Does "Trump Tower Moscow," put him in violation of FARA?

It is well documented that Trump sought permission to build a luxury building in Moscow. As far as we know, that request was never taken off of the table. Trump has a lot to gain financially from a positive relationship with Putin. Polishing Putin's image serves both of their purposes. This has FARA written all over it.

Developers ask permission before building, isn't that how it works?

What you should be asking is why did Hunter receive a $3.5M wire transfer from Elena Baturina, the wife of the former mayor of Moscow? Was is to pay for hookers, crack, or access to the WH?

You guys will twist yourselves into pretzels making excuses. Almost like you were paid. Hmmmmm.

Well, we have jobs - so yes, we're paid. It's much more satisfying than welfare....and you can look at yourself in the mirror without seeing a piece of shit.

"Gorbachev, tear down this wall" - Ronald Reagan

Reagan worked to relieve tension and start positive relations with Russia.

Your inept and clumsy attempt to rewrite history in favor of the Russia lovers, cannot be ignored. Gorbachev followed two hard-line leaders. He went on a PR mission, selling a "softer and gentler" image of his country with "Glasnost (Openness) and Perestroyka (Reform)." Reagan had 86'd the policy of Detente and started his "Star Wars." program as a build-up of high-tech arms systems to oppose Russian weapons and "aggression." His "Tear down this wall," statement was a challenge to Gorbachev to put his money where his mouth was. It was an "in your face," rather than a solicitation of peace. Your interpretation of Reagan's signature phrase of that era, is fitting for a pro-Russia troll.

Rewrite history? Reagan and Gorbachev had already built a good relationship when that speech was made....this was well known. At the time, this relationship meant an easing of tension between the two world nuclear powers...that was a huge deal at the time.

You mistake the interaction between two human beings well known to seek out personal connections as a softening of Reagan's lifelong political philosophies. Reagan never changed his anti-Communism, anti-Russian and pro-American politics, despite not having any personal animus toward Gorbachev. I was an adult working for the US Government at the time. Reagan's SDI was not proposed because Russia was easing tensions. Reagan still cast them as an aggressor state in his public comments.

Reducing tensions between the nuclear powers wasn't about making Russia our best friend, it was about preventing nuclear war and opening a dialog in order to bring the cold war to an end. At that point in American history, school children were performing nuclear attack drills at the same frequency as fire drills.

Reagan couldn't have known that his strategy to out-spend the Russians was what would ultimately bring an end to the cold-war. He was addressing the problem with multiple potential solutions - and while the diplomatic solution didn't exactly fail, it didn't have the same level of success as the military solution.

The "war of attrition," pre-dated Reagan's presidency by decades, but, he did endorse it. If you read Hedrick Smith's "The Russians," you will learn that the one part of the Russian economy that was successful was the military, because they were forced to invest their fortune there. Attrition was known, by our intelligence sources to be working as planned. I worked with Vladimir Zelman when he was a Protected Political Refugee, after escaping from Russia. He reported the same uneven economic outcomes chronicled by Smith. Ultimately the Soviet Union collapsed because Russia sucked the satellites dry and the people wouldn't work for crappy consumer goods and bad agricultural products. It imploded because attrition worked.

I can concede the point that the cold war had been waging on multiple fronts for decades before Reagan took office. Kennedy felt a piece of it with the Cuban Missile Crisis, after which a permanent line of communication was established between the USA and USSR - a step toward diplomatic resolution of issues before they could escalate to nuclear war.

I don't really understand your opposition to diplomatic relations. The fewer bodies we throw at foreign adversaries, the better - in my opinion. You seem to be hell bent on demonizing anyone who attempted it. Are you pining for the cold war to resume?

You are not the only person to confuse diplomacy with appeasement. Giving an aggressor state anything they want because they compliment you is not shrewd diplomacy. It is called "being played." And, when you let the whole world see it, you completely undercut any strength you might have had in diplomatic negotiations. I don't need to start the cold war. It never really ended. Remember what happened in Ukraine and Crimea?

Biden cleared the path for Russia to get its new pipeline, which Trump had blocked..... Who is appeasing Russia again?

I hate to argue using facts since you prefer packaged extreme right-wing propaganda, but you leave me no choice. The pipeline in question is called Nordstream 2. The "sanctions," President Pandemic "enforced," really worked well, because the people building it kept going and it is almost finished. It is being built to replace tankers that are transporting natural gas bought by European nations. Our ally, Germany needs this natural gas to meet its climate change carbon reduction goals. In order to make the use of the pipeline less sticky a process, Germany asked us to vacate sanctions against the head of the consortium building the pipeline. Biden obliged Germany and did so. The pipeline would have been completed and the gas would have flowed, no matter what Biden did. He just made things easier for an ally dealing with a Russian-based business. That is not appeasement of the Russian government.

At the expense of countries (allies) who now cannot tariff the pipelines going through their countries.

Libtard Larry stuck in the 80s