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

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3030
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 03 Jan 2018, 9:45 am

I thought this deserves its own topic at this point. New developments:

"Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos told the diplomat, Alexander Downer, during a meeting in London in May 2016 that Russia had thousands of emails that would embarrass Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton, the report said. Downer, a former foreign minister, is Australia's top diplomat in Britain."

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnew ... ia-n833691

Donald, Jr of course met with the Russian attorney to get those emails.

May, 2016--Papadopoulos brags that Russia has thousands of emails on Hillary

June 9, 2016--Meeting of Don, Jr with Russian attorney.

July 5, 2016--Comey announces Hillary will not be prosecuted

July 16, 2016--article indicates Trump has nixed plank supporting arming of Ukraine

July 20, 2016-Trump told The NY Times: "Asked about Russia’s threatening activities, which have unnerved the small Baltic States that are among the more recent entrants into NATO, Mr. Trump said that if Russia attacked them, he would decide whether to come to their aid only after reviewing if those nations have “fulfilled their obligations to us.

July 18-21, 2016--RNC convention. At least three Trump campaign officials--Sessions, J.D. Gordon and Carter Page spoke with the Russian ambassador.

July 22, 2016--Wikileaks starts leaking DNC emails

Hmm...I am not sure if I have seen this anywhere else...but do you see a connection here? Within a few days prior of the Wikileaks leaks of the DNC emails Trump basically indicates he might not back a NATO ally against Russian attack and he took out that plank arming Ukraine. It's almost like...Trump was doing something for Putin to get those emails leaked.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes ... apons/amp/

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnew ... ia-n833691

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_De ... email_leak

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatod ... p/98648190

To repeat: within one week of Wikileaks starting their email dump...Trump does major things for Putin: (1) he takes out plank calling for arming the Ukraine, and (2) he indicates that he might not be willing to automatically to the defense of a NATO ally. I don't much believe in coincidences...

Not only that, but on July 5 Trump finds out that Comey is not going to give him a victory by charging Hillary. So he knows he is a long shot at that point. He then does two things for Putin. His campaign meets with Russian ambassador multiple times at RNC. Then...and only then...does Wikileaks release the DNC emails. The day after the RNC...

So here's the working theory. On July 5 Trump finds out Hillary is not going to be charged. So he knows--based on the polls--he is a long shot to win. So in order to have a chance he decides to make the deal with the Russians. He takes out Ukraine plank and threatens to destabilize NATO. The deal is made with the Russian ambassador at the RNC.
Last edited by freeman3 on 03 Jan 2018, 11:05 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10951
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 03 Jan 2018, 10:30 am

Freeman, i think the Trump connections to Russia go back quite a ways. And they are financial. You've connected the dots regarding motivation, based only on the election... however there may be greater motivations. That is, fear of prosecution for financial crimes that go back a few years . And presumably certain Russian Oligarchs might be compelled (by Putin) to spill their guts to the FBI if Trump didn't comply with the wishes of Moscow.

Here's what, no less an authority than Steve Bannon has said:

The three senior guys in the campaign thought it was a good idea to meet with a foreign government inside Trump Tower in the conference room on the 25th floor -- with no lawyers. They didn't have any lawyers," Bannon continued, according to the Guardian. "Even if you thought that this was not treasonous, or unpatriotic, or bad s***, and I happen to think it's all of that, you should have called the FBI immediately."
Bannon also reportedly told Wolff: "They're going to crack Don Junior like an egg on national TV."

You realize where this is going ... This is all about money laundering. Mueller chose (senior prosecutor Andrew) Weissmann first and he is a money-laundering guy," Bannon reportedly said. "Their path to f***ing Trump goes right through Paul Manafort, Don Jr., and Jared Kushner ... It's as plain as a hair on your face."
Bannon said he believes Kushner, the White House senior adviser and the President's son-in-law, could be convinced to cooperate if Mueller probes his financial records.
"They're going to go right through that. They're going to roll those two guys up and say play me or trade me," Bannon is reported as saying, apparently referring to Trump Jr. and Kushner.


http://www.cnn.com/2018/01/03/politics/ ... index.html
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21061
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 03 Jan 2018, 11:01 am

A minor suggestion: why not change this topic to what it is? "The Mueller Investigation and Associated Conspiracy Theories?"

Let's consider Mr. Papadopolous for a moment. It is very kind to call him an "adviser."

Did you ever notice his stock photo is always the same? It's the one with Sessions at one end and Trump at the other? Why is that?

Answer: because he's a nobody who was with Trump once or twice. No other photos exist because he was a minor player.

Now, while he was drunk in a bar in London, he said something to an Australian diplomat that everyone knew anyway, and this started an investigation?

Whoo-boy!

July 5, 2016--Comey announces Trump will not be prosecuted


You're so excited, you kinda screwed this one up.

July 16, 2016--article indicates Trump has nixed plank supporting arming of Ukraine


And now, he's giving more arms to Ukraine than Obama ever did. So, remind me, who was in Russia's pocket?

President Donald Trump will be presented with the recommendation to finance and sell anti-tank missiles to the Ukrainian government — a move aimed at deterring aggression from pro-Russian separatists, a State Department official told ABC News.

The National Security Council decided during a meeting on Tuesday to greenlight the presentation of a $47 million grant package to the Ukrainian government to purchase American defense arms, including the powerful Javelin anti-tank missiles.

The president and Congress must approve the sale of anti-tank missiles. The Javelin, a portable missile with a steep price-tag, has been described as "The American Military's Anti-Tank Killer."

If Trump approves the arms deal, it would be a major shift from the party platform on sending lethal weapons to Ukraine, which was amended when Trump was the party's nominee for president, from supporting "lethal defensive arms" to Ukraine to the more vague "appropriate assistance” -- language that ran counter to the perspective of many of the organization’s Republicans.


http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-pr ... d=51235203

freeman3 wrote:Hmm...I am not sure if I have seen this anywhere else...but do you see a connection here? Within a few days prior of the Wikileaks leaks of the DNC emails Trump basically indicates he might not back a NATO ally against Russian attack and he took out that plank arming Ukraine. It's almost like...Trump was doing something for Putin to get those emails leaked.


Yup, you see something. However, that something is created, in part, by the green fog descending on the Pot Republic of California as of January 1.

So here's the working theory. On July 5 Trump finds out Hillary is not going to be charged. So he knows--based on the polls--he is a long shot to win. So in order to have a chance he decides to make the deal with the Russians. He takes out Ukraine plank and threatens to destabilize NATO. The deal is made with the Russian ambassador at the RNC.


1. Yes, sure. And, in return, Russia spends $300K on Facebook and swings the election!

2. The fanciful, wishful, and flimsy nature of your case is so laughable that I would laugh, if you weren't serious. This is the stuff of Rachel Maddow.

If Trump goes down, ever, it won't have anything to do with this nonsense.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3030
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 03 Jan 2018, 11:04 am

I read that and it almost seems like a red herring to me. I agree with you that it appears Trump has long-standing Russian connections and Putin might have had some level of potential control over Trump due to Trump/Kushner perhaps getting loans from Russia through intermediaries. That would be bad if proven but you still have to prove a linkage between those connections and pro-Russian policies. Trading policy changes for getting the Wikileak dumps...that's concrete. If they can prove that...he'll get impeached, Republican-controlled Congress or not.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3030
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 03 Jan 2018, 11:07 am

Thanks DF for the correction on the Comey.

The rest of your response is ad hominem attacks not worth responding to. If you want to put forth an analysis then I'll bother responding.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21061
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 03 Jan 2018, 11:38 am

freeman3 wrote:Thanks DF for the correction on the Comey.

The rest of your response is ad hominem attacks not worth responding to. If you want to put forth an analysis then I'll bother responding.


I certainly understand you not wanting to defend the importance of Mr. Papadopolous.

I also understand why the bit about Ukraine is deemed by you to be "ad hominem." I mean, what else are you going to say when I supply irrefutable facts that undermine your cockamamie conspiracy stuff?

Here's another one:

Trump affirmed US commitment to Article 5 last summer. https://www.reuters.com/video/2017/06/0 ... =371861717

That certainly undercuts this claim from you:

Within a few days prior of the Wikileaks leaks of the DNC emails Trump basically indicates he might not back a NATO ally against Russian attack and he took out that plank arming Ukraine. It's almost like...Trump was doing something for Putin to get those emails leaked.

. . . (2) he indicates that he might not be willing to automatically to the defense of a NATO ally. I don't much believe in coincidences...


At best, you can now claim he stabbed Putin.

Okay.

Here's the real challenge for your fantasy factory: how precisely did Russia throw the election? If you can't make that case (and, you've only got supposition and wishful thinking), then you have nothing.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3030
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 03 Jan 2018, 12:48 pm

It's not who Mr. Papadopoulos is but what he said and he told an Australian diplomat in May, 2016 that Russia had thousands of emails that would make Hillary look bad. That is consistent with what Don, Jr. was told before the meeting with the Russian ambassador. Papadopoulos got that information from a Russian linked professor. We now have a source that indicates Russia had the emails in May, 2016. So why did they not trade the emails at the Don, Jr meeting? Unknown. But on June 7 in "In his victory speech, Mr. Trump promised to deliver a major address detailing Mrs. Clinton’s “corrupt dealings” to give “favorable treatment” to foreign governments, including “the Russians.” Ah, funny that was what Don, Jr was going to get on June 9. The speech was set for June 9 but was moved to June 22 and Trump did not deliver the goods on Hillary's corrupt dealing with the Russians.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.nyt ... g.amp.html

So either Trump was lying about having information on Hillary's corrupt dealings with Russia or he thought he was going to get it at the Don, Jr. meeting.

If Trump and his campaign were so brazen about getting dirt from the Russians...why do you think they would have just decided, nah, not going to do it?

It doesn't have to be proven that Russia helped Trump win the election. It just has to be proven that they tried and Trump gave them something for it. That's selling out the country and impeachable

Trump's change on NATO came long after when he was under immense pressure to do so. Not much can be read into that.

So now it's up to Mueller to prove the linkage between what Trump did and the DNC email leaks. Maybe Carter Page knows something....

"When Hayes asked Carter about all of this, he sidestepped questions and cited confidentiality agreements as to why he refused to definitively say whether he met Kislyak or not. I’m not going to deny that I talked to him,” Page said. “I will say that I never met him anywhere outside of Cleveland. Let’s just say that much.” As Hayes pressed on, Carter eventually responded with “I may have met [Kislyak], possibly; it might have been in Cleveland.”

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/i-may-have- ... officials/

There was a significant meeting between Trump national security officials and Kislysk at the RNC.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.co ... index.html

Anyway, we'll just have to see if an email or other document turns up establishing a link or if a Trump campaign official reveals something. That's what investigations are for. They didn't get Nixon until they got the tapes.

Here's one significant email during that time period:

"Less than two weeks before Trump cinched the Republican presidential nomination, Manafort offered the briefings to an intermediary, asking that the message be relayed to Oleg Deripaska, an aluminum magnate allied with Russian President Vladimir Putin and with whom Manafort had worked in the past. 'If he needs private briefings we can accommodate," Manafort reportedly wrote in an email sent July 7, 2016.'"

As for Obama not arming the Ukraine, it's not whether policy choices are wise here it's whether they are influenced by improper considerations.
Last edited by freeman3 on 03 Jan 2018, 1:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21061
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 03 Jan 2018, 1:06 pm

freeman3 wrote:It's not who Mr. Papadopoulos is but what he said and he told an Australian diplomat in May, 2016 that Russia had thousands of emails that would make Hillary look bad. That is consistent with what Don, Jr. was told before the meeting with the Russian ambassador. Papadopoulos got that information from a Russian linked professor. We now have a source that indicates Russia had the emails in May, 2016. So why did they not trade the emails at the Don, Jr meeting? Unknown. But on June 7 in "In his victory speech, Mr. Trump promised to deliver a major address detailing Mrs. Clinton’s “corrupt dealings” to give “favorable treatment” to foreign governments, including “the Russians.” Ah, funny that was what Don, Jr was going to get on June 9. The speech was set for June 9 but was moved to June 22 and Trump did not deliver the goods on Hillary's corrupt dealing with the Russians.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.nyt ... g.amp.html

So either Trump was lying about having information on Hillary's corrupt dealings with Russia or he thought he was going to get it at the Don, Jr. meeting.

If Trump and his campaign were so brazen about getting dirt from the Russians...why do you think they would have just decided, nah, not going to do it?

It doesn't have to be proven that Russia helped Trump win the election. It just has to be proven that they tried and Trump gave them something for it. That's selling out the country and impeachable

Trump's change on NATO came long after when he was under immense pressure to do so. Not much can be read into that.

So now it's up to Mueller to prove the linkage between what Trump did and the DNC email leaks. Maybe Carter Page knows something....

"When Hayes asked Carter about all of this, he sidestepped questions and cited confidentiality agreements as to why he refused to definitively say whether he met Kislyak or not. I’m not going to deny that I talked to him,” Page said. “I will say that I never met him anywhere outside of Cleveland. Let’s just say that much.” As Hayes pressed on, Carter eventually responded with “I may have met [Kislyak], possibly; it might have been in Cleveland.”

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/i-may-have- ... officials/

There was a significant meeting between Trump national security officials and Kislysk at the RNC.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.co ... index.html

Anyway, we'll just have to see if an email or other document turns up establishing a link or if a Trump campaign official reveals something. That's what investigations are for. They didn't get Nixon until they got the tapes.

As for Obama not arming the Ukraine, it's not whether policy choices are wise here it's whether they are influenced by improper considerations.

Actually, it is about Mr. Papadopoulos. If he is insignificant, who cares what he said in a drunken stupor? And, do you really believe what you’re writing? This all smacks of a spy novel, not a criminal case.

When did we find out about Wikileaks and the Clinton emails? Seems like it was before 2016.

Anyway, let me know when you have some facts. Failing that, let me know when your novel hits Amazon. It should be cracking good!

Wake me when you’ve even a smidge of actual evidence.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10951
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 03 Jan 2018, 1:17 pm

freeman3
I read that and it almost seems like a red herring to me. I agree with you that it appears Trump has long-standing Russian connections and Putin might have had some level of potential control over Trump due to Trump/Kushner perhaps getting loans from Russia through intermediaries. That would be bad if proven but you still have to prove a linkage between those connections and pro-Russian policies. Trading policy changes for getting the Wikileak dumps...that's concrete. If they can prove that...he'll get impeached, Republican-controlled Congress or no.

I don't think you need to prove that Trump did anyone's bidding... And that would be hard to produce concrete evidence for.... everything is circumstantial on that unless someone was stupid enough to record an agreement... (Don Jr. I'm looking at you.)
Mueller will charge people with whatever crimes he finds evidence for...And that will be enough to lead to an impeachment next year. (after the midterms change the House.)
There will be plenty of evidence for money laundering by Trump and others... going back to 08 or even earlier.
Deutsche Bank has already been convicted of money laundering for Russians on a large scale, and that they found a way to keep Trump paying off his enormous debts to them, whilst helping Putins' Oligarchs launder their ill gotten gains is almost a certainty. It would be too much of a coincidence that Trump started doing business with DB in Germany just when their heaviest period of activity for the Oligarchs started.
Notwithstanding the legal form of money laundering Trump pedaled to Russians later.. (selling over priced condos, which the Russians then sold for a loss ...to free up money. All perfectly legal for some reason. )
The money laundering is why he wouldn't release his taxes.
in 2008, Donald Trump Jr. said, “Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets.” He later added, “We see a lot of money pouring in from Russia.”

http://www.newsweek.com/2017/12/29/dona ... 53780.html
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3030
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 03 Jan 2018, 1:21 pm

On July 5 the Trump campaign is going to lose. On July 7 their campaign chairman offers to give private briefings to essentially Putin. Then Trump gives Putin two things, there are meetings with Russian ambassador and viola! The day after the RNC the DNC emails come out. Certainly seems like evidence to me, though not enough evidence. Yet.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21061
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 03 Jan 2018, 1:33 pm

freeman3 wrote:On July 5 the Trump campaign is going to lose. On July 7 their campaign chairman offers to give private briefings to essentially Putin. Then Trump gives Putin two things, there are meetings with Russian ambassador and viola! The day after the RNC the DNC emails come out. Certainly seems like evidence to me, though not enough evidence. Yet.


Uh-huh. Well, like any “viola,” it’s only as good as the sheet music.

What was Putin’s part? What did he give Trump?

Go ahead. I’ll wait.

In the meantime, please don’t forget the clandestine meeting of go-betweens in an underwater base off the coast of Madagascar.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3030
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 03 Jan 2018, 1:51 pm

Not sure you mean by what did Putin give. That part is easy...he gave the Trump campaign the release of the DNC emails. That was a pretty big give.

So I'll spin you a plausible theory. So on June 9 there is the failed meeting with the Russian attorney. So you would think that the Trump inner circle asked Manafort what the hell happened? At that point they have heard from Papadopoulos as well that there is Russian dirt on Hillary, why arent they going it to us? Being a veteran with dealing with Russians he probably told them they want something for it first (or maybe he found it out from intermediary who hinted that was the case). So the Trump inner circle decides it was too risky at that point since they still had the FBI investigation into Hillary as a trump card. Then when that doesn't happen on July 5...they panic. Obviously, Manafort puts out a feeler on July 7. All Russia would have to do is have an intermediary meet with Manafort and indicate what was wanted. Manafort tells Trump. Then you have some sort of code words in the meeting with the Russian ambassador and the deal is on. Unless there are wiretaps on Manafort you could never prove it happened. Doubful anyone besides Trump, Kushner, and Manafort know. And the Russians.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21061
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 03 Jan 2018, 3:24 pm

freeman3 wrote:Not sure you mean by what did Putin give. That part is easy...he gave the Trump campaign the release of the DNC emails. That was a pretty big give.


First problem: No it wasn’t. Everyone already knew she had the private server and that she was a crook. What additional damage did the emails do?

Did the American people get to see too much truth? Is that the defense?

So I'll spin you a plausible theory. So on June 9 there is the failed meeting with the Russian attorney. So you would think that the Trump inner circle asked Manafort what the hell happened? At that point they have heard from Papadopoulos as well that there is Russian dirt on Hillary, why arent they going it to us?


Second problem: Papadopoulos is a nobody. He was only brought in for his “expertise” in the Med, specifically Greece. How would he have heard something before anyone else? Or, why was he in the know at all?

Being a veteran with dealing with Russians he probably told them they want something for it first (or maybe he found it out from intermediary who hinted that was the case). So the Trump inner circle decides it was too risky at that point since they still had the FBI investigation into Hillary as a trump card. Then when that doesn't happen on July 5...they panic.


So, the guy who said the system was rigged believed the system was going to work. When it didn’t he “panicked” and went to Uncle Vladimir?

Sure. I look forward to the evidence. Any evidence.

Mitigating against this: the firing of Manafort. If he was such a key, it makes no sense.

Funny thing: it’s doubtful it would be against the law anyway. Furthermore, if Hillary hadn’t broken the law, she would have had nothing to fear.

Obviously, Manafort puts out a feeler on July 7. All Russia would have to do is have an intermediary meet with Manafort and indicate what was wanted. Manafort tells Trump. Then you have some sort of code words in the meeting with the Russian ambassador and the deal is on. Unless there are wiretaps on Manafort you could never prove it happened. Doubful anyone besides Trump, Kushner, and Manafort know. And the Russians.


Third problem: why wouldn’t Manafort roll over like a puppy looking for a belly scratch? There would be no reason for him not to take a deal and take Trump down.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10951
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 03 Jan 2018, 4:06 pm

Fate
Third problem: why wouldn’t Manafort roll over like a puppy looking for a belly scratch? There would be no reason for him not to take a deal and take Trump down

He probably hasn't been offered a deal.
Meuller may believe that there will be enough evidence on money laundering available at DB or through Trumps tax reciepts.

Michael Wolfs new Book, paints a picture of a complete incompetent, with fewer and fewer friends. And little to no respect among those who work closest to him.
What Meuller will do is a complete and through investigation on money laundering and present that evidence to Congress recommending impeachment. That will be early next year after the midterms.
And it won't take long to send the articles up the road...
Even if the republicans manage to hold on to the senate, there are enough republican senators who will want to unload Trump it won't be close in the Senate trial...

https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-enr ... n?ref=home
A choice paragraph ...
But the broadside against Bannon obscured the existence of numerous other, similarly biting takes on Trump and his presidency. Wolff quotes News Corp CEO Rupert Murdoch as calling Trump a “@#$! idiot.” He quotes former Fox News chief Roger Ailes encouraging Bannon not to “give Donald too much to think about.” The book reports that former deputy chief of staff Katie Walsh thought the White House was incompetently run. Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin and former chief of staff Reince Priebus believe Trump to be an “idiot.” Gary Cohn, the president’s top economic adviser, regards Trump as “dumb as shit.” The president’s top national security adviser, H.R. McMaster, considers him a “dope.” Even Trump’s beloved daughter, Ivanka, seems to be in on the gag.

“She treated her father with a degree of detachment, even irony,” wrote Wolff, “going so far as to make fun of his comb-over to others.”
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21061
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 03 Jan 2018, 6:26 pm

Yeah, just waiting on a little something known as “evidence.”

Trump is a dolt, they say. Oh really? What does that make everyone he defeated, including Hillary?