Special counsel: Manafort, Gates worked with Russian intelligence agent

SoberBacchus Wrote:

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

originally posted by: RadioRobert
a reply to: soberbacchus



Citations, please

The OP Link to Court Docs:

In van der Zwaan’s recorded conversation with Person A, in Russian, Person A suggested that “there were additional payments,” that “[t]he official contract was only a part of the iceberg,”

assets.documentcloud.org...

Also here:

"In van der Zwaan's recorded conversation with Person A, in Russian, Person A suggested that 'there were additional payments,' that '[t]he official contract was only a part of the iceberg,'

www.nbcnews.com...

a reply to: DJMSN
Saw what you did.

Here's a good primer piece on Manafort for anyone who's interested
Paul Manafort: why Trump's old ally could hold the key in Mueller's Russia hunt

...snip ..
Manafort’s move into the former Soviet bloc after his most active Washington years set him on a course that would sharpen questions about the Trump campaign and Russia ties, and eventually fuel the investigation now placing everyone from the president on down in legal jeopardy.

In the autumn of 2005, Manafort and associates opened an office at 4 Sophia Street in Kiev.

For the next decade, Manafort would perform consulting work for the Ukrainian Party of Regions, whose leader, Viktor Yanukovych, had made a botched grab at the presidency a year earlier.

Manafort had been recruited by the Ukrainian oligarch Rinat Akhmetov, the party’s main backer, to rehabilitate Yanukovych and advance the party. “As a person, he [Yanukovych] is growing,” Manafort told the Guardian’s Luke Harding in 2007. “I think the time out of power helped him.”

Yanukovych won the presidency in 2010. “The role that I played in that administration was to help bring Ukraine into Europe, and we did,” Manafort said in an interview last April.

“We succeeded.” Manafort’s work was not limited to Ukrainian politics. He entered business relationships with Ukrainian oligarch Dmytro Firtash and with Oleg Deripaska, a Russian oligarch with close ties to Putin.

It is unclear when Manafort’s relationship with Deripaska ended, if it has. Earlier this week, the Washington Post reported that during his time as Trump’s campaign chairman, Manafort offered Deripaska “private briefings” on the election

Sounds like Manafort wanted to peddle Influence
to get off the hook with Deripaska and get in with Putin
Win/win for Manafort !

a reply to: RadioRobert

I believe the OP is referring to page 3 of the document.

Further, van der Zwaan in fact had a series of calls with Gates and Person A—as well as the lead partner on the matter—in September and October 2016. The conversations concerned potential criminal charges in Ukraine about the Tymoshenko report and how the firm was compensated for its work. The calls were memorable: van der Zwaan had taken the precaution of recording the conversations with Gates, Person A, and the senior partner who worked on the report. In van der Zwaan’s recorded conversation with Person A, in Russian, Person A suggested that “there were additional payments,” that “[t]he official contract was only a part of the iceberg,” and that the story may become a blow for “you and me personally.”1

1 As referenced in the indictment, the law firm had been paid over $5 million for its work, largely through third-
party payments by a Ukrainian oligarch, funneled through a Manafort and Gates Cypriot account. The Ukraine potential criminal matter concerned the allegation that in 2012-13 the then-government of Ukraine had disclosed that the firm was being paid only about $12,000 (an amount above which Ukraine law would have required a different procurement process).

originally posted by: theantediluvian
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.

Kilmnik facilitated the money flow via his GRU/Kremlin ties to Manafort when he ran campaigns to install Putin's man in Ukraine and Jail his opponent (that is where the lawyer came in - his firm spearheaded a report used to indict her).

The fact that they had conversations in Sept. and Oct. 2016 that everyone chose initially to lie to the FBI about and unnerved the corrupt lawyer enough that he secretly recorded the conversations and that money was offered "tip of the iceberg" referencing the past payments for Manafort's work in Ukraine?

The work in Ukraine was long over in Oct. 2016, what was the money offer for.

a reply to: theantediluvian

Correct. I cited at the top of the page.

originally posted by: Grambler

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.

I did not "mince words". I stated facts with citation.

You said it was an indictment. It was not, it was sentencing document.

You said it said nothing about the content of the conversation.
the document discussed some of the content of the secret conversations they lied about.


The rest of your post seems personal.

There seems to be a pattern of being triggered by facts that contradict invented facts.

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?

Most of it is not that speculative — the fact that Manafort was trying to whore himself out to Deripaska is well evidenced by the leaked emails (check the thread in my sig).

I personally do not believe that Trump was aware of what Manafort was up to.

And yes, the tentacles from Manafort and his pals are many and far reaching. Rick Davis was McCain's campaign manager what, twice? And he did in fact introduce McCain to Deripaska while Deripaska was paying oodles of money trying to get a visa. So yes, McCain has his own Manafort-Davis-Deripaska-Ukraine-Russia-etc skeletons in his closet.

Aide Helped Controversial Russian Meet McCain, WaPo 2008
In McCain Campaign, a Lobbying Labyrinth, NYT 2008
McCain’s Kremlin Ties, The Nation 2008

Kind of an important thread. We are watching something that could affect how we view our justice system, political process and each other for years to come.

I think we can all do better to be polite and respect other comments and question.ps.

Pretend you are talking to someone you like. It helps me stay polite (sometimes).

Thanks all!

originally posted by: DJMSN
Listen Everyone....Shhhh...the echoes are amazing in here...like a cave with several species of small furry animals all grooving with a pict.

Just remembering that song from my teen years makes me feel a little stoned.

a reply to: soberbacchus

Well looking at how the law is written it appears that the black and white text disagrees with you...but you also didn't provide much in the way of an argument for your opinion other than a simple "nuh uh no it isn't"...so unless you have something more I will remain unconvinced of your opinion.

Could someone explain how this shows that Trump and/or his campaign colluded with the Russian govt. to coordinate efforts to get Trump elected?

Having read through I can't spot anything, which is surprising because apparently, this is the 'big one'.

Much obliged in advance.

a reply to: theantediluvian

Thanks to both of you.

Reading the entire document reads to me that van der Zwaan and Kilmnik in a call discussing the Ukraine work. K reveals there was additional money paid and additional work performed outside the scope of the contract, and the nature of that work, if revealed, would be damaging to both vdZ and K (and presumably DM -- and perhaps, optically, to the Trump campaign).

Is that a fair read?

Where is Manafort being promised more money from Russia for something related to the campaign? It seems a damage control conversation. "Heads up, DM was up to its eyeballs in the Russia-Ukraine quagmire. Work out a response before someone spills the beans because if this gets out it could damage both of us."

That dove-tails nicely with reports Trump and Clinton were given standard counter-intel briefings by the FBI in August, including regarding Russian attempts to infiltrate campaigns, and that Manafort was out two days later.

Sounds like Manafort and Davis may be finally caught in their own swamp, but where's the impeachable offense by Trump or Trumpian collusion?

originally posted by: RadioRobert
a reply to: theantediluvian

Thanks to both of you.

Reading the entire document reads to me that van der Zwaan and Kilmnik in a call discussing the Ukraine work. K reveals there was additional money paid and additional work performed outside the scope of the contract, and the nature of that work, if revealed, would be damaging to both vdZ and K (and presumably DM -- and perhaps, optically, to the Trump campaign).

Is that a fair read?

Where is Manafort being promised more money from Russia for something related to the campaign? It seems a damage control conversation. "Heads up, DM was up to its eyeballs in the Russia-Ukraine quagmire. Work out a response before someone spills the beans because if this gets out it could damage both of us."

That dove-tails nicely with reports Trump and Clinton were given standard counter-intel briefings by the FBI in August, including regarding Russian attempts to infiltrate campaigns, and that Manafort was out two days later.

Sounds like Manafort and Davis may be finally caught in their own swamp, but where's the impeachable offense by Trump or Trumpian collusion?

Don't do this to them. It's just too cruel. They badly, badly need this to be evidence of collusion with Trump.

originally posted by: soberbacchus

The fact that they had conversations in Sept. and Oct. 2016 that everyone chose initially to lie to the FBI about and unnerved the corrupt lawyer enough that he secretly recorded the conversations and that money was offered "tip of the iceberg" referencing the past payments for Manafort's work in Ukraine?

The work in Ukraine was long over in Oct. 2016, what was the money offer for.

Manafort was out of the campaign in mid-August. Why would a conversation taking place between K and vnZ in Aug, Sept, or October have anything to do with Manafort doing future Russian work for/with the Trump campaign he had already left?

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: RadioRobert
a reply to: theantediluvian

Thanks to both of you.

Reading the entire document reads to me that van der Zwaan and Kilmnik in a call discussing the Ukraine work. K reveals there was additional money paid and additional work performed outside the scope of the contract, and the nature of that work, if revealed, would be damaging to both vdZ and K (and presumably DM -- and perhaps, optically, to the Trump campaign).

Is that a fair read?

Where is Manafort being promised more money from Russia for something related to the campaign? It seems a damage control conversation. "Heads up, DM was up to its eyeballs in the Russia-Ukraine quagmire. Work out a response before someone spills the beans because if this gets out it could damage both of us."

That dove-tails nicely with reports Trump and Clinton were given standard counter-intel briefings by the FBI in August, including regarding Russian attempts to infiltrate campaigns, and that Manafort was out two days later.

Sounds like Manafort and Davis may be finally caught in their own swamp, but where's the impeachable offense by Trump or Trumpian collusion?

Don't do this to them. It's just too cruel. They badly, badly need this to be evidence of collusion with Trump.

You nailed it. The amount of time and effort invested in the Russian collusion delusion is so much that it must be horrifying to come to the realisation that it was all nonsense, so I kind of understand the need to make these types of associations to try and soften the landing. I have actually started to feel a bit sorry for those that got ensnared by it all... they were easy targets to take advantage of after Nov 8th 2016.

That said, always open to some evidence of the actual claims made, so will wait to see if someone can shed some further light... maybe something not yet in the thread?

This is a bit damning though, has to be said ...

On the evening of April 11, 2016, two weeks after Donald Trump hired the political consultant Paul Manafort to lead his campaign’s efforts to wrangle Republican delegates, Manafort emailed his old lieutenant Konstantin Kilimnik, who had worked for him for a decade in the Ukrainian capital, Kiev.

“I assume you have shown our friends my media coverage, right?” Manafort wrote.
“Absolutely,” Kilimnik responded a few hours later from Kiev. “Every article.”
“How do we use to get whole,” Manafort asks. “Has OVD operation seen?”

According to a source close to Manafort, the initials “OVD” refer to Oleg Vladimirovich Deripaska, a Russian oligarch and one of Russia’s richest men.

The source also confirmed that one of the individuals repeatedly mentioned in the email exchange as an intermediary to Deripaska is an aide to the oligarch.

The emails were provided to The Atlantic on condition of anonymity.

Emails suggest Manafort sought approval from Putin ally

This could all be turned into a film by the Cohen Brothers
An anti wag-the dog ôde

A presidential campaign manager
emails a russian spy
to ask 'how do we get whole'
without me getting a hole in the head ?

Slapstick, bitter-sweet comedy
as Mr Bonehead goes to Washington

Mueller trying to be relevant. 10 months in and what does he have to show for? Nada. Now don't get me wrong. I pray every day Trump leaves the white house. He is a dangerous man child who knows nothing about international politics and his admin is full of warhawks. It's like frigging WW3 on a power keg. But Mueller is not the man to bring down Trump. It needs someone else to get the job done.

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: DogStarIn1066
a reply to: soberbacchus
Trump should come clean with what he knows. People will give him the benefit of the doubt (mostly) and he can get back to work.

Agreed. He gets outed for banging Porn Stars and lying about it and the public just shrugs.
People can't really be shocked by Trump's moral bankruptcy anymore.
That makes me think that whatever he is trying to avoid in meeting with Mueller and letting the investigation conclude in a legitimate fashion is pretty serious.

And this all dissapears if Manaforts lawyer gets this dismissed because Mueller overstepped his powers. And FLynns has a good case for dismissal since he got a new judge who got all the missing exsculpotory evidence against him.
Muellers trying to save a sinking ship.

Mueller made up a bunch of names last time. This time he's not even trying anymore. Unnamed? Seriously, even I can do better than that.