Russia Collusion Scandal (aka A Leftist fantasy)

I mean Christ even Trump said it. He just blamed the previous administration like he's good at doing. As has been pointed out here, Obama definitely fumbled the issue but I'll go to my grave calling bull**** on people from the right who would like to make it about him because if he had made it an issue during the campaign, he would have been accused mercilessly of meddling.
 
Julio3000 said:
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.
Click to expand...

The book on Manafort has been out since 1980. Literally. That he was a 'bagman' for pro-Russian Ukrainians might 'raise questions', but let's at least be honest about these charges and what they relate to, specifically.

I've always seen him as a necessary evil kind of hire with respect to the convention and whipping delegates. It looks bad now, but Trump might not be sitting here had the convention devolved into a contested chaos.

Not everyone has a Jim Baker on speed dial.
 
Hawk said:
The book on Manafort has been out since 1980. Literally. That he was a 'bagman' for pro-Russian Ukrainians might 'raise questions', but let's at least be honest about these charges and what they relate to, specifically.

I've always seen him as a necessary evil kind of hire with respect to the convention and whipping delegates. It looks bad now, but Trump might not be sitting here had the convention devolved into a contested chaos.

Not everyone has a Jim Baker on speed dial.
Click to expand...

whatever he is it appears he did orchestrate a quid pro quo, part of which was for personal gain

the question I'm sure Mueller is digging into is the extent to which his activities were known to others in the campaign
 
Hawk said:
The book on Manafort has been out since 1980. Literally. That he was a 'bagman' for pro-Russian Ukrainians might 'raise questions', but let's at least be honest about these charges and what they relate to, specifically.

I've always seen him as a necessary evil kind of hire with respect to the convention and whipping delegates. It looks bad now, but Trump might not be sitting here had the convention devolved into a contested chaos.

Not everyone has a Jim Baker on speed dial.
Click to expand...

oh Hawk,
 
Chris Hayes
‏Verified account @chrislhayes
49m49 minutes ago

I gotta say it’s wild to me that anyone is reading all these charging documents and thinking

“Yeah, this is probably all there is.

No reason to think the president or his family were part of something criminal.”
 
nsacpi said:
whatever he is it appears he did orchestrate a quid pro quo, part of which was for personal gain

the question I'm sure Mueller is digging into is the extent to which his activities were known to others in the campaign
Click to expand...

That question is kind of the crux of the entire thing. Even if there was a quid pro quo involving Manafort (which hasn't been proven yet), we've got to determine whether or not it related to collusion (broadly, even) before it really matters if anyone else knew/was involved.
 
nsacpi said:
whatever he is it appears he did orchestrate a quid pro quo, part of which was for personal gain

the question I'm sure Mueller is digging into is the extent to which his activities were known to others in the campaign
Click to expand...

Misprison of treason is the term and Manafortov is staying tight-lipped for now.
 
Hawk said:
The book on Manafort has been out since 1980. Literally. That he was a 'bagman' for pro-Russian Ukrainians might 'raise questions', but let's at least be honest about these charges and what they relate to, specifically.

I've always seen him as a necessary evil kind of hire with respect to the convention and whipping delegates. It looks bad now, but Trump might not be sitting here had the convention devolved into a contested chaos.

Not everyone has a Jim Baker on speed dial.
Click to expand...

I don't think that's paricularly convincing. While I imagine there may have been some, er, complications with signing up someone from the Bush camp (which would provide the most obvious talent pool), at the end of the day, we're talking about a mercenary class of people here. Surely they could have found somebody to do that job who wasn't an obvious crook of that stripe. Manafort hadn't done that kind of thing since, what, 1996? And if hiring him to whip at the convention was a necessary evil, how about elevating him to lead the campaign?

As for these charges, I'm not sure where I've misrepresented them. They relate to Manafort's Ukrainian adventures, though the most recent ones at least extend the timeline into his campaign work, where a cash-strapped hood was committing fraud left and right while in hock to Deripaska and god knows what silent partners. That's certainly worth a sidelong glance.

If there's a link to campaign-related hijinks, it's not as if Mueller would tip that hand now. So the fact that it hasn't emerged in these indictments is hardly convincing proof that it doesn't exist.

We're grasping in the dark, sure, but it seems like a sucker bet to assume that every piece laid down is going to be the last.
 
By all accounts, his body of work at the convention was impressive. It’s not exactly shocking that he muscled Lewandowski out afterwards.
 
Hawk said:
I've always seen him as a necessary evil kind of hire with respect to the convention and whipping delegates. It looks bad now, but Trump might not be sitting here had the convention devolved into a contested chaos.
Click to expand...
And quickly writing and presenting a pro-Russia GOP convention platform, which for me seems completely out of left field, to show the Russians Trump was on board.
 
A mercenary class with allegiances. We're talking about the party here.

As for the rest, I'm not making any sort of commentary aside from suggesting that the collusion crew slow their roll a bit and honestly assess the charges for what they are, without overreach.
 
Hawk said:
A mercenary class with allegiances. We're talking about the party here.

As for the rest, I'm not making any sort of commentary aside from suggesting that the collusion crew slow their roll a bit and honestly assess the charges for what they are, withoutout overreach.
Click to expand...

I believe mercenary implies an allegiance to money.

It's all gonna come out and is the best show on TV for going on 3 years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top