Exclusive: Trump campaign had at least 18 undisclosed contacts with Russians

[Aegon]

Michael Flynn and other advisers to Donald Trump’s campaign were in contact with Russian officials and others with Kremlin ties in at least 18 calls and emails during the last seven months of the 2016 presidential race, current and former U.S. officials familiar with the exchanges told Reuters.

The previously undisclosed interactions form part of the record now being reviewed by FBI and congressional investigators probing Russian interference in the U.S. presidential election and contacts between Trump’s campaign and Russia.

Six of the previously undisclosed contacts described to Reuters were phone calls between Sergei Kislyak, Russia's ambassador to the United States, and Trump advisers, including Flynn, Trump’s first national security adviser, three current and former officials said.

Conversations between Flynn and Kislyak accelerated after the Nov. 8 vote as the two discussed establishing a back channel for communication between Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin that could bypass the U.S. national security bureaucracy, which both sides considered hostile to improved relations, four current U.S. officials said.

In January, the Trump White House initially denied any contacts with Russian officials during the 2016 campaign. The White House and advisers to the campaign have since confirmed four meetings between Kislyak and Trump advisers during that time.

The people who described the contacts to Reuters said they had seen no evidence of wrongdoing or collusion between the campaign and Russia in the communications reviewed so far. But the disclosure could increase the pressure on Trump and his aides to provide the FBI and Congress with a full account of interactions with Russian officials and others with links to the Kremlin during and immediately after the 2016 election.

The White House did not respond to requests for comment. Flynn's lawyer declined to comment. In Moscow, a Russian foreign ministry official declined to comment on the contacts and referred Reuters to the Trump administration.

Separately, a spokesman for the Russian embassy in Washington said: “We do not comment on our daily contacts with the local interlocutors.”

The 18 calls and electronic messages took place between April and November 2016 as hackers engaged in what U.S. intelligence concluded in January was part of a Kremlin campaign to discredit the vote and influence the outcome of the election in favor of Trump over his Democratic challenger, former secretary of state Hillary Clinton.

It's a long article and I'm on mobile so I won't paste the whole thing.

http://reuters.com/article/idUSKCN18E106

Luckily we can dismiss all of this because Reuters is liberal fake news.

[scoobysnack]

Yeah you can pretty much ignore it because to date no evidence has been presented. It's all speculation because everyone expected Clinton to win due to being in a bubble, that when she lost, they thought someone must have cheated, so this whole Russian narrative was crafted to put doubts in the minds of the masses.

I talk to people that actually think the wikileaks and DNC emails are not actually true, and then I bring up well if they are not true, why are you saying the Russian's hacked them. He never read them, and doesn't know many others who read them, so I asked how did it influence you if you didn't even read the contents. Most people are just reading the headlines.

The article above actually says:

"The people who described the contacts to Reuters said they had seen no evidence of wrongdoing or collusion between the campaign and Russia in the communications reviewed so far. But the disclosure could increase the pressure on Trump and his aides to provide the FBI and Congress with a full account of interactions with Russian officials and others with links to the Kremlin during and immediately after the 2016 election."

Here's a good article showing even the DNC admitting their is no evidence, otherwise they would have presented it by now. It's really to put fear into the public mind, because Trump is not controlled by the establishment like Clinton was, and they want him to go. He's ruining their takeover plans.

http://www.nationalreview.com/morning-jo...udi-arabia

And here:

Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-CA)
“The last time we spoke, Senator, I asked you if you had actually seen evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians, and you said to me — and I’m quoting you now — you said, ‘not at this time.’ Has anything changed since we spoke last?” asked CNN’s Wolf Blitzer
“Well, not—no, it hasn’t,” Feinstein said.
“But I just want to be precise, Senator. In all of the—you’ve had access from the intelligence committee, from the Judiciary committee, all of the access you’ve had to very sensitive information, so far you’ve not seen any evidence of collusion, is that right?” Blitzer pressed.
“Well, evidence that would establish that there’s collusion. There are all kinds of rumors around. There are newspaper stories, but that’s not necessarily evidence,” Feinstein admitted.

Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA)
“But just to be clear, there has been no actual evidence yet,” Sam Stein of the Huffington Post asked.
“No, it has not been,” Waters said.

Former CIA Director John Brennan
“What I have found appalling is the number of leaks that have taken place over the last several months,” Brennan said at the SALT conference in Las Vegas, the annual gathering of hedge-fund managers and other financiers. “This needs to be stopped.”

“The damage that was done is what was leaked in the aftermath, what was put in the media. The real damage to national security is the leaks,” Brennan said.
Brennan said. “These individuals who still stay within the government and are leaking this stuff to the press need to be brought to task.”

Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper
“Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper told MSNBC’S Andrea Mitchell on Friday that there could be evidence of collusion between Russia and President Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign,” CNN reported.

But, “There was no evidence that rose to that level, at that time, that found its way in to the intelligence community assessment, which we had pretty high confidence in,” Clapper said of collusion between Trump campaign aides and Russians, referring also to the U.S. intelligence assessment that Russia tried to influence the presidential election in favor of Trump.
“That’s not to say there wasn’t evidence, but not that met that threshold,” Clapper said.

https://www.infowars.com/dems-media-inte...th-russia/

[Minimalist]

Yeah, see Scoobs, who is as dumb as a bag of cunt hair, thinks that because no one brings evidence TO HIM and personally sticks it up his ass where his head is that means there is no evidence.  You are fucking clueless as to how criminal investigations work.  Why don't you stop embarrassing yourself and go back to jerking off to Breitbart, you stupid ass.

[scoobysnack]

Yeah, see Scoobs, who is as dumb as a bag of cunt hair, thinks that because no one brings evidence TO HIM and personally sticks it up his ass where his head is that means there is no evidence.  You are fucking clueless as to how criminal investigations work.  Why don't you stop embarrassing yourself and go back to jerking off to Breitbart, you stupid ass.

There is no evidence, people have admitted it already. There is rumor and speculation, so it's really you all that look stupid for following and allowing propaganda to suggest something without evidence and you repeat it as a matter of fact. Innocent until proven guilty. It would be like me accusing you of doing something, and because I'm convinced you did, I tell everyone else you did it and spend months looking into how I can prove you did it, while ignoring all evidence that suggests it was someone else who did it. Like Seth Rich, or other leakers inside the US government.

We have all these "leaks" that could be just propaganda to build the narrative. No one ever questions the media as perhaps having an agenda. Like the example in the article posted in the original post. It even admits there is no evidence. Where is the evidence? You haven't posted it, that's for sure. Talking to Russians isn't evidence of collusion. Even the story about the Russia hack came from a DNC IT company, and to date, the FBI still have not been able to look at the DNC servers to do an investigation. They relied on a security firm Crowdstrike and the US intel agencies haven't even performed a forensics analysis which if they did could locate the source.

There is a reason nothing is happening, yet everyone is convinced something must have happened. You can blame the DNC collusion with the media.

[LastPoet]

Some dood on the internet says there are cover ups about giants and alien greys, scooby accepts.

Major news verified their stories about Trump, scooby needs evidence.

I rest my case.

[Catholic_Lady]

So, do you guys think he'll be impeached?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Scoob, print out your favourite Infowars stories, fold them until they are all corners, and shove them in your oubliette.

Boru

[Angrboda]

So, do you guys think he'll be impeached?

I think any offense he's committed would have to meet a high bar for him to be impeached. So far I don't think the charges against him, including collusion with the Russians, amount to anything but speculation. They'd need some pretty cut and dried evidence for them to impeach him, and I just don't think they'll find it.

[Catholic_Lady]

Thanks!

I'm too lazy to do all this research myself. It's easier to just ask.

[Pat Mustard]

So, do you guys think he'll be impeached?

Probably, but the likeliest times are either just before or after the Republitraitor meltdown in 2018. Same as with Nixon really, the party will rally behind their leader for as long as they think they can get away with their criminality then ditch him as soon as they see that they can't (which'll be about 18 months after ditching him is of any use).