Former Trump operative Roger Stone met with Russian who wanted $2M for Clinton dirt

[Jack Fabulous]

LOL! Oh so now everybody is a FBI informant.

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/article213359854.html

Figuring there had to be a lot more to the story, Caputo says he hired a Palm Beach private investigations company to look into Greenberg. "What they found were federal court documents proving, irrefutably, that he's been working for the FBI for years,"

Not everybody. "Henry Greenberg" is, though.

 

[Atomic Kid]

I don't believe the offer to sell or the purchase (if) was illegal. After all the DNC/Clinton Campaign purchased information "indirectly" from foreign nationals also.

Well what you 'believe' and what actually is may be two different things and with you that seems that's the way it usually is. We already been through the differences of the legalities between the two. More than a few times now. And I'm not going to further entertain any more of your deflective circular arguments. So stick to the subject please.

 

[Athanasius68]

Arrest Junior too then because it's obvious that he was more than willing and even eager to accept it had it been actually produced. Not to mention he didn't inform the FBI or any other law enforcement entity of the offer. Before or afterwards. Despite having explicitly been warned by the FBI that they could expect Russian infiltration or influence attempts into their campaign. Plus apparently a decision was made to deliberately exclude any legal counsel from the Trump campaign from participating in or monitoring the meeting. Clear indications of criminal intent.

It was a generic warning about the possibility foreign powers might try to sneak into the camoaign. Which would be odd because we already know a spy had been sent earlier in the year due to a concern.

Clearly, Russia had been rejected the two previous times. No evidence that the third time was the charm.

Of course it remains true and undeniable that the Clinton campaign, and subsequently the Obama Admin, was more than willing to accept and use valuable information that came from Russians.

 

[Atomic Kid]

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/article213359854.html



Not everybody. "Henry Greenberg" is, though.

"Was". Not "is". And I have previously read that article too. What was it? Something like a decade ago and had to with his travels and the people met with in foreign countries if interest such as Iran? In any event Mr Greenberg didn't do anything to cause Mr Stone and Mr Caputo to make false statements before a Congressional investigative committee.

 

[hanger4]

Well what you 'believe' and what actually is may be two different and with you that seems that's the way it usually is. We already been through the differences of the legalities between the two. More than a few times now. And I'm not going to further entertain any more of your deflective circular arguments. So stick to the subject please.

There's no circular argument, the law quite definitive;

*(2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.*

The Trump Campaign didn't "solicit" the Russian lawyer did. The Trump Campaign accepted no contribution or donation or other things of value from foreign nationals.

That's pretty much linear.

 

[Atomic Kid]

It was a generic warning about the possibility foreign powers might try to sneak into the camoaign. Which would be odd because we already know a spy had been sent earlier in the year due to a concern.

Clearly, Russia had been rejected the two previous times. No evidence that the third time was the charm.

Of course it remains true and undeniable that the Clinton campaign, and subsequently the Obama Admin, was more than willing to accept and use valuable information that came from Russians.

LOL! Generic? They were quite specific. They told them to watch out for the RUSSIANS! Not the Armenians! Not the Lithuanians! The f-ing RUSSIANS!!! My God, how dense can you get?

 

[Jack Fabulous]

"Was". Not "is". And I have previously read that article too. What was it? Something like a decade ago and had to with his travels and the people met with in foreign countries if interest such as Iran? In any event Mr Greenberg didn't do anything to cause Mr Stone and Mr Caputo to make false statements before a Congressional investigative committee.

https://www.collective-evolution.co...2-million-offer-for-hillary-dirt-roger-stone/

Stone and Caputo now think the meeting was an FBI attempt to entrap the Trump administration – showing the Post evidence that Greenberg, who sometimes used the name Henry Oknyansky, “had provided information to the FBI for 17 years,” based on a 2015 court filing related to his immigration status.

"Greenberg" in his own words...

“Wherever I was, from Iran to North Korea, I always send information to” the FBI, Greenberg told The Post. “I cooperated with the FBI for 17 years, often put my life in danger. Based on my information, there are so many arrests criminal from drugs and human trafficking, money laundering and insurance frauds.”

He is an FBI informant. There is no "was/is" distinction.

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/article213359854.html

In the immigration case, Greenberg was arguing that the FBI had broken the terms of a deal in which he would be rewarded with an S-5 visa — similar to the parole, but good for a longer time — in return for his spying. In his statement, Greenberg said an FBI agent named David Baker had supervised his espionage work, retired in 2013 and turned him over to the bureau's Miami office.

Miami agents promised to honor the deal for the S visa, Greenberg said. But when several months passed with no action on the visa, he stopped cooperating with the FBI, which in return handed him over to the Department of Homeland Security for deportation. Instead, DHS released him into a sort of legal limbo.

His status as an informant is the reason that he was granted a visa.

 

[Atomic Kid]

There's no circular argument, the law quite definitive;

*(2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.*

The Trump Campaign didn't "solicit" the Russian lawyer did. The Trump Campaign accepted no contribution or donation or other things of value from foreign nationals.

That's pretty much linear.

Are you suffering from memory loss or something? I just told you I'm not going to keep repeating myself to you about that. We have already been down that road enough times. Now do you have anything further to offer on the subject at hand here or not?

 

[Atomic Kid]

https://www.collective-evolution.co...2-million-offer-for-hillary-dirt-roger-stone/



"Greenberg" in his own words...



He is an FBI informant. There is no "was/is" distinction.

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/article213359854.html



His status as an informant is the reason that he was granted a visa.

"I cooperated with the FBI for 17 years, often put my life in danger" Must not have been present in English class that day when they covered 'past tense' I guess. Also I don't see anything he 'informed' about even remotely politically related. All criminal related activities.

 

[Jack Fabulous]

"I cooperated with the FBI for 17 years, often put my life in danger" Must not have been present in English class that day when they covered 'past tense' I guess. Also I don't see anything he 'informed' about even remotely politically related. All criminal related activities.

So a guy who works as an informant for the FBI and is in the US on a special visa granted by the State Department because of his informant status just coincidentally happens to approach Trump representatives with an offer to sell non-existent information on Hillary Clinton?

Believe what you want but this has entrapment written all over it.

 

[Atomic Kid]

You can't know if the "thing of value" would have been accepted or even how it would have been accepted because nothing was given, it was a ruse.

What do mean we can't know? What do you think "I would love it" means? And if they were worried that was it a ruse then that's just one more reason why the FBI should have been contacted. Also I might have been wrong in my previous statement that "technically" Stone may not violated FEC law because he was not an 'official member of the Trump campaign. Stone did however have a pro-Trump super PAC during the 2016 Presidential campaign. Which would mean that he is member of an American political organization and therefore subject to FEC law.

 

[What if...?]

You can't know if the "thing of value" would have been accepted or even how it would have been accepted because nothing was given, it was a ruse.

I wonder if you would apply this standard of evidence to any other situation.

You have accepted the word of the suspects that they didn't do anything wrong.

Has any prosecutor ever bought that?

Because that's what everybody says.

 

[Atomic Kid]

So a guy who works as an informant for the FBI and is in the US on a special visa granted by the State Department because of his informant status just coincidentally happens to approach Trump representatives with an offer to sell non-existent information on Hillary Clinton?

Believe what you want but this has entrapment written all over it.

You want me to believe it. Then show me the proof that he is now an FBI informant aside from the mere words of a criminal scam artist and a long time political dirty trickster who has been caught making several false and misleading statements now.

 

[hanger4]

Are you suffering from memory loss or something? I just told you I'm not going to keep repeating myself to you about that. We have already been down that road enough times. Now do you have anything further to offer on the subject at hand here or not?

Logic predicated on facts hurts don't it.

 

[Atomic Kid]

There's no circular argument, the law quite definitive;

*(2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.*

The Trump Campaign didn't "solicit" the Russian lawyer did. The Trump Campaign accepted no contribution or donation or other things of value from foreign nationals.

That's pretty much linear.

Are you kidding me? Whether it was solicited or not makes no difference. It's still illegal. Matter of fact an unsolicited approach or offer of something of value from foreign nationals of a hostile foreign state should be even more of an immediate cause for alarm and concern or suspicion. Face it. Junior is a moron.

 

[Atomic Kid]

Logic predicated on facts hurts don't it.

Apparently not. Because it doesn't seem to ever cause you any pain.

 

[Jack Fabulous]

You want me to believe it. Then show me the proof that he is now an FBI informant aside from the mere words of a criminal scam artist and a long time political dirty trickster who has been caught making several false and misleading statements now.

He was actively providing intelligence to the FBI as late as 2013 and these events took place in 2016. DHS opted to allow him to remain in the US in 2015. They would not have done so if they did not consider him to be of "value", especially given his lengthy criminal history.

He was an intelligence asset. We'll find out soon enough if he was in play.

 

[Athanasius68]

LOL! Generic? They were quite specific. They told them to watch out for the RUSSIANS! Not the Armenians! Not the Lithuanians! The f-ing RUSSIANS!!! My God, how dense can you get?

My understanding of calendars causes me to observe that June comes before July and August.

Trump jr met with those Russians in June.
The Trump campaign was warned in July or August.

Conclusion: there had been no warning to the Trump campaign about Russian efforts to infiltrate and screw with the campaign when Jr. trump met with the Russian lawyer.

Which, as an aside, is pretty messed up considering that by the time of that meeting, the FBI had already been sufficiently alarmed (for an unclear reason) to have already a spy to the campaign.

 

[Jack Fabulous]

My understanding of calendars causes me to observe that June comes before July and August.

Trump jr met with those Russians in June.
The Trump campaign was warned in July or August.

Conclusion: there had been no warning to the Trump campaign about Russian efforts to infiltrate and screw with the campaign when Jr. trump met with the Russian lawyer.

Which, as an aside, is pretty messed up considering that by the time of that meeting, the FBI had already been sufficiently alarmed (for an unclear reason) to have already a spy to the campaign.

Who also just so happens to have a direct connection to Glen Simpson and Fusion GPS. Not dead bang proof of anything, just another one of those inconvenient facts that makes you go...hmm.

 

[iguanaman]

I wonder if you would apply this standard of evidence to any other situation.

You have accepted the word of the suspects that they didn't do anything wrong.

Has any prosecutor ever bought that?

Because that's what everybody says.

But Trump's people are not everybody. No defendants in history have been caught at lying so many times as them. Their word means absolutely nothing.

 

[Athanasius68]

Are you kidding me? Whether it was solicited or not makes no difference. It's still illegal. Matter of fact an unsolicited approach or offer of something of value from foreign nationals of a hostile foreign state should be even more of an immediate cause for alarm and concern or suspicion.

Which can be a legitimate concern.

So why the lackof concern over the Steele dossier? Its compiled from annonymous Russian sources. Not only that, but it was used (to a disputed extent) in an American courtroom to obtain warrants on an American citizen.

Never mind whether it was compiled legally.
Was the Clinton campaign moronic for obtaining it? Was the Obama Admin morons for using it?

 

[iguanaman]

My understanding of calendars causes me to observe that June comes before July and August.

Trump jr met with those Russians in June.
The Trump campaign was warned in July or August.

Conclusion: there had been no warning to the Trump campaign about Russian efforts to infiltrate and screw with the campaign when Jr. trump met with the Russian lawyer.

Which, as an aside, is pretty messed up considering that by the time of that meeting, the FBI had already been sufficiently alarmed (for an unclear reason) to have already a spy to the campaign.

LOL So you are excusing the lying about Russian contacts by saying that Trump's people were not warned about something every American should know? If they didn't know it was illegal why did they lie about them?

 

[Athanasius68]

LOL So you are excusing the lying about Russian contacts by saying that Trump's people were not warned about something every American should know? If they didn't know it was illegal why did they lie about them?

You guys are the ones making the criminal case about it.
You guys are clinging to this like a dog with an old bone. Its understandable-- there is nothing else here to see.

 

[iguanaman]

You guys are the ones making the criminal case about it.
You guys are clinging to this like a dog with an old bone. Its understandable-- there is nothing else here to see.

Answer my question. Why did so many close to Trump lie about contacts with Russians? When caught they all claim it was "nothing". If they aren't lying again why did they lie about "nothing"?

 

[hanger4]

I wonder if you would apply this standard of evidence to any other situation.

You have accepted the word of the suspects that they didn't do anything wrong.

Has any prosecutor ever bought that?

Because that's what everybody says.

Your whataboutism is noted.

All I've done is consider the facts in the public record.