Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Monday, January 14, 2019

Members of President Donald Trump's campaign and transition team had more than 100 contacts with Russian-linked officials, according to a new report. The milestone illustrates the deep ties between members of Trump's circle and the Kremlin. The findings, tracked by the Center for American Progress and its Moscow Project, come amid reports that special counsel Robert Mueller is nearing the conclusion of the two-year investigation into Russian collusion in the 2016 election and possible obstruction of justice by the president.

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Is there any doubt that the------------------- is Putin's bitch?

#1 | Posted by reinheitsgebot at 2019-01-10 11:12 AM | Reply

"Is there any doubt that the------------------- is Putin's bitch?"

Nope.

#2 | Posted by danni at 2019-01-10 07:07 PM | Reply

The American people deserve answers.

Below is a comprehensive chronological list of the contacts that have been discovered to date and the lies Trump's campaign, transition, and White House told to hide them.

*The Trump campaign issued at least 15 blanket denials of contacts with Russia, all of which have been proven false.

*Extensive reporting, subsequent admissions, and Special Counsel Mueller's indictments have revealed at least 101 contacts between the Trump team and Russia-linked operatives, despite repeated denials. Among these contacts were 28 meetings (which include Skype calls), which are highlighted below.

*At least 28 high-level campaign officials and Trump advisors were aware of contacts between the Trump team and Russia, including the three successive people who ran Trump's campaign.

Yet none of them ever revealed to federal law enforcement that the Russians were seeking to interfere with the election by aiding the campaign. (Each and every bullet point's fact assertion is documented at the link above, including subsequent links verifying how each occurrence was documented)

#3 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-01-14 10:00 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

'No contacts with Russia' was Trump's first denial. He stopped saying that after the Trump Tower meeting Donnie Half Scoop took.

Now, 100 known contacts later, it is obviously a lie.

#4 | Posted by oldwhiskeysour at 2019-01-14 10:29 AM | Reply

Clinton lackies at CFAP find Russian collusion from an election they botched. Stunner.

Until democrats get rid of trash like Neera Tanden and John Podesta, stars like AOC and Tulsi will never have a chance. Until they are held accountable for their failures in 2016, they aren't letting anyone break through. As long as the collusion is the excuse for Clinton's choke-job, there's no reason to change anything and you will end up with Harris/Biden/Booker. I never thought it was possible, but the CFAPpers are halfway there.

#5 | Posted by Ben_Berkkake at 2019-01-14 10:40 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

No Russia.
Some Russia, but nothing, really.
You've got tapes?!? Okay, meetings with Russia, but nothing came of it.
Okay, we sent them info as well, but no collusion.
Well, attempted collusion, but we're inept, so no foul.
Yeah, attempted conspiracy, but everybody does it, right?
We did it, but it's not really a crime.
Even it's a crime...we control Republicans who might vote to impeach.
Yeah, we did it. WTF you gonna do about it?

Who says Republicans don't believe in evolution?

#6 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-14 10:52 AM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 10

It wasn't our fault for the biggest choke in political history, it was the Russians.
Bernie wasn't the canary in the coalmine with Clinton's deficiencies in pro-labor states, it was the Russians.
We really aren't losers who spent 100x and accomplished nothing, it was 30k in Russian Facebook ads.
It wasn't our fault we begged for Trump, got him, then got our ass kicked. More Russians.
The Russians...

#7 | Posted by Ben_Berkkake at 2019-01-14 10:58 AM | Reply

#5

Clinton Deflection late, loss of rubles looming.

#8 | Posted by Corky at 2019-01-14 10:59 AM | Reply | Funny: 2

The Clinton deflection is particularly weak and tepid after seeing Trump in action for a few years.

Seriously, can Cons take responsibility for anything?

#9 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2019-01-14 11:18 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 6

"...can Cons take responsibility for anything?" - #9 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2019-01-14 11:18 AM

Harry S. Truman: "The buck stops here."

Ronald Reagan: "The buck stops here with me."

Barack Obama: "The buck stops right here."

Donald Trump: "The buck stops everywhere."

#10 | Posted by Hans at 2019-01-14 11:40 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2


@#10

I disagree. Based upon his words and actions, I'd amend you comment as such:

Donald Trump: "The buck stops anywhere but here."

Has Pres Trump ever accepted responsibility for anything bad that occurred on his watch, or has he always tried to point the fickle finger of blame elsewhere?

#11 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-01-14 12:39 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Trump says he "never worked for Russia." But as Bullwinkle once said, looks like he'd better get another hat! twitter.com

#12 | Posted by cbob at 2019-01-14 01:37 PM | Reply

Trump has no idea where the buck stops.

But, I bet he is going to find out.

#13 | Posted by donnerboy at 2019-01-14 06:45 PM | Reply

Donald Trump: "The buck stops anywhere but here."

You mean "The buck stops in my bank account...oh not that kinda buck, where's my putter?"

#14 | Posted by jpw at 2019-01-14 08:51 PM | Reply

Trump: I don't care where the buck stops as long as I get the bucks.

#15 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-01-14 09:04 PM | Reply

"As long as the collusion is the excuse for Clinton's choke-job, there's no reason to change anything and you will end up with Harris/Biden/Booker. I never thought it was possible, but the CFAPpers are halfway there."

What a huge pile of excrement. If Democrats aren't absolutely perfect they can't call out Repulicans for treason. You're simply nuts.

#16 | Posted by danni at 2019-01-15 09:04 AM | Reply

"Now, 100 known contacts later, it is obviously a lie."

We all know it but why are Republicans allowing it? Where is their patriotism? Oh, they sold it, I forgot.

#17 | Posted by danni at 2019-01-15 09:05 AM | Reply

I will predict one thing, our children's children will remember the history we are making today and they will revile those who went along. Nazi collaborators one and all. Don't deny it, we all know it is true. I will be sure to teach my grandchildren to hate you. Bet on it. We have a traitor in the White House and y'all think it's ok to cooperate with him? Mitch McConnell is a traitor to his country and Republicans have a duty to bring him down. We could open the government overnight if he would just allow a vote on the bill to open it without the wall funding. How dare any President shut down the government just because Congress will not obey him? Democrats need to hold firm, tell Trump to go to hell, he will never win. We are not yet a dictatorship even if that pisses him off.

#18 | Posted by danni at 2019-01-15 09:10 AM | Reply

What a huge pile of excrement. If Democrats aren't absolutely perfect they can't call out Repulicans for treason. You're simply nuts.

Democratic perfection or lack thereof has nothing to do with anything. Democrats refusing to learn from their mistakes, because everything has to be a Russian plot to absolve them of any accountability for their failures, will ruin them in the upcoming election.

You can either push your party to a pro-labor antiwar populist, or convince yourself that you can shame people into voting for a CFAPper by calling them racist, sexist or comrade. It worked great for you last time.

#19 | Posted by Ben_Berkkake at 2019-01-15 11:27 AM | Reply

everything has to be a Russian plot

#19 | Posted by Ben_Berkkake at

Just the one thing, son. Just the one thing.

#20 | Posted by Zed at 2019-01-15 11:36 AM | Reply

It worked great for you last time.

#19 | Posted by Ben_Berkkake at 2019-01

Where do you people get the chutzpah to lecture?

#21 | Posted by Zed at 2019-01-15 11:36 AM | Reply

: "The buck stops everywhere."

More like.. "The buck pays back the Russians."

#22 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2019-01-15 12:08 PM | Reply

Just the one thing, son. Just the one thing.

Tulsi Gabbard has announced she's running for one day, and a CFAPtard is already suggesting she has ties to Russia.

Anyone without the purest of Clinton cuckery will be called a Russian sympathizer, and every one of those articles will be posted to the front page as fact. If you want to know the journalists who will be carrying the water for the future Russian mythology, they sent their articles to Podesta in 2016 and ended up with promotions as a result of their loyalty. For example, a self-identified hack like Glenn Thrush.

Watching the populists take your party from you this election is going to be fantastic. They can't burn you CFAP douche bags to the ground fast enough. Listening to you cry about the Russians while your world burns will be icing on the cake.

#23 | Posted by Ben_Berkkake at 2019-01-15 01:14 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

"Tulsi Gabbard has announced she's running for one day, and a CFAPtard is already suggesting she has ties to Russia."

I said she hired a press person, Chris Cooper, who worked with Veselnitskaya and Akhmetshin, two Trump Tower mtg attendees, to help promote the anti-Bill Browder/Magnitsky act film in DC:

www.drudge.com

"Anyone without the purest of Clinton cuckery will be called a Russian sympathizer,"

Yeah, that's why I said a few posts later:

"Let's stay away from the Coopers and the Simpsons; the Manforts, Podestas, Craigs and Webers. And even though I've always thought he was a good guy, I hope Bernie doesn't use Tad Devine in such a high level role this next time around. My 2 cents. YMMV."

#24 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-01-15 01:37 PM | Reply

Gal, you are going to do everything you can to run your party's best candidate into the ground. It's only day one, you're just getting started.

Biden/Harris 2020

#25 | Posted by Ben_Berkkake at 2019-01-15 01:40 PM | Reply

"Watching the populists take your party from you this election is going to be fantastic. They can't burn you CFAP douche bags to the ground fast enough. Listening to you cry about the Russians while your world burns will be icing on the cake."

I'd rather have Bernie than Tulsi. If you want to go progressive, why not go with the real thing rather than someone like Gabbard, who is a mixed bag at best?

#26 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-01-15 01:40 PM | Reply

"Gal, you are going to do everything you can to run your party's best candidate into the ground. It's only day one, you're just getting started."

Tulsi is the Dems best candidate? I don't think so at this point. See my post above.

#27 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-01-15 01:41 PM | Reply

I'd rather have Bernie than Tulsi. If you want to go progressive, why not go with the real thing rather than someone like Gabbard, who is a mixed bag at best?

You don't want either of them.

CFAP will let you know what you want. Standby for your orders.

#28 | Posted by Ben_Berkkake at 2019-01-15 01:42 PM | Reply

#28 LOL I don't take my orders from Hillary Clinton. I voted for Obama in the '08 primary, and I'm pretty sure I would have voted for Biden in '16 had he run (barring some gigantic unforeseen gaffe on his part).

#29 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-01-15 01:48 PM | Reply

#23 | Posted by Ben_Berkkake at 2019

I think you've given up on Trump but aren't going to say so directly out of pride.

When you deal with the sh-- you've helped heap into your own living room we can talk about any future, theoretical, barn animals.

#30 | Posted by Zed at 2019-01-15 02:07 PM | Reply

"stars like AOC and Tulsi will never have a chance."

They might both be stars, but they are not interchangeable. AOC, like Bernie, is the true progressive. Tulsi, who supported Trump and The GOP's tax cut for the 1%, not so much.

#31 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-01-15 02:21 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

You know, Ben_Berkkake, you've got a real Sheeple vibe about you:

"Watching the populists take your party from you this election is going to be fantastic. They can't burn you CFAP douche bags to the ground fast enough. Listening to you cry about the Russians while your world burns will be icing on the cake."

Why would the populists taking over the Democratic party burn my world to the ground?

#32 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-01-15 02:24 PM | Reply

Progressives not Populists are going to take over the Democratic Party, The Green New Deal is the issue which is going to take over America. It's jobs, its the environment, it's hope for the future. It's truly what we need to rip the controls of the country away from the 1%, the fossil fuel industry (the Koch brothers), MIC, etc. Every Democrat should get on board this train before it leaves the station, once it is gaining strength it will be too late, those not on board will be left by the side of the tracks.

#33 | Posted by danni at 2019-01-15 02:35 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Danni,

Do you realize the amount of land needed to have all-renewable electricity (wind and solar)? Twice the square mileage of California. Are you aware that the average lifespan of a wind turbine is 12-15 years?

Don't allow yourself to get all nostalgiac over a "New Green Deal".

#34 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-01-15 02:38 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

"Progressives not Populists are going to take over the Democratic Party,"

Thanks for the clarification, Danni.

#35 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-01-15 02:40 PM | Reply

"Twice the square mileage of California."

Nonsense.
offgridworld.com
solar.gwu.edu

#36 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-15 02:42 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Danni,
Do you realize the amount of land needed to have all-renewable electricity (wind and solar)? Twice the square mileage of California. Are you aware that the average lifespan of a wind turbine is 12-15 years?"

The efficiency of solar cells increases every day and the cost is dropping below the cost of producing electricity with fossil fuels. If not now, when? Jeff can drown as global warming ends human existence, which may be inevitable, but I prefer to take on the challenge with every ounce of strength we posess. It's only the human race we are trying to save. We will probably fall short of a complete fix but we should still try the best we can to retain as much of the world as we can. The one thing I think we can truly see clearly, those making billions from fossil fuels will not be the leaders who lead us to our best possible future. They go along with progress kicking and screaming all the way.

#37 | Posted by danni at 2019-01-15 02:50 PM | Reply

The 'Green New Deal' isn't just ambitious --- it's insane
Read more at
www.jewishworldreview.com

#38 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-01-15 02:55 PM | Reply

>i>Do you realize the amount of land needed to have all-renewable electricity (wind and solar)

The party seeking to build a 2,000 mile border wall doesn't get to complain about public land use.

#39 | Posted by JOE at 2019-01-15 02:56 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"The 'Green New Deal' isn't just ambitious --- it's insane"

Not doing it is insane, we could fail, but even failure would put us in a much better position than we are in today. What's your idea Nulli? Do nothing?

#40 | Posted by danni at 2019-01-15 02:58 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"Because the Green New Deal aspires to achieve all of socialism in one energy plan...."

I stopped right there.

Calling something "insane" while drowning in hyperbole is laughable.

#41 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-15 02:59 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

""First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win"

Mahatma Gandhi.

#42 | Posted by danni at 2019-01-15 03:00 PM | Reply

"Are you aware that the average lifespan of a wind turbine is 12-15 years?"

What's the average life span of a pile of coal ash?

#43 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-01-15 03:03 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Do you realize the amount of land needed to have all-renewable electricity (wind and solar)? Twice the square mileage of California. Are you aware that the average lifespan of a wind turbine is 12-15 years?
Don't allow yourself to get all nostalgiac over a "New Green Deal".

#34 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

This is where we need a "citation needed" flag.

That area of solar cells would produce the entire world's energy demand -- twice.

#44 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2019-01-15 03:05 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

"Are you aware that the average lifespan of a wind turbine is 12-15 years?"

What's the average life span of a pile of coal ash?
#43 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

What is average airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow?

#45 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2019-01-15 03:06 PM | Reply

Somewhere, Jeff is feverishly googling for polluter-provided talking points to help him argue against saving humanity.

#46 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-01-15 03:10 PM | Reply

This is where we need a "citation needed" flag.

Here you go, Dr Jones:

Four days earlier, to much less fanfare, two Harvard researchers published a paper showing that trying to fuel our energy-intensive society solely with renewables would require cartoonish amounts of land. How cartoonish? Consider: meeting America's current demand for electricity alone -- not including gasoline or jet fuel, or the natural gas required for things like space heating and fertilizer production -- would require covering a territory twice the size of California with wind turbines.

www.city-journal.org

#47 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-01-15 03:17 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 2

What is average airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow?

#45 | POSTED BY INDIANAJONES

What do you mean, European or African swallow?

#48 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-01-15 03:18 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

From the same source in #47:

But the new study, published in Environmental Research Letters, shows yet again that wind energy's Achilles heel is its paltry power density. "We found that the average power density -- meaning the rate of energy generation divided by the encompassing area of the wind plant -- was up to 100 times lower than estimates by some leading energy experts," said lead author Lee Miller, a postdoctoral fellow who coauthored the report with Harvard physics professor David Keith. The problem is that most estimates of wind energy's potential ignore "wind shadow," an effect that occurs when turbines are placed too closely together: the upwind turbines rob wind speed from others placed downwind.

The study looks at 2016 energy-production data from 1,150 solar projects and 411 onshore wind projects. The combined capacity of the wind projects totaled 43,000 megawatts, or roughly half of all U.S. wind capacity that year. Miller and Keith concluded that solar panels produce about 10 times more energy per unit of land as wind turbines -- a significant finding -- but their work demands attention for two other reasons: first, it uses real-world data, not models, to reach its conclusions, and second, it shows that wind energy's power density is far lower than the Department of Energy, the IPCC, and numerous academics have claimed.

#49 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-01-15 03:21 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

www.city-journal.org

#47 | Posted by JeffJ

Try again.

offgridworld.com

How much land would it take to power the USA with solar energy? About this much. 2.8 acres per 1GWh. Solar would have to produce about 4 million GWh of electricity annually to provide enough energy to power the entire USA. At 2.8 acres per GWh, then about 11,200,000 acres of land would give us what we need to produce the 4,000,000 GWh of solar power. There's 1.8 billion acres of land in the USA, so about 0.6% of our land is all it would take. Wait, "all it would take"? 11.2 million acres is a huge amount of land, right? Yes and no. Now I probably would not want to build an 11.2 million acre solar farm, but spread out across the whole country that's very reasonable. If every single family home roof top in America were covered in solar panels for example that would give us about half of the energy.

The average roof size in America is a little more than 2000 square feet, it's more, but for simplicity and round numbers (because round numbers are easier) we'll use the 2000 sqft measurement. Now, there are approximately 118 million homes in the USA, multiply that by 2000 square foot average, and that equates to 236 billion square feet, or 5.4 million acres of space (43,560 square feet per acre). This would help us reach about half of our 11.2 million acre goal. The rest of the solar generation area could be in the deserts and fields spread out across the USA.

Don't forget, this only counts the single family homes, not apartment buildings, or multi family homes. It also does not count the millions of office buildings. Which could be solar power generators themselves with the new solar thin film technology which could be installed on every window of every building in the whole USA, essentially turning every building into a solar energy generating tower.

#50 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-01-15 03:22 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Speaks,

My source was talking about wind, not solar.

#51 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-01-15 03:22 PM | Reply

Solar technology definitely has far more potential and upside than wind.

#52 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-01-15 03:24 PM | Reply

Trump is more than happy to speak alone, one on one with Putin. But he refuses to speak with Mueller. Just how stupid do you have to be not to realize Trump is Putin's bitch? lol

#53 | Posted by moder8 at 2019-01-15 03:30 PM | Reply

"Solar technology definitely has far more potential and upside than wind.
#52 | POSTED BY JEFFJ"

Wind power opened the New World to trade and exploration, and before that, the Old World.

What's solar going to do to compete with that, unless you're envisioning leaving the solar system on a giant solar sail.

I'm calling BS, unless it's just you leaving on a solar sail, in which case, Bon Voyage!

#54 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-01-15 03:37 PM | Reply

Speaks,

My source was talking about wind, not solar.

#51 | Posted by JeffJ

Noted, but some places have more wind energy available than solar. The fields outside of chicago for example are excellent places for wind turbines. Not good year round sun, but reliable year round wind.

#55 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-01-15 03:39 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

At 2.8 acres per GWh, then about 11,200,000 acres of land would give us what we need to produce the 4,000,000 GWh of solar power.

We have had this discussion, looking at the world's largest solar farms as of October 2018 (5 largest solar farms in the world) that number currently is actually 6,486 acres per GWh, or 2300 times more land than "Eric" estimates in your linked article. You can do the math on how large an area currently would be needed to power the US using the actual numbers as of 2018.

#56 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-01-15 04:06 PM | Reply

"Not good year round sun, but reliable year round wind."

The leading nation in the world for renewable energy is GErmany which depends largely on solar and recives less sunlight than almost any other nation in Europe. I would imagine that the Green New Deal would use all sorts of energy sources which are non-polluting, probably some not yet invented.

Just this past week I saw this on 60 Minutes:

"The unlikely, eccentric inventor turning inedible plant life into fuel"

www.cbsnews.com

#57 | Posted by danni at 2019-01-15 04:07 PM | Reply

"Small single-axis PV systems require on average 2.9 acres per annual GWh – or 3.8 acres when considering all unused area that falls inside the project boundary.
Concentrating solar power plants require on average 2.7 acres for solar collectors and other equipment per annual GWh; 3.5 acres for all land enclosed within the project boundary."

www.energymanagertoday.com

#58 | Posted by danni at 2019-01-15 04:09 PM | Reply

You can do the math on how large an area currently would be needed to power the US using the actual numbers as of 2018.

#56 | Posted by Rightocenter

And you can do the math of how large an area will vanish into the ocean if we dont aggressively switch to renewable energy.

#59 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-01-15 05:09 PM | Reply

The following HTML tags are allowed in comments: a href, b, i, p, br, ul, ol, li and blockquote. Others will be stripped out. Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Anyone can join this site and make comments. To post this comment, you must sign it with your Drudge Retort username. If you can't remember your username or password, use the lost password form to request it.
Username:
Password:

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2019 World Readable

Drudge Retort