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.

 

It's Manafort and It's From 2012 or Earlier.

page: 4
36
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 29 2017 @ 02:55 PM
link   
a reply to: fiverx313

Trick question, special prosecutor was/is not needed. But you know the entire premise of our justice system is under attack with this so what else is new?




posted on Oct, 29 2017 @ 02:56 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

What question? Who my sources are? People who would know, that's who my sources are.



posted on Oct, 29 2017 @ 03:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: Grambler

I'm not sure I understand this line of thinking. It took a special counsel 10 months to have enough evidence for an indictment (not conviction, yet) and yet trump was supposed to know about this when he hired him for three and a half months?


I am not saying that.

Everyone knew that there was shade around Manafort, so if it turns out he was up to shady things, thats poor judgement on Trumps part.

Is that alone criminal or reasons to impeach or anything? Of course not. Every President has poor choices like this.

As far as criminality, if manafort is indicted on crimes from years ago, this does not prove that Trump wont be charged later. It could just be a first step.

I personally think Trump will not be charged in any way, but if he did something illegal, by all means charge him.

But I am just saying one way or another, Manafort being indicted tomorrow does not prove where this investigation is going.



posted on Oct, 29 2017 @ 03:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite


From within the Intel Community? The White House? The media? Breitbart?

I don't need names or occupations, just affiliates.


edit on 29-10-2017 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 29 2017 @ 03:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: IAMTAT
a reply to: Dfairlite

Manafort was working for the Podestas then.


Yep. Funny how the news doesn't mention Podesta eh?



posted on Oct, 29 2017 @ 03:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

Manifort isn't a close trump associate? Yeah yeah he just offered some advice that trump of course never took, then he was gone. No biggy. No association to trump. Rolls eyes.



posted on Oct, 29 2017 @ 03:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

I disagree. I think that if it's money laundering from 2012 (as I've been told), it shows what a # show the mueller probe has been. If they had crimes related to russian meddling they wouldn't be hitting people for unrelated charges first. In due course they'd get to those charges, but right now they should be building confidence that this probe isn't a fishing expedition.



posted on Oct, 29 2017 @ 03:17 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

Somewhat between the first two.



posted on Oct, 29 2017 @ 03:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

Nope, he's not. He worked for trump for a few months and was tasked with getting through the convention without any uprisings from the establishment folks or the hard core conservatives. After he achieved that, he was gone.



posted on Oct, 29 2017 @ 03:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

Here's the thing about any past dealings that Manifort has with Russia. They show a relationship. They show an established connection and a leaning to maybe bend laws a little further than the scales of liberty would like. They show a relationship he could offer to a campaign. It shows a relationship with some shady characters within the Russian government.
Meetings were set up based on Maniforts resume and connections.



posted on Oct, 29 2017 @ 03:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite


No need anymore. I got the tape ahead of time from my secret contacts!




posted on Oct, 29 2017 @ 03:32 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryMcGuire

He had just the shady slimy scruples trump looks for. Willing to take a bribe, willing to bend the law, not too careful with the truth.



posted on Oct, 29 2017 @ 03:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

Flynn can still be intimidated. He does, in his own words, have a story to tell. I'm certain that Mueller is very interested in hearing it. To that effect it could be Flynns son.



posted on Oct, 29 2017 @ 03:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: TerryMcGuire

He had just the shady slimy scruples trump looks for. Willing to take a bribe, willing to bend the law, not too careful with the truth.


Give it a rest. Trump ended up hiring Manafort because he was willing to work for free and he stressed that the was an outsider to Washington DC politicians...

thehill.com...



posted on Oct, 29 2017 @ 03:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

I'm sorry to disappoint but I know what's said on all of the wiretapped phone calls between trump and manafort. There's nothing there. So whether manafort was dealing with russians or not, it doesn't involve trump in any way, shape or form.



posted on Oct, 29 2017 @ 03:42 PM
link   
a reply to: olaru12

Yup.
He hired him based on it.



posted on Oct, 29 2017 @ 03:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
ain't saying it ain't manifort but last I heard, his lawyers were saying that they haven't been notified of the indictment yet.
I'll go out on a limb and say that one indictment is for Roger Stone. I haven't followed this guy, but his reaction to the reports that there was charges coming seems it may have been a little extreme...

LINK

and, well, I haven't tried to track down exactly what he tweeted to determine weather it was worthy of twitter going through the trouble of banning him, but I'm wondering if maybe the gov't could have had something to do with that if some of his tweets were considered evidence and they wanted to preserve them....


Stone is good friends with manafort, and he is the one that suggested trump hire him. Stone is not getting indicted unless they have got new info on him.
edit on 29-10-2017 by proximo because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 29 2017 @ 03:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

originally posted by: kurthall

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
I think it could be a Trump.

Not say the Donald.

But I think that it really could be someone whose last name is Trump.

If its not then yeah, probably Manafort.

Definitely not Flynn, I think Flynn might be the guy who is going to be a witness to the whole sorry affair.



Well, I would say Kushner, trump JR, Flynn, For my top pics. I see you disagree on Flynn, and that's okay, we will find out tomorrow, finally. This is only the first indictment, I am sure there will be more.


So much for trump and his "Witch Hunt".






yup nice to see some justice.

I just want to sit back and watch the Trumpstars try to defend this.


You are so delusional. Please do not hide from the message board once you have been throughly proved wrong.



posted on Oct, 29 2017 @ 03:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: underwerks

I'm curious about what you mean by "these types of investigations". You mean investigations where they can't find any evidence of wrongdoing? Or do you mean investigations that veer wildly off course and end up targeting swamp creatures? Or maybe you mean something else altogether.


I love it when people ask a question and then present the answer or in this case a couple of options then volleys it back again as a question like a multiple choice where the questioned is made to sound extreme or uninformed. There's got to be a name for that type of manipulation.



posted on Oct, 29 2017 @ 03:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Dfairlite

Manifort isn't a close trump associate? Yeah yeah he just offered some advice that trump of course never took, then he was gone. No biggy. No association to trump. Rolls eyes.


All part of the plan.

In reality, Trump outed the guy.





top topics



 
36
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join