18 contacts between Trump campaign staff and Russian government officials

[John B.]

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-contacts-idUSKCN18E106?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=Social

Michael Flynn and other advisers to Donald Trump’s campaign were in contact with Russian officials and others with Kremlin ties in at least 18 calls and emails during the last seven months of the 2016 presidential race, current and former U.S. officials familiar with the exchanges told Reuters.

The previously undisclosed interactions form part of the record now being reviewed by FBI and congressional investigators probing Russian interference in the U.S. presidential election and contacts between Trump’s campaign and Russia.

[Michael P]

"John B." wrote in message
news:633aae2b-c5f5-44f2...@googlegroups.com...

Got a name on who disclosed that info?

Possibly the tooth fairy?

[MNMikeW]

The people who described the contacts to Reuters said they had seen no
evidence of wrongdoing or collusion between the campaign and Russia in
the communications reviewed so far.

[B...@onramp.net]

Isn't the problem not only wrongdoing or collusion but the call
itself? Were they supposed to make any contact at all?

[MNMikeW]

B...@Onramp.net wrote:

>>>
>>>> The previously undisclosed interactions form part of the record now
>>>> being reviewed by FBI and congressional investigators probing Russian
>>>> interference in the U.S. presidential election and>contacts between
>>>> Trump’s campaign and Russia.
>>>
>>> Got a name on who disclosed that info?
>>>
>>> Possibly the tooth fairy?
>>>
>>>
>> The people who described the contacts to Reuters said they had seen no
>> evidence of wrongdoing or collusion between the campaign and Russia in
>> the communications reviewed so far.
>
> Isn't the problem not only wrongdoing or collusion but the call
> itself? Were they supposed to make any contact at all?

The REAL scandal is the unmasking that took place. Collusion is not a crime.

[B...@onramp.net]

On Thu, 18 May 2017 13:17:10 -0500 (CDT), Moderate
<nos...@noemail.com> wrote:

>"John B." <john...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
>> http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-contacts-idUSKCN18E106?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=Social
>>
>> Michael Flynn and other advisers to Donald Trump?s campaign were in contact with Russian officials and others with Kremlin ties in at least 18 calls and emails during the last seven months of the 2016 presidential race, current and former U.S. officials familiar with the exchanges told Reuters.
>>
>> The previously undisclosed interactions form part of the record now being reviewed by FBI and congressional investigators probing Russian interference in the U.S. presidential election and contacts between Trump?s campaign and Russia.
>>
>
>More unknown undisclosed sources.
>
>This is as meaningless as the Comey note fiction.
>
>We already know this took place after the election.


Snore.

[B...@onramp.net]

On Thu, 18 May 2017 13:19:47 -0500 (CDT), Moderate
<nos...@noemail.com> wrote:

>B...@Onramp.net Wrote in message:

>As often as they feel necessary. This was after the election.
>
>More fake news spread by people who can't think for themselves.

Any time you post that something is "fake news" I'm positive that you
don't know what you're talking about.

[B...@onramp.net]

Are you referencing the Susan Rice unmaskings?

[Alan Baker]

On 2017-05-18 11:17 AM, Moderate wrote:
> "John B." <john...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:

>> http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-contacts-idUSKCN18E106?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=Social
>>

>> Michael Flynn and other advisers to Donald Trump?s campaign were in contact with Russian officials and others with Kremlin ties in at least 18 calls and emails during the last seven months of the 2016 presidential race, current and former U.S. officials familiar with the exchanges told Reuters.
>>
>> The previously undisclosed interactions form part of the record now being reviewed by FBI and congressional investigators probing Russian interference in the U.S. presidential election and contacts between Trump?s campaign and Russia.
>>
>
> More unknown undisclosed sources.
>
> This is as meaningless as the Comey note fiction.
>
> We already know this took place after the election.
>

How do YOU claim to know that, doofus?

[Alan Baker]

LOL!

Unmasking isn't a crime, Mikey.

And the people doing it literally CANNOT KNOW that they were unmasking
Trump's people...

...BECAUSE THE NAMES WERE MASKED!

[Alan Baker]

On 2017-05-18 11:19 AM, Moderate wrote:
> B...@Onramp.net Wrote in message:

> As often as they feel necessary. This was after the election.

Cite!

[Alan Baker]

On 2017-05-18 11:34 AM, Moderate wrote:
>
>
> Since the libs are so concerned about contacts with foreign
> governments this will make them livid.
>
> http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/129728
>

"But, but, but... ...Obama!"

Are you saying that such talks were wrong, doofus?

[Alan Baker]

> Of course you do. You aren't smart enough to discern truth from
> lies so you repeat the lies.
>
> The article states these contacts happened after the election.

Quote that part...

> You base your opinion on the headlines.
>

[Alan Baker]

On 2017-05-18 12:27 PM, Moderate wrote:

> Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> Wrote in message:

> I read the article.
>

So quote the text...

[Alan Baker]

On 2017-05-18 12:28 PM, Moderate wrote:
> Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> Wrote in message:

> You are.
>

I'm asking you for your stance...


...are you afraid to take one?

[Alan Baker]

On 2017-05-18 12:44 PM, Moderate wrote:
> Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> Wrote in message:

> Obviously you think it is only wrong when Trump does it.
>

I'm asking you what YOU think...

..and you keep ducking.

:-)

[B...@onramp.net]

On Thu, 18 May 2017 14:27:07 -0500 (CDT), Moderate

>Of course you do. You aren't smart enough to discern truth from
> lies so you repeat the lies.
>
>The article states these contacts happened after the election.

> You base your opinion on the headlines.

Went over your head huh? Crying "wolf", or in your case, "fake news",
is a definite sign that you have nothing, just blathering.

As far as intelligence you come in last on RSG.

[-hh]

On Thu, 18 May 2017 13:09:20 -0500, MNMikeW <mnmi...@aol.com> wrote:

Gosh, it looks like MNMike forgot to look up the definition of "Collusion"
(hint: it is, by formal & literal definition, a specific type of crime).

FYI, so too is something called "Obstruction of Justice".

But do continue to believe in the miracles promised to you by what's increasingly
becoming the 21st Century IRL version of the Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight.



-hh

[John B.]

Collusion is a crime. Unmasking is not.

[John B.]

If the contacts were criminal in nature, it doesn't matter whether
they happened before or after the election.

[Alan Baker]

On 2017-05-18 12:49 PM, Moderate wrote:
> Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> Wrote in message:

>> On 2017-05-18 11:09 AM, MNMikeW wrote:
>>> B...@Onramp.net wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The previously undisclosed interactions form part of the record now
>>>>>>> being reviewed by FBI and congressional investigators probing Russian
>>>>>>> interference in the U.S. presidential election and>contacts between

>>>>>>> Trump?s campaign and Russia.

>>>>>>
>>>>>> Got a name on who disclosed that info?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Possibly the tooth fairy?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> The people who described the contacts to Reuters said they had seen no
>>>>> evidence of wrongdoing or collusion between the campaign and Russia in
>>>>> the communications reviewed so far.
>>>>
>>>> Isn't the problem not only wrongdoing or collusion but the call
>>>> itself? Were they supposed to make any contact at all?
>>>
>>> The REAL scandal is the unmasking that took place. Collusion is not a
>>> crime.
>>>
>>
>> LOL!
>>
>> Unmasking isn't a crime, Mikey.
>>
>> And the people doing it literally CANNOT KNOW that they were unmasking
>> Trump's people...
>>
>> ...BECAUSE THE NAMES WERE MASKED!
>>
>

> Really?
>
> http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/04/05/susan-rices-alleged-unm
> asking-requests-not-so-routine-ex-officials-say.html
>

Nothing in that refutes what I said, doofus.

[Alan Baker]

> Bwaahaahaa. Go fuck yourself. Read the cite.
>

I did.

First paragraph (emphasis mine)

"Michael Flynn and other advisers to Donald Trump’s campaign were in

contact with Russian officials and others with Kremlin ties in at least

18 calls and emails DURING THE LAST SEVEN MONTHS OF THE 2016
PRESIDENTIAL RACE...

And again:

'The 18 calls and electronic messages took place between April and
November 2016'

The only place it mentions anything after the election is only with
regard to Flynn talking to others, but they are talking about other
people than Flynn in the article.

[Alan Baker]

On 2017-05-18 3:55 PM, Moderate wrote:
> "John B." <john...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:

>> lies.
>>>>
>>>> The article states these contacts happened after the election.
>>
>> If the contacts were criminal in nature, it doesn't matter whether
>> they happened before or after the election.
>>
>

> Bwaahaahaa. The imagination of these fucks is amazing. Don't they
> read Congressional testimony?
>

What testimony are you alluding to?

I bet you'll produce no text that backs up your implied refutation.

:-)

[B...@onramp.net]

On Thu, 18 May 2017 16:03:06 -0700, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net>
wrote:

Well Mod, I guess when you say that no one here nails your ass this
proves quite the opposite. You always make claims that are bogus,
hoping that no one fact checks you. Tsk, Tsk.

[Carbon]

OMFG. You serious?

1. Unmasking was perfectly legal.

2. Collusion is a crime.

Not bad for one line.

[MNMikeW]

Umasking for political reasons is.

[B...@onramp.net]

Nope, not for anything.

[B...@onramp.net]

On Fri, 19 May 2017 09:38:13 -0500 (CDT), Moderate
<nos...@noemail.com> wrote:

>"John B." <john...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:

>> On Thursday, May 18, 2017 at 2:09:21 PM UTC-4, MNMikeW wrote:
>>>
>>> The REAL scandal is the unmasking that took place. Collusion is not a crime.
>>
>> Collusion is a crime. Unmasking is not.
>>
>

>http://dailycaller.com/2017/05/16/exclusive-clappers-intel-reforms
>-helped-rice-unmask-americans/?utm_campaign=atdailycaller&utm_sour
>ce=Twitter&utm_medium=Social

The Daily Caller?
You might as well be quoting the National Enquirer.

[Alan Baker]

Mike:

How do you "unmask for political reasons"...

...when the very POINT of masking is that you don't know the identity of
who you'll be unmasking until after you DO it?

Would you or one of the other wingnuts please explain HOW this was
supposed to have happened and account for that fact?

[Alan Baker]

On 2017-05-19 9:56 AM, Moderate wrote:
> B...@Onramp.net Wrote in message:

> More credible than msm. Listed sources details.
>

Only literally nothing in that article corroborates the claim that
unmasking is supposedly a crime.

Nor does it address the central issue that you unmask people without
knowing who they are until you do it.

[B...@onramp.net]

On Fri, 19 May 2017 11:56:29 -0500 (CDT), Moderate
<nos...@noemail.com> wrote:

>B...@Onramp.net Wrote in message:

>More credible than msm. Listed sources details.

I think not.

[Alan Baker]

On 2017-05-19 11:55 AM, Moderate wrote:
> Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> Wrote in message:

> I already did.
>

No.

You did not.

If you did, then you wouldn't hesitate to produce a link to the post
where you did it.

But you haven't...

...and you won't...

...because you've got nothing...

...and everyone knows it.

:-)

[Alan Baker]

On 2017-05-19 11:58 AM, Moderate wrote:
> Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> Wrote in message:

> Really. You don't know that spying on people is a crime? Read the
> FISA Act.
> It specifically deals with this issue.
>

But surveillance of foreign nationals is legal, correct?

(Let's walk this through. One step at a time.)

[John B.]

Which was not the case with Susan Rice.

[Alan Baker]

Still waiting to see just one of the wingnuts explain how you can unmask
someone of whom you cannot know the actual identity for "political reasons".

That motive pre-supposes knowledge of the person to be unmasked.

[Alan Baker]

> It specifically refutes what you said.
>

No it doesn't

Tell you what:

Quote what I actually said (now snipped--coincidence?).

Then quote what from that article refutes it and explain how.

You can't pretend that this is hard to do without basically admitting
you're not bright enough to copy and paste.

[Alan Baker]

On 2017-05-19 12:22 PM, Moderate wrote:
> Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> Wrote in message:
>> On 2017-05-19 11:55 AM, Moderate wrote:
>>> Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> Wrote in message:
>>>>

>>>> Would you or one of the other wingnuts please explain HOW this was
>>>> supposed to have happened and account for that fact?
>>>>
>>>
>>> I already did.
>>>
>>
>> No.
>>
>> You did not.
>>
>> If you did, then you wouldn't hesitate to produce a link to the post
>> where you did it.
>>
>> But you haven't...
>>
>> ...and you won't...
>>
>> ...because you've got nothing...
>>
>> ...and everyone knows it.
>>
>> :-)
>>
>

> You replied to my cite from today.
>

Again. If you have a link to a post where you address the question of
HOW you can know who you're unmasking before you do it, let's see it.

[Dene]

On 5/19/2017 12:22 PM, Moderate wrote:
> Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> Wrote in message:
>> On 2017-05-19 11:55 AM, Moderate wrote:
>>> Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> Wrote in message:
>>>>

>>>> Would you or one of the other wingnuts please explain HOW this was
>>>> supposed to have happened and account for that fact?
>>>>
>>>
>>> I already did.
>>>
>>
>> No.
>>
>> You did not.
>>
>> If you did, then you wouldn't hesitate to produce a link to the post
>> where you did it.
>>
>> But you haven't...
>>
>> ...and you won't...
>>
>> ...because you've got nothing...
>>
>> ...and everyone knows it.
>>
>> :-)
>>
>

> You replied to my cite from today.

You have never had an honest discussion from the R.A.T. (resident
asshole troll) and you never will. So why try...ignore IT. BK, Carbs,
and John are honest and sincere. The RAT is neither.

[Carbon]

Cite.

[-hh]

Greg wrote:
> have never had an honest discussion from the R.A.T. (resident
> asshole troll) and you never will. So why try...ignore IT. BK, Carbs,
> and John are honest and sincere. The RAT is neither.

And such an Ad Hominem advances the conversation... how?

Namecalling is pragmatic evidence that you've lost the debate on its merits.

-hh

[Dene]

Calling out a troll is not a debate.

[-hh]

Greg wrote:

So you're making a claim that Alan is a troll? Upon just what specific basis?
Can you actually prove your claim? Cite please.

For example, in this thread, Alan is reminding Moderate (and us) that Moderate
has once again failed to substantiate his claims, particularly despite requests to
provide credible substantiating citations. YMMV on if this is "badgering", but it
is in response to Moderate, so that's not being an initiator: if you're going to find
something to complain about, how about going after Moderate for making all of
his unsupported claims? Or is that too big of a challenge for you because they
are in alignment with your own confirmation bias, so you don't want these claims
to be debunked?

Seems a pretty sad America if you avoid seeking the truth, no matter how unpleasant
it ends up being for you...


-hh