George Truett said:

---

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

This cant be true


Can it?

---

I don't know if the OP is true, but Trump's deference to Putin was concerning. Was it just an admiration for a strong man dictator? Was it financial entanglements with Putin?

I'm hopeful that maybe the Biden Administration will be able to bring some of that to light, but I don't think it should be a priority. Let the state courts torture Trump.

I too want to move on from Trump, but McCarthy's trip to Mara Lago to kiss the ring suggests that we're not going to be able to anytime soon.

---

To kiss the ring and his azz.

Last time we did this the conversation ended with you refusing to even acknowledge basic accepted facts backed up by indisputable evidence, instead pivoting to some more "both side" stupidity. You feel like getting check-mated again?

Bearitto said:

---

---

I see you've switched from making Q memes.

TexasScientist said:

---

Bearitto said:

---

---

I see you've switched from making Q memes.

---

Mothra said:

---

Trump is no longer president. Time to move on.

Don't worry. As a "Republican," you'll have plenty of things to complain about the next 4 years.

---

LOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!

TDS apparently has no cure.

L*E*T* H*I*M* G*O* !!!!!!!!!!!

sombear said:

---

I've said worse against my own side but it's truly pathetic that some of you continue to push the Russian BS. Again, y'all have plenty of legit ammo against Trump. It shows how wedded y'all were to the Russia crap and how you need it to be real to justify your last 4 years of loathing. Y'all need to accept the fact. And I know how hard this must be, that Hillary's/Steele's foray into Russia was the only true foray and almost took down a duly elected President.

---

Not sure how wanting a closer look at a plausible story constitutes "pushing the Russian BS."

I'm almost certain Mueller said on the Hill during testimony that but for the DOJ memo against indicting sitting Presidents, he would have indicted Trump. I'm not sure about Trump being a full blown KGB spy, but it is ridiculous to say illegal Russian ties is all a hoax when Mueller said he had the evidence to prosecute Trump.

PartyBear said:

---

I'm almost certain Mueller said on the Hill during testimony that but for the DOJ memo against indicting sitting Presidents, he would have indicted Trump. I'm not sure about Trump being a full blown KGB spy, but it is ridiculous to say illegal Russian ties is all a hoax when Mueller said he had the evidence to prosecute Trump.

---

I would just note that being an "asset" is not the same as being a full-blown spy, and the story does not suggest that Trump was a full-blown spy (an allegation I would find pretty hard to believe).

What the story DOES suggest is that the Russians figured out they could flatter Trump and play to both his ego and what they perceived as intellectual dullness to get him to use his influence to (perhaps unwittingly) advance Russian goals, such as the weakening of NATO.

Yes but the Trumpers here seem to post as if it is true Trump isn't a confirmed KGB agent, something never alleged anywhere I have seen, then everything about Russia is a hoax.

And yet as recently as 1983, it was perfectly acceptable for a sitting U.S. Senator to ask the president of the Soviet Union to interfere in a U.S. presidential election.

https://www.forbes.com/2009/08/27/ted-kennedy-soviet-union-ronald-reagan-opinions-columnists-peter-robinson.html?sh=28dc7778359a

Get back to me with objective proof. Otherwise, you are just making yourselves look hysterical and malicious.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Get back to me with objective proof. Otherwise, you are just making yourselves look hysterical and malicious.

---

It is hardly hysterical to say that a story from a credible source with a serious claim merits further investigation to assess if the story is accurate.

If a US president was in fact a Russian asset, wittingly or unwittingly, would you regard that as no big deal?

If further investigation yielded "objective proof," would you accept it or dismiss it?

bubbadog said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Get back to me with objective proof. Otherwise, you are just making yourselves look hysterical and malicious.

---

It is hardly hysterical to say that a story from a credible source with a serious claim merits further investigation to assess if the story is accurate.

If a US president was in fact a Russian asset, wittingly or unwittingly, would you regard that as no big deal?

If further investigation yielded "objective proof," would you accept it or dismiss it?

---

I see a whole lot of hypocrisy.


When Trump supporters said the election was 'stolen', the Left quite reasonably said 'let's see proof'.

Now you want to push - hard - a story we have heard for almost 5 years now, which never stood up to inspection.

I will not consider the accusation as even remotely worth attention without clear, objective evidence.

BS stories from Russians who troll our media does not remotely come close.

Oldbear83 said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Get back to me with objective proof. Otherwise, you are just making yourselves look hysterical and malicious.

---

It is hardly hysterical to say that a story from a credible source with a serious claim merits further investigation to assess if the story is accurate.

If a US president was in fact a Russian asset, wittingly or unwittingly, would you regard that as no big deal?

If further investigation yielded "objective proof," would you accept it or dismiss it?

---

I see a whole lot of hypocrisy.


When Trump supporters said the election was 'stolen', the Left quite reasonably said 'let's see proof'.

Now you want to push - hard - a story we have heard for almost 5 years now, which never stood up to inspection.

I will not consider the accusation as even remotely worth attention without clear, objective evidence.

BS stories from Russians who troll our media does not remotely come close.

---

I thought it was clear from my posts that I wanted to see proof for the claim of this story -- which requires additional investigation by the media.

And, no, this is not the same story as the claim that the Trump campaign attempted to collude with the Russians) during the 2016 election campaign.

What I'm seeing from people here is that they won't consider any evidence at all.

bubbadog said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Get back to me with objective proof. Otherwise, you are just making yourselves look hysterical and malicious.

---

It is hardly hysterical to say that a story from a credible source with a serious claim merits further investigation to assess if the story is accurate.

If a US president was in fact a Russian asset, wittingly or unwittingly, would you regard that as no big deal?

If further investigation yielded "objective proof," would you accept it or dismiss it?

---

I see a whole lot of hypocrisy.


When Trump supporters said the election was 'stolen', the Left quite reasonably said 'let's see proof'.

Now you want to push - hard - a story we have heard for almost 5 years now, which never stood up to inspection.

I will not consider the accusation as even remotely worth attention without clear, objective evidence.

BS stories from Russians who troll our media does not remotely come close.

---

I thought it was clear from my posts that I wanted to see proof for the claim of this story -- which requires additional investigation by the media.

And, no, this is not the same story as the claim that the Trump campaign attempted to collude with the Russians) during the 2016 election campaign.

What I'm seeing from people here is that they won't consider any evidence at all.

---

There is a threshold to meet.

This, in my opinion, is far short of serious consideration,

That is not 'won't consider any evidence', it's rational skepticism, especially given the Left's behavior on this claim for so long.

And yes, for all practical purposes it's the same damn claim, just repackaged.

Oldbear83 said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Get back to me with objective proof. Otherwise, you are just making yourselves look hysterical and malicious.

---

It is hardly hysterical to say that a story from a credible source with a serious claim merits further investigation to assess if the story is accurate.

If a US president was in fact a Russian asset, wittingly or unwittingly, would you regard that as no big deal?

If further investigation yielded "objective proof," would you accept it or dismiss it?

---

I see a whole lot of hypocrisy.


When Trump supporters said the election was 'stolen', the Left quite reasonably said 'let's see proof'.

Now you want to push - hard - a story we have heard for almost 5 years now, which never stood up to inspection.

I will not consider the accusation as even remotely worth attention without clear, objective evidence.

BS stories from Russians who troll our media does not remotely come close.

---

I thought it was clear from my posts that I wanted to see proof for the claim of this story -- which requires additional investigation by the media.

And, no, this is not the same story as the claim that the Trump campaign attempted to collude with the Russians) during the 2016 election campaign.

What I'm seeing from people here is that they won't consider any evidence at all.

---

There is a threshold to meet.

This, in my opinion, is far short of serious consideration,

That is not 'won't consider any evidence', it's rational skepticism, especially given the Left's behavior on this claim for so long.

And yes, for all practical purposes it's the same damn claim, just repackaged.

---

It's hardly the same claim that Mueller looked at, except that it involves Trump and Russia.

And on the general subject of Trump and Russia, as I pointed out, Republicans like Kevin McCarthy were the ones who voiced suspicions about the relationship before the 2016 campaign.

You gotta admit, quite a bit of smoke has been coming out of that house. For example:
Donald Jr. says their businesses get a lot of money from Russia, but the campaign denies they have Russian ties.
Don Jr. is eager to meet with Russians who say they have dirt on Hillary.
Pres. Trump praises Putin effusively, refuses to criticize him in public, and creates a scene in Helsinki that even many in his own party find embarrassing.
Trump refuses to allow anyone in his meeting with Putin but a translator and then makes sure there is no written or audio record of the meeting.
Trump gets involved in real estate deals in the Caucasus with shady characters with ties to Russian intelligence and with a record of money-laundering.

I could go on.

Republicans have been wiling to proclaim Joe Biden a corrupt dealer with Russia based on pigeon feed compared to the evidence that something is shady between Trump and the Russians. To look at all this smoke and not even suspect there might be a fire is not simply rational skepticism at work; after a while, it becomes a tacit admission that all the evidence in the world would make no difference to them.

Mueller's team of 18 Democrats found nothing. But thank the man upstairs that we have you to tell us what really happened!

sombear said:

---

Mueller's team of 18 Democrats found nothing. But thank the man upstairs that we have you to tell us what really happened!

---

1. Sorry, but your first sentence is false.

2. Actually, your 2nd sentence is false, too, as I'm not claiming that the story pasted in the OP is what really happened -- just that it merits further investigation.

Hunter Biden is a Chicom asset?

bubbadog said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Trump is no longer president. Time to move on.

---

If this were about, say, emoluments, I would agree with you that it's best to just move on.

This is a much, much, much more serious allegation.

I do not accept this article as proof of anything. And the Russians buried people so deep for so long that I have to consider the possibility that the Russian defector who supplied a lot of information for this story may not have been a defector after all but is still working for Moscow.

But the questions raised in this story need to be examined further. There at least needs to be much more digging by the media.

The story makes no claim that Trump was getting money from Russia. But being an asset for a foreign government doesn't necessarily involve getting paid or even taking orders. Sometimes it just means getting someone to be useful to your agenda -- maybe without even realizing that they're manipulating you. Is that a plausible scenario in Trump's case? Yes.

Again, plausibility isn't proof.

But it's worth recalling here that people in Trump's own adopted party were asking these questions as recently as 5 years ago, when Kevin McCarthy told fellow Republicans that he thought Trump was on Putin's payroll.

---

Funny... I didn't see the media dig any further into the election fraud allegations. The fact the republican watchers were either denied access to vote counts or stuck so far away from the actual counting, covering up the windows in detroit, the numerous witness affidavits, etc...

That seemed to raise enough questions to call for further digging. Didn't see any of our resident biden supporters call for it.

Rawhide said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Trump is no longer president. Time to move on.

---

If this were about, say, emoluments, I would agree with you that it's best to just move on.

This is a much, much, much more serious allegation.

I do not accept this article as proof of anything. And the Russians buried people so deep for so long that I have to consider the possibility that the Russian defector who supplied a lot of information for this story may not have been a defector after all but is still working for Moscow.

But the questions raised in this story need to be examined further. There at least needs to be much more digging by the media.

The story makes no claim that Trump was getting money from Russia. But being an asset for a foreign government doesn't necessarily involve getting paid or even taking orders. Sometimes it just means getting someone to be useful to your agenda -- maybe without even realizing that they're manipulating you. Is that a plausible scenario in Trump's case? Yes.

Again, plausibility isn't proof.

But it's worth recalling here that people in Trump's own adopted party were asking these questions as recently as 5 years ago, when Kevin McCarthy told fellow Republicans that he thought Trump was on Putin's payroll.

---

Funny... I didn't see the media dig any further into the election fraud allegations. The fact the republican watchers were either denied access to vote counts or stuck so far away from the actual counting, covering up the windows in detroit, the numerous witness affidavits, etc...

That seemed to raise enough questions to call for further digging. Didn't see any of our resident biden supporters call for it.

---

I saw a lot of reporting about it.

And all the evidence was presented in court.

JXL said:

---

And yet as recently as 1983, it was perfectly acceptable for a sitting U.S. Senator to ask the president of the Soviet Union to interfere in a U.S. presidential election.

https://www.forbes.com/2009/08/27/ted-kennedy-soviet-union-ronald-reagan-opinions-columnists-peter-robinson.html?sh=28dc7778359a

---

Not so sure it was acceptable. I seem to recall that being an issue 1984.

bubbadog said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Get back to me with objective proof. Otherwise, you are just making yourselves look hysterical and malicious.

---

It is hardly hysterical to say that a story from a credible source with a serious claim merits further investigation to assess if the story is accurate.

If a US president was in fact a Russian asset, wittingly or unwittingly, would you regard that as no big deal?

If further investigation yielded "objective proof," would you accept it or dismiss it?

---

It's more credible than the birther story.

TexasScientist said:

---

JXL said:

---

And yet as recently as 1983, it was perfectly acceptable for a sitting U.S. Senator to ask the president of the Soviet Union to interfere in a U.S. presidential election.

https://www.forbes.com/2009/08/27/ted-kennedy-soviet-union-ronald-reagan-opinions-columnists-peter-robinson.html?sh=28dc7778359a

---

Not so sure it was acceptable. I seem to recall that being an issue 1984.

---

The story didn't break until 1991, so I doubt it was an issue in 1984. But Kennedy was in office for another 18 years after 1991 - what consequences did he face for this?

PartyBear said:

---

I'm almost certain Mueller said on the Hill during testimony that but for the DOJ memo against indicting sitting Presidents, he would have indicted Trump. I'm not sure about Trump being a full blown KGB spy, but it is ridiculous to say illegal Russian ties is all a hoax when Mueller said he had the evidence to prosecute Trump.

---

Not even close but I blame the media, not you.Mueller did not say that, and regardless, that controversy was about the obstruction charge, not the Russia collusion charge.

bubbadog said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Trump is no longer president. Time to move on.

---

If this were about, say, emoluments, I would agree with you that it's best to just move on.

This is a much, much, much more serious allegation.

I do not accept this article as proof of anything. And the Russians buried people so deep for so long that I have to consider the possibility that the Russian defector who supplied a lot of information for this story may not have been a defector after all but is still working for Moscow.

But the questions raised in this story need to be examined further. There at least needs to be much more digging by the media.

The story makes no claim that Trump was getting money from Russia. But being an asset for a foreign government doesn't necessarily involve getting paid or even taking orders. Sometimes it just means getting someone to be useful to your agenda -- maybe without even realizing that they're manipulating you. Is that a plausible scenario in Trump's case? Yes.

Again, plausibility isn't proof.

But it's worth recalling here that people in Trump's own adopted party were asking these questions as recently as 5 years ago, when Kevin McCarthy told fellow Republicans that he thought Trump was on Putin's payroll.

---

Funny... I didn't see the media dig any further into the election fraud allegations. The fact the republican watchers were either denied access to vote counts or stuck so far away from the actual counting, covering up the windows in detroit, the numerous witness affidavits, etc...

That seemed to raise enough questions to call for further digging. Didn't see any of our resident biden supporters call for it.

---

I saw a lot of reporting about it.

And all the evidence was presented in court.

---

They didn't investigate it.

Rawhide said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Trump is no longer president. Time to move on.

---

If this were about, say, emoluments, I would agree with you that it's best to just move on.

This is a much, much, much more serious allegation.

I do not accept this article as proof of anything. And the Russians buried people so deep for so long that I have to consider the possibility that the Russian defector who supplied a lot of information for this story may not have been a defector after all but is still working for Moscow.

But the questions raised in this story need to be examined further. There at least needs to be much more digging by the media.

The story makes no claim that Trump was getting money from Russia. But being an asset for a foreign government doesn't necessarily involve getting paid or even taking orders. Sometimes it just means getting someone to be useful to your agenda -- maybe without even realizing that they're manipulating you. Is that a plausible scenario in Trump's case? Yes.

Again, plausibility isn't proof.

But it's worth recalling here that people in Trump's own adopted party were asking these questions as recently as 5 years ago, when Kevin McCarthy told fellow Republicans that he thought Trump was on Putin's payroll.

---

Funny... I didn't see the media dig any further into the election fraud allegations. The fact the republican watchers were either denied access to vote counts or stuck so far away from the actual counting, covering up the windows in detroit, the numerous witness affidavits, etc...

That seemed to raise enough questions to call for further digging. Didn't see any of our resident biden supporters call for it.

---

It was looked into and most everything was false. There were over 60 cases filed that were thrown out as B.S. The problem for Trump in the election was that some states (with Republican legislatures) decided to mail return by mail ballots to everyone on the voter rolls because of covid. That opens up the opportunity for legal (and possibly undetectable illegal) ballot harvesting, especially in urban areas. Add to that his narcissistic behavior cost him enough Republican and Independent votes to lose an election, as evidenced when down ballot Republicans won their seats. His narcissism won't allow him to publicly admit he lost.

Rawhide said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Trump is no longer president. Time to move on.

---

If this were about, say, emoluments, I would agree with you that it's best to just move on.

This is a much, much, much more serious allegation.

I do not accept this article as proof of anything. And the Russians buried people so deep for so long that I have to consider the possibility that the Russian defector who supplied a lot of information for this story may not have been a defector after all but is still working for Moscow.

But the questions raised in this story need to be examined further. There at least needs to be much more digging by the media.

The story makes no claim that Trump was getting money from Russia. But being an asset for a foreign government doesn't necessarily involve getting paid or even taking orders. Sometimes it just means getting someone to be useful to your agenda -- maybe without even realizing that they're manipulating you. Is that a plausible scenario in Trump's case? Yes.

Again, plausibility isn't proof.

But it's worth recalling here that people in Trump's own adopted party were asking these questions as recently as 5 years ago, when Kevin McCarthy told fellow Republicans that he thought Trump was on Putin's payroll.

---

Funny... I didn't see the media dig any further into the election fraud allegations. The fact the republican watchers were either denied access to vote counts or stuck so far away from the actual counting, covering up the windows in detroit, the numerous witness affidavits, etc...

That seemed to raise enough questions to call for further digging. Didn't see any of our resident biden supporters call for it.

---

I saw a lot of reporting about it.

And all the evidence was presented in court.

---

They didn't investigate it.

---

The allegations looked into and raised by the Trump campaign and the allegations were conclusively answered by state officials.

bubbadog said:

---

sombear said:

---

Mueller's team of 18 Democrats found nothing. But thank the man upstairs that we have you to tell us what really happened!

---

1. Sorry, but your first sentence is false.

2. Actually, your 2nd sentence is false, too, as I'm not claiming that the story pasted in the OP is what really happened -- just that it merits further investigation.

---

Just looked it up. 12 of 17 known staff were Dems and several others likely. I don't why I had 18 in my head. My mistake. But my point stands, and have you listened to his top two deputies lately? My gosh, crazy anti-Trumpsters, one being paid by MSNBC. And I stand by my second point too. Those Mueller vultures would have found if Trump were an asset. Steele would have also. Instead, he resorted to piss stories, embassies that don't exist, trips never made, and other Russia-planted disinformation. Again, Dem and media attempts to take down a duly elected president.

JXL said:

---

And yet as recently as 1983, it was perfectly acceptable for a sitting U.S. Senator to ask the president of the Soviet Union to interfere in a U.S. presidential election.

https://www.forbes.com/2009/08/27/ted-kennedy-soviet-union-ronald-reagan-opinions-columnists-peter-robinson.html?sh=28dc7778359a

---

Liberals colluding with the reds.....I'm shocked.

Actually I'm not shocked....liberals are evil.