Paul Manafort's lucrative Russian connections

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I guess you haven't paid attention to the Clinton Foundation, Uranium deals an so on.

Hand written ledgers hold no legitimacy. The 9-11 hijackers got payments in cash from the Saudis and we tracked that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

No, he was working for wife of Rapist Bill Clinton. He wa a US source.

[Anonymous]

People call wikileaks unreliable. It's been reliable. It's a raw data dump and allows you to form opinions. It's been reliable enough to the point when the cables were released a few years ago that we spied on everyone, Kerry and Obama had to go apologize for it. Point being, you can't call unfiltered data unreliable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I guess you haven't paid attention to the Clinton Foundation, Uranium deals an so on.

Hand written ledgers hold no legitimacy. The 9-11 hijackers got payments in cash from the Saudis and we tracked that.

Tell Al Capone that hand written ledgers are not legitimate. I'm sure he'll be happy to be postumously exonerated. As for payments to highjackers, my understanding is that they were wire transfers, not suitcases full of cash.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

No, he was working for wife of Rapist Bill Clinton. He wa a US source.

This is nonsense. He was a paid consultant for Yanukovych. Part of his job was ingratiating himself with the Mission so he could feed them information that Yanukovych wanted them to have. He was a campaign advisor and lobbyist to a dictator, which is a thing people do, and isn't even in question. That's an established fact. The question NOW is whether he was paid an additional $12.5 million in order to help broker a corrupt deal, off the books, between Ukraine and Russia.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:People call wikileaks unreliable. It's been reliable. It's a raw data dump and allows you to form opinions. It's been reliable enough to the point when the cables were released a few years ago that we spied on everyone, Kerry and Obama had to go apologize for it. Point being, you can't call unfiltered data unreliable.

Well, that was before (noted rapist and Antisemite) Assange allied himself with Putin and the Russian government, who are known for doctoring documents and mixing them in with the real thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I guess you haven't paid attention to the Clinton Foundation, Uranium deals an so on.

Hand written ledgers hold no legitimacy. The 9-11 hijackers got payments in cash from the Saudis and we tracked that.

Tell Al Capone that hand written ledgers are not legitimate. I'm sure he'll be happy to be postumously exonerated. As for payments to highjackers, my understanding is that they were wire transfers, not suitcases full of cash.

Al Capine didn't live in the Ukraine. It's irrelevant

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People call wikileaks unreliable. It's been reliable. It's a raw data dump and allows you to form opinions. It's been reliable enough to the point when the cables were released a few years ago that we spied on everyone, Kerry and Obama had to go apologize for it. Point being, you can't call unfiltered data unreliable.

Well, that was before (noted rapist and Antisemite) Assange allied himself with Putin and the Russian government, who are known for doctoring documents and mixing them in with the real thing.

There's no proof they're doctored, if they were the US government would have said so. Assange has been in charge of Wikileaks from its inception, so once again it shows you know little.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People call wikileaks unreliable. It's been reliable. It's a raw data dump and allows you to form opinions. It's been reliable enough to the point when the cables were released a few years ago that we spied on everyone, Kerry and Obama had to go apologize for it. Point being, you can't call unfiltered data unreliable.

Well, that was before (noted rapist and Antisemite) Assange allied himself with Putin and the Russian government, who are known for doctoring documents and mixing them in with the real thing.

There's no proof they're doctored, if they were the US government would have said so. Assange has been in charge of Wikileaks from its inception, so once again it shows you know little.

I'm not talking about the diplomatic cables, I'm talking about anything that has come out since Assange became a talking head for Russia Today.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:People call wikileaks unreliable. It's been reliable. It's a raw data dump and allows you to form opinions. It's been reliable enough to the point when the cables were released a few years ago that we spied on everyone, Kerry and Obama had to go apologize for it. Point being, you can't call unfiltered data unreliable.

In this case it's somewhat questionable because of the Russian connection, so emails could have been altered in some way. But even if we do accept them at face value, it's clear that Ukrainian investigators now suspect Manafort of being involved in corruption in that country. If he was also providing information to the US, that just makes him a double agent. Politically, it makes Manafort toxic to the Trump campaign. At best, it is no worse than all the other toxic crap coming out of Trump himself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People call wikileaks unreliable. It's been reliable. It's a raw data dump and allows you to form opinions. It's been reliable enough to the point when the cables were released a few years ago that we spied on everyone, Kerry and Obama had to go apologize for it. Point being, you can't call unfiltered data unreliable.

In this case it's somewhat questionable because of the Russian connection, so emails could have been altered in some way. But even if we do accept them at face value, it's clear that Ukrainian investigators now suspect Manafort of being involved in corruption in that country. If he was also providing information to the US, that just makes him a double agent. Politically, it makes Manafort toxic to the Trump campaign. At best, it is no worse than all the other toxic crap coming out of Trump himself.

+1 Manafort lists his work for Yanukovych and the Party of Regions on his own bio, so that's not under debate. However, if Manafort went beyond just political advice, and actually helped broker a backroom deal to sell off Ukraine's infrastructure to Russia, that's a pretty big deal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I guess you haven't paid attention to the Clinton Foundation, Uranium deals an so on.

Hand written ledgers hold no legitimacy. The 9-11 hijackers got payments in cash from the Saudis and we tracked that.

Tell Al Capone that hand written ledgers are not legitimate. I'm sure he'll be happy to be postumously exonerated. As for payments to highjackers, my understanding is that they were wire transfers, not suitcases full of cash.

Al Capine didn't live in the Ukraine. It's irrelevant

Neither you nor I are experts in Ukrainian law. But if Ukrainian authorities think he was involved in corruption based on the handwritten ledger, then it doesn't look good for him and that is not the New York Times fault.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:People call wikileaks unreliable. It's been reliable. It's a raw data dump and allows you to form opinions. It's been reliable enough to the point when the cables were released a few years ago that we spied on everyone, Kerry and Obama had to go apologize for it. Point being, you can't call unfiltered data unreliable.

IMO- they're awfully selective in their release. No RNC back, no Trump taxes, etc. Hard to know the real picture with half the story and wiki has been clearly anti-HRC this election. Not disputing she is corrupt but I'd bet dollars-to-donuts that Trump and the RNC are equally bad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I guess you haven't paid attention to the Clinton Foundation, Uranium deals an so on.

Hand written ledgers hold no legitimacy. The 9-11 hijackers got payments in cash from the Saudis and we tracked that.

Tell Al Capone that hand written ledgers are not legitimate. I'm sure he'll be happy to be postumously exonerated. As for payments to highjackers, my understanding is that they were wire transfers, not suitcases full of cash.

Game set match!

[Anonymous]

Manafort is a double agent. The entire GOP Hierarchy is apoplectic!