So nobody directly involved with the campaign then? Trump's people are going to have to come up with something better than, "Hey! Look over there!"
This is ridiculous. It is not illegal to meet with Russians, much less Russian ambassadors. It becomes suspicious when being asked about it, people deny it ever happened, and are caught as liars.
And they lied about it because they were defending themselves against accusations of collaborating with a foreign dictator in hacking into DNC and government servers.
It does not legally matter. The Russians legally are not an enemy of the United States which why all the talk of "treason" is ridiculous.
I don't know international law. Consult with one of this board four or five practicing lawyers about that. I personally consider Russia a hostile power. But I'm pointing out that LEGALLY as far as I know they are not considered hostile or an enemy of the United States. At least as much as I've read regarding the definition. Again personally I consider Russia a nation hostile to the U.S. But as often happens in international relations we might have to work with them even if they oppose our interests in some areas in order to advance our interests in other areas.
Then why are you ? And btw, the question was why is this a big deal, and things don't have to be illegal or treasonous to be a big deal, although in this case, it's probably all three.
So! People close to Hillary meet Russian officials and she wins the popular vote by 3 million. Now is that suspicious or what? It declares war on the US. That's all I can think of.
So what? Trump is the one who publicly asked the Russians to hack the DNC and to release the hacked info which is exactly what happened. The only question is how much coordination was there on this crime?
Wrong, Dindins. The only question is whether the Russians made a major effort to swing the election in Donald's favour. Of course, the US interferes in other countries all the time.
Declaration of war or something similar like a UN declaration authorizing the U.S. (among others) to use military force against them. By that standard, of actual nations, only North Korea would legally be considered hostile to the U.S. currently.
It wouldn't surprise me to learn that Clinton also met with Russian ambassadors/officials in her capacity as Secretary of State. The difference is that she isn't trying to cover it up by lying about it. Had the Trump administration simply said "yeah, we did it, any smart presidential candidate looking to beef up his/her foreign affairs credentials would be wise to meet with another member of the UN Security Council, and Clinton probably did so as well" and not lied about it, this would have burned out. @Dayton3's point about Russia not being an enemy is moot; the criticism is not so much about who they met with, but lying about it, getting repeatedly caught lying about it, going so far as to have your national security adviser resign less than a month into the administration, and continue to lie about conflicting interests. All of that casts a lot of suspicion about one's motives.
People around here are stupid enough to believe you are not a trump supporter and apologist. The answer is right there in the quote and you ignored it like a good deplorable.
Alas, I think Max Lying is an important part of Donald's strategy. I mean lying for lying's sake. Harry Truman once said "Richard Nixon is a no-good, lying bastard. He can lie out of both sides of his mouth at the same time, and if he ever caught himself telling the truth, he'd lie just to keep his hand in." Donald's gig goes beyond even that. He deliberately tells the silliest, most-obvious lies so as to keep his supporters' sense of truth perpetually off-balance. This makes endlessly conning them infinitely easier.
This seems to be the Trumpsters' new answer to everything: "Well, somebody else did something less than what he did, so that means whatever he did is OK!" If Trump shot somebody in the face, they'd go "Well, somebody who once worked with a cousin of an aide to Hillary Clinton once got a ticket for jaywalking!"
And it makes it so easy to determine loyalty. Obvious lies are recognisable; the only people who will repeat them are by definition followers. People telling the truth are dissidents.
And off to Dachua --- I mean Danbury they go. For a little uhh.. re-education. Well, we're not there yet. But he's been in office almost two months now and still hasn't been laughed out of Washington. What worried me is that unless people keep up a relentless barrage of protest and non-cooperation, some day soon Donaldism is going to start to look, and sound, Normal. When that happens, it will be too late.
