For a community of interest such as this forum that is all too familiar with the mechanisms of systemic denialism, it is quite remarkable how in this and other threads some continue to deny and ridicule the concept of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government in the 2016 election, and the likely deeper history with Trump's financial web, in the face of growing evidence and data points.
The following article highlights the Trump administration's immediate attempts to ease sanctions against Russia WRT the illegal and immoral Crimean occupation, foiled by Obama holdovers in the State Dept.
Can anyone say quid pro quo?
https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-administrations-secret-efforts-ease-russia-sanctions-fell-short-231301145.htmlUnknown to the public at the time, top Trump administration officials, almost as soon as they took office, tasked State Department staffers with developing proposals for the lifting of economic sanctions, the return of diplomatic compounds and other steps to relieve tensions with Moscow.
These efforts to relax or remove punitive measures imposed by President Obama in retaliation for Russia’s intervention in Ukraine and meddling in the 2016 election alarmed some State Department officials, who immediately began lobbying congressional leaders to quickly pass legislation to block the move, the sources said.
--------------------------
The following article highlights the Trump administrations intentions to return several compounds in Maryland to Russia, which were ordered to be vacated as part of the Obama administration's response to Russian interference in the 2016 election.
Can anyone say quid pro quo?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/officials-us-mulls-return-of-russian-diplomatic-compounds/2017/06/01/4997970c-46f6-11e7-8de1-cec59a9bf4b1_story.html?utm_term=.4e7c119dbdc0Early last month, the Trump administration told the Russians that it would consider turning the properties back over to them if Moscow would lift its freeze, imposed in 2014 in retaliation for U.S. sanctions related to Ukraine, on construction of a new U.S. consulate on a certain parcel of land in St. Petersburg.
Two days later, the U.S. position changed. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson told Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak at a meeting in Washington that the United States had dropped any linkage between the compounds and the consulate, according to several people with knowledge of the exchanges.
---------------------------------
The following article highlights the sequence of events related to Jared Kushner's meeting with the chief executive of Putin allied bank Vnesheconombank in December 2016 during the transition period. The bank has been under sanctions since 2014, and the meeting came at a time when Kushner was seeking funding for a troubled $1.8 billion piece of NY real estate.
Can anyone say quid pro quo?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/explanations-for-kushners-meeting-with-head-of-kremlin-linked-bank-dont-match-up/2017/06/01/dd1bdbb0-460a-11e7-bcde-624ad94170ab_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-low_kushnerbank-7pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.69346fb949b7The discrepancy has thrust Vnesheconombank, known for advancing the strategic interests of Russian President Vladimir Putin and for its role in a past U.S. espionage case, into the center of the controversy enveloping the White House. And it has highlighted the role played by the bank’s 48-year-old chief executive, Sergey Gorkov, a graduate of the academy of the Federal Security Service, or FSB, the domestic intelligence arm of the former Soviet KGB, who was appointed by Putin to the post less than a year before his encounter with Kushner.
Either account of the meeting could bring complications for a White House undergoing intensifying scrutiny from a special counsel and multiple congressional committees.
A diplomatic meeting would have provided the bank, which has been under U.S. sanctions since 2014, a chance to press for rolling back the penalties even as the Obama administration was weighing additional retaliations against Moscow for Russia’s interference in the U.S. election.
A business meeting between an international development bank and a real estate executive, coming as Kushner’s company had been seeking financing for its troubled $1.8 billion purchase of an office building on Fifth Avenue in New York, could raise questions about whether Kushner’s personal financial interests were colliding with his impending role as a public official.