6 ms·

There are plenty of troubling links with Russia There are at least 5 individuals (Manafort, Cohen, Sater, Page, Flynn, Tillerson, Stone) whom were directly work

There are plenty of troubling links with Russia There are at least 5 individuals (Manafort, Cohen, Sater, Page, Flynn, Tillerson, Stone) whom were directly working with the Russian government and have received effusive praise from them. Combined with a very narrow focus on removing sanctions (without any talk about the violations of sovereignty of Crimea/Ukraine) and a nearly tireless praising of Putin and the Russian government, there are plenty of troubling links.

grandalf 10y ago
Tillerson worked with them as part of his business, so not sure how this is troubling. Flynn was asked to attend a banquet or something along those lines by RT. Some of the others did some consulting work of some sort. When you are a retired high level military/government person, consulting opportunities such as those abound. The same is true of those who chose to consult for the Ukrainian side, the Georgian side, etc. It seems like a pretty big leap to say that just because someone did some consulting work for a government that they are somehow ethically compromised. Many US firms do business with Russia, the Saudi government, etc. etc. Where do we draw the line and deem these people somehow unfit to serve in government? There has not been a principled approach to this, seemingly only finger pointing and other name calling that is reminiscent of the cold war era. If there were any actual evidence of wrongdoing, it would be a completely different story. Surely with the mass surveillance system many phone calls, emails and other associations/links have been monitored, yet we are not seeing leaks of any troubling details, only vague finger pointing. It would be a very serious thing if there were some sort of plot, but so far there does not seem to be one.
- mistermann 10y ago
  I read these news articles with a critical eye, and "only vague finger pointing" is a good description of the content of every single one I've read, letting the reader's mind fill in the blanks to match their partisan agenda. Worked for Trump to get elected, turnabout is fair play?
shard972 10y ago
How is any of this evidence that the trump administration is working with Russia? The connections alone don't mean a whole lot and the rest you have is just words. If trump was truly in the can for Russia, why wouldn't he just say bad things about putin to score more political points and distract people from his true motives? Are we to believe that Putin would not allow trump to trash him in order to further his tangible goals?
- grandalf 10y ago
  Thanks for posting this. It's the most obvious thing, but yet it escapes so many people.
- eli_gottlieb 10y ago
  >Are we to believe that Putin would not allow trump to trash him in order to further his tangible goals? From what I've heard, Putin is now thinking twice on whether he even wants to be associated with the Trump administration. He may have believed that men like Manafort or Bannon would keep Trump under control, only to find that his new "allies" in the White House are a chaotic mess.
  - shard972 10y ago
    Wait, what is the bannon connection to Russia? That's new to me. Also, we would be led to believe that putin spent all this time and effort getting his boy in and now is just going to give up on him within a month? I would ask for a source on that but considering it's nigh impossible for the west to get reliable intel (That dossier was quite something) out of Russia I'm not sure how much it would matter.
    - nradov 10y ago
      The rumour is that Bannon believes he can convince Putin to back the USA in a confrontation with Iran. Bannon sees Iran as a bigger threat and is trying to engineer a conflict. (I have no idea whether that's correct, just passing on an unsubstantiated rumor.)
patrickg_zill 10y ago
You left out Frank Giustra and the Uranium One deal. Oops, that was Hillary...
- shard972 10y ago
  Why did hillary refuse to say bad things about Russia when she was SoS? Maybe putin had her under a MKUltra spell! /s
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
losvedir 10y ago
This feels like hysterical paranoid fear mongering to me. I see you in your room with pictures of Russia and Putin and Tillerson and Trump pinned to the wall and string linking them this way and that. Like, concretely, what's your hypothesis? I don't actually see you trying to say anything, but rather just sort of cast doubt and aspersions without thinking through what it means. Tillerson was the CEO of ExxonMobil. Of course the guy in charge of one of the world's largest oil and gas companies is going to interact amicably with the guy in charge of one of the world's largest oil and gas producing countries. And of course, given his experience and perspective, sanctions cause a lot of problems in business. What exactly are you trying to say about him here? That he's a Russian spy? Flynn is a retired 3 star general. He recently resigned for lying to Pence, sure, but no one is really making the argument that he did anything fundamentally wrong. He broke protocol by letting another country know that these new sanctions may be reversed in a matter of weeks by the upcoming administration that he's a part of. I've yet to see a lawyer make an argument that that's really against the spirit of the Logan Act, but I'd love to hear that perspective if you've seen one. But again, what are you trying to say about him here? That a 3 star general is a Russian spy? > Combined with a very narrow focus on removing sanctions (without any talk about the violations of sovereignty of Crimea/Ukraine) Sure, I understand your political viewpoint here, but it's just that. People are free to differ on what they think of Russia's annexation of Crimea, and the U.S. response to it. > plenty of troubling links Again, troubling HOW? Give me a hypothesis here. I honestly don't understand a coherent world view beneath your fear. Yes, the incoming administration is more pro-Russia than Clinton would have been. And yes, the annexation of Crimea is not automatically a deal breaker to working with them. But so what? Are you actually implying that this is all a coup and that Russia is pulling the strings of the U.S. government right now? That they've compromised a boorish, stupid billionaire, the CEO of Exxon Mobil, generals in the military, and so forth?

grandalf 10y ago

Tillerson worked with them as part of his business, so not sure how this is troubling. Flynn was asked to attend a banquet or something along those lines by RT. Some of the others did some consulting work of some sort. When you are a retired high level military/government person, consulting opportunities such as those abound. The same is true of those who chose to consult for the Ukrainian side, the Georgian side, etc. It seems like a pretty big leap to say that just because someone did some consulting work for a government that they are somehow ethically compromised. Many US firms do business with Russia, the Saudi government, etc. etc. Where do we draw the line and deem these people somehow unfit to serve in government? There has not been a principled approach to this, seemingly only finger pointing and other name calling that is reminiscent of the cold war era. If there were any actual evidence of wrongdoing, it would be a completely different story. Surely with the mass surveillance system many phone calls, emails and other associations/links have been monitored, yet we are not seeing leaks of any troubling details, only vague finger pointing. It would be a very serious thing if there were some sort of plot, but so far there does not seem to be one.

mistermann 10y ago
I read these news articles with a critical eye, and "only vague finger pointing" is a good description of the content of every single one I've read, letting the reader's mind fill in the blanks to match their partisan agenda. Worked for Trump to get elected, turnabout is fair play?

shard972 10y ago

How is any of this evidence that the trump administration is working with Russia? The connections alone don't mean a whole lot and the rest you have is just words. If trump was truly in the can for Russia, why wouldn't he just say bad things about putin to score more political points and distract people from his true motives? Are we to believe that Putin would not allow trump to trash him in order to further his tangible goals?

grandalf 10y ago
Thanks for posting this. It's the most obvious thing, but yet it escapes so many people.
eli_gottlieb 10y ago
>Are we to believe that Putin would not allow trump to trash him in order to further his tangible goals? From what I've heard, Putin is now thinking twice on whether he even wants to be associated with the Trump administration. He may have believed that men like Manafort or Bannon would keep Trump under control, only to find that his new "allies" in the White House are a chaotic mess.
- shard972 10y ago
  Wait, what is the bannon connection to Russia? That's new to me. Also, we would be led to believe that putin spent all this time and effort getting his boy in and now is just going to give up on him within a month? I would ask for a source on that but considering it's nigh impossible for the west to get reliable intel (That dossier was quite something) out of Russia I'm not sure how much it would matter.
  - nradov 10y ago
    The rumour is that Bannon believes he can convince Putin to back the USA in a confrontation with Iran. Bannon sees Iran as a bigger threat and is trying to engineer a conflict. (I have no idea whether that's correct, just passing on an unsubstantiated rumor.)

patrickg_zill 10y ago

You left out Frank Giustra and the Uranium One deal. Oops, that was Hillary...

shard972 10y ago
Why did hillary refuse to say bad things about Russia when she was SoS? Maybe putin had her under a MKUltra spell! /s

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

losvedir 10y ago

This feels like hysterical paranoid fear mongering to me. I see you in your room with pictures of Russia and Putin and Tillerson and Trump pinned to the wall and string linking them this way and that. Like, concretely, what's your hypothesis? I don't actually see you trying to say anything, but rather just sort of cast doubt and aspersions without thinking through what it means. Tillerson was the CEO of ExxonMobil. Of course the guy in charge of one of the world's largest oil and gas companies is going to interact amicably with the guy in charge of one of the world's largest oil and gas producing countries. And of course, given his experience and perspective, sanctions cause a lot of problems in business. What exactly are you trying to say about him here? That he's a Russian spy? Flynn is a retired 3 star general. He recently resigned for lying to Pence, sure, but no one is really making the argument that he did anything fundamentally wrong. He broke protocol by letting another country know that these new sanctions may be reversed in a matter of weeks by the upcoming administration that he's a part of. I've yet to see a lawyer make an argument that that's really against the spirit of the Logan Act, but I'd love to hear that perspective if you've seen one. But again, what are you trying to say about him here? That a 3 star general is a Russian spy? > Combined with a very narrow focus on removing sanctions (without any talk about the violations of sovereignty of Crimea/Ukraine) Sure, I understand your political viewpoint here, but it's just that. People are free to differ on what they think of Russia's annexation of Crimea, and the U.S. response to it. > plenty of troubling links Again, troubling HOW? Give me a hypothesis here. I honestly don't understand a coherent world view beneath your fear. Yes, the incoming administration is more pro-Russia than Clinton would have been. And yes, the annexation of Crimea is not automatically a deal breaker to working with them. But so what? Are you actually implying that this is all a coup and that Russia is pulling the strings of the U.S. government right now? That they've compromised a boorish, stupid billionaire, the CEO of Exxon Mobil, generals in the military, and so forth?