Trump Campaign Manager Paul Manafort Charged with "Conspiracy Against United States" - Polidicks

[QUOTE=sgman91;52839409]I just finished reading this statement: [URL]https://static01.nyt.com/packages/pdf/politics/2017/statement_of_the_offense.filed_.pdf[/URL] Is there anything else official on him? It seems he's being accused of lying to the FBI, not for any sort of collusion. I mean, again, it might come to that, but I don't see it yet. I may be wrong, but I don't think setting up, and meeting with, Russian officials is a crime (even though he never actually went through with the meeting).[/QUOTE] [img]https://i.imgur.com/4nU0gu9.png[/img]

Right, I read that. It's the timeline of the events, not criminal accusations. They were demonstrating that he had lied in his statements about the timeline by showing the actual timeline. [editline]30th October 2017[/editline] I don't believe it's even illegal to meet with Russian government officials unless you are doing so for an illegal reason.

If you take a step back and look at how much more sophisticated Manafort must have been, how much more versed in the world compared to Trump he was you have to consider how fucked Trump is.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52839425]Right, I read that. It's the timeline of the events, not criminal accusations. They were demonstrating that he had lied in his statements about the timeline by showing the actual timeline. [editline]30th October 2017[/editline] [B]I don't believe it's even illegal to meet with Russian government officials unless you are doing so for an illegal reason.[/B][/QUOTE] May have wanted to word this a bit better. It's only illegal if you're doing it illegally? The entire reason why all of this is a big deal is because it IS illegal to collaborate with foreign powers on an election campaign, for obvious reasons.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52839425]Right, I read that. It's the timeline of the events, not criminal accusations. They were demonstrating that he had lied in his statements about the timeline by showing the actual timeline. [editline]30th October 2017[/editline] I don't believe it's even illegal to meet with Russian government officials unless you are doing so for an illegal reason.[/QUOTE] He probably was presented with a list of charges, and cut a deal, and pled guilty to one of them.

[QUOTE=Wealth + Taste;52839467]May have wanted to word this a bit better. It's only illegal if you're doing it illegally? The entire reason why all of this is a big deal is because it IS illegal to collaborate with foreign powers on an election campaign, for obvious reasons.[/QUOTE] I'm saying that I don't believe meeting is illegal on it's own. It becomes illegal if you do some other illegal thing during the meeting. Maybe there's information on that, but it's not in the official statement. It never mentions collusion or any sort of quid-pro-quo. [editline]30th October 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Sableye;52839470]He probably was presented with a list of charges, and cut a deal, and pled guilty to one of them.[/QUOTE] It's possible, but we really don't know yet.

Increaaingly Nervous Man, Admitted to Hospital Last Year, Admits These Tired Eyes Might Be Seeing Some Light At Last

[quote=sgman91]Right, I read that. It's the timeline of the events, not criminal accusations.[/quote] THE COURT: [...] do you concur that the Government would be able to prove each of the necessary elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt? MR. STANLEY: Yes, your Honor. [...] THE COURT: Is everything in that document true? THE DEFENDANT: Yes, it is, your Honor. Come on, sgman91. Give it up. He has admitted that he lied to the FBI specifically about: (a) Was there any coordination between the Campaign and Russia's efforts to interfere with the 2016 presidential election. (Read: He said there wasn't. There was and he agrees that there was and that the FBI can prove it.) (b) Who in the campaign was linked to what members of the Russian government. (Read: There are links he knows about that he didn't fess up to.) (c) That he met with Russian cutouts specifically to obtain dirt with Clinton. (Read: That he was told to, and did, meet with Russian operatives in an attempt to obtain illegally acquired [and I'll re-emphasize: [B]knowingly illegally acquired[/B] ] e-mails that were stolen from DNC servers) [B]Implicitly[/B], these are [I]criminal[/I] charges because they include, principally: [U]Obstruction of Justice[/U]. Not only that, he states himself that there was collusion and that the FBI can prove that beyond reasonable doubt.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52839478]I'm saying that I don't believe meeting is illegal on it's own. It becomes illegal if you do some other illegal thing during the meeting. Maybe there's information on that, but it's not in the official statement. It never mentions collusion or any sort of quid-pro-quo. [/QUOTE] It is illegal to conspire to commit a crime, its illegal to try to collude with foreign governments, and what we do know is that they knew the Russians had clinton emails as far back as march, and the hack wouldn't go public till late april

[QUOTE=SeamanStains;52839003][img]https://i.gyazo.com/9c58cb3e129e27801d950b936cc0ac88.png[/img][/QUOTE] It's fake. The account in question has 8 comments, 2 of which greatly resemble this one.

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52839486]THE COURT: [...] do you concur that the Government would be able to prove each of the necessary elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt? MR. STANLEY: Yes, your Honor. [...] THE COURT: Is everything in that document true? THE DEFENDANT: Yes, it is, your Honor. Come on, sgman91. Give it up. He has admitted: He lied to the FBI specifically about: (a) Was there any coordination between the Campaign and Russia's efforts to interfere with the 2016 presidential election. (b) Who in the campaign was linked to what members of the Russian government. (c) That he met with Russian cutouts specifically to obtain dirt with Clinton. [B]Implicitly[/B], these are [I]criminal[/I] charges because they include, principally: [U]Obstruction of Justice[/U].[/QUOTE] I mean, yeah, if you take a few lines out of a multipage document, and leave out all the headings, then you can prove whatever you want. Yes, he obstructed justice by lying to the FBI. That's the point.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52839496]I mean, yeah, if you take a few lines out of a multipage document, and leave out all the headings, then you can prove whatever you want. Yes, he obstructed justice by lying to the FBI. That's the point.[/QUOTE] I mean, yeah, if you ignore what I wrote then you can continue to state there was no collusion found. Re-read point A.

Here's the overview of the offenses: [QUOTE]1) "The defendant, GEORGE PAPADOPOULOS, who served as a foreign policy advisor for the presidential campaign of Donald J. Trump (the "Campaign"), [B]made material false statements and material omissions during an interview with the Federal Bureau of Investigation[/B] ("FBI'.) that took place on January 27, 2017." 2) [B]Defendant PAPADOPOULOS made the following material false statements andmaterial omissions to the FB[/B]I: a)"Defendant PAPADOPOULOS claimed that his interactions with an overseas professor, who defendant PAPADOPOULOS understood to have substantial connections to Russian government officials, occurred before defendant PAP ADO POULOS became a foreign policy adviser to the Campaign. Defendant PAPADOPOULOS acknowledged that the professor had told him about the Russians possessing "dirt" on then-candidate Hillary Clinton in the form of "thousands of emails," but stated multiple times that he learned that information prior to joining the Campaign. In truth and in fact, however, defendant PAPADOPOULOS learned he would be an advisor to the Campaign in early March, and met the professor on or about March 14, 2016; the professor only took interest in defendant PAPADOPOULOS because of his status with the Campaign; and the professor told defendant PAPADOPOULOS about the "thousands of emails" on or about April 26, 2016, when defendant PAPADOPOULOS had been a foreign policy adviser to the Campaign for over a month. " b) Defendant PAPADOPOULOS further told the investigating agents that theprofessor was "a nothing" and "just a guy talk[ing] up connections or something." In truth andin fact, however, defendant PAPADOPOULOS understood that the professor had substantialconnections to Russian government officials (and had met with some of those officials inMoscow immediately prior to telling defendant PAPADOPOULOS about the "thousands ofemails") and, over a period of months, defendant PAPADOPOULOS repeatedly sought to usethe professor's Russian connections in an effort to arrange a meeting between the Campaign andRussian government officials." c) Defendant PAPADOPOULOS claimed he met a certain female Russiannational before he joined the Campaign and that their communications consisted of emails suchas, '"Hi, how are you?"' In truth and in fact, however, defendant PAPADOPOULOS met the female Russian national on or about March 24, 2016, after he had become an adviser to theCampaign; he believed that she had connections to Russian government officials; and he soughtto use her Russian connections over a period of months in an effort to arrange a meeting betweenthe Campaign and Russian government officials. 3) "[B]Through his false statements and omissions, defendant PAPADOPOULOS impeded the FBI's ongoing investigation into the existence of any links or coordination between individuals associated with the Campaign and the Russian government's efforts to interfere with the 2016 presidential election.[/B] "[/QUOTE] That's it. Those are the offenses. The rest is the timeline of events. The FBI is accusing him of lying during the investigation and, therefore, obstructing justice.

So he didn't learn about those things prior to joining the campaign. Are you following me so far? He learned about those things during the campaign. He was told to investigate those things during the campaign. He found the information during the campaign at the behest of 'senior staff'. He found this information during a time wherein it is known now that the campaign knew the data was illegally obtained. He was told 'good job' about the fact that he found that data and contacted said cutouts and supposedly returned said data as requested. [I]Where[/I] in there did collusion [B]not[/B] happen? Edit: And let's take this a step further by pointing out that on [I]two other separate occasions[/I] the Trump campaign staff sought out meetings with Russians who claimed access and availability to the DNC e-mails.

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52839503]So he didn't learn about those things prior to joining the campaign. Are you following me so far? He learned about those things during the campaign. He was told to investigate those things during the campaign. He found the information during the campaign at the behest of 'senior staff'. He found this information during a time wherein it is known now that the campaign knew the data was illegally obtained. He was told 'good job' about the fact that he found that data and contacted said cutouts and supposedly returned said data as requested. [I]Where[/I] in there did collusion [B]not[/B] happen?[/QUOTE] You're drawing a lot of connections that simply don't exist in the statement. Papadopoulos was told "great work" after saying that he discussed how: "to arrange a meeting between us and the Russian leadership to discuss U.S.-Russia ties under President Trump." That's straight from the statement. He was also told to go ahead with that meeting himself. From the statement, that's all we have for a connection with the greater campaign.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52836710]You must have missed the bits about Manafort's illegal lobbying with Yanukovych and The Party of Regions, corrupt Pro-Russian and Russian-linked political entitites within Ukraine. Manafort is a Russian agent. Donald Trump's presidential campaign was run by a Russian spy.[/QUOTE] I did indeed, since that's on pages 1, 3, 4, 15, 16, 18, 19 and 27. In my defence, I was almost asleep. I really shouldn't post on here while that's the case. Thanks for taking the time to point it out more specifically.

Why don't you post the full context of that 'arranging a meeting', sgman91? [quote]Following his March 24, 2016 meeting with the Professor and the Female Russian National, defendant PAPADOPOULOS emailed the Campaign Supervisor and several members of the Campaign's foreign policy team and stated that he had just met with his "good friend" the Professor, who had introduced him to the Female Russian National (described by defendant PAPADOPOULOS in the email as "Putin's niece") and the Russian Ambassador in London. 1 Defendant PAPADOPOULOS stated that the topic oftheir discussion was "to arrange a meeting between us and the Russian leadership to discuss U.S.-Russia ties under President Trump."[/quote] Oh, because it's devastating to your complaint.

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52839520]Why don't you post the full context of that 'arranging a meeting', sgman91? Oh, because it's devastating to your complaint.[/QUOTE] How is that "devastating" to anything I said? I actually thought about posting the whole paragraph, but the rest seemed inconsequential. The "professor" and the "female national" were Papadopoulos's connections to the Russian government.

[quote]How is that "devastating" to anything I said? I actually thought about posting the whole paragraph, but the rest seemed inconsequential.[/quote] It's not about the 'professor' and the 'female national'. It's about 'a meeting about U.S.-Russia ties'. That's been an excuse used elsewhere already, in the Trump Tower meeting, for the exact same reasons. They're not gathering to discuss Adoptions; they're not gathering to exchange pleasantries. If Putin and Trump met to talk about anything we already know exactly what they'd be talking about. As already established, they're looking to make a quid-pro-quo with Putin and what Putin wants is Russia's sanctions shut down. What could Putin offer in exchange for those sanctions being shut down? The DNC e-mails. The same e-mails they'd offered in two other instances wherein they [I]also[/I] asked for the US to shut down sanctions with Russia. The [I]same[/I] e-mails Papa was offered. The President signed into law that he [I]must[/I] engage sanctions with Russia. He still has not done so. He still refuses to justify why he refuses to do so. This isn't connecting two dots. This is filling in an already dotted line. There was collusion. Trump did know exactly what was going on. Trump knowingly colluded. It's going to be clear and present in his trial.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52839425]Right, I read that. It's the timeline of the events, not criminal accusations. They were demonstrating that he had lied in his statements about the timeline by showing the actual timeline. [editline]30th October 2017[/editline] I don't believe it's even illegal to meet with Russian government officials unless you are doing so for an illegal reason.[/QUOTE] Well they weren't meeting to play fucking chess, were they?

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52839547]It's not about the 'professor' and the 'female national'. It's about 'a meeting about U.S.-Russia ties'. That's been an excuse used elsewhere already, in the Trump Tower meeting, for the exact same reasons. They're not gathering to discuss Adoptions; they're not gathering to exchange pleasantries. If Putin and Trump met to talk about anything we already know exactly what they'd be talking about. As already established, they're looking to make a quid-pro-quo with Putin and what Putin wants is Russia's sanctions shut down. What could Putin offer in exchange for those sanctions being shut down? The DNC e-mails. The same e-mails they'd offered in two other instances wherein they [I]also[/I] asked for the US to shut down sanctions with Russia. The [I]same[/I] e-mails Papa was offered. The President signed into law that he [I]must[/I] engage sanctions with Russia. He still has not done so. He still refuses to justify why he refuses to do so. This isn't connecting two dots. This is filling in an already dotted line. There was collusion. Trump did know exactly what was going on. Trump knowingly colluded. It's going to be clear and present in his trial.[/QUOTE] I thought we were talking about what was in official statements? I sure know I was. I'm not sure if your personal opinions on what "a meeting about U.S.-Russia ties" actually means is "devastating" to my claims about what the official statements say. [editline]30th October 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=srobins;52839558]Well they weren't meeting to play fucking chess, were they?[/QUOTE] I really doubt it, especially considering the initial requests for a meeting were for it to be on record. Based on the statement, the Russian officials only asked for an off the record meeting after he failed to receive a response from the Trump campaign. [QUOTE]21) a) "For example,-on or about June 19, 2016, after several email and Skype exchanges with the Russian MFA Connection, defendant PAPADOPOULOS emailed the HighRanking Campaign Official, with the subject line "New message from Russia": "The Russian ministry of foreign affairs messaged and said that if Mr. Trump is unable to make it to Russia, if a campaign rep (me or someone else) can make it for meetings? I am willing to make the trip off the record if it's in the interest of Mr. Trump and the campaign to meet specific people."[/QUOTE] So the original request for a meeting, an on the record meeting, was almost certainly not about something that would have been illegal. It looks like the original goal of the Russian official was to have Trump, or his officials, go to Russia publicly for an on the record meeting.

[QUOTE=Teddybeer;52838354]Done partially for loophole reasons, campaign rallies allows him to refuse access to people which don't agree with him.[/QUOTE] That needs fixing in general, quickly.

The craziest part to me is that we are exactly 1 week away from the anniversary of election day 2016. In the span of a year, he's already completely lost his will to run for second term :v: Good fucking riddance.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52839562]So the original request for a meeting, an on the record meeting, was almost certainly not about something that would have been illegal. It looks like the original goal of the Russian official was to have Trump, or his officials, go to Russia publicly for an on the record meeting.[/QUOTE] Why is it that you completely ignore the fact that in that very document it is revealed that all this talk of meetings and Russian cooperation stemmed from the fact that the "professor" told Papadopoulos that the Russians had hacked the DNC and obtained thousands of emails on Trump's political opponents? The mere suggestion of an "off the record" meeting implies that an on the record meeting may be damaging or negative.. Further supported by the fact that the senior campaign official replied to Papadopoulos' requests for a meeting by saying that he wanted a lower-level campaign associate to make the meeting, rather than Donald Trump himself, in order to [I]avoid signaling that they were meeting the Russians[/I]. What do you think they wanted to meet about, sgman? They were just going to shake hands and talk about how fun it is to be in politics? Golf strategies? Or maybe they would talk about, you know, the thousands of hacked emails that Papadopoulos was promised in the first place, the entire basis for this chain of communication to have started? [editline]31st October 2017[/editline] This is the insanity of the pro-Trump pseudo-neutrality that people like you and Chonch push. You go to the absolute extreme in order to try and downplay the ever-increasing pile of smoking guns that is being constructed day by day. Donald Trump Jr. met with a Russian government attorney after being promised dirt on Clinton which came from the highest levels of the Russian government? Hey, nothing wrong with that! That's not illegal is it? Trump's policy adviser worked to arrange an off the record meeting with Russians to receive damaging information about Clinton? Hm.. I don't know, it probably was just a harmless meet and greet that they spent months arranging! What's that? Trump fired the FBI director tasked with investigating his Russian collusion after Comey refused to pledge his loyalty to him? Hey now, he's the president, he can do what he wants!

[QUOTE=srobins;52839648]Why is it that you completely ignore the fact that in that very document it is revealed that all this talk of meetings and Russian cooperation stemmed from the fact that the "professor" told Papadopoulos that the Russians had hacked the DNC and obtained thousands of emails on Trump's political opponents? The mere suggestion of an "off the record" meeting implies that an on the record meeting may be damaging or negative.. Further supported by the fact that the senior campaign official replied to Papadopoulos' requests for a meeting by saying that he wanted a lower-level campaign associate to make the meeting, rather than Donald Trump himself, in order to [I]avoid signaling that they were meeting the Russians[/I]. What do you think they wanted to meet about, sgman? They were just going to shake hands and talk about how fun it is to be in politics? Golf strategies? Or maybe they would talk about, you know, the thousands of hacked emails that Papadopoulos was promised in the first place, the entire basis for this chain of communication to have started? [editline]31st October 2017[/editline] This is the insanity of the pro-Trump pseudo-neutrality that people like you and Chonch push. You go to the absolute extreme in order to try and downplay the ever-increasing pile of smoking guns that is being constructed day by day. Donald Trump Jr. met with a Russian government attorney after being promised dirt on Clinton which came from the highest levels of the Russian government? Hey, nothing wrong with that! That's not illegal is it? Trump's policy adviser worked to arrange an off the record meeting with Russians to receive damaging information about Clinton? Hm.. I don't know, it probably was just a harmless meet and greet that they spent months arranging! What's that? Trump fired the FBI director tasked with investigating his Russian collusion after Comey refused to pledge his loyalty to him? Hey now, he's the president, he can do what he wants![/QUOTE] According to the statement, Papadopoulos set up the "ground work" and told the Trump Campaign about meeting with Russia before knowing about the emails. [editline]30th October 2017[/editline] Also, the campaign official didn't request an off the record meeting. The Russian official offered an off the record meeting after not getting any response from the campaign. [editline]30th October 2017[/editline] You keep saying things that aren't backed up by the facts, and then running with them.

And knew about the e-mails when he continued setting up the meeting and regularly updating them on its progress. Is your only defense here going to be 'well maybe he kept it a secret from them so it could be sprung on them like a pleasant surprise'? I bet that'll go over as well in court as Sessions stating 'but I never did meet with Russians' before Congress. What has been stated: [quote]Let me state this clearly: I have never met with or had any conversations with any Russians or any foreign officials concerning any type of interference with any campaign or election. [U]Further, I have no knowledge of any such conversations by anyone connected to the Trump campaign[/U].[/quote] The reality: [quote]According to the former Trump adviser who was there, and who spoke on condition of anonymity to avoid offending former colleagues, Mr. Papadopoulos spoke for a few minutes about his Russian contacts and the prospects for a meeting with the Russian president. But several people in the room began to raise questions about the wisdom of a meeting with Mr. Putin, noting that Russia was under sanctions from the United States. [B]Jeff Sessions, now attorney general and then a senator from Alabama who was counseling Mr. Trump on national security, “shut George down,” the adviser said. “He said, ‘We’re not going to do it’ and he added, ‘I’d prefer that nobody speak about this again.’”[/B][/quote] What has been stated: "No, I'm not aware of any collusion with Russia and don't know anybody connected with Russians." The reality: He was aware and did know people connected to the Russians. But I'm sure Sessions didn't mean it because he 'didn't know it counted as interference of any campaign or election' just like I'm sure Papa 'didn't report on the thing that he'd been constantly reporting on up to that point and continued going after'.

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52839679]And knew about the e-mails when he continued setting up the meeting and regularly updating them on its progress. Is your only defense here going to be 'well maybe he kept it a secret from them so it could be sprung on them like a pleasant surprise'? I bet that'll go over as well in court as Sessions stating 'but I never did meet with Russians' before Congress. What has been stated: The reality: What has been stated: "No, I'm not aware of any collusion with Russia and don't know anybody connected with Russians." The reality: He was aware and did know people connected to the Russians.[/QUOTE] You claimed: [QUOTE]Why is it that you completely ignore the fact that in that very document it is revealed that all this talk of meetings and Russian cooperation stemmed from the fact that the "professor" told Papadopoulos that the Russians had hacked the DNC and obtained thousands of emails on Trump's political opponents?[/QUOTE] This is factually false. According to the statement, they were trying to set up a meeting before anyone was told about the emails. How can you claim that they were meeting for the express purpose of some quid-pro-quo when they were planning to meet before ever mentioning the emails? Clearly Papadopoulos was interested even without that in the picture. And yes, I've already said that he's being accused of lying to the FBI. He lied about the people he knew, when he knew them, etc. I'm with you. That's clear and undeniable, but saying that Papadopoulos had some Russian connections, and was trying to set up a meeting, is incredibly far from saying the campaign was trying to set up a quid-pro-quo for emails, and nothing in the statement even suggest that they were attempting to do so.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52839692]You claimed:[/quote] Well, firstly, I'm not srobins - so no, that's not my claim. Secondly: [quote]This is factually false. According to the statement, they were trying to set up a meeting before anyone was told about the emails.[/quote] And they continued setting the meeting up after 'anyone was told about the emails'. Even if they didn't know when they started, I'd find it hard to believe they didn't know by the time that rolled around, given that Papa was apparently very fastidious in keeping the campaign 'up to date' on it. Further! [quote]How can you claim that they were meeting for the express purpose of some quid-pro-quo when they were planning to meet before ever mentioning the emails? Clearly Papadopoulos was interested even without that in the picture.[/quote] I can claim that because [I]what Putin wants is quid-pro-quo[/I]. That's the reason he'd want to meet with them. It's the same reason Russia has reached out on three separate occasions looking for the same thing each time. It was certainly made clear that it was quid-pro-quo when Papa brought it up in the meeting with Sessions, presumably because he instantly realized that [I]Sanctions[/I] is exactly why Putin would want to meet with them to begin with.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52839671]According to the statement, Papadopoulos set up the "ground work" and told the Trump Campaign about meeting with Russia before knowing about the emails. [editline]30th October 2017[/editline] Also, the campaign official didn't request an off the record meeting. The Russian official offered an off the record meeting after not getting any response from the campaign. [editline]30th October 2017[/editline] You keep saying things that aren't backed up by the facts, and then running with them.[/QUOTE] Yes, and he continued to aggressively pursue the meeting knowing that he and his campaign were being offered the aide of a hostile foreign government. I never said the campaign official requested an off the record meeting, and it wasn't the Russian official either, it was Papadopoulos that offered to go "off the record". The campaign official said he wanted a lower level representative to go in order to avoid signaling that Donald Trump himself was meeting with and working with the Russians.. almost as if the optics of the campaign working with Russia was perhaps a bad thing! [quote=Papadopoulos Statement of Offense, Page 8, Footnote] The government notes that the official forwarded defendant PAPADOPOULOS's email to another Campaign official (without including defendant PAPADOPOULOS) and stated: [B]"Let[']s discuss. We need someone to communicate that DT is not doing these trips. It should be someone low level in the campaign so as not to send any signal."[/B] [/quote]

Yes, you did claim that. You said: [QUOTE]Further supported by the fact that [B]the senior campaign official[/B] [B]replied[/B] to Papadopoulos' requests for a meeting [B]by saying that he wanted a lower-level campaign associate to make the meeting, rather than Donald Trump himself, in order to avoid signaling that they were meeting the Russians.[/B][/QUOTE] This is another factually false claim. The statement says that Papadopoulos pursued an off the record meeting, and the Russian official suggested to the Campaign official that they do so. These are the words of the Russian official, not the Trump official: [QUOTE]"The Russian ministry of foreign affairs messaged and said that if Mr. Trump is unable to make it to Russia, if a campaign rep (me or someone else) can make it for meetings? I am willing to make the trip off the record if it's in the interest of Mr. Trump and the campaign to meet specific people."[/QUOTE] [editline]30th October 2017[/editline] Your other quote is from Papadopoulos, not the campaign official. Can you provide the quote where the Trump campaign official said what you claimed he said?