Russia Says it Was in Touch With Trump Campaign During Election (cnbc.com)

An anonymous reader shares a CNBC report: The Russian government was in touch with members of President-elect Donald Trump's campaign staff during the U.S. election campaign, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov told the Interfax news agency on Thursday. "There were contacts," Interfax cited Ryabkov as saying. He did not give details. When asked whether these contacts would now intensify after Trump's election victory, Ryabkov said: "These working moments and follow-up on this or that matter will depend on the situation and the questions which face us. But we will of course continue this work after the elections." Defeated Democratic presidential contender Hillary Clinton accused Trump of being a "puppet" of President Vladimir Putin during the campaign, and U.S. officials said Russia had hacked into Democratic party emails, something Moscow denied. Trump has said he might meet Putin before his inauguration, but Putin's spokesman has said there are currently no plans for such a meeting.

Comments

Don't read political spin, it makes you stupid.

[Cytotoxic]

Here's what they really had to say:

Russia said that it talked with the teams of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton during the U.S. presidential election as part of routine outreach during a campaign.
Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said the Russian embassy in the U.S. held talks with the Trump camp that “were on a sufficient, responsible level.” Hope Hicks, a spokeswoman for Trump, said in an e-mail that she was “not aware” of any meetings by campaign representatives with Russian diplomats.
Ryabkov said the talks were “part of routine everyday work.” There was also “sporadic” contact with the Clinton team, though it was “not always productive,” he said. Calls to members of Clinton’s former campaign team for comment weren’t immediately returned.

Who you calling "idiots"?

[mi]

You just elected a Russian mole.

Sure. Because Kremlin says so... Except, they don't even claim that... It is all a product of hypotheses, suggestions, and unsubstantiated — usually anonymous — claims.

Meanwhile, a few facts about Clinton's recent past:

• In 2010 abolished the anti-Russia sanctions imposed over their invasion of Georgia in 2008 — thus, predictably, inviting them into Ukraine (and, correspondingly, to Syria).
• Criticized and mocked, along with other "Progressives", the very notion, that Russia may be hostile to the United States.
• "Reset".
• Routed billions of dollars worth of American investments into Russia's high tech — some of it with military purpose — while rewarding herself in the process.
• Has a history of taking bribes from Putin with who knows what other things remaining up his sleeve with which to blackmail her.

The only thing, that can be done to address the above accusations by your kind is down-modding them — facts are stubborn. So, apply some Vaseline, charge your Prius and head for Canada as you promised.

The Beautiful Wickedness finally had some water splashed on her, and us, the deplorable munchkins, are rejoicing.

Re:Before you act like this is so nefarious...

[Idou]

But it's only "evil" when Trump is involved in something.

No, it is always evil when a president, at any time (before or after their presidency), conspires with foreign governments to defraud the American public.

Clinton lost and is now irrelevant to the discussion of the current state of corruption in our government. Trump now gets to face the public alone on the topic of presidential corruption and can no longer use the "but she is worse" argument. Neither should you.

Re:Not a puppet.

[bfpierce]

Um, do you not understand just about everything Trump did was equally staged? He knows how Television works.

Re:Uranium One and Clinton McCarthyism.

[larkost]

Clinton did not sign off, the State Department did, as did 8 other Federal departments. The person at the State Department who was in charge of it has expressly said that Clinton was never involved in that discussion, and never expressed any opinions on it, as the process was not important or controversial enough to warrant it. And while it did wind up with a Russian company owning a good chunk of the Uranium mines in North America (primarily in Canada), there are export restrictions that prevent any of the product mined there from going to Russia (among most every place).

And she and her close friends did not benefit financially, the accusation is that it was the Clinton Foundation (a charitable organization) that got the money. So far there have been some vague accusations that "the Clintons used the Foundation as their personal piggy bank", but no case of that ever happening has come to light. The Foundation is regularly audited, and that would have shown up by now. The Foundation is generally accepted as being a very good user of its money in doing good around the world.

So explain to me how something she was not involved in, and did not benefit financially from personally was somehow a strike against her.

Re:A different position

[SethJohnson]

...a candidates spouse taking hundreds of millions of dollars from foreign interests, which Trump was accused of but Bill Clinton actually did.

I suppose that depends on your definition of 'actually.' Checking Politifact, this claim does not hold true.

Per an article in Fortune magazine in October 2015 that traced both the Clintons' tax returns to estimate their net worth:

On the low end, the Clintons reported assets of $11.3 million. On the high end, they might have as much as $52.7 million. The couple listed no liabilities.

How is it that Bill Clinton 'actually' accepted HUNDREDS of millions of dollars from foreign interests, yet he only has assets totaling as much as $53 million?

This is a classic example of the disruption that Trump has brought to the political process.

Unrestrained fiction presented as facts to smear opponents requires an update or replacement to the term "truthiness."

Re:Before you act like this is so nefarious...

[flopsquad]

Evil demagogue? You're saying this about GP and not Trump, am I getting this right? And you have no idea what GP is talking about? Here you go:

GS: "Are you unequivocally now ruling out a database on all Muslims?"
Trump: "No, not at all"

That was the final word on Trump's proposal to create a database to track all Muslims, which he had tried to backtrack to just "refugees". I'm not sure if it came before or after his idea that mosques need to be placed under surveillance. In combination with the unconstitutional Muslim ban he proposed, and the... you know what, he's said so much fucked up shit just on this one topic that if you haven't bothered to educate yourself on it by now, I'm not going to waste my time. Here's a quarter, go fuck yourself.

Re:Whoa

[XXongo]

And yet the folks committing violent acts and mayhem in American cities are leftists.

Nope. Right and left. Crazies on both sides.

I haven't seen the KKK, the Neo Nazis, or the Skinheads doing this for the last 8 years whilst Obama has been President.

Then you haven't been paying attention. Look here: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06...

"Last year, for example, a man who identified with the sovereign citizen movement — which claims not to recognize the authority of federal or local government — attacked a courthouse in Forsyth County, Ga., firing an assault rifle at police officers and trying to cover his approach with tear gas and smoke grenades. The suspect was killed by the police, who returned fire. In Nevada, anti-government militants reportedly walked up to and shot two police officers at a restaurant, then placed a “Don’t tread on me” flag on their bodies. An anti-government extremist in Pennsylvania was arrested on suspicion of shooting two state troopers, killing one of them, before leading authorities on a 48-day manhunt. A right-wing militant in Texas declared a “revolution” and was arrested on suspicion of attempting to rob an armored car in order to buy weapons and explosives and attack law enforcement...
"“The threat is real,” says the handout from one training program sponsored by the Department of Justice. Since 2000, the handout notes, 25 law enforcement officers have been killed by right-wing extremists, who share a “fear that government will confiscate firearms” and a “belief in the approaching collapse of government and the economy.”"

More:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/07/01/why-racists-burn-black-churches/
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/vegas-cop-killers/two-cops-three-others-killed-las-vegas-shooting-spree-n125766
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2015/06/arson-churches-north-carolina-georgia/396881/
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/11/03/500496061/fbi-investigating-burning-of-black-church-painted-with-vote-trump

Church Burnings- not new, not uncommon

[XXongo]

What? Several black churches were burned to the ground and N** sprayed painted everywhere. The KKK's brand of racism is alive and well.

You know, it's quite a coincidence that these attacks only occur during Presidential elections and only when Democrats are having a hard time 'motivating' black voters tiger to the polls and vote...

Except that burning down African-American churches is not something that only occurs during presidential elections. In fact, it happens all the time. We just notice it more during elections.

Here, for example are some stories from early 2015: http://www.theatlantic.com/nat...
and https://www.washingtonpost.com...
and https://www.washingtonpost.com...
and https://www.splcenter.org/hate...

Re:A leader who defuses the situation?

[citylivin]

"Our job is making sure no one annexes us. Other countries can posture all they want."

"First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out -
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out -
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out-
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me - and there was no one left to speak for me."

History repeats too much to have such a myopic attitude about world affairs.

Re:A different position

[Motherfucking Shit]

6% of the Foundation funds goes to charitable works, 90% goes to paychecks and benefits.

This is absolutely false, and another shining example of an untrue "news" story that so many people took as fact. Only 6% of the foundation's funds go to grants to other charities, which is where that number on the tax filings came from. (Speaking of tax returns... But I digress.) The foundation does a lot of its own charitable work out of its own funds. Those funds aren't given as grants to other charities, so they don't appear on IRS Form 990, Line 13.

Let me phrase this another way. If you raise $100, and you donate $6 to the Red Cross, and you spend $82 on food for homeless people, you didn't "only" give 6% to charity. You gave 88% to charity. The actual numbers for the Clinton foundation are closer to 88% charity, 12% overhead.