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

Not a puppet.

[Anonymous Coward]

Not a puppet. You're the puppet. You're the puppet.

Not only that...

[Lucas123]

Trump was in touch with Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto. I saw it on television!

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

[whoever57]

Get out of here with your "facts" and "whole story". We don't want that kind of thing here. We just want to rage against the world right now.

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

[Feral Nerd]

Oh, and dealing with other countries diplomatically instead of militarily is now equivalent to Nazism or something all of the sudden. Which is why everybody thought Obama was a Nazi when he was elected... right?

I don't really want to get into your Democrat=wrong-think, Republican=right-think pissing contest. What I will say is that presidential candidates dealing diplomatically to Russia/China depends entirely on what was being said and promised. Say what you will about Hillary she is not an impulsive person and for all her faults I do not believe she'd make rash promises to anybody, especially if they affect the USA's extensive network of allies. Trump, on the other hand, is completely inexperienced in foreign policy dealings, he is an individual that is so impulsive he apparently cannot even be trusted with a Twitter account. So when it becomes known that he's been having talks with Vladimir Putin behind the backs of all of the USA's allies it gets people wondering what he promised the Russians without consulting them? ... unilateral lifting of sanctions? recognition of their annexation of the Crimea and the Eastern Ukraine in exchange for cooperation on ending the Syrian mess? A pledge not to defend the Baltic republics? Something even dumber than that, like dismantling NATO? Or did he simply have a friendly dinner with one of Putin's creatures over some New York deep dish pizza and discuss Golf? Point being that people are a lot less nervous about Hillary 'giving away the home-world' as it were than they are over Trump dong the same because after he promised to do the modern equivalent of pining a yellow star on every Muslim in the USA people basically think he's capable of anything.

Re:A leader who defuses the situation?

[LynnwoodRooster]

On the contrary, Russia's actions have proven they are INCREDIBLY rational. They waited until the US (the only power that could legitimately threaten them) was distracted before taking a small step (Crimea). After seeing how that shook out (US did nothing but wag a finger), they moved to the next step. Same result. You might not agree (nor do I) with their goals, but the way they are moving forward is incredibly rational, well-planned, and measured.

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.