(05-29-2017 02:46 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-28-2017 12:50 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Presumably, the Democrats think the incoming Administration should sit back and party until January 20, and then start from scratch, while perhaps Trump's team thought it best to hit the ground running.

Not at all. As a lot of articles have explicitly stated, the foundational action (meeting with a ambassador, setting up back channel communications) are fairly routine. It is the circumstance (number of meetings, who was attending meetings, how the meetings were being held, how the meetings were being reported, how the back channel was trying to be set up) that are concerning and suggest that there may be more to the situation than meets the eye.

And what do you think the "more" could be? What number of meetings would be appropriate, and what was the actual number? Twelve is OK, but 16 is suspicious?
Is that what you are saying? Who are the people attending meetings that you think should not have been there? Why is their attendance suspicious? What reporting would have been correct? Film at eleven? Sounds like we are just grasping at straws here.

As for the secret back channel, maybe they just felt somebody, not the russians, were listening in to things at their campaign center.

basically, we have an incoming Administration that wanted to change the dynamic in Syria without the interference and leaks that were coming from the current one.


Still waiting on your (or anybody's) narrative of what all the smoke indicates. A narrative starts with something like "Trump met with Putin and they agreed that Putin would damage Hillary's campaign by stealing and publishing nothing but the truth, and in return, Trump promised Putin _________. Putin was glad to take the deal because it was clear that publishing Hillary's emails would boost the slight underdog Trump over the top, and then when Trump was president he would get ______________. Then...."