Was Trump getting help from Russia illegal?

[BonzaiDuck]

Have you ever seriously paused to question why Trump was able to do so? Maybe if the media didn’t obsess over his every Tweet, and others didn’t legitimize Trump for a variety of reasons, he wouldn’t have made it out of the primaries.

Pied piper strategy. You reap what you sow.

Maybe if the Traitor/Liar/Whoremonger-in-Chief could actually write something worth publishing in an op-ed instead of demonstrating his 10th-grade writing and reading skills in his Traitor-Tweets, the media wouldn't obsess.

I never thought anything other than that Trump is as legitimate as a toddler in a Moscow whorehouse after midnight.

His big birther frenzy came up early in the Obama years. Anyone with common sense could see that he represented his lemming followship as the collective lower underbelly of the American character.

If America could have a liposuction, it could be great again.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Maybe if the Traitor/Liar/Whoremonger-in-Chief could actually write something worth publishing in an op-ed instead of demonstrating his 10th-grade writing and reading skills in his Traitor-Tweets, the media wouldn't obsess.

The media started obsessing during the primaries when he started coming up with names for his competitors. Remember “Little Marco”? So hilarious, what will Trump come up with next!

His big birther frenzy came up early in the Obama years. Anyone with common sense could see that he represented his lemming followship as the collective lower underbelly of the American character.

Very true, and yet despite all of that, Twitter never thought to censor him. Facebook didn’t raise a concern because of those sweet sweet ad revenues. SNL saw it fit to let Trump host, knowing exactly who he was, and essentially humanizing and normaling his campaign.

If America could have a liposuction, it could be great again.

Candidate Trump was so hilarious. Hillary was going to take him to the cleaners. His defeat was going to cause an irreparable civil war amongst the GOP.

And then none of that happened.

 

[Jhhnn]

Have you ever seriously paused to question why Trump was able to do so? Maybe if the media didn’t obsess over his every Tweet, and others didn’t legitimize Trump for a variety of reasons, he wouldn’t have made it out of the primaries.

Pied piper strategy. You reap what you sow.

Yeh, it was the Dems who led the GOP Faithful over the cliff like a bunch of lemmings, right?

Or maybe the world's greatest con artist played 'em for suckers with the GOP, Alt-right & Russians throwing in the three part harmony.

Poor bastards have no idea that they're all dialed in to perfection. It took decades of work by some of the best propagandists in the business.

 

[ivwshane]

The media started obsessing during the primaries when he started coming up with names for his competitors. Remember “Little Marco”? So hilarious, what will Trump come up with next!

Very true, and yet despite all of that, Twitter never thought to censor him. Facebook didn’t raise a concern because of those sweet sweet ad revenues. SNL saw it fit to let Trump host, knowing exactly who he was, and essentially humanizing and normaling his campaign.

Candidate Trump was so hilarious. Hillary was going to take him to the cleaners. His defeat was going to cause an irreparable civil war amongst the GOP.

And then none of that happened.

What you are saying is that the right was so completely deranged that they voted for trump out of spite because of the media and their coverage. You are telling us that the right is simply unable to make rational decisions on their own and its everyone's fault but theirs for why we have trump.

I'm sure to a "both sides" bitch, like yourself, your rationalization makes perfect sense but you'll have to excuse those of us who are capable of thinking for ourselves and who think the right is also capable of thinking for themselves, think your theory is total and utter crap.

 

[MrSquished]

Maybe if the Traitor/Liar/Whoremonger-in-Chief could actually write something worth publishing in an op-ed instead of demonstrating his 10th-grade writing and reading skills in his Traitor-Tweets, the media wouldn't obsess.

my my you are feeling generous today 😀

 

[Starbuck1975]

Yeh, it was the Dems who led the GOP Faithful over the cliff like a bunch of lemmings, right?

Voter turnout hit a 20 year low in 2016. The last time turnout was this low was Clinton/Dole.

So, only 55% of the population showed up in 2016. Clinton’s stunning popular vote victory represented a wopping 26.5% of the population.

Going one step further, once you get out of the primaries, you have voters who will pull the lever for R or D regardless of who the candidate is, which has only gotten worse as the partisan divide deepens in this country. It seems the only people who showed up were those deeply vested in a Hillary or Trump Presidency.

Or maybe the world's greatest con artist played 'em for suckers with the GOP, Alt-right & Russians throwing in the three part harmony.

LOL, Trump is hardly a Machiavellian con artist. He is a useful idiot. I don’t even think he expected to win. His role was to damage Clinton enough to box in her Predidency.

Poor bastards have no idea that they're all dialed in to perfection. It took decades of work by some of the best propagandists in the business.

What dialed it into perfection was nominating the one candidate that was uniquely vulnerable to a barrage of propaganda, most of it due to self inflicted wounds and a successful playbook that already existed.

 

[UberNeuman]

lol. Still whining about Hillary, yet will vote again for Trump.....

oh, by the way - HAPPY MEMORIAL DAY!!!! WHOOO!!!!

 

[Jhhnn]

Voter turnout hit a 20 year low in 2016. The last time turnout was this low was Clinton/Dole.

So, only 55% of the population showed up in 2016. Clinton’s stunning popular vote victory represented a wopping 26.5% of the population.

Going one step further, once you get out of the primaries, you have voters who will pull the lever for R or D regardless of who the candidate is, which has only gotten worse as the partisan divide deepens in this country. It seems the only people who showed up were those deeply vested in a Hillary or Trump Presidency.

LOL, Trump is hardly a Machiavellian con artist. He is a useful idiot. I don’t even think he expected to win. His role was to damage Clinton enough to box in her Predidency.

What dialed it into perfection was nominating the one candidate that was uniquely vulnerable to a barrage of propaganda, most of it due to self inflicted wounds and a successful playbook that already existed.

Bullshit-

https://www.dailydot.com/layer8/voter-turnout-2016/

Trump is obviously the world's greatest con artist or he wouldn't be where he is. The notion that he was or is better equipped than Hillary to serve as President is so delusional as to border on psychotic. Dismissing Russian efforts on his part is equally so.

They messed with Americans' minds, big time. It's what con artists do.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Bullshit-

https://www.dailydot.com/layer8/voter-turnout-2016/

Bulltrue. I trust CNN over the Daily Dot. What the hell is the Daily Dot?
https://www.cnn.com/2016/11/11/politics/popular-vote-turnout-2016/index.html

Trump is obviously the world's greatest con artist or he wouldn't be where he is. The notion that he was or is better equipped than Hillary to serve as President is so delusional as to border on psychotic. Dismissing Russian efforts on his part is equally so.

You are clearly not from NY.

 

[Jhhnn]

Bulltrue. I trust CNN over the Daily Dot. What the hell is the Daily Dot?
https://www.cnn.com/2016/11/11/politics/popular-vote-turnout-2016/index.html

You are clearly not from NY.

CNN's results were preliminary. The Daily Dot cites a reliable source-

http://www.electproject.org/2016g

More-

http://thehill.com/homenews/state-w...-finds-that-voter-turnout-in-2016-topped-2012

Every deplorable in America crawled out from under their rock to vote for Trump & he still lost the popular vote.

Are you really prepared to defend the idea that Trump was a rational choice? Because innuendo about New York? I mean, New Yorkers obviously spotted him as a con artist long ago. Hillary beat him by 23 points in NY.

 

[zinfamous]

So it seems very likely that Trump got help from Russia to defeat Clinton, however is that any different from Clinton trying to get dirt on Trump from the Ukraine which her campaign called "opposition research"?

What specifically needs to be proven legally for Trump's actions to be classified as criminal?

Also, are these state and/or federal crimes? Trump can pardon people involved in federal crimes I believe.

The information was obtained illegally from a foreign nation that hacked DNC servers.

So yes, of course it is fucking illegal. The FBI brought this to him after the election assuming he was smart enough to step down, because the implications and the evidence that they have of this "should be" catastrophic to any administration, and an admin standing in place in light of these actions is a threat to the constitution.

Apparently the IC didn't appreciate how utterly stupid Trump and his family are, however, and how craven the GOP was to continue supporting this skidmark after they were informed of how compromised Trump is wrg to Russia.

 

[UNCjigga]

2004, not 2000.

Hey, speaking of GWB, does anyone else think it HILARIOUS that, within 2 decades, the American electorate went from ejecting the man they'd "rather have a beer with" to the man they CAN'T have a beer with??

 

[unsavorystranger]

Hello. first of all, I like you guys. This little corner of the net seems to consist of more above average intelligence individuals than most places I stumble upon.
Second, the question I have is related to the comments i have been reading about the traitor title I see being slung around. I will preface by saying I do not an did support either candidate nor vote. I see trump as well meaning(though well meaning doesnt mean they do well), and driven by a need to be accepted(which factors into his chaotic back and forths on issues- he hears one side and agrees, then hears the other and is like "you've got a point too" and flips. he tries to please everyone and thats a major flaw for a president). I see clinton as a cold and calculated person consumed by her greed and comfortable lying to anyone and everyones face for her own benefit, certainly not even well meaning in any genuine way. Moving on

So trump is a traitor, thats the general consensus, yes? Because he accepted help from the russians, yes? Okay. When It was clinton against Colonel Sanders, she had the DNC conspiring(or colluding some might call it) or being her b**** to force Bernie out of the race, and that succeeded. Had Bernie won the Democratic vote and went up against Trump I really think a)a lot more people would have voted and b) Bernie would have won the election. Hillary meanwhile was arrogant enough to think that she had the whole thing in the bag when she did not, thus leading us to where we are now. That selfish act has impacted the whole nation signifigantly and is a massive part in why Trump was able t win. I heard so many people say they "supported" or voted for trump simply because they opposed Hillary. If a candidate that wasnt in the red as far as approval goes winning wouldnt have been hard, in theory. Trump seems, like some of you have said, surprised he actually won. He is certainly where he's at because his opponent was who she was., and her mistakes made along the way, so I am not saying he swooped in their and snagged the win because he deserved it. (Honestly I dont think either deserved it and despite being an american my whole life I couldnt help but laugh at how pathetic our system is to narrow down to those 2 as the final contenders.)
So the questions, is if Trump is a traiter and such for what he did, what do you guys make of what Clinton did to Bernie? Is that traiterous to enable trump winning by selfishly trying to rig the election for herself? If you think its not a traitor thing to do or even think its okay what she did, why?
That is directly and intentionally acting in a way that risked(and did) hurt the nation so it seems like it would be treason to me, but I know theres more than my own perspective so, please share yours. school me.

 

[Starbuck1975]

CNN's results were preliminary. The Daily Dot cites a reliable source-

http://www.electproject.org/2016g

More-

http://thehill.com/homenews/state-w...-finds-that-voter-turnout-in-2016-topped-2012

The Hill article is a good one. I stand corrected on the numbers I cited, although turnout was hardly inspired except for the battleground states.

Every deplorable in America crawled out from under their rock to vote for Trump & he still lost the popular vote.

White working class voters showed up for Trump, in states that at one time were manufacturing and union strongholds. Trump tapped into Billy Joel populism, sentiments that have been festering since free trade and globalization killed the American dream. You could draw a line from Allentown to Milwaukee and trace Trump’s path to the White House.

Are you really prepared to defend the idea that Trump was a rational choice? Because innuendo about New York? I mean, New Yorkers obviously spotted him as a con artist long ago. Hillary beat him by 23 points in NY.

No, not a rational choice at all. As a native New Yorker, Trump has always been a presence, which makes his turn as a Republican all the more surprising. Trump knew how to play the unique politics of NYC, and spent most of his career swimming in the same circles that entered into then Senator Clinton’s orbit. I’ve always associated Trump with his failures in Atlantic City, which is why I had a laugh when the Ivy League MBA crowd started celebrating his rebranding on the Apprentice as a business mogul.

 

[fskimospy]

Hello. first of all, I like you guys. This little corner of the net seems to consist of more above average intelligence individuals than most places I stumble upon.
Second, the question I have is related to the comments i have been reading about the traitor title I see being slung around. I will preface by saying I do not an did support either candidate nor vote. I see trump as well meaning(though well meaning doesnt mean they do well), and driven by a need to be accepted(which factors into his chaotic back and forths on issues- he hears one side and agrees, then hears the other and is like "you've got a point too" and flips. he tries to please everyone and thats a major flaw for a president). I see clinton as a cold and calculated person consumed by her greed and comfortable lying to anyone and everyones face for her own benefit, certainly not even well meaning in any genuine way. Moving on

First, it’s odd that you view Trump as fundamentally well meaning but Clinton as a liar. Can you point to things Trump has done that make you think he is well meaning? Basically his entire life has consisted of lying, cheating, and bullying others.

About the lying part in particular Trump is by all metrics I am aware of the most dishonest person to ever occupy the presidency, which is saying a lot. Do you at least accept that Trump is a liar greatly in excess of Clinton? If not, why?

So trump is a traitor, thats the general consensus, yes? Because he accepted help from the russians, yes? Okay. When It was clinton against Colonel Sanders, she had the DNC conspiring(or colluding some might call it) or being her b**** to force Bernie out of the race, and that succeeded. Had Bernie won the Democratic vote and went up against Trump I really think a)a lot more people would have voted and b) Bernie would have won the election. Hillary meanwhile was arrogant enough to think that she had the whole thing in the bag when she did not, thus leading us to where we are now. That selfish act has impacted the whole nation signifigantly and is a massive part in why Trump was able t win. I heard so many people say they "supported" or voted for trump simply because they opposed Hillary. If a candidate that wasnt in the red as far as approval goes winning wouldnt have been hard, in theory. Trump seems, like some of you have said, surprised he actually won. He is certainly where he's at because his opponent was who she was., and her mistakes made along the way, so I am not saying he swooped in their and snagged the win because he deserved it. (Honestly I dont think either deserved it and despite being an american my whole life I couldnt help but laugh at how pathetic our system is to narrow down to those 2 as the final contenders.)
So the questions, is if Trump is a traiter and such for what he did, what do you guys make of what Clinton did to Bernie? Is that traiterous to enable trump winning by selfishly trying to rig the election for herself? If you think its not a traitor thing to do or even think its okay what she did, why?
That is directly and intentionally acting in a way that risked(and did) hurt the nation so it seems like it would be treason to me, but I know theres more than my own perspective so, please share yours. school me.

1) Treason in the colloquial, not legal sense, is about conspiring with the enemies of America to weaken or defeat it. It appears highly likely that Trump and his associates conspired with one or more hostile foreign powers to win the election using information obtained through criminal activity.

2) What Clinton did to Bernie was leverage her political contacts within the Democratic Party, contacts Bernie could have created if he had, you know, actually been a member of the Democratic Party. Bernie lost fair and square and it wasn’t close. I wouldn’t rate it as even in the top 100 dirty political tricks that have happened in America.

3) There is zero equivalence between criminal conspiracy with hostile foreign powers and DNC primary jockeying so no, not even close to the same thing.

4) Trump is the president now and Clinton doesn’t matter. Since Trump appears likely to have engaged in criminal activity we need to focus on removing the criminal in the White House.

 

[dank69]

Hello. first of all, I like you guys. This little corner of the net seems to consist of more above average intelligence individuals than most places I stumble upon.
Second, the question I have is related to the comments i have been reading about the traitor title I see being slung around. I will preface by saying I do not an did support either candidate nor vote. I see trump as well meaning(though well meaning doesnt mean they do well), and driven by a need to be accepted(which factors into his chaotic back and forths on issues- he hears one side and agrees, then hears the other and is like "you've got a point too" and flips. he tries to please everyone and thats a major flaw for a president). I see clinton as a cold and calculated person consumed by her greed and comfortable lying to anyone and everyones face for her own benefit, certainly not even well meaning in any genuine way. Moving on

So trump is a traitor, thats the general consensus, yes? Because he accepted help from the russians, yes? Okay. When It was clinton against Colonel Sanders, she had the DNC conspiring(or colluding some might call it) or being her b**** to force Bernie out of the race, and that succeeded. Had Bernie won the Democratic vote and went up against Trump I really think a)a lot more people would have voted and b) Bernie would have won the election. Hillary meanwhile was arrogant enough to think that she had the whole thing in the bag when she did not, thus leading us to where we are now. That selfish act has impacted the whole nation signifigantly and is a massive part in why Trump was able t win. I heard so many people say they "supported" or voted for trump simply because they opposed Hillary. If a candidate that wasnt in the red as far as approval goes winning wouldnt have been hard, in theory. Trump seems, like some of you have said, surprised he actually won. He is certainly where he's at because his opponent was who she was., and her mistakes made along the way, so I am not saying he swooped in their and snagged the win because he deserved it. (Honestly I dont think either deserved it and despite being an american my whole life I couldnt help but laugh at how pathetic our system is to narrow down to those 2 as the final contenders.)
So the questions, is if Trump is a traiter and such for what he did, what do you guys make of what Clinton did to Bernie? Is that traiterous to enable trump winning by selfishly trying to rig the election for herself? If you think its not a traitor thing to do or even think its okay what she did, why?
That is directly and intentionally acting in a way that risked(and did) hurt the nation so it seems like it would be treason to me, but I know theres more than my own perspective so, please share yours. school me.

Please produce even a single email that proves that Clinton conspired against Sanders. Then tell us why you still believe she did with no evidence. She financed the entire DNC because it was effectively going bankrupt under DWS. There is no evidence I am aware of that Sanders was treated unfairly. Donna Brazile fed her campaign one question in advance, unsolicited, and the question was one that everyone knew would be asked anyway.

Meanwhile, are you even aware that people from Sanders' campaign actually stole data from the Clinton campaign?

 

[Jhhnn]

The whole "Poor Bernie! So cheated!" routine is part & parcel of the brilliant Trump/ Russia propaganda campaign.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Treason in the colloquial, not legal sense, is about conspiring with the enemies of America to weaken or defeat it. It appears highly likely that Trump and his associates conspired with one or more hostile foreign powers to win the election using information obtained through criminal activity.

Which is why the Mueller investigation continues, and I hope everyone accepts the findings regardless of the political implications.

What Clinton did to Bernie was leverage her political contacts within the Democratic Party, contacts Bernie could have created if he had, you know, actually been a member of the Democratic Party.

Clinton leveraged her contacts to clear the playing field and Bernie had the audacity to challenge the coronation. I am still not sure I understand the logic of how Clinton became the heir apparent to Obama.

Bernie lost fair and square and it wasn’t close. I wouldn’t rate it as even in the top 100 dirty political tricks that have happened in America.

Can we see your top 100 🙂

There is zero equivalence between criminal conspiracy with hostile foreign powers and DNC primary jockeying so no, not even close to the same thing.

Not equivalent, but primary jockeying is still a subversion of democracy.

Trump is the president now and Clinton doesn’t matter. Since Trump appears likely to have engaged in criminal activity we need to focus on removing the criminal in the White House.

It does matter if the assumed inevitability of Clinton, or the handling of her FBI investigation, in any way hindered or otherwise influenced the response to the emerging evidence against Trump. It is simply unprecedented for two candidates to be under FBI investigation. Really calls into the question the whole nomination process.

We need to focus on eliminating the criminal, and then once that task is complete, have a non partisan evaluation of the chain reaction that enabled his victory...some of that blame falls on people who would rather rationalize around it.

 

[piasabird]

He got the same kind of help that Obama got. Russia has been trying to influence elections for a long time. It is what Russians do. Just because someone tries to get one candidate elected it does not mean the candidate went and asked from the help from Russia. Obama seemed to be friends with Putin also.

 

[Victorian Gray]

He got the same kind of help that Obama got. Russia has been trying to influence elections for a long time. It is what Russians do. Just because someone tries to get one candidate elected it does not mean the candidate went and asked from the help from Russia. Obama seemed to be friends with Putin also.

Hush now. Go back to sleep child.

 

[piasabird]

What was it about Hillary Clinton that would make a middle class worker vote for her? She offered the middle class nothing.

 

[Victorian Gray]

What was it about Hillary Clinton that would make a middle class worker vote for her? She offered the middle class nothing.

Now, now. Everything is fine. Just close your eyes and think sleepy thoughts.

 

[fskimospy]

He got the same kind of help that Obama got. Russia has been trying to influence elections for a long time. It is what Russians do. Just because someone tries to get one candidate elected it does not mean the candidate went and asked from the help from Russia. Obama seemed to be friends with Putin also.

Why do you make stuff up like this? I mean this is just delusional.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

He got the same kind of help that Obama got. Russia has been trying to influence elections for a long time. It is what Russians do. Just because someone tries to get one candidate elected it does not mean the candidate went and asked from the help from Russia. Obama seemed to be friends with Putin also.

<sigh> I have to say it again.

I do the fucking, I don’t get fucked.
Enjoy your pillow biting.

 

[zinfamous]

He got the same kind of help that Obama got. Russia has been trying to influence elections for a long time. It is what Russians do. Just because someone tries to get one candidate elected it does not mean the candidate went and asked from the help from Russia. Obama seemed to be friends with Putin also.

It boggles the mind how such an obviously erroneous belief, thoroughly contradicted by well-publicized, long-standing evidence, enters the mind of any person.

Honest question: what does it take to be shown a picture of the color red, and convince yourself that it is actually brown?