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.

 

Manafort Charged by FBI

page: 28
61
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 30 2017 @ 01:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: face23785

Yeah discussing lessening sanctions place by the then president as a punishment isn't exactly the same as talking policy and actually borders on treason.


Easing sanctions borders on treason?



In trade for helping to elect a US President? Yes.




posted on Oct, 30 2017 @ 01:39 PM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus

So they were plotting that clear back in 2006 and 2012 which is where these charges stem from? Russia has been accused of playing chess, but that's so many moves back in time, they could have just as easily worked to put a sympathetic ear in the White House back in 2012.



posted on Oct, 30 2017 @ 01:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Lagomorphe

Like I already said but have no problem repeating ... I offered no proof. None. I have none. I just have logic. But if you want to believe that she was hacked and someone is still holding on to those emails five years later more power to you. And just so we are perfectly clear i said this was proof that Russia has muddied the water. Not that I had proof that Hillary wasn't hacked. Read my post again.


 Proof that Russia was successful in muddying the waters around emails



posted on Oct, 30 2017 @ 01:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: soberbacchus

Because when manafort was actually working with Russia to inflence government decisons it was in 2012.

This was before Trumps campaign.


What makes you think that?


Manafort offered to give Russian billionaire ‘private briefings’ on 2016 campaign
nypost.com...


Weird. Your source say anonymous sources told them that.

Yet I didnt read that in the indictment?

Thats curious, dont you think?



posted on Oct, 30 2017 @ 01:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

You are thinking that the only people that could be hurt or manipulated to advantage by Hillary's emails are just Hillary herself. That's the hole in your thinking. There are likely quite a few people in those emails who are still in important positions who can be manipulated potentially through the emails.



posted on Oct, 30 2017 @ 01:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Uranium one haha . A seven year old distraction.



posted on Oct, 30 2017 @ 01:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: face23785

Yeah discussing lessening sanctions place by the then president as a punishment isn't exactly the same as talking policy and actually borders on treason.


Easing sanctions borders on treason?



In trade for helping to elect a US President? Yes.


That would be true, but since you made that part up it's not an issue.

Don't make # up. There's zero evidence whatsoever that that happened.



posted on Oct, 30 2017 @ 01:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Grambler

Uranium one haha . A seven year old distraction.


Since this indictment lists things that went back as far as 2006, 11 years, I'd say that 7 years isn't all that far back.



posted on Oct, 30 2017 @ 01:54 PM
link   
Ok, so here is the thing that is known:

Papadopoulos has already plead guilty.

Manafort and Gates have plead not guilty.

Now this is all part of the game that is played out in court. The prosecuting attorney has the investigators find the evidence, reviews it, brings it up before a grand jury, and then brings charges, with a case already set. The defense now has to decide on if they are going to plead not guilty or guilty. A not guilty plea means that the defense has time to go through all of the evidence that the prosecuting attorney has and discuss such with his client, to either continue on in court to try to get a verdict or to try for a plea deal.

It is if anything the not guilty pleas are to stall for time to see if the president will act, or to give time for them to reach a plea deal.
And in this case it is going to be a spiral, slowly turning towards the President, starting with those that are furthest from the president slowly to those closest to him, and to determine if and when he knew and can it be proven.

Regardless of the outcome, this is the investigation, as much as many do not want it and those who do, that the current administration needs, to put some legitimacy onto the administration. Even if it yields nothing, it will help calm the country down a bit.



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

You are right that this is it. I mean, if there is anything they can get Trump for, it should come out now. Papadopoulus already took a plea deal, and Manafort is probably gonna want one. If they still can't get anything on Trump at this point, there's probably nothing to get.

I have to disagree that it will help calm the country. Most of the country has moved on from this Trump-Russia collusion myth. The people who still believe in it are so heavily invested now, they're never gonna let it go no matter how many investigations come up short.



posted on Oct, 30 2017 @ 02:06 PM
link   
twitter thread from an attorney, he who flips first gets the easiest sentence.
facts abound unfortunately so trump worshippers need a trigger warning, but we know you don't like facts and will ignore anyways.

lock her up, drain the swamp need reworking.



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

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: face23785

Yeah discussing lessening sanctions place by the then president as a punishment isn't exactly the same as talking policy and actually borders on treason.


Easing sanctions borders on treason?



In trade for helping to elect a US President? Yes.


Actually according to 18 USC 2381 the US needs to be at war with the country in question or at the very least classify it as an enemy state for such activities to be treason.
You could try the Logan Act, 18 USC 953, private correspondence with foreign governments. Signed into law by President Adams in 1799, likely to be unconstitutional and noone has ever been prosecuted under it. Mueller is not stupid enough to try this.
You can try something less spectacular, try 18 USC 2, aiding an abetting or 18 USC 371 conspiracy to commit a crime but you'll still need a crime and tie Trump to it to become relevant. That too very likely wont be happening.



posted on Oct, 30 2017 @ 02:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: cinerama
twitter thread from an attorney, he who flips first gets the easiest sentence.
facts abound unfortunately so trump worshippers need a trigger warning, but we know you don't like facts and will ignore anyways.

lock her up, drain the swamp need reworking.


It's funny, I actually see more people denying how bad it is that The Podesta Group is in the center of this mess.



posted on Oct, 30 2017 @ 02:10 PM
link   
We should also remember that Mueller's team broke the law by disclosing grand jury material in a leak.



posted on Oct, 30 2017 @ 02:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Grambler

Uranium one haha . A seven year old distraction.


Right.

I mean if "Group A" was peddling russian influence with manafort over uranium one, there is no need to investigate that part of manaforts wrong doings.

Only stuss connected to Trump, right?



posted on Oct, 30 2017 @ 02:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: soberbacchus

Because when manafort was actually working with Russia to inflence government decisons it was in 2012.

This was before Trumps campaign.


What makes you think that?


Manafort offered to give Russian billionaire ‘private briefings’ on 2016 campaign
nypost.com...


Yet I didnt read that in the indictment?

Thats curious, dont you think?



Not at all.

The indictment was for Money Laundering, Tax Evasion and Lying to the FBI.

Mueller is reportedly well known to not bring an indictment unless he is convinced it is a rock solid case.

He is also well known for prosecuting small fish to get to bigger fish.

Manafort offering to brief a Russian Billionaire close to Putin on the progress of the campaign is not illegal and there is no reason it would be included in an indictment.

It is however a hint of more to come if Manafort chooses to plead guilty and tell what he knows in return for leniency in sentencing.



posted on Oct, 30 2017 @ 02:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
We should also remember that Mueller's team broke the law by disclosing grand jury material in a leak.


??



posted on Oct, 30 2017 @ 02:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
We should also remember that Mueller's team broke the law by disclosing grand jury material in a leak.


??


That's what I want to know...



posted on Oct, 30 2017 @ 02:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: sdcigarpig


Regardless of the outcome, this is the investigation, as much as many do not want it and those who do, that the current administration needs, to put some legitimacy onto the administration. Even if it yields nothing, it will help calm the country down a bit.


Quite right. Let the truth speak and let justice be done.



posted on Oct, 30 2017 @ 02:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: soberbacchus



Manafort offering to brief a Russian Billionaire close to Putin on the progress of the campaign is not illegal and there is no reason it would be included in an indictment.



Here. You answered yourself!
edit on 30-10-2017 by Grambler because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
61
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join