• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

It's Gates and manafort

I’m a liar because you disagree with my interpretation of the statement?

Great. That’s what makes these discussions so much fun.

I didn't call you a liar. Read again.

I said, "Lying to the FBI is a crime. Why lie if what you're saying is true?"

How did you possibly think I called you a liar? Papadopolous is the liar. He's pleaded guilty to lying. So, why would he lie to federal investigators if all he did was try to ingratiate himself? Why lie if he didn't commit a crime?
 
i knew someone was in there, that we had never heard of before that has obviously turned evidence.

This is much bigger that Manafort and Gates. This is a guilty plea and someone cooperating. He wouldn't plead guilty if he didn't have information to bargain with.

There is no way for Trump defenders to deny this.
 
I didn't call you a liar. Read again.

I said, "Lying to the FBI is a crime. Why lie if what you're saying is true?"

How did you possibly think I called you a liar? Papadopolous is the liar. He's pleaded guilty to lying. So, why would he lie to federal investigators if all he did was try to ingratiate himself? Why lie if he didn't commit a crime?

"The answer is what you're saying is not true."

That isn't calling me a liar?
 
He wouldn’t be the first person to try to get a higher position in a campaign by inflating his credentials.

Bottom line, the statement shows he was petitioning the campaign, not the other way around.

The bricks are falling out of the Trump wall fairly quickly--and this is just the start. You're forgetting a few things, and here are some video's to help you along.

And so it begins--FOX NEWS video of Feb. 2017--click this link.
https://youtu.be/fysSDYkhHlU

then this


then this


You might want to watch "All the Presidents men about right now." Trump and his surrogates never realised they were being watched and electronically recorded by several FOREIGN intelligence agencies during the campaign season.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/apr/13/british-spies-first-to-spot-trump-team-links-russia

You should probably switch the channel to MSNBC--Rachel Maddow tonight who has been covering every detail of these investigations since they began. She knows more than anyone--which is why her ratings have soared past FOX NEWS & CNN.
Rachel Maddow crushes Fox News in August; CNN gaining fast ? Conservative Firing Line
 
Last edited:
"The answer is what you're saying is not true."

That isn't calling me a liar?

No, it's not calling you a liar. If you say 2+2 = 5, what you're saying is not true but that doesn't make you a liar. And clearly, from the context of my sentence, I was talking about Papadopolous' lies.

Now back to the subject. You said Papadopolous was just trying to ingratiate himself with the Trump campaign. If that were the case, why would he lie about that to federal investigators knowing what a serious crime it is to lie to federal investigators? You still have not answered that question.

Prove to us that you're still a rational person. Answer the question.
 
No, it's not calling you a liar. If you say 2+2 = 5, what you're saying is not true but that doesn't make you a liar. And clearly, from the context of my sentence, I was talking about Papadopolous' lies.

Now back to the subject. You said Papadopolous was just trying to ingratiate himself with the Trump campaign. If that were the case, why would he lie about that to federal investigators knowing what a serious crime it is to lie to federal investigators? You still have not answered that question.

Prove to us that you're still a rational person. Answer the question.

Why does anyone lie to law enforcement? Because they're trying to get away with whatever crime they committed.
 
Why does anyone lie to law enforcement? Because they're trying to get away with whatever crime they committed.

That's obvious. Why won't @Luther admit that? It's irrational to claim that he was just trying to ingratiate himself to Trump. That's not a crime. No need to lie to federal investigators about that.

Why plead guilty? Obviously, because you cut a deal. Why would they offer him a deal if he had no useful information?

Forget the partisanship. This is the security of our nation. Why won't Trump apply the sanctions that Congress approved? It's time for this weasel to go.
 
"The answer is what you're saying is not true."

That isn't calling me a liar?

You really need an answer to that?

Capture.JPG

What your saying is that anyone that disagrees with anyone is calling that person a liar. And your not someone that I generally think of as without common sense, so I have to think that you're throwing this accusation at him that he called you a liar because you don't like trying to defend Trump. If that's the case, feel free to stop it. It's better than falsely saying that people are calling you names.
 
I'm surprised, I thought it would take longer to have a case to present against Manafort, even with the FBI raid. I figured it would be a smaller fish first and they'd work their way up the chain.

It's certainly an interesting development, we'll have to wait and see what specifically are the charges.

EDIT: Apparently the charges have been released, but I haven't read through them yet.

Supposedly, that is because some of the charges were going to be out of the statue of limitations soon.. and I suspect that Mueller wanted as much pressure as possible to place of Manafort.
 
Supposedly, that is because some of the charges were going to be out of the statue of limitations soon.. and I suspect that Mueller wanted as much pressure as possible to place of Manafort.

He might also be issuing earlier than he'd like so that Republicans don't get any crazy ideas about defunding his investigation or to make Trump think that firing the special investigator would look incredibly bad for him. He's a smart guy so it's either just the right time or he's doing it for a good purpose.
 
He might also be issuing earlier than he'd like so that Republicans don't get any crazy ideas about defunding his investigation or to make Trump think that firing the special investigator would look incredibly bad for him. He's a smart guy so it's either just the right time or he's doing it for a good purpose.

That is also a point.
 
That is also a point.

Yea. I think there was talk with the latest budget stuff going through congress that it's possible for them to pass a budget resolution that limited funding for the special council etc. This would definitely make that harder to do.
 
No, it's not calling you a liar. If you say 2+2 = 5, what you're saying is not true but that doesn't make you a liar. And clearly, from the context of my sentence, I was talking about Papadopolous' lies.

Now back to the subject. You said Papadopolous was just trying to ingratiate himself with the Trump campaign. If that were the case, why would he lie about that to federal investigators knowing what a serious crime it is to lie to federal investigators? You still have not answered that question.

Prove to us that you're still a rational person. Answer the question.

Unlike you guys, I'm not going to attempt to speak to the mindset of Mr. Papadopolous as he was answering the FBI's questions. While it does appear that he gave false statements to the FBI the charges levied against Papadopolous do not include anything related to "collusion" or "conspiracy". The Mueller statement was clear that the charges were with regard to false statements which impeded the investigation. It is my opinion, based on what I have read of the Mueller documents, that Papadopolous made attempts to ingratiate himself to the Trump campaign and was not directed by the campaign in his activities. If that's the case then there is no evidence, as pertains to this specific case, that the Trump campaign "colluded" with Russian agents to influence the election.

The pursuit of "dirt" on an opposing candidate is not illegal and the idea that receiving such information from a foreign source is in some way a violation of election law is nebulous at best. Bear in mind that the whole reason Trump is being investigated (the dossier) is the result of seeking such "dirt" from foreign sources. If it's not a violation for the DNC and Clinton campaigns to use foreign sources for their "opposition research" then it must not be a violation for the Trump campaign to do the same.
 
The pursuit of "dirt" on an opposing candidate is not illegal and the idea that receiving such information from a foreign source is in some way a violation of election law is nebulous at best.

That's true, so why lie about it? Why wouldn't he just tell the FBI, "Yes, I was looking for dirt on Hillary from the Russians after I joined the campaign"? Why would he lie and get himself in serious trouble?

You're avoiding this question because the answer is that he was hiding something far more serious than opposition research which is not a crime.
 
Timeline: Campaign knew Russia had Clinton emails months before Trump 'joke'

September, 2015: The FBI made its first ill-fated attempt to alert the Democratic National Committee (DNC) that its computer network had been compromised. But the initial contact was not made with high-level staff, leading the DNC to brush off the contact.

November: The FBI alerted the DNC information was being transmitted back to Russia.

Early March, 2016: According to court documents, Papadopoulos took a role as a foreign policy adviser in the Trump campaign. Papadopoulos was living in London at the time.

On or about March 14: Papadopoulos met a London-based professor that claimed to have “substantial connections with Russian government officials.”

March 19: Russian hackers successfully hacked Clinton campaign head John Podesta’s email account.

March 24: A professor introduced Papadopoulos to an alleged niece of Russian President Vladimir Putin. According to the court documents, Papadopoulos told his campaign supervisor the subject of the meeting was "to arrange a meeting between us and the Russian leadership to discuss U.S.-Russia ties under President Trump.” "Great work," replied the supervisor, who said he would work the offer through the campaign. The supervisor is not named.

Papadopoulos would later find out the so-called niece was not, in fact, related to Putin.

April: Papadopoulos maintained contact with both the woman and professor to set up a meeting throughout April, keeping the campaign apprised of his contact.

April 29: The professor told Papadopoulos the Russians had “thousands” of Clinton’s emails containing dirt. The next day, Papadopoulos thanked the professor for his help setting up a possible meeting between Russians and Trump.

“It's history making if it happens," said the campaign aide.

Also in April, the DNC acquired the services of CrowdStrike to investigate and mitigate the potential breach of its systems.

June 9: Donald Trump Jr., Paul Manafort and Jared Kushner meet with Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya and others with the promise of receiving dirt on Clinton. The meeting ultimately focuses on Russian sanctions that lead Moscow to ban Americans from adopting Russian children.

June 14: The Washington Post revealed that the DNC had been breached by those thought to be Russian hackers, something supported by the CrowdStrike report on the attack released June 15.

July: Gawker and The Hill published stories based on leaks from the Guccifer 2.0 persona, which U.S. intelligence believes Russian intelligence used as a cover identity to leak documents.

July 22: WikiLeaks published the DNC emails.

July 29: Three months after the Trump campaign was first told that Russian operatives had Clinton emails, Trump said "Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing. I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press." Later that day, he tweeted “If Russia or any other country or person has Hillary Clinton's 33,000 illegally deleted emails, perhaps they should share them with the FBI!"
 
That's true, so why lie about it? Why wouldn't he just tell the FBI, "Yes, I was looking for dirt on Hillary from the Russians after I joined the campaign"? Why would he lie and get himself in serious trouble?

You're avoiding this question because the answer is that he was hiding something far more serious than opposition research which is not a crime.

Like I said before, I can't speak to the guy's mindset when he made those decisions. For all I know he was just an idiot that figured lying was a good idea. He wouldn't be the first. Lying is a relatively common defensive reaction for a whole lot of people. Have you ever watched the TV show "Cops"? I saw some guy tell the cops the pants he was wearing weren't his after they found crack in his pocket. Bottom line, some people are just plain stupid.
 
Like I said before, I can't speak to the guy's mindset when he made those decisions. For all I know he was just an idiot that figured lying was a good idea. He wouldn't be the first. Lying is a relatively common defensive reaction for a whole lot of people. Have you ever watched the TV show "Cops"? I saw some guy tell the cops the pants he was wearing weren't his after they found crack in his pocket. Bottom line, some people are just plain stupid.

He's a foreign policy advisor. He's not some guy living in a trailer park you see on "Cops." The FBI warn you that lying to them is a serious crime.

There are people who defend Richard Nixon to this day. So, I'll leave you alone with your denial.
 
This is much bigger that Manafort and Gates. This is a guilty plea and someone cooperating. He wouldn't plead guilty if he didn't have information to bargain with.

There is no way for Trump defenders to deny this.

You're talking about George Papadopolous. No one saw him coming. What's interesting is they arrested him the day after they raided Manafort's house, in Texas in July. They indicted him on Oct. 2, and kept it sealed until October 30. So I believe you're right--during this time period he was working with Mueller, probably getting wired so he could get others on the phone or in meetings to talk.
Papadopoulos' guilty plea is much bigger problem for Trump than the Manafort indictment - CNNPolitics

But the elephant in the room is Michael Flynn--who asked several months ago for immunity--citing he had a "story to tell." He may be working with Mueller also, as I was certain that he would be indicted on several charges.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/30/us/politics/michael-flynn-congress-immunity-russia.html
 
Back
Top Bottom