Manafort Charged by FBI

a reply to: greyhat

Carter Page went to Moscow.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: intrptr

I fool people? Not that I know of.

Hiya Silly, did you see the post I left for you on the page before this one?

Still waiting For REAL PROOF of all your claims (one liners)...

I must admit that you are incredibly intelligent with how you juggle your words... Bravo...

Thanking you in advance.

Warmest regards

Lags

a reply to: face23785

It would certainly be folly to blame Trump as well, wouldn't it?

Not if the evidence shows that Trump and his Campaign colluded with foreign operatives.

a reply to: soberbacchus

I seem to remember reading a story that one of his daughters (whom I happened to go to high school with and who actually went to the same university) had her phone hacked and had allegedly written all kinds of negative texts to her sister about the source of daddy's money...


I think the same story mentioned another LLC that Manifort had created the name of which was a combination of his two daughters names...

Can't say I knew any of them that well (I wasn't in the rich kid crowd those days), but I wonder how this will shake out for the rest of the family...

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: face23785

It would certainly be folly to blame Trump as well, wouldn't it?

Not if the evidence shows that Trump and his Campaign colluded with foreign operatives.

Nothing revealed so far indicates this at all. You could just as effectively blame David Spade.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: RickinVa

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

Right.

Strange to see the crew that chanted "Drain The Swamp" squeal and complain so loudly when massively corrupt folks get indicted.

originally posted by: face23785
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.

No defensiveness here. Just pointing out the constant deflection by yourself and others in trying to compare what the Trump admin is being investigated for to what Obama did.

What Obama may or may not have done holds no bearing on anything that's currently going on with the Trump admin. It only serves as a point of deflection.

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: face23785
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.

No defensiveness here. Just pointing out the constant deflection by yourself and others in trying to compare what the Trump admin is being investigated for to what Obama did.

What Obama may or may not have done holds no bearing on anything that's currently going on with the Trump admin. It only serves as a point of deflection.

Constant deflection = false, since most of my posts on this topic haven't involved Clinton or Obama, as I already stated and you can't disprove. The simple fact is it's not unusual for candidates to discuss their potential relationships with foreign governments if they become President. I merely used Obama to make that point, and you had no intellectual response so you had to falsely cry "deflection" even though what I posted was directly relevant to the discussion.

Got any other false claims about me?

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

He got the boot a long time ago,
once his low energy nefarious methods
were noticed.

www.nytimes.com...

a reply to: soberbacchus

Right.

Strange to see the crew that chanted "Drain The Swamp" squeal and complain so loudly when massively corrupt folks get indicted.

I'm not sure you are aware but the 4th estate and the political opposition have been seeking drastic measures, from impeachment to military response, because of the lies spread here.

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: face23785

It would certainly be folly to blame Trump as well, wouldn't it?

Not if the evidence shows that Trump and his Campaign colluded with foreign operatives.

Nothing revealed so far indicates this at all. You could just as effectively blame David Spade.

A ton of what has been "revealed" "indicates" exactly that.
But evidence is not conclusions or convictions.
I trust Mueller's conclusions will be based on critical thinking and evidence.

On another note, Manafort is 68.
Trial might go a year or two.
If convicted maybe 5-10 years for white collar crime?
Nobody wants to sunset behind bars.

Mueller apparently brought in state level prosecutors for the fraud charges, though they haven't filed yet.

The thinking being if Trump pardons Manafort for the Federal Crimes, they have immediate indictments waiting at the State Level to supplant pardoned Federal Crimes.

So the question really is, what does Manafort know and will he talk.

With regards to the Podesta Group and John Podesta:

The filings, obtained by POLITICO, appear to clean up the firm’s requirement to disclose its role in foreign lobbying that Manafort reportedly orchestrated. The Podesta Group said it believed its client was an unaffiliated European think tank. But the new paperwork suggests the Justice Department has information tying the think tank to the pro-Russian Ukrainian Party of Regions — a possible source of continuing legal trouble for Manafort, because he never disclosed his own role in the lobbying campaign.

...

Last November, the Podesta Group updated its disclosures about lobbying work for India after contacts between its chairman, Tony Podesta, and his brother, Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta, surfaced in the latter’s hacked emails. More recently, Michael Flynn, Trump’s short-lived national security adviser, retroactively disclosed lobbying that benefited the government of Turkey after initially filing under the LDA instead of FARA.

Politico

Now we just have to wait a bit to find out who Company A and Company B are and to what extent they are culpable.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: greyhat

Carter Page went to Moscow.

If ever a children's book is written on this someday, I vote for that as the title.

a reply to: soberbacchus

A ton of speculation with no evidence. Even Democrats have said there's no evidence of collusion. I know you want to pretend otherwise, but it's just not so. Please come back to the real world, it misses you.

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: face23785
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.

No defensiveness here. Just pointing out the constant deflection by yourself and others in trying to compare what the Trump admin is being investigated for to what Obama did.

What Obama may or may not have done holds no bearing on anything that's currently going on with the Trump admin. It only serves as a point of deflection.

Constant deflection = false, since most of my posts on this topic haven't involved Clinton or Obama, as I already stated and you can't disprove. The simple fact is it's not unusual for candidates to discuss their potential relationships with foreign governments if they become President. I merely used Obama to make that point, and you had no intellectual response so you had to falsely cry "deflection" even though what I posted was directly relevant to the discussion.

Got any other false claims about me?

False claims of deflection? In a thread where your entire conversation serves no other purpose than trying to deflect back to Hillary or the left?

Yeah. "False claims".

Try to intellectualize whatever logical fallacies you want, it doesn't change what they are. And everyone can see that.

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: face23785
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.

No defensiveness here. Just pointing out the constant deflection by yourself and others in trying to compare what the Trump admin is being investigated for to what Obama did.

What Obama may or may not have done holds no bearing on anything that's currently going on with the Trump admin. It only serves as a point of deflection.

Constant deflection = false, since most of my posts on this topic haven't involved Clinton or Obama, as I already stated and you can't disprove. The simple fact is it's not unusual for candidates to discuss their potential relationships with foreign governments if they become President. I merely used Obama to make that point, and you had no intellectual response so you had to falsely cry "deflection" even though what I posted was directly relevant to the discussion.

Got any other false claims about me?

False claims of deflection? In a thread where your entire conversation serves no other purpose than trying to deflect back to Hillary or the left?

Yeah. "False claims".

Try to intellectualize whatever logical fallacies you want, it doesn't change what they are. And everyone can see that.

Someone else made the point that a campaign discussing foreign policy with a foreign official before the election was ridiculous. I proved that was not ridiculous by showing how a recent candidate has done just that. Pretending that's "deflection" is just childish. "Waaaaaaaaaaa, you can't bring up past examples to prove me wrong!!!"

Grow up.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: greyhat

Carter Page went to Moscow.

Well, if you manage a fund specialized in Russian and central Asian gas and oil you have to be in Russia now and then, thats business as usual.

"Page is the founder and managing partner of Global Energy Capital, a New York investment fund and consulting firm specializing in the Russian and Central Asian oil and gas business."

en.wikipedia.org...

So, without reading through pages 12-this one, I'm just going to say that I finished up reading every word of the indictment, and the bottom line is that NONE of what is charged occurred during Trump's campaign, and especially during Manafort's couple months as campaign chief.

That said, the indictment reads like most big-dollar, multi-national entity indictments that I see regularly as part of my day job--there is a lot of IRS issues, and that's pretty much it, save for Count 10, which reads as follows:

COUNT TEN

(Unregistered Agent Of A Foreign Principal)

46. Paragraphs 1 through 36 are incorporated here.

47. From in or about and between 2008 and 2014, both dates being approximate and inclusive, within the District of Columbia and elsewhere, the defendants PAUL J. MANAFORT, JR., and RICHARD W. GATES III knowingly and willfully, without registering with the Attorney General as required by law, acted as agents of a foreign principal, to wit, the Government of Ukraine, the Party of Regions, and Yanukovych.

This, right here, is the only thing that could possibly be misconstrued as collusion as it pertains to the election (which, remember, is the issue at hand, not collusion with Russia...by anyone...ever...). But the reality is that this is NOT what the left and Hillary claims was going on.

BUT, this could be an initial stepping stone in showing collusion, but I really do not think that it's going to end up that way--that's probably just my Negative Nancy coming out, but I don't see it going much further than this. Maybe we'll be surprised.

In any event, Manafort was doing some shady sh*t.

I'm sure that that will get lost in the bundle of comments at this point...I went to lunch before submitting but after I wrote it.

#ADDisFun

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: face23785

It would certainly be folly to blame Trump as well, wouldn't it?

Not if the evidence shows that Trump and his Campaign colluded with foreign operatives.

Nothing revealed so far indicates this at all. You could just as effectively blame David Spade.

So the question really is, what does Manafort know and will he talk.

This is the real news. Between Manafort probably wanting to strike a deal, and Papadopolous having already struck a plea deal, if they still can't come up with anything implicating Trump are you guys finally gonna let go of this Trump-Russia myth?

originally posted by: Kali74
Flynn or Page next?

Yes. Both.