Campaign adviser changes story, contradicts Trump, says Donald ordered Ukraine change at RNC

originally posted by: DrStevenBrule

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: DrStevenBrule
Fake news to distract from the very criminal actions of Obongo wire tapping the incoming President.

Yes, it's all fake, not grounded in the least bit of reality even with tons of evidence, but Obama wiretapping Trump is completely true, even with no evidence.

Wow, you guys are seriously in denial.

Denial?

Like thinking the Russians some how tried to influence our elections with zero evidence?

Or like thinking George Soros tried to influence our elections with mountains of evidence showing collusion with the very top of the Democratic party?

Funny how you like to focus on one but not the other hypocrite.

This thread focuses on one issue, Trump campaign covertly meeting with the Russian Ambassador to change policy, and then lying.

The others have nothing to do with thread.

Stop with the red herrings and deflection.

It's too much to ask people to simply address the issue at hand in this article, instead they scramble to bring up other things that should be discussed in their own thread if a worthy topic.

LE, Interesting article, I don't know much about this advisor, was he in place to the end of the campaign does anyone know?

No proof anywhere yet.

So far it's the usual "He said She said" trash.

Big deflection efforts.

I prefer Trumps position on Russian relations. But lying to Congress is not ok. And the DNC would have had little to worry about if they werent corrupt to the core.

looks like ats propagandists are hard work talking NOT about the topic at hand but everything else not having to do with it

originally posted by: Taggart
But But Hillary and Obama....

The thing is, if you think Obama and Clintons dealings with Russia is a bad thing, you should also think Trump and Co dealing with them is also bad, you can't have it both ways.

It's okay When Trump does it, just blame Obama it seems, instead off attacking both people on here attack Obama for the same thing they defend Trump for.

Yes you can have it both ways.... There is PROOF of the Russia dealings with CLinton, and the rest. In the case of Trump, it is all allegations. If Trump sells Uranium under our noses and does other highly illegal things, then yes your point would stand correct.

originally posted by: pirhanna
I prefer Trumps position on Russian relations. But lying to Congress is not ok. And the DNC would have had little to worry about if they werent corrupt to the core.

That's the thing, too. If their intentions were good why aren't they forthcoming, why did they do it secretly and lie, or why not wait until after the election when it would have been "official?" There's something deeper to this, whether business interests or the Russians completely manipulating Trumps campaign officials for their own interests at the expense of the US.

I'd prefer to have no proxy wars, either, but these are shady dealings.

WHY?

double post

According to CNN's Jim Acosta, however, Gordon said that at the RNC he and others "advocated for the GOP platform to include language against arming Ukrainians against pro-Russian rebels" because "this was in line with Trump's views, expressed at a March national security meeting at the unfinished Trump hotel" in Washington, DC.

Funny , someone wanted to arm Ukrainians and that isn't the story . Bad Trump for not wanting to start another civil war . We have weapons to sell

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Liquesence

Big Deal, a "total reversal" "softening of rhetoric", are we to believe they were lying before or now?

Probably trying to save their arses for when the shift.

Yah safely taking both sides , just in case...

a reply to: MajorAce

The "pro-Russian rebels," incidentally, are in place via Putin.

So it's not a civil war, it's the Russian empire's way of annexing Ukraine, eventually. The US was going to prevent that via arming Ukrainians to fight them.

a reply to: Liquesence

I did a post on this very subject at another thread a couple of hours ago, so I'll post it here too.

they did not only change that stance*, they changed it drastically, firebrands were at the conference speeches ready to agree to arm the Ukcraine with fighting equipment and all sorts of stuff, and they were stood down by two of Trumps men. Angry people then demanded the minutes of the meeting and were told different stories, (1) there were no minutes?? (2) they would have to wait until the minutes were typed up later on in the week.
A dossier from Ukraine's anti-corruption team suggest that a Trump-Russia quid pro quo was at the heart of the GOP's dramatic shift on Ukraine and that Paul Manafort had been earmarked for $12.7million by Yanukovych.. Manafort, on Trumps team at the time of the GOP conference debacle, was more than likely one of the two Trump men who intervened, (wrongly) at the conference and had the more aggressive motion against Ukraine tabled.

So, the idea is that in return for a softening on Russia, Trump would get hold of the DNC e-mails that Russia would release by a proxy to Wikileaks, (it has to be possible that Assange would not know the real source of those e-mails) therefore having ammunition to blast Clinton and the Democrats on the campaign trail.
All of the above re the conference itself appears to be true, and there's no doubt that Trump had a softly softly approach to Russia.
But, the thing is, Trump wasn't talking too much like that in 2015 when he spoke via link to a conference in Ukraine. He said,
" Russia had pursued an aggressive policy in Ukraine because there is no respect for the United States." Of course that's also a dig at Obama, but still, there is the implication there that he would not be so easy on Russia had he been in charge. Still and all, in that same speech, he did not offer any help, and left it for NATO to 'sort it out'?? confused or what over NATO?, even though he has criticised NATO at times, and in the past he has written he didn't care about the Ukraine anyway or what they did. even so, at least one Ukraine activist called Trump a Kremlin agent, Trumps 'stance' didn't fool him as it turns out, now that's back in Sept 2015.
At the end of the day though, it just shows that Trump doesn't know his arse from his elbow when it comes to foreign policy, and says whatever comes out of his gub to suit the situation.
He was well paid for that speech, let's hope it went into his foundation, though I dare say that it did.


* refers to the two people from Trumps team.

a reply to: smurfy

So, the idea is that in return for a softening on Russia, Trump would get hold of the DNC e-mails that Russia would release by a proxy to Wikileaks,

"Coincidentally," the emails were released the same week as this change in the RNC platform regarding Russian/Ukraine, as the OP mentions, from what I've read.

As for the rest: wall of text, :/ and....any links?

Wikileaks has yet to reveal the source of the leaks tho.. One thing they did say about it was, it wasn't the Russians.

Can anyone explain the purpose of a "Russian Ambassador" to the US?

This guy should be locked up and shot. I mean, he's Russian right? We know that, so why not just off the dude.

Or...... is his job to communicate with people in the US about Russian affairs?

I guess I really am having a hard time seeing the crime here. Who is allowed to speak to this guy and who isn't?

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: smurfy

So, the idea is that in return for a softening on Russia, Trump would get hold of the DNC e-mails that Russia would release by a proxy to Wikileaks,

"Coincidentally," the emails were released the same week as this change in the RNC platform regarding Russian/Ukraine, as the OP mentions, from what I've read.

As for the rest: wall of text, :/ and....any links?

I'll just keep using this post to add links as I recover them,
This one goes right back to the start of the attacks with a lot of history of what went before,
www.nytimes.com...

www.washingtonpost.com... r-the-united-states/?utm_term=.e21343b2995e
uk.businessinsider.com...
www.voanews.com... *Diana Denman key conference member in relation to amendment.

www.thedailybeast.com...

Oh! nearly forgot, a Trump interview on TV where he is asked why the GOP softening towards Russia over Ukraine where he replies using a Manuellian,
"I know nootheeeng" which actually only applies to the rest of the interview.

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Liquesence

Big Deal, a "total reversal" "softening of rhetoric", are we to believe they were lying before or now?

Probably trying to save their arses for when the shtf.

Too good to be true. its a paid benadict arnold.

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Liquesence

Big Deal, a "total reversal" "softening of rhetoric", are we to believe they were lying before or now?

Probably trying to save their arses for when the shtf.

Too good to be true. its a paid benadict arnold.

Or an opportunist who doesn't want to go down with the sinking ship.

Ha, ha, no links between Trump and Russia and the CNN can not keep pushing news,

Actually Fox interview with one of the members of the congress investigation committee is asking for anybody that knows anything about the Russia Trump affair to come forward with news.

What that tells you, this is just a few minutes ago on TV.

I am sure CNN have plenty of information that the FBI doesn't have.

Keep it coming, Democrats are running out of tricks.

a reply to: marg6043

Actually Fox interview with one of the members of the congress investigation committee is asking for anybody that knows anything about the Russia Trump affair to come forward with news.

Yep, because they want all the info they can get. Just because a congressperson on Fox wants people to come forward doesn't mean they don't already have something.

Plenty of links have been established, including statements made by campaign officials. The investigation is still ongoing.

Hence why we need a thorough investigation and congressional subpoena of everyone potentially involved. We've already seen at least 4 people have LIED.

This can o' worms hasn't even been unsealed yet, much less opened.