We all knew that a year ago. Until we get an AG that has the balls to do something about it, it will remain just old news.
And it Begins:Special Prosecutor To Investigate Trump And Russia
- Thread starter Elfiero
- Start date
- Status
We all knew that a year ago. Until we get an AG that has the balls to do something about it, it will remain just old news.
Wait, hold up... Any minute now!
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 13,507
- Reaction score
- 6,229
- Points
- 113
Currently under criminal investigation:
- President Trump
- Trump Jr.
- Trump Foundation
- Trump Org
- Trump Campaign
- Trump Inaugural Fund
Currently Not under Criminal Investigation:
- Anything related to Clinton, Soros or Obama.
Democrats - the protectors of the Constitution - take over the House. Trump is reduced to a whimpering, sniveling, steaming bag of hot puss sending out unhinged, angry tweets at all hours of the day.
2019 will be a doozy.
- President Trump
- Trump Jr.
- Trump Foundation
- Trump Org
- Trump Campaign
- Trump Inaugural Fund
Currently Not under Criminal Investigation:
- Anything related to Clinton, Soros or Obama.
Democrats - the protectors of the Constitution - take over the House. Trump is reduced to a whimpering, sniveling, steaming bag of hot puss sending out unhinged, angry tweets at all hours of the day.
2019 will be a doozy.
Last edited:
nothing to see here, Tibs. Just Dems doing dim stuff.
https://oig.justice.gov/reports/2018/i-2018-003523.pdf
You are wrong. There is currently an FBI investigation of the Clinton Foundation being run out of the Arkansad field office.
What crimes have been committed by the Trumps that you list? Or like the Mueller probe, an investigation in search of a crime. And do you see the distinction, and do you care?
Sent from my SCH-I605 using Steeler Nation mobile app
Whoops! Just another crazy fake news story generated by the overwhelming fake news media that gets people like Tibs grabbing the Jergens and heading to the bathroom for a frantic, self-indulgent massage session...
Foiled again!
Five Weeks After The Guardian’s Viral Blockbuster Assange-Manafort Scoop, No Evidence Has Emerged — Just Stonewalling
FIVE WEEKS AGO, The Guardian published one of the most extraordinary and significant bombshells in the now two-plus-year-old Trump-Russia saga. “Donald Trump’s former campaign manager Paul Manafort held secret talks with Julian Assange inside the Ecuadorian embassy in London, and visited around the time he joined Trump’s campaign,” claimed reporter and best-selling “Collusion” author Luke Harding, Dan Collyns, and a very sketchy third person whose name was bizarrely scrubbed from The Guardian’s byline for its online version but appeared in the print version: Fernando Villavicencio, described by the Washington Post, discussing this mysterious discrepancy, as “an Ecuadoran journalist and activist.”
That the Guardian story would be seen as an earth-shattering revelation — one that would bring massive amounts of traffic, attention, glory, and revenue to the paper — was obvious. And that’s precisely how it was treated, as it instantly ricocheted around the media ecosystem with predictable viral speed: “The ultimate Whoa If True. It’s … [the] ballgame if true,” pronounced MSNBC’s Chris Hayes who, unlike many media figures reacting to the story, sounded some skepticism: “The sourcing on this is a bit thin, or at least obscured.”
But Hayes’s cable news colleague Ari Melber opened his MSNBC show that night excitedly touting The Guardian’s scoop, while meticulously connecting all the new inflammatory dots it uncovered, asking one guest: “How does this bombshell impact the collusion part of the probe”?
From the start, the massive holes in The Guardian’s blockbuster were glaring. As I noted on the day the story published, analysts from across the political spectrum — including those quite hostile to Assange — expressed serious doubts about the article’s sourcing, internal logic, self-evidently dubious assertions, and overall veracity, even as many media figures uncritically trumpeted it.
In particular:
In lieu of addressing the increasingly embarrassing scandal, The Guardian’s top editors and reporters on this story have practically gone into hiding, ignoring all requests for comment and referring journalists to a corporate PR official who provides a statement that is as vague and bureaucratic as it is non-responsive. It’s easier to get a substantive comment from the National Security Agency than from The Guardian on this story.
The Guardian’s stonewalling appears even more unjustified given the affirmative attacks on the truth of its central claims. The former consul and first secretary at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, Fidel Narváez, said emphatically in an interview with the British outlet The Canary that The Guardian story was “a fake” and provided that outlet with a formal complaint to the paper, in which he said at least one other story from the same Ecuadorian intelligence sources was also fabricated.
The Guardian’s refusal to address any of the very serious questions raised by its own article persisted even after one of the world’s largest newspapers, the Washington Post, published a major story on the paper’s debacle, noting: “One week after publication, the Guardian’s bombshell looks as though it could be a dud.”
The Post’s media reporter Paul Farhi joined the other critics of The Guardian’s story in documenting the multiple gaping holes in its reporting, including the bizarrely disappearing and highly sketchy third reporter, the fact that “no other news organization has been able to corroborate the Guardian’s reporting to substantiate its central claim of a meeting,” that the paper began almost immediately tweaking the language of its story to soften its certainty (a practice highly unusual for a story of this significance, where responsible editors would ensure that every word was accurate before publishing it), that “the story doesn’t specify the date of the alleged meeting,” that “no photos or video of Manafort entering the embassy have emerged,” and that “the Guardian is silent about whether its reporters saw any such photographic evidence.”
The Guardian’s typically public and outspoken editor-in-chief Kath Viner has all but disappeared since the story was published on November 27. Since then, she stopped tweeting entirely except to commemorate the November 30 death of a Guardian columnist. Harding has also tweeted just once since then. And both have ignored these questions submitted by The Intercept, as well as similar inquiries from other reporters:
None of this is an aberration. Quite the contrary, it has become par for the Trump-Russia course. One major story after the next falls apart, and there is no accountability, reckoning, or transparency (neither CNN nor MSNBC, for instance, have to date bothered to explain how they both “independently confirmed” the totally false story that Donald Trump, Jr. was offered advanced access to the WikiLeaks email archive, all based on false claims about the date of an email to him from a random member of the public).
Nor is it atypical for The Guardian when it comes to its institutionally blinding contempt for Assange: During the election, the paper was forced to retract its viral report from political reporter Ben Jacobs, who decided to assert, without any whiff of basis, that Assange has a “long had a close relationship with the Putin regime.”
The U.S media has become very adept at outrage rituals whenever they are denounced as “fake news.” They should spend some time trying to become as skilled in figuring out why such attacks resonate for so many.
Foiled again!
Five Weeks After The Guardian’s Viral Blockbuster Assange-Manafort Scoop, No Evidence Has Emerged — Just Stonewalling
FIVE WEEKS AGO, The Guardian published one of the most extraordinary and significant bombshells in the now two-plus-year-old Trump-Russia saga. “Donald Trump’s former campaign manager Paul Manafort held secret talks with Julian Assange inside the Ecuadorian embassy in London, and visited around the time he joined Trump’s campaign,” claimed reporter and best-selling “Collusion” author Luke Harding, Dan Collyns, and a very sketchy third person whose name was bizarrely scrubbed from The Guardian’s byline for its online version but appeared in the print version: Fernando Villavicencio, described by the Washington Post, discussing this mysterious discrepancy, as “an Ecuadoran journalist and activist.”
That the Guardian story would be seen as an earth-shattering revelation — one that would bring massive amounts of traffic, attention, glory, and revenue to the paper — was obvious. And that’s precisely how it was treated, as it instantly ricocheted around the media ecosystem with predictable viral speed: “The ultimate Whoa If True. It’s … [the] ballgame if true,” pronounced MSNBC’s Chris Hayes who, unlike many media figures reacting to the story, sounded some skepticism: “The sourcing on this is a bit thin, or at least obscured.”
But Hayes’s cable news colleague Ari Melber opened his MSNBC show that night excitedly touting The Guardian’s scoop, while meticulously connecting all the new inflammatory dots it uncovered, asking one guest: “How does this bombshell impact the collusion part of the probe”?
From the start, the massive holes in The Guardian’s blockbuster were glaring. As I noted on the day the story published, analysts from across the political spectrum — including those quite hostile to Assange — expressed serious doubts about the article’s sourcing, internal logic, self-evidently dubious assertions, and overall veracity, even as many media figures uncritically trumpeted it.
In particular:
- How could it be that Manafort, of all people, snuck into one of the most monitored, surveilled, videoed, and photographed buildings on the planet on three separate occasions without any of that ostensibly “smoking gun” visual evidence having emerged, including in The Guardian’s own story?
- Why would The Guardian publish a story of this magnitude without first requiring that its Ecuadoran intelligence sources provide them with such photographic or video evidence to publish it or at least review prior to publication?
- How could it be that Manafort’s name never appeared in any of the embassy entrance logs even though, as The Guardian itself admitted, “visitors normally register with embassy security guards and show their passports”?
- What was the bizarre, sensationalistic reference to “Russians” that The Guardian included in its article but never bothered to explain (“separate internal document written by Ecuador’s Senain intelligence agency and seen by The Guardian lists ‘Paul Manaford [sic]’ as one of several well-known guests. It also mentions ‘Russians'”).
- Five weeks later, all of these questions remain unanswered. That’s because The Guardian — which likes to pride itself on flamboyantly demanding transparency and accountability from everyone else — has refused to provide any of its own.
In lieu of addressing the increasingly embarrassing scandal, The Guardian’s top editors and reporters on this story have practically gone into hiding, ignoring all requests for comment and referring journalists to a corporate PR official who provides a statement that is as vague and bureaucratic as it is non-responsive. It’s easier to get a substantive comment from the National Security Agency than from The Guardian on this story.
The Guardian’s stonewalling appears even more unjustified given the affirmative attacks on the truth of its central claims. The former consul and first secretary at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, Fidel Narváez, said emphatically in an interview with the British outlet The Canary that The Guardian story was “a fake” and provided that outlet with a formal complaint to the paper, in which he said at least one other story from the same Ecuadorian intelligence sources was also fabricated.
The Guardian’s refusal to address any of the very serious questions raised by its own article persisted even after one of the world’s largest newspapers, the Washington Post, published a major story on the paper’s debacle, noting: “One week after publication, the Guardian’s bombshell looks as though it could be a dud.”
The Post’s media reporter Paul Farhi joined the other critics of The Guardian’s story in documenting the multiple gaping holes in its reporting, including the bizarrely disappearing and highly sketchy third reporter, the fact that “no other news organization has been able to corroborate the Guardian’s reporting to substantiate its central claim of a meeting,” that the paper began almost immediately tweaking the language of its story to soften its certainty (a practice highly unusual for a story of this significance, where responsible editors would ensure that every word was accurate before publishing it), that “the story doesn’t specify the date of the alleged meeting,” that “no photos or video of Manafort entering the embassy have emerged,” and that “the Guardian is silent about whether its reporters saw any such photographic evidence.”
The Guardian’s typically public and outspoken editor-in-chief Kath Viner has all but disappeared since the story was published on November 27. Since then, she stopped tweeting entirely except to commemorate the November 30 death of a Guardian columnist. Harding has also tweeted just once since then. And both have ignored these questions submitted by The Intercept, as well as similar inquiries from other reporters:
None of this is an aberration. Quite the contrary, it has become par for the Trump-Russia course. One major story after the next falls apart, and there is no accountability, reckoning, or transparency (neither CNN nor MSNBC, for instance, have to date bothered to explain how they both “independently confirmed” the totally false story that Donald Trump, Jr. was offered advanced access to the WikiLeaks email archive, all based on false claims about the date of an email to him from a random member of the public).
Nor is it atypical for The Guardian when it comes to its institutionally blinding contempt for Assange: During the election, the paper was forced to retract its viral report from political reporter Ben Jacobs, who decided to assert, without any whiff of basis, that Assange has a “long had a close relationship with the Putin regime.”
The U.S media has become very adept at outrage rituals whenever they are denounced as “fake news.” They should spend some time trying to become as skilled in figuring out why such attacks resonate for so many.
Some unhinged terrorist democrap congresswhore called Trump a mf'er. They've lost their ****.
In response, Trump tweeted:
“How do you impeach a president who has won perhaps the greatest election of all time, done nothing wrong (no Collusion with Russia, it was the Dems that Colluded), had the most successful first two years of any president, and is the most popular Republican in party history 93%?”
He also said that Democrats "only want to impeach me because they know they can’t win in 2020, too much success!"
In response, Trump tweeted:
“How do you impeach a president who has won perhaps the greatest election of all time, done nothing wrong (no Collusion with Russia, it was the Dems that Colluded), had the most successful first two years of any president, and is the most popular Republican in party history 93%?”
He also said that Democrats "only want to impeach me because they know they can’t win in 2020, too much success!"
She sounds like a real peach. I looked up Michigan's 13th district where that terrorist is from. I know the area and will be there later this week. It's ****. Dirt poor, high crime, abandoned houses, hookers, drug dealers, muzzies. It's pretty much the worst place I've seen besides Gary, IN. She must be so proud. I sell to a couple of steel mills there, so I have to go.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 13,507
- Reaction score
- 6,229
- Points
- 113
Yet another piece of the puzzle.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">This is the definition of Karma. Natalia Veselnitskaya indicted by the US department of justice for obstruction of justice as she lied in the money laundering case connected to the Magnitsky murder <a href="https://t.co/O1vLkxSPTV">https://t.co/O1vLkxSPTV</a></p>— Bill Browder (@Billbrowder) <a href="https://twitter.com/Billbrowder/status/1082703234303754241?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 8, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">This is the definition of Karma. Natalia Veselnitskaya indicted by the US department of justice for obstruction of justice as she lied in the money laundering case connected to the Magnitsky murder <a href="https://t.co/O1vLkxSPTV">https://t.co/O1vLkxSPTV</a></p>— Bill Browder (@Billbrowder) <a href="https://twitter.com/Billbrowder/status/1082703234303754241?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 8, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Ha ha ha! The desperation is hilarious! Any minute now...
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 13,507
- Reaction score
- 6,229
- Points
- 113
If there was no collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, then why? Why? Why? Why would Trump's campaign manager share this info with Russian operatives? The same Russian operatives who then went on an hacking binge, posting fake news on FB/Twitter targetting the very states Trump needed to swing in his favor. If this is not a direct connection between the Trump campaign and Russia in purposeful, premediated election hacking, then what is?
Manafort lied about sharing presidential polling data with Russian linked to intelligence services
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/ju...s-he-didn-t-lie-federal-investigators-n956276
Thanks to Robert Mueller, we'll have an answer to these very questions. The same allegations Trump - and everyone associated with Trump, including Paul Manafort himself - has spent the past two years vehemently denying.
Manafort lied about sharing presidential polling data with Russian linked to intelligence services
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/ju...s-he-didn-t-lie-federal-investigators-n956276
Thanks to Robert Mueller, we'll have an answer to these very questions. The same allegations Trump - and everyone associated with Trump, including Paul Manafort himself - has spent the past two years vehemently denying.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 13,507
- Reaction score
- 6,229
- Points
- 113
For those seeking clarity and an overview of how the dots are being connected in the Trump/Russia conspiracy case, this is a good source. The report has been constantly updated and vetted over the past two years as information became available through the various ongoing investigations.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">I just updated my collusion primer with the Manafort news.<br><br>The puzzle pieces are falling into place.<br><br>This development could explain Russia’s razor-sharp voter targeting and the genesis of the Ukraine Peace plan Cohen and Sater put on Flynn’s desk.<a href="https://t.co/ghhwoBFj0D">https://t.co/ghhwoBFj0D</a></p>— Ahmed Baba (@AhmedBaba_) <a href="https://twitter.com/AhmedBaba_/status/1082756350675963906?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 8, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">I just updated my collusion primer with the Manafort news.<br><br>The puzzle pieces are falling into place.<br><br>This development could explain Russia’s razor-sharp voter targeting and the genesis of the Ukraine Peace plan Cohen and Sater put on Flynn’s desk.<a href="https://t.co/ghhwoBFj0D">https://t.co/ghhwoBFj0D</a></p>— Ahmed Baba (@AhmedBaba_) <a href="https://twitter.com/AhmedBaba_/status/1082756350675963906?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 8, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 13,507
- Reaction score
- 6,229
- Points
- 113
Since many of you, with oneforthebus at the helm, constantly crave specific info as far as the tie-in between the Trump campaign & Russia, I figured I'd post the full report here. Let's call it the Cliff Notes of what we know thus far of the Russian investigation. Pretty good summary of where we are currently. The article includes multiple links throughout, and the information herein is easily verifiable.
A Trump-Russia Collusion Primer In 6 Minutes
Over the last few years, a clear picture of the potential conspiracy between Trump and Putin has crystallized. It’s the most consequential story of greed and treachery in presidential history. And it didn’t end after election day…
Updated January 8, 2018
The day was November 9th, 2016. The mood was joyous in the Kremlin as President Vladimir Putin, along with Russian officials, celebrated the election of Donald J. Trump as 45th President of the United States. Champagne was reportedly popped and toasts were made, as this foreign adversary celebrated American democracy. Why?
After documenting every day of the Trump presidency and covering the story of a potential conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Russian government for years, a great number of dots have connected. There is a great deal of circumstantial evidence of collusion between members of the Trump campaign and the Russian government. There are also direct communications that prove the Trump campaign was very receptive to Russia’s efforts to help candidate Trump. What we don’t publicly have yet is the smoking gun that proves there was a formal agreement to commit the criminal conspiracy and how much Trump knew about it. But Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s work is far from over and we don’t know the full extent of what’ he’s uncovered…yet. Based on Mueller’s indictments, all available reporting, and public records, here’s a 6-minute-read of the important facts related to the Trump campaign’s collusion with Russia, including my theory on the potential quid pro quo:
For decades, President Trump has sought a Trump Tower in Moscow (the Moscow Project) as well as explored a presidential run. In November 2015, months after Trump announced his run for the presidency, his personal fixer Michael Cohen was offered “political synergy” from Russian officials while he was seeking the Moscow Project with Trump’s longtime Russia-connected associate Felix Sater (who infamously said in an email about the project to Cohen: “I will get Putin on this program and we will get Donald elected”).
If there was an agreed upon quid pro quo, it would’ve been for Trump to help Putin undermine what was widely expected to be Hillary Clinton’s inevitable presidency in exchange for the Moscow Project, which would garner Trump hundreds of millions of dollars. That rings true with the Intelligence Community’s assessment of the initial goals of Putin, who at first sought to damage the predicted Clinton presidency he thought was a certainty and undermine Americans’ faith in their democratic institutions. Putin had accused Clinton of sowing discord in his own nation after Clinton questioned the legitimacy of Russia’s 2011 parliamentary elections. Putin wanted Clinton to come into office beleaguered by congressional investigations and a divided United States.
Once Trump’s presidency became more likely, Putin’s goals would later shift to achieving relief from the crippling sanctions the Obama administration levied against Russia, which he could only achieve under a Trump presidency. Along with a Trump presidency, would also come a weakened NATO alliance, which is also in Russia’s interest. Trump, already compromised due to his alleged history of laundering money for Russian oligarchs and obsessed with the prospect of doing business in Russia (which was very obvious at the 2013 Miss Universe Pageant in Moscow), was the perfect candidate.
Trump built his campaign team with Russia-friendly folks for a reason. His National Security Adviser Michael Flynn spoke at the Russia Today anniversary event in 2015. His Campaign Chairman Paul Manafort, and his deputy Rick Gates, had a history of working for and with Russian oligarchs and interests. His Campaign Adviser Carter Page was under FISA surveillance after meeting with a Russian spy. Heading into the 2016 presidential primaries, it became clear Trump had a real shot of winning the Republican nomination. Russia then began more overt outreach efforts to Trump’s Russia-friendly campaign team. As The Washington Post reports, at least 14 Trump associates interacted with Russian nationals during the campaign and transition. I’ll briefly summarize some of the key contacts during the campaign and touch on the ones during the transition in a later paragraph.
George Papadopoulos sought a meeting between candidate Trump and Putin in early 2016 and was told of Russia’s “dirt” on Hillary Clinton in April. Michael Flynn engaged with then-Russain Ambassador Sergey Kisylak during the campaign and transition speaking about how the incoming Trump administration could lift sanctions on Russia. Then-Senator Jeff Sessions, who would later become Attorney General, reportedly met with Kislyak several times, including at the Mayflower Hotel in April 2016 during a Trump campaign speech. In the Summer of 2016, Manafort reportedly offered a briefing on the campaign to Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska and was in communication with his old ally and suspected Russian Intelligence operative Konstantin Kilimnik. It’s now been revealed that Manafort met with Kilimnik in Madrid and gave him polling data related to the 2016 election and discussed a Ukraine Peace deal. Carter Page took a campaign-approved trip to Moscow in July of 2016 to meet with Igor Sechin, the chairman of the Russia State-owned oil company Rosneft, and allegedly discussed the prospect of lifting sanctions on Russia. Page then met with Kislyak at the Republican Convention weeks later. There were also efforts to arrange a meeting between Candidate Trump himself and Russian Oligarch Alexander Torshin, which Donald Trump Jr.attendedin his stead at the NRA convention in 2016 (more on the overall Trump-Russia-NRA connection here).
Trump Jr., Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, and Paul Manafort met with Russian lawyer/informant Natalia Veselnitskaya and other Russian operatives on June 9, 2016 in Trump tower after being offered dirt on Hillary Clinton over email. As president, Trump later admitted his campaign sought dirt on Clinton during that meeting and spoke of adoptions (Magnitsky Act Sanctions relief) among other things that have yet to be made public. Candidate Trump was at Trump Tower the day of the meeting and it’s hard to believe he wasn’t aware of it. Days before on June 7th, Candidate Trump said he was going to do a speech about Hillary Clinton’s wrongdoings (the speech never happened). That date is important because Trump’s attorney Rudy Giuliani confirmed that Trump’s campaign held a preparatory meeting on June 7th, the same day as the speech announcement. One person allegedly in attendance, Rick Gates, is now a cooperating witness with Mueller.
Michael Cohen and Felix Sater continued working the Trump Tower Moscow deal well into June 2016, and according to Rudy Giuliani, up until November 2016. Over the course of the next several months, Wikileaks published Clinton’s stolen emails, propaganda was spread by Russian bots, and candidate Trump was one of the main disseminators. The reason the Moscow Project talks may have ended the same month of the Trump Tower meeting, just before the July Republican Convention, is not a coincidence. Trump was now the de facto nominee. The quid pro quo could then fully focus on actually making Trump the next POTUS in exchange for Russia-friendly policies from the incoming administration. And if he lost, he could always just re-up the Moscow Project. Pro-Russia language was then added to the GOP platform at the convention in July. After the convention on July 27, 2016, Russians began spear phishing campaigns targeting Clinton’s personal office emails for the first time and also targeted Clinton’s campaign. This was the same day Donald Trump publicly stated: “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing” (this was revealed in Mueller’s hacking indictment of 12 Russians). Important to note, now-deceased GOP operative Peter Smith was seeking Clinton’s stolen emails in coordination with Michael Flynn and his son.
Shortly after the convention, Trump was briefed by senior FBI officials about Russia’s effort to infiltrate his campaign. This did not stop him from spreading their propaganda. Trump said the word “Wikileaks” at least 164 times in October 2016 and remained on message with Russia. In the days ahead of the election, longtime Trump associate Roger Stone appeared to have foreknowledge of incoming Wikileaks related to John Podesta and was later revealed to have direct contacts with the organization. Trump went on to win the election, and the collusion didn’t stop during the transition. Flynn talked sanctions relief with Kislyak again. Kushner sought a secret back channel line of communication between Trump and Russia from Kislyak at a secret meeting in Trump Tower – Flynn also attended. Kushner also met with a Russian bank that was under sanctions. When it comes to the inauguration, Russian oligarchs attended the parties and reportedly funded Trump’s inaugural committee.
Upon taking office, the Trump administration immediately tried, and failed, to lift sanctions on Russia. Meanwhile, Cohen and Sater worked the secret Russia-Ukraine peace deal(which would’ve lifted sanctions) and reportedly delivered it to Michael Flynn. Won’t go too deep into the details because you’ve lived it, but Trump ran a presidency friendly to Russia until Congress literally forced his hand to apply new sanctions. Trump’s anti-NATO stance continued nonetheless. It all culminated at Trump’s summit with Putin at Helsinki in the Summer of 2018. Trump publicly sided with Putin over the U.S. Intelligence Community in front of the entire world. Russia, who has an economy smaller than that of New York and California, had the President of the United States in the palm of his hand. Their relationship has appeared to deteriorate in the months since, as pressure continues to be applied to the administration for a tougher stance on Russia.
If there were any omissions of specifics, they’re expanded upon in the links I’ve cited. I tried to keep this as brief as possible. Here is an article outlining how this collusion could be considered a criminal conspiracy against the United States. And this is just the tip of the iceberg of what we know related to Russia. Mueller knows far more given the cooperation of witnesses like Flynn, Gates, and Cohen. Mueller has established the underlying crimes on the part of the Russians. What’s next appears to be the indictment of any of the American co-conspirators who are currently unnamed as well as a report on the subsequent effort to obstruct justice on the part of President Trump and his allies. Also, there is still much to be uncovered in potential conspiracies with other foreign powers like the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, and Israel who also reportedly sought to buy the Trump presidency. Potential conspiracies that Robert Mueller has taken an interest in, and is reportedly set to outline in 2019. There are also domestic crimes Michael Cohen has implicated the president in and criminal investigations into his inaugural committee, the Trump Organization, and the Trump Foundation.
Needless to say, as it’s been reported, President Trump is rightfully worried about potential impeachment and possible indictment after he leaves office. Or both.
A Trump-Russia Collusion Primer In 6 Minutes
Over the last few years, a clear picture of the potential conspiracy between Trump and Putin has crystallized. It’s the most consequential story of greed and treachery in presidential history. And it didn’t end after election day…
Updated January 8, 2018
“It turns out that the United Russia has won the elections in the United States!” — then-Russian Governor Viktor Nazarov, November 9th, 2016
The day was November 9th, 2016. The mood was joyous in the Kremlin as President Vladimir Putin, along with Russian officials, celebrated the election of Donald J. Trump as 45th President of the United States. Champagne was reportedly popped and toasts were made, as this foreign adversary celebrated American democracy. Why?
After documenting every day of the Trump presidency and covering the story of a potential conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Russian government for years, a great number of dots have connected. There is a great deal of circumstantial evidence of collusion between members of the Trump campaign and the Russian government. There are also direct communications that prove the Trump campaign was very receptive to Russia’s efforts to help candidate Trump. What we don’t publicly have yet is the smoking gun that proves there was a formal agreement to commit the criminal conspiracy and how much Trump knew about it. But Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s work is far from over and we don’t know the full extent of what’ he’s uncovered…yet. Based on Mueller’s indictments, all available reporting, and public records, here’s a 6-minute-read of the important facts related to the Trump campaign’s collusion with Russia, including my theory on the potential quid pro quo:
For decades, President Trump has sought a Trump Tower in Moscow (the Moscow Project) as well as explored a presidential run. In November 2015, months after Trump announced his run for the presidency, his personal fixer Michael Cohen was offered “political synergy” from Russian officials while he was seeking the Moscow Project with Trump’s longtime Russia-connected associate Felix Sater (who infamously said in an email about the project to Cohen: “I will get Putin on this program and we will get Donald elected”).
If there was an agreed upon quid pro quo, it would’ve been for Trump to help Putin undermine what was widely expected to be Hillary Clinton’s inevitable presidency in exchange for the Moscow Project, which would garner Trump hundreds of millions of dollars. That rings true with the Intelligence Community’s assessment of the initial goals of Putin, who at first sought to damage the predicted Clinton presidency he thought was a certainty and undermine Americans’ faith in their democratic institutions. Putin had accused Clinton of sowing discord in his own nation after Clinton questioned the legitimacy of Russia’s 2011 parliamentary elections. Putin wanted Clinton to come into office beleaguered by congressional investigations and a divided United States.
Once Trump’s presidency became more likely, Putin’s goals would later shift to achieving relief from the crippling sanctions the Obama administration levied against Russia, which he could only achieve under a Trump presidency. Along with a Trump presidency, would also come a weakened NATO alliance, which is also in Russia’s interest. Trump, already compromised due to his alleged history of laundering money for Russian oligarchs and obsessed with the prospect of doing business in Russia (which was very obvious at the 2013 Miss Universe Pageant in Moscow), was the perfect candidate.
Trump built his campaign team with Russia-friendly folks for a reason. His National Security Adviser Michael Flynn spoke at the Russia Today anniversary event in 2015. His Campaign Chairman Paul Manafort, and his deputy Rick Gates, had a history of working for and with Russian oligarchs and interests. His Campaign Adviser Carter Page was under FISA surveillance after meeting with a Russian spy. Heading into the 2016 presidential primaries, it became clear Trump had a real shot of winning the Republican nomination. Russia then began more overt outreach efforts to Trump’s Russia-friendly campaign team. As The Washington Post reports, at least 14 Trump associates interacted with Russian nationals during the campaign and transition. I’ll briefly summarize some of the key contacts during the campaign and touch on the ones during the transition in a later paragraph.
George Papadopoulos sought a meeting between candidate Trump and Putin in early 2016 and was told of Russia’s “dirt” on Hillary Clinton in April. Michael Flynn engaged with then-Russain Ambassador Sergey Kisylak during the campaign and transition speaking about how the incoming Trump administration could lift sanctions on Russia. Then-Senator Jeff Sessions, who would later become Attorney General, reportedly met with Kislyak several times, including at the Mayflower Hotel in April 2016 during a Trump campaign speech. In the Summer of 2016, Manafort reportedly offered a briefing on the campaign to Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska and was in communication with his old ally and suspected Russian Intelligence operative Konstantin Kilimnik. It’s now been revealed that Manafort met with Kilimnik in Madrid and gave him polling data related to the 2016 election and discussed a Ukraine Peace deal. Carter Page took a campaign-approved trip to Moscow in July of 2016 to meet with Igor Sechin, the chairman of the Russia State-owned oil company Rosneft, and allegedly discussed the prospect of lifting sanctions on Russia. Page then met with Kislyak at the Republican Convention weeks later. There were also efforts to arrange a meeting between Candidate Trump himself and Russian Oligarch Alexander Torshin, which Donald Trump Jr.attendedin his stead at the NRA convention in 2016 (more on the overall Trump-Russia-NRA connection here).
Trump Jr., Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, and Paul Manafort met with Russian lawyer/informant Natalia Veselnitskaya and other Russian operatives on June 9, 2016 in Trump tower after being offered dirt on Hillary Clinton over email. As president, Trump later admitted his campaign sought dirt on Clinton during that meeting and spoke of adoptions (Magnitsky Act Sanctions relief) among other things that have yet to be made public. Candidate Trump was at Trump Tower the day of the meeting and it’s hard to believe he wasn’t aware of it. Days before on June 7th, Candidate Trump said he was going to do a speech about Hillary Clinton’s wrongdoings (the speech never happened). That date is important because Trump’s attorney Rudy Giuliani confirmed that Trump’s campaign held a preparatory meeting on June 7th, the same day as the speech announcement. One person allegedly in attendance, Rick Gates, is now a cooperating witness with Mueller.
Michael Cohen and Felix Sater continued working the Trump Tower Moscow deal well into June 2016, and according to Rudy Giuliani, up until November 2016. Over the course of the next several months, Wikileaks published Clinton’s stolen emails, propaganda was spread by Russian bots, and candidate Trump was one of the main disseminators. The reason the Moscow Project talks may have ended the same month of the Trump Tower meeting, just before the July Republican Convention, is not a coincidence. Trump was now the de facto nominee. The quid pro quo could then fully focus on actually making Trump the next POTUS in exchange for Russia-friendly policies from the incoming administration. And if he lost, he could always just re-up the Moscow Project. Pro-Russia language was then added to the GOP platform at the convention in July. After the convention on July 27, 2016, Russians began spear phishing campaigns targeting Clinton’s personal office emails for the first time and also targeted Clinton’s campaign. This was the same day Donald Trump publicly stated: “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing” (this was revealed in Mueller’s hacking indictment of 12 Russians). Important to note, now-deceased GOP operative Peter Smith was seeking Clinton’s stolen emails in coordination with Michael Flynn and his son.
Shortly after the convention, Trump was briefed by senior FBI officials about Russia’s effort to infiltrate his campaign. This did not stop him from spreading their propaganda. Trump said the word “Wikileaks” at least 164 times in October 2016 and remained on message with Russia. In the days ahead of the election, longtime Trump associate Roger Stone appeared to have foreknowledge of incoming Wikileaks related to John Podesta and was later revealed to have direct contacts with the organization. Trump went on to win the election, and the collusion didn’t stop during the transition. Flynn talked sanctions relief with Kislyak again. Kushner sought a secret back channel line of communication between Trump and Russia from Kislyak at a secret meeting in Trump Tower – Flynn also attended. Kushner also met with a Russian bank that was under sanctions. When it comes to the inauguration, Russian oligarchs attended the parties and reportedly funded Trump’s inaugural committee.
Upon taking office, the Trump administration immediately tried, and failed, to lift sanctions on Russia. Meanwhile, Cohen and Sater worked the secret Russia-Ukraine peace deal(which would’ve lifted sanctions) and reportedly delivered it to Michael Flynn. Won’t go too deep into the details because you’ve lived it, but Trump ran a presidency friendly to Russia until Congress literally forced his hand to apply new sanctions. Trump’s anti-NATO stance continued nonetheless. It all culminated at Trump’s summit with Putin at Helsinki in the Summer of 2018. Trump publicly sided with Putin over the U.S. Intelligence Community in front of the entire world. Russia, who has an economy smaller than that of New York and California, had the President of the United States in the palm of his hand. Their relationship has appeared to deteriorate in the months since, as pressure continues to be applied to the administration for a tougher stance on Russia.
If there were any omissions of specifics, they’re expanded upon in the links I’ve cited. I tried to keep this as brief as possible. Here is an article outlining how this collusion could be considered a criminal conspiracy against the United States. And this is just the tip of the iceberg of what we know related to Russia. Mueller knows far more given the cooperation of witnesses like Flynn, Gates, and Cohen. Mueller has established the underlying crimes on the part of the Russians. What’s next appears to be the indictment of any of the American co-conspirators who are currently unnamed as well as a report on the subsequent effort to obstruct justice on the part of President Trump and his allies. Also, there is still much to be uncovered in potential conspiracies with other foreign powers like the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, and Israel who also reportedly sought to buy the Trump presidency. Potential conspiracies that Robert Mueller has taken an interest in, and is reportedly set to outline in 2019. There are also domestic crimes Michael Cohen has implicated the president in and criminal investigations into his inaugural committee, the Trump Organization, and the Trump Foundation.
Needless to say, as it’s been reported, President Trump is rightfully worried about potential impeachment and possible indictment after he leaves office. Or both.
Last edited:
Lord help us all. Just wait, just wait, it’s still coming.
Did Patriot Michael Avenatti write that article? He is trusted, and has impeccable accuracy.
I can hear Elfie screeching "That peach pie is almost ready! It really is!" from his straitjacket in his padded cell.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 13,507
- Reaction score
- 6,229
- Points
- 113
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">.<a href="https://twitter.com/tribelaw?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@tribelaw</a> on MSNBC's The Beat with Ari Melber, "The president’s son and the head of the president’s campaign and the president’s son-in-law, all of those people were soliciting help, not just from some random Russian but from the Kremlin." <a href="https://t.co/Scd4a3IrVW">https://t.co/Scd4a3IrVW</a> <a href="https://t.co/opLN0TUPBo">pic.twitter.com/opLN0TUPBo</a></p>— PoliticusUSA (@politicususa) <a href="https://twitter.com/politicususa/status/1082796489129316356?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 9, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
That trusted, invaluable news source - PMSNBC.
**** gets better by the day.
**** gets better by the day.
Tibs. You and 127 other people trust MSNBC. Please don't present it as a credible source moving forward. Thanks.
<iframe scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets/widget_iframe.8f9047c344e062fa7c7ada2fa8332f75.html?origin=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.steelernationforums.com&settingsEndpoint=https%3A%2F%2Fsyndication.twitter.com%2Fsettings" title="Twitter settings iframe" style="display: none;"></iframe><iframe id="rufous-sandbox" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="true" style="position: absolute; visibility: hidden; display: none; width: 0px; height: 0px; padding: 0px; border: none;" title="Twitter analytics iframe"></iframe>
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 8,105
- Reaction score
- 7,804
- Points
- 113
The most important part of your article Tibs is in the first paragraph.
Like everything you post this one throws everything but the kitchen sink even tangentially related to Russia or Russians and attempts to make it sound criminal or sinister. The fact is a lot of people had perfectly legal, appropriate dealings with Russians but then lied about them because everyone and their mother is screaming "RUSSIA! RUSSIAN COLLUSION! RUSSIANS!" and no one wants to be the guy who oops, actually talked to some Russians.
It was not illegal for candidate Trump to be looking into building a hotel in Russia. Of course when candidate Trump became President Trump, that was no longer appropriate and it was no longer pursued. Yeah, Cohen may have lied about the date that happened, probably because he was afraid of how it would look, but he categorically denies any deal with Russia to influence the election. So far no evidence that he was involved in any such conspiracy.
We're back to Russians bought condos and spent time in Trump's casinos...in the 80s. Yeah. Putin's been saving up that gem for just the right time. He knew one day Trump would run for president and he could then use his knowledge of Trump's money laundering scheme (which somehow despite being done blatantly out in the open went completely unnoticed for decades by our own IRS or CIA) as blackmail. Uh huh.
14 people in the Trump campaign interacted with Russians. Not the Kremlin, not Russian spies, just Russians of varying professions GASP!
Flynn's interactions with the Russian ambassador were perfectly legal and appropriate. Flynn's "lies" about it weren't even lies at all according to the original agents who interviewed him.
I could go on but why waste my breath.
What we haven't seen yet is anybody charged with, testifying about, lying about, or producing evidence about anyone conspiring with Russians to influence the election. Nothing. Nada. And nothing that implicates Donald Trump himself in anything criminal having anything remotely to do with Russia or the election.
I don't doubt (because I just don't think Trump is all that smart, which is another reason I find the idea that he's at the root of these complicated, sinister Russian conspiracy theories difficult to swallow) that Mueller is going to catch Trump telling a "lie" about the date he did this or that or whether or not he spoke to some Russian person. Like I said before, you'll be jumping around here like they just found Hoffa but as of now, I'll go back to the key point in your article:
Like everything you post this one throws everything but the kitchen sink even tangentially related to Russia or Russians and attempts to make it sound criminal or sinister. The fact is a lot of people had perfectly legal, appropriate dealings with Russians but then lied about them because everyone and their mother is screaming "RUSSIA! RUSSIAN COLLUSION! RUSSIANS!" and no one wants to be the guy who oops, actually talked to some Russians.
It was not illegal for candidate Trump to be looking into building a hotel in Russia. Of course when candidate Trump became President Trump, that was no longer appropriate and it was no longer pursued. Yeah, Cohen may have lied about the date that happened, probably because he was afraid of how it would look, but he categorically denies any deal with Russia to influence the election. So far no evidence that he was involved in any such conspiracy.
We're back to Russians bought condos and spent time in Trump's casinos...in the 80s. Yeah. Putin's been saving up that gem for just the right time. He knew one day Trump would run for president and he could then use his knowledge of Trump's money laundering scheme (which somehow despite being done blatantly out in the open went completely unnoticed for decades by our own IRS or CIA) as blackmail. Uh huh.
14 people in the Trump campaign interacted with Russians. Not the Kremlin, not Russian spies, just Russians of varying professions GASP!
Flynn's interactions with the Russian ambassador were perfectly legal and appropriate. Flynn's "lies" about it weren't even lies at all according to the original agents who interviewed him.
I could go on but why waste my breath.
What we haven't seen yet is anybody charged with, testifying about, lying about, or producing evidence about anyone conspiring with Russians to influence the election. Nothing. Nada. And nothing that implicates Donald Trump himself in anything criminal having anything remotely to do with Russia or the election.
I don't doubt (because I just don't think Trump is all that smart, which is another reason I find the idea that he's at the root of these complicated, sinister Russian conspiracy theories difficult to swallow) that Mueller is going to catch Trump telling a "lie" about the date he did this or that or whether or not he spoke to some Russian person. Like I said before, you'll be jumping around here like they just found Hoffa but as of now, I'll go back to the key point in your article:
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 13,507
- Reaction score
- 6,229
- Points
- 113
No we're not, not by any measure. Look, you've asked for specific information time and time again. It's been out there for months on end, in the public domain, you weren't interested in looking it up or reading it. With today's two new revelations, I decided to post a condensed, summary article, do with it what you will.
- Status
