Despite Denials, There Is Evidence of Collusion Between the Trump Campaign and the Kremlin

 

It is a common talking point among Trump supporters that “there is not one shred of evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin.” This statement is far from true. In fact, the evidence is quite extensive.

The Kremlin supported the Trump campaign through a broad spectrum of means, including staff, funds, propaganda, black operations, trolls, and thugs. We address each of these in turn.

Staff

Prominent Trump campaign officials who are known to be paid Kremlin agents include Campaign Chairman Paul Manafort, Campaign Energy Advisor Carter Page, and former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn.

Campaign Chairman Paul Manafort was formerly chief henchman to Putin-allied Ukrainian dictator Victor Yanukovych. Manafort was also directly involved in the transferring of millions of dollars of such Russian mob funds into US real estate ventures.

Trump Energy Advisor Carter Page is a major investor in the Russian state owned energy company Gazprom. As a Gazprom investor, Page has a personal financial interest in ending Western sanctions against Russia for its invasion of Ukraine, a move which, along with recognition of the Russian annexation of Crimea, Trump himself said he was considering during the campaign. But it gets worse. Page actually endorsed the Russian invasion of Ukraine, going so far as to compare US support for Ukrainian independence to the killing of black youth by police officers. “The deaths triggered by U.S. government officials in both the former Soviet Union and the streets of America in 2014 share a range of close similarities,” wrote Page in January 2015.

Trump National Security Advisor Michael Flynn had dinner with Vladimir Putin last year. Such fraternization bore fruit for the Kremlin, as evidenced by the action by Trump operatives to eliminate language in the GOP platform advocating US support for Ukraine’s defense. In exchange for his trip to Moscow, Flynn received $50,000 from Russian state owned TV company RT, a payment which he concealed from federal agents investigating him for purposes of checking his security clearance. Flynn was appointed chairman of the National Security council by President Trump, only to be forced to resign a few weeks later when it was revealed he had lied to Vice President Pence about some of his Kremlin contacts.

Funds

Without a viable business base, Trump could never have mounted his campaign for the Republican nomination, let alone the election. Because his business career has involved a series of swindles against his investors, lenders, vendors, workers, and customers, Trump in recent years has found it difficult to obtain credit from legitimate financial sources. This has opened questions as of how the Trump empire can remain in business. The solution to this mystery is provided, however, by statements made by Trump’s sons. “We see a lot of money pouring in from Russia, Donald Trump Jr. explained in 2008.  In 2013, this was further clarified by Eric Trump, who told a reporter: “We don’t rely on American banks. We have all the funding we need out of Russia.” If such confessions of financial dependency require verification, it can no doubt be found in Trump’s tax returns. However, despite pre-election promises to disclose these documents, the President continues to refuse to make them available.

Black Operations

In early July 2016, GRU (Russian military intelligence) hackers broke into the computers at the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee, stealing their files. Then, July 22, on the eve of the Democratic National Convention, thousands of emails embarrassing to the Clinton camp drawn from these files were publicly released through WikiLeaks with the clear intention of dividing the Democratic Party and electing Donald Trump President.

Asked about this by the press on July 27, Trump openly proclaimed that he favored such Russian hacking, and he hoped that Putin and company would do more of it to help expose Hillary. This remarkable and potentially felonious statement provoked a firestorm of criticism, so much so that Trump subsequently walked it back – a rare event for the Don – saying that he had been speaking “sarcastically.” The fact, however, that the GRU did actually conduct a black operation inside the United States to assist Trump makes it not so easy to dismiss. Furthermore, it must be noted that the channel used for this and subsequent anti-Clinton operations during the campaign, Wikileaks, is a known Kremlin front.

Propaganda

The Russian state owned propaganda agency Russia Today (RT), which broadcasts internationally, including within the US, was unstinting throughout the nomination and election campaigns in its support for Donald Trump. This support has included not only constant favorable coverage, attacks on opponents, and commentary by talking heads, but personal praise of Donald Trump by Russian dictator Vladimir Putin himself.

Trolls and Thugs

During both the nomination and election campaigns, media websites of all sorts, but most especially conservative ones, were deluged with abusive comments directed against those who refused to adhere to the Trump line. Many of these comments were clearly written by Russian-speaking individuals. Others, perhaps most, were written by American members or adherents of the so-called “Alt-Right,” which also provided critical support for the ground game of the Trump nomination effort. This requires further discussion.

The Alt-Right is part of a Kremlin operation to create pro-Moscow ultranationalist and identarian fifth column movements in the West. The chief composer of the ideological synthesis of communism and fascism that the Kremlin created for this movement, Aleksandr Dugin, endorsed Donald Trump in March 2016. “In Trump we trust,” said Dugin (perhaps proposing the substitution of Trump for God in the American national slogan), as he mobilized the American Alt-Right against Trump’s GOP nomination opponents. It should be noted that the relationship between Dugin and the American Alt-Right is quite direct, as Nina Kouprianova, (pen name “Nina Byzantina”) the former wife of US Alt-Right leader, Richard Spencer, is Dugin’s American translator. Should anyone have further doubts about the Kremlin/Alt-Right links, Spencer and the Alt-Right provided confirmation themselves by holding a rally in Virginia on May 20, in which they chanted “Russia is our friend.”

It should be noted that while Hillary Clinton was the first major Trump opponent to call out the Alt-Right in the course of the campaign, the Alt-Right’s most important effort was directed not so much against her, as Trump’s GOP opponents and NeverTrump dissenters. This was done, as documented by National Review writer David French, through a campaign of terror, including death threats, targeting editors, writers, and others (including French, who at one point contemplated running as a third party conservative candidate against Trump and Clinton, an initiative, which if implemented, could have significantly harmed Trump’s electoral chances). Threats against French also included threats to his wife, which reached such intensity that French found it necessary to post a photograph on Facebook of his wife practicing with an AR-15 to warn off would-be assailants. Other conservatives threatened included NeverTrump supporters Rick Wilson, Erick Erickson, Glenn Beck, Ben Shapiro, Jonah Goldberg, Free the Delegates leader Kendal Unruh, and the editor of one conservative publication who informed me he could no longer carry my articles because of the threats he had received.

We thus see that Kremlin support for Trump’s election was been quite extensive. This support has been reciprocated. Trump has called the Russian dictator “a real leader” and dismissed his many murders of journalists and political opponents at home and abroad as “unproven.” Last January, a British court found that Putin had ordered the murder by Polonium poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko, a former FSB agent who revealed that the 1999 apartment buildings bombings in Moscow that Putin used to seize dictatorial power were the work of Putin’s FSB itself. Disturbingly, the billionaire appears be fine with that too. In May 2017, Trump went so far as to invite Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov to the White House, where, on his own initiative, he shared top secret classified information.

Donald Trump has also expressed support for Syrian dictator Bashir Assad, who in alliance with Russian and Iranian military forces, is flooding Europe with refugees, thereby stoking the fortunes of the Kremlin-allied ultraright parties operating as part of Dugin’s fascist international. These include the anti-NATO French National Front, whose founder, Jean-Marie Le Pen, also endorsed Trump. The National Front’s current leader, Marine Le Pen also supported the Russian takeover of Crimea, and is being openly bankrolled out of Moscow. In November 2016, Marine Le Pen traveled to New York to visit Trump Tower. According to Trump spokesman Sean Spicer, she did not meet with Trump. Subsequently, however, Trump openly supported her failed attempt to win the French presidency.

In line with his support of Le Pen, during the campaign, Trump supported the gutting of North Atlantic Treaty Organization, an objective that has been Moscow’s number one foreign policy priority since the beginning of the Cold War. He denounced NATO as being “obsolete,” and called for sharply reducing US commitments to the alliance that has been the bulwark of American security since World War II. Not only that, Donald Trump stated that as President, he would not necessarily honor the United States treaty commitment to defend a NATO ally if attacked by Russia. Trump’s frequent statements during the campaign that the United States should confront China also coheres with Kremlin desires, as Russia’s masters have no fonder wish than to see their two major global rivals take each other down.

Finally, it cannot reasonably be asserted that the combination of Kremlin support for Trump and Trump support for the Kremlin was coincidental. In fact, it has now been documented that, despite repeated false statements made by Trump camp spokesmen, there were at least 18 unreported contacts during the campaign between the Kremlin and Trump agents or representatives.

So, in summary, here was the deal: In exchange for Russian-supplied staff, funds, propaganda, trolls, thugs, and black operations support for his nomination and election, Donald Trump aligned himself with an effort to break the western alliance and deliver Europe to Kremlin domination.

Starting as a near-bankrupt dark-horse candidate with three-percent backing, Trump clearly could not have won the GOP nomination without the support of the Kremlin, its organized crime funding networks, and its Alt-Right foot soldiers. As for the election, it is probably true that Hillary Clinton could have beaten him regardless, had her campaign been run competently and had she not embraced the anti-industrial platform that cost her much of the labor vote in what had previously been the Democrats’ “blue wall’ midwestern stronghold.

Be that as it may, it is also true that the Nazis could almost certainly have conquered Norway in 1940 without the help of the treasonous Norwegian Defense Minister Vidkun Quisling. But the fact remains: Quisling was still a traitor.

Anyone who collaborates with a foreign adversary to seize power in the United States would be equally guilty. Republicans should stop trying to pretend that there is no evidence for such collusion, and instead demonstrate their patriotism by helping the nation’s security agencies get to the bottom of this sordid matter.

Here’s a hint to the GOP members of Congress: Vote with the Democrats to subpoena Trump’s tax returns. The truth will set you free.

Published in Politics
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 289 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. blood thirsty neocon Inactive
    blood thirsty neocon
    @bloodthirstyneocon

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    Достаточно говорить! Писатель был полностью дискредитировали. Вернуться к работе, агенты родины!

    Пришло время подстроить финал НБА. Леброн Джеймс должен быть побежден!

    • #91
  2. Henry Racette Member
    Henry Racette
    @HenryRacette

    Robert Zubrin: Here’s a hint to the GOP members of Congress: Vote with the Democrats to subpoena Trump’s tax returns. The truth will set you free.

    My last comment about the original post is as regards this piece of spectacularly idiotic advice. We have a special counsel empowered to study this matter, and various standing investigative bodies in Congress. The last thing we need is a broad Congressional witch hunt launched with a showboating stunt like this.

    Stupid.

    • #92
  3. blood thirsty neocon Inactive
    blood thirsty neocon
    @bloodthirstyneocon

    By the way, here’s another anonymously sourced piece by Wapo that proves that Jared Kushner colluded with the Russians to steal the election…after the election! How dare he!

     

    • #93
  4. profdlp Inactive
    profdlp
    @profdlp

    Henry Racette (View Comment):
    Достаточно говорить! Писатель был полностью дискредитировали. Вернуться к работе, агенты родины!

    Политический офицер был проинформирован о ваших действиях, товарищ

    • #94
  5. Jamie Lockett Member
    Jamie Lockett
    @JamieLockett

    blood thirsty neocon (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    blood thirsty neocon (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):
    I think the best response from the membership on this would be a thorough debunking instead of calling for its removal.

    How do you debunk an article that offers no evidence of its thesis? The title says collusion, but the evidence offered doesn’t mention actual collusion.

    You could point out how the evidence doesn’t support the conclusion of collusion. @exjon did a pretty good job in his comment on the first page.

    I could write a long book about how War and Peace doesn’t prove that Napoleon conquered Russia. I mean…the book is thematically related to my thesis. But it seems like a waste of time, given that War and Peace is about how Napoleon tried and failed miserably to conquer Russia. Explaining point by point how each piece of evidence that Zubrin mentioned is ultimately irrelevant to the actual thesis as stated in the title is a ridiculous waste of time. I just feel like the editors are trolling the members with this one.

    Except that is the entire point of Ricochet. Discussion amongst your fellow center right brethren.

    • #95
  6. Columbo Inactive
    Columbo
    @Columbo

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    blood thirsty neocon (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    blood thirsty neocon (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):
    I think the best response from the membership on this would be a thorough debunking instead of calling for its removal.

    How do you debunk an article that offers no evidence of its thesis? The title says collusion, but the evidence offered doesn’t mention actual collusion.

    You could point out how the evidence doesn’t support the conclusion of collusion. @exjon did a pretty good job in his comment on the first page.

    I could write a long book about how War and Peace doesn’t prove that Napoleon conquered Russia. I mean…the book is thematically related to my thesis. But it seems like a waste of time, given that War and Peace is about how Napoleon tried and failed miserably to conquer Russia. Explaining point by point how each piece of evidence that Zubrin mentioned is ultimately irrelevant to the actual thesis as stated in the title is a ridiculous waste of time. I just feel like the editors are trolling the members with this one.

    Except that is the entire point of Ricochet. Discussion amongst your fellow center right brethren.

    • #96
  7. Valiuth Member
    Valiuth
    @Valiuth

    Jon Gabriel, Ed. (View Comment):If a smoking gun was to be found connecting Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin, we would have known about it a long time ago, especially considering the unprecedented leaking from federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies.

    Well not unless the conspiracy ring is very close to Trump. Putting on my thinking cap to spin a conspiratorial tale I have come up with this scenario for all ya’lls entertainment.

    The Russian Trump connection is through his sons and son in law in their business dealings with various Russian investors. These investors are all Putin apparatchiks. This personal connection started before the campaign then morphs into a channel for feeding Trump pro Putin talking points and explanations. When Trump start building a team around him during the campaign these Russian connections then put forward other Russian stooges for Trump to surround himself with. Trump doesn’t know they are Russian stooges, and they don’t know that Trump already has a direct Russian connection. This way both are insulated from each other but the Russians get to tighten their grip on the Trump Campaign and political orbit. From there Trump’s pro-Russian stances draw more Putin sympathizers or apologist into his orbit. As Trump draws criticism for his Russian boot licking he starts surrounding himself with other Russian stooges to bolster his confidence in his statements. The Russian bond grows thicker. Meanwhile the Russian being so integrate into the whole Trump campaign are able to know what kind of covert actions would benefit Trump best. Without needing to directly communicate they provide him with his opportunities in the form of the DNC hacks.

    The problem though is Trump actually wins. In doing so there are not enough Russian stooges to fill out the cabinet posts and government positions and also most if not all would not be able to pass Senate review. The one exception being the highest level Russian operative, Flynn. Who mad at Obama firing him turned Russian cooperator. Because of his background and his close ties to Trump in the campaign he get appointed NSA. Thus giving Russia a man on the inside at the highest levels of US government. Luckily for America enough honest none Russian stooges were forces into the Trump administration, and when they realize what Flynn is they leak to get him fired by forcing Trump’s hand. Even now Trump wishes to bring Flynn back to fulfill the wishes of his Russian financial backers. In the end Melania (a secrete Slovakian sleeper agent) is forced to poison Trump in his sleep to keep Democracy safe from Russian takeover. She flees with Barron and is never seen again…

    Okay maybe that went off the rails there by the end but its a good yarn.

    • #97
  8. Muleskinner Member
    Muleskinner
    @Muleskinner

    Jon Gabriel, Ed. (View Comment):
    I don’t disagree with any of the evidence you’ve posted, but I believe it is circumstantial, not direct.

    There won’t be any direct evidence until Trump’s second term, when he can afford to be more flexible. Oh, wait…

    • #98
  9. Jamie Lockett Member
    Jamie Lockett
    @JamieLockett

    Valiuth (View Comment):

    Jon Gabriel, Ed. (View Comment):If a smoking gun was to be found connecting Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin, we would have known about it a long time ago, especially considering the unprecedented leaking from federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies.

    Well not unless the conspiracy ring is very close to Trump. Putting on my thinking cap to spin a conspiratorial tale I have come up with this scenario for all ya’lls entertainment.

    The Russian Trump connection is through his sons and son in law in their business dealings with various Russian investors. These investors are all Putin apparatchiks. This personal connection started before the campaign then morphs into a channel for feeding Trump pro Putin talking points and explanations. When Trump start building a team around him during the campaign these Russian connections then put forward other Russian stooges for Trump to surround himself with. Trump doesn’t know they are Russian stooges, and they don’t know that Trump already has a direct Russian connection. This way both are insulated from each other but the Russians get to tighten their grip on the Trump Campaign and political orbit. From there Trump’s pro-Russian stances draw more Putin sympathizers or apologist into his orbit. As Trump draws criticism for his Russian boot licking he starts surrounding himself with other Russian stooges to bolster his confidence in his statements. The Russian bond grows thicker. Meanwhile the Russian being so integrate into the whole Trump campaign are able to know what kind of covert actions would benefit Trump best. Without needing to directly communicate they provide him with his opportunities in the form of the DNC hacks.

    The problem though is Trump actually wins. In doing so there are not enough Russian stooges to fill out the cabinet posts and government positions and also most if not all would not be able to pass Senate review. The one exception being the highest level Russian operative, Flynn. Who mad at Obama firing him turned Russian cooperator. Because of his background and his close ties to Trump in the campaign he get appointed NSA. Thus giving Russia a man on the inside at the highest levels of US government. Luckily for America enough honest none Russian stooges were forces into the Trump administration, and when they realize what Flynn is they leak to get him fired by forcing Trump’s hand. Even now Trump wishes to bring Flynn back to fulfill the wishes of his Russian financial backers. In the end Melania (a secrete Slovakian sleeper agent) is forced to poison Trump in his sleep to keep Democracy safe from Russian takeover. She flees with Barron and is never seen again…

    Okay maybe that went off the rails there by the end but its a good yarn.

    Mighty fine spinnin there, Mr. V.

    • #99
  10. Max Ledoux Coolidge
    Max Ledoux
    @Max

    Friends, if you don’t agree with Zubrin then you don’t have to read his posts.

    • #100
  11. Muleskinner Member
    Muleskinner
    @Muleskinner

    Max Ledoux (View Comment):
    Friends, if you don’t agree with Zubrin then you don’t have to read his posts.

    But they make such excellent fodder. It’s a shame I can’t use them for fish wrap. But my local paper carries the AP stories, so I am well served.

    • #101
  12. Hoyacon Member
    Hoyacon
    @Hoyacon

    Max Ledoux (View Comment):
    Friends, if you don’t agree with Zubrin then you don’t have to read his posts.

    I thought anyone with “Contributor” for a sobriquet was required reading.  Who knew?

    • #102
  13. RightAngles Member
    RightAngles
    @RightAngles

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    Max Ledoux (View Comment):
    Friends, if you don’t agree with Zubrin then you don’t have to read his posts.

    I thought anyone with “Contributor” for a sobriquet was required reading. Who knew?

    I think we know we don’t have to read them. Some of us think it’s damaging to Ricochet to have them automatically appear on the Main Feed. If they started on the Member Feed, they’d most likely remain there.

    • #103
  14. Mike LaRoche Inactive
    Mike LaRoche
    @MikeLaRoche

    In Soviet Russia, conspiracy theories peddle you.

    • #104
  15. Henry Racette Member
    Henry Racette
    @HenryRacette

    RightAngles (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    Max Ledoux (View Comment):
    Friends, if you don’t agree with Zubrin then you don’t have to read his posts.

    I thought anyone with “Contributor” for a sobriquet was required reading. Who knew?

    I think we know we don’t have to read them. Some of us think it’s damaging to Ricochet to have them automatically appear on the Main Feed. If they started on the Member Feed, they’d most likely remain there.

    Exactly. It isn’t a matter of our being subjected to shoddy argument. It’s a matter of it occupying the most valuable real estate on the site, and making Ricochet look poor.

    It isn’t a big deal if it’s infrequent — as it appears to be. But I’m sympathetic to anyone who thinks such a snide and shallow piece doesn’t deserve automatic promotion.

    And, okay, I’ll admit it: I was eager to see my “Allah Had a Good Week” piece at the top of the feed — but discovered Zubrin’s thing there just above me.

    Which prompts me to inquire: what exactly does Contributor status mean? Is there a page somewhere that describes the criteria, editorial policies, etc., as they apply to Contributors versus the hoi polloi?

    Thanks,
    H.

    • #105
  16. Goldwaterwoman Thatcher
    Goldwaterwoman
    @goldwaterwoman

    Max Ledoux (View Comment):
    Friends, if you don’t agree with Zubrin then you don’t have to read his posts.

    You are right of course. We were probably drawn in by the heading thinking there was something new. If I recall correctly, Zubrin was a #Never during the election, but I had forgotten about him as he hasn’t posted in a long while.

    • #106
  17. DocJay Inactive
    DocJay
    @DocJay

     

     

    • #107
  18. Doug Kimball Thatcher
    Doug Kimball
    @DougKimball

    It’s important to see the other side at work.  Zubrin is a high function Liberal, so hearing from him on occasion gives us all an idea of just how the Left is framing the Trump conspiracy.  Let’s face it, the pickings here are pretty thin.  They seem to make up for lack of any evidence with the volume of “connections” cited in explaining this conspiracy.  It is weaker than an O’Douls on the rocks.

    I have no problem with an occasional Zubrin post.  If this is our intellectual opposition, it’s no wonder we’re winning on nearly all fronts.

    Jon and I both read the AZ Republic.  There are at least three editorial commentators who publish there almost daily.  I could easily refute every single opinion piece that these folks publish, but I don’t.  But at the very least, I realize just how predictable these people are.  But are they influential?  They have a soapbox, but who can take them seriously?  Most people are like me and skip over their stuff.   Once in a while though, I read them, just to check the Lefty pulse.  I’m always amazed at just how far apart we are in our perception of virtually everything.

    • #108
  19. Doug Watt Member
    Doug Watt
    @DougWatt

    Ricochet has a wide range opinions as well as human interest posts. Reading through some of the comments on this post it is pretty apparent to me that college students are not the only people demanding a safe space, snowflakes is another term for college students that are demanding a safe space. This is a blizzard.

    Please stop demanding what can be written, or read on this website. I can get that by taking a course at my local community college, or four year college.

    If that is too subtle for some people then let me blunt, grow up, not everyone agrees with everyone else. I know that’s hard to believe but life is tough.

    Oh by the way some of you feel that somehow this essay is an embarrassment to Ricochet, some of the comments I’ve read suggest that using a pseudonym is a pretty good idea.

    • #109
  20. Guruforhire Inactive
    Guruforhire
    @Guruforhire

    Max Ledoux (View Comment):
    Friends, if you don’t agree with Zubrin then you don’t have to read his posts.

    Can you explain the fruitcake rule, and why this article which is in every single dimension: Philosophically, ethically, morally and intellectually the absolute perfect analogue to the unhinged rantings of 1488ers on stormfront, does not fall within that which is explicitly forbidden?

    If the code of conduct isn’t going to be enforced, then please terminate my account and refund the balance, as ricochet will be demonstrably a fraud.

    • #110
  21. TooShy Coolidge
    TooShy
    @TooShy

    We’ve been asked to rebut the arguments. Okay, I’ll have a go. Three separate comments, on three separate issues in the post.

    First issue: Zubrin’s article tries to make a big deal out of certain individuals who expressed support for Trump.

    But if someone noxious supporting a political candidate automatically makes that candidate tainted, then I don’t think there is a single candidate anywhere in history who could pass the purity test.

    I would suspect that the gang leaders of Detroit supported Obama and voted for him. Does that mean that Obama is a gang leader, or that he supports gang leaders, or that there was collusion between them? Of course not.

    As others here have pointed out, the accusation of “collusion” requires a two-way relationship.

    So the rather pathetic, obscure Richard Spencer said that he supported Trump. But what, if anything, has Trump ever said about Richard Spencer? Have they ever met? Have they ever communicated?

    I’m also very suspicious of this idea that an “army of alt-right foot soldiers” were crucial in swaying the election. Even after the media swooned over Richard Spencer, lifting him into the limelight, giving him lots of air time, Richard Spencer could only attract a couple of hundred attendees at his big national conference.

    That doesn’t sound like an army of foot soldiers. That sounds feeble.
    For a brief period, Alexander Dugin supported Trump. Zubrin thinks this is significant. I just checked Dugin’s website. He doesn’t support Trump any more. Since the strike on Syria, Dugin now says that Trump “became Hillary disguised as a man, a kind of transvestite. “ (I’m trying very hard not to imagine Trump in a dress and high heels!)

    Dugin’s ravings go on for another few paragraphs. Not surprisingly, Dugin blames the neocons and the Israelis for this change.
    So Dugin liked Trump for a few months. Now he doesn’t. Does Trump’s status as “Putin’s stooge” depend on Dugin’s approval? Does that mean that Trump used to be “Putin’s stooge” but is no longer “Putin’s stooge”?

    Again, the word “collusion” requires that the relationship be two-way. Is there any evidence that Trump welcomed the approval given him by Dugin for a few months? Is there any evidence that Trump even knows who Alexander Dugin is?

    So really, it is now Robert Zubrin’s turn: Do you have any evidence that shows actual collusion? In other words, a two-way relationship?

    • #111
  22. TooShy Coolidge
    TooShy
    @TooShy

    Second issue:

    Zubrin claims that Trump delegates weakened the anti-Russia language in the GOP platform, and links to an article in the Washington Post about it.

    However, this article, in the Washington Examiner, has a different story:
    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/how-pundits-flubbed-trump-russia-story-wrong/article/2617802

    The article in the Washington Examiner goes into much more detail and provides much more context that the Washington Post article.

    What the Washington Post article left out was that the GOP platform still includes this paragraph:

    Repressive at home and reckless abroad, their policies imperil the nations which regained their self-determination upon the collapse of the Soviet Union. We will meet the return of Russian belligerence with the same resolve that led to the collapse of the Soviet Union. We will not accept any territorial change in Eastern Europe imposed by force, in Ukraine or elsewhere, and will use all appropriate measures to bring to justice the practitioners of aggression and assassination.

    That doesn’t sound to me like a soft approach to Russia.

    Here are some of the words used to describe Russia: repressive, reckless, imperil, belligerence, aggression, assassination. That doesn’t sound like a lovefest to me.

    The controversy is not that the language against Russia was weakened in the platform. Actually the language was strengthened.

    The controversy was that a single Cruz delegate wanted to put in the words “lethal defensive weapons” into a paragraph about the Ukraine. Those words were not inserted in the final platform. Instead the phrase “appropriate assistance to the armed forces of Ukraine” is used. So the full passage reads:
    “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. “

    Again, this does not seem like a pro-Putin stance in the slightest.

    So it is now Robert Zubrin’s turn: In what way do you interpret these two paragraphs in the GOP platform to be pro-Putin?

    • #112
  23. TooShy Coolidge
    TooShy
    @TooShy

    Third Issue: Zubrin claims that Trump said he was in favor of Russia hacking the DNC and that he hoped they would do more hacking. Zubrin says that Trump “hoped that Putin and company would do more of it to help expose Hillary. This remarkable and potentially felonious statement provoked a firestorm of criticism, . . . “

    The “proof” Zubrin provides is a link to the New York Times article which includes this famous quote from Trump: “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,”

    He later tweeted:
    “If Russia or any other country or person has Hillary Clinton’s 33,000 illegally deleted emails, perhaps they should share them with the FBI!”

    The context, of course, is that the FBI was trying to find the missing emails. Since the security on Hillary’s personal server was so poor, it was also widely suspected that every foreign intelligence service had her emails.

    Trump wasn’t encouraging more hacking. He, like most people, assumed that the Russians already had all of Hillary’s emails and he was joking that if the FBI was looking for them, the Russians would be a good place to start.

    Now it is Robert Zubrin’s turn: In what way does Trump’s tweet request Russia to engage in hacking? In what way is it “potentially felonious”?

    Oh my, I’ve just wasted a whole morning on this nonsense.

    • #113
  24. Kozak Member
    Kozak
    @Kozak

    Doug Kimball (View Comment):
    This is the biggest pile of supposition and agitprop I have ever read. There is nothing here. Nothing at all. Evidence? Not a single scrap. Nothing. Nada, Nil.

    Good try, Zubrin. I’m not biting.

    Can I flag a contributors post for violating the “no conspiracy theories”?

    • #114
  25. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    The CA secession movement is run by a guy in Russia. The idea that the alt right I’d run by Russia is laughable.  First off, alt right is a very loose term. It is like neocon.  Second, much of the alt right is complaining about how women today act. There is no way Rollo Tomasi and Vox Day are Russian plants.

    • #115
  26. CRD Member
    CRD
    @CRD

    Max Ledoux (View Comment):
    Friends, if you don’t agree with Zubrin then you don’t have to read his posts.

    Yes! Yes! Now, can that be applied to paying members too, and allow back the banned members? Please!

    • #116
  27. Valiuth Member
    Valiuth
    @Valiuth

    Mike LaRoche (View Comment):
    In Soviet Russia, conspiracy theories peddle you.

    In Soviet Russia the conspiracies are true, and not secret.

    • #117
  28. RightAngles Member
    RightAngles
    @RightAngles

    CRD (View Comment):

    Max Ledoux (View Comment):
    Friends, if you don’t agree with Zubrin then you don’t have to read his posts.

    Yes! Yes! Now, can that be applied to paying members too, and allow back the banned members? Please!

    The site is a lot poorer for losing them, and not improved by elevating Mr. Zubrin.  I agree. Why could this mindset not have been in the minds of those who banned some of our most interesting members? We also lost some of our favorite members who left in disgust.

    • #118
  29. David Carroll Thatcher
    David Carroll
    @DavidCarroll

    The rebuttals by @tooshy are exactly why we benefit from civil (but flawed) posts like this one by @robertzubrin.  I am frankly disappointed in the comments that seek to make Ricochet a safe space.  I appreciate the rebuttals.  I have not personally followed the issue over the last few months, because it should be no surprise to anyone that Russia along with the Muslim Brotherhood, China and others try to influence our elections.

    Of course the United States has never tried to influence any other nations’ elections. [Heavy sarcasm intended.]  How can we demand that others behave differently?

    • #119
  30. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    David Carroll (View Comment):
    The rebuttals by @tooshy are exactly why we benefit from civil (but flawed) posts like this one by @robertzubrin. I am frankly disappointed in the comments that week to make Ricochet a safe space. I appreciate the rebuttals. I have not personally followed the issue over the last few months, because it should be no surprise to anyone that Russia along with the Muslim Brotherhood, China and others try to influence our elections.

    Of course the United States has never tried to influence any other nations’ elections. [Heavy sarcasm intended.] How can we demand that others behave differently?

    I’m of two minds on this. I really like the open discussion but I dislike people of high repute using that to get a well-regarded platform to present personal opinion and attempt to disguise that as some sort of objective presentation. This is pretty much what we have wound up with in the news media with the WaPo and the NY Times. Many here, who deliver thoughts with much more underlying truth, as well as those who have been banned altogether who showed a greater understanding of the human condition and creativity in examining that, wonder what is the criteria to get that contributor moniker.

    • #120
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.