Did I Hear Right? Did Trump Exclude His Own Nat’l Security Advisor from His Meeting with Putin?

a reply to: windword


If you don't mind me disagreeing here. This is just the sort of thing a real leader does and he knows the timing is good for a public demonstration of a leader that takes this conversation with Putin on his own. I want to explain it but this understand comes from experience not judgment or political form.

originally posted by: veracity

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: UKTruth


If you refuse to trust Amercian intel chiefs and leaders who ARE privy to what you are not, that's your problem, not mine.

President Trump is compromised. He's unfit to represent of best interest of the American People. This meeting with Putin and his Administration's lies as well as his trashing of the US intel community, the past US president and the Free Press just provide more proof.

I would say you have a BIG problem if you choose to trust US Intelligence. They lie for a living. Until they provide some evidence their words ring hollow.
The person with access to ALL the intelligence is your President:

“I’ve said it very simply. I think it could very well have been Russia. I think it could well have been other countries. I won’t be specific. But I think a lot of people interfere,” Trump said. “Nobody really knows. Nobody really knows for sure.”

You choose to believe those that fit your narrative.... you don;t believe the President even though he has access to information you don't, but you choose to believe others that have access to information you don't. That is called bias.

I don't believe Trump or anyone else. I want to see evidence.

the left should not choose to believe facts that "fit their narrative" but the extreme right or trump supporter can?

No, lets see the evidence and believe none of them. Until evidence that proves Russia did it is produced then all we have are opinions and when the fact that McMaster is used as 'proof' of actual collusion, it becomes clear that those making the claims have absolutely nothing to back up their emotional need for the propaganda to be true.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: veracity

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: UKTruth


If you refuse to trust Amercian intel chiefs and leaders who ARE privy to what you are not, that's your problem, not mine.

President Trump is compromised. He's unfit to represent of best interest of the American People. This meeting with Putin and his Administration's lies as well as his trashing of the US intel community, the past US president and the Free Press just provide more proof.

I would say you have a BIG problem if you choose to trust US Intelligence. They lie for a living. Until they provide some evidence their words ring hollow.
The person with access to ALL the intelligence is your President:

“I’ve said it very simply. I think it could very well have been Russia. I think it could well have been other countries. I won’t be specific. But I think a lot of people interfere,” Trump said. “Nobody really knows. Nobody really knows for sure.”

You choose to believe those that fit your narrative.... you don;t believe the President even though he has access to information you don't, but you choose to believe others that have access to information you don't. That is called bias.

I don't believe Trump or anyone else. I want to see evidence.

the left should not choose to believe facts that "fit their narrative" but the extreme right or trump supporter can?

No, lets see the evidence and believe none of them. Until evidence that proves Russia did it is produced then all we have are opinions and when the fact that McMaster is used as 'proof' of actual collusion, it becomes clear that those making the claims have absolutely nothing to back up their emotional need for the propaganda to be true.

but if the evidence comes from a left leaning source...then its not to be believed, only if it comes from a right leaning source?

Perhaps you want politically neutral sources? do you understand how you sound?

a reply to: ketsuko

Wrong only Tillerson.
There is no notation anywhere saying anyone else was there
Putin / Larov / interpreter
Trump/ Tillerson / interpreter
That's all.
Until Melania was sent in to tell them to wrap it up.

I can here it now "Come on boys wrap it up. Dinner is almost ready"

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: UKTruth

Wow thank god this person wasn't the president. We would be glowing in a nuclear waste land after the first week this tool took office.

Exactly - the emotion of losing the election is still so strong that lunatics at CNN wanted the President to use his first meeting with Putin to try and blackmail him. That is why we are all so lucky that these idiots are being ignored and sidelined.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: dragonridr

Did he say Tillerson wasn't there?
No.
He said national security advisor and he WAS NOT ALLOWED IN.

There were 6 people in the meeting a side from Putin and Trump, Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov and US Secretary of State Tillerson was there, accompanied by translators from each country.

However it appears that his staff was trying to get him out of there. Even at one point sending in the first lady to tell him he had obligations. Apparently he still talked for another hour.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: UKTruth

Wow thank god this person wasn't the president. We would be glowing in a nuclear waste land after the first week this tool took office.

Exactly - the emotion of losing the election is still so strong that lunatics at CNN wanted the President to use his first meeting with Putin to try and blackmail him. That is why we are all so lucky that these idiots are being ignored and sidelined.

they are being ignored and sidelined by trump supporters only, it only further divides you out into your little group.

a reply to: seeker1963

How? He never said trump was alone. He asked very specifically about the national security advisor.
Are you leaving that out on purpose and if so why?

Not including people from a meeting doesn't mean he doesn't trust them, it just removes all possibility of a situation from being able to happen later.

a reply to: UKTruth

I would say you have a BIG problem if you choose to trust US Intelligence. They lie for a living. Until they provide some evidence their words ring hollow.

LOL Yes, I choose to believe my country's intel. You have shown to lie on these boards all the time. So, forgive me for giving not two hoots about your flawed opinions of me.

It's unfitting for the President of the United States to reject US intel. And since Trump recently proclaimed that "He just found out today that Obama knew about Russia", when the rest of us knew it back in the Fall, just tells you that either Trump doesn't pay attention to his intel, or he's got memory/reality problems.

Either Tillerson lied when he said that Trump pressed hard and then they moved on, unable to agree.

According to Tillerson, Putin denied any role in hacking the 2016 election when Mr. Trump broached the subject at the beginning of the meeting, and the two moved on despite the "intractable" differences between the two countries.

Or, the Russians lied when they said that Trump accepted their claim of innocence and denial.

Putin's comments align with those of Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, who told reporters in a press conference Friday after the two world leaders met face-to-face for the first time that Mr. Trump accepted Putin's assertion that Russians did not meddle in the election.

Asked about the discrepancies on Saturday, Putin spokesman Dmitry Peskov joked, "Trust Lavrov. I don't work for Tillerson." 

www.cbsnews.com...

If it's true, and the Trump Administration lied to us, then for sure, President is compromised and Tillerson is complicit.

originally posted by: veracity

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: veracity

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: UKTruth

Here’s the public evidence that supports the idea that Russia interfered in the 2016 election

Nikki Haley: ‘Everybody knows that Russia meddled in our elections’

Sen. King: 'No doubt whatsoever' Russia interfered in election

Ex-intel chief: 'No evidence whatsoever' anyone but Russia interfered in election

James Clapper: 'Absolutely' Russia Interfered in Election

There is no evidence in any of those links.
Opinions are not proof or evidence. If Russia was on trial in a court of law, they would be cleared very quickly based on what we have seen to date.
When a single shred of evidence is produced that Russia hacked the DNC then I will at least give it some credence - till then there is nothing to support the claims.

So no evidence is good enough for you unless you saw or heard it with your own ears (or if it fits your agenda)?

Ya know, thats ok...its smart not to trust everyone and everything you hear...however, if not well balanced...you come off as a little...off...like your elevator doesnt quite reach the top.

Nope - how about law enforcement getting to actually review the DNC log files and the other associated claims from a company appointed by the DNC to do the investigation... that would be a good start. Debbie Wasserman Shultz's organisations claims are not good enough for me and they shouldn't be for anyone else. When actual evidence comes to light then lets talk.

Till then there is no proof at all and only a moron would walk into a meeting with Putin and try and blackmail him, as CNN suggest, for example.

you mean when actual evidence comes from a right wing source? What if its the same?

No I mean actual evidence. The even the evidence put forward by a private company working for the DNC is only circumstantial and we've not even seen any of it.

If evidence surfaces that the Russians did hack the DNC then they should be taken on by US counter intelligence rather than the US getting all salty about it.
After all the US are the biggest culprits of all in terms of interfering with other countries.

Till then I am not stepping on the crazy propaganda train that seems to have warped people's minds to the extent they are running around with pitch forks screaming "Russia", "collusion" and "hacks" whilst foaming at the mouth.

a reply to: windword

More propaganda contained in your post - I heard Putin's interview. He said the reporter asking the question would need to ask Trump if he believed Russia's version of events.

You keep getting caught with propaganda and you can;t even see it's fuelling your delusions.

I am actually going to try and help you by examining your last statement which was this:

If it's true, and the Trump Administration lied to us, then for sure, President is compromised and Tillerson is complicit.

So, you are saying that because Tillerson's version of events did not line up exactly with the Russian version then he is lying (let's forget translators and political spin for the moment).

You've leaped from a slightly different version of events to a conclusion that Tillerson intended to deceive. Moreover you claim this is proof of collusion.

Now, if there was collusion and Tillerson was in on it as you claiming, then why would these people not have colluded to match up their stories? Would have been pretty easy to do.

Your logic in your statement is obviously absurd, so I am genuinely trying to pull you back to rational thought.

a reply to: Sillyolme

Until Melania was sent in to tell them to wrap it up.

Apparently, Trump's programming wasn't complete. They needed another hour to complete the job.

a reply to: UKTruth

Asked about the discrepancies on Saturday, Putin spokesman Dmitry Peskov joked, "Trust Lavrov. I don't work for Tillerson." 

That's from today. The press is still not clear on the discrepancies in the meeting details. Does Trump accept Russia's claim of innocence, or not? That's the question, and that answer is in dispute by a double narrative.

Russian interference and meddling simply refers to RT.com

Outside of that, the intelligence agencies have absolutely nothing. If they had a shred of evidence, or even if they could fake it, it'd be all over CNN and co by now.

Trump is a complete buffoon. But he has nothing to do with Russia.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: UKTruth

Asked about the discrepancies on Saturday, Putin spokesman Dmitry Peskov joked, "Trust Lavrov. I don't work for Tillerson." 

That's from today. The press is still not clear on the discrepancies in the meeting details. Does Trump accept Russia's claim of innocence, or not? That's the question, and that answer is in dispute by a double narrative.

Not a very good case for collusion is it?
Putin has already said that whether Trump believes them or not is a question for Trump, and as explained there really is no double narrative. I suspect the President did accept Russia's answers and moved on to more important business. Whether he believes them or not is another matter, and wholly unimportant.

a reply to: UKTruth


The nation. ( Our nation btw) wanted him to confront him on his crimes.
Congress, the IC, We the People all want answers. Of course Putin denied it.
He's a lying bastard just like trump. They understand each other.

a reply to: dragonridr

Correct.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: UKTruth


The nation. ( Our nation btw) wanted him to confront him on his crimes.
Congress, the IC, We the People all want answers. Of course Putin denied it.
He's a lying bastard just like trump. They understand each other.

By 'our nation' you mean crazy liberals - which is actually just an ever reducing fringe element of society. You no more speak for the whole nation than I speak for the whole of the UK.

There is no evidence of the crime being claimed and we're fortunate that fools who wanted to rush in and confront Putin instead of having a conversation were not in the room.. or worse, utter morons like those at CNN were not in the room to try their blackmail tactics.

a reply to: UKTruth

Wow you're about the only soul on the planet that doesn't think Russia did this.
How do you explain that?
Even that moron in the Whitehouse said it when he needed it to be true so he could slam Obama on something else that wasn't true. Namely that Obama didn't do anything about it.
But hold tight to your beliefs. Of course you may wind up rocking in a corner humming it to yourself in a little while if you're that deeply invested in the man. Sorry