• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Trump "No Answer" on Russian Associations during 01/11/2017 Press Conference

tres borrachos said:
My posts do bother you, Maggie. You post about my posts to me, to other posters, and on and on. I understand that you don't like it when I don't compliment Trump all the time, but you should get used to it, I also complimented Obama when he deserved it and criticized him when he deserved it. I did the same for both Bushes, and Clinton, and Reagan too. That's what people who aren't partisan do. It's called being honest.

I have no need to block you. Your posts don't upset me, which is why for the most part I like them and agree with them. But you've been on a tear of outrage in this thread about me, and it's a bad reflection on you.
Click to expand...

Apparently I can't respond to others about you when asked without sending you into a tizzy. There are plenty of people on this board who don't support Trump and don't take it personally when I disagree with them. In YOUR defense, frankly, I'm having a ****ty day today. So maybe your post just hit me wrong.

Block. Don't block. I don't care. Now you may have the last word if you choose or one or both of us will be infracted. JMVHO.
 
jmotivator said:
That is false, though, Chomsky. While he refused to answer the question when CNN asked, the same question was asked immediately after by another source and he did say No, his staff had no communication with Russia.

Likewise, the specifics of that claim have since been debunked. The claim came from the report released by Buzzfeed that said that Trump's lawyer met the Russians in Prague, that has since been proven false. His lawyer has proof that he was in LA visiting USC with his son, and USC has corroborated AND it has been shown that a man with the same name, from a different country, visited Prague but the idiot who collected the Oppo info never bothered to verify if the Cohen who visited Prague was the same Cohen... and it wasn't.

Given that reality, and the 4chan claim, it's safe to say the entire report is trash... and in fact the report was only mentioned to Trump as a source of DISinformation for him to look out for.

CNN lied and ran a story they didn't try to corroborate, Buzzfeed lied AND ran information they tried but were unable to corroborate. It is that simple. Everything beyond that is wishful thinking by the opposition.
Click to expand...
No. much of what you just wrote is accurate.

After Trump dismissed CNN, the next question was on the Russian sanctions. Then there was a Trumpian diatribe on Lindsey Graham. And only then did BBC broach the question, where they were summarily belittled by Trump and the question was sidestepped without direct response. The question was never answered, as I earlier stated.

If you'd like to familiarize yourself more accurately with these events, I'm happy to include here the transcript of the press conference:

Donald Trump’s News Conference: Full Transcript and Video

Also you and Trump are attempting to conflate CNN's reporting of the two page intel briefing addendum, with the buzzfeed thirty-five page document. These are two different things, Trump knows it. I know it. And I believe you know it, or should know it.

CNN was careful and dillegent to only report the U.S. intel memo (which Trump did not refute at the presser when asked), and to also declare the Buzzfeed document as unsubstantiated. CNN did not publish the Buzzfeed document.

Again, here is the CNN article for you to reacquaint yourself:

Intel chiefs presented Trump with claims of Russian efforts to compromise him - CNNPolitics.com

I believe my sources above to be accurate, but am willing to look at your yours if you'd would like.
 
Last edited:
jmotivator said:
No, you obviously didn't watch it because your characterization of what was said is directly opposite of what was presented. If you watched it how did you get it so wrong?
Click to expand...

It's clear that you were woefully uninformed on the issue of the emoluments clause when you watched that press conference (presuming you watched it at all, which I'm now starting to doubt), and that you believed, wrongly, that the primary criticism against him was that the blind trust was legally required (straw man), and that the criticism is that fair market deals were violations (also a straw man).
 
jmotivator said:
Maybe you should expect your other fellow posters to not lie so plainly and demonstrably with easily falsifiable claims and commentary.
Click to expand...

It's quite rich to see a trumposter call people liars over their interpretations of a news conference.

Especially when we saw trump accuse a fellow GOP's father of being involved in the JFK assassination.

Think trump may have had a putin source for that one?

I was in college 43 years ago this day when trump's hero Nixon was about to go down and this one has the same feel .
 
jmotivator said:
You are making comments on the contents of a press conference you obviously didn't watch as if you watched it and have an informed opinion. You don't. Anyone who took the time to watch the press conference can sniff that out in a second. "No questions and answers.. no content"?! Give me a break, Tres.




HAHAHAH!!! "I watched the whole press conference! Let me prove it to you by giving details of the press conference I could have derived from a photograph!" :roll: Are you sure your head wasn't stuck in a hair dryer the whole time?
Click to expand...

"No questions and answers.. no content"?!

Why do you have that in quotes when you're posting to me? When exactly did I say that? I'll wait.

Oh brother, as to your second comment. I said I watched it. I did. No photographs necessary. You're calling me a liar. And no, you don't have your head in a hair dryer at a nail salon. Stop embarrassing yourself, please.
 
Chomsky said:
No. much of what you just wrote is accurate.

After Trump dismissed CNN, the next question was on the Russian sanctions. Then there was a Trumpian diatribe on Lindsey Graham. And only then did BBC broach the question, where they were summarily belittled by Trump and the question was sidestepped without direct response. The question was never answered, as I earlier stated.

If you'd like to familiarize yourself more accurately with these events, I'm happy to include here the transcript of the press conference:

Donald Trump’s News Conference: Full Transcript and Video
Click to expand...

Your link is broken. But, as Jim Acosta stated on Twitter, Cecelia Vega asked the question he was trying to ask and Trump answered it:

acosta.PNG

So there was no avoidance of the question, just a slap down of CNN for running with a horribly inaccurate story.

Also you and Trump are attempting to conflate CNN's reporting of the two page intel briefing addendum, with the buzzfeed thirty-five page document. These are two different things, Trump knows it. I know it. And I believe you know it, or should know it.

CNN was careful and dillegent to only report the U.S. intel memo (which Trump did not refute at the presser when asked), and to also declare the Buzzfeed document as unsubstantiated. CNN did not publish the Buzzfeed document.

Again, here is the CNN article for you to reacquaint yourself:

Intel chiefs presented Trump with claims of Russian efforts to compromise him - CNNPolitics.com

I believe my sources above to be accurate, but am willing to look at your yours if you'd would like.
Click to expand...

"The allegations were presented in a two-page synopsis that was appended to a report on Russian interference in the 2016 election. The allegations came, in part, from memos compiled by a former British intelligence operative, whose past work US intelligence officials consider credible. The FBI is investigating the credibility and accuracy of these allegations, which are based primarily on information from Russian sources, but has not confirmed many essential details in the memos about Mr. Trump."

and later...

"The raw memos on which the synopsis is based were prepared by the former MI6 agent, who was posted in Russia in the 1990s and now runs a private intelligence gathering firm. His investigations related to Mr. Trump were initially funded by groups and donors supporting Republican opponents of Mr. Trump during the GOP primaries, multiple sources confirmed to CNN. Those sources also said that once Mr. Trump became the nominee, further investigation was funded by groups and donors supporting Hillary Clinton."

The entire basis of that article revolves around a CIA 2-page summary of the 35 page oppo report that has been thoroughly debunked, and has been shown by NBC to have been incorrectly reported by CNN. The 35 page memo was not a RUSSIAN attempt to discredit Trump, it was a oppo report written by a former MI6 member and paid for by Nevertrumpers and Democrats... nowhere and in no way is that a RUSSIAN attempt to discredit Trump. In fact, the CIA, according to NBC, only presented the synopsis as an FYI for Trump to know the kind of disinformation that is out there which totally destroys the CNN narrative.
 
Last edited:
MaggieD said:
Apparently I can't respond to others about you when asked without sending you into a tizzy. There are plenty of people on this board who don't support Trump and don't take it personally when I disagree with them. In YOUR defense, frankly, I'm having a ****ty day today. So maybe your post just hit me wrong.

Block. Don't block. I don't care. Now you may have the last word if you choose or one or both of us will be infracted. JMVHO.
Click to expand...

I have no idea why I would be infracted. I haven't made any posts that are breaking any rules. I'm calling it as I see it. You sought me out in this thread. I didn't make any comments on what you posted. You said I was disingenuous and blindly partisan, and neither one of them is true. I'm sorry you're having a bad day but you shouldn't take it out on me. If you found his presser to be wonderful, that's fine. It's your opinion. I found much of his presser to be absurd, and I posted the reasons why. He had a chance to say good things without telling us how he will be the biggest job creator in history, and so forth. I didn't like Obama's arrogance either. I prefer men who are humble and whose actions speak for him, not a man who bloviates about things that have not even happened yet. And that's why I think his presser was a flop. That's my prerogative.
 
Cardinal said:
Evidence isn't the bottleneck here, it's whether or not anyone actually cares. We have all manners of acts committed by Trump that would be considered disqualifying for the office of the Presidency, but Republicans don't care, ergo they don't matter.

Well, of course they matter. I just mean that Republicans won't be credible partners in those discussions.
Click to expand...

That's because liberal attacks on him have been so widespread, frantic and relentless that its hard to take any of them seriously. The legitimate questions are being drowned out by nonsense.
 
Chomsky said:
??

You lost me here.
Click to expand...

My point is, bear with me, you're going to be crabby, ;) -- you really can't KNOW the answer to that question, right? You might say, "I don't think so," but that's not going to fly on Trump's question. You could say "Not to my knowledge," but that would easily be criticized by an unfriendly press.

How could DT have answered that question that would have made you comfortable? Is there anything he could have said? Remember, he can't answer, "Absolutely not," just as you couldn't with the question I asked you. I'm just being curious.

I watched that whole conference EXCEPT for the very last when I got a phone call. I should find it on line.
 
EvaPeron said:
Seriously, don't you believe that if ANY evidence existed to link Trump with Russian intelligence, The government would have linked that out and the whole world would know. This is just more attempts to discredit the vote that people put into this man to run this country. It didn't work and it is not going to work.
Click to expand...

Of course it won't work, there is no mechanism for overturning an election. So that leaves the fact that there are legitimate questions that will be asked of Trump and of course it means that any actions he takes will be scrutinized to see if he is influenced by Putin. He just needs to be very careful not to make the appearance of being Putins' patsy. Is that so hard? For example he cannot remove the sanctions on Russia unless Putin with draws from Crimea and returns it to the Ukraine
 
jmotivator said:
Your link is broken. But, as Jim Acosta stated on Twitter, Cecelia Vega asked the question he was trying to ask and Trump answered it:

View attachment 67212283

So there was no avoidance of the question, just a slap down of CNN for running with a horribly inaccurate story.



"The allegations were presented in a two-page synopsis that was appended to a report on Russian interference in the 2016 election. The allegations came, in part, from memos compiled by a former British intelligence operative, whose past work US intelligence officials consider credible. The FBI is investigating the credibility and accuracy of these allegations, which are based primarily on information from Russian sources, but has not confirmed many essential details in the memos about Mr. Trump."

and later...

"The raw memos on which the synopsis is based were prepared by the former MI6 agent, who was posted in Russia in the 1990s and now runs a private intelligence gathering firm. His investigations related to Mr. Trump were initially funded by groups and donors supporting Republican opponents of Mr. Trump during the GOP primaries, multiple sources confirmed to CNN. Those sources also said that once Mr. Trump became the nominee, further investigation was funded by groups and donors supporting Hillary Clinton."

The entire basis of that article revolves around a CIA 2-page summary of the 35 page oppo report that has been thoroughly debunked, and has been shown by NBC to have been incorrectly reported by CNN. The 35 page memo was not a RUSSIAN attempt to discredit Trump, it was a oppo report written by a former MI6 member and paid for by Nevertrumpers and Democrats... nowhere and in no way is that a RUSSIAN attempt to discredit Trump. In fact, the CIA, according to NBC, only presented the synopsis as an FYI for Trump to know the kind of disinformation that is out there which totally destroys the CNN narrative.
Click to expand...
Here's the working transcript link: Donald Trump’s News Conference: Full Transcript and Video

I can't speak to this guy's Tweet, but there was no response I see to the question in the transcript, at least none "immediately" as you stated. Maybe you can find it; all I see is sidstepping.

As to the CNN article, you missed a critical paragraph:

"CNN has reviewed a 35-page compilation of the memos, from which the two-page synopsis was drawn. The memos have since been published by Buzzfeed. The memos originated as opposition research, first commissioned by anti-Trump Republicans, and later by Democrats. At this point, CNN is not reporting on details of the memos, as it has not independently corroborated the specific allegations. But, in preparing this story, CNN has spoken to multiple high ranking intelligence, administration, congressional and law enforcement officials, as well as foreign officials and others in the private sector with direct knowledge of the memos."

That seems pretty accurate to me.
 
Fletch said:
That's because liberal attacks on him have been so widespread, frantic and relentless that its hard to take any of them seriously. The legitimate questions are being drowned out by nonsense.
Click to expand...

ADL: trump's nazi comments trivialize the Holocaust;

Blaming liberal attacks is a Nixon strategy so please continue with that.

Each new day in January has been a disaster for the GOP.

See you in 674 days .
 
NIMBY said:
ADL: trump's nazi comments trivialize the Holocaust;

Blaming liberal attacks is a Nixon strategy so please continue with that.

Each new day in January has been a disaster for the GOP.

See you in 674 days .
Click to expand...

Lol. I hear dipping ones head in ice water helps clear up these sorts of hallucinations. Give it a shot. It cant hurt.
 
tres borrachos said:
Oh, so we're idiots, clowns and liars, too? Nice.

I watched the entire presser as I was getting my nails done at 11:00 ET this morning. The salon had ABC on. They pre-empted The View. They had that young guy, Jonathan something or other, with the glasses, standing in front of the podium before Trump came out. Trump stood on the left side of the stage, between his daughter and one of his sons. She was wearing a white dress and they periodically whispered to each other. Shall I go on?
Click to expand...

Wow!! I applaud your absolute demolition of that bizarre post!!
 
iguanaman said:
Of course it won't work, there is no mechanism for overturning an election. So that leaves the fact that there are legitimate questions that will be asked of Trump and of course it means that any actions he takes will be scrutinized to see if he is influenced by Putin. He just needs to be very careful not to make the appearance of being Putins' patsy. Is that so hard? For example he cannot remove the sanctions on Russia unless Putin with draws from Crimea and returns it to the Ukraine
Click to expand...

Since Trump won the election, he has been disparaged by the Mainstream Media. I don't think he trusts them and he owes a little revenge. He'll get it. Pay attention to which sources were pushing the fake news on Putin and the false Russian inferences. Paybacks a bitch, eh?
 
MaggieD said:
My point is, bear with me, you're going to be crabby, ;) -- you really can't KNOW the answer to that question, right? You might say, "I don't think so," but that's not going to fly on Trump's question. You could say "Not to my knowledge," but that would easily be criticized by an unfriendly press.

How could DT have answered that question that would have made you comfortable? Is there anything he could have said? Remember, he can't answer, "Absolutely not," just as you couldn't with the question I asked you. I'm just being curious.

I watched that whole conference EXCEPT for the very last when I got a phone call. I should find it on line.
Click to expand...
Ah, nice lead-up.

It takes more than internet politics debate to get me crabby! Well, really crabby anyway.

Here I was originally going to tell you in my post above to be "peaceful", once I convert you over from the darkside! :mrgreen:

Alright, fair enough. The right answer might have been: "My people know I would never allow that. They would never do that. I can assure you that would never be tolerated in my organization, and nothing like that has ever come to my attention"

But that is just a more thought-out sidestep, so your point is reasonable.

So,

Maggie 1

Chomsky 0

But don't expect that to remain. ;)

For your convenience: Donald Trump’s News Conference: Full Transcript and Video
 
jmotivator said:
Your link is broken. But, as Jim Acosta stated on Twitter, Cecelia Vega asked the question he was trying to ask and Trump answered it:

View attachment 67212283

So there was no avoidance of the question, just a slap down of CNN for running with a horribly inaccurate story.



"The allegations were presented in a two-page synopsis that was appended to a report on Russian interference in the 2016 election. The allegations came, in part, from memos compiled by a former British intelligence operative, whose past work US intelligence officials consider credible. The FBI is investigating the credibility and accuracy of these allegations, which are based primarily on information from Russian sources, but has not confirmed many essential details in the memos about Mr. Trump."

and later...

"The raw memos on which the synopsis is based were prepared by the former MI6 agent, who was posted in Russia in the 1990s and now runs a private intelligence gathering firm. His investigations related to Mr. Trump were initially funded by groups and donors supporting Republican opponents of Mr. Trump during the GOP primaries, multiple sources confirmed to CNN. Those sources also said that once Mr. Trump became the nominee, further investigation was funded by groups and donors supporting Hillary Clinton."

The entire basis of that article revolves around a CIA 2-page summary of the 35 page oppo report that has been thoroughly debunked, and has been shown by NBC to have been incorrectly reported by CNN. The 35 page memo was not a RUSSIAN attempt to discredit Trump, it was a oppo report written by a former MI6 member and paid for by Nevertrumpers and Democrats... nowhere and in no way is that a RUSSIAN attempt to discredit Trump. In fact, the CIA, according to NBC, only presented the synopsis as an FYI for Trump to know the kind of disinformation that is out there which totally destroys the CNN narrative.
Click to expand...

This is another lie. Why must you lie?

Trump avoided the question. He only responded with a "No" reluctantly at the elevator:

"Trump did not specifically address questions regarding whether members of his staff were in contact with Russian officials during the campaign. When NBC News repeated that question to Trump afterwards as the president-elect approached the elevator to exit the room, he answered "No.""

And to stem predictable confusion, the lie is "So there was no avoidance of the question"- as there is documented, published, and verifiable avoidance of the question.
 
MaggieD said:
My point is, bear with me, you're going to be crabby, ;) -- you really can't KNOW the answer to that question, right? You might say, "I don't think so," but that's not going to fly on Trump's question. You could say "Not to my knowledge," but that would easily be criticized by an unfriendly press.

How could DT have answered that question that would have made you comfortable? Is there anything he could have said? Remember, he can't answer, "Absolutely not," just as you couldn't with the question I asked you. I'm just being curious.

I watched that whole conference EXCEPT for the very last when I got a phone call. I should find it on line.
Click to expand...

Chomsky said:
Ah, nice lead-up.

It takes more than internet politics debate to get me crabby! Well, really crabby anyway.

Here I was originally going to tell you in my post above to be "peaceful", once I convert you over from the darkside! :mrgreen:

Alright, fair enough. The right answer might have been: "My people know I would never allow that. They would never do that. I can assure you that would never be tolerated in my organization, and nothing like that has ever come to my attention"

But that is just a more thought-out sidestep, so your point is reasonable.

So,

Maggie 1

Chomsky 0

But don't expect that to remain. ;)

For your convenience: Donald Trump’s News Conference: Full Transcript and Video
Click to expand...

Great posts!! /applaud
 
Objective Voice said:
I have to say I am stunned! :shock:

When asked and then further pressed at the end of his national press conference, President-elect Donald J. Trump refused to answer the direct question as to whether or not he or anyone directly connected to him or if anyone from his campaign had any association with Russian intelligence. Trump went on a long rant (once again) about how Russia, China, Japan, Mexico and all other nations would respect America once he became President, but on the question of Russian intelligence associations itself, he outright refused to answer the question even when further pressed after his press conference but before leaving the conference area.

No "no comment", no "I don't know, but I'll look into it"...nothing. He just walked off the stage and refused to answer.

To me, that rebuff/non-answer is more disturbing than the contents of any domestic intelligence report whether compiled by our federal intelligence agencies or some private investigative/consulting firm.
Click to expand...
my question is , for those that voted trump, would all the 'russian' and 'blackmail' stuff have changed your vote if released the same time as all the stuff about hillary?
 
Chomsky said:
Ah, nice lead-up.

It takes more than internet politics debate to get me crabby! Well, really crabby anyway.

Here I was originally going to tell you in my post above to be "peaceful", once I convert you over from the darkside! :mrgreen:

Alright, fair enough. The right answer might have been: "My people know I would never allow that. They would never do that. I can assure you that would never be tolerated in my organization, and nothing like that has ever come to my attention"

But that is just a more thought-out sidestep, so your point is reasonable.

So,

Maggie 1

Chomsky 0

But don't expect that to remain. ;)

For your convenience: Donald Trump’s News Conference: Full Transcript and Video
Click to expand...

Thank you for the link! And for letting Maggie play a little trick. ;) Edit...great suggested response, btw.

Absentglare said:
Great posts!! /applaud
Click to expand...

Thank you, Absentglare. High praise!
 
tres borrachos said:
He probably didn't have any association with Russia. But Tweeting it isn't the same thing as addressing it in a press conference when asked. That's what pressers are for. Twitter is a one way communication.
Click to expand...

The press can't filter tweets. They go directly to the people. More valid than press reports.
 
tres borrachos said:
Most people don't get or make their daily communication through Twitter.
Click to expand...

Most people aren't Trump. Previous Presidents didn't bother communicating with the people, but rather sent out the lacky's with prepared statements on Sunday morning, and the press bowed appropriately. I like the raw personal communication. Warts and all.

Tres, I believe you are incorrect that most people don't get daily communications via Twitter or Facebook or whatever. That's where they communicate, and that's one of the reasons Trump won.
 
randel said:
my question is , for those that voted trump, would all the 'russian' and 'blackmail' stuff have changed your vote if released the same time as all the stuff about hillary?
Click to expand...

For me, a Trump voter, the answer is no. Neither did the stuff released about Hillary.

Hillary's past record stood on its own. And I saw nothing new.

What I saw of the Trump stuff was the Democrats sitting around a haystack, looking for the needle, and trying to turn a straw into prime beef.
 
Cardinal said:
Anybody who believed the press conference would yield anything productive was living in a dream world.
Click to expand...

Oh but it did. First read your previous post. I listened live, and as you have, found his answers and attitudes much more than "evasive" leaving me with the overwhelming suspicion there IS a 'there' there.

But, everything in here is biased and becoming more so; those who support this asshole contend it shows the MSM can't be trusted, as if that's a new bleat...

However since when has Captain Twitter ever been afraid of the MSM?

Stand back and look at the over all. The people most hurt by this alleged attack, Hillary, the DNC, Obama, have remained silent, have not gotten political and appear to be simply letting things develop. If this were part of an opposition strategy to undermine Trump, there would be a co-campaign to help move it where they want it to go.

Trump won't even allow his name to be associated with the leak taking the staunchest 'no comment" stand is his political career...and is miles away from the previous night and his Twit: "Fake news...." I would say that Trump's uncharacteristic self control also implies there is a "there" there. His lack of response and the wandering tirade show he does NOT have the full story, and appears to be in the dark as many others.

Personally, I have the feeling this is a nasty albatross that will simply refuse to rot away
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom