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.

 

Special counsel: Manafort, Gates worked with Russian intelligence agent

page: 4
27
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 28 2018 @ 02:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler
Could be something to this.

Is discussing things with former kgb officials a crime, or is it just the lying about it part that makes this a crime?



Lying about it to the FBI is the first crime.

Content of conversation: Their were payments offered to Manafort and Gates via the same channels that financed their past work helping install the former Kremlin Backed ruler of Ukraine (now deposed and hiding in Russia)
and jailing his political rival.

I suspect that negotiated transaction would be the second and more serious crime and one reserved for future indictments.




posted on Mar, 28 2018 @ 02:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Grambler
Could be something to this.

Is discussing things with former kgb officials a crime, or is it just the lying about it part that makes this a crime?

I would like to get everyone who thinks this is a big deal on the record if thats possible; do you feel that getting dirt on opponents from KGB connected people is collusion?

I think it would matter what the details of the conversation were, but merely talking to them is not a crime.



Is someone saying that merely talking to a spy is a crime? I can't seem to find that assertion in this thread directly; perhaps its in other threads?


It's called a straw-man.




posted on Mar, 28 2018 @ 02:24 PM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus

Trump's campaign Personnel communicated with representatives from a lot of countries.

It seems like Mueller's team is leaking nothing burgers in order the keep the investigation from being terminated.



posted on Mar, 28 2018 @ 02:25 PM
link   
Meanwhile ...
T rump's Lawyer discussed presidential pardons for Flynn and Manafort


The discussions came as the special counsel was building cases against both men, and they raise questions about whether the lawyer, John Dowd, who resigned last week, was offering pardons to influence their decisions about whether to plead guilty and cooperate in the investigation.

The talks suggest that Mr. Trump’s lawyers were concerned about what Mr. Flynn and Mr. Manafort might reveal were they to cut a deal with the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, in exchange for leniency.

Mr. Mueller’s team could investigate the prospect that Mr. Dowd made pardon offers to thwart the inquiry, although legal experts are divided about whether such offers might constitute obstruction of justice.


Was Dowd doing things off his own bat or at the behest of Trump ?
I can't see a top, presidential, lawyer, bandying pardons around without the ok of the CiC



posted on Mar, 28 2018 @ 02:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: sunShines
Russia is a land of few people but big weapons. Also very smart. First man made satellite into orbit. First man into space. First space station. First rover on another astronomical body. First probe on another planet. I think, Russians will be kinda difficult to deal with for Americans in the foreseeable future.


THIS?...Was your first post on ATS?

Listen...The Russian people rock. Smart, good humored.

Putin is a criminal thug turning that great nation into a global pariah and bilking the national coffers out of trillions to run his crime family of oligarchs.

That first post of yours makes me think you have a St. Petersburg IP addy.




edit on 28-3-2018 by soberbacchus because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2018 @ 02:26 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

No doubt that if Russia told trump they hacked the dnc and would release them to lift sanctions or for any other reason, that would be very serious and criminal.

I have seen no evidence even remotely suggesting that, however, perhaps that will come out.

Right now we have allegations Manafort and gates talked to a guy that they had been talking to since 2006.

Although it shows what many of us already knew, Manafort and gates are scummy, it doesnt show anything along the lines of russian collsuions anymore than teh dossier info coming from Kremlin sources or Mercury or the Podesta group lobbying for kremlin sources does.

Now this is admittedly my bias talking...

But it seems to me that Mueller and others severely concerned with people talking to, getting info from, or getting paid by the russians and covering it up or lying about it seems only important when its someone connected to trump.

Lets not forget Bill clintons secret meeting with Putin himself weeks before he got paid a cool half a million during the U! scandal.

But as we can see on this thread, the mere accusation that Gates meant with a Kremlin agent has some saying this shows collusion.

I am all for going after all of this foreign influence peddling, but it seems that it is only being looked at when one side does it.



posted on Mar, 28 2018 @ 02:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Grambler
Could be something to this.

Is discussing things with former kgb officials a crime, or is it just the lying about it part that makes this a crime?

I would like to get everyone who thinks this is a big deal on the record if thats possible; do you feel that getting dirt on opponents from KGB connected people is collusion?

I think it would matter what the details of the conversation were, but merely talking to them is not a crime.



Is someone saying that merely talking to a spy is a crime? I can't seem to find that assertion in this thread directly; perhaps its in other threads?


It's called a straw-man.




Is that whats its called when I ask a question?

Especially in light of the fact you admit their is nothing in this indictment that speaks to the content of the conversation, yet we have people saying this.

"I believe that’s called collusion…Am I right? "

SO yes, I was legitmately asking if people thought that just talking to a kremlin official was a crime, seeing as how members on this thread already called it collusion.



posted on Mar, 28 2018 @ 02:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: watchitburn
Are these documents indictments or charges, or are they essentially statements and suppositions?

What exactly does filed documents mean?

Seems like there is a lot of information still to be had.


Van Der Zwaan , the attorney that lied to the FBI about the conversations is asking for leniency in sentencing.

This Doc. from the Special Counsel elaborates on what he lied about arguing against leniency.

Van Zandt is not cooperating, he only pled guilty. He married the daughter of a Putin Crony Billionaire, so I don't think cooperation is an option for him.


edit on 28-3-2018 by soberbacchus because: Edit to correct spelling of Attorneys name:Van Der Zwaan



posted on Mar, 28 2018 @ 02:30 PM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus

Yes, it looks bad for some of these folks.

I can't think of a reason to work with spies unless they could extort someone. People you have affectionate feelings for is one of the legal terms used in the SF-86. Also money, as usual. Weird sex desires or actions, crimes, etc.

So, some of this is coming out. Looks like money right now.

Once again, this is not a good thing to bring Americans together at a time of partisan division.



posted on Mar, 28 2018 @ 02:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: soberbacchus

It has become a retreat from objective reality for right wing identity-politics zealots.


Yeah. Their shame will follow them to hell.



posted on Mar, 28 2018 @ 02:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Grambler
Could be something to this.

Is discussing things with former kgb officials a crime, or is it just the lying about it part that makes this a crime?

I would like to get everyone who thinks this is a big deal on the record if thats possible; do you feel that getting dirt on opponents from KGB connected people is collusion?

I think it would matter what the details of the conversation were, but merely talking to them is not a crime.



Is someone saying that merely talking to a spy is a crime? I can't seem to find that assertion in this thread directly; perhaps its in other threads?


It's called a straw-man.




Is that whats its called when I ask a question?

Especially in light of the fact you admit their is nothing in this indictment that speaks to the content of the conversation, yet we have people saying this.



The court document is not an indictment and there is discussion of the content.

Let me know when you catch up and we can discuss. It is pointless to debate when one party is injecting "alternative facts".



edit on 28-3-2018 by soberbacchus because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2018 @ 02:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: sunShines
Russia is a land of few people but big weapons. Also very smart. First man made satellite into orbit. First man into space. First space station. First rover on another astronomical body. First probe on another planet. I think, Russians will be kinda difficult to deal with for Americans in the foreseeable future.


THIS?...Was you first post?

Listen...The Russian people rock. Smart, good humored.

Putin is a criminal thug turning that great nation into a global pariah and bilking the national coffers out of trillions to run his crime family of oligarchs.

That first post of yours makes me think you have a St. Petersburg IP addy.


Hehe, I thought the same thing. At this point I have to check the mirror in the morning to make sure I'm not a Russian troll.



posted on Mar, 28 2018 @ 02:35 PM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus




the Russian Agent in Sept. and Oct. 2016 arranged calls and said something to the effect that there was more money to come and that what they got paid before was just "The tip of the iceberg" which infers offered money flow from Kremlin to Gates and Manafort


Citations, please



posted on Mar, 28 2018 @ 02:35 PM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus
And the poster never acknowledged truck-nutz as evidence of American superority...



posted on Mar, 28 2018 @ 02:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Arnie123

Just trying to drag some folks outside their typical comfort zone man.


I don't think Trump has committed crime, at least not with nefarious intent. But I do think he likley has some details that would help speed up the investigation and bring it to a close. I suspect he doesn't want that, because he likes having a circus going on. Im not sure if that is a specific genius of his, or just a character flaw. Im not fond of it, but its been effective thus far at doing whatever it is he is doing.

Nonetheless...i don't want to see Trump "confess". I want to see him be honest. "Yeah, Manafort apparently was....", or "Yeah, me and Stormy hooked up back in the day.....", and be a man about it.

On these very forums, I star and applaud the hell out of folks who own up to their own mistakes. Its a trait I admire, and try to actually emulate.
Yeah I got you.



posted on Mar, 28 2018 @ 02:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Grambler
Could be something to this.

Is discussing things with former kgb officials a crime, or is it just the lying about it part that makes this a crime?

I would like to get everyone who thinks this is a big deal on the record if thats possible; do you feel that getting dirt on opponents from KGB connected people is collusion?

I think it would matter what the details of the conversation were, but merely talking to them is not a crime.



Is someone saying that merely talking to a spy is a crime? I can't seem to find that assertion in this thread directly; perhaps its in other threads?


It's called a straw-man.




Is that whats its called when I ask a question?

Especially in light of the fact you admit their is nothing in this indictment that speaks to the content of the conversation, yet we have people saying this.



The court document is not an indictment and there is discussion of the content.

Let me know when you catch up and we can discuss. It is pointless to debate when one party is injecting "alternative facts".




You can mince words all you want.

The court filing, what I called an indictment, was said to be proof of collusion by members on this thread.

You claimed me merely asking if members thought that talking to a Kremlin agent was a crime is a strawman.

Despite m,y error of calling this an indictment, I know plenty about this issue.

Your attitude brings nothing to the conversation, and only show you to not be interested in a productive conversation.



posted on Mar, 28 2018 @ 02:42 PM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus

Assuming that Person A is Kilmnik, I don't know that his past with the GRU is necessarily as important as it might be construed.

Based on leaked emails, we know that Kilmnik was in communication with Deripaska (unless he was lying to Manafort) and we know for a fact that Manafort was trying to use his position as Trump's campaign chief to get back into Deripaska's good graces. We don't know what else might have been offered, but we do know at the very least that private briefings were explicitly offered.

The question I ask myself is what use would private briefings about the Trump campaign be to Deripaska personally?

At this point, I think it's important to keep in mind that not only is Deripaska closely tied to Putin but at one point, Deripaska was literally paying Manafort tens of millions of dollars to advance a "pro-Putin agenda." So it's really not much of a stretch to believe that what Manafort was really trying to peddle was information about the Trump campaign and influence over Trump/his policies/agenda — not to Deripaska — but through Deripaska, to Putin.

At the point he joined the campaign, Manafort was in dire financial straits and had just lost his meal ticket in Yanukovych/Party of Reigions which I think also opened him up to Deripaska coming after him for the money he'd essentially embezzled (as evidenced by Deripaska filing suit after Yanukovych had fled to Russia).

So my belief is that Manafort wasn't just looking to get Trump elected, he was all-in on a master plan, looking to establish a long term relationship with Trump, not unlike his relationship with Yanukovych, with an expectation that he could get back on the Putin gravy train selling influence.

In that way, I don't think that Kilmnik's relationship with the GRU (again, assuming that Kilmnik is Person A) is nearly as important as the fact that he was in contact with Deripaska.
edit on 2018-3-28 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2018 @ 02:51 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

In this highly speculative hypothetical is Trump even necessarily aware of Manafort trying to whore himself out? Isn't this the same crowd (Davis-Manafort) that was interfering in the Ukraine on Russia's behalf while McCain was on the campaign trail slamming Russia on Ukraine (while Davis was campaign manager, and Manafort an advisor)? Or are we presuming McCain was compicit, too?



posted on Mar, 28 2018 @ 02:53 PM
link   
Listen Everyone....Shhhh...the echoes are amazing in here...like a cave with several species of small furry animals all grooving with a pict.
edit on 3/28/2018 by DJMSN because: Correction



posted on Mar, 28 2018 @ 02:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: RadioRobert
a reply to: theantediluvian

In this highly speculative hypothetical is Trump even necessarily aware of Manafort trying to whore himself out? Isn't this the same crowd (Davis-Manafort) that was interfering in the Ukraine on Russia's behalf while McCain was on the campaign trail slamming Russia on Ukraine (while Davis was campaign manager, and Manafort an advisor)? Or are we presuming McCain was compicit, too?
This.

Trump is FRESH. Everybody and their moms were giving advice on who Trump should pick. Remember, we waded into the swamp, already there. So its completely natural to assume that Trump picked a couple rotten apples and even then, nothing seriously big.




top topics



 
27
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join