Manafort Charged by FBI

a reply to: intrptr

You can read the indictments. There is a link on this page.
www.nbcnews.com...

It is a download. I'll keep looking for an online version for you.

a reply to: windword

Except, the troll farms were pointless. Any "fake news" they put out had nothing to do with Hillary being the worst candidate in the history of mankind.

I could likely have beaten her.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: face23785

How naive. Foreign policy meetings? Before the election? Okay.

So when Obama met with a bunch of foreign leaders during his campaign you think foreign policy was mentioned precisely zero times?

Talk about naive.

It's here
www.businessinsider.com...

a reply to: face23785

So when this is about Obama I'll get on board with your off topic post. Til then...

Bottom line.... there is exactly zero evidence that I can see in this indictment that proves Trump colluded with Russians.

Everything else is just spin on whatever side of the fence your feet happen to be on.

Maybe in 10 months we will get another indictment.

a reply to: Sillyolme

It's about whether it's naive to think a Presidential candidate wouldn't discuss his potential foreign policy under his presidency, which you were extremely naive about and now can't admit you were wrong on. Candidates discuss all kinds of things they might do if they become president, that's kind of the nature of campaigning. Crying "off topic" once you've been proven wrong is weak.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: face23785

So when this is about Obama I'll get on board with your off topic post. Til then...

It's about history. Other candidates meet with foreign dignitaries and leaders. Obama just happens to have been the most recent candidate.

But I suppose if you want to think this is a bad thing no candidate should do ... then I guess I can understand your reluctance to engage. Otherwise, you have to admit this is normal. Presidential candidates, even ones who don't succeed, are often politically important people. It makes sense to meet with them.

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: soberbacchus

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?

John is still heavily involved. It is ran by his brother.

Can you provide links or evidence that he is still heavily involved?

Not propaganda?

Some financial documents or company literature showing that he remains a heavy stake holder in the firm he left 25 years ago?

Thanks in advance. Just trying to help you produce a little more smoke and distraction here.

Fair question.

Other than what I already showed about Tonys work for Hillary, and how she sent him to cover for the sud two weeks after her husband met with them, and how he apparently was a common figure around Hillary and Obama, there is this.

Here is an article by the liberal Huffington post decrying Hillarys connections to the Podesta group.


f I told you that Democratic Party lobbyist Tony Podesta, whose brother John Podesta chairs Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, is a registered foreign agent on the Saudi government’s payroll, you’d probably think I was a Trump-thumping, conspiratorial nutcase. But it’s true.

The lobby firm created by both Tony and John Podesta in 1988 receives $140,000 a month from the Saudi government, a government that beheads nonviolent dissidents, uses torture to extract forced confessions, doesn’t allow women to drive, and bombs schools, hospitals and residential neighborhoods in neighboring Yemen.

The Podesta Group’s March 2016 filing, required under the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, shows that Tony Podesta himself oversees the Saudi account. At the same time, Tony Podesta is also a top campaign contributor and bundler for Hillary Clinton. So while one brother runs the campaign, the other brother funds it with earnings that come, in part, from the Saudis.

John and Tony Podesta have been heavyweights in DC insider politics for decades. John Podesta served as President Bill Clinton’s chief of staff, founded the influential DC think tank Center for American Progress (which regularly touts Saudi “reforms”), and was counselor to President Obama. Tony Podesta was dubbed by the New York Times as “one of Washington’s biggest players“ whose clients “are going to get a blueprint for how to succeed in official Washington.”

The brothers seem to have no problem mixing their roles into the same pot. Tony Podesta held a Clinton campaign fundraiser at his home featuring gourmet Italian food cooked by himself and his brother, the campaign chairman. The fundraiser, by the way, came just days after Tony Podesta filed his Saudi contract with the Justice Department, a contract that included an initial “project fee” payment of $200,000.

www.huffingtonpost.com...

This is so House of Cards I am laughing. I can just imagine the phone calls, back alley meetings, etc. "If you press on with Russia collusion, we're going to open the Uranium 1 can of worms"

This is going to be a GREAT year!

If I could have just ONE thing for Christmas, it would be Hillary in prison. Dear Santa..... lol!

a reply to: intrptr

I fool people? Not that I know of.

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: face23785

How naive. Foreign policy meetings? Before the election? Okay.

So when Obama met with a bunch of foreign leaders during his campaign you think foreign policy was mentioned precisely zero times?

Talk about naive.

Just curious, are you able to discuss the topic at all without bringing Hillary and/or Obama into it?

If not, that's probably something you should think about. No where in any of the documents released today does it say anything about Obama or Hillary.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: windword

Except, the troll farms were pointless. Any "fake news" they put out had nothing to do with Hillary being the worst candidate in the history of mankind.

I could likely have beaten her.

so those lies about uranium one were never repeated, say here?

originally posted by: RickinVa

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: RickinVa

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: raymundoko

It's for business dealings up to 2015.

No. First page of the indictment:

MANAFORT and GATES generated tens of millions of dollars in income as a result of their Ukraine work. In order to hide Ukraine payments from United States authorities, from approximately 2006 through at least 2016, MANAFORT and GATES laundered the money through scores of United States and foreign corporations, partnerships, and bank accounts.

If you look at the actual evidence in the indictment, it is plain to see that none of the money laundering charges go past 2013.

On "Money Laundering" the last pay out is in 9/11/2014, not 2013.
It was for almost 60k to a clothing store in NYC.
All-in he paid that clothing store almost 850k.

But more to the point, in order for "Money Laundering" to occur, money must leave those shell corporations.

Will be interesting to see what has been deposited, but not withdrawn.

As far as the Indictment as a whole, he lied to the FBI and IRS repeatedly up through 2016.

13 charges are for wire transfers prior to 2015.

The other accusations and most recent accusations deal with real estate fraud. Has nothing to do with Russians other than that's where he got the money to purchase the real estate.

Specifically, he laundered money by taking out loans on properties for more than their worth and then never paid it back.

This requires a willing partner giving the loan, over-looking that the loan is worth more than the property and then not reporting the default on the loan to anyone.

SEE HERE FROM MAY:

On August 19, 2016, Manafort left the Trump campaign amid media reports about his previous work for a pro-Russian political party in Ukraine, including allegations he received millions of dollars in payments.

That same day, Manafort created a holding company called Summerbreeze LLC.

Several weeks later, a document called a UCC filed with the state of New York shows that Summerbreeze took out a $3.5 million loan on Manafort’s home in the tony beach enclave of Bridgehampton.

Manafort’s name does not appear on the UCC filing, but Summerbreeze LLC gives his Florida address as a contact, and lists his Bridgehampton home as collateral.

A review of New York state and Suffolk County records shows the loan was made by S C 3, a subsidiary of Spruce Capital,

which was co-founded by Joshua Crane, who has partnered with Donald Trump on real estate deals.

Spruce is also partially funded by Ukrainian-American real-estate magnate Alexander Rovt, who tried to donate $10,000 to Trump’s presidential campaign on Election Day but had all but the legal maximum of $2,700 returned.

www.nbcnews.com...

a reply to: cinerama

What?

Uranium One came out after the election.

a reply to: underwerks

The topic I was responding to was whether it was normal for campaigns to communicate with foreign officials. How do you discuss that without discussing past candidates?

Most of my posts in this topic have had nothing to do with Clinton or Obama. Obama wasn't even the point of that post. The point was, candidates do do this. Maybe you should think about why you got so defensive over a post about Obama doing nothing wrong.

a reply to: RickinVa

The 4th estate engaged in a kangaroo court. Worse, there will be no retribution.

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: soberbacchus

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?

John is still heavily involved. It is ran by his brother.

Can you provide links or evidence that he is still heavily involved?

Not propaganda?

Some financial documents or company literature showing that he remains a heavy stake holder in the firm he left 25 years ago?

Thanks in advance. Just trying to help you produce a little more smoke and distraction here.

Fair question.

If that was a fair question , then why did you not answer it?

The question of "Has the Podesta group ever lobbied for Democrats?"
Yes.
Have they Lobbied for Republicans?
Yes.
Have they lobbied for foreign Governments?
Probably? Sure?

But you claimed that John Podesta was still heavily involved in the Podesta Group despite having left the company 25 years ago.

Please support that claim.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: RickinVa

The 4th estate engaged in a kangaroo court. Worse, there will be no retribution.

Manafort’s Judge Was Obama & Hillary’s Top Pick for Supreme Court

truepundit.com...

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
None of which requires a special prosecutor. Fishing expedition.

I didn't know non-citizens such as yourself were suddenly an expert on how the United States Justice Department should function. Perhaps you should ask for an appointment and lend your obvious expertise.