• 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!

The Manafort Indictment: Not Much There, and a Boon for Trump

V

volsrock

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 28, 2016
Messages
3,995
Reaction score
1,261
Location
Texas
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Do not be fooled by the “Conspiracy against the United States” heading.

The Paul Manafort indictment is much ado about nothing . . . except as a vehicle to squeeze Manafort, which is special counsel Robert Mueller’s objective — as we have been arguing for three months (see here, here, and here). Do not be fooled by the “Conspiracy against the United States” heading on Count One (page 23 of the indictment). This case has nothing to do with what Democrats and the media call “the attack on our democracy” (i.e., the Kremlin’s meddling in the 2016 election, supposedly in “collusion” with the Trump campaign). Essentially, Manafort and his associate, Richard W. Gates, are charged with (a) conspiring to conceal from the U.S. government about $75 million they made as unregistered foreign agents for Ukraine, years before the 2016 election (mainly, from 2006 through 2014), and (b) a money-laundering conspiracy.



Paul Manafort Indictment: No Signs of Trump-Russia ?Collusion? | National Review
 
volsrock said:
Do not be fooled by the “Conspiracy against the United States” heading.

The Paul Manafort indictment is much ado about nothing . . . except as a vehicle to squeeze Manafort, which is special counsel Robert Mueller’s objective — as we have been arguing for three months (see here, here, and here). Do not be fooled by the “Conspiracy against the United States” heading on Count One (page 23 of the indictment). This case has nothing to do with what Democrats and the media call “the attack on our democracy” (i.e., the Kremlin’s meddling in the 2016 election, supposedly in “collusion” with the Trump campaign). Essentially, Manafort and his associate, Richard W. Gates, are charged with (a) conspiring to conceal from the U.S. government about $75 million they made as unregistered foreign agents for Ukraine, years before the 2016 election (mainly, from 2006 through 2014), and (b) a money-laundering conspiracy.



Paul Manafort Indictment: No Signs of Trump-Russia ?Collusion? | National Review
Click to expand...


The guy lobbied for the Ukraine for 10 years and never registered as a foreign agent any never reported any of the millions in fees to the IRS
 
katzgar said:
The guy lobbied for the Ukraine for 10 years and never registered as a foreign agent any never reported any of the millions in fees to the IRS
Click to expand...
That makes him a tax cheat not a conspirator against the U.S.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
 
volsrock said:
Do not be fooled by the “Conspiracy against the United States” heading.

The Paul Manafort indictment is much ado about nothing . . . except as a vehicle to squeeze Manafort, which is special counsel Robert Mueller’s objective — as we have been arguing for three months (see here, here, and here). Do not be fooled by the “Conspiracy against the United States” heading on Count One (page 23 of the indictment). This case has nothing to do with what Democrats and the media call “the attack on our democracy” (i.e., the Kremlin’s meddling in the 2016 election, supposedly in “collusion” with the Trump campaign). Essentially, Manafort and his associate, Richard W. Gates, are charged with (a) conspiring to conceal from the U.S. government about $75 million they made as unregistered foreign agents for Ukraine, years before the 2016 election (mainly, from 2006 through 2014), and (b) a money-laundering conspiracy.



Paul Manafort Indictment: No Signs of Trump-Russia ?Collusion? | National Review
Click to expand...

Yah the only problem for the trumpettes is manafort laundered the money through tump.
 
volsrock said:
Do not be fooled by the “Conspiracy against the United States” heading.

The Paul Manafort indictment is much ado about nothing . . . except as a vehicle to squeeze Manafort, which is special counsel Robert Mueller’s objective — as we have been arguing for three months (see here, here, and here). Do not be fooled by the “Conspiracy against the United States” heading on Count One (page 23 of the indictment). This case has nothing to do with what Democrats and the media call “the attack on our democracy” (i.e., the Kremlin’s meddling in the 2016 election, supposedly in “collusion” with the Trump campaign). Essentially, Manafort and his associate, Richard W. Gates, are charged with (a) conspiring to conceal from the U.S. government about $75 million they made as unregistered foreign agents for Ukraine, years before the 2016 election (mainly, from 2006 through 2014), and (b) a money-laundering conspiracy.



Paul Manafort Indictment: No Signs of Trump-Russia ?Collusion? | National Review
Click to expand...

Here's a good question. Who paid manafort to run the Trump Campaign?
 
Papadopoulos is the connection that ties the Russians to Manafort and Trump, and he's already taken a plea arrangement.

Spend some time thinking about that.
 
McCarthy, a former federal prosecutor, explains why the charges against Manafort will be difficult to prove, and are entirely irrelevant as regards any Trump-Russian "collusion."

Mueller's gone on a fishing expedition, and caught himself an undersized bass.
 
roughdraft274 said:
Here's a good question. Who paid manafort to run the Trump Campaign?
Click to expand...

Manafort worked for free. One might assume Manafort saw other avenues for making that work profitable, but it's likely we'll never know the answer to that bit of speculation.
 
Beaudreaux said:
Actually... that is a very good question. He may have had more than one payroll check coming in?
Click to expand...

Well, for starters, the Trump campaign never paid him a dime. Kinda odd for someone getting secretly paid millions of dollars from foreign governments, no?

https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...anafort-and-partner-told-to-surrender/544331/

Those who have so far not been paid, the filings show, include recently departed campaign manager Paul Manafort,
------
Another example of free labor is Rick Gates, who was Manafort’s deputy. According to two former high-level Trump staffers, Gates essentially functioned as the Trump campaign manager for more than two months, all while not collecting a paycheck.
Click to expand...

Quite odd. :)
 
tumblr_oyn1zf5USI1twiwvzo1_1280.jpg
 
humbolt said:
Manafort worked for free. One might assume Manafort saw other avenues for making that work profitable, but it's likely we'll never know the answer to that bit of speculation.
Click to expand...

If you want to think that, be my guest. He was getting paid millions and millions by foreign political parties, so I don't know how anyone would think that taking a job where there is no payment somehow would be a good idea, unless you mean that he took it so that he could sell access to officials for top dollar later on in a very unethical move. But even then, I wouldn't see that as a smart move. My best guess is he owed some favors to the people cutting him checks. Having a dirty insider on a campaign in the US would be of value to Russia.
 
pillars said:
Papadopoulos is the connection that ties the Russians to Manafort and Trump, and he's already taken a plea arrangement.

Spend some time thinking about that.
Click to expand...

I have seen the emails, without a doubt a something burger
 
pillars said:
Papadopoulos is the connection that ties the Russians to Manafort and Trump, and he's already taken a plea arrangement.

Spend some time thinking about that.
Click to expand...

Can we all just agree to abbreviating that guy's name?

Suggestions: 1. Papadoo - (kind of fun) 2. Poopypants (funnier but immature). Perhaps someone could start a DP poll?
 
humbolt said:
Manafort worked for free. One might assume Manafort saw other avenues for making that work profitable, but it's likely we'll never know the answer to that bit of speculation.
Click to expand...

That's a great theory. Similarly, I think Trump "donating his salary" is chump change to the $ he is currently making and has the potential to make through is office.
 
Last edited:
pillars said:
Papadopoulos is the connection that ties the Russians to Manafort and Trump, and he's already taken a plea arrangement.

Spend some time thinking about that.
Click to expand...

but .... but .... but ... but ......


well... but.
 
lurchadams said:
Can we all just agree to abbreviating that guy's name?

Suggestions: 1. Papadoo - (kind of fun) 2. Poopypants (funnier but immature). Perhaps someone could start a DP poll?
Click to expand...

I see it as a sort of personal challenge to spell it correctly every single time.
 
roughdraft274 said:
Well, for starters, the Trump campaign never paid him a dime. Kinda odd for someone getting secretly paid millions of dollars from foreign governments, no?

https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...anafort-and-partner-told-to-surrender/544331/



Quite odd. :)
Click to expand...

Sounds extremely odd - on the surface. What we don't know is if there were any employment contracts, and if any employment contracts had any clauses regarding laws, morals, ethics, etc. which could mean they forfeit any payment if they break the law or do anything immoral or unethical even if it isn't illegal.

However, yes, again, it sounds extremely odd that they haven't been paid yet.

One thing that's for sure about all this, the media will find out what's going on, even if they aren't supposed to know, which means that at some point we'll all know. The perfect example is how the sealed indictments from a secret Grand Jury proceeding were reported by CNN and others all weekend before the guys that were indicted even turned themselves in to the FBI.
 
roughdraft274 said:
If you want to think that, be my guest. He was getting paid millions and millions by foreign political parties, so I don't know how anyone would think that taking a job where there is no payment somehow would be a good idea, unless you mean that he took it so that he could sell access to officials for top dollar later on in a very unethical move. But even then, I wouldn't see that as a smart move. My best guess is he owed some favors to the people cutting him checks. Having a dirty insider on a campaign in the US would be of value to Russia.
Click to expand...

What I think about it and what's true may or may not correspond. As I said, I doubt we'll ever get to the bottom line on that. Manafort has a pile of money, so devoting some months with no compensation wouldn't necessarily hurt him. Who is going to stand up and tell everybody what he may have owed in return for favors and/or influence? Well, nobody who would know and with any credibility will do that - unless that person has a ton of bricks hanging over his or her head. Given the offshore nature of much of Manafort's earlier work, not many can be compelled to say anything at all. So, who knows?
 
katzgar said:
No it's must be in the other 14 charges
Click to expand...

If Manafort was smart he’d tell Mueller to write up what he wants him to say and he’ll sign it and refuse to read it. In exchange for dropping the charges. How could Mueller say no?
 
I think the issue of how/what Manafort was paid pales in importance in comparison to what Manafort DID and KNOWS.
 
chuckiechan said:
If Manafort was smart he’d tell Mueller to write up what he wants him to say and he’ll sign it and refuse to read it. In exchange for dropping the charges. How could Mueller say no?
Click to expand...

It doesn't work that way. You have to give evidence that corroborates your testimony otherwise your testimony is worthless considering you were offered a deal. I know nothing about law, I'm speaking from common sense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom