But not if you’re from Fort Lee, because you’re not allowed on that bridge then. Another decision made all on its own.
It sounds like you take very seriously the matter of who you do or don’t respond to and your various considerations involved in this Big Decision, but this is not necessary. Just do your thing, whatever it may be.
If you’re going to be highlighting that part, you should provide another part of that same article which puts it in context:
(emphasis added)
Looks like Putin is hoping to make a distraction:
Except when you look at what happened, that makes no sense:
So Trump was told that Flynn was in contact with the Russians frequently, and with the Russian Ambassador ON THE DAY THE SANCTIONS WERE ANNOUNCED, yet he had NO IDEA AT ALL that Flynn might have discussed the sanctions. And then neglected to tell Pence about any of this because…
I’m sorry, I simply don’t believe this. Trump knew all the time that Flynn was discussing sanctions with the Russians. Or he told Flynn to discuss sanctions with the Russians.
I would think that Flynn, without knowing Cheeto’s commitment to the Russian cause, would not have done something favoring the Russians on his own. He would have to have been ordered to do so.
Someone coming into contact once or twice is a coincidence. Numerous people being in constant contact is a lot different.
I hear that Thrump intends, at his noon presser, to declare Marital Law, putting Malaria in charge until he can get a psych evaluation. He knows that if Pence gets the reins, he’ll never let them go, and will charge right into the theocratic future!!!
I don’t think either one person or numerous people coming into contact is a coincidence. The whole idea is that “the spy services are deeply embedded in society”. Meaning, as I understand it, that many leading business people in Russia are affiliated with the intelligence services or are professional spies installed by the FSB. This would especially be so for the types of businesses that Westerners come into contact with, because the government would especially want their people in those companies, both to keep the major international businesses under control, and because their contacts with foreigners offers more of an opportunity for intelligence gathering.
So it’s not a coincidence in the sense of how you might happen to strike up a conversation with a guy who happens to also be an intelligence agent. Rather, it’s that the nature of doing business in Russia will by its nature involve dealing with people who are intelligence agents.
Surprising that no one has brought upthe most recent news.
Turns out that members of the Trump campaign were in contact with senior Russian intelligence officials during the campaign. Apparently there was no evidence of collaboration and its possible that the campaign workers were not aware that the people they were talking to were senior intelligence officials but this really is not looking good. At this point I don’t think it is politically tenable for the Republicans not to launch a full investigation into Trump’s Russia connections.
Probably not the 33 hearings like they did with Benghazi of course. After all its not like someone gave what turned out to be an incorrect information on a morning talk show. Its just the possibility of a rival power placing their pawn in place as president of the United States, no biggie.
Yes, surprising that no one brought it up. Very surprising indeed.
Which is all well and dandy, right up to the point where you elect a man with $1.8 billion in debts (according to the Wall Street Journal) and his own son is on the record stating that Russians are a major holder of those debts.
It might be fair to say that if you’re doing business with Russia, you’re doing business with the FSB, but the President shouldn’t personally be involved in such business and it strains credulity that he would hire five different people each with heavy financial involvement in Russia. Like, sure, Russia is a place that has businesses, banks, etc. It’s reasonable that some people will have some business dealings with Russia. But there are plenty of countries in the world that you can do business in, and I believe that it’s reasonable to say that most business people do not have any direct financial dealings with Russia, so to find and hire on five different people who do have such direct connections seems unlikely by random chance.
How many Americans have gone onto Russia Today to act as a talking head for the network? Probably not terribly many. I could see and forgive, say, the US ambassador to Russia. But your average business man or American general? And yet, Trump has hired three such people.
This is an incorrect statement. Trump’s son have never said that, and as far as what’s officially known Trump has zero debt to any Russians.
This is an example of the type of thing where when there’s enough hysteria about something anything goes and people are careless about making sure they have their facts straight.
Again, Trump himself does not have business interests in Russia. (He tried over the years but nothing ever came off.)
As for how many people have interests in Russia, that might or might not be a good point. I’m not sure. Sure, the average guy in the street or small-time businessman is not going to have any, but when you’re talking about people involved in major multi-national businesses, that number would probably go up a lot.
And the same would apply to any major country. If there was this level of hysteria about Germany, then you would likely find the same number of people with some sort of connection to Germany (though not to its intelligence services) and so on for other countries.
All that said, I certainly agree that this is something that needs to be looked into. But at this point, my inclination is that it’s more likely than not that it’s mostly innocuous in the broader scheme of things (meaning, specifically, that Trump does not have any sort of arrangement with anyone in Russia).
It’s certainly true that we don’t know the specific, if any, quantities. But it’s also fair to say that the Wall Street Journal is not a Liberal source and has no particular reason to come up with a larger number versus a smaller number. On the whole, they have been supportive of a Trump presidency.
And while we don’t have any video of Trump Jr. making the statement that Russia is a major source of funding for the Trump business, the quote is from 2008, well before there was any reason for anyone to care one way or the other about the topic.
Can you think of any particular reason to discount the WSJ number or the 2008 quote? Again, these are both pro-Trump partisan sources.
Neither the WSJ nor Trump Jr. have said that Trump owes money to any Russians. The reason I’m discounting these sources is because they don’t exist.
The WSJ is behind a paywall, but here’s Salon summarizing the article. Nothing about any Russians.
Trump Jr. said in 2008 that there is “a lot of money coming in” from Russians, but he wasn’t talking about debt specifically. More like investors/purchasers. Here’s a random article on the subject.
If you can come up with a legitimate source for your claims, by all means have at it, but I don’t believe you can.
The quote is:
“Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets,” Trump’s son, Donald Jr., told a real estate conference in 2008, according to an account posted on the website of eTurboNews, a trade publication. “We see a lot of money pouring in from Russia.”
Which means that a lot of Russians are buying a lot of properties that Trump is selling (like condos in his towers, for example).
You, on the other hand, are claiming that Trump Jr. said that Russians are “major holders” of Trump’s debts.
Can you give me a quote that would back that claim? Or do you not know the difference between “assets” and “debts”? Because “debt” is a liability, which is a direct opposite of “asset”.
Boy, sure are lucky! Trump could totally slam down these rumors by the simple expedient of releasing his financial data and returns, but he’s too nice a guy to do that. Not only is he totally honest and above board, he’s too modest to make a big deal out of it! Wow!
That’s a good point.
It follows logically that any rumor that Trump could “totally slam down” by releasing his financial data must therefore be true.
I am aware of the difference, but I take the quote to indicate capital expenditures not to represent condo purchases. I can’t see any reason that anyone would care who is inhabiting a building at a sufficient rate to make note of it in a speech, nor do I see any reason that Russian emigrees would be such a large tenant load as to be notable, without others also noting it. How many Russians have you seen living in the US? Is it such a large percentage that you think it’s big news for the real estate market?
So while I will grant that one could make a reading that this isn’t a reference to Russian lending (i.e. Trump debt) in Trump buildings (i.e. Trump assets), I don’t find that explanation very plausible. In this context, I would say that assets and debts are two words for the same thing.
We also have a quote from Trump himself in 2013:
If you would like to offer a more reassuring scenario, you are entirely free to do so. As he is. But you’re right, we don’t know. I think the reason we don’t know is that he does not want us to. Wild speculation, to be sure, no doubt you have a more plausible and innocent explanation. At your very fingertips.
We wait with bated breath.
For very high-value condos? Yes.
http://www.12news.com/news/nation-now/trumps-soft-spot-for-russia-wealthy-condo-buyers/371250235
Dolly Lenz, a real estate broker in New York, said she sold about 65 units in Trump World Tower, a condominium tower at 845 U.N. Plaza in Manhattan, to Russian buyers looking for real estate investments in the late 1990s. “I had contacts in Moscow looking to invest in the United States,” Lenz said. “’What do you have to recommend?’ They all wanted to meet Donald. They became very friendly.”
That’s just one example. Trump had one deal in Miami where he bought a property for $40M, renovated it then sold it for $100M to a Russian billionaire.
You’d be wrong.
See above. That is exactly what he was talking about. Not “debts”.