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.

 

Grand Jury Docs Have Been Unsealed, and It’s Looking Even Worse for Manafort

page: 10
30
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 1 2017 @ 08:11 PM
link   
# you.
a reply to: DanteGaland




posted on Nov, 1 2017 @ 08:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: theantediluvian

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: theantediluvian

So, if you boss tells you to do something illegal there is nothing wrong with that? You will not get in trouble? Nice try.

It also does not matter who hired them. They did not file the correct paperwork. They did not disclose their actions. It is illegal. They did not file to hide what they did.

This is not right or left wing. I do not consider my self right wing. If the DNC or another party put up a better candidate in 2016 I would have voted for them. You assume to much sometimes.


No, you're not understanding. There were TWO groups — Podesta Group and Mercury. You keep talking about Podesta Group but you're ignoring Mercury.

Both of them are guilty of exactly the same thing. They were doing the exact same Ukrainian lobbying for Manafort. They are referenced as "Company A" and "Company B" in the indictment. I'm not defending Podesta Group at all, I'm trying to point out that that's there's ALSO this other group, Mercury, that you keep missing.

Which kinda illustrates what I was saying.


Have you been able to find anything on Mercury.

I spent about a half hour looking in to them, and cant find much.

I know they were founded by a Republican, and they seemed to work the republican angle more than democrats. But I didnt find if they were attached to any specific people.

.


Start here
www.mercuryllc.com...

And here for staff
www.mercuryllc.com...



posted on Nov, 1 2017 @ 08:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: theantediluvian

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: theantediluvian

So, if you boss tells you to do something illegal there is nothing wrong with that? You will not get in trouble? Nice try.

It also does not matter who hired them. They did not file the correct paperwork. They did not disclose their actions. It is illegal. They did not file to hide what they did.

This is not right or left wing. I do not consider my self right wing. If the DNC or another party put up a better candidate in 2016 I would have voted for them. You assume to much sometimes.


No, you're not understanding. There were TWO groups — Podesta Group and Mercury. You keep talking about Podesta Group but you're ignoring Mercury.

Both of them are guilty of exactly the same thing. They were doing the exact same Ukrainian lobbying for Manafort. They are referenced as "Company A" and "Company B" in the indictment. I'm not defending Podesta Group at all, I'm trying to point out that that's there's ALSO this other group, Mercury, that you keep missing.

Which kinda illustrates what I was saying.


Have you been able to find anything on Mercury.

I spent about a half hour looking in to them, and cant find much.

I know they were founded by a Republican, and they seemed to work the republican angle more than democrats. But I didnt find if they were attached to any specific people.

.


Start here
www.mercuryllc.com...

And here for staff
www.mercuryllc.com...


Thanks for the links I will check it out.



posted on Nov, 1 2017 @ 09:19 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Dude..Innocent until prove guilty is the American way.

People proclaiming innocence are not required to prove their innocence,the accusers must prove their guilt. That is how it works with the exception of police seizures. You must be in favor of these?



posted on Nov, 1 2017 @ 09:42 PM
link   
a reply to: aethertek



Need to close this for fake news!!! There is no judge at a grand jury they are a group of citizens that a prosecutor selects tohear his case. They have zero legal knowledge and rely on the prosecutor to explain the law to them. And of course a prosecutor is only going to tell them laws he believes to be relevant. This article is trying to make a legal assumption based off what they believe happened. Problem is they have no clue what a grand jury is or how it works.

There is no judge i will say again there is no judge and the fact that the article lies. And this whole rticle is dependent on the fact that there is a judge makes everything they said wrong. Again fake news!!!!

Just so you know how it works Mueller takes an indictment to thhe federal judges office.its not his job to verify anything his job is to just issue warrants for arrest. He can also et up subpoenas for a pending case. IfMueller requests it the get a subpoena and they will make their plea in front of the judge alleging attyclient privileges. If he overrides the decision then that woukd be serious.
edit on 11/1/17 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 1 2017 @ 09:52 PM
link   
Might not be looking good for Obama either.

Hannity is at it again. Tick Tock points to Obama this time. Nov. 2nd reveal apparently.



Link to Hannity Tweet



posted on Nov, 1 2017 @ 09:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: sligtlyskeptical
a reply to: introvert

Dude..Innocent until prove guilty is the American way.

People proclaiming innocence are not required to prove their innocence,the accusers must prove their guilt. That is how it works with the exception of police seizures. You must be in favor of these?


That has nothing to do with the post you responded to.



posted on Nov, 1 2017 @ 11:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Not sure what you mean by true Republicans. There has not been a "true" two party system in the US since 1993.

What I am expressing is what many of us have said for years is finally out in the open and the media is not able to supress it anymore. The internet is a good and a bad thing. The curtain is pulled back, the investigations are starting and lifetime politicians are going to start turning on each other like you have never seen.

The term Drain the Swamp was real. It is happening but it is going after BOTH sides. What did they expect after establishment Republicans gave Trump the finger. Even Bush II is talking # about him and sitting presidents, in a modern era, usually reserve that for when their successor is out of office.

They came pretty close and if HRC would have been elected I think you would have seen that One World mentality ushered in on a grander scale.






posted on Nov, 2 2017 @ 01:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: thepixelpusher
Might not be looking good for Obama either.

Hannity is at it again. Tick Tock points to Obama this time. Nov. 2nd reveal apparently.



Link to Hannity Tweet


sean hannity is acting like tom delonge with his trolling. i hope he delivers but not holding my breath.



posted on Nov, 2 2017 @ 01:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: Gryphon66

Not sure what you mean by true Republicans. There has not been a "true" two party system in the US since 1993.

What I am expressing is what many of us have said for years is finally out in the open and the media is not able to supress it anymore. The internet is a good and a bad thing. The curtain is pulled back, the investigations are starting and lifetime politicians are going to start turning on each other like you have never seen.

The term Drain the Swamp was real. It is happening but it is going after BOTH sides. What did they expect after establishment Republicans gave Trump the finger. Even Bush II is talking # about him and sitting presidents, in a modern era, usually reserve that for when their successor is out of office.

They came pretty close and if HRC would have been elected I think you would have seen that One World mentality ushered in on a grander scale.





the obvious problem with the highlighted statement is trump has filled the swamp with worse people that ever frequented said swamp.
the launderers and foreign agents being forced to resign or now facing time were appointed by trump.
you can keep your fingers crossed that everyone is wrong about uranium one and alex jones got it right or that obama is kenyan, but you have to accept the cold reality the people you're supporting aren't nice, trustworthy or even decent people.



posted on Nov, 2 2017 @ 02:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: angeldoll
Thank you all for the clarifications. Treason then, is conspiracy to actually try to overthrow the government, while Manafort moreless just conspired to hide money from them. Yes, big big difference.





Still a serious crime though.

If he is found guilty, he should have to face the consequences.


Never stick Mueller has to show he was attempting to hide the money from the government. Problem is he transfered money to buy real estate and services. Not something you do if your trying to hide it. Other problem Mueller didnt charge him with tax evasion. This should have been his first charge just think Al capone it would out weigh every charge he made. But Mueller doesnt include it on the indictment?

Only 2 explanations for it one being Mueller is just incompetent,I think this is unlikely. Or he paid taxes on the money he brought in to the country from his off shore accounts.since its not illegal to have off shore accounts and it seems he hadno problem letting people know he had them Manaforts lawyer will tear apart the prosecution.

He better have something not in this indictment that hes holding back because that only leaves one thing failure to report foreign lobbying a misdemeanor charge. Likely out come fine and probation i suspect the indictment was to scare him and he hoped he would come shopping for a deal. But people like manafort isnt going to scare easily his lawyer all ready told him the charges are rediculous. Remeber his lawyer said this charge was tried 7 times since 1966 and the government lost 6.

With the difficulty of proving he was trying to hide it all the while transfered money to US banks is going to be very hard to prove.so where left with lying to investigators as really the only viable charge. If thats all he gets i can promise you Trump will commute the sentence.



posted on Nov, 2 2017 @ 02:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: interupt42

originally posted by: thepixelpusher
Might not be looking good for Obama either.

Hannity is at it again. Tick Tock points to Obama this time. Nov. 2nd reveal apparently.



Link to Hannity Tweet


sean hannity is acting like tom delonge with his trolling. i hope he delivers but not holding my breath.


Hes stringing together possibiities without facts i wouldnt hold my breath.



posted on Nov, 2 2017 @ 04:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: thepixelpusher
Might not be looking good for Obama either.

Hannity is at it again. Tick Tock points to Obama this time. Nov. 2nd reveal apparently.



Link to Hannity Tweet


We'll see if Hannity delivers but I suspect it's like this.




posted on Nov, 2 2017 @ 05:03 AM
link   
Manafort is done. His fate is sealed. Though he might still flip on other people, I don't think Manafort is even necessary anymore. Little Georgie Popo and his magic wire might have been even more useful to Mueller.

It is also worth noting, the scope of this case might end up stretching beyond collusion. There has been word that money laundering and the Trump Organization might actually be the end conviction goal.

Stay tuned.



posted on Nov, 2 2017 @ 06:01 AM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

Tax evasion is more complicated to prove. He wants prosecutions.



posted on Nov, 2 2017 @ 09:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: SlapMonkey

I never said that. I said that what they did is slightly different. In regards to the law, they may look at it the same way, but it is still different.

I'm really not trying to split hairs here, but this was your comment to which I initially replied in this thread:

originally posted by: introvert
What the Podestas may have done is not comparable to what Manafort has done.

So, when I say "you were being very adamant that The Podesta Group didn't do anything as serious as Manafort and Gates," that is what I was referencing. "Not comparable" can be interpreted as 'not as serious.' Why would you waste time arguing with me about that?



Ok. They still did not directly work for the Ukrainian government, as far as I know.

And for the nth and final time, that doesn't matter in regard to the law--and the law is what causes indictments to happen, and the law is what we're discussing in this thread.

Well, at least that's what we should be discussing.



I claimed no such thing.

Okay, I think that logical discussion is coming to its end with you on this. You keep denying that you said something that I claim, and your denials seem based on the reality that I paraphrased you instead of directly quoted you.

You say that you didn't claim that, "since they were 'just a third-party contractor,' so to speak, that weren't an agent of a foreign principal." (my words) Yet, directly about your denial in this comment, you reiterate the pointless note that, "They still did not directly work for the Ukrainian government, as far as I know."

This is your attempt at saying/implying that they were a third party and therefore are not defined the same way as Manafort and Gates, yet I provide you with specific, legal definitions of things, to include what it is to be an 'agent of a foreign principal," and you still continue to passively deny this truth because "they did not directly work for the Ukrainian government."


Come on--stop the semantics and nit-picking and look a little more broadly at what I'm claiming you have said. You have said everything that I've noted thus far, even though you've denied it twice in your response.



It seems you are trying to argue a point with me that I never made.

Let's make it thrice.



That they did not do exactly the same thing as Manafort.

And here you are, again, claiming that they didn't do exactly the same thing as Manafort. Well, guess, what, murder is murder, whether it's done with a gun, or knife, or with your bare hands. 22 U.S.C. Section 612 applies to all three parties in exactly the same way, at least as far as the evidence is showing at this stage. In the eyes of the law, which is the only thing that matters in this discussion and is what I've been arguing all along, they have committed the exact same offense.

I'm not even remotely discussing anything else in this thread. All of the other counts in the indictment are irrelevant to my entire discussion.



posted on Nov, 2 2017 @ 09:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: aethertek



Need to close this for fake news!!! There is no judge at a grand jury they are a group of citizens that a prosecutor selects tohear his case.

...
There is no judge i will say again there is no judge and the fact that the article lies. And this whole rticle is dependent on the fact that there is a judge makes everything they said wrong. Again fake news!!!!



Chief Judge Beryl A. Howell
The ruling here.
www.politico.com...

Judges are involved in the process of Subpoena's and issuing indictments etc (e.g. rule on whether certain witnesses can be compelled to testify)

Your post qualifies as "fake news" aimed at obfuscation and a false narrative.



posted on Nov, 2 2017 @ 10:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: Gryphon66

Not sure what you mean by true Republicans. There has not been a "true" two party system in the US since 1993.

What I am expressing is what many of us have said for years is finally out in the open and the media is not able to supress it anymore. The internet is a good and a bad thing. The curtain is pulled back, the investigations are starting and lifetime politicians are going to start turning on each other like you have never seen.

The term Drain the Swamp was real. It is happening but it is going after BOTH sides. What did they expect after establishment Republicans gave Trump the finger. Even Bush II is talking # about him and sitting presidents, in a modern era, usually reserve that for when their successor is out of office.

They came pretty close and if HRC would have been elected I think you would have seen that One World mentality ushered in on a grander scale.





You refered to Democrats and Republicans in Name Only I your list of those being exposed ... therefore it seems logical that you think some other “real Republicans” are safe.



posted on Nov, 2 2017 @ 10:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: Gryphon66

The term Drain the Swamp was real. It is happening but it is going after BOTH sides.


Mueller is the only one hunting Alligators in the swamp.

Trumps Nominee for Heading up Agriculture, Sam Clovis, appears to being going down in the next 24 hours.
He apparently was one of the Senior Trump Campaign folks that worked with Papadopoulos on Russia.



posted on Nov, 2 2017 @ 10:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: aethertek



Need to close this for fake news!!! There is no judge at a grand jury they are a group of citizens that a prosecutor selects tohear his case. They have zero legal knowledge and rely on the prosecutor to explain the law to them. And of course a prosecutor is only going to tell them laws he believes to be relevant. This article is trying to make a legal assumption based off what they believe happened. Problem is they have no clue what a grand jury is or how it works.

There is no judge i will say again there is no judge and the fact that the article lies. And this whole rticle is dependent on the fact that there is a judge makes everything they said wrong. Again fake news!!!!

Just so you know how it works Mueller takes an indictment to thhe federal judges office.its not his job to verify anything his job is to just issue warrants for arrest. He can also et up subpoenas for a pending case. IfMueller requests it the get a subpoena and they will make their plea in front of the judge alleging attyclient privileges. If he overrides the decision then that woukd be serious.


The judge didn't issue indictments. The judge ruled that attorney-client privilege did not apply and compelled the attorney to answer questions.

In your rush to try and spin this (seriously, you reek of desperation) you seem to have skipped over all the relevant parts as to what the judge did and did not do.

Here's how it works: the prosecutor makes his case to a grand jury. The grand jury returns indictments. The prosecutor also files a motion to compel testimony. A judge, an actual judge, hears arguments about the motion and then rules on it.

Good try though. You know just enough to sound like you have a valid point. At least, I'm sure that's how you sound to other low-information ATS'ers.




top topics



 
30
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join