Has President Donald Trump Been Compromised by Russia?

1. 87

   crankaliciousposted 5 years ago

   How else do you explain his behavior over the past few days and in Helsinki? Why does he refuse to hold Putin and Russia responsible for interfering in our election? Why, whenever he's given the chance, does he describe Putin as a strong leader and criticize America?
   
   Here are a couple of links. The first is part of an interview with CBS where he says unbelievable things about former American intelligence officers. It sounds like a man who is crazy:
   
   https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/201 … ot-vpx.cnn
   
   The second is from a former Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, wondering if President Trump has been compromised:
   
   https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/201 … pr-vpx.cnn
   
   Why does Trump, every chance he gets, say there was no collusion when there's evidence involving a meeting with his own son, that proves there was openness to collude. There's an admission that if the Russians had damaging information on Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump Jr. was willing to collude?
   
   These are amazing times and possible the beginning of the end to our democracy. We have a President, possibly compromised by the Russians, doing the Russians work, criticizing our allies, and trying to destabilize NATO. Sounds like a Russian to me.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      ahorsebackposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      IYUO
      
      In Your  Uninformed Opinion .

      replyreport
      1. 87

         crankaliciousposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         I believe both James Clapper and John Brennan are more informed than you or I.

         replyreport
   2. 0

      promisemposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      If he has not, then it's hard to understand why he is going against his own staff, cabinet members and Republican members of Congress.
      
      It's possible he rejects the investigation about Russian interference simply because it's a threat to his ego.
      
      It's also possible he is just worried that Russian oligarchs tied to Putin will take back all of the money they have invested in his businesses.

      replyreport
      1. 95

         wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         What money has "Russian oligarchs" invested in Trump's business?  And how would they "take back the money"?  Send the Russian Mafia into the non-existent Russian Trump Tower to steal the pillows?
         
         Do you have facts or just making things up as so many do?

         replyreport
         1. 0

            promisemposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            The pot calling the kettle black. Look it up yourself. There are hundreds of articles about it from credible sources.
            
            Bing search term: "russian investments in trump"

            replyreport
            1. 95

               wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

               "Trump also made significant money from one Russian oligarch in 2008, when he sold a mansion in Palm Beach for $95 million to Russian billionaire Dmitry Rybolovlev."
               
               Is this the kind of "investment" you refer to?  Do you think Dmitry will try to cancel the sales contract fulfilled 10 years ago?
               
               "The truth, as several columnists and reporters have painstakingly shown since the first hack of a Clinton-affiliated group took place in late May or early June, is that several of Trump’s businesses outside of Russia are entangled with Russian financiers inside Putin’s circle."  (Translation: we'd like to claim a financial stake, but can't so we'll claim "entanglement" instead.)
               
               That's the kind of thing I see from a search.  So..."What money has "Russian oligarchs" invested in Trump's business?  And how would they "take back the money"?  "

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  promisemposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  The phrases "cherry picking" and "taking out of context" immediately leap to mind.
                  
                  The Time article alone explains a $50 million investment in Trump SoHo with funds that flowed from Russian oligarchs through an Icelandic firm.
                  
                  Donald Trump Jr.: “Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets. We see a lot of money pouring in from Russia.”
                  
                  Trump bought the mansion you mention for $40 million and sold it to a Russian billionaire for $95 million in the middle of the Great Recession when property prices were plunging. The billionaire never lived in it. It's now part of a money laundering investigation.
                  
                  Taking back the money is obviously not the point. The point is Russian influence on Trump.
                  
                  Now it's your turn. Please provide facts proving these facts are wrong.

                  replyreport
                  1. 95

                     wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                     No.  You are insinuating, for instance, that Trump participated in a money laundering scheme with the house in Florida.  As "proof" you submit that he sold it for, perhaps, far more than it was worth and therefore he is a money launderer.  You know and I know that that is not proof of anything except he's a good businessman - you don't get to use it as proof of money laundering because you think it is without being able to prove it.
                     
                     So, no - it is not up to me to disprove your allegations.  YOU prove them true, and with more than insinuation, supposition and unrelated facts.  You might also consider not taking Trump jr's statements out of context and not shortening them to mean something they never did. 
                     
                     I don't doubt that Trump has finagled financial loans/investments with Russians.  He has with much of the world's countries - why not Russians as well?  But "not doubt" is a far cry from proof - you made the statement that Russian Oligarchs (rich Russians with strong political ties) invested in his companies and may want the money back, along with a very strong insinuation that Trump is influenced in his dealings with Russia because of those investments.  And, of course, that what he has done is illegal.  So prove it.

                     replyreport
                     1. 0

                        promisemposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                        So many words shoved into my mouth, and none of them my own.
                        
                        You demanded facts after "insinuating" that I was making them up. Now you have them.
                        
                        I'm not "insinuating" anything about the sale of the house. I said quite clearly the sale is under investigation for money laundering.
                        
                        I provided a direct quote from Donald Jr. about Russian investments. Is that not proof supporting my point? Or did he make up his facts too?
                        
                        You are not refuting my original point or my facts, nor can you, which means they are accurate.

                        replyreport
               2. 87

                  crankaliciousposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  Wildnerness, there's certainly nothing definitive yet, but if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it might be a duck.
                  
                  And you yourself have indicated you believe that the Mueller investigation has been a waste of time. I find that sad from somebody who seems to be pretty down-to-earth. There have been numerous indictments, including Trump's former campaign manager and, as I have pointed out, a meeting that included Donald Trump Jr. in which he admitted to being open to collusion if the Russians had the right kind of dirt (working with the Russians to win an election is the very definition of collusion).
                  
                  I just don't know how you or anybody else reach your conclusions. The easiest solution seems to be let the investigation run its course and then we'll all know the answers.

                  replyreport
                  1. 95

                     wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                     What conclusion do you think I've reached?  If it's that Mueller failed to produce evidence of collusion between Trump and the Russian (government or citizen) then you're right.  Have you reached the same conclusion, or do you still maintain there was collusion without ever having proof of it?
                     
                     Failed investigation or not, it might still be a duck.  "Might" being the operative word - you don't get to assume it is a duck, you don't get to produce unrelated evidence as proof it is a duck and you don't even get to insinuate it just has to be a duck because you want it to be.  You don't even get to claim that because Trump Jr. was "open to collusion IF..." (your words, not his) proves he colluded.

                     replyreport
                     1. 87

                        crankaliciousposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                        Mueller hasn't produced any specific evidence of collusion because his investigation isn't over.
                        
                        However, he has provided evidence of wrong-doing on the part of many people. Thus, the indictments.
                        
                        And while there is no absolute proof yet of Donald Trump Jr. colluding, he has provided prima facie evidence that he was open to it.
                        
                        I haven't concluded anything either, but the circumstantial evidence, of which there is a lot, suggests something illegal may have happened. It would be nice if somebody like Mueller, a man with a sterling reputation and respect from both Republicans and Democrats, was allowed to finish his investigation before being undermined.

                        replyreport
                        1. 95

                           wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                           Yeah - I know.  The investigation isn't over - we've been hearing that for over a year, but it still is not a reason to assume collusion.
                           
                           Yes, he provided indictments of people...indictments that have nothing to do with collusion. 
                           
                           It would be nice if Mueller finished his "investigation" in a reasonable time frame.  He has had more than enough time to find collusion between Trump and Putin - it's getting a little silly that he keeps widening the scope.  That circumstantial evidence says (pretty strongly) that the whole thing is a politically based witch hunt, desperate to find dirt on Donald Trump.
                           
                           Much like saying that because Jr. was open to accepting data from Russians is proof that he violated the law, the excuse that because the investigation isn't over is wearing just a bit thin.

                           replyreport
                           1. 87

                              crankaliciousposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                              He hasn't widened the scope at all. The scope was wide to being with. Look at his official charge.
                              
                              If he continues to find leads and evidence, then the investigation should continue for as long as it has to - until there's no more to do.
                              
                              And I don't agree at all that it is a politically-based witch hunt. That's what Donald Trump says all the time. You're willing to make that call on a lot less circumstantial evidence than there is for collusion (remember, an actual meeting where Trump's campaign said they would collude).
                              
                              Muller is a Republican. Rosenstein is a Republican. Comey is/was a Republican.
                              
                              Democrats are not conducting this investigation.

                              replyreport
                              1. 95

                                 wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                                 LOL  You find it useful to list the political affiliations of the investigators and then say it isn't politically based?  (Did you forget that nearly everyone on the Hill wants Trump gone, and for purely political reasons?)
                                 
                                 "If he continues to find leads and evidence, then the investigation should continue for as long as it has to - until there's no more to do."
                                 
                                 As the investigation is open ended, without any specific end to what is to be "investigated", that means the time line is open ended, too.  Until enough dirt is found, one way or another, about one "crime" or another, it can continue.  For generations if necessary.
                                 
                                 Which is what I said.  It is a never ending witch hunt to find anything - anything at all - with which to demonize the President of the United States.  With which to get that blankety blank upstart businessman out from under the feet of the politicians padding their pocketbooks!
                                 
                                 We both know that investigation was presented to the country as a look into finding whether Trump colluded with Putin to throw the election.  Fine - a ploy for dirt, and we all get that.  It didn't happen.  Let it end.

                                 replyreport
                     2. 0

                        promisemposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                        The investigation is not and never was only about collusion. That's just "making things up".
                        
                        https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/201 … ussia.html

                        replyreport
                        1. 95

                           wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                           Yep!
                           1.  Collusion between any Russian citizen or Russia and anyone with the campaign of Donald Trump
                           2.  Any matters he might find that lead to something else.
                           3.  Anything else he might want to do.
                           
                           I particularly like the last one.  Of course, the first one is what was publicized, but put it all together and he can "investigate" whatever he feels will lead to dirt on Trump.  Speeding tickets, maybe.

                           replyreport
                           1. 0

                              promisemposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                              Where do you see collusion or speeding tickets on that document?

                              replyreport
   3. 91

      Jean Bakulaposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Same to me. It's pathetic the way Trump plays up to Putin. He loves dictators and I'm afraid that's the direction he's trying to take us.
      
      Putin considers Trump "A useful idiot." I'm sure he can't believe his luck in finding a US President who doesn't care who Russia invades. Trump took more sanctions off of Russia today, the reason Putin wanted Trump to win.
      
      Trump is playing checkers while Putin is playing three dimensional chess. This is an embarrassment to our country and Trump is a traitor. Those who believe in him will believe anything and it's obvious by some of the same people who defend him no matter what idiotic things he does.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         ahorsebackposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         OMG Listen to yourselves , you ALL sound like thirteen year old's at a pajama party .
         Congratulations.

         replyreport
   4. 80

      Sharlee01posted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Simply as of today, there is no proof President Trump has been compromised by the Russians. In fact, he has been very hard on Russia.

      replyreport
      1. 91

         Jean Bakulaposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         Really? By not saying a word about the Ukraine or Crimea? When he asked
         Russia publicly to get help interfering in the election if they could contact Julian Assange at Wikileaks or get dirt on Hillary? In what way has he been hard on Russia? He offends our allies and sucks up to an authoritarian regime. Many members of his team have had dealings with Russians and never reported it. We have rules for that which other Presidents follow. Wake up.

         replyreport
         1. 80

            Sharlee01posted 5 years agoin reply to this

            We see this differently. I see Trump as a man that does what he says he will do. Not a man that shouts off his mouth with empty threats. (Like Obama)... I never respect anyone that shouts off their mouth yet looks ridiculous due to a reputation for never following through with is threats. 
            
            Hillary Clinton hired a company to create a dossier, this dossier was created from information compiled by Russian officials. How do you overlook such corruption?  Mueller has not charge Trump with anything, yet many are more than willing to condemn him before any facts are presented. Let me remind you Julian Assange's information was based totally in fact, and it certainly was disgusting to see what the DNC were up to. 
            
            "Really? By not saying a word about the Ukraine or Crimea? When he asked" I must ask, do you really think this is such a crime in light of this president's daily work to make the country a better place to live?

            replyreport
            1. 67

               JAKE Earthshineposted 5 years agoin reply to this

               If Traitor Trump does what he says like undermining our healthcare system, sabotaging our democracy, FAILING to secure our free elections and trashing our law enforcement while praising our enemy Russia just like what Vladimir Putin's agenda calls for, is that not evil? Of course it is:
               
               Just because you think Traitor Trump  'does what he says he'll do' doesn't make it any less sinister and detrimental to our once great USA:
               
               BTW Sharlee01, conservative's continuous false comparisons and seething hatred of President Obama and Hillary is still no legal defense for soon to be imprisoned Traitor Trump's crimes:
               
               ‘Treasonous’ Trump and ‘Putin’s poodle’: Scathing headlines follow the Helsinki summit'
               
               https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/17/trump-p … lines.html

               replyreport
               1. 80

                  Sharlee01posted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  "If Traitor Trump does what he says like undermining our healthcare system, sabotaging our democracy, FAILING to secure our free elections and trashing our law enforcement while praising our enemy Russia just like what Vladimir Putin's agenda calls for, is that not evil? Of course it is:"
                  
                  Jake Trump ran on the concept of canning Obamacare. Not a surprise to anyone that takes him at his word. I am hoping he will replace it with returning to an individual paying for their own care. And the taxpayer picks up the bill for via Medicaid for those that simply just can't work with true disabilities or are economically unable to purchase insurance.  Just don't care to pay for anyone's healthcare but my own, and the very poor or disabled. Just my opinion.
                  
                  In regard to our election. Trump has every one of his intelligence agencies working on the problem.  Hopefully, you saw the news conference yesterday.   "The White House brought out five top intelligence and national security officials to answer questions on Thursday, demonstrating a united front on fighting Russian election meddling.
                  
                  Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats, FBI Director Chris Wray, Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen, National Security Agency Director Paul Nakasone and National Security Adviser John Bolton all expressed commitment to thwarting foreign efforts to sow discord in the U.S. and influence upcoming elections."
                  
                  I must add Obama knew early on in the 2016 (2014)presidential primaries that Russia had picked up their hacking and attempts to interfere in the upcoming election. He did nothing. The interference continues in the presidential campaign. He did nothing? In fact, he stated " no one could interfere with our election. Told Trump to "stop whining". I blame Obama for this entire Mueller investigation which is costing taxpayers lots of cash. He certainly owed the citizens the truth about Russian interference while it occurred. He is despicable.
                  
                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TzYiotldh4
                  
                  "hatred of President Obama and Hillary is still no legal defense for soon to be imprisoned Traitor Trump's crimes:"
                  
                  No hate Jake, just disgust. Oh, Jake, by the way, what crimes has Trump been charged with? Must have missed something?
                  
                  In my opinion, he keeps his word and is well on the way to delivering all he promised. I am almost sick of winning... If the Russians gave us Trump. Thank you Putin!

                  replyreport
2. 67

   JAKE Earthshineposted 5 years ago

   
   
   Bozo Trump's new fox fake news communications weirdo really should refrain from allowing television close-ups of this disgraceful, bizarre, orange looking cowardly creature: On the positive side, at least he won't have to worry about 'advances' from the other inmates but he will need to worry about how they feel toward pedophiles, disgraceful hell bound persons who he has endorsed for U.S. Senate:
   
   Although Trump cultees will deny the day he's imprisoned, which must be coming soon if we still have laws, there's actually an entire treasure trove of damning evidence on file which will be drawn upon to indict and convict the 'traitor in chief' Donald Trump for his obvious compromised position:
   
   Here's just a tiny sample, the latest exhibit of hundreds if not thousands of exhibits depicting in black and white the direct link of conspiracy and treason between Mr. Trump, the most despicable betrayer in United States history, and his accomplices from Russia:
   
   If a request to commit espionage against the USA on national television with millions of witnesses, which received an almost immediate response from our arch enemy Vladimir Putin and or his agents who commenced an espionage campaign against the USA is NOT prima facie evidence of these most serious federal crimes, then what is? A sign wrapped around his neck saying "I'm a traitor": Even that wouldn't be as solid as what the prosecutors already have:
   
   
   "Trump asked Russians to get Clinton emails. They immediately started trying."
   
   
   https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/13/politics … index.html

   replyreport
3. 0

   ahorsebackposted 5 years ago

   
   
   Liberal Trump opposition has failed , It has failed miserably too . From day one you have based your opposition on fake news , false charges and the utter stupidity of a continuing , mindless , repetitive attacks  from the fake news media .
   
   TOY'S R US should be the emblem of the new democratic party .
   Failure over and over again.

   replyreport
4. 52

   jaqizposted 5 years ago

   As an NPA (No Party Affiliation) member,also an observer of our political atmosphere, I would think you're comment refers to Obama and his administration's policies of "hope and change" to what, socialism by way of Alinsky's  "Rules for Radicals" ? He followed each of the rules and Hillary would have continued the systematical dismantling of our nation, much to the joy of Soros.  All this hate is incredible and continues to be decisive.  Seems that the Left accuses the Right of actions that they themselves are guilty of.  NPA membership is growing because we realize that the Left and the Right belong to the same bird......time for a different bird.

   replyreport