# Trump associates may have coordinated with Russians, according to US officials **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [March 23, 2017, 12:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-associates-may-have-coordinated-with-russians-according-to-us-officials/782799 "2017-03-23T00:28:10Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 226
**Author:** ![Lance\_Turbo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lance_turbo/32/6156_2.png) [@Lance\_Turbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lance_Turbo)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2018, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-associates-may-have-coordinated-with-russians-according-to-us-officials/782799/4505 "2018-05-17T22:55:41Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > All it means is that they met some Russians who promised info and here’s an article about Russians having info. Interesting that in this case it was actually the Russians getting damaging info about Trump himself. (Though you could argue it was of value to Trump to know what the Democrats had on him.) This is a truly bizarre interpretation. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_Ace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/6bbea6/32.png) [@Johnny\_Ace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Ace)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2018, 1:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-associates-may-have-coordinated-with-russians-according-to-us-officials/782799/4506 "2018-05-18T01:17:24Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > All it means is that they met some Russians who promised info and here’s an article about Russians having info. Interesting that in this case it was actually the Russians getting damaging info about Trump himself. (Though you could argue it was of value to Trump to know what the Democrats had on him.) > > On a related note, see an email from Ike Kaveladze on that same day (June 14), stating “meeting was boring. The Russians did not have any bad info in [sic] Hillary”. ([link](https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Kaveladze%201%20Exhibits_redacted.pdf), page 15). > > [Of possible minor interest: the recipient’s name is redacted, but I belief the time stamps of the email exchange indicates that this person’s time zone was 10 hours ahead of Kaveladze.] I doubt that anything short of your having been a fly on the wall of the meeting will ever convince you that your Blessed Savior and his get aren’t anything but as pure as the driven snow. Just another Trump apologist. Moving along, nothing to see here. ---
**Author:** ![digs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/digs/32/14889_2.png) [@digs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/digs)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2018, 1:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-associates-may-have-coordinated-with-russians-according-to-us-officials/782799/4507 "2018-05-18T01:45:07Z")
> [@Lance\_Turbo](#): > > This is a truly bizarre interpretation. Then _why_ does everyone keep acting like these are serious points? You’re just encouraging this behavior. ---
**Author:** ![digs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/digs/32/14889_2.png) [@digs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/digs)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2018, 3:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-associates-may-have-coordinated-with-russians-according-to-us-officials/782799/4508 "2018-05-18T03:22:43Z")
[Trump planning to prep for Mueller interview](https://www.politico.com/story/2018/05/17/donald-trump-robert-mueller-interview-preparation-595701)… but not diligently. I’m encouraged and amused by this sentence: > [@](#): > > The planning meetings — to be held during off-hours at the White House and perhaps over rounds of golf at Trump’s private courses, Giuliani said — will mirror the then-GOP nominee’s 2016 debate preparation, in which aides briefed an impatient Trump in several brief sessions over many weeks. So they’re going to work just as hard as they did during the debates? And Trump’ll be just as focused and prepared? Good. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2018, 6:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-associates-may-have-coordinated-with-russians-according-to-us-officials/782799/4509 "2018-05-18T06:41:25Z")
I don’t think it’s going too far out on a limb to say that the “secret” informant / mole in the Trump campaign was in fact Felix Sater: > **[FBI working to soften potential blow if top-secret informant exposed: report](https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/388261-fbi-working-to-soften-potential-blow-if-top-secret-informant-is/)** > > The FBI has reportedly been working in recent weeks to soften the blow if the identity of a top-secret informant who fed information to investigators early on in the Russia probe is revea… > **[The Lawfare Podcast: Special Edition: Anthony Cormier on Trump Tower Moscow](https://www.lawfareblog.com/lawfare-podcast-special-edition-anthony-cormier-trump-tower-moscow)** > > Benjamin Wittes speaks to Buzzfeed reporter Anthony Cormier about his latest story, co-authored with Jason Leopold, about the negotiations to build a Trump Tower in Moscow. We’ve been waiting to hear from the dude for a year now and suddenly he’s on the record with the press, talking about bringing in Osama bin Laden for the CIA, right when the House Intelligence Committee is trying to track down who was talking to the FBI? Mkay. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2018, 6:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-associates-may-have-coordinated-with-russians-according-to-us-officials/782799/4510 "2018-05-18T06:58:09Z")
Very scummy of them to not mention it, but this talks about the **Democratic** member report from the Senate Judiciary Committee (NOT a bipartisan report, as the link implies): > **[Kremlin Used NRA to Help Trump in 2016, Democratic Senate Report Says](https://www.thedailybeast.com/kremlin-used-nra-to-help-trump-in-2016-says-senate-intelligence-committee)** > > Documents suggest Moscow funneled money to Trump through the gun group, according to the judiciary committee. Minus the underlying intel, it’s hard to say how believable we should consider the document. Though, to note, it doesn’t mince words and does directly and boldly state that Russia and team Trump were in cahoots, behind the scenes. It doesn’t state that Trump was necessarily aware of everything that Russia was doing for him, but that raises the question of what exactly his team and Russia were talking about in the 10 or so “just establishing a back-channel” conversations. It does not take 10 tries to figure out how to communicate in secret. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2018, 1:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-associates-may-have-coordinated-with-russians-according-to-us-officials/782799/4511 "2018-05-18T13:03:54Z")
> [@digs](#): > > Then _why_ does everyone keep acting like these are serious points? You’re just encouraging this behavior. I agree with this. It’s not enough that you’re in a forum where the vast majority are predisposed to agree with you, where about 99% of the posts are in accordance with your position, and where you can bolster your confidence by joining together in mocking the Infidels. Because if you let even the slightest amount of Dissent in, that might lead to Doubt, and who knows what comes next. It’s always important to be on guard against any form of Heresy. > [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > I don’t think it’s going too far out on a limb to say that the “secret” informant / mole in the Trump campaign was in fact Felix Sater: IMO that’s a pretty good guess as guesses go. Considering that Sater is known to be a long term FBI informant, who in addition to his Trump ties is also connected to various foreign governments, businesses, and criminal enterprises. An interesting guy. One thought that occurred to me is that when the Senate (or whoever) releases some partially redacted documents, the people involved would typically know whose name is being redacted. For example, in the email exchange cited earlier involving Ike Kaveladze, the name of the other party is redacted but Kaveladze himself would obviously know who that person is and could share it with whoever else, with whatever implications that has. I wonder how that’s dealt with. ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2018, 1:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-associates-may-have-coordinated-with-russians-according-to-us-officials/782799/4512 "2018-05-18T13:38:58Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > I agree with this. > > It’s not enough that you’re in a forum where the vast majority are predisposed to agree with you, where about 99% of the posts are in accordance with your position, and where you can bolster your confidence by joining together in mocking the Infidels. Because if you let even the slightest amount of Dissent in, that might lead to Doubt, and who knows what comes next. > > It’s always important to be on guard against any form of Heresy. It would have been much quicker and just as substantive to just call us all “sheeple”. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2018, 1:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-associates-may-have-coordinated-with-russians-according-to-us-officials/782799/4513 "2018-05-18T13:40:29Z")
You have your style, I have mine. If that “sheeple” shtick works for you, go for it. ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2018, 2:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-associates-may-have-coordinated-with-russians-according-to-us-officials/782799/4514 "2018-05-18T14:34:33Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > You have your style, I have mine. If that “sheeple” shtick works for you, go for it. But it’s not my shtick. If 99% of people say X and I’m saying Y, I either make sure my evidence for Y is as solid as I think it is or I consider whether there is merit to X; I don’t just accuse people saying X of groupthink. If a media source that aligns with me politically says X and the other 99% say Y, I take what the minority are saying with a grain of salt and look for corroboration; I don’t loudly claim that the 99% are just biased against me and therefore all lying. And if 97% of the world’s scientists in a particular field are saying something I wish weren’t true I don’t claim they’re all just in it for the sweet, sweet non-military government funding and that the remaining 3% are the bold, completely unbiased tellers of truth without some strong evidence. Admittedly it would be _easier_ to just claim that everyone disagrees with me for partisan reasons, but that’s no way to educate oneself or to test the validity of one’s beliefs. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2018, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-associates-may-have-coordinated-with-russians-according-to-us-officials/782799/4515 "2018-05-18T14:45:43Z")
You’re confusing one board whose membership has a known political lean with “97% of the world’s scientists” and similar. This is an elementary logical error. [Which is even besides for the fact that my comment was made in a completely different context, which seems to have eluded you.] ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2018, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-associates-may-have-coordinated-with-russians-according-to-us-officials/782799/4516 "2018-05-18T14:50:31Z")
I wasn’t confusing you with anyone. I was talking about me in my last post, albeit with references to commonly-made arguments by many other people. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2018, 2:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-associates-may-have-coordinated-with-russians-according-to-us-officials/782799/4517 "2018-05-18T14:54:29Z")
Oh, OK, so you’re now saying that your prior post was a non sequitur and was not in reference to the preceding discussion? A strange claim to make. ---
**Author:** ![JohnT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnt/32/15048_2.png) [@JohnT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnT)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2018, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-associates-may-have-coordinated-with-russians-according-to-us-officials/782799/4518 "2018-05-18T15:08:13Z")
My daughter gets reduced to arguing about the argument as well, commonly before declaring her infallibility and giving opinions about the quality of her opponents arguments and personalities. I usually take this as a good sign, one that she conceded the overall point but can’t voice that concession (not even to herself). You’ve switched the order of operations, usually starting with the insults, but it’s still the same losing tactic. Keep on Phippin’! ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2018, 3:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-associates-may-have-coordinated-with-russians-according-to-us-officials/782799/4519 "2018-05-18T15:10:02Z")
You weren’t clear, but I assume that was addressed to digs and perhaps a few others … ---
**Author:** ![digs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/digs/32/14889_2.png) [@digs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/digs)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2018, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-associates-may-have-coordinated-with-russians-according-to-us-officials/782799/4520 "2018-05-18T15:22:10Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > You weren’t clear, but I assume that was addressed to digs and perhaps a few others … But, see, I didn’t even notice, much less care, because I’m not engaging… oh, crap, did it again, forget I even posted, k thx bye. ---
**Author:** ![Moriarty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/moriarty/32/49_2.png) [@Moriarty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Moriarty)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2018, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-associates-may-have-coordinated-with-russians-according-to-us-officials/782799/4521 "2018-05-18T16:57:19Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > But even if we were to speculate that DTjr somehow assumed that this was related to hacked emails, that only relates to what his expectations were going into the meeting. The point is that once that meeting started it seems to be agreed upon by all participants (Americans, Russians, translator) that nothing was said about hacked emails, and there was just some vague stuff about Russian funding. So unless there was a “cleverly coordinated campaign of deception” in which all participants coordinated their story on this point (though they were inconsistent in some other more minor areas) then it seems unlikely that the topic actually came up. I think, given everything we know about the participants, that it’s perfectly plausible that they coordinated their stories after the meeting, all agreeing that it was “useless”. I also think that it is entirely plausible that, while nothing was actually exchanged at the meeting, the promise to exchange was made. See, I think the Trump people think they are smart enough to be technically correct and still cagey. That’s why they once said that the meeting was about “adoption”, because it was (in the sense that references to adoptions are references to sanctions against Russia). And they can also say that they Russians didn’t give them anything, because they didn’t. But it can also be true that there was something along the lines of “If you agree to drop the sanctions, we will make very useful information available to you. Think about it and let us know.” ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2018, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-associates-may-have-coordinated-with-russians-according-to-us-officials/782799/4522 "2018-05-18T17:15:29Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > If I were DTjr and I was offered “official documents and information” from someone connected to the Russian government, which purported to “incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia”, my assumption would be that these were Russian government documents that the person had acquired via their government connections, and not hacked DNC emails. > > But even if we were to speculate that DTjr somehow assumed that this was related to hacked emails, that only relates to what his expectations were going into the meeting. The point is that once that meeting started it seems to be agreed upon by all participants (Americans, Russians, translator) that nothing was said about hacked emails, and there was just some vague stuff about Russian funding. So unless there was a “cleverly coordinated campaign of deception” in which all participants coordinated their story on this point (though they were inconsistent in some other more minor areas) then it seems unlikely that the topic actually came up. You aren’t making reasonable inferences from the evidence, which is what people do when they try to make a neutral decision. Instead, you’re arguing like a defense lawyer. That’s fine, but those of us trying to judge the evidence don’t have to sit in that posture. In particular, it is a totally reasonable inference that Papadopoulos told the campaign about the hacked emails. That is what almost any campaign staffer would do with such explosive information. Maybe it didn’t happen, of course. But if we don’t know either way, the natural assumption is that it did. Similarly, the idea that DJT is told that Russia has dirt on Hillary and he doesn’t naturally think of the hacked emails, just because the offer (which is on its face badly translated with reference to crown prosecutor, etc.) uses the word “official,” is not a reasonable supposition about how human minds work. What you call speculation and suggest is wild speculation is actually just the kind of reasonable inferences from known facts that people make all the time. ETA: None of that requires that the hacked emails were discussed at the meeting. Instead, what appears to have been discussed was the quid and not the quo. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2018, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-associates-may-have-coordinated-with-russians-according-to-us-officials/782799/4523 "2018-05-18T17:28:08Z")
> [@Moriarty](#): > > I think, given everything we know about the participants, that it’s perfectly plausible that they coordinated their stories after the meeting, all agreeing that it was “useless”. I also think that it is entirely plausible that, while nothing was actually exchanged at the meeting, the promise to exchange was made. > > See, I think the Trump people think they are smart enough to be technically correct and still cagey. That’s why they once said that the meeting was about “adoption”, because it was (in the sense that references to adoptions are references to sanctions against Russia). And they can also say that they Russians didn’t give them anything, because they didn’t. But it can also be true that there was something along the lines of “If you agree to drop the sanctions, we will make very useful information available to you. Think about it and let us know.” Anything is technically possible. I should note that it’s not just them saying that nothing was exchanged but the apparent frustration at the meeting (which is also consistent with its short duration) and also - as noted earlier - at least one email sent by a participant (Kaveladze) about 5 days after the meeting asserting that it was boring and that the Russians had nothing. Further than that, even if you continue to believe that this really was a meeting at which something significant happened, there’s nothing that’s emerged from the Senate investigation which has supported that. At a minimum, the Senate investigated this and failed to come up with anything to support that version of events. Understood that there’s no way to put these things to rest, and in all these types of issues there will always be people willing to speculate about this and that, based on tantalizing bits of info and speculative theories, but to this point there’s apparently been nothing concrete at all to support it, at least in the case of that meeting. I realize that many here are of the belief/hope that Mueller is sitting on the mother-lode and he will blow this open in due course. Got that. But that hasn’t happened yet, and the only reason to believe it will happen is the belief that such evidence actually exists (Mueller himself has given no indication at all). So to this point all we have is the Senate investigation which haven’t produced anything, and in that sense, that meeting hasn’t panned out as a big deal. > [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > You aren’t making reasonable inferences from the evidence, which is what people do when they try to make a neutral decision. Instead, you’re arguing like a defense lawyer. That’s fine, but those of us trying to judge the evidence don’t have to sit in that posture. Or, conversely, you’re thinking like a prosecutor, and “those of us trying to judge the evidence” would be me. Everyone likes to think that they’re the unbiased ones. Nothing in this line of argument, IMHO. > [@](#): > > In particular, it is a totally reasonable inference that Papadopoulos told the campaign about the hacked emails. That is what almost any campaign staffer would do with such explosive information. Maybe it didn’t happen, of course. But if we don’t know either way, the natural assumption is that it did. Papadopoulus wasn’t a campaign staffer in the conventional sense, in that he wasn’t a full time (or paid) member of the campaign. That said, I agree that the natural assumption is that he would have told them, especially as he also told some Australian diplomat so it’s not like he was keeping it a secret. The reason to assume that he may not have told them is that from what I’ve read (in the NYT, IIRC, or some similar source) he communicated with the campaign by email and no emails have been found containing this info. > [@](#): > > Similarly, the idea that DJT is told that Russia has dirt on Hillary and he doesn’t naturally think of the hacked emails, just because the offer (which is on its face badly translated with reference to crown prosecutor, etc.) uses the word “official,” is not a reasonable supposition about how human minds work. I disagree. ---
**Author:** ![JohnT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnt/32/15048_2.png) [@JohnT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnT)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2018, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-associates-may-have-coordinated-with-russians-according-to-us-officials/782799/4524 "2018-05-18T17:34:23Z")
By denying the validity of any truth, all of it must be true, ergo, no collusion. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-associates-may-have-coordinated-with-russians-according-to-us-officials/782799.md?page=225) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-associates-may-have-coordinated-with-russians-according-to-us-officials/782799.md?page=227)