I thought the sealed indictments reported earlier this week were the ones that dropped yesterday...no clue, though. In any case, this is new.
I thought the sealed indictments reported earlier this week were the ones that dropped yesterday...no clue, though. In any case, this is new.
I see now. Damn
These newly unsealed indictments were filed in mid-February.
I believe the lady in black might come to assume some prominence. For those who might need a reminder about Frau Kirsch
http://www.spiegel.de/international/...a-1192693.html
Last edited by nsacpi; 02-23-2018 at 05:48 PM.
"I am a victim, I will tell you. I am a victim."
"I am your retribution."
What do you think this indictment does other than let us know things that have been known already. Basically manafort paid politicians to be pro Ukrainian...
How does this tie into Russia collusion?
Well, at the very least, it underscores the fact that the Trump campaign was led for a time by a guy who is a corrupt fixer and bagman for pro-Russian Ukrainian politicians and oligarchs. You can argue about the import of that, but you can't deny it, and can't deny that it raises some questions.
This is a fair point.Originally Posted by thethe
However, the question should also be asked. Why would Mueller give Gates a plea bargain? The answer in these sorts of cases is to get at bigger fish further up the food chain? He would undoubtedly like to get Manafortov to flip. And for what purpose?
The second question to be asked is what kind of crimes would Papadopoulos and Gates help to prove? Almost surely they have no information when it comes to obstruction and abuse of power. Their information to the extent they have any very likely is related to questions of quid pro quo between the campaign and the Russians.
"I am a victim, I will tell you. I am a victim."
"I am your retribution."
What did the trump campaign receive from russia?
This is a bit of speculation, for sure, but I wouldn't be surprised if Dana Rohrabacher ends up in a windowless room surrounded by lawyers at some point in this process.
I think the more pertinent question is what, if anything, they offered in return. It's obvious what they received.
Please go into further details on what they received.
The public release of dirt on his opponent, derived by theft, for one.
Manafortov has been thoroughly compromised for some time. I'm sure the Russians viewed his role in the Trump campaign with great interest and saw a very good opportunity there.
The other thing about Manafortov is that it would appear that he himself orchestrated a quid pro quo of sorts. He invited his colleague Konstantin Kilimnik to come and observe what was being done to the GOP platform plank on Ukraine. He sent emails offering "private briefings" to Oleg Deripaska on Trump's views regarding sanctions. And in return he wanted financial forgiveness regarding money he borrowed/stole from Deripaska and I would surmise (I do not claim this part is proven) help with any derogatory information they had on Hillary. Certainly the meeting in Trump Tower is consistent with the Trump campaign being enthusiastic about receiving such help (as is the search by Peter W Smith for Hillary emails). And I have to say the things Bannon has had to say about this meeting are worth paying attention to.
The question that hangs out there is this: was Pavel Manofortov freelancing when he orchestrated this quid pro quo or did other members of the Trump campaign know what he was doing.
Last edited by nsacpi; 02-23-2018 at 06:18 PM.
"I am a victim, I will tell you. I am a victim."
"I am your retribution."
Has this been proven through the Mueller investigation that Russia was involved with this?
Dirt on Hillary, including the hacked DNC and Podesta emails. An extremely valuable campaign contribution.
"I am a victim, I will tell you. I am a victim."
"I am your retribution."
Not by the Mueller investigation, publicly. Not yet, at least.
What they've alleged so far is a multi million dollar social media campaign to assist Trump.
But if you want to wager that they won't bring indictments for the email hacks, I'll take that action.
That is a shoe that is yet to drop. I'm sure they are working it. Remember that there are reports that Dutch intelligence had a mole within one of the hacking groups.
I will speculate a little here and guess that it will come out that the Trumpies were dim-witted enough to leave a money or electronic trail showing interaction with Russian controlled hackers. The Russians themselves have not showed great skill in covering their tracks.
Last edited by nsacpi; 02-23-2018 at 06:16 PM.
"I am a victim, I will tell you. I am a victim."
"I am your retribution."
Wait...a social media campaign that organized anti trump rallies and retweeted MSNBC more than anyone else is assistance to trump?
Until muller proves that the Russians hacked the dNC I don't see how trump benefited from a relationship with russia. Suspiciously the DNC never let anyone investigate the servers. At the the physical server.
You can selectively highlight the details that came after the election if you want to, but if you read the charging document it's clear that the operation was design to hurt HRC and help Trump.
But, yes, the DNC/Podesta hack shoe has yet to drop. I suspect it will. You?
maybe it was the 400 pound guy
"I am a victim, I will tell you. I am a victim."
"I am your retribution."
The Facebook vp said that the overwhelming majority of the spend was after the campaign and the impact has been greatly overstated. In relation to other social media campaigns tell he russia interference is a drop in the bucket. I get you want to make it out to be pearl Harbor but the actual numbers show this was a miniscule effect. The indictment said the goal was discord and not helping trump.
So again, until muEller proves that the dnc hack was carried out by Russians I don't see what the trump campaign benefitted from.
I suppose the real question is why hasn't muEller been able to prove that? Shouldn't that have been close to step 1. Consideration received in exchange for other consideration? Sounds pretty basic to me.
Mock it all you want but Assange has said the source wasn't russia. Did he not know if his source was a derivation of russia? Maybe but Assanges word is as good as anybody right now since everyone is a liar.
You know my stance. Seth rich was a berne supporter. Saw the corruption at the DNC and wanted to show the country. So yeah, I'll take that bet with you.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote