1. The world's best reading app

    Great articles, no ads. Get started for free.

    The New York Times CompanyMATT APUZZO, ADAM GOLDMAN, JO BECKER7/11/1714 min
    5 reads11 comments
    -
    The New York Times Company
    5 reads
    -
    You must read the article before you can post or reply.
    • bill
      Top reader of all timeScout
      5 years ago

      The story opens with shady, greasy guys doing stuff they know is illegal. It reads like a telenovela, something you might catch in pieces, on TV at your local barber shop or Mexican joint.

      This is worth really reading, simply for the fact that it's a top story around the planet right now. When you arrive at the video, watch that whole thing too. The world is a crazy place.

      • jeff
        Top reader this weekTop reader of all timeReading streakScoutScribe
        5 years ago

        The story opens with shady, greasy guys doing stuff they know is illegal.

        What did they do that was illegal?

        Honestly I feel like I just wasted 15 minutes reading a play-by-play of a particularly boring meeting between some Trump officials and a Russian lobbyist. I kept waiting for the part where someone contradicted a sworn testimony or some connection was made to Russian state-sponsored espionage. The music video was the most captivating part of the whole story.

        • bill
          Top reader of all timeScout
          5 years ago

          Interesting take. The Russian lawyer seemed to think it was boring too. Apparently Kushner was only in the room for 7-10 minutes and Manafort was absent-minded, on his phone, the whole time.

          Seems like there are two ways to "read" this: (1) Trump and crew conspired with Russia to get an unfair advantage in the election (2) The media is making something out of nothing

          People who disapprove of Trump are falling into bucket 1. People who approve of Trump are falling into bucket 2.

          Predictably, I'm falling into bucket 1, but I'm willing to concede that the whole crew should be considered innocent until proven guilty. (Is it time for hearings and sworn testimony yet?!) Don't you think that the press has a right (even an obligation!) to keep chasing this down?

          • jeff
            Top reader this weekTop reader of all timeReading streakScoutScribe
            5 years ago

            (1) Trump and crew conspired with Russia to get an unfair advantage in the election

            To support my "read" of the article, I'd simply ask you point out the part of the article that supports your conclusion. I'm saying there's nothing there. Does taking a meeting with someone who claims to have evidence that your political opponent committed a crime constitute a conspiracy to gain an unfair advantage?

            Don't you think that the press has a right (even an obligation!) to keep chasing this down?

            Sure, I just didn't see anything noteworthy in the article and didn't understand what illegal activity you were referring to in your comment.

            • bill
              Top reader of all timeScout
              5 years ago

              "I love it," is the part. That should be enough to get some of these people up on the stand for questioning under oath. (Agree? Disagree?)

              At this point, I'm with you that nothing (yet) is obviously illegal. But we now know that Russia was actively working to impact the outcome of the election (you agree with this, right?) and that a long list of the highest-ups on team Trump were meeting with Russians (and, in this case, specifically to discuss campaign related matters)

              For many months, the Trumps have vehemently denied "colluding" with Russians against Hillary. That was a lie. (The whole "but it wasn't illegal" thing is a new angle, a red herring.) A lie like that is a major betrayal of public trust. In any corporate setting, the lying alone is a fireable offense. People in these positions shouldn't just be able to lie about stuff and get away with it.

              • jeff
                Top reader this weekTop reader of all timeReading streakScoutScribe
                5 years ago

                "I love it," is the part. That should be enough to get some of these people up on the stand for questioning under oath. (Agree? Disagree?)

                Disagree. In what universe is "I love it" not the most natural response to hearing that someone is going to provide you with evidence that your political opponent committed a crime? Your desire to "get some of these people up on the stand for questioning" smacks of McCarthyism.

                But we now know that Russia was actively working to impact the outcome of the election (you agree with this, right?)

                Sure, it makes sense that they would work to support the candidate they felt would be least hostile towards them. And to the extent that anyone from Russia could provide evidence of crimes or misdeeds committed by Hillary Clinton why wouldn't the Trump campaign be interested in obtaining it?

                For many months, the Trumps have vehemently denied "colluding" with Russians against Hillary. That was a lie.

                Obtaining legitimate opposition research on your opponent is not collusion (though as per the article it doesn't appear this even happened!). The Russians independently hacking the DNC is not collusion. If the Trump team promised to lift sanctions on Russia in exchange for support that would be collusion but there's no evidence of such a quid pro quo.

                • bill
                  Top reader of all timeScout
                  5 years ago

                  "legitimate opposition research" isn't the kind of thing you need secret channels for.

                  since, again and again, the Trump team has lied about who met who, where, when, and what was discussed, we don't know that Russia was acting "independently"

                  what we do know is that many top officials in the Russian gov were meeting with top officials on team Trump. further questioning is the only rational thing to do. it's def not McCarthyism - that's nuts.

    • jamie5 years ago

      Disgusting, horrible , we are becoming numb to these types of abuses. Simple question, Can this country continue to have a president with such an unbelievable credibility issue? His constant lies and being caught in these lies are so embarrassing to us as a nation. I am mortified, enough is enough. Let us move on and try to heal as a nation. BTW, still wondering about those tax returns, I always felt he was hiding the fact he may not have paid any taxes, now I believe it is all about his involvement with Russian business ventures and Russian partnerships. Just wonderin' OH MY.

    • swizco5 years ago

      the truth does not matter in Trump's America

    • wynot5 years ago

      There is one crime Trump is definitely guilty of committing: participation in that awful, awful music video.

      • bill
        Top reader of all timeScout
        5 years ago

        I had to stand up when I watched it. How good is Miss USA?!?