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: 9
36
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 30 2017 @ 12:54 PM
link   
a reply to: redmage

Ok, so let's say hillary or trump had done some shady business with this "hostile foreign power." Your position is that it should remain secret from the voting population?




posted on Oct, 30 2017 @ 01:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: redmage

Ok, so let's say hillary or trump had done some shady business with this "hostile foreign power." Your position is that it should remain secret from the voting population?


No, that would be a straw man argument. I haven't made any such claim.

That would be like me stating, "Your position is that colluding with hostile foreign powers is ok as long as there is a perceived chance to possibly garner gossip regarding a political opponent.", and that kicks open a dangerous door.

My position is that Republicans and Democrats offered the two shadiest nominees in recent U.S. history, and that the influences of hostile foreign powers have no rightful place in U.S. domestic elections.

edit on 10/30/17 by redmage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 30 2017 @ 01:14 PM
link   
a reply to: redmage

But see, if you said that, I would clarify my position. I would say gathering dirt on your opponent is due diligence. I would say soliciting a dirt from shady governments might be a bad plan, but if a foreigner came forward with dirt I would say you have the obligation to hear them out.

I notice you didn't try to clarify your position. Now put yourself in the shoes of chelsea clinton and someone contacts you saying they've got evidence that trump has done unethical and possibly illegal things in their country. What do you do? What are your obligations?
edit on 30-10-2017 by Dfairlite because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 30 2017 @ 01:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
I notice you didn't try to clarify your position.


You must have missed the edit. I did clarify.


originally posted by: Dfairlite
if a foreigner came forward with dirt I would say you have the obligation to hear them out.


If that "foreigner" represented a hostile foreign power, then that would be the wrong choice. In such a situation the "foreigner" would lack any and all credibility.



originally posted by: Dfairlite
Now put yourself in the shoes of chelsea clinton and someone contacts you saying they've got evidence that trump has done unethical and possibly illegal things in their country. What do you do? What are your obligations?


That's easy, if a hostile foreign representative contacts your campaign, then your obligation would be to contact the F.B.I. immediately.
edit on 10/30/17 by redmage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 30 2017 @ 01:43 PM
link   
a reply to: redmage

Interesting. So your position really is that the public doesn't deserve to know. If you contact the FBI they open an investigation they can't comment on and it gets swept under the rug until after the election (until the investigation is complete and even then they may not say anything).

Now I agree that their credibility would be lacking, the foreign power that is, so you'd need to verify the information is accurate before doing anything.

What are your feelings on Maddow getting trumps tax return illegally, or the access Hollywood tape?



posted on Oct, 30 2017 @ 01:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: redmage

Interesting. So your position really is that the public doesn't deserve to know.


Another straw man.

My position is that information from a hostile foreign representative would not be credible. That has nothing to do with the public "deserving to know" non-credible information. You even agreed with my actual position, so the continued use of straw man fallacies is puzzling.

You even state...


originally posted by: Dfairlite
you'd need to verify the information is accurate before doing anything.


Thus using your false logic, you yourself would be "denying the public the information" (the very same way the F.B.I. would be withholding it while they conducted their investigation).

As for Maddow's shenanigans, that's pretty far off-topic for this thread, but you're welcome to start another if you really wish to discuss her.
edit on 10/30/17 by redmage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 30 2017 @ 01:58 PM
link   
a reply to: redmage

Well technically this thread is about who was going to be indicted and for what but that didn't stop you from derailing to trump Jr.


My position is that information from a hostile foreign representative would not be credible


And if they had evidence would they still not be credible? You've fallen into the logical fallacy that because they're not an ally (though, they kind of are) they're an enemy and can only tell lies.



posted on Oct, 30 2017 @ 02:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
Well technically this thread is about who was going to be indicted and for what but that didn't stop you from derailing to trump Jr.


You opened the door regarding evidence of collusion in relation to Manafort, and regarding whether or not he was a "close Trump associate", thus a passing mention of the meeting that Manafort, Jared, and Don Jr. attended is not not "derailing". It's evidence that Manafort was a member of the top inner-circle of "close Trump associates".


originally posted by: Dfairlite
if they had evidence would they still not be credible? You've fallen into the logical fallacy that because they're not an ally (though, they kind of are) they're an enemy and can only tell lies.


Clearly you need to brush up on your knowledge of logical fallacies. Do you understand what the word credible means? Someone lacking credibility isn't the same thing as someone "only telling lies".
edit on 10/30/17 by redmage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 30 2017 @ 02:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: redmage

originally posted by: Dfairlite
They have nothing on Trump. The closest they'll come to Trump is a FARA violation by kushner, and that's if they are desperate and are just looking to tar trump. They have no evidence of collusion (because it didn't happen).


Except that there is evidence of collusion already in the public domain. Roger Stone, another close associate, friend, and political-advisor, openly admitted to his contacts with Guccifer2.0 in his senate testimony.

Trump himself openly called for Russia's help in hacking and releasing Hillary's emails at his campaign rallies.

Furthermore, it's openly known that Don Jr, Jared, Manafort and other top Trump advisors met with Russian representatives with the intent to gather dirt on Hillary to influence the election. Even though the meeting was allegedly unfruitful... that is collusion. If you attempt to rob a convince store, and find that the cash register is empty... that doesn't make you innocent.


Yeah stone published all the text messages he had with gucifer and went through the timeline which proved he could not have instructed him to do anything because it was after gucifer allegedly did whatever they are accusing him of.

Not to mention - where is the proof Gucifer had anything to do with anything - there is none - it is just an accusation at this point.

You do not understand what collusion is - here is it's definition: secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others.

So how did Don Jr or anybody else illegally cooperate to cheat or deceive? They got no info from that lawyer, so they could not have used the meeting to cheat or deceive. By the way the lawyer was sent to them - they did not seek out the information - and there is a good possibility the whole meeting happened because they wanted to implicate the Trump campaign. If Don Jr. had said at the meeting what can we do to get dirt, can you manufacture some, that is probably exactly what the meeting was hoping to produce. Why else did she set the meeting and then have no info - it looks to me like it was designed to be a honeypot.

I love how all you lefties act like you would not take that meeting if you are in that position. If the info is accurate and you can prove it and source it there is absolutely nothing wrong with publicizing it - the problem only occurs if you are intentionally publicizing lies to deceive - ie the pissgate story - but that is fine because Hillary and the DNC funded it.

Since there was no info, and there was no actions taken -at least none that have even been claimed at this point - there can be no collusion. It really isn't that hard to understand.



posted on Oct, 30 2017 @ 02:33 PM
link   
a reply to: proximo

The investigation seems to be focussing on the podestas actually. The russian that met with Trump jr was employed by fusion GPS. The indictment has to do with manafort when he worked with the podestas. It doesnt touch Trump at all and the only way to getto the bottom of it will be to talk to yanukovych and i doubt Putin is going to allow that.



posted on Oct, 30 2017 @ 02:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

Well done Dfairlite!! I wasn't around to see this unfold this weekend however I want to commend you on your predictions and even more on your source that allowed your predictions!!

Everyone in here who doubted Dfairlite and lumped him/her in with the group of people who say they are in the know and never come through!! You owe Dfairlite a big apology as well as a big thank you!!

Dfairlite brought good and what proved reliable inside information to all of ATS and I for one am thankful!!

S&F from me good sir!!!






edit on 30-10-2017 by GuidedKill because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 30 2017 @ 02:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: proximo
You do not understand what collusion is - here is it's definition: secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others.

So how did Don Jr or anybody else illegally cooperate to cheat or deceive?


I do understand what collusion is. Attempting to deceive the nation by telling lies for a year about there being "absolutely no contact with any Russians!!!", while keeping such contacts a secret, would qualify. If there's nothing to hide, then why was there so much effort put forth to lie to the nation about the campaign's numerous contacts and ties?

Furthermore, it has just been revealed that Trump's campaign advisor, George Papadopoulos, has already plead guilty in regards to lying to federal agents about his contacts with Kremlin-connected Russians, so things are really warming up regarding the campaign collusion investigation.


originally posted by: proximo
I love how all you lefties act like you would not take that meeting if you are in that position.


If you think that a libertarian leaning independent is a "lefty", then I've gotta consider your political opinions a bit suspect...
edit on 10/30/17 by redmage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 30 2017 @ 03:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: redmage

originally posted by: proximo
You do not understand what collusion is - here is it's definition: secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others.

So how did Don Jr or anybody else illegally cooperate to cheat or deceive?


I do understand what collusion is. Attempting to deceive the nation by telling lies for a year about there being "absolutely no contact with any Russians", while keeping such contacts a secret, would qualify. If there's nothing to hide, then why was there so much effort put forth to lie about their contacts and ties?

Furthermore, it has just been revealed that Trump's campaign advisor, George Pompadours, has plead guilty in regards to lying to federal agents about his contacts with Kremlin-connected Russians so things are just heating up.


originally posted by: proximo
I love how all you lefties act like you would not take that meeting if you are in that position.


If you think that a libertarian leaning independent is a "lefty", then I've gotta consider your political opinions a bit suspect...


For god's sake, do you understand how many different people are involved in the trump campaign and how many people were involved in some kind of meeting. That statement means nobody in the campaign was actively working with Russians to do anything. It does not mean no Russians were talked to, it does not mean there is a guarantee that every person on the campaign has never had shady dealings with Russia - it means the campaign did not actively cooperate with Russians to try and cheat or deceive anyone knowingly - that is all. The only reason you take it so literally is to attempt to rationalize the ridiculous collusion charges as being valid.

It does not mean Manafort did not have some deal where he has been getting paid by russians to lobby - it means the Trump campaign knew nothing about any such dealings. If he, or anyone else in the campaign is secretly collecting money on the side to influence the campaign - that does not constitute collusion on the part of the campaign - because they did not know it was happening - therefore that is not cooperation - and it is not collusion.

I don't know what Poppadoms lied about - but to assume it implicates the campaign in collusion is simply wishful thinking on your part.

Do you ever examine how you got the idea in your head Trump was colluding with Russians in the first place? Do you know where that came from? It was started by an accusation from Hillary to try and keep people from looking at the podesta emails - because they are not very flattering to her, then from the BS dossier - which she helped pay for - and was propagated by the media. The charges were never based on any real evidence. Even the alleged hacking of the DNC does not prove the hackers took any of the emails - all it says is some Russians hacked the DNC and implies they did. The entire saga has been about desperately looking for evidence to backup the wild accusation. The fact you do not realize this shows you are far more interested in a witch hunt than knowing actual facts.

You are correct, I should not have assumed you are a lefty, I should have referred to you as an irrational trump hater - it's just the majority of those are lefties and I get lazy and generalize sometimes.



posted on Oct, 30 2017 @ 03:50 PM
link   
a reply to: proximo

I agree partly Mueller doesnt hurt Trump and cant. The claim he had offshore accounts isnt illegal. His lawyer will tear that apart easily. Papadopoulos on the other hand may be concerning to them. He apparently attempted to get thecampaign meet withhis russian contacts. If the only meeting was the Trump jr fiasco they are fine. However if we learn it went further they have a real problem.



posted on Oct, 30 2017 @ 03:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: proximo
For god's sake, do you understand how many different people are involved in the trump campaign and how many people were involved in some kind of meeting. That statement means nobody in the campaign was actively working with Russians to do anything.


Except for the campaign mamager, numerous advisors, his own son, his son-in-law...


originally posted by: proximo
If he, or anyone else in the campaign is secretly collecting money on the side to influence the campaign - that does not constitute collusion on the part of the campaign


Yeah! If the campaign's top dog, aka: the campaign manager, is secretly collecting money on the side to influence the campaign, then that doesn't mean the campaign is colluding... wait.... what?!?!?


originally posted by: proximo
Do you ever examine how you got the idea in your head Trump was colluding with Russians in the first place? Do you know where that came from? It was started by an accusation from Hillary to try and keep people from looking at the podesta emails


Yes, I've examined how the idea got into my head, and you are entirely wrong. It had absolutely nothing to do with Hillary.

Just like you I thought the collusion claims were entirely B.S.. What changed my mind was the continued flurry of lies and coverup attempts lead by Trump himself. Had he been forthright from the beginning I would still likely think that all this Russia business was just a distraction. Hell, read my old posts. I've openly stated numerous times that I originally thought the Russia stuff was just a distraction to coverup the notions that the murdered DNC staffer, Seth Rich, was the actual source of the email leaks. Frankly, some of it still may be exactly that (just a distraction for the Rich murder); however, Trumps continued lies regarding Russia, his inaction on Russian sanctions, him actually thanking Putin for ejecting 750 U.S. diplomats, his absolute inability to criticize Putin when it's rightly deserved, and much more simply create far too much smoke for there to be no fire at all.

He's put far too much effort into coddling Putin and lying to Americans for me to believe that there's "nothing there", even if it's merely his own narcissism making him willing to sell out America so that he can get a damn Trump Tower built in Moscow. This man does not have America's best interests at heart.
edit on 10/30/17 by redmage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 30 2017 @ 04:12 PM
link   
a reply to: redmage

Curious how your mind works? One why did Trump sign the sanctions? Why has he requested further sanctions? And why didhe expell russians and close facilities?



posted on Oct, 30 2017 @ 04:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr
One why did Trump sign the sanctions?


You mean the veto-proof bill that sat on his desk for a week or two which he begrudgingly signed under duress? The one which had sanctions that were supposed to be implemented by Oct. 1st, yet weren't?

He signed it because it was veto-proof, and pressure was mounting due to his inaction. He sat on his hands until political pressure left him no other choice.

He expelled no Russians, The State Dept. merely ordered Russia to close its consulate in San Francisco and two diplomatic annexes, in New York and Washington, and they didn't touch the diplomatic staff at the Russian embassy in Washington.

Furthermore, that legislation required that the administration produce the list of entities for your "further sanctions" by Oct. 1 (a deadline he failed to meet), so those "further sanctions" you mention were not by choice.
edit on 10/30/17 by redmage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 30 2017 @ 04:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: redmage

originally posted by: dragonridr
One why did Trump sign the sanctions?


You mean the veto-proof bill that sat on his desk for a week or two which he begrudgingly signed under duress? The one which had sanctions that were supposed to be implemented by Oct. 1st, yet weren't?

He signed it because it was veto-proof, and pressure was mounting due to his inaction. He sat on his hands until political pressure left him no other choice.

He expelled no Russians, The State Dept. merely ordered Russia to close its consulate in San Francisco and two diplomatic annexes, in New York and Washington, and they didn't touch the diplomatic staff at the Russian embassy in Washington.


If he had vetoed it it wouldnt have passed. But the problem is he had all ready supported it back in July. And now he wants to add to the russian sanctions. I think the reason he sat on it is he was pre ocupied trying to get healthcare and tax cuts. However lets say he did believe sanctions were wrong. If the US keeps throwing more and more sanctions like Trump now requesting more is a problem. If you continue to punch someone eventually they will punch back. And you dont ever want toback a country with nukes in to a corner.



posted on Oct, 30 2017 @ 04:48 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

Good call. Russia ain't America's enemy. America should cultivate a strong relationship with Russia to keep the real enemies in check. I'm talking about communist China and absolute monarchy Saudi Arabia. Main enemies of democracy.



posted on Oct, 30 2017 @ 04:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr
If he had vetoed it it wouldnt have passed.


Do you understand what veto-proof means?

It passed congress by such a high margin that he did not have the authority to veto it.


originally posted by: dragonridr
And now he wants to add to the russian sanctions.


No, he doesn't. The bill required him to create that list by Oct. 1st, and he naturally failed to meet the deadline. The list was finally submitted 3 1/2 weeks late, but hey! Look over there! There's football players kneeling for the anthem! Go get 'em!


originally posted by: dragonridr
However lets say he did believe sanctions were wrong.


We don't have to say it, he openly admitted his protests to signing the bill, but he had no choice.


originally posted by: dragonridr
If the US keeps throwing more and more sanctions like Trump now requesting more is a problem. If you continue to punch someone eventually they will punch back. And you dont ever want toback a country with nukes in to a corner.


You've got it backwards, those sanctions were the U.S. "punching back" after getting punched, and yes it would usually be a bad idea for Russia to back a country like the U.S. into a corner, but with Trump in office they apparently have little to fear.
edit on 10/30/17 by redmage because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
36
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join