HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Circumstantial evidence?

Mon Mar 20, 2017, 08:24 AM

Circumstantial evidence?

The secrecy? Even though the Trump campaign knew that Russia was suspected of interfering with our election, they continued contact with the Russian ambassador on the sly. Why?

What was Trump's interest in having Paul Manafort, Roger Stone, and Carter Gray working so closely with the Russians, especially in the Ukraine? Why did Trump choose Manafort to be his campaign Chairman?

Why did Roger Stone say on Twitter that he had contact with Julian Assange and Guccifer 2.0, and the Wikileaks conspiracy? What is his relationship with Donald Trump?

Why did Trump choose a person he had never met to be his Secretary of State? The same man that won the highest civilian honor awarded by the Russian government? What interest did Trump have in Exxon and the oil fields in northern Russia? Was he offered part of the action?

Why did Trump refuse to speak one unkind word about Vladimir Putin? Could it have anything to do with Russian money propping up his businesses around the world?

When the politicians say that there was no collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, are they overlooking a lot of circumstantial evidence? If that is the case, why did the Trump appointees lie about talking to the Russians during the campaign period?

There is a lot to investigate. The smoke is too thick to see through.

13 replies, 1528 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 13 replies Author Time Post
Reply Circumstantial evidence? (Original post)
kentuck Mar 2017 OP
Zoonart Mar 2017 #1
Chasstev365 Mar 2017 #3
Zoonart Mar 2017 #11
dchill Mar 2017 #10
Tom Rinaldo Mar 2017 #2
kentuck Mar 2017 #4
Zoonart Mar 2017 #5
kentuck Mar 2017 #7
Orrex Mar 2017 #6
kentuck Mar 2017 #8
Orrex Mar 2017 #9
kentuck Mar 2017 #12
jmg257 Mar 2017 #13

Response to kentuck (Original post)

Mon Mar 20, 2017, 08:27 AM

1. We need to prepare ourselves...

for Comey to declare that there is o evidence. Case closed.

What happens then? Ask yourself... why is 45 confident enough to claim today that this is fake news?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zoonart (Reply #1)

Mon Mar 20, 2017, 08:36 AM

3. I don't think that will fly this time

Congressional Democrats in the know believe this is something big. Comey will not be able to just say case close in this matter and it will be dropped.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chasstev365 (Reply #3)

Mon Mar 20, 2017, 09:28 AM

11. Sure

Not saying it WILL be dropped. Just saying to expect an all out propaganda campaign of NOTHING to see here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zoonart (Reply #1)

Mon Mar 20, 2017, 09:21 AM

10. I DON'T think trump is confident at all.

In fact, I think he's been in Queeg territory for well over a month. Today's tweets are particularly teeming with paranoia.

IMO.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Mon Mar 20, 2017, 08:27 AM

2. Refusal to release Tax Returns

That fits right in also

And that "Dossier".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tom Rinaldo (Reply #2)

Mon Mar 20, 2017, 08:37 AM

4. There is a shitload of circumstantial evidence.

And a lot of questions that need to be answered. They must be answered.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Reply #4)

Mon Mar 20, 2017, 08:40 AM

5. Circumstantial evidence...

will not cut it. If you intend to shoot the king, you must kill him. No smoking gun.., no habeas corpus... no body... no conviction = FAKE NEWS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zoonart (Reply #5)

Mon Mar 20, 2017, 09:05 AM

7. There is enough to investigate.

It would be a dereliction to not do so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Mon Mar 20, 2017, 08:52 AM

6. A Republican interviewed on NPR this morning...

agreed that it would be a problem if Trump's people spoke with the Russians about political subjects.

Well what else would they have been discussing? Frankly, whatever the conversation was about, if a foreign government is meddling with an election and agents of a political campaign in that election are talking with representatives of that foreign government, then it's unavoidably "about political subjects."

To his credit, the Repub on NPR seemed a little rattled by the whole thing, and he also flatly declared that there's no evidence that Obama tapped Trump's wires.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Orrex (Reply #6)

Mon Mar 20, 2017, 09:12 AM

8. It is possible that Trump and his "emissaries" were discussing business deals with Russia...

...even as our government had placed sanctions on Russia for interfering with our elections. The prospect of making a great deal was/is more important to Trump than being the President of the United States.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Reply #8)

Mon Mar 20, 2017, 09:18 AM

9. I agree that that's a possibility

And it's likely that Trump's mouthpieces will frame it that way.

But in the context of an ongoing political campaign in which Russia had been meddling, and especially after Trump publicly asked Russia to hack Clinton's emails, even a "pure" business discussion becomes fundamentally political.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Orrex (Reply #9)

Mon Mar 20, 2017, 09:30 AM

12. I agree.

Some would call it "collusion".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Mon Mar 20, 2017, 09:40 AM

13. trump hired Manafort to run his campaign because that is what Manafort does and trump wanted to win.

He's been doing it since the 70s. He is a king-maker/lobbyist - Ford, Reagan, Bush, the Philippines, Ukraine, etc. And he worked with trump re: Indian casinos.

His ties to Russia/Ukraine can be 'explained away' exactly as circumstantial - 'it was his job', and since trump fired him after his nefarious ties came more to light.

Stone is Manafort partner, he is part of the business that loved dictators. , and became an advisor for trump. So it was their job to get trump elected. Stone's methods were/are known hard edge - a real scum bag of fake stories. Also removed from the campaign

Carter Page? A nobody till trump hired him likely being recommended from one of the other 2 - apparently mainly for his Russian ties.

All 3 were fired for their questionable actions, at least officially

Yep plenty of circumstantial connections. Hard evidence of collusion we have yet to see.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread