Hillary Clinton 'convinced' Trump associates colluded with Russia

[SueEllenRules!]

Hillary Clinton 'Convinced' Trump Associates Colluded With Russia
Clinton said “there's no doubt in my mind” that Russian President Vladimir Putin “wanted me to lose and wanted Trump to win.”

• Hillary Clinton is “convinced” that people associated with President Donald Trump’s campaign colluded with Russia to help influence the outcome of the 2016 election, the former presidential candidate said in an interview published Monday night.
• "There certainly was communication and there certainly was an understanding of some sort," Clinton told USA Today.
• "I'm convinced of it," she added, when asked whether there was collusion. "I happen to believe in the rule of law and believe in evidence, so I'm not going to go off and make all kinds of outrageous claims. But if you look at what we've learned since, it's pretty troubling."
• Clinton said “there's no doubt in my mind” that Russian President Vladimir Putin “wanted me to lose and wanted Trump to win.”
• “And there's no doubt in my mind that there are a tangle of financial relationships between Trump and his operation with Russian money,” Clinton said. “And there's no doubt in my mind that the Trump campaign and other associates have worked really hard to hide their connections with Russians."
• Clinton’s comments came one day ahead of the official release of her book, “What Happened,” in which she offers her understanding of her loss in last year’s election, discussing at times some of her “own shortcomings and the mistakes we made.”
• But a central theme of the book is her frustration with Russia and Putin, an old foe from her days as secretary of state.
• "Of course it had an impact," she writes of Russian meddling, describing it as "roughly equivalent to a hostile super PAC unleashing a major ad campaign, if not worse."
• Trump is "the perfect Trojan horse for Putin," she writes, and Russia’s "sophisticated information warfare on a massive scale" dovetailed perfectly with the homegrown "right-wing war on truth" of Fox News and Breitbart.
• Special Counsel Robert Mueller is leading a federal probe into whether Trump or his top advisers colluded with Moscow to advance the Republican's presidential campaign in 2016.
• Trump has denied that he or any members of his team colluded with Russia during the 2016 presidential campaign. Officials in Moscow have also denied playing a role in Trump's victory last November.

Hillary Clinton 'Convinced' Trump Associates Colluded With Russia - NBC News
https://apple.news/AnkKvWNM4QjKhbPJeM0yQxg

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

She's probably right. Unfortunately, Hillary colluded with her own sense of entitlement and propensity to lie. And still is.

 

[Frank Underwood]

Now this has credibility to it. There's no denying the Trump administration's dealings with Russia, and I wouldn't be surprised if there had been some sort of understanding between Trump and Putin.

Pity that she goes on to undermine a valid point with a pack of lies.

 

[SueEllenRules!]

She's probably right. Unfortunately, Hillary colluded with her own sense of entitlement and propensity to lie. And still is.

So that somehow justifies treason by the Trump campaign? All's fair as long as that rotten b!tch Hillary gets the shaft?

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

So that somehow justifies treason by the Trump campaign? All's fair as long as that rotten b!tch Hillary gets the shaft?

Who the hell said anything like that???

Certainly not me. I want the bastard to fry.

But that doesn't prevent her from being a liar about Sanders (and a few other things).

 

[Frank Underwood]

So that somehow justifies treason by the Trump campaign? All's fair as long as that rotten b!tch Hillary gets the shaft?

It's funny that you claim I make knee jerk reactions when that's exactly what your post is.

Why can't one recognize Hillary's valid point about Russia and her lies about Sanders without being accused of "justifying" what Trump did?

Holding Hillary accountable does not mean the Trump Administration is off the hook for what they've done. This is the most treacherous administration in my lifetime, and that's saying something after living through Dubya.

 

[Gabriel Maxwell]

Why can't one recognize Hillary's valid point about Russia and her lies about Sanders without being accused of "justifying" what Trump did?

A step in the right direction would be not having a signature that lists Russians, Comey and stupid voters under fan fiction.

 

[Frank Underwood]

A step in the right direction would be not having a signature that lists Russians, Comey and stupid voters under fan fiction.

I can't speak for the person who designed it, but my interpretation is that blaming only those entities can be filed under fan fiction. The other book lists everything she forgot to mention.

Granted, that's likely not what the designer had in mind, considering the other book says "what really happened." However, the gist of it speaks to what I've been saying for months.

 

[Gabriel Maxwell]

I can't speak for the person who designed it, but my interpretation is that blaming only those entities can be filed under fan fiction. The other book lists everything she forgot to mention.

Granted, that's likely not what the designer had in mind, considering the other book says "what really happened." However, the gist of it speaks to what I've been saying for months.

When the turd wins by losing the popular vote by a record-shattering 3 million and squeaking through in EC by a mere 77,000 in 3 states combined, while Putin's FSB (using Kushner & Mercer supplied data) exposes 60 million Americans to fake news, you can easily blame any one of those on the left side for what happened in November. Clinton's actually done great given the sabotage, her ultimate loss notwithstanding.

 

[Frank Underwood]

When the turd wins by losing the popular vote by a record-shattering 3 million and squeaking through in EC by a mere 77,000 in 3 states combined, while Putin's FSB (using Kushner & Mercer supplied data) exposes 60 million Americans to fake news, you can easily blame any one of those on the left side for what happened in November.

With the exception of Bernie, of course (he's also listed on the left side).

But yes, Russian fake news could have been a contributing factor, though likely not the only one. She lost the electoral college in states she's accused of not campaigning in, and her support of the TPP didn't play well there.

It is possible to acknowledge both without dismissing one or the other.

Clinton's actually done great given the sabotage, her ultimate loss notwithstanding.

Yes, although it's ironic that said sabotage involved exposing DNC sabotage in favor of Hillary. Which, interestingly enough, led to a lawsuit where a DNC lawyer literally said they can pick their nominees in smoke filled rooms if they so choose. Now that's democracy in action! I'm sure I'll be accused of not caring about Russia's interference by pointing that out, but I'm not going to call out one act of sabotage while ignoring another.

Of course, Clinton's impressive popular vote win can be attributed to the DNC's "pied piper" strategy. It involved elevating a fringe candidate like Trump to the mainstream because they thought he'd be the easiest to beat.

It almost worked, but there were forces working against Hillary including herself.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

It's the polarized subjectivity of people that make these things so difficult to discuss rationally.

If you call Hillary on her latest lies, then you're somehow for Trump and his (much worse) lies.

And when that's the only argument they have, you realize they don't really have one. And team colors do not qualify as a lucid argument.

But folks have a problem with the truth sometimes being in the middle.

 

[Gabriel Maxwell]

But yes, Russian fake news could have been a contributing factor, though likely not the only one.

When there are millions of people involved, there's always a myriad of factors that play into the final outcome. But the question is - was the Russian meddling (or the Comey sabotage) strong enough of a factor to open the miniscule gaps (10-40k per state)? I assume you don't think so and primarily blame Clinton.

She lost the electoral college in states she's accused of not campaigning in, and her support of the TPP didn't play well there.

You had a shameless lying narcissist who was willing to toss any empty promise he could come up with that he saw stick with the crowds, including promising the return of the coal mining jobs that are never coming back or the manufacturing jobs that are moving abroad, which Clinton should never have done.

And how much was she supposed to campaign in those states to alleviate the influence of the meddling? Or the sabotage on the part of Comey, who conveniently never said a word about the ongoing investigation into the Trump team that continues to this day?

You had Trump surrogates days before the election using his letter to shout at the voters: "Do you want your future President under criminal investigation for 4 years?" which ironically ended up being Trump himself. When you compare the 2 probes, shouldn't Comey at least have disclosed both?

I'm not saying Clinton is a saint and I'm not saying she hasn't lied. But I just don't see how anything she's done wrong remotely compares to the criminal behavior on the other side that I think was strong enough of a factor to ensure 77,000 votes in EC.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

And no one is suggesting that her behavior compares to Trump's. That's what some of you don't seem to get.

But we're therefore supposed to permit her to construct her own false narrative against Sanders without our daring to point it out??

No one here is defending Trump, for godssake!

 

[Frank Underwood]

When there are millions of people involved, there's always a myriad of factors that play into the final outcome. But the question is - was the Russian meddling (or the Comey sabotage) strong enough of a factor to open the miniscule gaps (10-40k per state)? I assume you don't think so and primarily blame Clinton.

Of course it's possible. I just personally find what's been said about her swing state strategy to be a more compelling argument.

You had a shameless lying narcissist who was willing to toss any empty promise he could come up with that he saw stick with the crowds, including promising the return of the coal mining jobs that are never coming back or the manufacturing jobs that are moving abroad, which Clinton should never have done.

Yes, Trump lied about coal jobs. And yes, Clinton shouldn't have lied in return to counter him.

However, she could have countered with a realistic plan to combat lost jobs, stagnant wages, and she could have completely denounced the TPP.

Trump's indeed a shameless liar, but people who are hurting economically can easily fall for it. Bernie Sanders, Michael Moore, and even Hillary have acknowledged the economically disenfranchised being attracted to Trump. Dems are seen as the party that bailed out the very people responsible for the economic crash of 2008 and helped deregulate the banks. Unfortunately, it felt as if little was done to repair that image.

And how much was she supposed to campaign in those states to alleviate the influence of the meddling? Or the sabotage on the part of Comey, who conveniently never said a word about the ongoing investigation into the Trump team that continues to this day?

You had Trump surrogates days before the election using his letter to shout at the voters: "Do you want your future President under criminal investigation for 4 years?" which ironically ended up being Trump himself. When you compare the 2 probes, shouldn't Comey at least have disclosed both?

Absolutely Comey should have disclosed both investigations. I'm not disputing that all.

How much campaigning would have allevieated the influence of meddling? I don't know. Probably the same amount of campaigning necessary to alleviate the economic concerns of the working class.

Of course, I could be wrong. Hillary could have campaigned her ass off in those states and still lost. But if a Wisconsin mayor and Michael Moore are to be believed, those states were largely ignored.

The fact that Chuck Schumer was more interested in courting moderate Republicans is rather telling to me. It's almost as if he was anticipating the loss of working class Dems.

I'm not saying Clinton is a saint and I'm not saying she hasn't lied. But I just don't see how anything she's done wrong remotely compares to the criminal behavior on the other side that I think was strong enough of a factor to ensure 77,000 votes in EC.

Trump's deceit is on another level for sure, but Hillary has chosen to interject herself in the political arena once again. In doing so, she's made a few valid points, but has also revealed some blatant lies.

I personally believe her sole interest was in getting people to talk about her again, regardless of the reaction. It's almost like she's considering running again in 2020, even though she claims to be finished with politics.

Also, I was aware of fake news stories, the DNC leaks, and the Comey investigation, and none of those were deciding factors in my decision to vote third party.

 

[Gabriel Maxwell]

LOL. Why, god damn it, indeed. I don't know about the others, but I'm certainly not suggesting anyone here is supposed to permit that "dirty lying whore" -- as someone put it in another thread -- to do anything. Not permit all you want. Everyone here is free to express their own feelings and, apparently, express they do. Colorfully.

My point is - I find what Hillary said or didn't say about Bernie Sanders insignificant. I can see how someone who wanted Bernie to be President would be hideously offended. Or perhaps someone who was projecting, say, a specific deeply personal bordering on psychotic issue with women who tell falsehoods.

Some people are hideously offended when they see Clinton wearing white pantsuit. It conveys 'arrogant' to them. To me, that concern is about on the same level as what she said or didn't say about Bernie and his supporters. I think they put equation mark between the greater and the smaller evil with their 3rd party voting which exceeded that razor-thin gap between the two.

So... Oh, well.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

Strawman argumentation to essentially insulate Hillary from any criticism about her lying.

 

[Gabriel Maxwell]

Criticize away. Given her so-called sins, I find it excessive and hysterical (and not the good kind).

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

Clever people, especially for those who are sociopathically inclined -- regardless of gender -- tend to be quite good, almost by definition, at using strawman argumentation and finding a way to spin those strawman arguments to sound like they're the core, central objective point. (Skillfully demonizing anybody who attempts legitimate objectivity).

It's just what they do. It's an art, really. Wall to wall manipulation.

Frankly, it's amazing that they're not all rightwingers. But many of them are smart enough to know that as middleclass people, they have nothing to gain from buying into rightwing political lies.

 

[Gabriel Maxwell]

Oh, I do like that response. I'll take some nibbles for thought out of it. Not necessarily what the author intended, but nevertheless - great stuff.

 

[Frank Underwood]

Why are Hillary's comments about Bernie and his supporters insignificant? Oh, that's right. This is coming from someone who said the DNC's interference was also insignificant.

Progressives were told they needed to go out and vote for Hillary. However, Hillary told Rachel Maddow that she didn't need to court Sanders supporters because she was "winning." Even during the primaries, accusations about sexist "Bernie bros" were hurled at anybody who dared to criticize Hillary's polices or ties to Wall Street. Women who criticized Hillary were accused of internalized misogyny. Hillary couldn't even help making condescending remarks about millennials as the campaign charged on, and the book is just more of the same. Hillary is the only candidate in history who wasn't expected to actually campaign for votes.

I couldn't care less about Hillary's pantsuits or gender. As I've said several times before, I'd have voted for Elizabeth Warren had she been the Democratic candidate. Male or female, I simply can't stand politicians who support neocon agendas, lie about their opponent and his or her supporters, and smear half of their party's base. You can call the criticisms excessive, hysterical, or anything else, but it doesn't take away from their validity.

I know I'm supposed to hang my head in shame for not supporting lesser evilism, but I honestly don't. With just 5% of the vote, third parties become nationally recognized and receive federal funding. That obviously didn't happen this election cycle, but I'm all for increasing exposure of third parties. The two parties we have now limit us to two similar choices. What sets the Republicans apart is that there plans go even further in hurting people. Democrats think that gives them an out as the lesser evil, allowing them to still support war, trade deals, stagnant wages, a healthcare plan that left 29 million people uninsured, and the deportation of children.

Simply put, Republican lite is not that appealing of an alternative (at least not to me). The fact that Greens took a portion of the Dem base should make Dems compete for the progressive vote instead of bashing them.

It's also interesting to note that 12% of Bernie supporters voted for Trump, and that's become another line of attack. Funny how they don't mention that 25% of Hillary voters voted for McCain over Obama in 2008.