Proof from the Manafort indictment that Podesta group committed the same crime as manafort

a reply to: seeker1963

That part of Ukraine added to this new part of Syria may see miss Hillary and others before war tribunals

The newly released NSA document confirms that a 2013 insurgent attack with advanced surface-to-surface rockets upon civilian areas of Damascus, including Damascus International Airport, was directly supplied and commanded by Saudi Arabia with full prior awareness of US intelligence. As the former Qatari prime minister now also confirms, both the Saudis and US government staffed "operations rooms" overseeing such heinous attacks during the time period of the 2013 Damascus airport attack. No doubt there remains a massive trove of damning documentary evidence which will continue to trickle out in the coming months and years. At the very least, the continuing Qatari-Saudi diplomatic war will bear more fruit as each side builds a case against the other with charges of supporting terrorism. And as we can see from this latest Qatari TV interview, the United States itself will not be spared in this new open season of airing dirty laundry as old allies turn on each other.

www.informationclearinghouse.info... timing and people involved have too many coincidence's .

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Grambler

Can you also admit that you misrepresented what the email said in the indictment?

Ni I will not admit that.

They were lobbying for the President "(note that it is capitalized), against the presidents enemy. Gates said the info would go straight to the president.

The point you are trying to make is so unlikely and insignifgicant, that it leads to intelctual nihlism.

So I tell you what.

Admit the you cant prove anything in life 100%, you made be in illusion, everything you think you know may be a simulation, so we can never say were are certain of anything.

Then I will admit similarly, this "President" has an microscopic chance of being someone else.

a reply to: Grambler

Ni I will not admit that.

They were lobbying for the President "(note that it is capitalized), against the presidents enemy. Gates said the info would go straight to the president.

You will not admit it, even though you said this:

Muellers indictment of gates and manafort today shows that the Podesta group lied. Mueller has an email showing that Gates told the Podesta group that there work was going straight to the pro russian president of the Ukraine.

That is not what the indictment said and you do not know the context of that email.

The point you are trying to make is so unlikely and insignifgicant, that it leads to intelctual nihlism

Ahh, so you do admit the possibility!

That slightest doubt casts doubt on your entire assertion.

Admit the you cant prove anything in life 100%, you made be in illusion, everything you think you know may be a simulation, so we can never say were are certain of anything.

What? That makes no sense.

Then I will admit similarly, this "President" has an microscopic chance of being someone else.

No need to. You already did.

a reply to: Grambler

The major problem is that Manafort, Podesta, and Democrats were working conjointly to lobby Ukraine to join the EU. I don't see how this is treasonous since it involves spooks and possible Leon Panetta and the CIA and globalists deep state. I mean the power to be are on the pro EU side.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: introvert

In the context of the indictment, who are all the people that could possibly be referred to by the term, "president?"

The president of the NGO non-profit.

That may not be the case, but since it is still a possibility, we cannot come to the absolute conclusion Grambler has.

If it is confusing or unclear who 'president' is referring to in the indictment, I would say that's a serious defect that needs amending before anything can proceed.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Grambler


Ahh, so you do admit the possibility!

That slightest doubt casts doubt on your entire assertion.

This is an absurd deflection.

Again, there is a small chance that everything you know is wrong, because reality is an illusion.

So you can never say anything is a fact.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: introvert

In the context of the indictment, who are all the people that could possibly be referred to by the term, "president?"

The president of the NGO non-profit.

That may not be the case, but since it is still a possibility, we cannot come to the absolute conclusion Grambler has.

If it is confusing or unclear who 'president' is referring to in the indictment, I would say that's a serious defect that needs amending before anything can proceed.

I don't think it would make a difference in this particular indictment.

If they were to indict anyone connected to the Podesta Group for this, they would need to be very specific.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: introvert

In the context of the indictment, who are all the people that could possibly be referred to by the term, "president?"

The president of the NGO non-profit.

That may not be the case, but since it is still a possibility, we cannot come to the absolute conclusion Grambler has.

If it is confusing or unclear who 'president' is referring to in the indictment, I would say that's a serious defect that needs amending before anything can proceed.

I don't think it would make a difference in this particular indictment.

If they were to indict anyone connected to the Podesta Group for this, they would need to be very specific.

If facts are so material they were included in an indictment, then they need to be clear enough so that the defense can understand the prosecution's claims.

a reply to: Grambler

This is an absurd deflection.

You say it's a deflection, but admit that you cannot draw the absolute conclusion you have on this.

Again, there is a small chance that everything you know is wrong, because reality is an illusion.

Now that is a deflection.

So you can never say anything is a fact.

Unless you have clear evidence.

Do you have that in this case?

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: introvert

In the context of the indictment, who are all the people that could possibly be referred to by the term, "president?"

The president of the NGO non-profit.

That may not be the case, but since it is still a possibility, we cannot come to the absolute conclusion Grambler has.

If it is confusing or unclear who 'president' is referring to in the indictment, I would say that's a serious defect that needs amending before anything can proceed.

I don't think it would make a difference in this particular indictment.

If they were to indict anyone connected to the Podesta Group for this, they would need to be very specific.

If facts are so material they were included in an indictment, then they need to be clear enough so that the defense can understand the prosecution's claims.

They already know Manafort and Gates are connected to the "president" of Ukraine.

This little piece is inconsequential to their case. It only makes a difference to Podesta Group, if they are prosecuted.

Having been paying attention to what all is going on here is what I believe the issue is:

Manafort before the presidential campaign was working for a foreign government and did not register. During that time frame he was paid millions of dollars. And did not pay taxes. Trump decides run, and Manafort asks to run his campaign, while working as a foreign agent, including putting his money into the Trump campaign.

Ok, now if the only problem was him being a foreign agent, then his correcting the mistake and it usually goes away, no one gets convicted. However, here is where they are getting him. It is that he was working as a foreign agent during the campaign, and he did not pay income tax. In fact the way that his banking records look, along with the bank, it looks like that there is money laundrying going on. And it is not small amounts but a large amount through a bank that is know to do such and where shady money is often laundred through.

So what Muellers team is going to have to prove, and using documents that are from Manafort, is that he made millions of dollars, and paid no income tax, that due to the bank that this was done for, has a record that is established for laundrying money. And because of these other crimes, it shows intent not only not to register, but also to lie to the US government, along acting as an agent for a foreign government in an attempt to subvert the US election.

Now here is where the lawyers get involved. As they have plead not guilty, Manaforts team will have access to all of the evidence against him. They will look at it, discuss it in private and then sit down with him. I would say that if there is a chance that the government can prove in court any of these, and he goes to prison he is going to change his plea and make a plea deal and try to get the lowest of all sentences in exchange for states evidence. And I would say he would also try to get messages to others on the Trump team, in the meantime.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: introvert

In the context of the indictment, who are all the people that could possibly be referred to by the term, "president?"

The president of the NGO non-profit.

That may not be the case, but since it is still a possibility, we cannot come to the absolute conclusion Grambler has.

If it is confusing or unclear who 'president' is referring to in the indictment, I would say that's a serious defect that needs amending before anything can proceed.

I don't think it would make a difference in this particular indictment.

If they were to indict anyone connected to the Podesta Group for this, they would need to be very specific.

I'd be as disappointed if the Podesta's were indicted, as Democrats/Liberal MSM was today that Manafort was indicted.
They want the big tuna, and so do I.

a reply to: carewemust

I'd be as disappointed if the Podesta's were indicted, as Democrats/Liberal MSM was today that Manafort was indicted.

They want the big tuna, and so do I.

Which one most of D.C. stinks of fish. Pick a name any name.

Corruption runs deep in politics.

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: introvert

In the context of the indictment, who are all the people that could possibly be referred to by the term, "president?"

The president of the NGO non-profit.

That may not be the case, but since it is still a possibility, we cannot come to the absolute conclusion Grambler has.

If it is confusing or unclear who 'president' is referring to in the indictment, I would say that's a serious defect that needs amending before anything can proceed.

I don't think it would make a difference in this particular indictment.

If they were to indict anyone connected to the Podesta Group for this, they would need to be very specific.

I'd be as disappointed if the Podesta's were indicted, as Democrats/Liberal MSM was today that Manafort was indicted.
They want the big tuna, and so do I.

I just want the truth to come out, regardless of who is caught-up in the net.

We do not come any closer to that goal when we push narratives or assertions that cannot be proven. The OP has done that entirely too much lately and it only serves to create potentially false narratives and further division.

Let's speculate and toss around ideas as much as we like, but to make absolute conclusions when an element of doubt remains, is not logical or helpful in informing people.

This seems to be a legitimate thread.

Last week, NBC News reported that Podesta caught the notice of Mueller, charged with the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, while the special counsel was investigating the finances of former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort.

Podesta reportedly failed to disclose lobbying activity for a Ukrainian nonprofit that took place from 2012 to 2014. That same nonprofit, the European Centre for a Modern Ukraine, worked with Manafort.

USA Today

While I disagree with Grambler's idea that Hillary colluded with Russia by hiring Fusion GPS, this story seems to be much more realistic.

Apparently, NBC is reporting that its famous anonymous sources have confirmed that the Podesta Group is "Company B" in the indictment, and Mercury Public Affairs is "Company A."

it doesn`t matter what they are charged with, or what they are convicted of, they will walk because they are rich, so why waste your time and emotions on nonsense like this? unless you`re one of the idiots who hasn`t figured it out yet that the elite don`t live by the same laws us commoners do.

Oh yeah, the truth is out there

They are the "Company B" mentioned in the indictment

source: NBC news

This is not a false narrative. The investigation is of near unlimited scope, and has indeed put the Podesta Group in its crosshairs. Doesn't anyone find Podesta's resignation to be interesting timing?

They are "Company B" named in the indictment. NBC's article makes the rest of it quite clear.