Will Paul Manafort be found guilty of collusion? What was his appeal?

1. 62

   dianetrotterposted 7 years ago

   It looks like WH people are privately speaking about their past reservations about Paul Manafort.  Corey Lewnadoski has an axe to grind.  Sean Spicer is going to have to testify.
   
   It seems Manafort has a timeline from the child adoption meeting to release of the DNC records.  Fake or not, the investigation is real.  It seems Paul Manafort was a crook to being with.  Why wasn't he vetted?

   replyreport
   1. 95

      wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      WHAT!?!?!  Vet a player in the political field!  That's treasonous!
      
      (Wonder why Clinton wasn't vetted before being handed the DNC nomination).

      replyreport
      1. 62

         dianetrotterposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         I don't know Wilderness but she was investigated quite a bit.  Maybe if she had won they would put her under a microscope.
         
         Right now Paul Manafort is in trouble.

         replyreport
         1. 95

            wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            Yes, he seems to be in trouble.  But not for fixing the election, which is what the libs are screaming about.

            replyreport
            1. 62

               dianetrotterposted 7 years agoin reply to this

               It's one thing to say that there is more to the story; however, there is no way that there was less.  It's not fake.  It is a matter of "Who is culpable?"
               
               It seems Roger Stone recommended/gave Manafort to Trump.  According to reports, Manafort had a long term relationship w/ an oligarch and owed him $19M. 
               
               1.  He was heard on tape saying he could provide updates on what was happening with the campaign.
               2.  Trump people are backing away from Manafort.  Maybe Manafort OR manafort/Stone used the campaign to their own advantage.
               
               3.  A timeline was established. (Notice Manfort history prior to the campaign)
               
               https://www.axios.com/paul-manafort-tim … 47576.html 
               
               Paul Manafort was in the room when Donald Trump Jr. met with a Russian lawyer hoping for dirt on Hilary Clinton. One month later, he reportedly sent an email to a Russian billionaire offering private briefings on the campaign. Before he even signed on with Trump, the FBI was reportedly secretly monitoring his calls.
               
               Now, he's at the center of Robert Mueller's investigation. Here's a look at how he got there:
               
               2006
               
               Manafort begins working for Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska, who has close ties with Vladimir Putin, for $10 million per year, per the Washington Post. Around the same time, he's hired by a pro-Russia political party in Ukraine.
               2014
               
               The FBI begins investigating Manafort over his consulting work in Ukraine.
               As a part of that investigation, the FBI obtains a FISA warrant to wiretap Manafort, per CNN. It was discontinued at some point in 2016, and later renewed. The CNN report emerged in September, 2017.
               2016
               
               March 28: Manafort joins the Trump campaign, tasked with wrangling delegates for the convention.
               
               Spring 2016: A new FBI investigation into Manafort is opened, relating to his business ties to foreign countries, including Russia, per the NY Times.
               
               May 19: Manafort is promoted to campaign chairman.
               
               June 9: Manafort attends the Trump Tower meeting at which Donald Trump Jr. had been told he'd receive dirt on Hillary Clinton as part of the Russian government's efforts to help his father win. News of the meeting emerged in July, 2017.
               
               July 7: Manafort reportedly sends an email to an associate of Deripaska, asking if the billionaire would like private briefings on the campaign. News of the email emerged in September, 2017.
               
               August 12: The AP reports on secret ledgers that record $12.7 million in payments to Manafort from the Ukrainian political party, the Party of Regions.
               
               August 19: Manafort quits the campaign, with Jared Kushner reportedly telling him if he doesn't resign immediately he'll be fired.
               
               Late 2016: The FBI renews its wiretaps of Manafort's communications, per CNN.
               
               November 8: Trump is elected president.
               2017
               
               March 20: Sean Spicer claims Manafort "played a very limited role for a very limited amount of time" on the campaign.
               
               May 17: Robert Mueller is named special prosecutor in the Russia probe 8 days after Trump removed James Comey as FBI director.
               
               May: Deripaska says he'll cooperate with the Congressional Russia investigations in exchange for full immunity. The offer is declined.
               
               June 27: Manafort registers as a foreign agent.
               
               July 20: The Wall St Journal reports that Mueller is investigating Manafort for possible money laundering.
               
               July 25: Manafort testifies in private before staff for the Senate Intelligence Committee, and turns over his notes from the Trump Jr. meeting. The Senate Judiciary Committee withdraws a subpoena ordering him to appear, and he agrees to produce documents for that committee.
               
               July 26: The FBI raids Manafort's home in Virginia. After the search, prosecutors on the Mueller probe tell Manafort they plan to indict him, per the NY Times. News of the raid emerged in early August.
               
               September 8: Unwittingly communicating with a prankster, Trump lawyer Ty Cobb writes, "Manafort and Flynn have issues separate and apart from the WH that will cause the investigation to linger."
               
               September 15: Jason Meloni, Manafort's spokesman, testifies before Mueller's grand jury. Manafort's lawyer had also been subpoenaed.
               
               September 20: CNN reports that Mueller's is looking into "possible crimes committed as far back as January 2006" by Manafort.

               replyreport
   2. 0

      promisemposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      I read the FBI raided Manafort's house at dawn with guns drawn after picking the lock on his house.
      
      Such a raid requires court approval. The former federal prosecutors that I read and heard say it's a way of putting a lot more pressure on Manafort to give them more information.
      
      He may be resisting to negotiate a better deal. So in answer to your question, I guess time will tell.

      replyreport
      1. 62

         dianetrotterposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         It's interesting that Manafort was at the June meeting with DJT Jr. and Kushner, etc.  The 2020 campaign fund has paid $200K on Junior's legal fees.  I wonder if the fund will pay for Kushner and Manafort.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            promisemposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            Good question. I wonder the same thing. I also wonder how Trump campaign contributors feel about their money going to those legal bills.

            replyreport
            1. 62

               dianetrotterposted 7 years agoin reply to this

               This could turn out to be a major point of discussion in history.  I'm reading and watching about how social media (Facebook, Twitter, etc.) were used to not only spread lies but organize events.  I can't wait until Mueller's investigation starts revealing facts.

               replyreport
               1. 95

                  wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  Hopefully there will be more facts than those we've seen showing a "connection" between Trump and Putin, those showing that Trump conspired to fix the election, etc. 
                  
                  And hopefully those facts, if warranted, will lead to justice, unlike those produced about Clinton.  As far as I know he doesn't have a spouse that can control the AG so maybe they will.

                  replyreport
2. 62

   dianetrotterposted 7 years ago

   Wilderness what if Trump knew nothing.  What if he didn't realize what was happening?

   replyreport
   1. 95

      wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      A scenario that I at least find more likely than not.  But what if?  Then all those people already saying he is guilty are going to look even more foolish than they already do.

      replyreport
      1. 62

         dianetrotterposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         probably!  something is wrong with my keyboard so i don"t have caps and other weird stuff is going on>
         
         my concerns are
         *if russia did interfere with election, what if they keep us like puppets on a string
         *what kinds of person/people would help facilitate this?
         *what if another country (NK) decides to do it?  could it lead to war?
         *could their meddling impact our monetary system?  Equifax?  The movie company...I forget
         *could they shut down our infrastructure
         
         There are so many things to consider, beyond whether or not Trump was involved.  Can he be manipulated?  Does he need to do a better job of vetting?  Can he trust his friends?
         
         Price is supposed to be part of MAGA.  He has spent more than $300K on private planes going to places he could drive to in less than 2 hours.
         
         keyboard is weird!

         replyreport
         1. 95

            wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            My opinion only, but I would be immensely surprised if Russia didn't at least try to interfere, and has done so for decades.  Along with most of the other technologically advanced countries and without regard to friendship/enemy status.  And I'd be even more disbelieving if told that the US doesn't do it to both friends and enemies.
            
            Cyber warfare is not new, and we've been known to use it ourselves.  Something about the electric grid somewhere?  Or maybe Nuke plants?

            replyreport
            1. 62

               dianetrotterposted 7 years agoin reply to this

               The US built nukes to help preserve our country .... I assume.
               
               I realize the US was in the Korean war.  If everyone tries to "get even", it's like the street gangs trying to get even.
               
               It is imperative that we have skilled people that are able to spy on what others are doing.  There have been many terroist attacks and other bad things that were averted.
               
               Putin is killing his own people.  He annexed part of Ukraine for himself.  There are any number of things that can be attributed to Putin.  In the late 50s, I remember the drills every Thursday @ noon.  It was scary.
               
               Our government should be protecting us, making sure that we are not infiltrated by spies and evil countries, and on the alert for treason by US citizens.
               
               We need to show strength and wisdom.

               replyreport
               1. 95

                  wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  Our cause is just, so we can do what we abhor others doing.  I think that's a really slippery slope you're walking there!
                  
                  I agree that it is necessary to spy on other nations, however evil it sounds when put baldly like that, but I also expect them to do the same.  It is up to us to limit, as far as we can, their activities in our nation - it seems a touch hypocritical to scream that they shouldn't do it but that we should because we feel we have a right to do what they can't.

                  replyreport
                  1. 62

                     dianetrotterposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                     It does seem hypocritical.  I suppose that is why we have people leave here to join ISIS or other terrorist groups.  Then we have those that do their attacks here in the US.
                     
                     What do you think the US should do?

                     replyreport
                     1. 95

                        wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                        I said it; protect ourselves as much as possible from intrusion while continuing the spy operations we already conduct.  Including pushing for foreign politicians we think will behave in such a manner as to benefit us.

                        replyreport
                        1. 62

                           dianetrotterposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                           I agree with all but the last sentence.  Not that I disagree; however, foreign "politicians" sounds scary.

                           replyreport
                           1. 95

                              wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                              You don't think that a little "push" in a foreign election, for a politician that will do good for the world, is a good thing?  Better to let a poor one with values far removed from ours, control a country?
                              
                              If Kim Jong-un were up for re-election should we sit quietly and let him be voted in or take some behind-the-scenes action to help his opponent?  Fidel Castro?  Does our government not have any responsibility to influence the rest of the world to be a better place, to promote human rights, environmental protections, etc.?  Is there a real difference in that and working to stop whaling, nuclear tests or excessive CO2 emissions? 
                              
                              Is it better to quietly influence foreign elections or wait for more damage to occur and take physical action through the military or other means that hurt the population of an entire country?

                              replyreport
                              1. 62

                                 dianetrotterposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                 I agree with you Wilderness.  I think we've come full circle from you saying "We do it too!"  Yes we promote openly those we support.
                                 
                                 Covert things like selling weapons to the Contras, illegally breaking into opposition headquarters, etc. have not been looked on favorably.  Yesterday Homeland Security reported that Russia attempted to hack into the election of 21 states.  That's not good either.
                                 
                                 Strength must come with "WISDOM"!

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 95

                                    wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                    Well, I think there's a line between promoting actions we think will help the world (or us) and doing things we find abhorrent because it might aid us in the long run.  The ends do not automatically justify the means and the Contra affair is a good example.
                                    
                                    But Homeland Security?  They made no such report, and in fact made it clear that they did not know who attempted the hacks or that the attempts had anything to do with the election - the voting process.  Only into data bases of voters.

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 62

                                       dianetrotterposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                       Homeland Security notifies 21 states targeted by Russian election hacking
                                       
                                       Sept. 23 (UPI) -- The Department of Homeland Security contacted election officials in every state to clarify whether or not they were target by Russian hackers during the 2016 presidential election.
                                       
                                       Homeland Security had found evidence of Russian activity in 21 states earlier this year, but notified the individual states that were targeted for the first time on Friday after months of complaints from election officials due to the lack of information, NPR reported.
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       https://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2017/09 … 506167183/

                                       report
                                       1. 95

                                          wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                          "In most cases, the states had not known until notified by DHS Friday, though the government had told the Associated Press last year that more than 20 states were targeted by hackers believed to be Russian agents."
                                          
                                          "But election officials in three states said Friday the attempts could be linked to Russia."
                                          
                                          "The government did not say Friday who was behind the hacking attempts or provide details about what had been sought."
                                          
                                          http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/09 … s-say.html
                                          
                                          "A spokesman for the office said its information technology department detected and blocked the attempted intrusion but did not know who was probing the system."
                                          
                                          http://www.npr.org/2017/09/22/552956517 … an-hacking
                                          
                                          Looks to me like news sources are playing just a little bit loose with the facts, and assuming things that were not there.  But that's just me, and what I've seen from the media in the past few months.

                                          report
                                          1. 62

                                             dianetrotterposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                             It would be nice for everyone to agree to the same thing!

                                             report
                                             1. 95

                                                wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                                LOL - that got a laugh out of me.  That's something that will surely never happen!  If nothing else, there is always an axe to grind, someone to influence with just a little spin.
                                                
                                                But, in truth, it may be a good thing - the world would be a dull place if we all agreed.  Though I would like to hear things without personal spin/opinion being added to promote an idea that is either false or, at best, unknown!

                                                report
                                                1. 62

                                                   dianetrotterposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                                   I agree!

                                                   report