Paul Manafort Indictment Not For Collusion
This should be a hot one. The much anticipated Special Counsel's first indictments have been unsealed - and they aren't about Pres. Trump and Russian election collusion, (yet???)
But like a lyric from a song; 'whoo eee, whoo eee babyyy...' It sure paints an ugly picture. And one that seems to be a pretty solid case for the government.
The indictments were for money laundering and foreign agent activities - mostly prior to his involvement with Pres. Trump's campaign.
Surprisingly, for once, an actual legal document that was an interesting read. You really should look at these actual charging documents.
Manafort and Gates Indictment document
GAMore interesting is that the DOJ can't and hasn't seem to be able "get it up "when it comes to any of the other abuses of power , The entire Clinton Mafia , for starters .
All of the Obama scandals for another , The IRS or any DOJ investigative abuses ,.........?
But with the right wing ; The liberal infested DOJ jumps !ahorseback, you're sounding like a one-trick pony again. Would you care to offer any thoughts on the OP that aren't Clinton or Obama rants?
GAIf ..........The obvious bias and compromise of the Mueller investigative force is and has already been leaking like the Titanic even before charges came out ; What does that tell you about any possible integrity of Mueller's mission ?
Of the DOJ's........ ?
This entire circus act is just that ......a media circus act . And if the bias , partisan a one pony trick show is simply what it is , you can't blame that on me for pointing it out . Don't wear horse blinders GA.Well at least we are getting closer to the topic. That's a start ahorseback.
I don't know, one way or the other, about whether the Mueller investigation is a circus act. I might venture agreement that it was a democrat and media frenzy that prompted its creation, but beyond that I don't have enough information to form an opinion about it. Mueller may be proceeding with as much honesty and integrity as we could possibly ask for, or, he may be the hidden hand of manipulation. What information, beyond speculation, do you have to hold such a firm opinion as you do?
Your speculation may turn out to be true. Or, the investigation may also end up focusing on the Clintons too - then what would your opinion of it be? Now, not knowing your general health, I don't want to cause you undo stress, but what if the investigation found collusion in both cases? I am not sure you could stand such mental conflict. ;-)
Thanks for the warning, but I don't think I have to worry about blinders.
GANow , You're beginning to get my point . If we can't investigate AND hold accountable all parties why bother with just Trump's ?
Let's face it , it's all a scam .
The charges against Manafort and Kelly are from 2012-2015 when he worked with the OBAMA Administration / Clinton.
The dirty Democratic power lobbyist Tony Podesta announced that he will be departing. There is much speculation that he is next in line to be indicted by Mueller. The Podesta Group, John and Tony may go down.
Wow GA,
I see you are taking the initiative on this one.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/na … ff811f3bf7
So what I read here, and this by no means was written to exonerate Trump, is that they have this Papadopoulos on potential money laundering that they charge he did for over a decade, and then this Papadopoulos supposedly tried to make meetings happen with Russians to meet with the Trump campaign BUT FAILED, was told he was talking to a niece of Putin's WHO WASN'T HIS NEICE, and in general that is as close as he (or any of them) supposedly came to linking up the Russians/Putin to Trump.
It sounds like this Papadopoulos was at least three rungs removed from the actual Trump campaign, sort of like... working for a guy, who works for a guy, who works for the Trump campaign who may have ties to someone really close to Trump.
Am I reading this right? Is that what they are going after Trump with?
This... ahem... tripe???
When we have more proof showing already that Mueller buried criminal activities for the Clintons, as a significantly important person who should have been slamming her with charges, not covering up her crimes?
Does anyone else remember the 'Drain the Swamp' part of Trump's campaign?
Mueller is as much part of that swamp as anyone.Good points all , and yet all this is being considered a major battle victory , in the media , for Trump Collusion conspiracy theorists ?
Fortunately I don't think anyone gives a cow-dung about what the MSM has to say about it, I'm sure there are LESS people now paying attention to the MSM than ever before... so they can say this means whatever they want to say it means.
What this shows, from what GA linked as well as well as what I linked, is nothing that links to Trump.
Now, maybe when they get these guys behind closed doors, and inquisition them until they confess to the crimes they want them to, but where is the direct links, the actual proof?
For instance with the Clintons you can trace the hundreds of millions in donations from various companies with ties to Russia to the Clinton Campaign, you have Bill making speeches for 500k in Russia, you have meetings between Hillary and Russians, you have a lot that directly links the Clintons, and Podesta, to all combined about 200 million dollars worth of transactions, donations, and speaker fees.
So, where is all the evidence against Trump? Where are the hundreds of millions being funneled, where are the meetings between Trump and Putin (or other major Russian players)? Where is the real evidence, something at least as concrete as what is on Clinton.Are you seriously asking for democrats to look at fact, political history , the Clinton /Russian pasts in the search for fair results? Come on Ken , stop right there and quit wasting our time.
The Trump Russia Collusion fairy tail was started by bitter lying Crooked Hillary Clinton, she was suppose to win. The fake dossier was intended to be a stake in Trump's heart by Madam President, to crush any future plans of running for Pres. Its been one big fake 'distraction'.
The Russians never hacked the DNC computer. No evidence.
No evidence on Trump. But, lots of evidence on the Clintons.
I'm not sure what to think of Mueller, I know his history, but Trump did meet with him before he ever got hired. And, I know Trump is very smart, brilliant.
I have heard that there are at least six investigations happening on Clinton and the DNC, and there aren't any leaks coming from them. I have a feeling things are going to break open with a mighty boom!
Trump promised to drain the swamp. I think things will break in 2018 before the elections. Mueller just might end up being a God send yet. We know he knows a whole lot. Manaford is a distraction.
Liberal media is a freak show! Just my thoughts.
Added: EXPERT: Bombard's Body Language, says Hillary is terrified.
2:55 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8gb1jWpAHIHard to blame Trump for not knowing about Manafort's transgressions years ago. The US government, with all the resources of Congress, the FBI and the CIA had no clue about them - to expect a private citizen to have uncovered them is a little out of line.
No Ken, you didn't 'read it right'. I do understand the simple mix-up of the separate Papodoupolus issue with the Manafort/Gates indictments, but even that wasn't the misread that most matters.
For starters, the OP was addressed to the Manafort and Gates indictments. As I understand it the George Papodoupolus guilty plea happened earlier, and is a separate issue from the topic of the OP.
Secondly, I clearly stated these indictments were for money laundering, and foreign agent law violations - not Russian collusion, and also pointed out that the indictment charges were for mostly pre-Trump campaign time periods. The parenthesized "("yet???)" was my hedge for the possibility that Manafort or Gates might yet bring in evidence of true campaign collusion - but that was not a fact or presumption presented.
So, as to reading inferences; what could your immediate broaching of the Clinton issues, and, defensive reaction to the OP infer? Surely you can't think that any discussion of any Mueller charges have to automatically be a charge against Pres. Trump?
GAHi GA,
First, my response to you was not an attack, or in anger, in your response it appears you may think it was. Sometimes attitude and expression doesn't always transfer to type correctly. My response was more of 'disbelief'.
Why I focused as much as I did on Papadopoulos is because the article I linked to itself seemed to, for example the quote below:
-- "Papadopoulos’s plea agreement, signed earlier this month and unsealed Monday, described extensive efforts he made to try to broker connections with Russian officials and arrange a meeting between them and the Trump campaign. Emails show his offers were sometimes looked at warily, though more senior campaign officials at least entertained them." --
But then it states he also had no success in doing so at all. One has to wonder then, why it is brought up to the extent it is, or at all, if there was no success, there is no proof, and seemingly half of what is spoken of is speculation.
However I agree with you that more could come, obviously, I tried to state that I recognized such, when they are done inquisitioning these two behind closed doors, making threats and promises, who knows how much they will shake out of them... but again ... I would not accept any statement by anyone under investigation as fact, or truth... I would have to see proof, actual meetings that occurred, emails that stated it, actual evidence... not the confession of someone they put on the rack and tortured until he confessed.
I think this has become a race, there are two sides, the stronger of the two investigations will be the one against Trump, because the stronger element within D.C. is against him. The other side (other investigations) should have a far easier job, in theory, because the crimes committed were by Clinton when she was acting SoS, and therefore anything she did is fair game, while in that position a person is held to certain standards and has certain responsibilities that do not apply to a civilian business man.
One can clearly see with how she handled her server, her emails, and who she shared information with, she cared little for what rules and restrictions applied to the office with which she held, she apparently suffered from a 'the rules don't apply to me' ...
The vital concept of checks and balances on positions of government power fundamentally shapes the United States Constitution and roles of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government. How much misconduct, corruption, and abuse in our government can be attributed to long tenured politicians who believe the rules that apply to everyone else don’t apply to them?
This is why the crimes that Clinton has been accused of, the hundreds of millions of dollars they channeled thru the Clinton foundation can't be allowed to stand, its why it is critical she be prosecuted, she sold out America's interests, she sold the position of her office, and the prospect of her becoming President, breaking the law over and over again... as exposed in Clinton Cash. To say nothing of how cavalier she was with classified information, including some information that was classified above Top Secret. Not taking into consideration anything else done in the Obama Administration, or the abuses of power that went on there. Clinton's actions alone, that we know of, are as corrosive and corrupt as any political figure I can think of who has held such a high office.
I really haven't focused a whole lot on this GA, it would agitate me too much to do so. My reaction to that WPost article was one where I tried to express my incredulity of it... sorry it came out differently.No worries Ken, I didn't take your attack personally, nor did I think it was in anger. I completely understand the misinterpretations that the deficiencies of text communications can cause.
I also understood your confusion concerning the references that it was Papodoupolus that did what Manafort is accused of doing; "... Papadopoulos on potential money laundering that they charge he did for over a decade...".
But, bluntly put, for the other parts of your comment; I took them as an automatic Trump defense, (when no Trump accusations or insinuations had been made), because of the points you brought into it, ie. your effort to disentangle Papodoupolus from the decision makers of the campaign, and, bringing Clinton into the conversation.
Yet, from the title of the topic, to the content of the OP, I clearly indicated the topic wasn't about Pres. Trump. It was about the charges against Manafort and Gates.
So, for clarity, here is why I started the thread;
I know that Manafort and Gates have been indicted. I know what the indictment charges are, and the government's explanation of why those charges were brought.
I don't know if the charges are true, or if Manafort or Gates are guilty, or, if there is any connection between the Manafort and Gates indictment and the collusion charges that have been made since the election.
Which leaves the category of what I think. Of course I am no different than any other human that bases the facts they know, with the experiences of their life history, and mixes in what would seem to be a common sense evaluation of data provided - to come up with a idea of what they think is true.
To that point... the description of Manafort's activities seems to make sense to me. The details of the government charges implies to me they have the data to back-up the charges. In other words, I think Manafort, and Gates, are going to get nailed.
But what I don't think is that any of that implies any kind of Trump involvement, or Trump/Russia collusion. And that was the direction I tried to follow with the OP.
However, as illustrated by my twice mentioned "(as yet???)" qualifier, I am nowhere near considering that there isn't a possibility that a Manafort connection won't lead to a collusion connection. I just wasn't addressing that possibility - yet. ;-)
... and no matter the insistence of you and ahorseback, I also wasn't addressing any "Hillary" points in the discussion. Why would that be relevant, if one wrong wasn't trying to justify itself by pointing to another wrong?
GABecause I don't believe we can extrapolate the charges or the investigation into Trump's campaign, from the corrupt/collusion/criminal elements in D.C. and potentially inherent in this investigation.
We have to consider where the Dossier originated, who funded it being created, who presented it to the FBI... without which, how likely would it be that the accusations and charges would have led us down this rabbit hole?
Nor can we ignore Mueller's past with Comey, the Clintons, the past 8 years in D.C. nor who he hired to aid him in his investigation (a former prosecutor who aided Clinton's defense in past investigations)...
So while I completely understand one's desire to merely look at the facts presented, and consider them as would any well learned lawyer or judge, it simply cannot be done if you wish to give a fair review, one has to consider as well what biases were integral to us getting here and what biases the individuals conducting the investigation may have.Ken, I am struggling to decide if you are being purposely obtuse, or I am missing your point.
By my thinking, the question of what is so hard to understand about my point being about the Manafort indictment, and the declaration that it isn't intended to imply anything about the Trump collusion charges, is so hard to understand.
Why are you so insistent in bringing in the points of DC corruption, Mueller's past, Comey, the "dossier," the Clinton's, et al.? Is it not possible for you to address the indictment charges without seeing them as a DC conspiracy against Trump? Do you feel the Special Counsel is so corrupted that nothing it produces can be valid? What if it exonerated Trump? What if the indictments stopped with Manafort and Gates?
Fearing that I am misunderstanding your point, I still must say that I think I can "... look at the facts..." and issues of the Manafort/Gates indictments, in a " well learned lawyer or judge..." way without being hoodwinked by the biases that you are so determined to say taint any product of the Special Counsel.
Come on Ken, why such a determined effort to discredit any of the Counsel's product when it isn't even directed at Trump. However it reflects on my knowledge of 'the powers that be', I just don't see the Special Counsel as the Devil of partisan politics that you do.
I have read that Pres. Trump approved of Mueller's appointment. And that he had bipartisan support, and a stellar reputation. Has that all changed because he didn't immediately clear Trump? Is he a partisan tool now because he is doing the job he was tasked to do?
And lastly, why can't you address the OP without bringing in the DC corruption accusations and Clintons justifications that you do? Even if Mueller is corrupt, and Clinton is guilty as you charge, why does that preclude you from addressing the indictment charges as promoted by the OP?
GAWhy do we care about these charges?
Why does Manafort matter at all, if not for the politics of it?
So how can I ignore the reasons behind the charges, the reasons behind the investigation, and the reasons behind why Mueller would be roundly supported by those very politicians within D.C. that are the primary reasons why we as a nation, as a people, have suffered a litany of misfortune?
Why does Manafort, and whatever he has done, even matter to any of us, if not in the context of how it ties into Trump, and WHO is trying to tie it to Trump?"Why do we care about these charges?"
Mueller blew the lid off the DC Swamp that lobbies for foreign adversaries for their own enrichment through money laundering.
"Why does Manafort matter at all, if not for the politics of it?"
It exposes Tony Podesta, who has been a friend of the Clinton's since 1970. John Podesta has worked closely with the Clintons and Obama.
"So how can I ignore the reasons behind the charges, the reasons behind the investigation, and the reasons behind why Mueller would be roundly supported by those very politicians within D.C. that are the primary reasons why we as a nation, as a people, have suffered a litany of misfortune?"
We should not ignore the corruption. Things are getting a whole lot more interesting.
"Why does Manafort, and whatever he has done, even matter to any of us, if not in the context of how it ties into Trump, and WHO is trying to tie it to Trump?"
It doesn't tie into Trump, he isn't even mentioned in the indictments. No mention of collusion, which exposes the liberal media narrative as fake news, the DNC and Hillary's lies. (added) Let's not forget the RINOs.
Tucker Carlson -- "If you're looking for a summary of all this, here's the one-sentence Cliff Note to the whole affair: The chairman of one major presidential campaign colluded with the brother of the chairman of the other major presidential campaign to enrich themselves by secretly advancing the interests of a foreign adversary. That happened. That's the swamp they told you needed to be drained."
Podesta's lawyer sent Tucker a threatening letter to shut him up, but that's not going to work. That's what they do to control the media.
(obtuse? Wow, that was unexpected! I don't get that at all concerning you, Ken.)It should matter to anyone who wants our elections to be untainted by foreign interference. Apparently you aren't in this group, Ken. You're like Horse and Color as you've let your hatred of the Clintons blur your vision as to the Trump investigations.
I do not hate anyone. I hate sin, but not the sinner. I set my heart to forgive everyone of everything everyday.
Trump is not under investigation. Trump hired Mueller.
Someone's vision is blurred! Is it because of hatred?And you have let your undying adoration of the P.C. Clinton /Obama era affect your entire political outlook . Some advice ; open your mind to all political possibilities , perhaps a liberal deprogramming course .
Hitler youth entered this after the WWII .They have a similar program for rabid Fox watchers who require someone like Hannity to tell them what to think. Doh!
Ken, to clear the decks - my apology for the "obtuse" comment. Must have been the second martini. Sorry.
Now. I see Mueller's investigation as necessary because of the force of the collusion charges. Whether those charges were legitimate or not - in the beginning - they gained the force of a question that demanded answering in the public's mind.
I understand the politics of it all, but I also think the public crescendo - again, legitimate or not - reached a point where the question could not be ignored. I think that if the Special Counsel could be viewed as having any credibility at all, the Republicans should welcome the investigation for the purpose of retiring the question, as much as the anti-Trump folks would hoping for blood.
My perspective is that Mueller and his investigation do have credibility, and that indictments such as Manafort's and Gate's are squarely inline with the mandate of a Special Counsel. They were investigating them for one crime, and found another, (or others). In this case, those other crimes include at least a couple very serious ones; the money laundering and tax evasions.
I think that is why Manafort matters. Would you feel the same if there had been credible evidence of collusion on Manafort's part? Would that have justified the investigation's focus on him?
Maybe I am understanding your point now, and the difference in our perspectives. It seems that your perspective is that there was/is no possibility the collusion charges were true, so any investigation, regardless of who led it, would be illegitimate. For my part, I hadn't seen any evidence of collusion at the time of the Special Counsel's appointment, (nor have I seen any yet), but I think the charges of collusion had built up enough of a circumstantial case to get the public's attention, and mine, so there was reason for an investigation.
Of course, any investigation of Manafort would have been in a context involving Pres. Trump, and once again, that is why Manafort matters.
GA
."Now. I see Mueller's investigation as necessary because of the force of the collusion charges."
I've seen claims that Clinton or other high political figures have used the IRS or other govt. agencies to harass opponents. Whether these claims are true or not, is such a demand for IRS audits or other investigations reasonable, simply because a political figure wants it done? In this case, there doesn't seem to be ANY evidence procured before the claim of collusion and demand for an investigation; is that any different than using political power to "sic" the IRS onto opponents? It appears that the claim that Trump colluded with Putin, other Russian officials or the entire country to fix the election was nothing more that a political effort to discredit him. It grew into something enormous, but is that sufficient reason to demand an investigation?To me. Have you heard of actual evidence of Trump "colluding" with any Russian in order to affect the election? Or, outside of gathering dirt (as both parties have done for a century) of anyone else doing it? All I've seen is unsupported claims - how about you?
George Papadopoulos supervisor mentioned in the email is Sam Clovis, a former top Trump campaign official. He was questioned last week by special counsel Robert Mueller's team and testified before the investigating grand jury
Clovis, is Trump's pick to be the Department of Agriculture's chief scientist.
Clovis was Trump's campaign chief policy adviser and national co-chairman.
He is currently serving as an unpaid White House adviser to the Agriculture Department, awaiting Senate confirmation before the Agriculture Committee for the scientist job.
He is not a scientist.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/to … ry-n816106
Dry Snitch Contest?
"“Someone was saying Papadopoulos has been cooperating since July. I’ve been cooperating since March. I mean, I want to get the truth out there,” Page said.
Pass the popcorn!
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-ad … d=50826943You lost me. Is this current testimony supposed to be evidence months ago that an investigation was warranted?
Yes, Papadopoulos admitted he lied to the FBI and was certainly involved with trying --and apparently succeeding--in setting up meetings between Russia and Trump's campaign staff. Plus, they have emails between Papa and two other Trump cronies discussing the proposed meetings and they thought it was swell idea. And then there's the "now well-known" meeting between son, son-in-law, Manafort, and others of Russian lineage......but of course....just coincidence I'm sure you'd say.
Yes - some evidence of people other than Trump gathering information to "dirty" Clinton.
But nothing indicating a collusion between Russians and Trump, or anyone else, to "fix" the election; what the current investigation seems to be about. Got anything about that collusion to directly affect the election? Particularly about Donald Trump colluding to fix it for himself (that was the claim, after all[/i]?You've dismissed Mueller's case before it's barely began, Dan. If you cannot see the connection with Papa, Manafort, and Page already charged--with Papa pleading guilty--and a connection to further arrests being made, then you'll not believe the results when the investigations are over. Then it will be blamed on Obama or Clinton as Trump fans are prone to do.
And I certainly didn't claim Trump fixed the election himself, he's too dumb to do it by himself.
?? I didn't "dismiss" anything at all: I questioned just why the investigation is being conducted, maintaining that the only possible reason is to cause possible political damage to Trump. As there was absolutely nothing to go on before it was started, there can be no other reason.
The post was in response to GA's comment that it was necessary merely because lots of people jumped on the "collusion" bandwagon, taking it from nothing but a vague rumor into almost a force of nature. I also mentioned, in passing, that use of political power to mobilize governmental abilities and powers such as the IRS or FBI for no more reason than to punish a political opponent is NOT what those powers are intended for. They are not even intended for witch hunts looking for anything at all that might damage that opponent.
That it has resulted in finding fault, although not the fault it was supposed to find, with someone with ties to Trump is irrelevant and does not change the fact that it was instigated based on nothing but rumors started to cause political damage. That does not mean that the findings should be ignored, however!
I see this investigation as akin to the warrant required for police to search your home; without "reasonable cause" that warrant will not be issued, but in this case the "reasonable cause" was public outcry over rumors - rumors that never had anything but loud screams to back them up.You seem to have forgotten about where those rumors arose. It was multiple U.S. intelligence agencies who noticed, in the course of their regular monitoring activities, unusual behavior that suggested possible collusion.
Well, I saw claims that Trump had a personal relationship with Putin. I saw claims he had multiple business dealings in Russia. I saw claims that he had various meetings with Russian intelligence.
Are those the "suspicious activity" the FBI or CIA decided was possible collusion, but have been unable to verify yet? And if those intelligence agencies felt there was reason to investigate, why did they wait until Congress demanded it? This did not originate, after all, with intelligence agencies; it originated with Congress.Intelligence agencies were reporting their findings to President Obama. When Trump became President, that relationship became a little trickier, didn't it? I seem to recall the head of the FBI being fired because of the Russia investigation, according to Trump. That prompted the hiring of a special prosecutor. I don't know why you think intelligence agencies didn't originate the investigation.
Wait. The FBI reported to Obama that his hated primary political rival was doing illegal things, or might be doing illegal things, and Obama did nothing? Don't know about you, but I find this very difficult to believe.
But can you give links or other verifiable information indicating what the FBI based the need for an investigation on? An investigation, mind you, into possible collusion between Trump (or even Trumps main campaign personnel) and anyone highly placed in the Russian government with the intent of fixing the election using Russian help?You are savvy enough to realize if Obama said anything it would appear as partisan politics. Or are you?
Of course it will. Is there anything Obama does that is NOT partisan? Or Congress, either, for that matter? What difference if he adds a straw to the barn full?
Can't see the world ending if we discover *gasp* partisan politics in DC.
https://www.pri.org/stories/2017-06-23/ … ermeasures
The investigation is about Russian interference in the election, not specifically collusion. Collusion could be uncovered, if it occurred.
You see it as just fake news and improper investigation of Trump's cronies. That 's clear, Dan. Are you impatient for Mueller to finish what he started, or are you of the Fox and Trump camp of wanting the investigation ended before they find more dirt? I'd wager the latter...
Hi there Wilderness, just to stoke the fire, before I jump in, in answer to your last question, I would say yes.
Now for a bit of clarity. The principled answer would,of course, be no, if there were no reasonable reasons to suspect wrongdoing. That brings in the question of what is reasonable. Along with reasonable to who?
My point about the force of the collusion charges was relative to the "who" being the public mind, and the "reasonable reasons" being the manipulative presentations of the politicians. I don't see how Pres. Trump could have avoided a Special Counsel - given the mood of the nation and the Congress. That is the combination that I see as the "force" of the charges.
My responses have been from a pragmatic, not idealist or partisan perspective.
I am shooting from the hip here, but think along with me.
The stage is set with the publicly, (general public), accepted, (but yet unproven), charge that the Russians interfered in, and influenced the 2016 election. (I will concede that there is ample evidence of Russian attempts to influence - in the internet world)
Now, consider the size of the segment of the public that accepted those charges as fact, and then add whatever the segment would be that was influenced by the Russian internet medias efforts to also think so.
Add in the possibly, but apparently, circumstantial details of the Russian connections and issues surrounding Trump and those connected to him or his campaign. Start with Flynn, whether a valid charge or not, the circumstances of the times connected his issue(s) with the collusion charges. And fueled them. The same with the early Manafort charges. The same with the Donald Jr. meeting.
I think those combined probably swayed another sizable segment of the public to begin believing there might be something to the collusion charges.
Now toss in the Molotov cocktails of the opposition politician's demands. Then add Pres. Trump's [i(]*ahem*)[/i], unconventional style, and I think you have the force of a public and political demand that could not be satisfied with anything less than a Special Counsel. Right may be right, but the reality of our system of government many times requires that "Right" follow a round-a-bout path to get where it should be. And I think that is the case here.
Given that there is an investigation, and that Manafort's activities were such to make him a likely target - under the circumstances mentioned, and I can see the validity of his indictment.
Heaven help us if the only defense against this is a... yeah but he wouldn't have been caught if..." rationalization.
As you can see, I don't equate this investigation, or Manafort's indictment with the political comparisons you mentioned. I also realize that others, that don't share my perspective, will sincerely feel that the investigation is a witchhunt - no matter the reasoning, and Manafort and Gates should never be indicted, even if there was evidence they did commit crimes
GASounds like your thinking is along the same lines mine is: that "reasonable cause" is a combination of political pressure and public ignorance, but little to nothing more than that. Thank God our police system doesn't work that way!
I can agree with that police system part - with a tentative Amen!
GAI don't know if you followed the information that came out from the hearings with Google, Twitter, Facebook... but the big news should have been that there was little influence from Russia, it was minor... like in the single digit percentile minor... where they funded political ads or information, I would really liked to have known if that figure included RT news on YouTube and such.
That to me is the truly amazing part of this, its been brilliant to watch, pure propaganda in its purest form. With no evidence at all, and without any actual interference other than WikiLeaks that the Democrats chose to blame on Russia found, they were able to convince the nation that Russia had hacked the election, and convince many that Trump was in cahoots with Putin.
To Quote:
Testimony from Facebook’s Stretch made clear that many of those users may never have seen the material. The company said the total number represents around 1 out of 23,000 pieces of content on the site.
These “organic” posts that appeared in Facebook users’ news feeds are distinct from more than 3,000 advertisements linked to the agency that Facebook has already turned over to congressional committees. The ads — many of which focused on divisive social issues — pointed people to the agency’s pages, where they could then like or share its material.
Twitter told the subcommittee it has uncovered and shut down 2,752 accounts linked to the agency, which is known for promoting pro-Russian government positions. That number is nearly 14 times the number of accounts Twitter handed over to congressional committees three weeks ago.
And Google said it found evidence of “limited” misuse of its services by the Russian group, as well as some YouTube channels that were likely backed by Russian agents.
http://www.recorder.com/Facebook-Twitte … s-13463320
At the end of the day, people could choose to believe what they wanted to believe, they could and often did check to see if a post were legit. If they saw those ads or videos at all, many didn't.Hi Ken, no, I haven't been following that issue. I have heard a few blurbs, such as Twitter saying it had identified 30,000 Bot accounts posting Russian stuff - but, I haven't checked that out and have no idea how that jibes with the details you mentioned.
It may be to my detriment, but since I am not an avid Facebook or Twitter user, I have little sympathy for folks that use either as a source of information to form an opinion. At best, I would consider them as alerts to check out, but certainly not as support for an opinion.
I suppose that perspective might fall inline with the point you are making - that the Russian 'influence' on the social networks, (including the purchased ads), falls far short of a determination that their interference was a deciding factor in the elections.
However, remember that I admitted not following the topic, so I could be completely wrong..
GAHi GA,
I don't know what tickles your humor/funny bone, and I don't know if you are familiar with Lionel (every once and a while he produces a gem), but indulge me and watch this video from 22:35 on, for a few minutes, he doesn't just sum up the "Russian stuff" he does it with a humorous twist.
Hope you enjoy it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ps5Rsou4HH8Ken , I Watched Lionel , I can't get over the array of things he covers in twenty minutes . He's got it pretty much all together . The relativiities between Hilary , Bill the DNC and Mr. Weinstein is extremely funny ! Sad part is he's right even with the ingrained republican party ,the Bush's , the DNC and established followers and supporters of both parties are ALL in political melt-down . I'm going to have to watch Lionel more but I did ,as always , find myself wondering what his ideologies are .
WE are living in an interesting time in history .The interesting thing that occurred this week that hasn't been picked up by the MSM (of course not) but that I and others have noticed and mentioned, is that the former Presidents got together for a 'bash Trump'brewhaw... nothing went further to expose what I and many others have been saying for a long time now... Bush Clinton Bush Obama... no difference, no real changes, kept marching the country down the same path, doing harm to American workers, the Nation's future, and destroying one foreign nation after another... what differences there were between them was minor, effecting some social policies, that is it.
Trump isn't part of that click, Trump is a genuine outsider who does not answer to the same crowd they do. But Congress is, puppets on strings, enough of them anyways that they can bottleneck any positive change... that is why Obamacare hasn't been changes despite a Republican majority, that is why nothing else has gotten done of value, Republican or Democrat doesn't matter, two sides of the same corrupt coin.
Congress has always been the key, that is where the worst corruption is, buying a President isn't worth it, they can be in and out of there in 4 years... but a Senator or Representative, they can be in there for 30 or 40 years doing untold damage... as we have seen the past 30 years with the likes of McCain, Pelosi, Waters and so many more.I could not agree with you more ! congress , senate , the establishment insiders want business as usual , They will acquire it only with obstructing the Trump administration . Why is it only few of us see that ?
I have said this many times here , We ALL want change from our government -This is the first and probably last chance for a long time for conservatives and liberals . WHY are liberals as fighting that ? They have to recognize trump for the middle man that he is ideologically ?
There is not one once of true progressiveness in a liberal - Fact.You are wrong that only a 'few' see that. More than 60 million Americans see that, that is why they voted for Trump. He spoke about the corruption, the bad trade deals, etc. and people responded to that despite his being uncouth and crass. Of course it helped that his opposition was the poster child for D.C. corruption.
I would say, that the number who see the problems are growing, not diminishing. I would say this had a lot more to do with all the attacks, riots, and endless efforts to debase Trump than anything Trump has done. Or to put it another way... Trump probably would be losing support now, if not for the fact that the attacks on him, and on our country have been even more annoying and disturbing than anything he has done.That's probably all true , I hope - that his supporting voting population is growing , perhaps no matter who the next election's candidates are , Trump will have awakened more to our cause and began a journey for both parties towards regaining the traditions of our country rather than the demise of them.
A popular awakening ?
Hi Ken, that was my first exposure to Lionel. Interesting.
GA
Another day, another chance to reflect GA,
It doesn't matter whether I believe there is collusion or not.
Again, I think the difference here, is that I continue to look at this ‘investigation’ as just one small part of the greater whole, just one small part of a much greater story that goes back decades. I cannot merely look at these charges in isolation. This leads back to the Ukraine for Manafort and Podesta.
So why is that important?
The Clinton Foundation accepts monetary donations from foreign donors, amassing to billions of dollars. Some of the top donors of the foundation were Ukrainian oligarchs. One of them, Victor Pinchuk, was a former member of the Ukrainian Parliament and a strong advocate of Neoliberalism in Ukraine.
In return for his hefty contributions, the Clinton Global Initiative which is a wing of the Clinton Foundation that coordinates charitable projects but does not handle money, made a pledge to Mr. Pinchuk, to train future Ukrainian leaders. Several alumni from this training program are now in the current Ukraine Parliament. The same government that came to power after the bloody coup d'état
.
Stephen F. Cohen, an internationally prominent scholar of Russia, explains the reasons behind Clinton’s actions regarding Ukraine, during an interview organized by the American Committee for East West Accord Ltd:
“This problem began in the 1990s, when the Clinton Administration adopted a winner-take-all policy toward post-Soviet Russia … Russia gives, we take. … This policy was adopted by the Clinton Administration but is pursued by [every President since], every American Congress, since President Clinton, to President Obama. This meant that the United States was entitled to a sphere or zone of influence as large as it wished, right up to Russia’s borders, and Russia was entitled to no sphere of influence, at all, not even in Georgia… or in Ukraine (with which Russia had been intermarried for centuries).”
Victoria Nuland, assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, who has been a deputy director for former Soviet Union affairs under the Bill Clinton administration, also served as Principal Deputy National Security Advisor to Vice President Cheney.
A recording of a phone call between Nuland and the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt on January 28, 2014, was published on YouTube, proving that the U.S. was already planning who should be in the government after Viktor Yanukovych’s forced resignation. The name Nuland gave in the phone call, Arseniy Yatsenyuk, indeed became the Prime Minister of Ukraine on February 27, 2014, a month after that phone conversation.
Reader Supported News journalist Steve Weisman’s report on how the Clinton led State Department laid the foundation for the regime change in Ukraine is an eye opener. It is truly one of the best investigative reporting pieces of our time, beginning with the evidence on the so called “rebel” who started the “revolution” against the Viktor Yanukovych administration. A polyglot Afghan immigrant who happened to work as a journalist in the news channel established by, none other than, the US Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt.
“Arriving in the Ukrainian capital on August 3 [2013], Pyatt almost immediately authorized a grant for an online television outlet called Hromadske.TV, which would prove essential to building the Euromaidan street demonstrations against Yanukovych.”
The United States and the European Union have embraced the regime change in Ukraine as a flowering of democracy.So far the conflict has already killed over 6,500 and displaced at least 1.4m Ukrainians, and it still goes on.
I still don't get how people can try and tackle this Russian scandal, and not realize how much the Clintons when in the WH and when SoS, interfered in the Russian, Georgian, Ukrainian elections in the years prior to 2016. How we ruined the lives of millions just in Libya and Syria for no good reason other than they were Russia's allies and not part of the 'western' community. Well, that and oil, and pipelines.
Why exactly is Russia our enemy again?
Why exactly have we moved NATO's (American) troops by the tens of thousands right up against Russia's borders, constantly playing war games and flying jets all along Russia's western flank?
These escalated acts of aggression were going on long before the election, so if Russia did in any way work the internet to give American's alternative sources of news (like Russian Times), what of it?
Is that worse than rich Ukrainians giving the Clintons millions so that they in turn, as official representatives of America, plunge us into wars and destabilize nations?
The Clintons feature prominently in past cases of US interference in Russian domestic politics. Including the latest election during 2011-12, where SoS Clinton actually got right in the thick of it.
Putin accused Clinton of giving "the signal" to opposition leaders, who fomented mass protests. He rejected Clinton's repeated criticism of a parliamentary vote that gave Putin's United Russia party nearly 50% of the vote amid widespread reports of fraud.
"[Opposition leaders] heard the signal and with the support of the US state department began active work," Putin said during a meeting of the All-Russia People's Front.
Clinton during a visit to Brussels at that time "Human rights is part of who we are," she said, after Putin's comments emerged. "And we expressed concerns that we thought were well founded about the conduct of the elections.” More was done than express concerns however, active efforts were taken. "We are supportive of the rights and aspirations of the Russian people to be able to make progress and realize a better future for themselves." – Where did she get the right to interfere with, or speak out about the Russian election?
There is no evidence Putin/Russia did anything to interfere in this election, other than to make information available to voters that might not otherwise have been known. And I don’t think this was for anything as petty as revenge for Clinton’s interference in the Russian election, in Ukraine politics, in Georgia politics, I think it was largely due to NATO forces bringing themselves right up to the border of Russia all along the Western front.
The Trump ‘Dossier’ supposedly is the reason for this investigation, as well as hearsay started by opposition members in Congress, and we now know that it’s creation was funded by the Clintons and the DNC, and this investigation brought to life by underhanded politics.
How could I seriously concern myself with Manafort, when I know what the Clintons were involved in, and know that there are plenty within the ‘establishment’ willing to do anything to undermine Trump?I noticed you didn't mention the dossier being originally started by a right wing publication The Washington Beacon,Ken. Was this by design or simply forgetfulness?
Ken, your comment appears to be well-considered and researched. But even if I agreed there was substance in all your points, I would still think we have reached an impasse. Except for the explanation of why you don't think Manafort's indictments are of any importance to consider, I don't see anything in your comment that relates to this thread's OP.
However, your Cohen quote and following description of the our government's, (starting with Bill Clinton), involvement in your Ukraine points would make an interesting thread of its own - and an interesting reading project to pursue. I will keep that project in mind.
GA
Nah Kenneth, rather than just another day - this is a good day, because it at least offers details to discuss instead of just partisan speculations.
Glad to see you chime in. I hope you stay withthe conversation.
GA
Since the investigation is still ongoing, I'm not sure why some of you seem so certain of the conclusions.
"I know Trump is very smart, brilliant." Ten months in, that is what you know? And you still think you know that today?
If Trump is so smart, brilliant, why did he hire a shady character like Paul Manafort, only to accept his resignation a few months later?
[Her reply to you on this thread is equally smart, brilliant, eh?]Ha! See how prescient I am Vanessajanes... I said this would be a "hot one."
From a simple OP about the charges - to an immediate injection of the Clintons and a "bla, bla, bla..." response. I am gonna get a Coke and some popcorn for this one. ;-)
GATrump, a private citizen, should have known what the government, with all the resources of the FBI, the CIA and Congress to draw upon, did not? Doesn't seem quite reasonable...
Manaford only worked for the Trump campaign for two months. And, he didn't get indicted on anything during that time. He got indicted for what he did while working for the Obama Adm.
The media headlines are a different narrative of course.Don't campaigns generally do extensive background checks? Maybe my memory is faulty, but I seem to recall the media referring to Manafort as having questionable character right from the beginning. How did they know that and the Trump campaign did not?
He never worked for the Obama's; he's an exclusively Republican guy. And he is being charged with being an undeclared foreign operative and laundering the funds he was paid to be one. So, yeah, there is no positive spin for that. Most likely these charges are to motivate him to cooperate with the investigation, so stayed tuned for more charges.
Manaford teamed up with Obama's lawyers and the Podesta Group. Manaford certainly was not working against Obama and Hillary.
Papadopoulos has been working for the investigators since he admitted lying to the FBI several months ago. He is suspected with wearing a wire while communicating with the other suspected Trump minions.
The indictments of both Gates and Manafort will pressure them to cooperate with Mueller and the other intel agencies or face prison terms. It's just beginning boys and girls....
"just beginning ......" ? , As in the same old 'special council' BS. , nothing new , nothing about collusion , nothing about election rigging , nothing about voting machines
nothing about connecting Trump to Putin or Russia ..........
Nada...........
That kind of "just beginning "? .Apparently you don't know this is the way investigations work, Horse. People start turning over on their superiors and it goes up the ladder. Go back and watch Fox News, you'll feel smarter over there.
You know, Mueller is investigating Russian interference in the election. If, during that process, he uncovers prosecutable criminal behavior of any kind, do you want him to pursue it?
Sure . But only if it's an all inclusive investigation ; ie. Put the Clinton's under the microscope for their connections , for once .
-Clinton Foundation Fraud
-Iran Cash Deal
-Russian Connections
-Haitian fiasco
-Uranium One
-Chinese Weapons Tech sales
-Unsolved , un-investigated assorted crimes against humanity
The Clinton's laid waste the past , Trump just entered office .......first things first .Sounds like you want the investigation to extend far beyond its original scope. I'm not sure that would be lawful.
But, let's take one item on your list, the Iran cash deal. What is preventing Congress from investigating that issue? What is preventing Trump from directing Sessions to open an investigation? It seems that with a Republican Congress and president, it would be easy peasy. So, what's stopping them?The ploy of distracting Fox viewers away from the Trump investigations is working well on their viewers, Horse. The HRC uranium deal is old news and has been approved by 8 other Govt agencies besides Hillary in her capacity as Secretary of State. Too bad your hatred of the Clintons clouds your judgement so much as to ignore Mueller's indictments of Donnie's cronies. Oooh, something shiny....
Did the other 8 govt. agencies get millions upon millions of $$ put into their private charity as a result of the Uranium deal? Or just the one that actually made it happen?
Do you really want to get into private charity orgs, Dan? Let's start with DT's if you insist.
I take it that's a "No", right? Clinton was the only one profiting personally from it.
But first we'll bring up 8 more agencies in an attempt at diversion, then someone else's charity. But the question still remains about Clinton's profits, and actions, in that particular deal.Do you know how a nonprofit organization works? Unless the Clintons are paid staff (and they are not), they receive no personal gain. The Clinton Foundation funds charitable activities and reports to the IRS. You can even view their financial filings online.
I read the USA Today article. If anything illegal occurred, the article didn't mention it.
If the Clintons did something illegal, I'd like to see them face legal consequences. I don't see that indicated in the article or in other articles I have previously read on the matter.
By the way, I am President of a nonprofit Board. I have also been paid to do design work by another member of that Board who also owns a business. Should I go to jail for that?
Your point? That kickbacks to a nonprofit in return for an unrelated business sale are OK? I would disagree.
Too bad ! Too bad that the media inspired and run justice system and bogus investigation is just that ! Trump supporters and yes , even Fox watchers see right through all of the hog -wash .Believe me .
I cannot believe anyone who believes Fox BS, Horse. You're a prime example why...
- ahorsebackposted 7 years ago
0Example and result of Mueller / Russian Connection Investigation results ;
Scenario ; President Trump arrested after Crime spree;
-High speed chase resulting in multiple accidents
-Cocaine , Heroin found in vehicle
-Minors under the influence found in vehicle
-Interstate lines crossed in high speed chase
-Refusal to obey police officers
-Armed stand off after car crashes
-Trump refuses to show up for arraignment
-Trump refuses to obey bail limitations
Pays $ 75 .00 fine for plead down charge of unreasonable speed .
Does anyone here really expect any viable outcome to come from the entire politically motivated investigation , These offenses and resulting investigations never make their way to the top of the chain of leadership . The entire Clinton history proved that . We haven't even touched on the Obama legacy yet .
Related Discussions
- 93
It is time for Mueller to put up or end the investigation into Trump
by Jack Lee 6 years ago
The Russian collusion has dominated the main street media for over a year now.What is going on? It is time for the special counsel Mueller to wrap things up.Either he has evident or not. No more fishing expeditions.This investigation has taken its course. Time to end it and move on... ...
- 6159
Did Trump Really Try To Implement a Coup?
by Scott Belford 8 weeks ago
All of the available evidence seems to say so.Here is a workable definition of a coups d'état as an "organized effort to effect sudden and irregular (e.g., illegal or extra-legal) removal of the incumbent executive authority of a national government, or to displace the authority of the highest...
- 43
Is THIS One of the Examples of Trump Obstruction of Justice"?
by Scott Belford 2 years ago
There can be know doubt that the Trump Jr. meeting with various Russians connected with Putin was collusion. It is not important that the those on the Russian side ended up only talking about influencing Donald Trump to end a set of 2012 sanctions against Russia. What is important is that...
- 113
Mueller probe, far from over! Roger's turn.
by IslandBites 5 years ago
Longtime Trump adviser Roger Stone indicted in Mueller probeStone has been arrested and indicted on seven counts in connection with Mueller's investigation, including one count of obstruction of an official proceeding, five counts of false statements, and one count of witness tampering...On October...
- 50
President Donald Trump's poll number remain steady.
by Readmikenow 17 months ago
Even after being indicted, President Donald Trump's poll numbers remain solid. Could be a result of people losing faith in the legal institutions such as the FBI an DOJ? Is it possible the blatant use of them against a political opponent is obvious to more and more people?"Donald...
- 24
Bombshell Durham Report. Hillary paid to spy on Trump Campaign
by Readmikenow 17 months ago
Some journalists, Republican lawmakers, and other notable public figures responded to an explosive report from over the weekend involving Special Counsel John Durham’s investigation into the FBI’s Trump-Russia probe by saying that the Trump White House was spied on.Durham said in the court filing...