Paul Manafort's lucrative Russian connections

[Anonymous]

I started a post back in May about what a bad guy manafort and his cronies are. God, I hope they lose everything and have to move to the countries they represented.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The world has their pawn with Hillary. Everyone knows she's for sale.

Right, accepting money from global donors for a foundation to address global problems makes her for sale.

But hiring a guy who took 12.7 million from Putin is just hunky dory.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looks like Hillary finally met her match.

Maybe. But we already know who Putin is voting for. Man like that wants results, and he won't get them from Clinton.

How do you know what Hillary's promised him?

Obviously it wasn't as much as what Trump promised, or we'd all be reading the RNC's emails, not the DNC's.

HAHAHA +1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So is that what's behind Trump's statements about how we should accept Russia's annexation of the Crimea and end sanctions with Russia? Is a billionaire really for sale for a payment of $10-$15 mil to a friend? There goes the idea that billionaires are above special interests. At least this one.

Trump must be harder up than we think, or at least looking to expand into Russian real estate and golf after the election.

Best guess he's nowhere near as wealthy as he claims but who knows... not like he's released his tax returns.

[Anonymous]

Trump isn't expanding anywhere. His real estate holdings are relatively modest and he has alot of debt to service. Just look how he financed the Old Post Office. A $170 million loan from DeutscheBank secured by the lease itself, with the remaining costs to be covered largely by government preservation funds.

[Anonymous]

Actually...according to cables released by wikileaks, he was a source for US information
https://mobile.twitter.com/wikileaks/status/760111699936550912

He wasn't some Russian spy, he was the US embassies source in the Ukraine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Actually...according to cables released by wikileaks, he was a source for US information
https://mobile.twitter.com/wikileaks/status/760111699936550912

He wasn't some Russian spy, he was the US embassies source in the Ukraine.

This of course assumes Wikileaks is a fully honest broker themselves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Actually...according to cables released by wikileaks, he was a source for US information
https://mobile.twitter.com/wikileaks/status/760111699936550912

He wasn't some Russian spy, he was the US embassies source in the Ukraine.

This of course assumes Wikileaks is a fully honest broker themselves.

They can't be any less trusted than the NY Times at this point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Actually...according to cables released by wikileaks, he was a source for US information
https://mobile.twitter.com/wikileaks/status/760111699936550912

He wasn't some Russian spy, he was the US embassies source in the Ukraine.

This of course assumes Wikileaks is a fully honest broker themselves.

They can't be any less trusted than the NY Times at this point.

The NY Times doesn't hack emails. Wikileaks sole purpose is to do exactly that. Say what you will about the Times, they are still much more reliable than Wikileaks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Actually...according to cables released by wikileaks, he was a source for US information
https://mobile.twitter.com/wikileaks/status/760111699936550912

He wasn't some Russian spy, he was the US embassies source in the Ukraine.

This of course assumes Wikileaks is a fully honest broker themselves.

They can't be any less trusted than the NY Times at this point.

The NY Times doesn't hack emails. Wikileaks sole purpose is to do exactly that. Say what you will about the Times, they are still much more reliable than Wikileaks.

The NY times based a hot piece off a pice of paper that was handwritten. No forensic evidence found for the transactions other than conjecture.

More to the point, wikileaks doesn't hack, they just publish. It shows how uninformed you are. The state dept cables are there to read and it shows Manafort was our source being utilized by the State Dept.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Actually...according to cables released by wikileaks, he was a source for US information
https://mobile.twitter.com/wikileaks/status/760111699936550912

He wasn't some Russian spy, he was the US embassies source in the Ukraine.

This of course assumes Wikileaks is a fully honest broker themselves.

They can't be any less trusted than the NY Times at this point.

The NY Times doesn't hack emails. Wikileaks sole purpose is to do exactly that. Say what you will about the Times, they are still much more reliable than Wikileaks.

The NY times based a hot piece off a pice of paper that was handwritten. No forensic evidence found for the transactions other than conjecture.

The story came from Ukrainian investigators, so it's well sourced.

More to the point, wikileaks doesn't hack, they just publish. It shows how uninformed you are. The state dept cables are there to read and it shows Manafort was our source being utilized by the State Dept.

Stop nitpicking, you knew what I meant. And at best, they show Manafort trying to play both sides, which makes him even less reliable than if he were just working for the Ukrainian dictator.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Actually...according to cables released by wikileaks, he was a source for US information
https://mobile.twitter.com/wikileaks/status/760111699936550912

He wasn't some Russian spy, he was the US embassies source in the Ukraine.

This of course assumes Wikileaks is a fully honest broker themselves.

They can't be any less trusted than the NY Times at this point.

The NY Times doesn't hack emails. Wikileaks sole purpose is to do exactly that. Say what you will about the Times, they are still much more reliable than Wikileaks.

The NY times based a hot piece off a pice of paper that was handwritten. No forensic evidence found for the transactions other than conjecture.

The story came from Ukrainian investigators, so it's well sourced.

More to the point, wikileaks doesn't hack, they just publish. It shows how uninformed you are. The state dept cables are there to read and it shows Manafort was our source being utilized by the State Dept.

Stop nitpicking, you knew what I meant. And at best, they show Manafort trying to play both sides, which makes him even less reliable than if he were just working for the Ukrainian dictator.

Except he didn't and you don't have proof, other than a handwritten ledger. Even they claim they have no records of transactions. You're grasping...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Actually...according to cables released by wikileaks, he was a source for US information
https://mobile.twitter.com/wikileaks/status/760111699936550912

He wasn't some Russian spy, he was the US embassies source in the Ukraine.

This of course assumes Wikileaks is a fully honest broker themselves.

They can't be any less trusted than the NY Times at this point.

The NY Times doesn't hack emails. Wikileaks sole purpose is to do exactly that. Say what you will about the Times, they are still much more reliable than Wikileaks.

The NY times based a hot piece off a pice of paper that was handwritten. No forensic evidence found for the transactions other than conjecture.

The story came from Ukrainian investigators, so it's well sourced.

More to the point, wikileaks doesn't hack, they just publish. It shows how uninformed you are. The state dept cables are there to read and it shows Manafort was our source being utilized by the State Dept.

Stop nitpicking, you knew what I meant. And at best, they show Manafort trying to play both sides, which makes him even less reliable than if he were just working for the Ukrainian dictator.

Except he didn't and you don't have proof, other than a handwritten ledger. Even they claim they have no records of transactions. You're grasping...

So other than written proof, there is no proof? Hate to tell you this, but handwritten ledgers are admissible in a court of law, and many people have gone to jail based on them. And of course they have no record of transaction. They were CASH payments. If there was even a hint that Hillary Clinton had received $12.7 million in cash from anyone, you'd be hitting the roof.

[Anonymous]

Wait, is someone trying to claim Manafort WASN'T working for convicted rapist and all around jackass Viktor Yanukovych? Because that's not even under discussion. He did. It's part of the public record.

All we're debating now is how much he got paid to do it, and whether he was paid off the books in addition to what was publicly reported.

[Anonymous]

So what does Manafort say about all this? If he admits it then obvs the ledger is true.