Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
United States Politics

Russia Says it Was in Touch With Trump Campaign During Election (cnbc.com) 469

An anonymous reader shares a CNBC report: The Russian government was in touch with members of President-elect Donald Trump's campaign staff during the U.S. election campaign, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov told the Interfax news agency on Thursday. "There were contacts," Interfax cited Ryabkov as saying. He did not give details. When asked whether these contacts would now intensify after Trump's election victory, Ryabkov said: "These working moments and follow-up on this or that matter will depend on the situation and the questions which face us. But we will of course continue this work after the elections." Defeated Democratic presidential contender Hillary Clinton accused Trump of being a "puppet" of President Vladimir Putin during the campaign, and U.S. officials said Russia had hacked into Democratic party emails, something Moscow denied. Trump has said he might meet Putin before his inauguration, but Putin's spokesman has said there are currently no plans for such a meeting.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Russia Says it Was in Touch With Trump Campaign During Election

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 10, 2016 @10:27AM (#53257255)

    Not a puppet. You're the puppet. You're the puppet.

    • Re:Not a puppet. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Maritz ( 1829006 ) on Thursday November 10, 2016 @11:14AM (#53257795)
      To roughly half of american voters, that is an absolute zinger of a comeback.
    • by godrik ( 1287354 )

      Why is this tagged funny? I am not laughing...

  • surprise surprise (Score:4, Insightful)

    by dehachel12 ( 4766411 ) on Thursday November 10, 2016 @10:27AM (#53257267)
    who did not see that coming ?
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      If there was something malicious going on, do you think they would really be out advertising it? Idiot.

      Of course Russia is going to want to reach out to the likely president-elect of the United States of America in order to start a working relationship.

      • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

        Yet they didn't reach out to any of the other candidates, or in any of the other previous elections?
        • by Mashiki ( 184564 )

          Yet they didn't reach out to any of the other candidates, or in any of the other previous elections?

          What the hell are you even talking about? Every candidate that runs for PM, President, hell even some that run for premier are in contact with a variety of leaders. I guess it's true then, the Israelis control the US. After Hillary, Romney and Obama were in contact with them during their presidential bids.

          Give your head a fucking shake.

        • by jafiwam ( 310805 ) on Thursday November 10, 2016 @12:56PM (#53258873) Homepage Journal

          Yet they didn't reach out to any of the other candidates, or in any of the other previous elections?

          Does "hacking their email" count as reaching out? ;)

          Considering the path Clinton was likely to set us upon, I wholeheartedly disagree that the Russians talking with Trump is a bad thing.

          Russia is a nuclear-armed big army nuke-sub having high technology former nigh-superpower that has accepted that they aren't going to be able to wipe us out (we WON the Cold War, remember?). It's good to be their friends, it's good to be talking to them.

      • If there was something malicious going on, do you think they would really be out advertising it? Idiot.

        Of course Russia is going to want to reach out to the likely president-elect of the United States of America in order to start a working relationship.

        Except that it could be a violation of the Logan Act [wikipedia.org].
        "The Logan Act (1 Stat. 613, 18 U.S.C. 953, enacted January 30, 1799) is a United States federal law that forbids unauthorized citizens from negotiating with foreign governments having a dispute with the U.S."

      • If there was something malicious going on, do you think they would really be out advertising it? Idiot.

        Of course Russia is going to want to reach out to the likely president-elect of the United States of America in order to start a working relationship.

        At least they seem to advertise some of it.

        The Guardian: [theguardian.com]

        Markov also said it would mean less American backing for “the terroristic junta in Ukraine”. He denied allegations of Russian interference in the election, but said “maybe we helped a bit with WikiLeaks.”

  • by CajunArson ( 465943 ) on Thursday November 10, 2016 @10:30AM (#53257291) Journal

    Just look at what China did with Clinton:

    http://www.scmp.com/news/china... [scmp.com]

    But it's only "evil" when Trump is involved in something.

    Oh, and dealing with other countries diplomatically instead of militarily is now equivalent to Nazism or something all of the sudden. Which is why everybody thought Obama was a Nazi when he was elected... right?

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Idou ( 572394 )

      But it's only "evil" when Trump is involved in something.

      No, it is always evil when a president, at any time (before or after their presidency), conspires with foreign governments to defraud the American public.

      Clinton lost and is now irrelevant to the discussion of the current state of corruption in our government. Trump now gets to face the public alone on the topic of presidential corruption and can no longer use the "but she is worse" argument. Neither should you.

      • by Jack9 ( 11421 )

        > Neither should you

        "should" is a word that indicates you might have lost the argument. Telling someone how to act "because", is not compelling.

        The crux of the race was - and - still - is, about corruption. Jon Stewart's tale of his time in Washington really resounded with me.
        Russia talking to the candidate they back (via wikileaks and probably other methods) is not surprising.

        I don't see Russia controlling Trump's policies nor Russia rigging the election, but influencing indirectly was a result of exist

      • Instead of jumping to conspiracy, how about Russia reaching out to say that they were not involved in the hacks? Considering the amount of venom Hillary was sending to Russia, the threats of war by Joe Biden, indirect action by Clinton claiming she would establish no-fly zones over Syria, perhaps Russia was simply saying "Hey, we didn't do that and are keeping our distance."

        There is certainly a different position to be had by a candidates spouse taking hundreds of millions of dollars from foreign interests

        • by SethJohnson ( 112166 ) on Thursday November 10, 2016 @01:13PM (#53259035) Homepage Journal

          ...a candidates spouse taking hundreds of millions of dollars from foreign interests, which Trump was accused of but Bill Clinton actually did.

          I suppose that depends on your definition of 'actually.' Checking Politifact [politifact.com], this claim does not hold true.

          Per an article in Fortune magazine in October 2015 [politifact.com] that traced both the Clintons' tax returns to estimate their net worth:

          On the low end, the Clintons reported assets of $11.3 million. On the high end, they might have as much as $52.7 million. The couple listed no liabilities.

          How is it that Bill Clinton 'actually' accepted HUNDREDS of millions of dollars from foreign interests, yet he only has assets totaling as much as $53 million?

          This is a classic example of the disruption that Trump has brought to the political process.

          Unrestrained fiction presented as facts to smear opponents requires an update or replacement to the term "truthiness."

    • But it's only "evil" when Trump is involved in something.

      Yes. You definitely do understand!

    • by pushing-robot ( 1037830 ) on Thursday November 10, 2016 @11:15AM (#53257809)

      Diplomatic sources in Beijing and Washington have confirmed that Beijing, aware of the high stakes for bilateral ties, has been following the election campaign closely and trying to maintain regular contact with both candidates, Clinton and Republican nominee Donald Trump, through their campaign teams and other channels.

      Your point? Open relations with one of America's biggest trading partners is a lot different from secret contacts with an antagonistic power. Denying it through his campaign makes it look even worse.

      Between conspiracy with the country's adversaries [politico.com] and tapping the DNC [wikipedia.org], Trump seems to be doing his best to emulate Nixon. We'll see if it comes to the same end.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by CajunArson ( 465943 )

        If you had actually read the real article that was the source of this story you would have seen that Russia... contacted the Clinton campaign too. Dumbass.

        I'm reminded of the naked hypocrisy when Reagan was running back in the day. Back then it was considered imperative (by leftists like you) that the President put the interests of the Soviet Union ahead of the U.S. because otherwise you were some type of war-monger.

        Flash forward and the new left-wing chant is that Trump is evil because he refuses to unilat

        • by pushing-robot ( 1037830 ) on Thursday November 10, 2016 @12:14PM (#53258439)

          I read your article. And TFA. And watched the video. Not saying you're a liar, but [citation needed].

          And being anti-war means taking whatever steps are necessary to prevent war, including standing up to expansionists. Appeasing Hitler didn't stop World War II, and tearing down NATO while Russia is annexing Europe's borders won't pacify Putin.

          • by hey! ( 33014 )

            Actually, he provided a citation -- the linked article, which does NOT in fact say Russia was communicating with the Clinton campaign.

            So yes, he is a liar.

    • by tomhath ( 637240 )
      FTFA:

      Diplomatic sources in Beijing and Washington have confirmed that Beijing, aware of the high stakes for bilateral ties, has been following the election campaign closely and trying to maintain regular contact with both candidates, Clinton and Republican nominee Donald Trump, through their campaign teams and other channels.

      Trump's staff was also in touch with China!!! And Mexico! I'll bet even Canada and New Jersey were in on it.

    • by Feral Nerd ( 3929873 ) on Thursday November 10, 2016 @11:25AM (#53257895)

      Oh, and dealing with other countries diplomatically instead of militarily is now equivalent to Nazism or something all of the sudden. Which is why everybody thought Obama was a Nazi when he was elected... right?

      I don't really want to get into your Democrat=wrong-think, Republican=right-think pissing contest. What I will say is that presidential candidates dealing diplomatically to Russia/China depends entirely on what was being said and promised. Say what you will about Hillary she is not an impulsive person and for all her faults I do not believe she'd make rash promises to anybody, especially if they affect the USA's extensive network of allies. Trump, on the other hand, is completely inexperienced in foreign policy dealings, he is an individual that is so impulsive he apparently cannot even be trusted with a Twitter account. So when it becomes known that he's been having talks with Vladimir Putin behind the backs of all of the USA's allies it gets people wondering what he promised the Russians without consulting them? ... unilateral lifting of sanctions? recognition of their annexation of the Crimea and the Eastern Ukraine in exchange for cooperation on ending the Syrian mess? A pledge not to defend the Baltic republics? Something even dumber than that, like dismantling NATO? Or did he simply have a friendly dinner with one of Putin's creatures over some New York deep dish pizza and discuss Golf? Point being that people are a lot less nervous about Hillary 'giving away the home-world' as it were than they are over Trump dong the same because after he promised to do the modern equivalent of pining a yellow star on every Muslim in the USA people basically think he's capable of anything.

      • Say what you will about Hillary she is not an impulsive person and for all her faults I do not believe she'd make rash promises to anybody,

        I completely agree. All of Hillary's promises are carefully calculated to increase her power and wealth, and she plans that for the long term. Trump is too much of an idiot to be a fraud on Hillary's scale.

        because after he promised to do the modern equivalent of pining a yellow star on every Muslim in the USA people basically think he's capable of anything.

        Evil demagogue

        • by flopsquad ( 3518045 ) on Thursday November 10, 2016 @01:28PM (#53259197)
          Evil demagogue? You're saying this about GP and not Trump, am I getting this right? And you have no idea what GP is talking about? Here you go:

          GS: "Are you unequivocally now ruling out a database on all Muslims?"
          Trump: "No, not at all"

          That was the final word on Trump's proposal to create a database to track all Muslims, which he had tried to backtrack to just "refugees". I'm not sure if it came before or after his idea that mosques need to be placed under surveillance. In combination with the unconstitutional Muslim ban he proposed, and the... you know what, he's said so much fucked up shit just on this one topic that if you haven't bothered to educate yourself on it by now, I'm not going to waste my time. Here's a quarter, go fuck yourself.
    • by aliquis ( 678370 )

      Since Vladimir Putin is the best president in the world it's not weird that even if Trump was a Putin of him he'd still be a better president than Hillary Clinton.

      He'd be taught from the best.

      What a man. If only we had him.
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

      / etnopluralist libertarian nationalist Swede

  • by OffTheLip ( 636691 ) on Thursday November 10, 2016 @10:31AM (#53257309)
    This is what happens when close to 50% of eligible voters don't bother to go to the polls.
    • That's nothing new, though:

      The last time voter turnout was over 65% was in 1908, and it hasn't been over 60% since 1968. What's really ironic? After the Voting Rights Act and the repeal of the Jim Crow laws removed obstacles to voting, participation/turnout still has declined. It usually hovers around the low 50s for presidential, and lower for the congressional mid term elections. 2008 was a high point, with ~57%.
    • by Okian Warrior ( 537106 ) on Thursday November 10, 2016 @10:44AM (#53257467) Homepage Journal

      This is what happens when close to 50% of eligible voters don't bother to go to the polls.

      We get a leader who tries to calm and reassure a potential dangerous adversary?

      This partisanship is blinding you to reality. Clinton and Obama were steadily ratcheting up the fear and blame on Russia. They were building moral cover to justify a prolonged campaign of sanctions and possibly war.

      It got so bad that Julian Assange publicly stated that Russia was *not* the source of the Podesta E-mails. He *never* gives out information about his sources, that he would do this indicates that he felt there was some danger.

      This was all happening over the past two months, and you can't remember it?

      Contacting Russia and saying "relax, if I get elected we can work out our problems through diplomacy" is a good thing.

      • You do of course recognize that Russia isn't some rational diplomatic actor at the moment right?

        Annexing neighbors and posturing militarily has to have some sort of a reaction other than "let's talk it out".

        • by LynnwoodRooster ( 966895 ) on Thursday November 10, 2016 @11:50AM (#53258193) Journal
          On the contrary, Russia's actions have proven they are INCREDIBLY rational. They waited until the US (the only power that could legitimately threaten them) was distracted before taking a small step (Crimea). After seeing how that shook out (US did nothing but wag a finger), they moved to the next step. Same result. You might not agree (nor do I) with their goals, but the way they are moving forward is incredibly rational, well-planned, and measured.
          • by quax ( 19371 )

            Yes, the Russians are very systematic about it. Their goal all along was to shatter the Western alliance from within, and if possibly the United States themselves through internal division. The former goal is within reach. NATO at this point is but a faded paper contract.

            A major German conservative newspapers already speculated before the election that a Trump victory may mean that the country has to acquire nukes. Unprecedented in a country where the nuclear anti-proliferation sentiment is strong acros

        • by fyngyrz ( 762201 ) on Thursday November 10, 2016 @11:57AM (#53258275) Homepage Journal

          Annexing neighbors and posturing militarily has to have some sort of a reaction other than "let's talk it out".

          No, it really doesn't. It's none of our business. We have no right to interfere with the actions of other countries. And that's what it is: interference. You want to have a sovereign country? Fine. Make sure you can defend it or otherwise exert effective leverage sufficient to maintain your sovereignty. Otherwise, someone is going to take it from you or otherwise ruin your day -- and we -- the US -- definitely shouldn't have to be the one to guarantee your borders. That's your job.

          This whole "US is the world's policeman" business is insane. And the claim that we actually have significant national interests in 99% of these venues isn't much better.

          Our job is making sure no one annexes us. Other countries can posture all they want. We can squash them like bugs if they try anything. And we should. Other than that, there's an awful lot of stuff we need to be paying attention to within our borders that we are not.

          • You want to have a sovereign country? Fine. Make sure you can defend it or otherwise exert effective leverage sufficient to maintain your sovereignty. Otherwise, someone is going to take it from you or otherwise ruin your day

            That's not how civilized people behave. If that's how you behave, you're part of the problem.

          • by citylivin ( 1250770 ) on Thursday November 10, 2016 @02:18PM (#53259695)

            "Our job is making sure no one annexes us. Other countries can posture all they want."

            "First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out -
            Because I was not a Socialist.

            Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out -
            Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

            Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out-
            Because I was not a Jew.

            Then they came for me - and there was no one left to speak for me."

            History repeats too much to have such a myopic attitude about world affairs.

      • by Maritz ( 1829006 )

        It got so bad that Julian Assange publicly stated that Russia was *not* the source of the Podesta E-mails. He *never* gives out information about his sources, that he would do this indicates that he felt there was some danger.

        I don't think it's particularly wise to take anything Julian Assange says at face value. He's in his own corner.

      • by gnick ( 1211984 )

        Clinton and Obama were steadily ratcheting up the fear and blame on Russia.

        That worked particularly well on the Ukrainians. They really bought into Obama/Clinton's fear-mongering. Don't know what they were so worried about - Russia's peaceful now.

      • You may have the wrong idea about Assange. He's either in the Kremlin's pocket or has his own (non-truth-related) agenda. https://twitter.com/wikileaks/... [twitter.com]

        #PanamaPapers Putin attack was produced by OCCRP which targets Russia & former USSR and was funded by USAID & Soros.

        Without any evidence, the only group he defends during the Panama Papers scandal was Russia.

        Russia needs to have sanctions against it. They have literally been invading their neighbors and taking their land. Should there not be

    • Wrong, Trump strategy was to turn areas by appealing to no-shows to make them show. Specifically, middle class not living in cities are what turned the election.

      • by pushing-robot ( 1037830 ) on Thursday November 10, 2016 @11:44AM (#53258121)

        No, he really didn't get out the vote; Trump's vote count was in line with the losers of the last few elections. His strategy in the primary and the general was to drag the whole thing down so far into the mud that most people were too disillusioned to vote. Low turnout favors the 'fear/anger/hate' candidate.

    • by JackAxe ( 689361 )
      This is not a two party system, A percentage of those eligible voters that did not show up, if they did vote, wouldn't necessarily vote for your candidate. So weather or not the outcome changed is up in the air.

      And your comment has me thinking you're actually buying into Clnton's McCarthyism -- which I would have believed 30 years ago, but not now. It's silly that it has even made it this far in this day and age.
  • Might not be. Might not mean anything even if it is true; just sending a couple of unsolicited emails could be "in touch." Russia is going to see an advantage in sowing doubt about Trump regardless of the truth.

  • by Lucas123 ( 935744 ) on Thursday November 10, 2016 @10:33AM (#53257335) Homepage
    Trump was in touch with Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto. I saw it on television!
  • by Cytotoxic ( 245301 ) on Thursday November 10, 2016 @10:35AM (#53257353)

    Here's what they really had to say: [bloomberg.com]

    Russia said that it talked with the teams of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton during the U.S. presidential election as part of routine outreach during a campaign.
    Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said the Russian embassy in the U.S. held talks with the Trump camp that “were on a sufficient, responsible level.” Hope Hicks, a spokeswoman for Trump, said in an e-mail that she was “not aware” of any meetings by campaign representatives with Russian diplomats.
    Ryabkov said the talks were “part of routine everyday work.” There was also “sporadic” contact with the Clinton team, though it was “not always productive,” he said. Calls to members of Clinton’s former campaign team for comment weren’t immediately returned.

    • by whoever57 ( 658626 ) on Thursday November 10, 2016 @10:37AM (#53257391) Journal
      Get out of here with your "facts" and "whole story". We don't want that kind of thing here. We just want to rage against the world right now.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Kohath ( 38547 )

      Bernie would have met with them twice as much. Or he wouldn't have met with them at all -- whichever one is the good one.

    • by hey! ( 33014 )

      Russia said that it talked with the teams of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton during the U.S. presidential election as part of routine outreach during a campaign.
      Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said the Russian embassy in the U.S. held talks with the Trump camp that “were on a sufficient, responsible level.” Hope Hicks, a spokeswoman for Trump, said in an e-mail that she was “not aware” of any meetings by campaign representatives with Russian diplomats.
      Ryabkov said the talks w

  • by Ensign_Expendable ( 1045224 ) on Thursday November 10, 2016 @10:35AM (#53257357)
    Big deal.
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • While Hillary was Secretary of State, she signed off on the sell of part of United States Uranium supply to the Russians leading to financial benefits for the Clintons and their close friends -- like Podesta. That's just the gist. Look for yourself. Look into "Uranium One." The information is public knowledge and was a determent to the US's national security unlike these silly articles spreading Clinton's McCarthyism.

    This whole Russian Meme is just silly and needs to be put back in its dusty cold-war
    • by larkost ( 79011 ) on Thursday November 10, 2016 @01:05PM (#53258959)

      Clinton did not sign off, the State Department did, as did 8 other Federal departments. The person at the State Department who was in charge of it has expressly said that Clinton was never involved in that discussion, and never expressed any opinions on it, as the process was not important or controversial enough to warrant it. And while it did wind up with a Russian company owning a good chunk of the Uranium mines in North America (primarily in Canada), there are export restrictions that prevent any of the product mined there from going to Russia (among most every place).

      And she and her close friends did not benefit financially, the accusation is that it was the Clinton Foundation (a charitable organization) that got the money. So far there have been some vague accusations that "the Clintons used the Foundation as their personal piggy bank", but no case of that ever happening has come to light. The Foundation is regularly audited, and that would have shown up by now. The Foundation is generally accepted as being a very good user of its money in doing good around the world.

      So explain to me how something she was not involved in, and did not benefit financially from personally was somehow a strike against her.

  • by mpercy ( 1085347 )

    Mr Obama says: "On all these issues, but particularly missile defence, this, this can be solved but it's important for him to give me space."
    Mr Medvedev replies: "Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you "
    Mr Obama retorts: "This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility."
    And Mr Medvedev finishes: "I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir [Putin]."

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04... [nytimes.com]

  • Stopping the new cold war, giving up the pointless protests over the crimea, letting Russia risk their lives in Syria -- it's all good. Constructive ties with Russia is just about the only potential positive I can see in Trump's presidency, if I can buy that it'll last.

    Unfortunately, what I fear is that that the buddy-buddy relationship with Putin will not last long. At some point, two macho buffoons with egos that large are going to clash over something and want to fight. It can turn very quickly and very

  • by LifesABeach ( 234436 ) on Thursday November 10, 2016 @11:48AM (#53258169) Homepage
    It's voter turn out that ruled the day. Why didn't the Democrats vote?

"The vast majority of successful major crimes against property are perpetrated by individuals abusing positions of trust." -- Lawrence Dalzell

Working...