Waco1947 said:Material evidence that implicates DtSam Lowry said:The dealings in question took place before he was campaign manager.Waco1947 said:Except Manafort and dt were in the same room all the time talking - campaign managers have unusually good communication with the candidate, generally. dt chose him so it was worth a look.Sam Lowry said:Manafort is in prison for dealings with Kilimnik related to unregistered foreign lobbying and witness tampering. The charges had nothing to do with the election.HuMcK said:They did tell the court that it was politically motivated research (as shown by both Nunes' and Schiff's competing memos), they didn't specify that it was from Dems specifically because a) IDs are protected and that would be improper unmasking and b) the specifics don't really matter to the court and c) it would have been pretty obvious without being stated. They didn't include Steele's statement because it isn't pertinent information whatsoever to include in a warrant, and anyone telling you otherwise doesn't know what they're talking about.Doc Holliday said:Allegations are not crimes.HuMcK said:Stop using terms you clearly do not understand. Investigating POTUS for crimes is a violation of the Constitution, attorney client privilege, and ethics (as if this administration cared a lick for ethics) now? Give me a break. That may make you sound smart to the other right-wing idiots here in this forum, but in real life it does the opposite. Meanwhile, Republicans want to punish people for an having the audacity to start an investigation that implicated Republicans, which is exactly the kind of thing the ruling party in a so called "banana republic" would do to keep a hold on power.Doc Holliday said:Do you even realize what you're advocating for?HuMcK said:Not really sure what you think that last sentence is supposed to prove. It's happened to me 3 times and every time the bank contacted me they were correct that my credentials had been stolen...Gruvin said:so Supposition is corooberated by more supposition so that makes it a fact? WhateverHuMcK said:ValhallaBear said:DuuuuuudeHuMcK said:Gruvin said:probably not the best source material... fusion GPS? Really? Ask Glen Simpson if he ready to stop pleading fifth about the steele dossier? SMHHuMcK said:
It's not even like these suspicions are brand new either...
Glenn Simpson is a professional investigator who heads up a highly respected oppo research firm. I get why Republicans don't like them these days (otherwise they might have to admit that their orange messiah is less than perfect), but Fusion GPS didn't get where they are by just making things up. Chris Steele is also a career professional investigator, with specific expertise in Russian espionage and crime. So the word of both men carries some weigh by itself. That said, this new report of internal Duetsche Bank investigators flagging suspicious transactions is something called "corroboration", and if I were Trump it would make me very nervous.
Also can't help but notice that still noone has attempted to actually deal with or spin the substance of the report. One chant of "fake news" and a little circle-jerking is evidently all y'all need to dismiss rampant criminality in a POTUS...
I didn't even see this...you're hanging your hat on the credibility of Simpson/Fusion GPS and Steele?????
Ho Lee Phuc
I'm not hanging my hat on anything, but if you're asking me who has more credibility between Donald Trump and almost literally anyone else, like most Americans I'm gonna pick against Trump on that one.
To be clear, this latest NYTimes story has nothing to do with Steele. It's main source is a former Deutsche Bank employee who is named and on the record, along with other anonymous sources on background. It just so happens that Trump has been previously accused (by Steele, Glenn Simpson, et al) of money laundering for years now. This new corroborating evidence kind of bolsters those previous accusations, almost as if those professional investigators weren't making that up...
So when the bank cancels your debit card for suspicious activity, that means it happened right?
An SAR (Suspicious Activity Report) isn't proof of anything, but it certainly warrants further investigation (probably why Trump is suing prevent compliance with Congressional subpoenas of his financial records...), and it means that the investigators who previously saw signs of money-laundering activity in Trump's financial past were't so crazy after all.
Even Bannon knew where Trump's liability was all the way back in 2017, btw; "This is all about money laundering," Wolff quotes Bannon saying. "Their path to fcking Trump goes right through Paul Manafort, Don Jr. and Jared Kushner." For good measure he added, "It's as plain as a hair on your face."
Violating the Constitution, right to privacy, attorney client privilege, ethics etc. all on grounds of baseless accusations.
All while simultaneously screeching about attacks on our democracy.
Go move to a Banana republic, you'll love it.
Tell me, why didn't they tell the FISA courts Hillary paid for the Dossier? Why didn't they tell the courts that the guy who wrote it was in his own words "desperate to get Trump"? Why didn't they tell them about all the holes in the story?
Can you answer these questions?
The entire special counsel found ZERO evidence for what the investigation was supposed to be about: Trump colluding. Why did that happen?
And I'll never stop reminding that Manafort is in prison because of his election-related dealings with Kilimnik. Just because Mueller couldn't bring it all the way home to Trump's doorstep does not mean there was "ZERO evidence" like you pretend.
Edit: not that it matters to you I'm sure, but James Baker (former FBI General counsel) has stated unequivocally that the Page warrant was sound with or without the Steele info.
If Waco says it, it must be right