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

So wait, a third party illegally hacked Manafort's daughter's phone? Is that the wisest thing to do? Could that jeopardize the investigation in any way (maybe defense could argue something was acquired through an illegal hack, rendering it inadmissible or something?) Is it even ethical to do that? I'm not a laywer.

[QUOTE=Lambeth;52844597]He's also a professor of journalism and law. Why the character assassination?[/QUOTE] As far as I can tell, he's currently an assistant English professor, but he's most known as a poet/fictional writer. I bring it up because he's being used as a major source of information, but doesn't really have anything backup up his journalistic integrity or standard of evidence. He often takes snippets from official reports, makes much stronger conclusions without any evidence, and claims it as fact. BDA then takes those non-evidenced claims as fact. Just for a quick example: That last tweet you cited claimed that the FNC tried to bury the story. I don't doubt really doubt that happened. It wouldn't surprise me, but he is still making a claim of fact without provide any evidence of it. We're just supposed to believe him at face value. These are the sort of tangential claims that he makes constantly. It's not the work of a journalist. It's the work of a fiction writer moonlighting as a freelance journalist, with no one to tell him he's not meeting a basic journalistic standard. [editline]1st November 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=OvB;52844938]If Papa is relaying info from Russia to the campaign. He's literally an agent. He's acting as an intermediary for a group. He's an agent for that group. That's the definition of Agent. It's not like he's some KGB special agent spy or something.[/QUOTE] So let me get this right. We know that: 1) The Trump campaign explicitly told Papa that one of their primary foreign policy goals was to better Russia-US ties. 2) Papa gained some contacts who were able to set up a meeting between Russian officials and Trump officials (possibly Putin and Trump). There is no conversation about it being off the record or about the emails (they didn't know about them yet). We're just talking about a normal meeting. Therefore Papa is working as a Russian agent? Really? Is the ambassador to Russia a Russian agent when he relays information back to the US from Russia? That's basically all Papa had done at the time of the Trump meeting.

Russia uses someone to get the Trump camp to reach out to them, because they're not allowed to reach out themselves due to campaign rules and yet you say "Oh that's not weird"?

incidentally [URL="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/09/29/special-counsel-investigators-start-questioning-white-house-staffers.html"]here[/URL] is the full report that abramson cited

The ambassador to Russia is an agent to Russia. Yes. (In this case it would be a US Agent since they're working on behalf of US interests) If Papa is acting on behalf of Russian contacts to broker a deal with Trump, he is acting as an agent for the Russian contacts. [Quote]a·gent ˈājənt/Submit noun 1. a person who acts on behalf of another person or group. "in the event of illness, a durable power of attorney enabled her nephew to act as her agent" synonyms: representative, emissary, envoy, go-between, proxy, negotiator, broker, liaison, spokesperson, spokesman, spokeswoman; informalrep "the sale was arranged through an agent"[/quote] If you tell me you're looking for a car, and I know a guy who wants to sell a car and I introduce him to you, I am acting as his agent. It doesn't matter if it's for a legit reason or not. We're arguing the definition of a word here.

[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;52844604]So he's charged with being "Unregistered Agent of a Foreign Principal"[/QUOTE] Are you talking about Papadopoulos or Manafort? Manafort was charged as being an unregistered agent for the ex-Ukrainian government. I don't believe Papadopoulos, which is who we're talking about, was charged with that.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52845208][QUOTE=mdeceiver79;52844604]So he's charged with being "Unregistered Agent of a Foreign Principal"QUOTE] Are you talking about Papadopoulos or Manafort? Manafort was charged as being an unregistered agent for the ex-Ukrainian government. I don't believe Papadopoulos, which is who we're talking about, was charged with that.[/QUOTE] aye you got me there, I got the people mixed up. My point still stands though

[QUOTE=OvB;52845202]The ambassador to Russia is an agent to Russia. Yes. (In this case it would be a US Agent since they're working on behalf of US interests) If Papa is acting on behalf of Russian contacts to broker a deal with Trump, he is acting as an agent for the Russian contacts. If you tell me you're looking for a car, and I know a guy who wants to sell a car and I introduce him to you, I am acting as his agent. It doesn't matter if it's for a legit reason or not. We're arguing the definition of a word here.[/QUOTE] Alright, fine. If that's the way we're using the word, then I have no argument. I will say, though, that it makes it a pretty pointless thing to accuse somebody of. [editline]1st November 2017[/editline] With that said, I don't think it was unfair or uncalled for for me to assume the normal governmental usage of the word (i.e. FBI agent, CIA agent, Kremlin agent, etc.) Words are important. The way that one is using the word agent totally changes the claim being made.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52845452]Alright, fine. If that's the way we're using the word, then I have no argument. I will say, though, that it makes it a pretty pointless thing to accuse somebody of. [editline]1st November 2017[/editline] With that said, I don't think it was unfair or uncalled for for me to assume the normal governmental usage of the word (i.e. FBI agent, CIA agent, Kremlin agent, etc.)[/QUOTE] That [I]is the normal governmental usage of the word[/I]. You think if the US sent over Trump's Lawyer to Russia the KGB wouldn't see him as 'an Agent of America'? We're not talking about 'secret agents' here. Nobody's accusing Papadopolous of being the next 007.

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52845468]That [I]is the normal governmental usage of the word[/I].[/QUOTE] If I say that a person is a "CIA agent" you aren't going to think that it could be any random person communicating with the CIA from another government. You would, rightly, assume the person was in employ with the CIA and was working on behalf of the interests of the CIA.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52845478]If I say that a person is a "CIA agent" you aren't going to think that it could be any random person communicating with the CIA. You would, rightly, assume the person was in employ with the CIA and was working on behalf of the interests of the CIA.[/QUOTE] I [I]absolutely would[/I] if I knew about the CIA. James Bond doesn't strut up to you wearing a 'HELLO, MY NAME IS SECRET AGENT' badge. The CIA often and routinely recruits 'from within' organizations and so forth to make in-place agents. And this is far more upfront. They are a representing a foreign Government. Therefore they represent it. Therefore they are an Agent. Edit: Let's be clear here, what you want to say is "BUT THEY WEREN'T A SPY" to which I'd say: Prove that. Wittingly or unwittingly, they were being used - which makes them a spy. The [I]best[/I] spies don't [I]know[/I] they're spies.

[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;52845485]The semantics, my god the semantics.[/QUOTE] My essential point is to address the claim being made behind the word, not the word "agent." Like I said, if we're going with the intent given by OvB, then fine. It's irrelevant.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52845117]It's not the work of a journalist. It's the work of a fiction writer moonlighting as a freelance journalist, with no one to tell him he's not meeting a basic journalistic standard. -And all the other bullshit you've been spewing-[/QUOTE] It's called connecting the dots. Or circumstantial evidence and the events leading up to all of this. Something I understand t_d and /pol supposedly prides itself on, but is unable to do so here. Tbh, it sounds like you'd have trouble with a children's connect the numbered dots book. Papa pleaded guilty to his charges, simple as that. Manafort is charged, and mysteriously has 75 mil dollars despite not receiving pay for the last ten(?) years. Hmmm. You do not get pre-dawn no-knock FBI raids over a nothingburger. Neither do you get a grand jury, nor do you arrest people (rich people in government mind you) over a nothingburger. Face it. You're arguing a hopeless cause. If it indeed is a nothingburger, then don't go on arguing semantics and technicalities, it makes you seem all the more desperate, and the more Trump-people do it (t_d, Fox, WH) the more guilty they seem. If it is a nothingburger, what's the danger the investigation represents anyway? If it is a nothingburger, then let the investigation go on, instead of trying (and failing) to deflect and trying (and failing) to discredit it all the time.

[thumb]https://imgur.com/CqNuPT5.png[/thumb] I call this piece 'Not an Agent of Russia, by sgman91'

[QUOTE=sgman91;52845489]My essential point is to address the claim being made behind the word, not the word "agent." Like I said, if we're going with the intent given by OvB, then fine. It's irrelevant.[/QUOTE] The claim and the word are both correct and appropriate. Papadopoulos was being used by the Russian government to attempt to establish covert communications with Donald Trump and the Trump campaign. He repeatedly and aggressively advocated their goals to members within the campaign team, including Donald Trump himself. He was lobbying on behalf of the interests of the Kremlin, which makes him a Kremlin agent. Literally. In every sense. I'm sorry, but you are wasting everybody's time with this nonsense. It's clear what the situation here is, and you are only arguing the semantics of it to downplay the seriousness of it. Please, drop this line of argumentation and move on. Nobody's buying it.

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52845488]Edit: Let's be clear here, what you want to say is "BUT THEY WEREN'T A SPY" to which I'd say: Prove that. Wittingly or unwittingly, they were being used - which makes them a spy. The [I]best[/I] spies don't [I]know[/I] they're spies.[/QUOTE] My whole point is that there's no proof he was. That's why I've been asking for evidence for the claim. He wasn't charged with anything spy related. He wasted charged with any sort of illegal collusion, any illegal communication, any treason, etc. He was charged with lying to the FBI about when he met people and who he knew. As far as we know, all he did was try and set up a meeting between Trump's campaign and the Russian government. That's it. He didn't steal information. He didn't go looking for dirt on Clinton (they offered it up). He didn't do anything to suggest that he was in the employ of Russia. Let just assume for a second that he was a guy who thought Trump wanted to meet with Putin. What in his testimony wouldn't fit with that much more simple motivation? There not being proof that he wasn't a spy doesn't make him a spy. [editline]1st November 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52845540]The claim and the word are both correct and appropriate. Papadopoulos was being used by the Russian government to attempt to establish covert communications with Donald Trump and the Trump campaign. He repeatedly and aggressively advocated their goals to members within the campaign team, including Donald Trump himself. He was lobbying on behalf of the interests of the Kremlin, which makes him a Kremlin agent. Literally. In every sense. I'm sorry, but you are wasting everybody's time with this nonsense. It's clear what the situation here is, and you are only arguing the semantics of it to downplay the seriousness of it. Please, drop this line of argumentation and move on. Nobody's buying it.[/QUOTE] As far as the testimony goes, there wasn't any talk of an off the record meeting until long after the Trump meeting. So no, it wasn't some covert communication. It would have, as far as we know, been an on the record meeting. He tried to set up a meeting. He wasn't lobbying any interests of Russia. He wasn't pushing Russia policy.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52845545]Let just assume for a second that he was a guy who thought Trump wanted to meet with Putin. What in his testimony wouldn't fit with that much more simple motivation?[/quote] Well, the [I]fact that he continued to pursue meetings after it was made clear that Russia wanted to hand over illegally obtained intelligence[/I] is a pretty dead ringer, mister. That he persisted even knowing that fact makes his motivations immediately more complex and his own position immediately more compromised.

...Did sgman seriously just derail 1.5 pages of discussion into "Yeah but in THIS context the word means..."?

[QUOTE=Zero-Point;52845565]...Did sgman seriously just derail 1.5 pages of discussion into "Yeah but in THIS context the word means..."?[/QUOTE] Yes, and immediately after stating 'I'm not arguing over semantics!'

If this is a nothingburger, then riddle me this. Mueller hired 15-20 of some of the most prominent political prosecutors in the United States and has interviewed over 200 people. Lawyers are making this case their full time job. We had people in July pleading guilty to falsifying testimonies about Russian email leaks. Why would an innocent man intentionally lie to the FBI about this? It's a nothingburger, right? Tell the truth and literally nothing happens, right? Top campaign officials are being prosecuted for Conspiracy Against the US with Russian controlled governments. And this is the very beginning of public disclosure. If you still believe it's a nothingburger, then you should have no worries about the continued investigation. Reality will continue operating without you.

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52845559]Well, the [I]fact that he continued to pursue meetings after it was made clear that Russia wanted to hand over illegally obtained intelligence[/I] is a pretty dead ringer, mister.[/QUOTE] I'm not here arguing that the guy is a paradigm of honor. Why would the offer of damaging information change his motivation of setting up a meeting between Trump and Putin? You don't need to meet in person to anonymously send information.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52845545]My whole point is that there's no proof he was.[/QUOTE] Then why was he arrested by the people[I] leading the fucking Russian investigation[/I], you fucking muppet? [QUOTE=sgman91;52845545] all he did was try and set up a meeting between Trump's campaign and the Russian government. That's it.[/QUOTE] [I]That is collusion.[/I] The claims of which started this whole debacle in the first place. [QUOTE=sgman91;52845545]He didn't do anything to suggest that he was in the employ of Russia.[/QUOTE] He told [I]Donald goddamn Trump himself[/I]. Your "whole point" is no point at all.

[quote] Why would the offer of damaging information change his motivation of setting up a meeting between Trump and Putin?[/quote] Why would he not immediately report that Russia's trying to send illegal information to the campaign? What's that you say? Because he was [I]blindly pursuing that meeting at all costs[/I]? Why, that doesn't sound like [I]an Agent of Russia who can be easily manipulated into generating both Kompromat and 'useful tools' for Russia's espionage arm[/I] at all, no siree.

[QUOTE=Gbps;52845570]If this is a nothingburger, then riddle me this. Mueller hired 15-20 of some of the most prominent political prosecutors in the United States and has interviewed over 200 people. Lawyers are making this case their full time job. We had people in July pleading guilty to falsifying testimonies about Russian email leaks. Why would an innocent man intentionally lie to the FBI about this? It's a nothingburger, right? Tell the truth and literally nothing happens, right? Top campaign officials are being prosecuted for Conspiracy Against the US with Russian controlled governments. And this is the very beginning of public disclosure. If you still believe it's a nothingburger, then you should have no worries about the continued investigation. Reality will continue operating without you.[/QUOTE] Why do you keep saying "nothingburger?" I've never said these people didn't do bad things. I'm saying that the claims being made aren't backed up by the evidence. Preferably, I wish they wouldn't have stuck their nose in any of this. I'm under no delusions that Trump and his team are an honorable band of holy warriors fighting for the truth. They're not. I would also suggest that you actually go read the Manafort indictment. The "conspiracy" is about conspiring to use money from foreign banks in the US without paying taxes. It has nothing to do with conspiring with Russia, or anything similar to that. As of yet, the charges have been about Manafort working as a Ukrainian lobbyist without filing the proper paperwork, Manafort doing a bunch of illegal stuff with his money, and Papadopoulos lying to the FBI. There have been zero accusations, indictments, or anything else about any sort of Russian collusion. It may be coming, but it isn't here yet.

[quote]It has nothing to do with conspiring with Russia, or anything similar to that.[/quote] Yet again, you're failing to do your research. Go read the documents released today regarding their bail and requirements for house arrest. It's written down right in there, black and white, plain as day.

The White House is in shambles right now. Trump is deeply worried (and for good reason), and the mood is so tense that people literally walk out of the room if Russia is mentioned for fear of being caught up in the situation. Trump's support has even waivered so much among his own party that there are serious concerns that he would not survive the vote if the 25th amendment were invoked. Steve Bannon is urging Trump to kill this investigation by any means possible, fearing that it will soon cut to the heart of the administration and undermine its power. [url]https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/11/the-west-wing-trump-is-apoplectic-as-allies-fear-impeachment[/url] [quote]Until now, Robert Mueller has haunted Donald Trump’s White House as a hovering, mostly unseen menace. But by securing indictments of Paul Manafort and Rick Gates, and a surprise guilty plea from foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos, Mueller announced loudly that the Russia investigation poses an existential threat to the president. “Here’s what Manafort’s indictment tells me: Mueller is going to go over every financial dealing of Jared Kushner and the Trump Organization,” said former Trump campaign aide Sam Nunberg. “Trump is at 33 percent in Gallup. You can’t go any lower. [B]He’s fucked.[/B]”[/quote] [quote]One person close to Dina Powell and Gary Cohn said they’re making sure to leave rooms if the subject of Russia comes up.[/quote] [quote]According to two sources, Trump has complained to advisers about his legal team for letting the Mueller probe progress this far. Speaking to Steve Bannon on Tuesday, Trump blamed Jared Kushner for his role in decisions, specifically the firings of Mike Flynn and James Comey, that led to Mueller’s appointment, according to a source briefed on the call. When Roger Stone recently told Trump that Kushner was giving him bad political advice, Trump agreed, according to someone familiar with the conversation. [B]“Jared is the worst political adviser in the White House in modern history,”[/B] Nunberg said. “I’m only saying publicly what everyone says behind the scenes at Fox News, in conservative media, and the Senate and Congress.”[/quote] [quote]In a series of phone calls with Trump on Monday and Tuesday, Bannon told the president to shake up the legal team by installing an aggressive lawyer above Cobb, according to two sources briefed on the call. Bannon has also discussed ways to pressure Congress to defund Mueller’s investigation or limit its scope. [B]“Mueller shouldn’t be allowed to be a clean shot on goal,” a Bannon confidant told me. “He must be contested and checked. Right now he has unchecked power.”[/B][/quote] [quote]Two weeks ago, according to a source, [B]Bannon did a spitball analysis of the Cabinet to see which members would remain loyal to Trump in the event the 25th Amendment were invoked[/B], thereby triggering a vote to remove the president from office. Bannon recently told people [B]he’s not sure if Trump would survive such a vote[/B].[/quote] But I'm sure Sgman is right. This is all just a Nothing Burger.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52845600]I'm saying that the claims being made aren't backed up by the evidence.[/QUOTE] Then why the arrests by the people leading the Russian investigation? Answer this, do not deflect, and maybe people will listen. But we both know you can't and won't.

[QUOTE=torres;52845615]Then why the arrests by the people leading the Russian investigation? Answer this, do not deflect, and maybe people will listen. But we both know you can't and won't.[/QUOTE] Oh we already know his song and dance on that. 'It was just financial crimes though - absolutely no connections to Russia!' Of course that, too, is false.

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52845625]Oh we already know his song and dance on that. 'It was just financial crimes though - absolutely no connections to Russia!' Of course that, too, is false.[/QUOTE] You gotta simplify for simple people. All those numbers and facts you and BDA bring to the table confuse and scare them. Which is why I'd love to hear [I]from sgman91[/I], or any other Trump-supporter, how a completely unrelated crime was pursued, and led to arrests, by people employed to investigate the Russian meddling in the 2016 election, and nothing else.

[QUOTE=torres;52845615]Then why the arrests by the people leading the Russian investigation? Answer this, do not deflect, and maybe people will listen. But we both know you can't and won't.[/QUOTE] ... because they did illegal things and are hoping to push them into testifying against higher up people? [editline]1st November 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52845605]Yet again, you're failing to do your research. Go read the documents released today regarding their bail and requirements for house arrest. It's written down right in there, black and white, plain as day.[/QUOTE] It's a 55 page document. Care you cite the relevant sections? I'll be happy to read them out.