Trump Claims To Have Met Putin In Newly Resurfaced Interview From 2015 (AUDIO)
Source: Talking Points Memo
"Have you ever met Vladimir Putin?" conservative talk radio host Michael Savage asked Trump in the exchange, resurfaced Tuesday by an opposition research group and flagged by Yahoo News.
"Yes," Trump replied.
"You have?" Savage pressed.
"Yes, a long time ago," Trump said. "We got along great, by the way."
Read more: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/trump-2015-interview-claims-he-met-putin
Busted!
NRaleighLiberal
(61,703 posts)Nick Otean
(26 posts)One must be true.
The Velveteen Ocelot
(129,773 posts)So which time was he lying? The answer, of course, is whenever he's in a situation where he thinks the lie benefits him. In the first interview, claiming he met Putin (and they got along great, of course) would have made him seem important enough to have met a major world leader. So whether or not he'd ever met Putin by that time, he'd have lied, if necessary, to make himself seem important. Later, when the leaks and other Russian connections became known, he claimed he'd never met him and had no dealings with Russia, in order to distance himself from the negative aspects of that relationship. At the same time he keeps flattering and defending Putin. He's totally put himself in a box but he's too stupid to realize it.
NRaleighLiberal
(61,703 posts)PatSeg
(52,617 posts)Actually I've heard him say numerous conflicting things about Putin, much like everything else. He just says whatever pops in his head at the moment.
ffr
(23,335 posts)"...I got many of the Russian leaders, the top people in Russia, honestly.
These are people, they are looking to do things. - tRump
They sure are you naive stooge! They're not our friends, they are hostile towards us for many reasons, one of the main reasons is Putin's desire to rebuild a Russian Federation that rivals the United States.
bdamomma
(69,356 posts)LeftInTX
(34,031 posts)SteamAddict
(53 posts)Simple. Undeniable. Proven,
SteamAddict
(53 posts)Who are under the radar and will be patriots and oppose him.
ffr
(23,335 posts)Their job is national security and intelligence...
...wherever that may lead. Keep your eye on what their job is, what they say and how they say it.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10028482211
<snip>
The unverified allegations against Donald Trump are not just salacious, they are specific. These are facts which should be verifiable as either true or false. Did a meeting take place between the people described, at the place and time described? Even if some specific details are wrongas is often the case in HUMINTare the essential allegations, or some of them anyway, accurate?
<snip>
"The IC has not made any judgment that the information in this document is reliable, and we did not rely upon it in any way for our conclusions. However, part of our obligation is to ensure that policymakers are provided with the fullest possible picture of any matters that might affect national security. - DNI James Clapper
This indicates that while the documents have not been validated, the government continues to take them seriously for some reason.
The intelligence community simply does not concern itself with every crazy allegation against a sitting or incoming President that might be circulating or out there in the ether. Prior to President Obamas inauguration, there were all kinds of claims among his critics about his being a Muslim born in Kenya, and anointed with oil by Saul Alinsky. Needless to say, the heads of the intelligence community did not feel compelled to alert either President Bush or President-elect Obama about these matters. We suspect Obama probably also never got briefed by the intelligence community about Donald Trumps rumor-mongering about his birth certificate. And certainly, DNI Clapper would not have briefed Hillary Clinton, had she won, on the weird allegations related to Pizzagate.
<snip>
There are other tea leaves in Clappers statement: He could have, but did not, say that the IC has determined that documents lack credibility. Instead, he said the IC has not made any judgment as to reliability. Paired with his statement that these are matters which might affect national security, Clapper seems to be carefully saying that the IC still believes these allegations may, in part, prove to be true, or at least, may be closely related to allegations that are true. They just dont know yet, even after seven months of inquiry, so they are neither validating nor discarding. - Law Fare Blog
Generator
(7,770 posts)And that's not all that's tiny! You know it's true.
SteamAddict
(53 posts)Hopefully released soon!
