you back.
       
       But... Far from being a cop-out, I view my Kasich vote as a vote of principle. I value my privilege to vote as my voice in our goverment, and will not lend it to any movement; pro or anti - candidate or issue.
       
       ps. I never have a problem jumping the fence, as I am sure many here will attest. I frequently try to have my cake, and eat it to.  ;-)
       
       GA

       replyreport
       1. 60

          Randy Godwinposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          Thanks GA, glad to be back after a very long forum absence. No problem with you playing the field during our discussions.

          replyreport