Signs of continuing Russia influence in US raise alarm

The question is: Is this indeed mounting evidence of Trump-Russia ties?

The question is: "Is this indeed mounting evidence of Trump-Russia ties?"

If you have not seen this report, Truth closer on Trump camp pro-Russia influence on GOP platform http://blackinamerica.com/content/319836/t...

CHECK THAT ONE OUT FIRST.

This report IS A RED FLAG!!!

Steven, in this blog is the follow-up to your question asked, take a look.

Steven, in this blog is the follow-up to your question asked, take a look.

Steven, in this blog is the follow-up to your question asked, take a look.

Hey Steven, a man who watched this report some four times should have a lot to say about what he saw in this report. I am standing by for your reply.

Rachel's "evidence" includes a Washington Post report and two Politico reports. Have you looked them up Ron?

I see that you are still talking in vague and general terms for me.

The reason why I asked you to this blog in the first, was you said that you have watched it 4 times and you used the term "Absolute rubbish."

Since you saw this up-dated report some four times, what part of it is "ABSOLUTE RUBBISH?"

I'll let you know after I read those three reports you're running from.

Wait a minute STEVEN, I am asking you about was you saw in this report, which you said you saw some 4 times already. You are the one who made this outlandish statement of "ABSOLUTE RUBBISH?"

Let us focus your attention on the marital in this blog, OK! you know the one that you called "ABSOLUTE RUBBISH."

Though I mistakenly called it a report, here's the first one.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/gl...

Did you understand me STEVEN?

Wait a minute STEVEN, I am asking you about was you saw in this report, which you said you saw some 4 times already. You are the one who made this outlandish statement of "ABSOLUTE RUBBISH?"

PROVE IT!!!

Did you understand me STEVEN?

STEVEN, I am asking you about was you saw in this report, which you said you saw some 4 times already. You are the one who made this outlandish statement of "ABSOLUTE RUBBISH?"

Are you having troubles tell me what you are talking when you use this term "ABSOLUTE RUBBISH?"

If NOT, PROVE IT!!!

"Of course, Trump is not the only politician to oppose sending lethal weapons to Ukraine. President Obama decided not to authorize it, despite recommendations to do so from his top Europe officials in the State Department and the military. The United States has provided Ukraine with non-lethal equipment and aid."

KIEV, UKRAINE — Plunging into a burning geopolitical conflict, Republican front-runner Donald Trump said Friday that Russia had pursued an aggressive policy in Ukraine because "there is no respect for the United States."

"[Russian President Vladimir] Putin does not respect our president whatsoever," said Trump.

But he held back from promising more U.S. support for a nation where almost 8,000 people have been killed since April 2014, saying that it was Europe's responsibility.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-p...

President Obama had nothing to do with the Republican Party platform Steven or LIED that his camp had any contacts with the RUSSIANS.

The report that you claimed that you saw some four times and you called "ABSOLUTE RUBBISH," had nothing to do with OBAMA the gutting of The Republican Party platform to favor THE RUSSIANS or the ties TRUMP had with RUSSIA before the convention, during the convention, after the convention and it is under investigation of TRUMP and his camp of continuing contacts with the Russian's NOW!

That was a very, very weak as attempt to cover up your BULL💩. You never did watch this report some four time, for if you did put that much time in watching this up-date on The Signs of continuing Russia influence in US raise alarm, you would be an expert about what is in this report.

I like talking to Trump supporters and by talking to them, they waver in their support and the majority of them, when the light is shown to them about Trumps LIES, they mostly change the subject very, very quickly, just like you did Steven.

Trump is the President of The United States of America and we all need to put our faith in the President and not in someone who is something less.

What do you have to lose?

Inside the meeting, Diana Denman, a platform committee member from Texas who was a Ted Cruz supporter, proposed a platform amendment that would call for maintaining or increasing sanctions against Russia, increasing aid for Ukraine and “providing lethal defensive weapons” to the Ukrainian military.

“Today, the post-Cold War ideal of a ‘Europe whole and free’ is being severely tested by Russia’s ongoing military aggression in Ukraine,” the amendment read. “The Ukrainian people deserve our admiration and

Trump staffers in the room, who are not delegates but are there to oversee the process, intervened. By working with pro-Trump delegates, they were able to get the issue tabled while they devised a method to roll back the language.

On the sideline, Denman tried to persuade the Trump staffers not to change the language, but failed. “I was troubled when they put aside my amendment and then watered it down,” Denman told me. “I said, ‘What is your problem with a country that wants to remain free?’ It seems like a simple thing.”

Finally, Trump staffers wrote an amendment to Denman’s amendment that stripped out the platform’s call for “providing lethal defensive weapons” and replaced it with softer language calling for “appropriate assistance.”

So, brake what you just posted down in your own words Steven, can you do that?

The

First step Ron is to fill in some details that Rachel left out.

Steven, you can begin by explaining what your posted response mean, in your own words.

What do you have to lose?

You'd never make a lawyer Ron. Rachel cited at least six sources and I'm going to go through all of them.

Have you seen the dossier?
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/32...

Steven, I am not interested in being a lawyer, I am interested to learn in your own words about this response you posted. f you forgot your response, here it is again for your review:

Inside the meeting, Diana Denman, a platform committee member from Texas who was a Ted Cruz supporter, proposed a platform amendment that would call for maintaining or increasing sanctions against Russia, increasing aid for Ukraine and “providing lethal defensive weapons” to the Ukrainian military.

“Today, the post-Cold War ideal of a ‘Europe whole and free’ is being severely tested by Russia’s ongoing military aggression in Ukraine,” the amendment read. “The Ukrainian people deserve our admiration and

Trump staffers in the room, who are not delegates but are there to oversee the process, intervened. By working with pro-Trump delegates, they were able to get the issue tabled while they devised a method to roll back the language.

On the sideline, Denman tried to persuade the Trump staffers not to change the language, but failed. “I was troubled when they put aside my amendment and then watered it down,” Denman told me. “I said, ‘What is your problem with a country that wants to remain free?’ It seems like a simple thing.”

Finally, Trump staffers wrote an amendment to Denman’s amendment that stripped out the platform’s call for “providing lethal defensive weapons” and replaced it with softer language calling for “appropriate assistance.”

This is your response you posted to explain this up-date at the top of this blog of Signs of continuing Russia influence in US raise alarm, that you said you watched 4 times and called "ABSOLUTE RUBBISH."

Steven, you don't have to go through all six sources for anything, all I ask you to do is explain in your one words, your response.

You are truly a Trump supporter.

What do you have to lose?

In your own words Steven.

It's absolute rubbish Ron because Rachel's sources don't bear up under scrutiny. All she did was dazzle you with doo doo. You are truly a Maddow supporter.

Prove it Steven. Interpret what do you post it in your own words and stop BULL💩ING.

In the international arena, a weak Administration has invited aggression. The results of the Administration’s unilateral approach to disarmament are already clear: An emboldened China in the South China Sea, a resurgent Russia occupying parts of Ukraine and threatening neighbors from the Baltic to the Caucasus, and an aggressive Islamist terror network in the Middle East. We support maintaining and, if warranted, increasing sanctions, together with our allies, against Russia unless and until Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity are fully restored. We also support providing appropriate assistance to the armed forces of Ukraine and greater coordination with NATO defense planning. All our adversaries heard the message in the Administration’s cutbacks: America is weaker and retreating. Concomitantly, we honor, support, and thank all law enforcement, first responders, and emergency personnel for their service.

https://prod-cdn-static.gop.com/media/docu...

Russia is engaging in destabilizing actions along its borders, violating Ukraine’s sovereignty and attempting to recreate spheres of influence that undermine American interests. It is also propping up the Assad regime in Syria, which is brutally attacking its own citizens. Donald Trump would overturn more than 50 years of American foreign policy by abandoning NATO partners— countries who help us fight terrorism every day—and embracing Russian President Vladimir Putin instead. We believe in strong alliances and will deter Russian aggression, build European resilience, and protect our NATO allies. We will make it clear to Putin that we are prepared to cooperate with him when it is in our interest—as we did on reducing nuclear stockpiles, ensuring Iran could not obtain a nuclear weapon, sanctioning North Korea, and resupplying our troops in Afghanistan—but we will not hesitate to stand up to Russian aggression. We will also continue to stand by the Russian people and push the government to respect the fundamental rights of its citizens.


http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/papers_pdf/...

Which campaign was softer on Russia, the Republican or the Democrat?

6. Finally, regarding TRUMP's claimed minimal investment profile in Russia, a separate source with direct knowledge said this had not been for want of trying. TRUMP's previous efforts had included exploring the real estate sector in St. Petersburg as well as Moscow but in the end TRUMP had had to settle for the use of extensive s*xual services there from local prostitutes rather than business success.

We computer scientists have a saying. Garbage in, garbage out.

Steven, diverting the subject to the Republican platform and or the democratic platform is not the issue in this blog. Now this is great information if you want to compare the democratic platform versus the Republican Party platform, please feel free to start your own blog, with that being your focal point.

This blog is focusing it's attention on the continual Russian connection in the trump administration.

Now back to my question to you: Steven, I am not interested in being a lawyer, I am interested to learn in your own words about this response you posted. f you forgot your response, here it is again for your review:

Inside the meeting, Diana Denman, a platform committee member from Texas who was a Ted Cruz supporter, proposed a platform amendment that would call for maintaining or increasing sanctions against Russia, increasing aid for Ukraine and “providing lethal defensive weapons” to the Ukrainian military.

“Today, the post-Cold War ideal of a ‘Europe whole and free’ is being severely tested by Russia’s ongoing military aggression in Ukraine,” the amendment read. “The Ukrainian people deserve our admiration and

Trump staffers in the room, who are not delegates but are there to oversee the process, intervened. By working with pro-Trump delegates, they were able to get the issue tabled while they devised a method to roll back the language.

On the sideline, Denman tried to persuade the Trump staffers not to change the language, but failed. “I was troubled when they put aside my amendment and then watered it down,” Denman told me. “I said, ‘What is your problem with a country that wants to remain free?’ It seems like a simple thing.”

Finally, Trump staffers wrote an amendment to Denman’s amendment that stripped out the platform’s call for “providing lethal defensive weapons” and replaced it with softer language calling for “appropriate assistance.”

This is your response you posted to explain this up-date at the top of this blog of Signs of continuing Russia influence in US raise alarm, that you said you watched 4 times and called "ABSOLUTE RUBBISH."

All I ask you to do is explain in your own words, your response, can you do that?

IN MY OWN WORDS. Rachel's report is absolute rubbish BECAUSE the so-called evidence she produced IN NO WAY supports the TITLE OF YOUR BLOG. WOW!!!

Just look at you, look at the way you are changing from one point to the next. Steven, on several occasions, I have asked you to interpret your response that you gave me in your own words and you have fail to that.

After your post which you can't explain, now you back to talking in general terms about a report that you said that you saw 4 times and you can't be specific on what part of that report is "ABSOLUTE RUBBISH."

Now you are saying that that this report don't support the title. WOW!!!

OK! STEVEN, what does this report talk about?

Fake news of continuing Russia influence in US raises alarm in Ron Gray's mind.