Manafort may have worked with Podesta group to influence policy for Russia through Hillary

a reply to: Mike.Ockizard

They get in on other stories too that use unnamed sources but their still called fake news by the people I'm talking about.

Just having more media places reporting on it doesn't change anything about the point I was making.

originally posted by: loam
F

Criminal activity and plenty of cash for all the corrupt Dems involved.

Manafort infiltrates the Trump candidacy, after working for Podesta on behalf of Russia to the benefit of the Clintons. Trump accepts his resignation early enough to recover from what would have been Trump's certain downfall, allowing Manafort to run his campaign. Manafort was Hillary's "Get to be President for free card". She never expected to have to work for it, work the flyover States populated by "deplorables".

Then when she lost, she activated her revenge button, exposing Manafort's Russia ties which were actually hers. Uranium One is going to blow up in their faces and set off the Dominoes to land at Hillary's feet. She expects it to all go away like the Whitewater files that were in her closet with her fingerprints on them. Sure that happened and she did get away with it, but this is too big and she is powerless with a Dem Party that is imploding to protect her this time. She may find herself under Putin's bus as he cruises on to bigger and better things with the Democrat Party without her.

a reply to: mOjOm
We should all strive for consistency.

In fact, I raised concerns about unamed sources on the story about Clintons paying for the dossier (though it appears that may be the case).

I fully admit this source could be a total fake.

But if true, it is very damning.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Reality Winner. Anthony Weiner. Huma Abideen. Harvey Weinstein.

That's the swamp? Reality Winner is 20-someting low-level NSA contractor who leaked a document to The Intercept. Anthony Weiner hasn't been in office in how long? Huma Abedeen was doing what as of Nov 8th, 2016? And Harvey Weinstein? He donated about 1/10 the amount of money to Democrats in 26 years than Robert Mercer spent getting Trump elected in one.

Between 1999 and 2000, Weinstein donated approximately $1 million to Democratic candidates and $517,882 to Democratic Party organizations, including the Democratic National Committee and other state-level entities.

Through a process called “bundling”—raising funds on behalf of a candidate from friends, family, and associates—Weinstein raised $1,422,683 for federal candidates and political entities between 1990 and last year.

$1.4 million in 26 years?

I heard a janitor that voted Democrat once got laid off. Swamp is drained. The funniest part isn't that you're just naming a few names of ultimately inconsequential people and claiming it as evidence of the "swamp being drained" — it's that Trump never had any intention of draining any swamp. It was a slogan that his campaign (possibly Cambrige Analytica) dusted off (like "Make America Great Again") and got him to say.

Whatever. You know what, if it makes you feel good, you're right, swamp is totally draining.

a reply to: Grambler

Oh zowie wow ... I am still having a very hard time to get a proper grip on this . Can you imagine how bad this info is going to be ,not for the saner liberals but for the snowflakes . I hope Paul Joseph Watson takes it easy on them .

a reply to: Grambler

If this is true, and I'm *highly* skeptical, Manafort, Tony Podesta and anyone else involved should be locked up. Period. If Tony Podesta is as corrupt as Paul Manafort, pretty much anything is possible though.

However, it really doesn't disprove anything regarding the election. In fact, it tends to strengthen the case for Manafort being not only an agent of Putin's bitch Yanukovych, who also happens to pal around with a bunch of Russian/Ukrainian gangsters and oligarchs, but as a Kremlin operative working to influence US foreign policy from the top levels outside of legal channels. In fact, in a pretty f'ing subversive manner.

And over all of course, it would point to Russia being a much larger threat to US politics than Trump and his supporters have been incessantly claiming.

Oh, and it would also indicate that Mueller's team is in fact doing a thorough job.

My gut feeling is that it's BS though. Excitement over The Hill article about Mikerin seems to have kicked off some activity but it doesn't necessarily mean anything. If you got sucked in by the hype, you'd think Trump was on the verge of being impeached about a dozen times so far.

I do think the DNC/Clinton funding to Fusion GPS might bear out however. It makes sense. (who else with deep pockets would be paying for Trump oppo research?) But the same source for that is also claiming that the DNC and Clinton contributed unspecified amounts and that the compiled dossier never actually went to the Clinton campaign.

Well, if nothing else maybe this will get right-wingers to take the Russian threat more seriously. The fawning over Putin has been nauseating.

But it smells like BS to me. The timing is of course SUPER convenient. It's of course an anonymous source and the reason given was what again?

"The insider claimed that he is tired of the media narrative on the Russia story."

That doesn't sound a bit... off? Reporting on Team Trump and Russia has been declining. There hasn't been any substantive developments in weeks. So he waits till he peek of the Trump/GOP counter narrative frenzy to get "tired of the media narrative?"

a reply to: theantediluvian

It could be BS, we will see.

I think you leave out that if its true, Hillary knowingly helped russis in her time as SoS.

Thats damning.

The fusion GPS story, in conjunction that apparently the Obama admin used it to help get Fisa warrants, is already a scandal of epic proportions, far outweighing anything Russia has been accused of.

Here is NBC news reporting on this story, backing up
Tucker's story.

www.nbcnews.com...

WASHINGTON — Tony Podesta and the Podesta Group are now the subjects of a federal investigation being led by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, three sources with knowledge of the matter told NBC News. The probe of Podesta and his Democratic-leaning lobbying firm grew out of Mueller's inquiry into the finances of former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, according to the sources. As special counsel, Mueller has been tasked with investigating possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. Manafort had organized a public relations campaign for a non-profit called the European Centre for a Modern Ukraine (ECMU). Podesta's company was one of many firms that worked on the campaign, which promoted Ukraine's image in the West. The sources said the investigation into Podesta and his company began as more of a fact-finding mission about the ECMU and Manafort's role in the campaign, but has now morphed into a criminal inquiry into whether the firm violated the Foreign Agents Registration Act, known as FARA.

Democrats are about to turn on the Clintons. They have to take the fall or they will all “swing from nooses.”

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Grambler

It's of course an anonymous source and the reason given was what again?

Carlson said "for the time being". But we actually know something about that anonymous source. He/She was a former senior employee of the Podesta Group and worked there for years. With that information, anybody armed with a keyboard could likely produce a shortlist. But what's the point. Carlson broke the story and they clearly intend to reveal more. Perhaps they are lawyering up to orchestrate the big reveal. If that doesn't happen, it will be the worst moment of Carsoln's career.

"The insider claimed that he is tired of the media narrative on the Russia story."

That doesn't sound a bit... off?

Wait. I thought you guys oppose Russian interference in US politics? So here we have a source, presumably prepared to reveal their identity, that wants to tell the public there really were Russians in US politics, just not in the way the media portrays.

But you see that as off?

Why can't this source be genuinely motivated to want to stop the Russian influence....wherever...it...may...be...found???

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: mOjOm
We should all strive for consistency.

In fact, I raised concerns about unamed sources on the story about Clintons paying for the dossier (though it appears that may be the case).

I fully admit this source could be a total fake.

But if true, it is very damning.

Means nothing not sure why people think its important. Political campaigns pay for opposition research.

a reply to: dragonridr

I guess you didn't see this post addressed to you in the other thread.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: Grambler



You would be right but im sceptical this would mean two people trying to come forward,odd that they waited until now dont you think? So my first question is what changed that suddenly everyone wants to tell their story?

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: Grambler
So my first question is what changed that suddenly everyone wants to tell their story?

I think the two sources are unrelated. The timing is coincidence.

The Podesta source may have been motivated by Muellers recent investigation of Tony Podesta. Perhaps the source is concerned about their involvement in the matter and is seeking an opportunity to publicly frame the issue before they would be prevented from doing so, once subject to an investigation.

originally posted by: loam
a reply to: dragonridr

I guess you didn't see this post addressed to you in the other thread.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I see alot of theory but fact remains it doesnt matter, the only way it would be relevant is if Russia paid for it. Make that link then you have something.

originally posted by: loam

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: Grambler
So my first question is what changed that suddenly everyone wants to tell their story?

I think the two sources are unrelated. The timing is coincidence.

The Podesta source may have been motivated by Muellers recent investigation of Tony Podesta. Perhaps the source is concerned about their involvement in the matter and is seeking an opportunity to publicly frame the issue before they would be prevented from doing so, once subject to an investigation.

Possible but i really dont believe in coincidences, in my experience there is no such thing in politics. I have a theory but no evidence to prove it. What i think happened is Hillary popped her head backout into the sun light. This caused someone to decide to lop her head off rather then have her get back in to politics. None of this came out until she said shes not going any where.

Does anyone see it as a possibility that Trump outed Manafort?
If he found out about all of these backstories after he won the election, it is possible that he is playing this game.... where he is supposedly against the ropes... then it all gets flipped. I honestly don't think that is what happened, but just entertaining the possibility.

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: elementalgrove
a reply to: Grambler

Man it just keeps getting better!

Its starting to look bad for the Hillary camp. Crack after crack coming into the narrative this week.

If this is true, then the Mueller investigation may infact be aimed at the Podestas and Hillary.

Truly remarkable.

The thing is, Meuller knows already who the corrupt people are, from his investigations before the U1 deal was signed.

He and the rest of the big names kept it from congress and the public.

Mueller needs to be investigated himself for obstruction and maybe more.

Also needs to be fired.

There is so much backstory, it's crazy.

a reply to: loam


That's pretty good.

Give or take a few details and people, like Holder and Lynch and some mystery repub that started the dossier. (i don't believe that for a second tho)

Comey and Obama, geeze, all of them, IRS, EPA god knows who else, BLM! (not the marching cop killing one)

All 9 agencies that signed off.

"i was just following orders" came to mind for some reason.

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: mOjOm
We should all strive for consistency.

In fact, I raised concerns about unamed sources on the story about Clintons paying for the dossier (though it appears that may be the case).

I fully admit this source could be a total fake.

But if true, it is very damning.

Means nothing not sure why people think its important. Political campaigns pay for opposition research.

I disagree.

First, it proves at the very least that all of the outrage of Trump or his team supposedly working with Russians by dems is fake; they knew they were paying foreign agents to work with Russians connected to the Kremlin for dirt on Trump.

more importantly, its not just that it was opposition research. Its that that research was apparently then used as part of the reason to get Fisa court warrants to survey people in Trumps campaign. That is an insane level of corruption that is beyond anything Russia has been accused of.