Manafort Charged by FBI

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: Liquesence

1. Trumps team member went dircectly to the MFA for dirt, whereas Hillarys team paid a third party to do it.

Trump team member worked WITH Russia, DNC funded agent gathered intelligence ON Russia.

By your logic the CIA's Russia unit should be prosecuted as traitors and agents of Russia.

a reply to: Grambler

Funny no one with a badge is mentioning that isn't it? I mean the evidence is so undeniable that eventually everyone will come to the same conclusion. So no worries. Eventually the real truth will be revealed right? It's indisputable. It can't have any other outcome. Right?


PS Tony Podesta is already being investigated for not filing. Too bad it has nothing to do with either John or the Clinton campaign which is the connection trump wants to fabricate and advance.

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: face23785

HuffPost

Prosecutors’ statement of the offense alleges Papadopoulos “made material false statements and material omissions” during a Jan. 27, 2017, interview with the FBI. He was arrested July 27. Prosecutors agreed to recommend between no prison time to six months under the plea agreement.

Papadopoulos told the FBI an overseas professor had “told him about the Russians possessing ‘dirt’ on then-candidate Hillary Clinton in the form of ‘thousands of emails,’ but stated multiple times that he learned that information prior to joining the campaign,” according to court documents. In fact, Papadopoulos was contacted after he learned he’d be joining the campaign, and the professor only mentioned the “thousands of emails” after he’d been on the Trump campaign for more than a month.

The professor, the statement indicates, had “substantial connections to Russian government officials” even though Papadopoulos claimed the professor was “a nothing.”

Oh boy, a professor connected to Russian government officials. And he didn't even lie about having contact with this professor, he lied about when it was. That really breaks the case, don't it?

Love how you're spinning this as a 'Meh.'

Read the indictment. Few things to get you started:

Funny how you included the part about him wanting to arrange a meeting, but skipped over the part that states what the meetings were supposed to be about:




US-Russia relations, foreign policy meetings, meeting with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs? That's the big deal? It's pretty standard for Presidential campaigns to have some contact with foreign governments about what their potential relationships will be like if that candidate is elected President. Clinton's campaign also communicated with the Russians about that. It's pretty normal. The only part you might be able to spin as "collusion" would be where he tried to get dirt on Clinton, but since the Clinton campaign did the same thing and that's now being labeled simply "opposition research", you'd have a hard time making that case in an unbiased manner.

The document also makes it pretty clear this guy initiated all of this on his own, trying to make himself more important to the campaign. Nowhere does it state or even insinuate that he was acting under orders from Trump. He does report what he's been doing up to campaign supervisors and foreign policy advisors. It's also worth noting the only thing the guy is charged with is lying to the FBI. Nothing he lied about was deemed illegal apparently, since he wasn't charged with any of it. Nor were any of the campaign officials he notified about what he was doing charged with anything. Maybe charges are pending, but if no other charges materialize out of this, it all sounds pretty benign.

Sorry, it is pretty meh.

a reply to: interupt42

No. I caveat excessively as it is.

Form the sounds of it, stuff going back years, FBI been on this guy for years, this here today seems bound to happen at some point anyways.

Yawn.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: windword

My argument is that the DNC and the RNC were both targeted. Both are private entities and should be responsible for their own security.

The RNC was targeted by Russian interests? Then why did they release hacked DNC communications through WikiLeaks and set up troll farms to damage Hillary, and not Trump?

originally posted by: Kali74
Current lack of 'collusion' charges doesn't mean any of the allegations were lies. Maybe you should delete some of your thesaurus and make room for some wisdom.

Well, Papadopoulos said the Russians tried and didn't get Trump on the hook.

No dirty Clinton emails from Russia were published by Team Trump, no one went to moscow...

Where is that collusion?

www.justice.gov...

a reply to: Kali74

Considering how long it has been out there, with both intelligence communities and media...yes. Not one part of it has been proven true, But many parts have been proven false. Some may simply be unverifiable, and hanging onto that as proof it could be true is a logical fallacy.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
The point is, the special council was tasked with investigating Russian interference in the 2016 us election.

And what else? Let me help you:

"...and any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation".

originally posted by: windword

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: windword

My argument is that the DNC and the RNC were both targeted. Both are private entities and should be responsible for their own security.

The RNC was targeted by Russian interests? Then why did they release hacked DNC communications through WikiLeaks and set up troll farms to damage Hillary, and not Trump?

This has already been hashed and rehashed. They attempted to get to the RNC, but couldn't because they had better security.

From CNN:

Top intelligence officials indicated on Tuesday that the GOP was also a Russian hacking target but that none of the information obtained was leaked. FBI director James Comey told a Senate panel that there was "penetration on the Republican side of the aisle and old Republican National Committee domains" no longer in use. Republicans have previously denied their organizations were hacked.

Comey said there was no sign "that the Trump campaign or the current RNC was successfully hacked."

Comey also said that the Russians "got far deeper and wider into the (Democratic National Committee) than the RNC," adding that "similar techniques were used in both cases."

US will seek forfeiture in the event that Manafort or Gates are convicted under count 2 which encompasses all of the fraud activities.

a reply to: windword

Because one hack worked and the other didn't.

If you main interest is to sow chaos in the ranks of your geopolitical opponent. It doesn't matter what you get or don't get. You use what you have however you get it.

Dirt is dirt.

Do you honestly think we don't do the same to them with whatever we get to keep them as destabilized as possible?

a reply to: windword

Yes, did you intentionally ignore those revelations? The RNC was under constant attack but had better security. They weren't using servers in a closet...

Source

That is politifact because I assume you will accept that source. There are dozens of others though with more details.

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Kali74

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Kali74
Flynn or Page next?

Or someone from parts 20 on in the indictment.

You know, company A or B that lobbied for Russia.

Now who would would that be....

Why don't you tell us? Just remember that the Democrats wanted Ukraine on Europe's side and the Republicans wanted Ukraine on the Russia side.

Show me evidence of that.

What we do know is that the podesta group was lobbying to have russsians sanctions lifted.

Didn't John Podesta leave the Podesta Group in 1993, 25 years ago?

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: Grambler

This happened during the RNC.

So then this does nothing to prove your assertion that in 2012 russians were using most likely the pdoesta group to lobby democrats.

You said no that couldnt be, because Repubs were pro russsia and dems were anti, but that doesnt seem to be the case.

Just a quick word on the Podesta group. They are a lobbying/PR group for hire. They work for profit and aren't picky about where those profits come from. They've worked for Democrats and Republicans.

originally posted by: Kali74
Just a quick word on the Podesta group. They are a lobbying group for hire. They work for profit and aren't picky about where those profits come from. They've worked for Democrats and Republicans.

... or Russians?

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

I don't think he's accusing you of anything. I think he's just spiking the football.

Yeah spiking it from the 40 yard line

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Kali74
Just a quick word on the Podesta group. They are a lobbying group for hire. They work for profit and aren't picky about where those profits come from. They've worked for Democrats and Republicans.

... or Russians?

and Russians.

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: Liquesence

1. Trumps team member went dircectly to the MFA for dirt, whereas Hillarys team paid a third party to do it.

Trump team member worked WITH Russia, DNC funded agent gathered intelligence ON Russia.

By your logic the CIA's Russia unit should be prosecuted as traitors and agents of Russia.

No thats not the case at all. The dmes were paying for dirt on Trump. They were not the CIA or FBI, they paid a foreign agent to get dirt on trump from the kremlin.

If your argument is that because they were just trying to get dirt on Trump is was spying on russia, then Trump team could say the same thing; they were just trying to spy on Russia by seeing what shady connectuons they had to Hillary.

Both campaigns did roughly the same thing; they both tried to use russia to get dirt on the other.

except one party used an intermediary, and actually got dirt.