Exclusive: Trump son-in-law had undisclosed contacts with Russian envoy - sources

Si Thea01 · June 3, 2017

2 hours ago, iReason said:

Succinctly put.

Outside of the Trolls who indiscriminately attempt to derail it with one or two lines of unsubstantiated gibberish designed to deflect from the topic of the thread(s).

Please, give us all a break. If someone has an opposing view and is able to detail it within one or two lines does not make them a troll. If you have a problem with something that is written in this open forum and it is not to your liking, then put you two bob' worth in, and leave the troll out of it. To reflect on something as being composed by a troll is a pretty poor argument and no doubt listed when one has no answer for what has been posted.

thaibeachlovers · June 3, 2017

32 minutes ago, Andaman Al said:

I think the point in my previous post above seems well made.

error.

Edited June 3, 2017 by thaibeachlovers

iReason · June 3, 2017

3 minutes ago, Si Thea01 said:

If someone has an opposing view and is able to detail it within one or two lines does not make them a troll.

"and is able to detail it"

Ah, therein lies the rub.

They don't or can't.

Many times flying in and posting groundless assertions as if they are fact.

Links? The usual suspects do not post them.

And one will degenerate into posting endless, adolescent emoticons.

With no text.

Like a child.

That is Textbook Trolling.

No way to spin it.

Si Thea01 · June 3, 2017

18 minutes ago, iReason said:

"and is able to detail it"

Ah, therein lies the rub.

They don't or can't.

Many times flying in and posting groundless assertions as if they are fact.

Links? The usual suspects do not post them.

And one will degenerate into posting endless, adolescent emoticons.

With no text.

Like a child.

That is Textbook Trolling.

No way to spin it.

Your opinion, however I don't agree. It's funny you know, I have been reading numerous posts, watching various MSM outlets and reading three of the favoured news print, and all revert to the same name calling ideology whenever they want to denigrate another. And yes they can, not everything coming from one side or another can be called 100 percent correct. Some seem to forget and can be called out themselves for being arrogant. And no, at this time I am not suggesting that you fit into this category.

If some one posts just emoticons, I think we all know what they mean and it is any easy way of having a friendly banter with one who has an opposing view. No need for name calling. Or would you rather it degenerate into what it was like a few months back when very few, who have an opposing view, such as yourself, decried others using toilet talk instead of a sound and fair argument.

iReason · June 3, 2017

44 minutes ago, Si Thea01 said:

If some one posts just emoticons, I think we all know what they mean and it is any easy way of having a friendly banter with one who has an opposing view. Or would you rather it degenerate into what it was like a few months back when very few, who have an opposing view, such as yourself,

decried others using toilet talk instead of a sound and fair argument.

Have a look at the replies to this "friendly banter" you speak of.

And see if they enjoy it.

It is not friendly banter. It is childish deflection. A waste of space.

"such as yourself, decried others using toilet talk instead of a sound and fair argument."

You must have me confused with someone else.

And that trash/toilet talking title is reserved for Trump himself.

Now, I have called out this particular immature poster for refering to everyone who disagrees with him, dismissively, as a "hater".

Repeatedly in just one post.

Generally, it is the standard response.

There never is any sourced basis for what he says and claims to be true.

And when he gets called out on his nonsense, he whines and blames everyone else for his predicament.

And shuffles off with another pointless parting shot, vowing not to return to the thread.

And frankly, I believe there's many on here who applaud his departure.

Si Thea01 · June 3, 2017

19 minutes ago, iReason said:

Have a look at the replies to this "friendly banter" you speak of.

And see if they enjoy it.

It is not friendly banter. It is childish deflection. A waste of space.

"such as yourself, decried others using toilet talk instead of a sound and fair argument."

You must have me confused with someone else.

And that trash/toilet talking title is reserved for Trump himself.

Now, I have called out this particular immature poster for refering to everyone who disagrees with him, dismissively, as a "hater".

Repeatedly in just one post.

Generally, it is the standard response.

There never is any sourced basis for what he says and claims to be true.

And when he gets called out on his nonsense, he whines and blames everyone else for his predicament.

And shuffles off with another pointless parting shot, vowing not to return to the thread.

And frankly, I believe there's many on here who applaud his departure.

I Did not mean that you personally used toilet talk, I was only referring to you having an opposing view. Maybe I could have worded it better. Now, when I mentioned friendly banter, I was referring to the use of emoticons, not what was being said in other posts.

However, with your response you could at stay on track and deal with what I was referring to, not what has been written previously by this particular member, which has nothing to do with my response. And tell me, why do people find the need to reserve the use of denigrating words to describe the POTUS?

I honestly cannot see the need to use adjectives to describe the deflection or suggesting that the member or his response is a waste of space, can be taken as either or. You feelings are clearly defined in your post but have you ever thought that others may think likewise of yourself but are generous enough not to denigrate you in such a manner.

iReason · June 3, 2017

37 minutes ago, Si Thea01 said:

Now, when I mentioned friendly banter, I was referring to the use of emoticons, not what was being said in other posts.

And tell me, why do people find the need to reserve the use of denigrating words to describe the POTUS?

I honestly cannot see the need to use adjectives to describe the deflection or suggesting that the member or his response is a waste of space, can be taken as either or.

"Now, when I mentioned friendly banter, I was referring to the use of emoticons, not what was being said in other posts."

A deflection.

"I honestly cannot see the need to use adjectives to describe the deflection or suggesting that the member or his response is a waste of space, can be taken as either or."

A deflection.

"And tell me, why do people find the need to reserve the use of denigrating words to describe the POTUS?"

Because:

He is an inept, ignorant, unqualified, crass, oafish, boorish buffoon.

And well documented as stiffing contractors and employees,

while conducting his well documented life associating with the swamp dwellers of the underworld. Around the World.

Not to mention his and his families' hypocrisy of out-sourcing American labor to China, Mexico, Bangladesh, Honduras and Vietnam.

And others...

Clear enough for you?

Edited June 3, 2017 by iReason

Si Thea01 · June 3, 2017

1 minute ago, iReason said:

"Now, when I mentioned friendly banter, I was referring to the use of emoticons, not what was being said in other posts."

A deflection.

"I honestly cannot see the need to use adjectives to describe the deflection or suggesting that the member or his response is a waste of space,

can be taken as either or."

A deflection.

"And tell me, why do people find the need to reserve the use of denigrating words to describe the POTUS?"

Because:

He is an inept, ignorant, unqualified, crass, oafish, boorish buffoon.

And well documented as stiffing contractors and employees,

while conducting his well documented life associating with the swamp dwellers of the underworld. Around the World.

Not to mention his and his families' hypocrisy of out-sourcing American labor to China, Mexico, Bangladesh, Honduras and Vietnam.

And others...

Clear enough for you?

If you want me to bite, sorry, will not be happening. I gave you the benefit of the doubt but I can see that I was wrong and I now understand why. Keep up the good work, others may enjoy your little ditties but your response clearly defines you. Have a nice night.

boomerangutang · June 4, 2017

13 hours ago, Si Thea01 said:

If you want me to bite, sorry, will not be happening. I gave you the benefit of the doubt but I can see that I was wrong and I now understand why. Keep up the good work, others may enjoy your little ditties but your response clearly defines you. Have a nice night.

You're addressing iReason, but I'll jump in the fray. It's clear that Trump becoming prez is mega-divisive. The deep divisions were rifting even during the ugly campaign. It's too bad Kasich didn't know anything about Trump's Russian connections during the campaign. Or, if he did know, perhaps Kasich was too much of a pantywaist to speak out about it.

Hillary knew about Trump's nefarious Russian connections, and she did speak out, but the fake news factory (many of whom were 17 yr old Macedonian punks sitting at computers), drowned out her message. It's like a woman going into the fire station and saying there's a fire five blocks away, and the firemen just sit there, drinking Trump Vodka, staring at her with stupid grins, and ridiculing the messenger for wearing a pantsuit instead of a skirt. That picture of the firemen, btw, is how I picture Trump voters (just add guns, to complete the image).

Similarly, proof of ignorance coupled with putting party over country, is Republican congresspeople voting in people like Flynn and Sessions. All reasonable people like me and iReason, knew that Flynn and Sessions and Devos (and other Trump nominees) were corrupt and inept to the core. Perhaps Republican congresspeople knew that also. If so, it's doubly despicable; if they voted in favor of nominees who they knew were going to harm America.

Rob13 · June 4, 2017

20 minutes ago, boomerangutang said:

Hillary knew about Trump's nefarious Russian connections, and she did speak out, but the fake news factory (many of whom were 17 yr old Macedonian punks sitting at computers), drowned out her message.

To be fair, Trump was making claims about the DNC and Hilary rigging the election. Both sides were crying foul and nothing being done.Probably what should have happened was break in the campign and an investigation into both allegations.

IMHO, a big part of the problem was neither candidate had enough credibility to make their accusations believable so it was easy for voters to let the issue slide as mud-slinging.

boomerangutang · June 4, 2017

38 minutes ago, Rob13 said:

To be fair, Trump was making claims about the DNC and Hilary rigging the election. Both sides were crying foul and nothing being done.Probably what should have happened was break in the campign and an investigation into both allegations.

IMHO, a big part of the problem was neither candidate had enough credibility to make their accusations believable so it was easy for voters to let the issue slide as mud-slinging.

Comey said recently that the FBI had been formally investigating Trump-Russian ties since July '16. There were 4 months left in the campaign. Why didn't Comey say anything during the campaign about that? Instead, he kowtowed to his fellow Republicans and made several headline-grabbing announcements about HRC's email issue.

HRC has miles more credibility than Trump. Trump lies multiple times daily. How often does HRC lie? Can anyone articulate a lie that HRC told? .....other than perhaps dramatizing a copter landing in a war zone in Serbia.

Rob13 · June 4, 2017

22 minutes ago, boomerangutang said:

Why didn't Comey say anything during the campaign about that?

That's the billion dollar question, isn't it.

23 minutes ago, boomerangutang said:

HRC has miles more credibility than Trump. Trump lies multiple times daily. How often does HRC lie? Can anyone articulate a lie that HRC told?

Trump's a bigger liar than HRC. Not saying much really. Plenty of media fodder pointing to her indiscretions throughout her career as with anybody who's made that far in politics. Her biggest liability though is herself. She's a nasty arrogant piece of work. She would have been smart to look at what kept her husband's popularity points so high and adjusted.

Peterw42 · June 4, 2017

As a casual observer, when I see so much effort and time dedicated to denial, deflection and discrediting Russia investigations, it leaves me with an opinion of guilty. Why else would you try so hard ?

If there is nothing to hide, do nothing, let the investigations proceed, in fact welcome the investigations." If you have nothing to hide"

Ask a group of kids "who stole the cookies", the one that protests their innocence the loudest is the one who stole the cookies..

55Jay · June 4, 2017

2 hours ago, Peterw42 said:

As a casual observer, when I see so much effort and time dedicated to denial, deflection and discrediting Russia investigations, it leaves me with an opinion of guilty. Why else would you try so hard ?

If there is nothing to hide, do nothing, let the investigations proceed, in fact welcome the investigations." If you have nothing to hide"

Ask a group of kids "who stole the cookies", the one that protests their innocence the loudest is the one who stole the cookies..

The media is trying, very hard, to leave you with the impression of guilt. Don't be suckered in by the repetitive, blatantly obvious messaging; civil/psy ops 101. Ignore the predictable cut/paste nerds on TVF as well. They know jack s**t. Remain aloof and neutral.

Agree that this investigation needs to be conducted in a vacuum, away from the political fray. House/Senate hearings are Reality TV political posturing. Had high hopes Bob Mueller would get his arms around this thing but it appears he can not, or doesn't want to.

At any rate, this has all the hallmarks of a bloodless coup. A political assassination conducted by the DNC in cooperation with select MSM and print news outlets, using the "Death by a Thousand Cuts" method.

However, as we learned not long ago, being a clueless idiot, or pretending to be one, even at a high government position such as US Secretary of State, is not a crime. It is a forgivable flaw for a candidate seeking the highest office in the land. So is gross incompetence about basic duties and responsibilities, mismanagement, corruption, using appointed office for personal and political advancement, refusing to comply with congress (smirk), conspiracy to conceal and/or destroy evidence to hinder investigations and congressional oversight committees. Even barely concealed, direct intervention by a former US President seeking to influence the legal disposition of federal investigations is, apparently, the new low bar for acceptable behavior, according to the interpretations of the former FBI Director, given the nod of approval by his spineless, politically corrupt boss, former US Attorney General. But, as long as you apologize, eventually, when all other options have failed, you can still be endorsed as a viable candidate by the sitting President of the United States.

Given the precedent, and extreme lack of credibility in the handing of investigations at the highest levels, I'm ready for anything. But for now, all these leaks and drips sound like more of the same to me.

Edited June 4, 2017 by 55Jay

Scott · June 4, 2017

Off-topic posts removed along with replies.

You might want to consider dropping the endless fake news remarks. It's trolling; it's off-topic and quite frequently it is not true.

55Jay · June 4, 2017

51 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Yes, an emoji-based rebuttal. Probably is considered definitive in the political circles you move in.

No wonder most scientists are Democrats.

Emojis are fine, this is an entertainment site. It was also the most concise, appropriate, equivalent response to your deflection post. Laugh out Loud! But, don't take TVF too seriously, mate, lest you wind up with an ulcer.

BTW, I don't have a political circle. Do you? Which one?

If you champion one over the other these days, hey, you might as well just go ahead and use Emojis too.

Edited June 4, 2017 by 55Jay

Rob13 · June 4, 2017

47 minutes ago, 55Jay said:

The media is trying, very hard, to leave you with the impression of guilt.

I agree the media's going after trump tooth and nail. OTOH, he's doing alot to affirm people's suspicions of him. I see today Nunes has put himself back in the investigation, what's that about. Really looks like someone high up is trying to muddy the water.

thaibeachlovers · June 4, 2017

3 hours ago, Peterw42 said:

As a casual observer, when I see so much effort and time dedicated to denial, deflection and discrediting Russia investigations, it leaves me with an opinion of guilty. Why else would you try so hard ?

If there is nothing to hide, do nothing, let the investigations proceed, in fact welcome the investigations." If you have nothing to hide"

Ask a group of kids "who stole the cookies", the one that protests their innocence the loudest is the one who stole the cookies..

LOL. The ones shouting the loudest are the ones throwing all sorts of unproven accusations at Trump and his cabinet in the hope that something will stick.

As I hear it Trump and his team are just denying everything, but not doing much shouting.

As for welcoming the investigation, Trump did that very thing. I heard him on the tv myself.

55Jay · June 4, 2017

3 minutes ago, Rob13 said:

I agree the media's going after trump tooth and nail. OTOH, he's doing alot to affirm people's suspicions of him. I see today Nunes has put himself back in the investigation, what's that about. Really looks like someone high up is trying to muddy the water.

Indeed. Ancient Chinese Proverb: Never throw bloody tuna carcasses at the sharks, then jump in the water with them.

Peterw42 · June 4, 2017

5 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

LOL. The ones shouting the loudest are the ones throwing all sorts of unproven accusations at Trump and his cabinet in the hope that something will stick.

As I hear it Trump and his team are just denying everything, but not doing much shouting.

As for welcoming the investigation, Trump did that very thing. I heard him on the tv myself.

Calling it a witch hunt isn't exactly welcoming,

thaibeachlovers · June 4, 2017

14 minutes ago, Peterw42 said:

Calling it a witch hunt isn't exactly welcoming,

Whatever, he still welcomed it when I heard him, and no mention of witch hunts.

iReason · June 4, 2017

53 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

As for welcoming the investigation, Trump did that very thing. I heard him on the tv myself.

26 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Whatever, he still welcomed it when I heard him, and no mention of witch hunts.

Really?

Do you have a link?

Or are you just making stuff up again?

It was his mouthpiece Spicer.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/05/09/sean-spicer-donald-trump-welcomes-russia-business-investigation-238162

mogandave · June 4, 2017

He needs to be prosecuted for treason

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

Scott · June 4, 2017

Baiting troll posts removed. Please dispense with the personal remarks or face a suspension.

boomerangutang · June 4, 2017

3 hours ago, 55Jay said:

The media is trying, very hard, to leave you with the impression of guilt. Don't be suckered in by the repetitive, blatantly obvious messaging; civil/psy ops 101. Ignore the predictable cut/paste nerds on TVF as well. They know jack s**t. Remain aloof and neutral.

I challenge you to name one assertion by the mainstream media that has been proven factually untrue - in regard to the Russia-Trump connections.

I would reciprocate by naming the hundreds of claims by Trump and his cohorts that have proven untrue, but I might get carpal tunnel from typing so much.

2 hours ago, 55Jay said:

Indeed. Ancient Chinese Proverb: Never throw bloody tuna carcasses at the sharks, then jump in the water with them.

Mark Twain once said: 'Never pick an argument with a man who buys ink by the barrel.'

Trump voters don't seem to care about the Russia-Trump connections, for primarily the following 2 reasons:

>>> 98% of their cranial calories go toward their own immediate issues: job, family, guns, family dog.

>>> and Trump fans don't know much detail about, nor care about international issues.

I'm different, perhaps because I grew up in a family which traveled often; US, Africa, Europe. I attended 11 different schools in a 14 year span (and yes, I got booted out of some) ....in 6 different countries, so I have an int'l perspective on things. Trump should have people like me advising him (tho I wouldn't want to work for him) - people who can see outside of their self-administered blinders, and who have some knowledge of history.

Trump is not even helping himself get a better grasp on int'l affairs. There are hundreds of positions which are still unfilled, most of which are at the State Dept. Trump barely glances at daily intelligence briefings. He thinks he knows more than anyone else ("I know more than the generals, believe me."). He announced the Carl Vinson was sailing west when it was sailing south. He didn't know Israel is in the Middle East.

Could there be a worse person as prez? Maybe Cruz, because Cruz also has awful policy ideas, but Cruz knows how Washington works, so Cruz could get some of his America-harming ideas passed into legislation. Thankfully, Trump (and Jared and Bannon) don't know how to get things done in DC, so they're essentially hamstrung - just bunkering in the Oval Office, continually bleating "fake news!" in response to every new finding by the Wash.Post and NY Times.

Rob13 · June 4, 2017

22 minutes ago, boomerangutang said:

Trump should have people like me advising him

bit full of yourself are ya?

iReason · June 4, 2017

4 hours ago, 55Jay said:

The media is trying, very hard, to leave you with the impression of guilt.

Ignore the predictable cut/paste nerds on TVF as well. They know jack s**t.

Had high hopes Bob Mueller would get his arms around this thing but it appears he can not, or doesn't want to.

However, as we learned not long ago, being a clueless idiot, or pretending to be one, even at a high government position such as US Secretary of State, is not a crime.

It is a forgivable flaw for a candidate seeking the highest office in the land.

So is gross incompetence about basic duties and responsibilities, mismanagement, corruption, using appointed office for personal and political advancement, refusing to comply with congress, conspiracy to conceal and/or destroy evidence to hinder investigations and congressional oversight committees.

"It is a forgivable flaw for a candidate seeking the highest office in the land."

"So is gross incompetence about basic duties and responsibilities, mismanagement, corruption, using appointed office for personal and political advancement, refusing to comply with congress, conspiracy to conceal and/or destroy evidence to hinder investigations and congressional oversight committees."

It appears you are coming around. You're talking about the inept, unqualified fool in the White House, right?

Special Counsel Robert Mueller Taking Close Control of Russia Investigation

"WASHINGTON — Special Counsel Robert Mueller is already closely managing the Russian election meddling investigation he was appointed to oversee, receiving daily briefings and weighing in on investigative tactics, a spokesman told NBC News Friday."

"Federal rules specify that a special counsel will have "the full power and independent authority to exercise all investigative and prosecutorial functions of any United States attorney."

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/special-counsel-robert-mueller-taking-close-control-russia-investigation-n767856

Mueller expands Russia probe to include criminal investigation of Manafort

"In an interview with the AP, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein said Mueller's assignment

"gives him the authority" to also include Attorney General Jeff Sessions."

"He added, "...Director Mueller will be responsible in the first instance for determining what he believes falls into that mandate."

"Not only that, but Mueller's investigation could expand to include the firing of former FBI Director James Comey."

https://www.aol.com/article/news/2017/06/03/mueller-expands-russia-probe-to-include-criminal-investigation-o/22124033/

He's just getting started bubba...

The house of cards will fall.

Edited June 4, 2017 by iReason

55Jay · June 4, 2017

@iReason OMG, you're so clever. LOL.

No problem with the rest of it, bubba.

Edited June 4, 2017 by 55Jay

boomerangutang · June 4, 2017

37 minutes ago, Rob13 said:

bit full of yourself are ya?

At my stupidest I'd be a better adviser than anyone advising Trump right now.

iReason · June 4, 2017

5 minutes ago, 55Jay said:

OMG, you're so clever.

No problem with the rest of it, bubba.

Well, you certainly described him to a "T".

Sign In

Exclusive: Trump son-in-law had undisclosed contacts with Russian envoy - sources

Recommended Posts

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Posted Images

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in

Recently Browsing 0 members

Announcements

Topics

Latest posts...

Popular in The Pub

ASEANNOW

MORE INFO

POPULAR AREAS

CONTACT US