Former Trump campaign aide Rick Gates, jailed

1. 83

   Don Wposted 4 years ago

   Rick Gates, the former Trump campaign aid, has been sentenced to 45 days in prison, 3 years probation and 300 hours of community service.
   https://edition.cnn.com/2019/12/17/poli … index.html
   
   Of the 4 people investigated by the FBI, this brings the total that have been jailed to 3.
   
   Paul Manafort was convicted and is currently serving time in prison for offenses arising from his work for pro-Russian government advocates in Ukraine.
   
   George Papadopoulos was convicted and served a sentence for lying to the FBI about his contacts relating to Russia.
   
   Michael Flynn was convicted for lying to the FBI about his contact with the Russian ambassador. He is due to be sentenced in January.

   replyreport
   1. 93

      wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      "Of the 4 people investigated by the FBI, this brings the total that have been jailed to 3."
      
      Really?  Only 4 people were investigated in the "Trump colluded with Russia to fix the election!" farce?  You missed Trump himself - "investigated to within an inch of his life - and dozens or hundreds of others.  Surely you mean that out of those hundreds (thousands?), 4 were indicted and 3 convicted?

      replyreport
      1. 83

         Don Wposted 4 years agoin reply to this

         I was referring to the four investigations cited in the Horowitz report into Carter Page, George Papadopoulos, Michael Flynn and Paul Manafort, as referenced here:
         
         "We did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivation influenced the decisions to open four individual investigations" (p. iv Executive Summary)
         
         Of those, 3 out of the 4 individuals have now been convicted of lying to the FBI, mostly in relation to their contacts with Russia. I thought Gates was one of the 4. He is in fact one of the 5 former Trump campaign aides/associates who have now been convicted of felonies. These are: Manafort, Gates, Flynn, Papadopoulos and Cohen, with 8 people convicted in total.
         
         How many presidents do you know with 5 former campaign aides/associates who have been convicted of lying or trying to interfere with criminal investigations?

         replyreport
      2. 60

         Randy Godwinposted 4 years agoin reply to this

         Trump was afraid of sitting down with Mueller as you well know, Dan. He didn't himself to tell the truth and neither did his attorneys. What about you Dan, do you think he could have been honest if he answered Mueller's queries?

         replyreport
         1. 93

            wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            Not sure what that has to do with how many people were investigated.  Can you expand on that thought?

            replyreport
            1. 60

               Randy Godwinposted 4 years agoin reply to this

               Someone claimed Trump was "investigated within an inch of his life." I responded as to that not being the case. Can you expand on why you think he was, without him being under oath? Or do you think he's above being queried?

               replyreport
               1. 93

                  wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  I'd have to say a 2 year "investigation", with all the power of the FBI behind it, falls into that category.  If it happened to you, would you say that?  With such a witch hunt going on, would you testify against yourself or take the fifth?

                  replyreport
                  1. 60

                     Randy Godwinposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                     If I was innocent I'd testify to the fact. And show there was a "witch hunt" other than Trumps's claim of such. Any time he's screwed up he always resorts to this transparent claim. And you buy it hook, line, and sinker.

                     replyreport
                     1. 93

                        wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                        Would you?  With Congress hot for your hide, and willing to twist anything you say into something evil? 
                        
                        Oh, it isn't Trumps claim I buy - I buy what my eyes and ears gather...from actions and comments of Democrats in Congress.  You fail to hear/see them, but I don't. 
                        
                        In any case, Trump has testified...in his letter to Pelosi today.  He stated his case very clearly, so you now have his testimony.

                        replyreport
                        1. 60

                           Randy Godwinposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                           Of course I would, Dan. But you're towing Trump's line of a flawed process, as it's the only excuse he has left to explain his actions. You're simply an enabler for a flawed person who seems to believe he's above the law.
                           
                           His letter indicates the lack of responsibility for breaking his oath of office. Something we've grown to expect from him these days.

                           replyreport
                           1. 93

                              wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                              Your comment is exactly why anyone with a grain of sense would refuse to testify as to their actions in a Congress out to convict them on anything they can make the public believe.  An excellent example!

                              replyreport
                              1. 60

                                 Randy Godwinposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                                 Are you suggesting all future POTUS's can simply claim impeachment investigations are flawed because the minority does't have control in the House? What's the use of even having oversight other than it being written in the Constitution then?

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 93

                                    wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                                    As usual I'm unable to connect this with the topic: Trump testifying in front of an extremely hostile House that will use anything he says, true, false, relevant, irrelevant, to spin into a major crime.  Try again?

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 60

                                       Randy Godwinposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                                       Okay, the same goes for any POTUS who is being investigated for corruption. They don't have to comply with anything if Trump gets away with this.

                                       report
                                       1. 93

                                          wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                                          If you're trying to say that anyone in the President's chair is forced to give their right to not self-incriminate, I have to disagree.  If you're trying to say that any in that chair is forced to assist the opposing party in conducting a witch hunt to harm them and the country, I must disagree.
                                          
                                          Other than that you aren't making any sense at all, which will be proven "beyond a reasonable doubt" by the trial in the Senate.

                                          report
                                          1. 60

                                             Randy Godwinposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                                             He could have taken the 5th, Dan. That's his right, but to stonewall and even give misleading answer on the written questions--according to Mueller--leaves the House no other choice.
                                             
                                             I don't think you would even believe he won't stop trying to abuse his power. After all, it was right after the Mueller testimony--I do believe it was the next day--when he held up the Ukraine funding.
                                             
                                             Apparently he didn't learn anything from Mueller's report as it emboldened him instead of teaching him a lesson. What a moron!

                                             report
   2. 89

      GA Andersonposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      I followed your link and it confirmed what I thought I Knew. Gates' admission of guilt had nothing to do with the Trump campaign. Or Trump presidency.
      
      Yet your presentation, (former Trump aide),  infers otherwise. Why? Gates' and Manafort's crimes predate their Trump association, and have nothing to do with candidate Trump's campaign, so why present them as pertinent to candidate Trump's campaign?
      
      GA

      replyreport
      1. 83

         Don Wposted 4 years agoin reply to this

         Gates and Manafort were indicted by Mueller for lying about work they did in Ukraine in connection with pro-Russian advocates, and failing to register as foreign agents.
         
         Saying that those activities happened before the Trump campaign, and therefore are not pertinent, is misleading. Those activities, and the willingness of Manafort and Gates to lie about them, are part of a significant and worrying pattern of connections between Trump and Russia, via Ukraine, which continues to be of grave concern during Trump's presidency. And those connections came into play directly in support of Trump's campaign.
         
         E.g. Konstantin Kilimnik who worked for Gates and Manafort both in Ukraine and during the Trump campaign (Gates testified that all three met in Aug 2016 where Manafort handed Kilimnik polling data). Kilimnik is alleged to work for Russian intelligence, and was indicted by Mueller in 2018 for conspiracy to obstruct justice. 
         https://www.newsweek.com/paul-manaforts … obe-695674
         https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics … story.html
         
         Did these dubious connections rise above the threshold of criminal activity? Mueller didn't think so, but that's irrelevant to whether they represent a counterintelligence concern. I think they do, and so do people in the intelligence community. Even more worrying is that this pattern seems to be continuing.
         
         This month, Trump's personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani is in the Ukraine. Why is he there? Who exactly is he meeting with? Do they have any connections with Russia or Russian intelligence? Are there financial transactions involved? If so who is paying whom, and for what?
         
         More importantly, is the intelligence community able to investigate any of that as part of its counterintelligence work, without being vilified as members of an anti-Trump, Trump-hating, never-Trump "deep state"?
         
         Gates and Manafort are part of the overall pattern of Trump's dubious Russian connections, which makes their convictions for lying about those connections very relevant.

         replyreport
         1. 89

            GA Andersonposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            It is possible that your reasoning is right, but I think it is also possible that it isn't.
            
            For instance; It looks like Manafort and Gates' financial crimes were pre-Trump, and I think their lies about those crimes were to try to save their own butts, not Trump's. So I am not as sure as you that their lying indicates a worrying connection. I would even subtract Gates from the conversation because I believe he is a secondary consideration—only included because of his association with Manafort, not as a component of that Worrying connection.
            
            However, if there is any Russian connection to Trump to worry about, I think it would be Manafort that I would look to—not Gates. Which is the reason I initially questioned the focus of the OP.
            
            GA
            
            ,

            replyreport