Special counsel: Manafort, Gates worked with Russian intelligence agent

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.

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.

a reply to: Grambler
How would you know if you are talking to a spy?

If you did know, should you make deals with them, when you can assume they are not working for your best interest, but rather the interest of their country?

Should any politician, federal employee, or even average American make deals with spys from other counties?

Leave it to our spies to interact with other spies. They have the training to do counter espionage.

Just my feelings.

Good question though, it made me think. Gave you a star for helping to delay my iinevitable (or current) dimentia!

Thanks.

a reply to: theantediluvian

Well that seems like an informed guess, and it is some one Manafort would have had contact with over time especially with all the dodgy Ukraine connections. Now what was the 2016 contact about? Did it have any tie in to POTUS at all?
Was it a back channel communication about Donald's intentions if he won? "Say, tovarisch, how do you think the old Donald feels about sanctions/Ukraine/SALT XVIII/whatever?" Do I or should I care about that conversation? You don't think every campaign has those sorts of conversations off the record?
And again, maybe it was something nefarious, but we haven't seen anything that really suggests that.

"Campaign manager communicated with Russian he has history of dealings with going back a decade or more about something that may or may not be connected to the campaign and may or may not have been hinky. President may or may not have had knowledge"
Okaaaay... Tell me more...

I'm not sure anyone would begrudge your interactions with Russian's (even as you say they may have had tertiary connections to the GRU), especially because you weren't commander in chief of the country (nor trying to be).
I mean, isn't this whole shebang boil down to the concern that by not just disclosing everything/anything that may seem unpleasant, there is a possibility of extortion and/or control?

The Russians are going to be able to blackmail Trump because his campaign manager has "communicated" with a subject "with ties to the GRU" (a former GRU agent, assuming ante is right, that he has been in connection with for a decade or more)?
Who would care except the #resist crowd -- unless it was actually nefarious and related to the election? So let's see some evidence of that.

If it is nefarious and it ties to POTUS, let's see it. Anything even remotely negative has leaked instantly, true or not (WL email to Don Jr, Trump's personal accounts from Deutsche Bank subpoenaed, etc). So far all the charges (Manafort, who everyone agrees seems to be hinky as hell, and Gates his partner) consist of business dealings/tax fraud from ages ago or a setup charge of lying to investigators even after the agents involved thought he was inaccurate not lying (Flynn). Why is that?

a reply to: DogStarIn1066

Its a fair reply.

I will not be cute and jump right to the chase.

We know from not only the mueller investigation, but also other sources two things that i question how they relate to this.

1, the hillary campaign and dnc paid a foreign agent to get dirt on Trump from Kremlin connected sources.

2. Manfaort and Gates worked with two other groups that failed to register under the FARA act, Mercury LLC (basically republicn) and the Podesta group (basically democrat) to have access to US politicians from foreign agents, inclduing those connected to the Kremlin.

So either there has to be more than just talking to kremlin agents that is illegal that Gates and manafort did, or surely we will see many more people both republican and democrat be charged for the same thing.

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?

I thought it was always the 'lying about it' part that justified the inquiries. Specifically not because looking for dirt on opponents was something illegal, but rather that by not disclosing the source it was breaking the law by lying about it to the investigators.

The implications (while from an optics standpoint appear damning) aren't a direct crime, but as soon as someone starts hiding something I think most folks would be suspicious what the reason for doing so was.

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?

I thought it was always the 'lying about it' part that justified the inquiries. Specifically not because looking for dirt on opponents was something illegal, but rather that by not disclosing the source it was breaking the law by lying about it to the investigators.

The implications (while from an optics standpoint appear damning) aren't a direct crime, but as soon as someone starts hiding something I think most folks would be suspicious what the reason for doing so was.

You may be right.

If thats the case though, this is merely another "process" crime and is no proof of collusion whatsoever. Its is just another accusation that Manafort and Gates are liars, which has already been charged.

As my post above shows though, many politicians and groups from both republicans and democrats have failed to properly register they were lobbying for russians or other foriegn groups, or that they were knowingly meeting those diplomats in secret.

I think that perhaps there could be more to this charge with gates and manafort; such as perhaps they promised to provide this russian source something in exchange for personal gain.

"Give me a million dollars and I will make sure trumps votes in your favor" sort of thing.

I guess we will see.

a reply to: Grambler

Agree with your facts.

I don't know how this will all eventually come out.

I do get the suspicion that a lot of these behind the scene actors thought they were too smart to get caught and got really sloppy about dealing with foreign actors, who may have been spies.

Not looking so smart now, much less smug.

All for a bit of personal gain and bragging rights for gaming the system.

No not so smart, and now some folks are getting an education in our justice system.

Never mess with a person who has a grand jury.

Thanks for your polite conversation. I am enjoying your input.

Link

...snip...
Kilimnik has denied ties with Russian intelligence, but served in the army and attended a military foreign language university which is widely viewed as a training ground for GRU officers.

Manafort was in touch with Kilimnik during the 2016 campaign, offering to provide briefings to Oleg Deripaska, a Kremlin-backed Russian oligarch.

Manafort has pleaded not guilty to money-laundering and fraud charges related to work his business did for Moscow-backed politicians.

Gates, who was Manafort’s right-hand man in the Trump campaign and in the lobbying business, has struck a plea deal, admitting conspiracy and lying to the FBI, and agreeing to cooperate with Mueller’s investigation into Trump campaign links with the Kremlin.

This would be the same Deripaska that Manafort owes 16$ million to...

a reply to: Grambler

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?

No. I don't think that getting dirt from foreign ex-intelligence sources is criminal (but maybe it should be?) and I don't believe that's the criminal conspiracy that most people are actually worried about.

I think what's concerning to people is that there was some coordination with some part of the Trump campaign and the Russian state (right up to Putin) in relation to the Russian's multi-pronged efforts to meddle in our most recent presidential election, particularly with some sort of quid pro quo.

For instance, the Russian government hacks the DNC and informs Manafort that they have emails that they will be releasing and they hope that it will foster warm and fuzzy feelings in relation to lifting sanctions if Trump is elected.

That would clearly be a criminal conspiracy.

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.

a reply to: theantediluvian

For instance, the Russian government hacks the DNC and informs Manafort that they have emails that they will be releasing and they hope that it will foster warm and fuzzy feelings in relation to lifting sanctions if Trump is elected. That would clearly be a criminal conspiracy.

Conspiracy? That sounds like Treason to subvert American political processes by fellow Americans with collusion involving foreign intelligence loyal to Putin. And Manafort received money and tried to launder it....

www.nytimes.com...

originally posted by: RadioRobert
Can I wait to see what "ties to" actually means and what the content of "communication" is before I am upset, or do I have to start sharpening the tines on my pitchfork already?

Much of that is outlined in the OP and associated articles.
"Ties to" means the FBI has tagged "Person A" as Russian Intelligence.
He is a former GRU agent.

"Content" This Russian, plus Manafort and Gates, plus the Attorney (working covertly) had the Attorney's law firm produce a bogus investigative report that was used to lock up the former Prime Minister of Ukraine for 6 years. She was the political opposition to the guy that the Kremlin installed (now deposed and hiding in Russia)

Manafort and Gates got paid for the dirty work, but 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 (Campaign Manager at the time) and Manafort weeks before election day.

That is just what was shared in court filings.

The rest will we will have to wait for in future indictments or conclusions.

originally posted by: RadioRobert
Can I wait to see what "ties to" actually means and what the content of "communication" is before I am upset, or do I have to start sharpening the tines on my pitchfork already?
I have had "direct communication" with Russian sailors once on a goodwill visit, several decades ago, who probably had "ties to GRU". We didn't discuss anything of intelligence value. They mostly taught us to sing Russian drinking songs. We didn't even get to drink.
I assume most well-connected business people in Russia have "ties to" the GRU, KGB, or FSB. Just like bankers and businessmen here have ties to politicians. Most politicians in Russia have ties to the old KGB or FSB.

I'm not saying it was innocent, either. I just don't think this means much by itself.

This. Right now it's too vague. If the "ties" are they knew somebody who knew somebody kind of thing, it's meaningless. If their ties are that they are actually an intelligence agent, wouldn't it just say that? Could be big, but right now we don't know because of the vague wording.

originally posted by: TonyS
a reply to: soberbacchus

Only confirms what Jerome Corsi was talking about on C2C last night.

Jerome Corsi is not credible.
He wrote books shouting that Pres. Obama was a secret terrorist born in Kenya.

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.

a reply to: sunShines

But Americans invented truck-nutz, which is a cutting edge bumper accessory for any discriminating consumer with a trailer hitch.

Top that Russia!

originally posted by: RickyD
Now granted this may in fact all be true, but it seems rather coincidental that Manafort is submitting a pretty decent argument for dismissal of the charges against him.

It is not a decent argument.
He knows it.
It is a delaying tactic in hopes (or perhaps promises) of a Trump pardon.

a reply to: olaru12
I think in the constitution treason can only happen during a declared war

Just saying.

Thanks.

originally posted by: DogStarIn1066
a reply to: Grambler
How would you know if you are talking to a spy?

Court documents specifically explain Gates was made aware by Manafort that "Person A" was associated with GRU.

If you did know, should you make deals with them, when you can assume they are not working for your best interest, but rather the interest of their country?

Talking with them is not a crime. Making deals with them? What does the future President of the United States have to trade? Mind you this was an offer of money flow from the Kremlin (or whoever financed Manaforts work to install the Kremlin's choice in Ukraine before he was deposed) They weren't offering more money for nothing. And they were talking to Trumps former Campaign Chief and Current Campaign Manager at the time weeks before election day.