Paul Manafort's lucrative Russian connections

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So you dismiss the cables like they're not there? Are you just unable to actually read or so blinded by hate you can't read them?

[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.

Game set match!

Except you're wrong and so is the PP
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/capone/caponeaccount.html

The ledgers themselves wouldn't have been enough, they had sworn testimony and other indirect evidence. They fact he had purchased expensive items was used to sway the jury...

More to the point, written ledgers with no evidence coming from some random ledger means nothing so far.

[Anonymous]

Ukrainians are reknown for keeping ledgers for shits and giggles. It's a national pasttime.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ukrainians are reknown for keeping ledgers for shits and giggles. It's a national pasttime.

That must be how the Russians found the Cossacks after WWII
That's not evidence

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Game set match!

Except you're wrong and so is the PP
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/capone/caponeaccount.html

The ledgers themselves wouldn't have been enough, they had sworn testimony and other indirect evidence. They fact he had purchased expensive items was used to sway the jury...

More to the point, written ledgers with no evidence coming from some random ledger means nothing so far.

Never said they were enough to convict by themselves. Neither did the New York Times. But to say they "mean nothing" is absurd. It's not a random ledger. Ukrainian authorities are still investigating. Maybe we should have him testify to Congress for 11 hours and demand every email he ever wrote. I am sure we would turn up something interesting that way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Game set match!

Except you're wrong and so is the PP
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/capone/caponeaccount.html

The ledgers themselves wouldn't have been enough, they had sworn testimony and other indirect evidence. They fact he had purchased expensive items was used to sway the jury...

More to the point, written ledgers with no evidence coming from some random ledger means nothing so far.

Never said they were enough to convict by themselves. Neither did the New York Times. But to say they "mean nothing" is absurd. It's not a random ledger. Ukrainian authorities are still investigating. Maybe we should have him testify to Congress for 11 hours and demand every email he ever wrote. I am sure we would turn up something interesting that way.

Why would he? It's unproven and he wasn't setting up shady deals using pay to play through a shady foundation. He wasn't sending classified info to a closet server.

[Anonymous]

So conservatives suddenly care about whether something is "unproven"? Interesting development.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So conservatives suddenly care about whether something is "unproven"? Interesting development.

This mean that GOP fact resistance can be cured?

[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

That's one of the dumbest arguments I've ever heard. How does location have anything to do with whether handwritten ledgers can be evidence? Hint: it doesn't.

[Anonymous]

Also, evidentiary rules don't apply outside the courtroom, so why are we talking about them?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So conservatives suddenly care about whether something is "unproven"? Interesting development.

This mean that GOP fact resistance can be cured?

We will Pray the Cray Away

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Also, evidentiary rules don't apply outside the courtroom, so why are we talking about them?

Because PP is trying to argue that finding a secret ledger showing $12.7 million in cash payments to Paul Manafort in a room containing two safes stuffed with $100 bills is totally meaningless... nothing to see here, move along people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also, evidentiary rules don't apply outside the courtroom, so why are we talking about them?

Because PP is trying to argue that finding a secret ledger showing $12.7 million in cash payments to Paul Manafort in a room containing two safes stuffed with $100 bills is totally meaningless... nothing to see here, move along people.

When investigating Russian infiltration of America, rumor and innuendo were perfectly acceptable to Republicans back in the day.

Speaking of which, aren't House Republicans morally obligated to start up a Congressional inquiry on this? It's kinda their thing....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also, evidentiary rules don't apply outside the courtroom, so why are we talking about them?

Because PP is trying to argue that finding a secret ledger showing $12.7 million in cash payments to Paul Manafort in a room containing two safes stuffed with $100 bills is totally meaningless... nothing to see here, move along people.

When investigating Russian infiltration of America, rumor and innuendo were perfectly acceptable to Republicans back in the day.

Speaking of which, aren't House Republicans morally obligated to start up a Congressional inquiry on this? It's kinda their thing....

That's what I thought, but apparently the obligation only applies if your name is Clinton. It's right there in Article 12 of the Constitution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also, evidentiary rules don't apply outside the courtroom, so why are we talking about them?

Because PP is trying to argue that finding a secret ledger showing $12.7 million in cash payments to Paul Manafort in a room containing two safes stuffed with $100 bills is totally meaningless... nothing to see here, move along people.

When investigating Russian infiltration of America, rumor and innuendo were perfectly acceptable to Republicans back in the day.

Speaking of which, aren't House Republicans morally obligated to start up a Congressional inquiry on this? It's kinda their thing....

+1 holy crap. Can you imagine the crap storm if Huma Abedin had accepted this money? My god. The skies would fall.