Trump gives highly classified information to the Russians

[Mountain Man]

Back channels are not out of the reach of U.S. intelligence, Kushners desired back channel was, it was to be through the Russian embassy, on Russian communication equiptment. And btw, your Brietbart fake news story concerning Obama's back channel with Iran, which was run through the State Dept., is Brietbarts usual BS spin meant for the consumption of fools like yourself.

First you justify Obama's use of "back channels", then you call it "fake news". Make up your mind.

Now where's the evidence that Kushner did what the anonymous sources are claiming and that what he did was illegal?

[JimL]

First you justify Obama's use of "back channels", then you call it "fake news". Make up your mind.

Now where's the evidence that Kushner did what the anonymous sources are claiming and that what he did was illegal?

I see you've been thoroughly brainwashed. The anonymous sources are U.S. Intelligence agencies and unless they deny the story, then you can take it to the bank. I understand that Trump doesn't want you to believe the media or the U.S. intelligence or anything or anyone but himself, he's following the Putin playbook on how to become a dictator. We'll see if the american democratic institutions and people are, like you, naive enough for him to get away with it.

[Mountain Man]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...ations-channel

"Naive", perhaps. They're not politicians. But was it illegal? And did it even happen? Do we have anything more credible than anonymous sources?

[Mountain Man]

The anonymous sources are U.S. Intelligence agencies and unless they deny the story, then you can take it to the bank.

Just like every other anonymous leak that has gone nowhere, right?

Meanwhile, every named source and on-the-record testimony has consistently said no evidence of collusion. You can take THAT to the bank.

[Tassman]

Just like every other anonymous leak that has gone nowhere, right?

Meanwhile, every named source and on-the-record testimony has consistently said no evidence of collusion. You can take THAT to the bank.

You're kidding, right?

During the transition period Kushner held a series of meetings with the Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak, and the head of a Moscow bank that was under US sanctions. And having those talks take place in Russian diplomatic facilities in the US, essentially concealing their interactions from US government scrutiny.

How is this not colluding with the enemy and trying to hide the fact from US Intelligence? And why??

[Charles]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...kushner-russia

The good old Clapper said some wise words again. Of course it is not going to apeal to those who have already made up their mind that a collusion is impossible and of course MM still misrepresents the words of Clapper. Nothing new under the sun.

[Mountain Man]

James Clapper: "I did not see any smoking gun certitude evidence of collusion."

http://www.breitbart.com/video/2017/...-gun-evidence/



Isn't it funny how every time a named source comments on the record, it's to say there is no evidence implicating Trump?

[Charles]

Another selective reading on your side. I have already pointed out what he actually did say: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post445376

I think it would be interesting to actually discuss different opinions on this instead of discussing misrepresented statements.

[Mountain Man]

He says there is no evidence. Bottom line. Anything he says beyond that simple fact is irrelevant. Vague suspicions and wild-eyed conspiracy theories are really not worth talking about.

[Charles]

He says there is no evidence.

No, he is not saying there IS no evidence. He is saying that at the time he left there WAS no smoking gun certitude evidence of collusion. Big difference between IS and WAS and big difference between no evidence and smoking gun certitude evidence of collusion.

[Mountain Man]

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/artic...each-to-russia

April 2015 headline in The New York Times:

"Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal"

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/04/2...jo&cuid=792000

But, of course, we have to keep an eye on Trump despite the fact that named sources have repeatedly and consistently said ON THE RECORD that there is no evidence of collusion.

[Tassman]

He says there is no evidence. Bottom line. Anything he says beyond that simple fact is irrelevant. Vague suspicions and wild-eyed conspiracy theories are really not worth talking about.

[Starlight]

Honestly I could believe that Trump never has the slightest clue about what's going on, about anything. The man is so dumb he makes MM look like a genius.

[Tassman]

Honestly I could believe that Trump never has the slightest clue about what's going on, about anything. The man is so dumb he makes MM look like a genius.

Nah! Not even Trump could make MM look intelligent by comparison.

[Starlight]

Nah! Not even Trump could make MM look intelligent by comparison.

I see today Allies distance themselves from U.S. after Trump's first foreign trip. One of the bizarro propaganda talking points that MM and his ilk always harp on about is how, in their alternative fantasy-world "Obama discouraged our allies and emboldened our enemies". MM will be along shortly to link us to some Brietbart propaganda piece that declares Trump's trip to Europe a raving success. Trump might be as dumb as a doorknob and have dementia to boot, but MM the apologist will always be there trying to out-dumb Sean Spicer and Sarah Huckabee in their contradictory ludicrous explanations to explain away everything Trump does wrong.