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

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52841088][I]Someone[/I] was sent to Russia as an emissary of the Trump Campaign - despite their claims otherwise as those don't smack of the truth. Could it be, you know, the man who stated 'pick me, pick me!' It wasn't Page, or so he [I]claims[/I] as he states he went to Russia the following month as a 'private citizen' to speak at Moscow Universities which would be humorous considering that Page was initially contacted by a man he called 'the Professor'. (And then he left the campaign afterwards under calls that he'd met an oil mogul close to Putin but that's surely not related either) Thing is: Whether he was aware of it or not, he was acting as an agent of the Kremlin. He knew exactly what would go on in that meeting, Papadopolous, and he continued to eagerly set it up anyway. We know that he brought it up with campaign staff and was 'shot down' according to sources present in the meeting which, according to the people who were present in the meeting, never happened in the first place. So you see it's almost irrelevant. We've established the motive, the means, and the opportunity on not just one but [I]three[/I] separate occasions - [I]all[/I] of which being intimately tied to the campaign. And on the second and third attempts not only were those opportunities 'pre-meditated' but the parties involved in attempting to gain access to those e-mails knew exactly where the information was coming from and how it was obtained (illegally). Just because we haven't figured out [B]who[/B] is lying here (presumably not Papadopolous) doesn't mean the attempts weren't made and that, after those attempts were made, the information began to be released. So, that stated! Here's a fast timeline for you. Key figures (note: not the only figures) sympathetic to Russia in the campaign: Carter Page(who exited the campaign after going to speak in Russia for allegedly 'innocent' reasons), Paul Manafort (operating as a foreign agent), Kissinger (which Trump claims as a long time friend - well before his Campaign began. The same Kissinger who is a close confidant to Putin). (Also, a bias-meter for easier reading, in a three-point scale of how much his opinion has shifted and in which direction since his last statement. Left being harder, right being softer. Times where the bias can't be directly measured are kept at '===') [===]Trump, March 2014 - Russia annexes Crimea. 'The land grab shouldn't have happened. There should be sanctions.' [<<=]May 2015 - Promises if elected would 'warn Putin not to continue, otherwise he would have to take military action’. States 'If it were me, I would call him and say don’t do it. Just stop it'. States that if it was to become necessary he would not hesitate to shoot down Russian planes. [===]June 2015 - Trump announces his campaign to be elected as the POTUS. [==>]December 2015 - 'I have always felt that Russia and the United States should be able to work well with each other towards defeating terrorism and restoring world peace, not to mention trade and all of the other benefits derived from mutual respect.' [<<=]February 2016 - 'Crimea was TAKEN by Russia. Previous administration was [B]too soft.[/B]' Trump tells Russia to return Crimea, Russia refuses. [===]March 2016 - Manafort joins the campaign. Page joins the campaign. [===]May 2016 - Kissinger states to Trump, after Trump continuously states Kissinger approved of Trump's policies: "On foreign policy, you identify many key problems. I do not generally agree with the solutions. One-shot outcomes are probably not possible." [==>]July 2016 - The 'Ukraine crisis' is 'more of a European problem'. US should only step in if European countries call us to help. However 'Putin just isn't going to take Ukraine, he isn't.' [>>>]August 2016 - Trump says he'll 'look at' whether sanctions are necessary against Russia for the annexation of Crimea. [==>]September 2016 - Page visits Russia. Allegedly speaks to oil magnate with close ties to Putin. Shortly thereafter is disowned by campaign. [===]January 2017 - Flynn appointed to campaign. [===]February 2017 - Flynn removed from the campaign after it was found that he'd discussed what policy the US should have with the Russian ambassador. [=>>]May 2017 - Kissinger enters into an advisorial role with Trump, brought to the white house and Trump proudly announces him to the press corp. [>>>]October 2017 - Trump refuses to sanction Russia for hacking our elections, never mind even caring about Crimea anymore. He was shakey - but he's made up his mind now. What do you think changed his mind? I'm thinking it was his advisors, given that he kept getting Russians or people with agendas aligned with Russia and Ukraine and even a Lobbyist for RussianUkraine in his cabinet.[/QUOTE] Can you source your quotes? Assuming the dates on these articles are relevant, they don't seem to match with your claims. For example, he seemed to have said that Crimea is a European problem in 2015, not 2016. ([URL]http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/31/politics/doanld-trump-crimea-europe-problem/[/URL]) He also stressed in Feb, 2017, not 2016 that Crimea was "taken" by Russia, saying that the Obama admin was too soft. ([URL]http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/15/politics/trump-crimea-russia-twitter-obama/index.html[/URL])

[quote]Can you source your quotes? Assuming the dates on these articles are relevant, they don't seem to match with your claims.[/quote] I created the timeline quickly. All my quotes are sourced, some may be slightly off in their dates, yeah. Please feel free to correct them as flaws are discovered. In any case: You can clearly see his opinion being mutated both by his advisors and pursuit of business interests. Not to mention it is well known that Trump has been friendly to Russia since the 1980s and (to this very day) holds Putin both in high regard and Russia in general, and refuses to criticize them except when absolutely politically necessary.

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52841150]I created the timeline quickly. All my quotes are sourced, some may be slightly off in their dates, yeah. Please feel free to correct them as flaws are discovered. In any case: You can clearly see his opinion being mutated both by his advisors and pursuit of business interests. Not to mention it is well known that Trump has been friendly to Russia since the 1980s and (to this very day) holds Putin both in high regard and Russia in general, and refuses to criticize them except when absolutely politically necessary.[/QUOTE] I mean, the dates matter quite a bit since your claim is that he's gotten progressively more pro-Russian over time. The two that I sourced totally flip narrative by having Trump get harder, not softer, on Russia from early 2015 to early 2017. I also can't find Trump calling for sanctions in 2014. Your quote isn't coming up in Google at all. If anything, he praised Putin more than he has since then in 2014 ([url]https://www.buzzfeed.com/christophermassie/trump-called-russias-invasion-of-ukraine-so-smart-in-2014?utm_term=.xjox4PL9R#.kcDDGAamo)(Yes[/url], Buzzfeed sucks, but they're just quoting Trump.)

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52841088][I]Someone[/I] was sent to Russia as an emissary of the Trump Campaign - despite their claims otherwise as those don't smack of the truth. Could it be, you know, the man who stated 'pick me, pick me!' It wasn't Page, or so he [I]claims[/I] as he states he went to Russia the following month as a 'private citizen' to speak at Moscow Universities which would be humorous considering that Page was initially contacted by a man he called 'the Professor'. (And then he left the campaign afterwards under calls that he'd met an oil mogul close to Putin but that's surely not related either) Thing is: Whether he was aware of it or not, he was acting as an agent of the Kremlin. He knew exactly what would go on in that meeting, Papadopolous, and he continued to eagerly set it up anyway. We know that he brought it up with campaign staff and was 'shot down' according to sources present in the meeting which, according to the people who were present in the meeting, never happened in the first place. So you see it's almost irrelevant. We've established the motive, the means, and the opportunity on not just one but [I]three[/I] separate occasions - [I]all[/I] of which being intimately tied to the campaign. And on the second and third attempts not only were those opportunities 'pre-meditated' but the parties involved in attempting to gain access to those e-mails knew exactly where the information was coming from and how it was obtained (illegally). Just because we haven't figured out [B]who[/B] is lying here (presumably not Papadopolous) doesn't mean the attempts weren't made and that, after those attempts were made, the information began to be released. So, that stated! Here's a fast timeline for you. Key figures (note: not the only figures) sympathetic to Russia in the campaign: Carter Page(who exited the campaign after going to speak in Russia for allegedly 'innocent' reasons), Paul Manafort (operating as a foreign agent), Kissinger (which Trump claims as a long time friend - well before his Campaign began. The same Kissinger who is a close confidant to Putin). (Also, a bias-meter for easier reading, in a three-point scale of how much his opinion has shifted and in which direction since his last statement. Left being harder, right being softer. Times where the bias can't be directly measured are kept at '===') [===]2013 - Trump admits he 'has a relationship with Putin', that he's done an amazing job, is at the forefront of world leadership, etc. [<<<]Trump, March 2014 - Russia annexes Crimea. 'The land grab shouldn't have happened. There should be sanctions.' [<<=]May 2015 - Promises if elected would 'warn Putin not to continue, otherwise he would have to take military action’. States 'If it were me, I would call him and say don’t do it. Just stop it'. States that if it was to become necessary he would not hesitate to shoot down Russian planes. [===]June 2015 - Trump announces his campaign to be elected as the POTUS. [==>]July 2015 - The 'Ukraine crisis' is 'more of a European problem'. US should only step in if European countries call us to help. However 'Putin just isn't going to take Ukraine, he isn't.' [==>]October 2015 - Trump pursues the construction of Trump Tower Russia. [==>]December 2015 - 'I have always felt that Russia and the United States should be able to work well with each other towards defeating terrorism and restoring world peace, not to mention trade and all of the other benefits derived from mutual respect.' [===]March 2016 - Manafort joins the campaign. Page joins the campaign. [===]May 2016 - Kissinger states to Trump, after Trump continuously states Kissinger approved of Trump's policies: "On foreign policy, you identify many key problems. I do not generally agree with the solutions. One-shot outcomes are probably not possible." [>>>]August 2016 - Trump says he'll 'look at' whether sanctions are necessary against Russia for the annexation of Crimea. [==>]September 2016 - Page visits Russia. Allegedly speaks to oil magnate with close ties to Putin. Shortly thereafter is disowned by campaign. [===]January 2017 - Flynn appointed to campaign. [<<=]February 2017 - Flynn removed from the campaign after it was found that he'd discussed what policy the US should have with the Russian ambassador. 'Crimea was TAKEN by Russia. Previous administration was [B]too soft.[/B]' Trump tells Russia to return Crimea, Russia refuses. [=>>]May 2017 - Kissinger enters into an advisorial role with Trump, brought to the white house and Trump proudly announces him to the press corp. [>>>]October 2017 - Trump refuses to sanction Russia for hacking our elections, never mind even caring about Crimea anymore. He was shakey - but he's made up his mind now. What do you think changed his mind? I'm thinking it was his advisors, given that he kept getting Russians or people with agendas aligned with Russia and Ukraine and even a Lobbyist for RussianUkraine in his cabinet.[/QUOTE] To expand: [URL="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/trump-campaign-guts-gops-anti-russia-stance-on-ukraine/2016/07/18/98adb3b0-4cf3-11e6-a7d8-13d06b37f256_story.html"]Trump aggressively pushes GOP to abandon Anti-Russian policy in regards to handling Ukraine.[/URL] [URL="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/07/22/on-eve-of-democratic-convention-wikileaks-releases-thousands-of-documents-about-clinton-the-campaign-and-internal-deliberations/"]Three days later, Wikileaks dumps nearly thirty thousand emails and documents hacked from the DNC.[/URL] Papadopoulis was fed information about these emails [I]before[/I] they were leaked -- information that came directly from the Russian agents he was communicating with. He shared that information to ranking officials in the campaign staff, who shared it among themselves. Trump then aggressively pushes for a complete reversal on Anti-Russian policy, and immediately after he does, the emails are leaked. You're not seeing the cause and effect here, sgman? There was an exchange. Trump's campaign agreed to push Pro-Russian policy stances, and Russia responded by releasing the fruits of labor of a massive cyberattack against Trump's political opponents. Trump is complicit in an act of war against our country, and personally traded away the integrity of our electoral process to benefit from that act.

"I also can't find Trump calling for sanctions in 2014." I paraphrased for brevity (and for the sake of civil discourse because his comments are less than civil), but he did state that. [quote=TODAY show, March 13, 2014]“We should definitely do sanctions and we have to show some strength. I mean, Putin has eaten Obama’s lunch, therefore our lunch, for a long period of time. I just hope that Obama, who’s not looking too good, doesn’t do something very foolish and very stupid to show his manhood.”[/quote] [url=https://www.today.com/video/today/54664173]You can watch it yourself here, if you like.[/url] [quote]The two that I sourced totally flip narrative by having Trump get harder, not softer, on Russia from early 2015 to early 2017.[/quote] Pretty sure you're misreading the graph. [B]Left[/B] is harder, [B]Right[/B] is softer. From June '15 to late '16 he did nothing but things that showed a more softened position. In all of 2017, that I've found thus far, his position continued to soften except in direct reaction to when Flynn was fired - which could very well be a political move rather than demonstrating that he's changed his position.

As an additional note, the Podesta emails were released [I]within the hour[/I] of the break of the "Grab her by the pussy" video.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52841194]As an additional note, the Podesta emails were released [I]within the hour[/I] of the break of the "Grab her by the pussy" video.[/QUOTE] Though, to add an asterisk, it'd be much harder to prove that the Trump campaign 'asked' for that. Nonetheless, it does show - specifically - that there was at least some sort of 'got your back' relationship going on there if we're not to beg incredulously that it was mere coincidence.

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52841178]"I also can't find Trump calling for sanctions in 2014." I paraphrased for brevity (and for the sake of civil discourse because his comments are less than civil), but he did state that. [url=https://www.today.com/video/today/54664173]You can watch it yourself here, if you like.[/url] Pretty sure you're misreading the graph. [B]Left[/B] is harder, [B]Right[/B] is softer. From June '15 to late '16 he did nothing but things that showed a more softened position. In all of 2017, that I've found thus far, his position continued to soften except in direct reaction to when Flynn was fired - which could very well be a political move rather than demonstrating that he's changed his position.[/QUOTE] You have the two statements I sourced flipped in order. You have [QUOTE]February 2016 - 'Crimea was TAKEN by Russia. Previous administration was too soft.' Trump tells Russia to return Crimea, Russia refuses ... July 2016 - The 'Ukraine crisis' is 'more of a European problem'. US should only step in if European countries call us to help. However 'Putin just isn't going to take Ukraine, he isn't.'[/QUOTE] When in reality, he said it was a European problem in 2015 and that Crimea was taken in 2017. The harder statement went from being before to being after.

Finally, as to sgman's question about Papadopoulos's promotion to an emissary? Papadopoulis [I]personally[/I] revealed to Trump and the National Security team that he was a Kremlin agent in the infamous March 31st meeting. Two days later, on April 2nd, Trump sent him to Israel to brief them on Trump's foreign policy in a closed-door meeting. [url]http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/210258[/url] Not exactly the work of a low level coffee boy.

[quote]You have the two statements I sourced flipped in order.[/quote] No, I flipped them and then re-read the timeline and provided my re-analysis. I know you really want to demonstrate that he hasn't been getting softer but I'm sorry - he is and was. He 'became hard on Russia' when he ran for President and used Obama as his 'wedge' for stating 'I'd do better, he's not being hard enough'. Then, suddenly, Russians started showing up in his cabinet and his position began to soften over time. Then he appointed Kissinger who more or less stated to his presidential policy of 'we need to do sanctions' that they weren't 'the way to go'. Since he appointed him as his advisor, obviously he agrees with that - especially since they're friends - and that's especially relevant given that H. Kissinger is a known Putin ally. The [U]ultimate demonstration[/U] of that is that he called for sanctions in 2014 and now, in 2017, after having basically stuffed a Russian into every nook and cranny he could find in his cabinet and after Russia 'helped him out' in the campaign - [I]refuses[/I] to sanction Russia even while doing so [I]is breaking the law[/I]. A law that came into existence [I]because he refused to put sanctions on Russia[/I]. I really don't think I can make this any clearer to you. Trump campaigned on sanctions and 'being harder than Obama' with the occasional, almost muttered under his breath, 'but Russia's still a great country run by a great man' caveat. There are only two (logical) positions to take. [B]1:[/B] Trump softened his position over time and now refuses to malign Russia - even at direct threat to his presidency. [B]2:[/B] Trump [I]never intended[/I] to put sanctions on Russia and will never put sanctions on Russia - which puts all of this in an even [U]graver[/U] light.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52841171]To expand: [URL="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/trump-campaign-guts-gops-anti-russia-stance-on-ukraine/2016/07/18/98adb3b0-4cf3-11e6-a7d8-13d06b37f256_story.html"]Trump aggressively pushes GOP to abandon Anti-Russian policy in regards to handling Ukraine.[/URL] [URL="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/07/22/on-eve-of-democratic-convention-wikileaks-releases-thousands-of-documents-about-clinton-the-campaign-and-internal-deliberations/"]Three days later, Wikileaks dumps nearly thirty thousand emails and documents hacked from the DNC.[/URL] Papadopoulis was fed information about these emails [I]before[/I] they were leaked -- information that came directly from the Russian agents he was communicating with. He shared that information to ranking officials in the campaign staff, who shared it among themselves. Trump then aggressively pushes for a complete reversal on Anti-Russian policy, and immediately after he does, the emails are leaked. You're not seeing the cause and effect here, sgman? There was an exchange. Trump's campaign agreed to push Pro-Russian policy stances, and Russia responded by releasing the fruits of labor of a massive cyberattack against Trump's political opponents. Trump is complicit in an act of war against our country, and personally traded away the integrity of our electoral process to benefit from that act.[/QUOTE] These are the claims I'm not quite getting: [QUOTE=BDA]Despite his (Papadopoulos) 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.[/QUOTE] I'm not sure how this aligns with Papa being given his position prior to having his Russian contacts, and almost 2 months before getting told about the emails. You also claimed: [QUOTE=BDA] it (Trumps change of policy on Russia) occurred within days of Trump learning that Papadopoulos 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.[/QUOTE] So, when did Trump learn about the emails? The Papa statement says that Papa learned about them months before WikiLeaks did anything, and it never says anything about him telling the campaign about them at a certain time. The meeting with Trump happened before he knew about the emails. I'm also not sure how Trump's team pushing to get rid of a single promise for lethal weapons for Ukraine constitutes a "complete reversal of GOP policy as it relates to Russia/Ukraine." You're just making these absolutely massive jumps from what we know. You're taking Trump's team getting rid of a single amendment to the GOP policy about lethal weapons being given to Ukraine as if it were some 180 spin on all policy related to Russia and Ukraine... and then assuming WikiLeaks released the emails because of that one line change. There's no evidence for it. You're just making the assumption because it happened soon afterwards.

[quote]There's no evidence for it.[/quote] No, speak truthfully. BDA provided evidence: [B]You refuse to accept it as evidence.[/B] Additionally if you're just going to state 'everything is coincidence' until someone provides the meeting notes where Trump goes 'Are we colluding with Russia? I'd like to collude with Russia. Get someone to help me collude with Russia' then it's less that you're engaging in debate here and more that you're engaging in denial. Speaking of, since I've got you 'on the horn' so to speak right now: Do you still think Jr's emails were 'a nothing story' of no consequence to the larger discussion being held here? That it doesn't show anything regarding the campaign's attempts to collude with Russia over these e-mails? I'd like to ask because I'd like not to waste my time chasing down things for you if you're just going to say 'nuh uh that was coincidence'. I feel if you were in charge of the investigation of the murder of Thomas Becket, you'd declare "Will nobody rid me of this meddlesome priest" would show 'no evidence that there was an attempt by Henry II to assassinate Becket' because he 'didn't say to kill the priest'. That his assassination was 'a coincidence'. Please prove me wrong; I am actually asking you to prove me wrong on this point.

if things happening in a sequential and very specific order isn't evidence then idk what is

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52841222]Finally, as to sgman's question about Papadopoulos's promotion to an emissary? Papadopoulis [I]personally[/I] revealed to Trump and the National Security team that he was a Kremlin agent in the infamous March 31st meeting. Two days later, on April 2nd, Trump sent him to Israel to brief them on Trump's foreign policy in a closed-door meeting. [url]http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/210258[/url] Not exactly the work of a low level coffee boy.[/QUOTE] I'm not quite understanding how this backs ups your claim that he was promoted from foreign policy advisor to emissary on Russia/Ukraine foreign policy. Where did Papa reveal that he was an agent? I know he met with Trump and said that he had connections that could set up a meeting.

Well, I'm sorry that you see no cause for concern with all this. I mean, sure, Papadopoulos revealed himself as a Russian agent to Donald Trump, Jeff Sessions, Carter Page, Paul Manafort, and several other key campaign figures, most of whom have stated or testified that they never knew [I]anything[/I] about Russian communications. And, yeah, sure, Papadopoulos was even explicitly praised for taking that initiative. And yeah, sure, he was given a promotion and sent abroad as an emissary of Trump foreign policy on the heels of making that announcement. And yeah, sure, Trump [I]did[/I] force a Pro-Russia policy change into the GOP platform, followed almost immediately by a massive dump of emails that Russian agents communicated the existence of to the Trump campaign (through Papadopoulos) in the time prior. And [B]yeah, sure[/B], three ranking officials have now been indicted (one pleading guilty) for charges surrounding the criminal investigation into Donald Trump. But it's all a big Nothing Burger, you know? Frankly, if you still see no cause for concern, there's not much point discussing this with you. You're just not willing to turn that critical eye towards the indiscretions of your party. However, the FBI clearly thinks they're on to something with all this. So, I guess we'll just have to see who's indicted next, because this is far from over. In the end, you can deny this as loud as you want: it won't change the outcome.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52841244]These are the claims I'm not quite getting: I'm not sure how this aligns with Papa being given his position prior to having his Russian contacts, and almost 2 months before getting told about the emails. You also claimed: So, when did Trump learn about the emails? The Papa statement says that Papa learned about them months before WikiLeaks did anything, and it never says anything about him telling the campaign about them at a certain time. The meeting with Trump happened before he knew about the emails. I'm also not sure how Trump's team pushing to get rid of a single promise for lethal weapons for Ukraine constitutes a "complete reversal of GOP policy as it relates to Russia/Ukraine." You're just making these absolutely massive jumps from what we know. You're taking Trump's team getting rid of a single amendment to the GOP policy about lethal weapons being given to Ukraine as if it were some 180 spin on all policy related to Russia and Ukraine... and then assuming WikiLeaks released the emails because of that one line change. There's no evidence for it. You're just making the assumption because it happened soon afterwards.[/QUOTE] I guess it does depend on what your definition of "Is" is.

Sarah Sanders is lying through her fucking teeth right now about collusion during this press conference. "It was all hillary!!!" x 100.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52841282]Well, I'm sorry that you see no cause for concern with all this. I mean, sure, Papadopoulos revealed himself as a Russian agent to Donald Trump, Jeff Sessions, Carter Page, and several other people, most of whom have stated or testified that they never knew [I]anything[/I] about Russian communications. And, yeah, sure, Papadopoulos was even explicitly praised for taking that initiative. And yeah, sure, he was given a promotion and sent abroad as an emissary of Trump foreign policy. And yeah, sure, Trump [I]did[/I] force a Pro-Russia policy change into the GOP platform, followed almost immediately by a massive dump of emails that Russian agents communicated the existence of to the Trump campaign in the time prior. And [B]yeah, sure[/B], three ranking officials have now been indicted (one pleading guilty) for charges surrounding the criminal investigation into Donald Trump. But it's all a big Nothing Burger, you know? Frankly, if you still see no cause for concern, there's not much point discussing this with you. Clearly, the FBI thinks they're on to something with all this. So, I guess we'll just have to see who's indicted next, because this is far from over. In the end, you can deny this as loud as you want: it won't change the outcome.[/QUOTE] You build strawman and attack them, something you've done since I've seen you post here. [QUOTE]Papadopoulos revealed himself as a Russian agent to Donald Trump, Jeff Sessions, Carter Page, and several other people, most of whom have stated or testified that they never knew anything about Russian communications.[/QUOTE] You still haven't sourced this. You just keep asserting it. If your evidence is the Papa statement, then no, he didn't say he was a "Russian agent," or even that he was working for the benefit of Russia. He also hadn't learned of the emails until after the Trump meeting. (The meetings was on March 31st, and Papa learned about the emails on April 26th.) [QUOTE]And, yeah, sure, Papadopoulos was even explicitly praised for taking that initiative.[/QUOTE] Yes, he was told, at his hiring, that improving relations with Russia was a "principal foreign policy focus of the Campaign." (On, or before, March 6th) This was before Papa knew his Russian contacts, and long before he knew anything about the emails. So yes, the campaign praised him for taking initiative in making Russian contacts and opening up routes for communication. Remember, nothing illegal had even been suggested at this point. [QUOTE]And yeah, sure, he was given a promotion and sent abroad as an emissary of Trump foreign policy.[/QUOTE] Again, you've given no evidence of this. First you claimed that he was specifically an emissary for Russian/Ukraine foreign policy, but you seem to be backing away from that now. The guy was already known as an energy expert, and went to speak in Israel about.. you guessed it... energy! Crazy! I know! [QUOTE]And yeah, sure, Trump did force a Pro-Russia policy change into the GOP platform[/QUOTE] You're taking the one example of Trump disagreeing with the GOP about Ukraine being given lethal weapons (they left all the language about supporting Ukraine in other ways), and making it into something WAY bigger than it is. Hell, do you even think we should have been giving weapons to Ukraine? I'm sure that lots of people wouldn't. It's not even a crazy change. Also, he didn't change the policy. He tabled a new amendment. [QUOTE]followed almost immediately by a massive dump of emails that Russian agents communicated the existence of to the Trump campaign in the time prior.[/QUOTE] Yeah, months prior... like 3 months prior. Does it really make sense that Russia held onto all this data just waiting for Trump to table a single amendment from one part of the GOP platform. Really? It wasn't even significant. [QUOTE]And yeah, sure, three ranking officials have now been indicted (one pleading guilty) for charges surrounding the criminal investigation into Donald Trump.[/QUOTE] The Manafort and Gates indictments have nothing to do with Trump. I'm not sure how you could even argue they did, and the Papa indictment is about him lying to the FBI. Neither of them were indicted for anything close to what you're claiming happened.

[quote](wasn't) sent abroad as an emissary of Trump foreign policy[/quote] [quote]went to speak in Israel about.. you guessed it... energy! [/quote] [quote]was told, at his hiring, that improving relations with Russia was a "principal foreign policy focus of the Campaign."[/quote] [quote]the campaign praised him for taking initiative in making Russian contacts and opening up routes for communication.[/quote] Please read [I]all of the quoted lines[/I] in context with each other and see if you can't see the dissonance in your own argument. If you can't then there's little point in debating further with you. And [B]this[/B] [quote]The Manafort and Gates indictments have nothing to do with Trump.[/quote] is [B]patently, on the face of it, ridiculous to claim.[/B] The best you can argue is that it [B]tangentially[/B] has things to do with Trump. You simply [B]can't honestly argue[/B] that it has 'nothing to do with Trump'. Get honest and stay honest, please. Edit: Also don't think I haven't taken notice about you ignoring my rebuttals to your posts after I asked you to take the stance you actually hold. I'm sure that's just 'coincidence' too though and I'm just 'building a straw-man' out of this empirical, observable, evidence right?

[media]https://twitter.com/CNNJason/status/925435762178445313[/media]

[QUOTE=Bob The Knob;52841367][media]https://twitter.com/CNNJason/status/925435762178445313[/media][/QUOTE] Watching this live was infuriating.

Sarah Sanders has the perfect face, tone, and voice for being an actual propaganda mouthpiece persona. Even when she's caught lying, she's exceptionally skilled at changing the topic and altering the facts. Trump must [I]love[/I] her :v:

@sgman gishgallop, obfuscate and drill down into semantics much? [editline]31st October 2017[/editline] Lol you're worse than me!

Christ it's really going to happen soon, isn't it?

I've been away, can someone just give me a quick update on this please.

[QUOTE=_Maverick_;52841429]I've been away, can someone just give me a quick update on this please.[/QUOTE] Big-time laundering. Manafort and Gates are likely going to jail for the rest of their lives unless they make a plea deal. This isn't a court case that can be won by 'tearing down a witness'. This is a meticulously researched case that demonstrates in black and white the charges aforementioned in the indictment. Their best defense is somehow proving the evidence submitted can't be submitted as evidence. Despite this, they have plead 'not guilty' and Manafort's lawyer effectively called on the president to pardon Manafort. What's even more intriguing than what has been charged though, is what [B]hasn't[/B]. The FBI demonstrates that they're aware of $75 million that was fraudulently kept/obtained; they're only charging them for $25 million of it. There's likely a big monster they're keeping in the closet. In sum: Mueller has begun to build his army of witnesses and is likely engaging in the same practices he used to take down Enron and other large corporations - by flipping people into testifying in cases of higher crimes and to provide him material evidence that he can use in those cases. Edit: Oh and the Papadopolous thing has publicly demonstrated that AG Sessions lied under oath before congress. So that's going to be a thing too that comes out of this.

[QUOTE=_Maverick_;52841429]I've been away, can someone just give me a quick update on this please.[/QUOTE] Manafort and Gates were agents for Putin's Ukrainian puppet government, ousted from power in 2014. They are also money launderers, responsible for the movement of at least $75,000,000 in dirty funds. Their charges are numerous and damning. Papadopoulos was arrested in July, and has since worked as an "active cooperator" (IE-- probably wore a wire) for Meuller investigation. He was working with Russian agents to attempt to establish a relationship with the Trump campaign, which he appears to have successfully done. Papadopoulos personally communicated his contact with Russian agents to multiple ranking campaign officials, including Donald Trump himself. In his communications, the existence of "thousands of emails" were revealed to be in Russian hands -- information that was not public knowledge at this point, as the first major Wikileaks publication had not yet occurred. On the heels of this, Carter Page was dispatched to Russia for a meeting in July. Upon his return, Donald Trump forced a last-minute policy change into the GOP agenda, insisting they adopt a pro-Russia foreign policy position. Three days later, Wikileaks publishes nearly 30,000 hacked emails and documents from Hillary Clinton and the DNC. Long story short, the Trump campaign colluded with Russia, and Papadopoulos, Manafort, and Gates are only the first of [I]many[/I] indictments to come. People now implicated in overt lies as a result of Papadopoulos's testimony, including some who lied under oath, now include Jeff Sessions, Michael Flynn, Jared Kushner, Carter Page, Sam Clovis, and Donald Trump, among many others who claimed "no knowledge" of Russian communications.

Worth pointing they probably have a worse charge on Papadopoulos but he pled guilty and cooperated in order to get the lesser charge of lying to the FBI

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52841438]Big-time laundering. Manafort and Gates are likely going to jail for the rest of their lives unless they make a plea deal. This isn't a court case that can be won by 'tearing down a witness'. This is a meticulously researched case that demonstrates in black and white the charges aforementioned in the indictment. Their best defense is somehow proving the evidence submitted can't be submitted as evidence. Despite this, they have plead 'not guilty' and Manafort's lawyer effectively called on the president to pardon Manafort. What's even more intriguing than what has been charged though, is what [B]hasn't[/B]. The FBI demonstrates that they're aware of $75 million that was fraudulently kept/obtained; they're only charging them for $25 million of it. There's likely a big monster they're keeping in the closet. In sum: Mueller has begun to build his army of witnesses and is likely engaging in the same practices he used to take down Enron and other large corporations - by flipping people into testifying in cases of higher crimes and to provide him material evidence that he can use in those cases.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52841459] Long story short, the Trump campaign colluded with Russia, and Papadopoulos, Manafort, and Gates are only the first of [I]many[/I] indictments to come. People now implicated in overt lies as a result of Papadopoulos's testimony, including some who lied under oath, now include Jeff Sessions, Michael Flynn, Jared Kushner, Carter Page, Sam Clovis, and Donald Trump, among many others who claimed "no knowledge" of Russian communications.[/QUOTE] (thanks for that guys <3) So this might really be a "first domino to fall" situation? At the very least this should hopefully be one of the many things that throws doubt at anyone who stills believes that trump and his administration are good... Right?

[QUOTE=_Maverick_;52841471](thanks for that guys <3) So this might really be a "first domino to fall" situation? At the very least this should hopefully be one of the many things that throws doubt at anyone who stills believes that trump and his administration are good... Right?[/QUOTE] Even more amazingly, this is more us finding out 'the first domino fell three months ago; these are the second and third dominos'. Basically, Mueller just Ozymandias'd this whole thing. [thumb]https://dorkforty.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/ozymandias-by-gibbons.jpg[/thumb]