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

a reply to: introvert

Yep. To me the direct/indirect connection isn't as important as what did they know and when did they know it.

Using a middleman as some sort of cut-out doesn't give them a free pass to hide their activities behind Manafort. So, if it comes out that they knew who Manafort was really working for, I think they're probably going to get smacked. If it comes out that Manafort kept them in the dark about it and they were just chasing the paychecks, they'll get some mud on their name but I don't see anything legal coming out of it.

a reply to: Grambler

Again, that does not prove they also didnt directly work for a foreign government, which was your claim.

And that is true in this case, as is stated in the Manafort indictment.

Now if you are referring to another case, give me some info and I will look in to it. But my statement stands in regards to this case.

like if I say "Intorvert doesnt eat bananas" Someone may say prove it. I then say "we have proof that yesterday introvert ate an apple" That is not proof you dont eat bananas. PM me if you need a quick run down on how basic logic works.

Basic logic would say "why don't we just ask introvert".

And please don't use such laughable examples.

a reply to: Vasa Croe

Where there's smoke....

They've already been outed as having to refile multiple deals under FARA....and not just related to Manafort. A lobbying company knows the rules....especially after this long. Filing incorrectly is not a mistake they make, it is a mindful and purposeful decision made by the top dogs.

Sure.

That still does not prove that they did work directly for a foreign government, which is the silly trap Grambler is trying to set.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: introvert

So, if it comes out that they knew who Manafort was really working for, I think they're probably going to get smacked. If it comes out that Manafort kept them in the dark about it and they were just chasing the paychecks, they'll get some mud on their name but I don't see anything legal coming out of it.

I think it comes down to this, too. I could see it being entirely possible that Manafort kept them in the dark.

As for introvert claiming Grambler thinks the Podesta Group worked directly for a foreign government, I see no evidence of this...

a reply to: darkbake

This was all hashed out here.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The indictment says that Group A who apparently was Mercury was told they were working for the Ukrainian government.

In addition, it says.

November 2012, GATES wrote to Company A and Company that the terms needed to prepare
an assessment of their past and prospective lobbying efforts so the President could be briefed by
Paul on what Ukraine has done well and what it can do better as we move into 2013

www.cnn.com...

Intorverts claim is that maybe the President mentioned isnt the President of the Ukraine that they were doing all of the work about, but perhaps the president of the NGO, which is laughable.

Dominoes falling. These are headlines and crawl info I'm seeing right now.
Trump blaming Kushner for events that led to special councel.

Trump turns on son in law as Mueller noose tightens.

Who Jared...I hardly know him. I think he dated my daughter once.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Where there's smoke....

They've already been outed as having to refile multiple deals under FARA....and not just related to Manafort. A lobbying company knows the rules....especially after this long. Filing incorrectly is not a mistake they make, it is a mindful and purposeful decision made by the top dogs.

Sure.

That still does not prove that they did work directly for a foreign government, which is the silly trap Grambler is trying to set.

They did work directly for the Indian Government. It came out in the leaks. That's why they had to refile for the work they did then. Plenty of stories on it, and even links to their refilled paperwork to prove it.

If they did it once, chances are they've done it more.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

I edited and modified my comment

Please don't do that after I respond to it.

I hope that this helps you understand the same thing.

Thank you, but it does not change my position.

As of now, we have no proof they worked directly for a foreign government.

As it applies to how the law will look at this, I will have to look at it a bit further. You may be correct.

One word throws-up a flag for me though: "willfully".

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Grambler

No I am asking you to prove your claim

We have no evidence to suggest they did work directly for a foreign government and in this case they worked for Manafort. So in this case we can say they did not work directly for a foreign head of state trying to push pro-Russian interests. Want proof? Read the Manafort indictment.

Do you have evidence they did work directly for a foreign government? If so, provide it.

Otherwise, it appears you are just trying to play silly games.

Where there's smoke....

There is either fire, smoldering embers or a smoke machine.
Just saying. Even I acknowledge with the Trump-Russia investigation that smoke is not the same as fire, just a tonnage of smoke that needs to be investigated.

They've already been outed as having to refile multiple deals under FARA....and not just related to Manafort. A lobbying company knows the rules....especially after this long. Filing incorrectly is not a mistake they make, it is a mindful and purposeful decision made by the top dogs.

Apparently (from what I have read) the Mueller indictment sent panic over the DC Lobbying outfits as everyone has become very lax in filing and registering with FARA.

Failure of a lobbying firm to properly declare their clients associations with a foreign government is not the same as
The Campaign Manager of the next President of the United States (for example: the person who changed the republican policy platform on Ukraine at the Republican National Convention or helped select potential US cabinet members etc.) failing to disclose they work directly for a foreign government.

Or the National Security Advisor to the President failing to register as a foreign agent and lying about it on security forms.

It is impossible to take anyone seriously around here who is unable to acknowledge that fundamental distinction.

It entirely shreds all credibility.

Podesta Group should account for any violations or crimes, but from what is known, it is massively different than Manafort or Flynn in all reasonable and relevant ways.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: introvert

Yep. To me the direct/indirect connection isn't as important as what did they know and when did they know it.

Using a middleman as some sort of cut-out doesn't give them a free pass to hide their activities behind Manafort. So, if it comes out that they knew who Manafort was really working for, I think they're probably going to get smacked. If it comes out that Manafort kept them in the dark about it and they were just chasing the paychecks, they'll get some mud on their name but I don't see anything legal coming out of it.

But this is the entire argument from the left.

Its ok or somehow less troubling to work through a third party to do bad things.

In this case, if the Podesta group worked through manafort, then its not as bad even if they knew there work was for the Ukrainian president.

If Hillarys team funded the dossier to get dirt on Trump from russians, is not as bug of a deal because they went through a third party.

originally posted by: darkbake
a reply to: introvert

I'm a little lost at what you guys are arguing about, although to me, it seems apparent that the Podesta Group was working for a non-profit, not a foreign government, and that non-profit had claimed that they were not funded or directed by a government or political party.

The Podesta Group said in the new filings that it did not know who funded the center, and provided a written statement in which the center's executive director says it is not "supervised, directed, controlled, financed or subsidized" by a foreign government or political party.

CNN

Even so, I get the picture that the center may have been working for Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych (although the Podesta Group did not know this). It is a little unclear to me.

Meanwhile, Paul Manafort was probably acutely aware of this, as he was active in promoting Viktor Yanukovych using the center's resources...

Manafort knew full well, but it's not entirely clear what the Podesta Group knew and when they knew it.

As far as what we are arguing about, it's not really an argument. Grambler has been caught slipping in many of his recent threads and he is trying to catch me on something.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Where there's smoke....

They've already been outed as having to refile multiple deals under FARA....and not just related to Manafort. A lobbying company knows the rules....especially after this long. Filing incorrectly is not a mistake they make, it is a mindful and purposeful decision made by the top dogs.

Sure.

That still does not prove that they did work directly for a foreign government, which is the silly trap Grambler is trying to set.

Here's one story on it with explanation and proof of them working directly for and meeting with a foreign government.

dailycaller.com...

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Where there's smoke....

They've already been outed as having to refile multiple deals under FARA....and not just related to Manafort. A lobbying company knows the rules....especially after this long. Filing incorrectly is not a mistake they make, it is a mindful and purposeful decision made by the top dogs.

Sure.

That still does not prove that they did work directly for a foreign government, which is the silly trap Grambler is trying to set.

Show me where i said that they worked directly for a foreign government.

You are lying again.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: introvert

Yep. To me the direct/indirect connection isn't as important as what did they know and when did they know it.

Using a middleman as some sort of cut-out doesn't give them a free pass to hide their activities behind Manafort. So, if it comes out that they knew who Manafort was really working for, I think they're probably going to get smacked. If it comes out that Manafort kept them in the dark about it and they were just chasing the paychecks, they'll get some mud on their name but I don't see anything legal coming out of it.

True.

If they knew, they will face the consequences.

If they didn't until later, they will still get a slap on the wrist, but it is nothing compared to what awaits Manafort.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Not filing as a foreign agent is the least of Maniforts problems.

a reply to: Grambler

From your thread:

However, when they were caught, they said that it was all a mistake, and they thought they were just working for a non profit, not the same Pro Russian president of Ukraine Yanukovytch that Manafort was charged for working for.

I will have to side with the Podesta Group's logic, as they were able to provide evidence that the head of the center told them it was not funded or directed by a foreign government. I'm guessing the Podesta Group was unaware of Manafort's use of the center to promote the Ukranian president.

I'm not against Mueller investigating them, and he could turn up a different story. I guess I'm saying, the Podesta Group's story checks out for now.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Not filing as a foreign agent is the least of Maniforts problems.

I agree - that's what I was saying in the beginning, Manafort is way dirtier than the Podesta Group.

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: darkbake

This was all hashed out here.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Sidenote, you seem to have thing for promoting your own threads on other threads.

Referencing stuff you said before to support stuff said now and directing people to your OPs seems squirrelly.

I don't cite my own mouth yesterday as a source to support what I am saying today.

a reply to: Grambler

Intorverts claim is that maybe the President mentioned isnt the President of the Ukraine that they were doing all of the work about, but perhaps the president of the NGO, which is laughable.

It is possible they were talking about the president of the NGO. The word president is in quotations and there is no more context in that indictment that states it very clearly whom they were referring to.

It's very possible, and likely, they were referring to the president of the Ukraine, but we cannot say for sure and your assertion that it is definitive proof the PG knew they were working on behalf of a government-funded non-profit is incorrect.

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Grambler

No I am asking you to prove your claim

We have no evidence to suggest they did work directly for a foreign government and in this case they worked for Manafort. So in this case we can say they did not work directly for a foreign head of state trying to push pro-Russian interests. Want proof? Read the Manafort indictment.

Do you have evidence they did work directly for a foreign government? If so, provide it.

Otherwise, it appears you are just trying to play silly games.

Where there's smoke....

There is either fire, smoldering embers or a smoke machine.
Just saying. Even I acknowledge with the Trump-Russia investigation that smoke is not the same as fire, just a tonnage of smoke that needs to be investigated.

They've already been outed as having to refile multiple deals under FARA....and not just related to Manafort. A lobbying company knows the rules....especially after this long. Filing incorrectly is not a mistake they make, it is a mindful and purposeful decision made by the top dogs.

Apparently (from what I have read) the Mueller indictment sent panic over the DC Lobbying outfits as everyone has become very lax in filing and registering with FARA.

Failure of a lobbying firm to properly declare their clients associations with a foreign government is not the same as
The Campaign Manager of the next President of the United States (for example: the person who changed the republican policy platform on Ukraine at the Republican National Convention or helped select potential US cabinet members etc.) failing to disclose they work directly for a foreign government.

Or the National Security Advisor to the President failing to register as a foreign agent and lying about it on security forms.

It is impossible to take anyone seriously around here who is unable to acknowledge that fundamental distinction.

It entirely shreds all credibility.

Podesta Group should account for any violations or crimes, but from what is known, it is massively different than Manafort or Flynn in all reasonable and relevant ways.

What do you think John Podesta and Tony Podesta did for Obama exactly? Tony alone was at the Whitehouse over 100 times according to their log...and that's only the logged entries.