NYT blows conspiracy of Russian direct involvement with Trump to smithereens

[JBond]

If NY Times were ever credible...

View attachment 97895

Oh I know but I've found it fascinating today as the loons on the left want to tie Russia directly to the campaign they're not using the original story which was in the NYT who translated properly.

To any sane person of course different Ambassadors would be in contact with anyone around a candidate to try to discover future policy or friend or foe. And that's exactly what the NYT got from it.

If they could have gotten dirt or Trump they would have rolled with it.

With all these other exaggerated stories coming out I found it most interesting that the NYT just rereleased the story less than an hour ago.

They're in meltdown denial-mode. They're still trying to grapple with the fact they supported the most corrupt Presidential Candidate in history, and her serial rapist husband. And they lost to boot.

They may not ever get over getting their asses kicked in this one. And i love all their Butt-Hurt fantasies. Incredibly entertaining. I truly hope they keep em coming.

It was Trump who said he grabs women's pu$$y's without permission. Bill never said that. It's called sexual assault.

Someone has their panties in a wad.

Exclusive: Clinton charities ignore law requiring them to disclose millions from foreign donors

 

[easyt65]

'Reality', as libs continue to prove, really isn't 'their thing'.

 

[Indeependent]

We went thru this early today and the original story came from the NYT. Several words are completely taken out of context in other articles being quoted by our left wing nutbars and their sources.

From the horse's mouth: Note: not campaign official: here's the headline

#1

Europe
Russian Officials Were in Contact With Trump Allies, Diplomat Says
By IVAN NECHEPURENKONOV. 10, 2016

Trump ALLIES

Now these contacts are explained in NYT article. The Russian Ambassador in Washington NOT BORIS BADENOV OR NATASHA

#2

Later, the Foreign Ministry in Moscow said Mr. Ryabkov had been referring to American politicians and supporters of Mr. Trump, not members of his campaign staff.

The contacts were carried out through the Russian ambassador in Washington, who reached out to the senators and other political allies to get a better sense of Mr. Trump’s positions on various issues involving Russia.

And drum roll from the NYT

#3

It is not uncommon for the presidential nominees of major parties to have contact with foreign leaders, or to meet with foreign government officials. During the campaign, Mr. Trump traveled to Mexico to meet with President Enrique Peña Nieto, and Mr. Trump and Hillary Clinton met separately with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel in September.

Mrs. Clinton also met Prime Minister Shinzo Abe of Japan and President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi of Egypt during the United Nations General Assembly session in October; a spokesman for her campaign said there were no communications with Russia.

And last but not least

#4

But law enforcement officials said that their investigations found no direct link between Mr. Trump and the Russian government in the hacking of the Democrats’ computers.

They also found no conclusive evidence of financial connections between Mr. Trump’s associates and Russian financial institutions.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/11/world/europe/trump-campaign-russia.html?_r=0

So you are calling Trump's son a liar?

“Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets,” Trump’s son, Donald Jr., told a real estate conference in 2008, according to an account posted on the website of eTurboNews, a trade publication. “We see a lot of money pouring in from Russia.”

Inside Trump’s financial ties to Russia and his unusual flattery of Vladimir Putin

Still not illegal, you rotten potato head.

Don't get mad at me tard. You're the one who said:

They also found no conclusive evidence of financial connections between Mr. Trump’s associates and Russian financial institutions.

So are you calling Trump's son a liar?

Still not illegal.

Why are you Dimocrats so unable to understand what ILLFUCKINGLEGAL MEANS?

Why are you so confused?
Liberals don't even know you have to vote in order to vote.

 

[kaz]

If NY Times were ever credible...

View attachment 97895

Oh I know but I've found it fascinating today as the loons on the left want to tie Russia directly to the campaign they're not using the original story which was in the NYT who translated properly.

To any sane person of course different Ambassadors would be in contact with anyone around a candidate to try to discover future policy or friend or foe. And that's exactly what the NYT got from it.

If they could have gotten dirt or Trump they would have rolled with it.

With all these other exaggerated stories coming out I found it most interesting that the NYT just rereleased the story less than an hour ago.

They're in meltdown denial-mode. They're still trying to grapple with the fact they supported the most corrupt Presidential Candidate in history, and her serial rapist husband. And they lost to boot.

They may not ever get over getting their asses kicked in this one. And i love all their Butt-Hurt fantasies. Incredibly entertaining. I truly hope they keep em coming.

It was Trump who said he grabs women's pu$$y's without permission. Bill never said that. It's called sexual assault.

Now there's a liberal standard. You're OK with sexual assault as long as you don't say the words. Somehow I don't think that standard would survive a topic change to a Republican ...

 

[paulitician]

If NY Times were ever credible...

View attachment 97895

Oh I know but I've found it fascinating today as the loons on the left want to tie Russia directly to the campaign they're not using the original story which was in the NYT who translated properly.

To any sane person of course different Ambassadors would be in contact with anyone around a candidate to try to discover future policy or friend or foe. And that's exactly what the NYT got from it.

If they could have gotten dirt or Trump they would have rolled with it.

With all these other exaggerated stories coming out I found it most interesting that the NYT just rereleased the story less than an hour ago.

They're in meltdown denial-mode. They're still trying to grapple with the fact they supported the most corrupt Presidential Candidate in history, and her serial rapist husband. And they lost to boot.

They may not ever get over getting their asses kicked in this one. And i love all their Butt-Hurt fantasies. Incredibly entertaining. I truly hope they keep em coming.

It was Trump who said he grabs women's pu$$y's without permission. Bill never said that. It's called sexual assault.

Now there's a liberal standard. You're OK with sexual assault as long as you don't say the words. Somehow I don't think that standard would survive a topic change to a Republican ...

Ah, we've already fought this battle. And we won. Corruption and rape are just fine as long as it's Democrats doing it. That's the average warped Democrat's mentality. But regardless, the American People chose not to reward the Clinton Crime Family with the US Presidency. It's over. Movin on...