It has been talked about for a lot longer than that. Since before the debates if I am not mistaken. Rather than being another person trying to trash the dossier, look a little harder and see how many of the dots on that piece, line up with facts we know now.
By Russia narrative I'm referring to our nation constantly talking about it because it became associated with his impeachment. What I recall before that was Trump stating we should get along with Putin and I can see how it would be easy to take that and run with it in a way that makes him look bad.
I'm not defending Trump, there may be real collusion. I'm just studying how Narrative are born and for how much stuff has happened you'd think we'd have something on trump by now.
You are saying the same thing everyone else says on this sub, the Donald, news, and uncensored news. Has there ever been a case of this magnitude in US history? Have you ever heard the saying "if you come at the King, you best not miss?" This holds very true to this investigation. We get very small leaks my suspicious sources but who really knows what's going on in this investigation. None of us are about to know. This "narrative" has been talked about for some time because of Trumps business dealings with oligarchs and him expressing interest in building property in Moscow. This is why disclosing everything up front is so important.
Do you not remember why Paul Manafort, Trump's campaign manager, was fired/forced to resign? All of his connections to Russia was coming out, and that was way before the dossier became public.
I don't think enough people are even aware of the fact that the US aided the overthrow of Ukraine in order to put in place a government who would play nice with NATO.
All you ever hear is that Russia invaded crimea. no mention of any provocation or reason other than "crazy russians".
It's a pretty important detail to consider when the US is going around overthrowing governments around the world.
Well, you couldn't really associate this discussion with his impeachment before he was elected and sworn in, so that sets a lower limit on that timeline.
If I recall, the Trump-Russia connection has been an issue of debate dating back to the Republican primaries. We've also just celebrated a year since the famous RNC convention in which Trump asked Russia to release the hacked DNC E-mails (just to point out that he did more than say he wants to get along with them).
I think this narrative/story was just left undeveloped in the public eye as the Democratic campaign efforts for the general election focused on bringing more easily-verifiable dirt on Trump into the limelight (e.g the Access Hollywood tapes), rather than talking about what was then a pretty flimsy connection.
I think it began with people noticing odd coincidences and connections, which put everything under a magnifying glass........ Which is what every politician, and particularly presidential candidates go through. Trump's public statements didn't help either.
People were talking about Trump's connections to Russia long before the dossier gained attention.
The dossier is only a small part of the overall picture, as is the alleged hack into the DNC. Even if you totally eliminate those from the picture, there's an overwhelming volume of evidence.
It's gotten to the point we're at now for two reasons. Number one, because of the evidence that exists and number two, because of Trump's lies, denials and obviously deceptive behaviours. The narrative from the White House until a couple of months ago was that there was no collusion with Russia, period....... Then it shifted to if there was collusion, Trump didn't know about it....... And now they're shifting it again, to collusion isn't illegal..... And Trump commenting via Twitter that his power to pardon people is absolute.
The meeting with Junior, Manafort and Kushner was damning. You have a Russian lobbyist that's been working against the sanctions for years with ties to money laundering cases, the FSB and high level government officials meeting with the Trump campaign promising to help them....... Then shortly afterwards Trump started talking about a big news story about Hillary, and started publicly asking the Russians to release the hacked emails.
It's not really so much a narrative than it is looking at the timeline and the available evidence.
This includes a quote from John Podesta accusing Trump of having a "bromance" with Putin. The Democrats were definitely trying to tie Trump to Russia before the debates in the general election. And didn't Putin lobby for Russia before?
I'm having trouble finding earlier sources than that at the moment, but I recall reading leaked material last year that indicated a plan to attack Trump for his relationship to Putin/Russia. I believe it was the opposition research that Guccifer 2.0 released, but I'm having a hard time locating that now.
While not required, you are requested to use the NP (No Participation) domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by replacing the "www" in your reddit link with "np".
First article on the dossier came out Oct 31 on Mother Jones. "Unverified opposition research by former British spy" or something along those lines, no details or quotations. (What I've always found very odd is that this was also the date of the Reddit-born/Slate-covered Alfa Bank-Trump Tower-Spectrum Health server matter, which the NYT via the FBI smushed just a few hours after the story started circulating. It was also the date of a WL Podesta release, promoted by the soon to be president. Lots of activity for whatever reason.)
Obviously BuzzfeedNews' release of the full dossier on January 11 represented the full launch of the Trump-Russia conspiracy theories to the wider populace, but buzz was circulating long before, and his connections to Russia were being investigated long before.
Leaked documents from last year showed that the Democrats had a plan to attack Trump as being too close with Russia as far back as the primaries. I think the Guccifer2.0 stuff showed this first, but the Wikileaks release of DNC emails also showed this. They came up with this plan because polls showed that Clinton's ties to Russia were her greatest weakness. She took millions from Kremlin-connected sources, including half a million paid directly to her husband for a "speech", while her State Dept was in the middle of approving the transfer of Uranium One to Russia. In addition, Clinton's campaign chair was John Podesta, and the Podestas have suspicious links to Russia as well.
So yeah, that's why the media is all RUSSIA RUSSIA RUSSIA now. Because Clinton had suspicious ties to Russia and her campaign decided to pretend it was actually Trump who had those suspicious ties.
Google trends backs this up, it all started January 8th.
You are quite possibly one of the least informed people to ever post on Reddit. The Trump-Russia collusion reports surfaced long before the November election, and it's an embarrassment that you've posted this ridiculous claim here.
Paul Manafort, campaign chairman for Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, has resigned just two months after taking the helm.
He has come under fire for his ties to Russian interests and former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych.
Well, there's people that are saying it's all wrong, that despite Manafort et al, it's Hillary that has Russian ties, so OP might not be the most uninformed.
Well, there's people that are saying it's all wrong, that despite Manafort et al, it's Hillary that has Russian ties, so OP might not be the most uninformed.
25 comments
1 beanzamillion21 2017-07-31
It has been talked about for a lot longer than that. Since before the debates if I am not mistaken. Rather than being another person trying to trash the dossier, look a little harder and see how many of the dots on that piece, line up with facts we know now.
1 seattleman21 2017-07-31
By Russia narrative I'm referring to our nation constantly talking about it because it became associated with his impeachment. What I recall before that was Trump stating we should get along with Putin and I can see how it would be easy to take that and run with it in a way that makes him look bad.
I'm not defending Trump, there may be real collusion. I'm just studying how Narrative are born and for how much stuff has happened you'd think we'd have something on trump by now.
1 beanzamillion21 2017-07-31
You are saying the same thing everyone else says on this sub, the Donald, news, and uncensored news. Has there ever been a case of this magnitude in US history? Have you ever heard the saying "if you come at the King, you best not miss?" This holds very true to this investigation. We get very small leaks my suspicious sources but who really knows what's going on in this investigation. None of us are about to know. This "narrative" has been talked about for some time because of Trumps business dealings with oligarchs and him expressing interest in building property in Moscow. This is why disclosing everything up front is so important.
1 mjbmitch 2017-07-31
Ayo! Omar comin' through!
1 beanzamillion21 2017-07-31
Well, it's true haha
1 TrumpRusConspiracy 2017-07-31
Do you not remember why Paul Manafort, Trump's campaign manager, was fired/forced to resign? All of his connections to Russia was coming out, and that was way before the dossier became public.
1 ganooosh 2017-07-31
I don't think enough people are even aware of the fact that the US aided the overthrow of Ukraine in order to put in place a government who would play nice with NATO.
All you ever hear is that Russia invaded crimea. no mention of any provocation or reason other than "crazy russians".
It's a pretty important detail to consider when the US is going around overthrowing governments around the world.
1 MaximinusDrax 2017-07-31
Well, you couldn't really associate this discussion with his impeachment before he was elected and sworn in, so that sets a lower limit on that timeline.
If I recall, the Trump-Russia connection has been an issue of debate dating back to the Republican primaries. We've also just celebrated a year since the famous RNC convention in which Trump asked Russia to release the hacked DNC E-mails (just to point out that he did more than say he wants to get along with them).
I think this narrative/story was just left undeveloped in the public eye as the Democratic campaign efforts for the general election focused on bringing more easily-verifiable dirt on Trump into the limelight (e.g the Access Hollywood tapes), rather than talking about what was then a pretty flimsy connection.
1 Citizen90222 2017-07-31
I think it began with people noticing odd coincidences and connections, which put everything under a magnifying glass........ Which is what every politician, and particularly presidential candidates go through. Trump's public statements didn't help either.
People were talking about Trump's connections to Russia long before the dossier gained attention. The dossier is only a small part of the overall picture, as is the alleged hack into the DNC. Even if you totally eliminate those from the picture, there's an overwhelming volume of evidence.
It's gotten to the point we're at now for two reasons. Number one, because of the evidence that exists and number two, because of Trump's lies, denials and obviously deceptive behaviours. The narrative from the White House until a couple of months ago was that there was no collusion with Russia, period....... Then it shifted to if there was collusion, Trump didn't know about it....... And now they're shifting it again, to collusion isn't illegal..... And Trump commenting via Twitter that his power to pardon people is absolute.
The meeting with Junior, Manafort and Kushner was damning. You have a Russian lobbyist that's been working against the sanctions for years with ties to money laundering cases, the FSB and high level government officials meeting with the Trump campaign promising to help them....... Then shortly afterwards Trump started talking about a big news story about Hillary, and started publicly asking the Russians to release the hacked emails.
It's not really so much a narrative than it is looking at the timeline and the available evidence.
1 Nogrim6 2017-07-31
ending the cold war was an idea everyone supported until trump said it, then everyone seemed to think it was suddenly the worst idea ever.
1 RecoveringGrace 2017-07-31
So, can you try to document what you "remember"?
1 RecoveringGrace 2017-07-31
You "remember"? Can you cite this?
1 beanzamillion21 2017-07-31
Uh, yeah, last year when Trump asked Russia to hack the emails. What was it? A day after the infamous Trump tower meeting?
1 Afrobean 2017-07-31
Here's a link from July of last year: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/27/us/politics/spy-agency-consensus-grows-that-russia-hacked-dnc.html
This includes a quote from John Podesta accusing Trump of having a "bromance" with Putin. The Democrats were definitely trying to tie Trump to Russia before the debates in the general election. And didn't Putin lobby for Russia before?
I'm having trouble finding earlier sources than that at the moment, but I recall reading leaked material last year that indicated a plan to attack Trump for his relationship to Putin/Russia. I believe it was the opposition research that Guccifer 2.0 released, but I'm having a hard time locating that now.
1 RecoveringGrace 2017-07-31
Thank you! That's what I was looking for!
1 TrumpRusConspiracy 2017-07-31
Evidence that this was talked about way before the dossier came out
1 AutoModerator 2017-07-31
While not required, you are requested to use the NP (No Participation) domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by replacing the "www" in your reddit link with "np".
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1 paulie_purr 2017-07-31
First article on the dossier came out Oct 31 on Mother Jones. "Unverified opposition research by former British spy" or something along those lines, no details or quotations. (What I've always found very odd is that this was also the date of the Reddit-born/Slate-covered Alfa Bank-Trump Tower-Spectrum Health server matter, which the NYT via the FBI smushed just a few hours after the story started circulating. It was also the date of a WL Podesta release, promoted by the soon to be president. Lots of activity for whatever reason.)
Obviously BuzzfeedNews' release of the full dossier on January 11 represented the full launch of the Trump-Russia conspiracy theories to the wider populace, but buzz was circulating long before, and his connections to Russia were being investigated long before.
1 SaltHash 2017-07-31
Then you have conveniently forgotten the news from last year.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-russian-interference-in-us-election-unlikely-democrats-behind-it/
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-elections/donald-trump-russia-us-election-2016-veteran-spy-fbi-allegations-a7390391.html
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/07/27/paul_ryan_mike_pence_warn_russia_over_hacking_at_same_time_trump_encourages.html
1 Afrobean 2017-07-31
Leaked documents from last year showed that the Democrats had a plan to attack Trump as being too close with Russia as far back as the primaries. I think the Guccifer2.0 stuff showed this first, but the Wikileaks release of DNC emails also showed this. They came up with this plan because polls showed that Clinton's ties to Russia were her greatest weakness. She took millions from Kremlin-connected sources, including half a million paid directly to her husband for a "speech", while her State Dept was in the middle of approving the transfer of Uranium One to Russia. In addition, Clinton's campaign chair was John Podesta, and the Podestas have suspicious links to Russia as well.
So yeah, that's why the media is all RUSSIA RUSSIA RUSSIA now. Because Clinton had suspicious ties to Russia and her campaign decided to pretend it was actually Trump who had those suspicious ties.
1 metronNYC 2017-07-31
Maybe you never hear of Paul Manafort. Trump's first campaign manager back in 2016 who specializes in regime change and worked for the Russians.
1 OmNomDeBonBon 2017-07-31
You are quite possibly one of the least informed people to ever post on Reddit. The Trump-Russia collusion reports surfaced long before the November election, and it's an embarrassment that you've posted this ridiculous claim here.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-37134440
Trumps campaign manager "quit" in August 2016 when his ties to Russia were exposed.
1 Diarygirl 2017-07-31
Well, there's people that are saying it's all wrong, that despite Manafort et al, it's Hillary that has Russian ties, so OP might not be the most uninformed.
1 morkman100 2017-07-31
Don't forget Flynn.
1 Nogrim6 2017-07-31
yup
1 overtaxedoverworked 2017-07-31
No, there are plenty of misinformed people who believe the same.
1 Diarygirl 2017-07-31
Is this another X-post from the Donald? Why do you want to defend Trump?
1 Diarygirl 2017-07-31
Well, there's people that are saying it's all wrong, that despite Manafort et al, it's Hillary that has Russian ties, so OP might not be the most uninformed.