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

[QUOTE=sgman91;52839701]Yes, you did claim that. You said:[/quote] Which is not what you quoted (edit: 'what you quoted' meaning 'attributing it to me rather than srobins') , so no: I didn't claim that. Again, I'm not srobins. Please at least read our replies before you reply? [quote]These are the words of the Russian official, not the Trump official:[/quote] Also, surely the [B]Russians[/B] are trustworthy here, right? Just take 'em at their word?

[QUOTE=sgman91;52839701]Yes, you did claim that. You said: 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: [editline]30th October 2017[/editline] Your other quote is from Papadopoulos, not the campaign official.[/QUOTE] Read it again. Even in your bolded quote it is clear that I said [I]the campaign official asked for a lower-level campaign associate to make the meeting[/I], not that he wanted it to be off the record. You're also misreading your second quote. The quote you provide is from Papadopoulos, summarizing the response from the Russians, i.e. [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 ([B]me or someone else[/B]) can make it for meetings? [B]I[/B] am willing to make the trip [B]off the record[/B] if it's in the interest of Mr. Trump and the campaign to meet specific people."[/quote] It's an easy to misread quote, but you're misreading it nonetheless. [editline]31st October 2017[/editline] If it's not already clear, if that was a direct quote from the Russian official, it makes no sense for a Russian official to request a Trump campaign representative and then suggest that they, the Russian official speaking in the first person, qualifies as a Trump campaign representative..

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52839699]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] Putin can want that all day, but it's not collusion unless the Trump campaign actively agreed to it. Also, let me again clarify that I'm basing my claims have been based on the official statements.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52839720]Putin can want that all day, but it's not collusion unless the Trump campaign actively agreed to it. Also, let me again clarify that I'm basing my claims have been based on the official statements.[/QUOTE] And my claims are being based on official statements too! For instance "If it's what you say, I love it. Especially later in the Summer." regarding another meeting with Putin over same said e-mails months after this attempt at 'E-mails for Sanction-Relief' either failed or got side-tracked. You might've been able to claim then, before now, that 'they didn't [I]really[/I] know what Putin wanted'. But they did. Putin spelled it out for them here - and he reached out again with the same offer - and they accepted. That means they agreed to it. That means they came ready to at least consider a deal. Considering the deal is already 90% of the way to 'agreeing to it'. It means that they were of the mind that they were thinking of agreeing to it - which means that they were aware it was collusion with a foreign government over stolen e-mails that were obtained by Russian Intelligence and pursued it [I]anyway[/I]. Lo and behold, a few months later: The e-mails were released. Add 2+2 and you get Treason.

[QUOTE=srobins;52839713]Read it again. Even in your bolded quote it is clear that I said [I]the campaign official asked for a lower-level campaign associate to make the meeting[/I], not that he wanted it to be off the record. [/QUOTE] He still didn't even request that. Papa mentioned it in that footnote to the campaign official. The campaign didn't propose it. [QUOTE]If it's not already clear, if that was a direct quote from the Russian official, it makes no sense for a Russian official to request a Trump campaign representative and then suggest that they, the Russian official speaking in the first person, qualifies as a Trump campaign representative..[/QUOTE] Sure, it's in Papa's words, but it's still him paraphrasing the Russian official. The Russian is the basis of the statement, not a Trump person. [editline]30th October 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52839725]And my claims are being based on official statements too! For instance "If it's what you say, I love it. Especially later in the Summer." regarding another meeting with Putin over same said e-mails months after this attempt at 'E-mails for Sanction-Relief' either failed or got side-tracked. You might've been able to claim then, before now, that 'they didn't [I]really[/I] know what Putin wanted'. But they did. Putin spelled it out for them here - and he reached out again with the same offer - and they accepted. That means they agreed to it. That means they came ready to at least consider a deal. Considering the deal is already 90% of the way to 'agreeing to it'. It means that they were of the mind that they were thinking of agreeing to it - which means that they were aware it was collusion with a foreign government over stolen e-mails that were obtained by Russian Intelligence and pursued it [I]anyway[/I].[/QUOTE] What are you quoting from? It doesn't seem to be in the Papa statement.

[quote=sgman91]What are you quoting from? It doesn't seem to be in the Papa statement.[/quote] If you don't know where 'If it's what you say I love it, especially later in the summer.' is from then I don't think you're in a great overview position to be claiming whether this is or isn't collusion and, more broadly, whether the Trump campaign not only sought to collude but likely succeeded and is still lying to save face.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52839729]He still didn't even request that. Papa mentioned it in that footnote to the campaign official. The campaign didn't propose it.[/quote] [quote]The government notes that [B]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."[/quote] Papadopalous was not the author of the message included in the footnote. The footnote explicitly states that the campaign official with which Papadopoulos was communicating, [I]forwarded the email and added his own remarks to it.[/I] The footnote even specifies that the official [I]excluded Papadopoulos from the forward[/I]. I don't know how to make this any clearer for you. The footnote message is [I]not written by Papadopoulos[/I]. So yes, the campaign official [I]did[/I] propose having a lower-level associate take the meeting. [QUOTE=sgman91;52839729]Sure, it's in Papa's words, but it's still him paraphrasing the Russian official. The Russian is the basis of the statement, not a Trump person.[/QUOTE] The [I]first sentence[/I] of the statement is paraphrasing the official. In parenthesis, [I]Papadopoulos refers to himself in the first person as a possible candidate for the "campaign rep" that the Russians had requested[/I]. In the second sentence, [I]Papadopoulos[/I] again refers to himself in first person and [I]Papadopoulos[/I] proposes that [I]he[/I] is willing to take the meeting off the record.

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52839735]If you don't know where 'If it's what you say I love it, especially later in the summer.' is from then I don't think you're in a great overview position to be claiming whether this is or isn't collusion and, more broadly, whether the Trump campaign not only sought to collude but likely succeeded and is still lying to save face.[/QUOTE] Sorry, I don't keep a record of every single piece of evidence related to the case?!? How about not being a dick and sourcing it next time? It also doesn't seem to be an official source, or part of the investigation. It's based on a story from the NYTimes where we get a couple sentences.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52839743]Sorry, I don't keep a record of every single piece of evidence related to the case?!? How about not being a dick and sourcing it next time? It also doesn't seem to be an official source, or part of the investigation. It's based on a story from the NYTimes where we get a couple sentences.[/QUOTE] Lol, being a dick. If you want to come in here and tell people who are closely following the Russia investigation that they're wrong and this is all just a bunch of smoke, maybe you should A. learn how to read English and B. be somewhat aware of the major developments of the story you are working to downplay. The fact that you would even try to dismiss Jr's email as just some random story from NYT with a few sentences just shows you either don't have any clue what you're talking about or you're intentionally dishonest about this entire subject.

[media]https://twitter.com/jnsanchez/status/925171021761654784[/media]

[QUOTE=sgman91;52839743]Sorry, I don't keep a record of every single piece of evidence related to the case?!? How about not being a dick and sourcing it next time? It also doesn't seem to be an official source, or part of the investigation. It's based on a story from the NYTimes where we get a couple sentences.[/QUOTE] It's only [i]one of the most critical pieces of evidence in the case so far so no big deal.[/i] You're the one claiming expertise here, that 'no, it didn't happen' but you haven't even gotten yourself up to speed. [quote]It's based on a story from the NYTimes where we get a couple sentences.[/quote] Uh, no. It's from official e-mails released by a person of interest in this campaign who attempted to collude with Russia by hearing out 'Adoptions' (or so was alleged and disproven later) by a Russian cutout in Trump Tower. It's not even 'a few sentences'. It's literally pages and pages of e-mails. So no, it's not 'based on a story'. It's based on first-party evidence that was released in a selective attempt to 'blur' the reasons for people being in Trump Tower meeting with Russian agents about the DNC e-mails. Fortunately for all of us, it was a dramatic failure and has only added to the amount of evidence demonstrating the corruption and collusion here. They knew what that meeting was about. They knew what [I]this[/I] meeting was about. They knew what was coming and they went anyway. They didn't go in blind - they went there with foreknowledge.

After Trump's meetings today with Pence, Mattis, and Sessions, he is meeting with Paul Ryan tomorrow too. [media]https://twitter.com/W7VOA/status/925194388803907584[/media] [B]EDIT:[/B] In other news, Bannon might be pulling strings behind the scenes, because of course, why not? [media]https://twitter.com/DanaBashCNN/status/925187455992680449[/media]

These defenses are similar to Bill Clintons "depends on what your definition of 'is' is" It's kinda sad how the roles have flipped when the stakes are so much higher

[QUOTE=archangel125;52839073]If real, the dude's almost certainly out of a job by now, and may even end up dead if they can't spin it properly.[/QUOTE] They're probably in a western division of RT and even then, why would Russia go out of its way to murder someone who posted a message that will be forgotten shortly and can just be waived as personal opinion/general silliness. I mean an RT journalist called out RT live on air a few years ago, if I'm not mistaken, and I'm gonna assume that person didn't end up dying under suspicious circumstances.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;52839773]These defenses are similar to Bill Clintons "depends on what your definition of 'is' is" It's kinda sad how the roles have flipped when the stakes are so much higher[/QUOTE] its been more like nixon's "if the president does it its not illegal..." since they've long since learned the republicans won't step in on oversight

Who wants to see Chuck Grassley awkwardly fleeing a Senate press conference to avoid answering questions on the indictments [img]http://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2017/images/10/30/grassley.exit.gif[/img] [url]http://edition.cnn.com/2017/10/30/politics/chuck-grassley-exit/index.html[/url] [quote]As multiple reporters shouted out, Grassley, who chairs the judiciary committee, which is investigated alleged Russian meddling in US elections, decided to slip out. The lanky Iowa Republican tried to make a quick exit out a back door that was directly behind the podium. The problem was that several American flags on stands were set up behind the participants and blocked the large wooden door he needed to open to leave the room. So instead of quietly slipping away, he opened the door, banging into it as he did, and then tried to squeeze awkwardly out between the flags and the door, nearly knocking over several flags as he loudly departed.[/quote]

[QUOTE=Bob The Knob;52840223]Who wants to see Chuck Grassley awkwardly fleeing a Senate press conference to avoid answering questions on the indictments [img]http://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2017/images/10/30/grassley.exit.gif[/img] [url]http://edition.cnn.com/2017/10/30/politics/chuck-grassley-exit/index.html[/url][/QUOTE] [quote]The problem was that several American flags on stands were set up behind the participants and blocked the large wooden door he needed to open to leave the room. So instead of quietly slipping away, he opened the door, banging into it as he did, and then tried to squeeze awkwardly out between the flags and the door, nearly knocking over several flags as he loudly departed.[/quote] There's something oddly poetic about a representation of freedom and liberty doing its best to obstruct someone trying to escape potentially damning questions.

Tbh even if nothing comes out of this directly connected to Trump it's going to royally fuck what's left of the Republican's image for a while.

[QUOTE=Anderan;52840352]Tbh even if nothing comes out of this directly connected to Trump it's going to royally fuck what's left of the Republican's image for a while.[/QUOTE] It's hard to say how big of an impact it will really have with how entrenched people can be with their views. There is no telling how many people will change their mind because of something like this. One would hope it would get people to realize how corrupt these people are, but it could likely only affect the people already aware of such corruption if people aren't willing to put aside petty politics for this.

Donald Trump learned of the existence of a Kremlin agent, George Papadopoulis, on his National Security team. This agent told Donald Trump, in person, face to face, that he was in contact with Russian officials who had "thousands of hacked emails" damning Hillary Clinton. Moments after learning this, two incredibly important things happened: 1) Donald Trump [B]promoted[/B] George Papadopoulis to a key position as an emissary on Russian/Ukrainian foreign policy. Papadopoulis acted in an official capacity, with [I]direct[/I] access to Trump's top aides and campaign officials. This [B]shatters[/B] the statements of Donald Trump, and everybody in his inner circle, who have said that they were aware of [I]no contact or collusion with Russian agents,[/I] and completely breaks their weak defense that Papadopoulis was a low level "nobody" intern. Despite his lack of experience, he was promoted to a key advisory position, and it occurred on the heels of personally bringing Trump access to a direct line to the Kremlin. 2) Donald Trump immediately pushed for a complete reversal of GOP policy regarding Ukraine and Russia. This came as a major shock, not only for how sudden it was, but for the sheer level of insistence from Trump's people that the GOP adopt a pro-Russia stance. With the new timeline introduced by Papadopoulis we know why: it occurred within days of Trump learning that Papadopoulis was a Russian agent with access to "thousands of hacked emails." You know what happened within days of this policy reversal? Wikileaks began publishing thousands of hacked emails. This establishes a Quid Pro Quo arrangement between Donald Trump's campaign and the Kremlin. Trump adopted a pro-Russian stance, and Russia turned over damning emails to Wikileaks. Yesterday was a massive blow to the Trump administration's claims that there was no collusion. If you think otherwise, it's simply because you weren't paying attention and don't know the facts of the case. [editline]/[/editline] Additionally, while "collusion" itself is not officially a crime, the arrangement we're looking at here [B]certainly is.[/B] Donald Trump, and his campaign team, partnered with the leadership of a hostile foreign nation in an act of cyber warfare. He made a [I]Quid Pro Quo[/I] arrangement to benefit from that attack, and then repeatedly lied about it, ordered his cronies to lie about it, and took steps to obstruct the investigation into it. Those are very serious and specific crimes. "Collusion" itself may not be a crime, but the actions, conversations, arrangements, decisions, and lies made in support of that collusion [I]certainly are.[/I]

So Trump's tweeted again - perhaps a record time inbetween tweets during a big news time like this. Can you guys guess which trumpism he used this time? Check the DEMS! [editline]31st October 2017[/editline] also fake news of course

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52840365] Additionally, while "collusion" itself is not officially a crime, the arrangement we're looking at here [B]certainly is.[/B] Donald Trump, and his campaign team, partnered with the leadership of a hostile foreign nation in an act of cyber warfare. He made a [I]Quid Pro Quo[/I] arrangement to benefit from that attack, and then repeatedly lied about it, ordered his cronies to lie about it, and took steps to obstruct the investigation into it. Those are very serious and specific crimes. "Collusion" itself may not be a crime, but the actions, conversations, arrangements, decisions, and lies made in support of that collusion [I]certainly are.[/I][/QUOTE] Oh shit, oh shit, oh shit so step 3 "nothing wrong with collusion" didn't work uhh Time to roll out the big guns with step 4: Everyone colludes! $hillary "should be in a Pillory" KKKlinton is much worse! she sold [b]half[/b] of our nukes to Russia for donations to private fund. george soros.

[media]https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/925333956110757888[/media] [media]https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/925335577217683456[/media] A "young, low level volunteer named George," who sat in a key advisory position on your National Security Team, less than ten feet from you, sitting right next to your Attorney General. The low level volunteer who personally told you, to your face, that he was in contact with Russian agents who wanted to trade "thousands of hacked emails." The low level volunteer that you, upon learning this fact, immediately promoted to an emissarial position on Russian sanctions, giving him unfettered access to the resources and top figures of your campaign. The low level volunteer who you personally, and publicly, named and celebrated as an "excellent guy" afterwards. Yeah, Trump. Sure. This "George Papadopoulis was a nobody" defense is complete bunk. Might as well be saying, "Jeff Sessions? Who the heck is that guy?"

My favorite thing about the "But the Dems!" defense is that it still doesn't exonerate the administration of alleged wrongdoing. Like hell, if you got stuff on the Dems that can be prosecuted, lets do it. No one should get a free pass. But that doesn't mean we're gonna stop looking into you. But as it stands the uranium thing seems to hold zero water. So you're gonna have to try a bit harder than that.

I also love the bit about Papadopoulis having been "proven to be a liar." Fucking [I]bulletproof[/I] defense, lmao.

"Check the DEMS!" just screams of desperation. Look away from us, go over there!

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52840411]I also love the bit about Papadopoulis having been "proven to be a liar." Fucking [I]bulletproof[/I] defense, lmao.[/QUOTE] It works fine for Trumps base, sadly. [I]Lyin'[/I] Tedd.

[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;52840442]Watching some CNN (bias warning) interview where they talked to some republican, I was listening before I headed to work. His defense was that the U.S interferes in elections too therefor it isn't a big deal. So look forward to that """"defense.""""[/QUOTE] I'm pretty sure we already saw that 'defence' floating around SH before the creation of the polidicks sub forum.

Is youtube pushing something or is this coincidence [img]https://i.gyazo.com/df05df9850074b94bdc569a3f8913f68.png[/img]

So, Trump keeps saying "Check the Dems!" He says this as if he knows that the Democrats are doing insanely illegal things, as bad as or worse than what his campaign is under investigation for. But the FBI isn't doing anything when he tells them to check the Democrats. This must mean that Donald Trump knows something that the intelligence branches of our government don't. He must know something extremely concrete and important for national security and the integrity of our very government. Does this mean that Donald Trump is withholding evidence about treasonous crimes that Democrats have committed? Isn't that illegal? Trump, why are you withholding evidence?! (Or, he's fucking lying and desperate. Occam's Razor and all that.)