It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

FBI Raided Manaforts House

page: 5
30
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 9 2017 @ 11:25 AM
link   
a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

You doubt there's information that they have that has not leaked?
No really....you doubt there is information we don't know about?
Oh goodness.
Then they are wasting everyone's time.

We know an eye droppers worth in this bucket..
We know the equivalent of one page in a thousand.
Those leaks give us nothing compared to what we don't know. So please
Have no doubt. They know way more than we do.




posted on Aug, 9 2017 @ 11:26 AM
link   
one of the members of the trump jr meeting was Rinat R. Akhmetshin. A former Soviet Counter Intelligence officer..
but, that is not all of his story!!




In a lawsuit filed in July 2015 with the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, it was alleged by International Mineral Resources (IMR) that Akhmetshin had arranged the hacking of a mining company’s private records. In court papers filed with the New York Supreme Court in November 2015, lawyers for IMR, a Kazakh mining company that alleged it had been hacked, accused Akhmetshin of hacking into two computer systems and stealing sensitive and confidential materials as part of an alleged black-ops smear campaign against IMR. Akhmetshin, who was hired as an expert by a US law firm, denied hacking or asking anyone else to hack into IMR. He said he gathered research for the firm by bartering information with journalists before he was fired because of his ties to another client, the former prime minister of Kazakhstan, who was then an opposition figure in exile. The hacking accusations were later dropped and the case, which was litigated in New York and Washington, was dismissed.

en.wikipedia.org...


www.documentcloud.org...

archive-project.org...


archive-project.org...

it would take me awhile to go through all the facts of this case, I am just making a mental note that one of the members was accused previously of hacking a database.. of which the charges were eventually dropped...
but still...
I've seen some of the links that the right has used to support their wild claims, is this one any less worthy of considering?
so, let's assume that this guy at least had enough knowledge about how to coordinate a act of hacking for espionage to make the accusation to begin with... who knows, maybe he did but managed to get off somehow...
so they have this meeting, and later, the dnc server is hacked, the raw data is dumped onto the internet, not only harming the democratic position as far as the election, but also harming many who's personal and financial information was also just carelessly dumped.. enough information that it opens the door to identity fraud for many, which, harmed our banking system.
www.documentcloud.org...

but, no, you are absolutely sure that there was no crime committed, it's all a dem ruse to give them a scapegoat for losing the election.... heck ya, they'd kill the faith their largest financial supporters have in their security just to have tha scapegoat!!!
okay, sure...
but you might want to consider the other possibility, it does make more sense!!



posted on Aug, 9 2017 @ 11:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: FauxMulder
This comes from the illustrious Washington Post.



The paper that broke Watergate and led to Nixon's resignation?





Federal agents appeared at Paul Manafort’s home without advance warning in the predawn hours of July 26, the day after he met voluntarily with the staff for the Senate Intelligence Committee.



"the day after he met voluntarily with the staff for the Senate Intelligence Committee"...

That sounds like they were sitting on solid evidence and testimony regarding Manafort and then Manafort appeared before the Senate under oath and lied about multiple things.

FYI - The way those "voluntary" meetings work, include an FBI agent in the room, because it is a felony to lie to the FBI. He also would have been under oath.

Mueller was obviously waiting to see if Manafort was going to be an honest cooperating witness, but apparently the testimony he gave was in stark contrast to evidence the Special counsel already had so they raided his home to collect paper and digital evidence. I also wouldn't be surprised if he had a large amount of money stashed at the residence as well.




The search warrant was wide-ranging and FBI agents working with special counsel Robert S. Mueller III departed the home with various records.



Sidenote: In the FBI Mueller was known by the nickname "Bobby 3 sticks" for the "III" tag on his name.




This part makes no sense to me though

"The documents included materials Manafort had already provided to Congress, said people familiar with the search.

It could also have been intended to send a message to President Trump’s former campaign chairman that he should not expect gentle treatment or legal courtesies from Mueller’s team."

So now the FBI does raids to "send a message"?


You are quoting some journalist speculating, not the FBI.
You are correct...the raid was not to send a message..
It was very clearly the day after he testified in the Senate. Whatever lies he told them made it clear he was not going to give honest testimony and documentation and that obviously triggered the FBI to take a hard line.

Manafort will now quickly roll over on his co-conspirators or be prosecuted on federal charges.



edit on 9-8-2017 by soberbacchus because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 9 2017 @ 11:27 AM
link   
a reply to: smurfy

Sure plenty of time to get rid of incriminating evidence right?



posted on Aug, 9 2017 @ 11:28 AM
link   
a reply to: joemoe

Deflect Mr trump.



posted on Aug, 9 2017 @ 11:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: joemoe
They want to find something .. anything, that will hurt this administration or get Trump out of the Whitehouse.


Or they simply want to find the truth? And the Trump administration is neck deep in lies and corruption?

Objectively that is clearly the scenario.



posted on Aug, 9 2017 @ 11:30 AM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

More deflection.



posted on Aug, 9 2017 @ 11:30 AM
link   
a reply to: DanteGaland

Hence the "Mooch" sideshow for the masses, I doubt the feds will be distracted by it though.

Manafort has been involved with so much dirty activity for years, it wont be hard to pull up a few rugs to find the lever they need.

Sure sure politics is dirty but when you align yourself with the nations enemies don't be surprised when real patriots no matter Republican or Democrat work to take you down.

Besides the paper search is SOP, they have everything they need from the server farms.

People forget that it was Five Eyes who initially brought Trumps dirty dealings to the attention of the US IS.

You know how the "right" crows that foreigners don't fall under the protection of the constitution while in the US.
Well shoes on the other foot for the Trump clan when they're in foreign nations, no protections from search & seizure.
No privacy rights, no Miranda, every shred(more than a shred really hence 16 Prosecutors) of intel from our allies regarding the Trump crimes are fair game.

K~
edit on 9-8-2017 by aethertek because: kantspel



posted on Aug, 9 2017 @ 11:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: Dudemo5

originally posted by: ChrisM101

Show me where the Trump family/ campaign Paid for this Information?

I never said they paid for it. My point was that the Russian lawyer, the other Russian(s) at that meeting, and those who might have compiled this theoretical information (if it even existed) would not qualify as VOLUNTEERS under campaign finance law if they were paid by ANY OUTSIDE SOURCE, whether that source was a client, the Russian government, or whomever.



How do you attach a value to information?

You don't really have to be able to attach a specific value. The courts just have to find that it does indeed have SOME NON-ZERO value.




It was not solicited if it was OFFERED?


Saying, "Heck yeah, I'll meet with you so I can get that thing of value" is indeed solicitation.



Solicitation Requires a REQUEST for something of Value, youre arguement that agreeing to meet for information in this case, does not meet the requirements of a request. Sorry, its not fantasy land, its legal land, and that doesnt hold water.

Show me where this information had any hint of value? was it ever used?

Just because they weren't paid employees, and also Not volunteers, does not mean that they did any work for any one or the campaign. If Trumps Ex wife had said he had skid marks in his underwear,shes providing damaging information. Does that mean she is colluding with the Clinton campaign, or Iran? Does that mean she is a Volunteer or a paid employee?

Nope.

But what we did have was FUSION GPS working with a ex MI6 agent to provide fake details of Trump Pissing on a hotel bed in Russia That Obama slept in, and supposedly enjoying two prostitutes... All fake of course.



posted on Aug, 9 2017 @ 11:31 AM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

Something this crew fails to comprehend.
He has probable cause that a crime has been committed.
The judge granted a search warrant based on. It.



posted on Aug, 9 2017 @ 11:32 AM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus
also, I believe that it doesn't matter who is asking for the FBI raid, the FBI still has to go and get a warrant from a judge. they have to tell them what they are looking for, and how that evidence would link to a crime that is being investigated.
and they have to convince the judge of that link and the possibility that the evidence is there.



posted on Aug, 9 2017 @ 11:33 AM
link   
a reply to: FauxMulder

He's been cooperating since then I guess. This was back in June. He's been to some hearings since then.



posted on Aug, 9 2017 @ 11:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: Stevenjames15
a reply to: network dude

Intent, intent, intent. IT DOES NOT matter if they got any damning information or not. The intent was that they were excited to receive damning information from a hostile foreign power. Using your logic, if someone intended on robbing someone and were not successful. Would that person not be charged with a crime?


Ah yes, the "intent" angle. Just like you have to have intent to be charged, now you can be charged on intent alone.
You lefties sure do have a strange interpretation of the law.

Luckily, the laws are not for you to interpret, they are written plain enough that anyone thinking clearly can see that none of them were broken in that instance. A political campaign was offered dirt on their rival. It's a lot like if an ex-MI6 agent compiled a list of bad things against someone's opponent then offered to sell it to them. let me know when McCain and the DNC are arrested sport.



posted on Aug, 9 2017 @ 11:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: Dudemo5

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Dudemo5

originally posted by: ChrisM101
But accepting information from a foreign government that might be helpful to your campaign is not illegal.


Except it is, under campaign finance law. Nothing of value can be provided (or even SOLICITED) from a foreign national. The most commonly cited exception to this involves UNPAID VOLUNTEER work, which does not apply in this case because it requires the volunteers to be UNPAID BY ANYONE for the time spent volunteering.



what was delivered to Trump Jr. during the meeting? What damning evidence was revealed about Hillary?


This is why I used the term SOLICITATION, which is also part of the applicable campaign finance law. One does not have to actually receive the information to be guilty of solicitation.


Wait, so if I offer you something juicy about your political rival, and you say you'd like to see it, that's all it takes?
I'd like to have you in Washington to prosecute every politician that has ever existed.



posted on Aug, 9 2017 @ 11:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: theantediluvian

Something this crew fails to comprehend.
He has probable cause that a crime has been committed.
The judge granted a search warrant based on. It.


According to sources familiar with the matter.




posted on Aug, 9 2017 @ 11:44 AM
link   
a reply to: ChrisM101

the original purpose that was given was that the russians wanted to discuss "russian adoptions".
when the magnitsky act was passed, putin abruptly stopped american adoption of russian children in retailiation...
so what they were really talking about was the dropping of the magnitsky act, which would lead to the reestablishment of the adoption program of russian children by americans...

en.wikipedia.org...
if you don't see how this would be something of value to putin and his buddies in russia, you need to do some research about the russian oligarchs and just how the ones remaining have been allowed to remain??



posted on Aug, 9 2017 @ 11:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Stevenjames15
a reply to: network dude

Intent, intent, intent. IT DOES NOT matter if they got any damning information or not. The intent was that they were excited to receive damning information from a hostile foreign power. Using your logic, if someone intended on robbing someone and were not successful. Would that person not be charged with a crime?


Ah yes, the "intent" angle. Just like you have to have intent to be charged, now you can be charged on intent alone.
You lefties sure do have a strange interpretation of the law.

Luckily, the laws are not for you to interpret, they are written plain enough that anyone thinking clearly can see that none of them were broken in that instance. A political campaign was offered dirt on their rival. It's a lot like if an ex-MI6 agent compiled a list of bad things against someone's opponent then offered to sell it to them. let me know when McCain and the DNC are arrested sport.


Yes, the law is pretty easy to read when it comes to this issue. It has been pointed out that there does not need to be any exchange for the law to be broken. There only need to be a promise to receive such materials.


A foreign national shall not, directly or indirectly, make a contribution or a donation of money or other thing of value, or expressly or impliedly promise to make a contribution or a donation, in connection with any Federal, State, or local election.


Of course, you know this. You've been told many times and you still just can't seem to grasp it.



posted on Aug, 9 2017 @ 11:46 AM
link   
Trumps big mistake was in trusting Bannon. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if Bannon hasn't already contacted the feds and ratted out the WH' including Flynn and Manafort , Trump jr. and Jared. How would you spell "leaking mole"

There's not much loyalty in the swamp....especially when the Far Right wants control and make no mistake Bannon is Far far Right.


edit on 9-8-2017 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 9 2017 @ 11:47 AM
link   
a reply to: network dude

If I intended on robbing a bank but was caught and arrested before actually robbing the bank. I would be charged with attempted bank robbery. So you righties have your own interpretation of the law.

And trying to gain info from a hostile foreign power is a act of collusion sporto. So pack your below average member back in your pants and have a swell day.



posted on Aug, 9 2017 @ 11:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: aethertek
a reply to: DanteGaland

Hence the "Mooch" sideshow for the masses, I doubt the feds will be distracted by it though.

Manafort has been involved with so much dirty activity for years, it wont be hard to pull up a few rugs to find the lever they need.



Google Manafort and Mortgage.

He laundered at least 3 Million last year during the campaign via phony Home Equity Loans on Mortgages he never really had...that were given to him by ...



A review of New York state and Suffolk County records shows the loan was made by S C 3, a subsidiary of Spruce Capital, which was co-founded by Joshua Crane, who has partnered with Donald Trump on real estate deals.

Spruce is also partially funded by Ukrainian-American real-estate magnate Alexander Rovt, who tried to donate $10,000 to Trump’s presidential campaign on Election Day but had all but the legal maximum of $2,700 returned.


This mysterious 3.5 Million loan that Manafort apparently got for free...without records being filed and for exceedingly more than his house was worth?

He got it from Spruce Capital, owned by Josh Crane and Alexander Rovt. They have extensive real estate dealings with Trump and Russian connections.

And he got the money the same day he stepped down as Campaign Chief for the Trump campaign when Manaforts dealings in Ukraine at the behest of Putin caught up with him.

This looks like Hush Money when Trump was forced to cut him loose when things got to hot with Russia to keep Manafort on.

Trump routed the money through Spruce Capital via a real estate deal or some other transfer with it earmarked to Manafort to make sure he stayed loyal after being ousted from the campaign.

Pure speculation...but that is a scenario that fits what is known.




top topics



 
30
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join