Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21060
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 31 Oct 2017, 11:55 am

freeman3 wrote:So Clinton campaign hired Fusion GPS...which was the same firm that dug up dirt on Magitsky. But wasn't that firm hired to do the dossier before Clinton came aboard by a Republican web site? And they hired Steele to do the dossier. Is Steele Russian connected too? And Steele relied on Russian officials for some of the dossier so he was being manipulated by the Russians...so that Trump will lose?And the Clinton campaign should be responsible for Steele relying on Russian government officials who allegedly manipulated him? But how would they know what Steele would rely on Russian officials? Did they ever use the dirt?

Doesn't make for a very coherent narrative...


But, there's more factual basis than what you present. At least the dots are present. It may or may not, ultimately, add up.

And, the Washington Beacon was not involved in the dossier. That was all the DNC and Clinton campaign. Check your facts, counselor:

Since its launch in February of 2012, the Washington Free Beacon has retained third party firms to conduct research on many individuals and institutions of interest to us and our readers. In that capacity, during the 2016 election cycle we retained Fusion GPS to provide research on multiple candidates in the Republican presidential primary, just as we retained other firms to assist in our research into Hillary Clinton. All of the work that Fusion GPS provided to the Free Beacon was based on public sources, and none of the work product that the Free Beacon received appears in the Steele dossier. The Free Beacon had no knowledge of or connection to the Steele dossier, did not pay for the dossier, and never had contact with, knowledge of, or provided payment for any work performed by Christopher Steele. Nor did we have any knowledge of the relationship between Fusion GPS and the Democratic National Committee, Perkins Coie, and the Clinton campaign.

Representatives of the Free Beacon approached the House Intelligence Committee today and offered to answer what questions we can in their ongoing probe of Fusion GPS and the Steele dossier. But to be clear: We stand by our reporting, and we do not apologize for our methods. We consider it our duty to report verifiable information, not falsehoods or slander, and we believe that commitment has been well demonstrated by the quality of the journalism that we produce. The First Amendment guarantees our right to engage in news-gathering as we see fit, and we intend to continue doing just that as we have since the day we launched this project.

Matthew Continetti
Editor in Chief

Michael Goldfarb
Chairman


http://freebeacon.com/uncategorized/fus ... ee-beacon/
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10946
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 31 Oct 2017, 12:31 pm

Whoever ends up getting credit for financing Steels reports, the point is that a great deal of the contents of the Steele reports have been corroborated.
And more appears to have been corroborated with Manafort's indictment and Papadoupolus' guilty plea.

According to the account, the Kremlin provided Trump with intelligence on his political primary opponents and access to potential business deals in Russia. Perhaps more importantly, Russia had offered to provide potentially compromising material on Hillary Clinton, consisting of bugged conversations during her travels to Russia, and evidence of her viewpoints that contradicted her public positions on various issues.
The report also alleged that the internal Russian intelligence service, FSB, had developed potentially compromising material on Trump, to include details of “perverted sexual acts” which were arranged and monitored by the FSB.
The report stated that Russian President Putin was supportive of the effort to cultivate Trump, and the primary aim was to sow discord and disunity within the U.S. and the West. The dossier of FSB-collected information on Hillary Clinton was purportedly managed by Kremlin chief spokesman Dimitry Peskov.
Subsequent reports provide additional detail about the possible conspiracy, which includes information about cyberattacks against the U.S. They allege that former Trump campaign chief Paul Manafort managed the plot to exploit political information on Hillary Clinton in return for information on Russian oligarchs outside Russia, and an agreement to “sideline” Ukraine as a campaign issue. According to the report, Trump campaign operative Carter Page is also said to have played a role in shuttling information to Moscow, while Trump’s personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, reportedly took over efforts after Manafort left the campaign, allegedly providing cash payments for Russian hackers. In one account, Putin and his aides expressed concern over kickbacks of cash to Manafort from former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, which they feared might be discoverable by U.S. authorities. The Kremlin also feared that the U.S. might stumble onto the conspiracy through the actions of a Russian diplomat in Washington, Mikhail Kalugin, and therefore had him withdrawn, according to the reports.
In late fall 2016, the Orbis team reported that a Russian-supported company had been “using botnets and porn traffic to transmit viruses, plant bugs, steal data and conduct ‘altering operations’ against the Democratic Party leadership.” Hackers recruited by the FSB under duress were involved in the operations. According to the report, Cohen insisted that payments be made quickly and discreetly, and that cyber operators should go to ground and cover their tracks.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... rated.html

If the DNC did indeed fund Steels, and I think they funded "research without knowing it was Steele, it will turn out to be money well spent...
You don't think Manafort or Gates are going to cop a plea to avoid 25 years in jail.... in return for testimony regarding the contents of Steeles reports (underlined above).. ?
Its just a matter of time now.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3026
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 31 Oct 2017, 12:54 pm

Ok I stand corrected that the Washington Free Beacon ever funded the dossier though they did pay Fusion GPS to do research on Trump. When you connect all the dots let me know...they seem pretty right now jumbled.

Here's the thing: lies have a mental component to them. When you say someone is telling a lie it's not just that they are saying something is untrue...but that they know it's untrue. It's always an attack on character. On the other hand, if you say something someone said is not true then there is no implication that the person knew it was untrue.

When I said the Trump campaign was willing to collude with Russia that was a statement impossible to be a lie. Collusion is a vague term and there all kinds of factual and legal interpretations with regard to the meeting of Donald, Jr. with the Russian attorney. In order to get inside someone's head and know they're lying the alleged untruth has to be something so clearly untrue that you could make the further inference that the person knew it was untrue (or they are being so reckless about the truth it's equivalent). Trump saying three million illegals voted was a lie because there was no factual support for it and the sheer ridiculous of the statement makes it clear that he knew it was untrue.

With regard to my mistaken impression about Washington Free Beacon being involved in funding the dossier that was not a lie but carelessness about a factual detail in a story I think has little consequence.

Things that involve interpretation depending on different world-views and factual disputes...are the not kind of things a person should be throwing out the L word on.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21060
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 31 Oct 2017, 1:26 pm

freeman3 wrote:Ok I stand corrected that the Washington Free Beacon ever funded the dossier though they did pay Fusion GPS to do research on Trump. When you connect all the dots let me know...they seem pretty right now jumbled.


It's a pretty straight line: the Clinton Campaign and the DNC hired Fusion GPS; Fusion GPS hired Steele; Steele paid the Russians for the dossier.

Here's the thing: lies have a mental component to them. When you say someone is telling a lie it's not just that they are saying something is untrue...but that they know it's untrue. It's always an attack on character. On the other hand, if you say something someone said is not true then there is no implication that the person knew it was untrue.

When I said the Trump campaign was willing to collude with Russia that was a statement impossible to be a lie. Collusion is a vague term and there all kinds of factual and legal interpretations with regard to the meeting of Donald, Jr. with the Russian attorney. In order to get inside someone's head and know they're lying the alleged untruth has to be something so clearly untrue that you could make the further inference that the person knew it was untrue (or they are being so reckless about the truth it's equivalent).


By your own admission, the assertions you made were unprovable, yet you presented them as if they were unassailably true.

Trump saying three million illegals voted was a lie because there was no factual support for it and the sheer ridiculous of the statement makes it clear that he knew it was untrue.


He lies all the time. So did Hillary. I mean, it's a wonder she survived that sniper fire!

Things that involve interpretation depending on different world-views and factual disputes...are the not kind of things a person should be throwing out the L word on.


You might do well to consider your own glass house. You presumed I only read "conservative spin." You have no basis for that.

And, at best, you have no evidence the Trump campaign was "absolutely willing to collude with the Russians and had no qualms about doing so;" You have speculation.

You can say that's not the "L-word." I'm not so easy. I want facts.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21060
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 31 Oct 2017, 1:33 pm

rickyp wrote:Whoever ends up getting credit for financing Steels reports, the point is that a great deal of the contents of the Steele reports have been corroborated.
And more appears to have been corroborated with Manafort's indictment and Papadoupolus' guilty plea.

According to the account, the Kremlin provided Trump with intelligence on his political primary opponents and access to potential business deals in Russia. Perhaps more importantly, Russia had offered to provide potentially compromising material on Hillary Clinton, consisting of bugged conversations during her travels to Russia, and evidence of her viewpoints that contradicted her public positions on various issues.
The report also alleged that the internal Russian intelligence service, FSB, had developed potentially compromising material on Trump, to include details of “perverted sexual acts” which were arranged and monitored by the FSB.
The report stated that Russian President Putin was supportive of the effort to cultivate Trump, and the primary aim was to sow discord and disunity within the U.S. and the West. The dossier of FSB-collected information on Hillary Clinton was purportedly managed by Kremlin chief spokesman Dimitry Peskov.
Subsequent reports provide additional detail about the possible conspiracy, which includes information about cyberattacks against the U.S. They allege that former Trump campaign chief Paul Manafort managed the plot to exploit political information on Hillary Clinton in return for information on Russian oligarchs outside Russia, and an agreement to “sideline” Ukraine as a campaign issue. According to the report, Trump campaign operative Carter Page is also said to have played a role in shuttling information to Moscow, while Trump’s personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, reportedly took over efforts after Manafort left the campaign, allegedly providing cash payments for Russian hackers. In one account, Putin and his aides expressed concern over kickbacks of cash to Manafort from former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, which they feared might be discoverable by U.S. authorities. The Kremlin also feared that the U.S. might stumble onto the conspiracy through the actions of a Russian diplomat in Washington, Mikhail Kalugin, and therefore had him withdrawn, according to the reports.
In late fall 2016, the Orbis team reported that a Russian-supported company had been “using botnets and porn traffic to transmit viruses, plant bugs, steal data and conduct ‘altering operations’ against the Democratic Party leadership.” Hackers recruited by the FSB under duress were involved in the operations. According to the report, Cohen insisted that payments be made quickly and discreetly, and that cyber operators should go to ground and cover their tracks.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... rated.html

If the DNC did indeed fund Steels, and I think they funded "research without knowing it was Steele, it will turn out to be money well spent...
You don't think Manafort or Gates are going to cop a plea to avoid 25 years in jail.... in return for testimony regarding the contents of Steeles reports (underlined above).. ?
Its just a matter of time now.


From your stunning link:

Riding that wave, legendary Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward characterized the report as “garbage.”

For professional investigators, however, the dossier is by no means a useless document. Although the reports were produced episodically—almost erratically—over a five-month period, they present a coherent narrative of collusion between the Kremlin and the Trump campaign.


1. So, noted reporter and non-Trump supporter Woodward calls it garbage. But, he's not "a professional investigator?" Tell that to Nixon!

2. A "coherent narrative of collusion" Okay, so let's have it. If it's so "coherent," Mueller will be running Trump out of town on a rail in what, two weeks? Less? Has Trump already composed his resignation letter?
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10946
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 31 Oct 2017, 1:47 pm

Fate
2. A "coherent narrative of collusion" Okay, so let's have it. If it's so "coherent," Mueller will be running Trump out of town on a rail in what, two weeks? Less? Has Trump already composed his resignation letter?


What happens when Manafort cops a plea and confirms this?... (Oh wait, some of this has already been confirmed... Namely the cash ... )

Subsequent reports provide additional detail about the possible conspiracy, which includes information about cyberattacks against the U.S. They allege that former Trump campaign chief Paul Manafort managed the plot to exploit political information on Hillary Clinton in return for information on Russian oligarchs outside Russia, and an agreement to “sideline” Ukraine as a campaign issue. According to the report, Trump campaign operative Carter Page is also said to have played a role in shuttling information to Moscow, while Trump’s personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, reportedly took over efforts after Manafort left the campaign, allegedly providing cash payments for Russian hackers. In one account, Putin and his aides expressed concern over kickbacks of cash to Manafort from former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, which they feared might be discoverable by U.S. authorities. The Kremlin also feared that the U.S. might stumble onto the conspiracy through the actions of a Russian diplomat in Washington, Mikhail Kalugin, and therefore had him withdrawn, according to the reports.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21060
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 31 Oct 2017, 2:15 pm

rickyp wrote:Fate
2. A "coherent narrative of collusion" Okay, so let's have it. If it's so "coherent," Mueller will be running Trump out of town on a rail in what, two weeks? Less? Has Trump already composed his resignation letter?


What happens when Manafort cops a plea and confirms this?... (Oh wait, some of this has already been confirmed... Namely the cash ... )

Subsequent reports provide additional detail about the possible conspiracy, which includes information about cyberattacks against the U.S. They allege that former Trump campaign chief Paul Manafort managed the plot to exploit political information on Hillary Clinton in return for information on Russian oligarchs outside Russia, and an agreement to “sideline” Ukraine as a campaign issue. According to the report, Trump campaign operative Carter Page is also said to have played a role in shuttling information to Moscow, while Trump’s personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, reportedly took over efforts after Manafort left the campaign, allegedly providing cash payments for Russian hackers. In one account, Putin and his aides expressed concern over kickbacks of cash to Manafort from former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, which they feared might be discoverable by U.S. authorities. The Kremlin also feared that the U.S. might stumble onto the conspiracy through the actions of a Russian diplomat in Washington, Mikhail Kalugin, and therefore had him withdrawn, according to the reports.


Nice piece of fiction. If true, and known since September, what is Mueller doing? Vacationing in the Med?
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3026
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 31 Oct 2017, 2:33 pm

I actually don't think that is is disputable that the Trump campaign was willing to collude with the Russians. I think that is 100% proven fact. I am just not willing to call you a liar for disputing it. I am making allowance for a world-view that refuses to let facts get through...

The only "facts" you want are those that confirm your world-view.

As for the Steele Dossier...a law firm hired by the Clinton and DNC hired Fusion GPS which hired Steele who got the information from Russian officials. It's not clear that Hillary was even informed of it (Podesta says he did not know) and it's pretty much ridiculous to think that Clinton knowingly paid for opposition research on Trump from the Russians. I'll wait for proof on that. Contrast that with Donald, Jr. knew he was walking into a meeting with a person that he was told was acting as a representative of the Russian government and was going to give him dirt on Hillary. You would need to prove that Hillary knew that Steele was going to get dirt on Trump from the Russians for the dossier issue to be equivalent to what Donald, Jr. did. No way.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21060
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 31 Oct 2017, 2:47 pm

freeman3 wrote:I actually don't think that is is disputable that the Trump campaign was willing to collude with the Russians. I think that is 100% proven fact. I am just not willing to call you a liar for disputing it. I am making allowance for a world-view that refuses to let facts get through...

The only "facts" you want are those that confirm your world-view.


That is so kind and condescending.

I actually like "facts" that aren't, you know, made up. Your "facts" are Trump-worthy.

As for the Steele Dossier...a law firm hired by the Clinton and DNC hired Fusion GPS which hired Steele who got the information from Russian officials. It's not clear that Hillary was even informed of it (Podesta says he did not know) and it's pretty much ridiculous to think that Clinton knowingly paid for opposition research on Trump from the Russians. I'll wait for proof on that.


So, the campaign spends, as I understand it, about $10M and no one knows what for?

Talk about world-view problems!

Contrast that with Donald, Jr. knew he was walking into a meeting with a person that he was told was acting as a representative of the Russian government and was going to give him dirt on Hillary. You would need to prove that Hillary knew that Steele was going to get dirt on Trump from the Russians for the dossier issue to be equivalent to what Donald, Jr. did. No way.


Still want you to define "collusion."

Key question: did the Trump campaign conspire with the Russian government to subvert the democratic process?

If not, where is the crime? If so, where is the evidence? The $150K Russia spent on Facebook ads?

:laugh:

Liberals are so bent that Trump won.

I'm not. I'm simply happy that Clinton the Thief lost.

You can have Trump as long as the Republic isn't saddled with the Queen of Thieves.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10946
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 01 Nov 2017, 7:45 am

Fate
Nice piece of fiction. If true, and known since September, what is Mueller doing? Vacationing in the Med?

I'm sure that his people spent a fair amount of time in Crete, the centre of much of the Russian oligarchs money laundering. By the way, the vice chairman of the Bank of Crete during much of this was Wilbur Ross.
It takes a great deal of time to nail down all the details in a scam as complex as Manaforts. You may think complex legal proceedings take as long as an episode of Law and Order...however Watergate took about 2 and a half years from the initial FBI investigation to the conclusion..
Compared to that, this thing is flying along.

Which parts of the quotation you commented on do you think are "fiction"? They already know that the Russians were offering "dirt on Clinton". All they need now is someone to admit that they reached out to secure the dirt... (Which they actually have from Don Jr.)
They already know that the Russians invested in all kinds of hacking of social to attack Hillary. They just need to know who in Trumps group provided them with any targeting data...
And maybe they already know, but need a witness, or more witnesses, to corroborate what they know. Which they'll secure by charging various people with crimes for which they will want to deal to avoid lengthy sentences...
That seems to be the route we're on... My guess is that Trump will pardon various people, against advice, and it will be up to Congress to charge him with obstruction of justice and impeach.
Now if that's the issue republicans want to fight the 2018 midterms on ....
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21060
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 01 Nov 2017, 7:53 am

rickyp wrote:Which parts of the quotation you commented on do you think are "fiction"?


This:

Subsequent reports provide additional detail about the possible conspiracy, which includes information about cyberattacks against the U.S. They allege that former Trump campaign chief Paul Manafort managed the plot to exploit political information on Hillary Clinton in return for information on Russian oligarchs outside Russia, and an agreement to “sideline” Ukraine as a campaign issue. According to the report, Trump campaign operative Carter Page is also said to have played a role in shuttling information to Moscow, while Trump’s personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, reportedly took over efforts after Manafort left the campaign, allegedly providing cash payments for Russian hackers. In one account, Putin and his aides expressed concern over kickbacks of cash to Manafort from former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, which they feared might be discoverable by U.S. authorities. The Kremlin also feared that the U.S. might stumble onto the conspiracy through the actions of a Russian diplomat in Washington, Mikhail Kalugin, and therefore had him withdrawn, according to the reports.


That's all what we know as "hearsay."
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10946
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 01 Nov 2017, 9:20 am

fate
That's all what we know as "hearsay."


No. Look up hearsay.
These are allegations. Allegations made in Steels reporting.
Mueller is busy producing evidence that will either corroborate the allegations or not.
But there is already much in the public domain that corroborates parts of this.
The Wikileaks dump of Clinton and DNC emails .
The contacts between Papadopolous and his emails to the Trump team. And some responses to Papadoppolus such as Clovis encouraging him to follow up...
The money laundering charges show Manaforts involvement with Russia.
The travel of Manafort, Carter, Gage and Cohen.
The actual removal of Kalugin...
And a lot more...
So the process of squeezing manafort, papadopolous and gage on charges that Mueller feels are already proven ... will elicit more evidence to corroborate the allegations. Or not.
There are enough people involved that we can expect more deals, and more evidence and like dominoes falling ... the conclusion will eventually be reached.
No one will ever be charged with collusion, since there is no crime called collussion. However there is no end of crimes being committed whilst the actions alleged occur.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3026
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 01 Nov 2017, 10:00 am

There appears to be a motive for why Manafort would agree to be campaign manager for Trump in spite of the risks that entailed given his alleged money laundering. According to Business Insider he had a falling out with Russian oligarch:

"That relationship turned sour in 2014, though, when Deripaska's representatives filed legal complaints in the Cayman Islands alleging that Manafort all but disappeared with $19 million Deripaska had given him to invest in a Ukrainian TV company called Black Sea Cable.
Early in the 2016 presidential campaign, Deripaska's representatives openly accused Manafort of fraud and pledged to recover the money from him, the AP reported. After Trump earned the nomination, Deripaska's representatives said they would no longer discuss the case.
In a July 2016 email, Manafort asked his longtime employee Konstantin Kilimnik, a Russian-Ukrainian dual citizen, to offer Deripaska "private briefings" about the campaign."

http://www.businessinsider.com/prosecut ... hs-2017-10

So it's a reasonable inference that Manafort got out of a 19 million dollar debt and that's why he agreed to be campaign chairman. But what did a Russian oligarch get out of forgiving a 19 million dollar debt?

And why the heck would Trump hire someone with so much baggage who almost immediately sidelined Lewandowski, Trump's campaign manager since early on in the campaign. "Paul Manafort has been in operational control of the campaign since April 7,” Lewandowski told The Associated Press on the day he was fired. “That's a fact.” Manafort was hired on March 29. The meeting with Donald, Jr with the Russian attorney occurred on June 9. By June 20 Lewandowski had been fired.

http://abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/time ... d=50808957

Just to make clear the theory here: (1) Manafort agrees to be campaign chair because he gets a large debt forgiven, (2) A Russian oligarch agrees to forgive that debt because Russia wants to have
a guy they have influence over run the campaign, and (3) Trump hires Manafort because Russia already has influence within the campaign.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21060
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 01 Nov 2017, 11:53 am

rickyp wrote:fate
That's all what we know as "hearsay."


No. Look up hearsay.
These are allegations. Allegations made in Steels reporting.
Mueller is busy producing evidence that will either corroborate the allegations or not.
But there is already much in the public domain that corroborates parts of this.
The Wikileaks dump of Clinton and DNC emails .
The contacts between Papadopolous and his emails to the Trump team. And some responses to Papadoppolus such as Clovis encouraging him to follow up...
The money laundering charges show Manaforts involvement with Russia.
The travel of Manafort, Carter, Gage and Cohen.
The actual removal of Kalugin...
And a lot more...
So the process of squeezing manafort, papadopolous and gage on charges that Mueller feels are already proven ... will elicit more evidence to corroborate the allegations. Or not.
There are enough people involved that we can expect more deals, and more evidence and like dominoes falling ... the conclusion will eventually be reached.
No one will ever be charged with collusion, since there is no crime called collussion. However there is no end of crimes being committed whilst the actions alleged occur.


No, YOU look up hearsay--or, better yet, just look at the post I said was hearsay. It's an exemplar.

And, your prattling here is not much better. For example ". . . will elicit more evidence to corroborate the allegations. Or not."

Dude. Come back when you have some information.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21060
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 01 Nov 2017, 11:59 am

freeman3 wrote:There appears to be a motive for why Manafort would agree to be campaign manager for Trump in spite of the risks that entailed given his alleged money laundering. According to Business Insider he had a falling out with Russian oligarch:

"That relationship turned sour in 2014, though, when Deripaska's representatives filed legal complaints in the Cayman Islands alleging that Manafort all but disappeared with $19 million Deripaska had given him to invest in a Ukrainian TV company called Black Sea Cable.
Early in the 2016 presidential campaign, Deripaska's representatives openly accused Manafort of fraud and pledged to recover the money from him, the AP reported. After Trump earned the nomination, Deripaska's representatives said they would no longer discuss the case.
In a July 2016 email, Manafort asked his longtime employee Konstantin Kilimnik, a Russian-Ukrainian dual citizen, to offer Deripaska "private briefings" about the campaign."

http://www.businessinsider.com/prosecut ... hs-2017-10

So it's a reasonable inference that Manafort got out of a 19 million dollar debt and that's why he agreed to be campaign chairman. But what did a Russian oligarch get out of forgiving a 19 million dollar debt?

And why the heck would Trump hire someone with so much baggage who almost immediately sidelined Lewandowski, Trump's campaign manager since early on in the campaign. "Paul Manafort has been in operational control of the campaign since April 7,” Lewandowski told The Associated Press on the day he was fired. “That's a fact.” Manafort was hired on March 29. The meeting with Donald, Jr with the Russian attorney occurred on June 9. By June 20 Lewandowski had been fired.

http://abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/time ... d=50808957


I don't even doubt Manafort had ill intentions. In fact, I will stipulate he's a bad guy. I will also stipulate Papadopoulos is an idiot.

Trump's campaign likely had more than one or two people hoping to ride the gravy train OR trying to buff up their resume, or both. I mean, come on, is Corey Lewandowski the sort who runs a campaign?

I'll answer that myself: "NO!!!!"

Just to make clear the theory here: (1) Manafort agrees to be campaign chair because he gets a large debt forgiven, (2) A Russian oligarch agrees to forgive that debt because Russia wants to have
a guy they have influence over run the campaign, and (3) Trump hires Manafort because Russia already has influence within the campaign.


3 is a stretch.

And, none of what you allege shows criminality on Trump's part.