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.

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: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.