Anonymous
01/27/2019 17:19
Subject: Manafort: "If [Oleg Deripaska] needs private briefings" on the Trump campaign "we can accommodate."
Maybe this will be a good enough source debunking UraniumOne
https://video.foxnews.com/v/5646426075001/#sp=show-clips
https://video.foxnews.com/v/5646426075001/#sp=show-clips
Anonymous
01/27/2019 17:13
Subject: Manafort: "If [Oleg Deripaska] needs private briefings" on the Trump campaign "we can accommodate."
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Why is there never any refutation of points ? Only ridicule of the posters for being crazy, on drugs, russian, or whatever.
As someone who could been seen as an outsider trying to gain a better understanding of both sides of this, it's extremely disheartening to me to see compelling, reasoned posts responded to with "crack is whack". It's silly and immature, and does nothing to increase the overall level of understanding.
If you don't have anything substantive to add, please refrain from posting and wasting everyone's time with your childish rubbish.
Which points do you want refuted?
For one thing, I'd like to know what the uranium thing is. Did America sell uranium to Russia? Why? Russia has plenty of its own sources for uranium. Why did this happen, if it did?
The uranium issue is totally off-topic for this thread AND has been fact-checked out the wazoo and determined to be false.
http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-uranium-russia-deal/
http://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-russia-hillary-uranium-575071
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/mar/28/fact-checking-donald-trumps-tweets-about-hillary-c/
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/16/trump-claims--falsely--that-clinton-gave-russia-20-of-us-uranium.html
https://www.cbsnews.com/videos/fact-checking-trumps-claim-that-russia-paid-hillary-clinton-for-uranium/
Those are not credible sources. All have an obvious leftist bias.
You'll have to do better.
https://www.apnews.com/d0b9963ed3654c2a8677e02bb583ef72 - center, no leaning
This may be better, but it doesn't connect her to any wrongdoing.
Anonymous
01/27/2019 17:06
Subject: Manafort: "If [Oleg Deripaska] needs private briefings" on the Trump campaign "we can accommodate."
More:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-01-27/u-s-treasury-lifts-sanctions-on-three-deripaska-companies
It is simply false to say that Deripaska reduced his holdings. they were simply transferred to some of Trump's Trump Tower Moscow partners.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-01-27/u-s-treasury-lifts-sanctions-on-three-deripaska-companies
It is simply false to say that Deripaska reduced his holdings. they were simply transferred to some of Trump's Trump Tower Moscow partners.
Anonymous
01/27/2019 16:56
Subject: Manafort: "If [Oleg Deripaska] needs private briefings" on the Trump campaign "we can accommodate."
And now, sanctions on Deripaska are lifted
https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/OFAC-Enforcement/Pages/20190127.aspx
On a Sunday Afternoon.
No Collusion.
https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/OFAC-Enforcement/Pages/20190127.aspx
On a Sunday Afternoon.
No Collusion.
Anonymous
01/21/2019 15:32
Subject: Manafort: "If [Oleg Deripaska] needs private briefings" on the Trump campaign "we can accommodate."
Ioanna Theofilou was one of 7 shareholders in EN+ (which was just given sanctions relief by Trump). Theofilou also controlled part of the developer of Trump Tower Moscow.
No Puppet, No Puppet.
No Puppet, No Puppet.
Anonymous
01/21/2019 15:31
Subject: Manafort: "If [Oleg Deripaska] needs private briefings" on the Trump campaign "we can accommodate."
Anonymous
11/10/2017 19:36
Subject: Manafort: "If [Oleg Deripaska] needs private briefings" on the Trump campaign "we can accommodate."
Anonymous wrote:Look who happens to be in Vietnam right now
https://twitter.com/CNNJason/status/929010008653574145
Love the Deripaska repsonse: "Fake news"
LOL!
Anonymous
11/10/2017 18:51
Subject: Manafort: "If [Oleg Deripaska] needs private briefings" on the Trump campaign "we can accommodate."
Anonymous
10/03/2017 00:20
Subject: Re:Manafort: "If [Oleg Deripaska] needs private briefings" on the Trump campaign "we can accommodate."
The Atlantic has more of Manafort's emails...
"Despite his apparently precarious financial situation, Manafort went to work for the Trump campaign for free in March 2016. Later that year, he took out $16 million in loans against his New York properties. (The loans are now being investigated by both the Manhattan District Attorney and the New York Attorney General.) In the email exchange that took place two weeks after starting on the campaign, Manafort seemed primarily concerned with the Russian oligarch’s approval for his work with Trump—and asked for confirmation that Deripaska was indeed paying attention.
“Yes, I have been sending everything to Victor, who has been forwarding the coverage directly to OVD,” Kilimnik responded in April, referring again to Deripaska. (“Victor” is a Deripaska aide, the source close to Manafort confirmed.) “Frankly, the coverage has been much better than Trump’s,” Kilimnik wrote. “In any case it will hugely enhance your reputation no matter what happens.”
https://www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/541677/
"Despite his apparently precarious financial situation, Manafort went to work for the Trump campaign for free in March 2016. Later that year, he took out $16 million in loans against his New York properties. (The loans are now being investigated by both the Manhattan District Attorney and the New York Attorney General.) In the email exchange that took place two weeks after starting on the campaign, Manafort seemed primarily concerned with the Russian oligarch’s approval for his work with Trump—and asked for confirmation that Deripaska was indeed paying attention.
“Yes, I have been sending everything to Victor, who has been forwarding the coverage directly to OVD,” Kilimnik responded in April, referring again to Deripaska. (“Victor” is a Deripaska aide, the source close to Manafort confirmed.) “Frankly, the coverage has been much better than Trump’s,” Kilimnik wrote. “In any case it will hugely enhance your reputation no matter what happens.”
https://www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/541677/
Anonymous
09/22/2017 16:00
Subject: Manafort: "If [Oleg Deripaska] needs private briefings" on the Trump campaign "we can accommodate."
No one joined me for lunch today. Although I was wondering if maybe a couple of you did come by, but didn't introduce yourselves. Two people, a white man in his 50's wearing a light yellow polo shirt and khakis seemed to be staring at me from the sidewalk for a moment, and later a woman in a blue sundress paused while walking by, made eye contact with me, appeared to get ready to say something, but then turned around and walked back the way she came from. Was either anyone from here?
I did my part to be obvious. I was wearing a black hoodie with "Army Wrestling" in gold, and jeans. Tragically, I don't own a MAGA hat, so I wasn't able to wear one.
But alas, I dined alone. It was still splendid.
I did my part to be obvious. I was wearing a black hoodie with "Army Wrestling" in gold, and jeans. Tragically, I don't own a MAGA hat, so I wasn't able to wear one.
But alas, I dined alone. It was still splendid.
Anonymous
09/22/2017 00:15
Subject: Manafort: "If [Oleg Deripaska] needs private briefings" on the Trump campaign "we can accommodate."
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Why is there never any refutation of points ? Only ridicule of the posters for being crazy, on drugs, russian, or whatever.
As someone who could been seen as an outsider trying to gain a better understanding of both sides of this, it's extremely disheartening to me to see compelling, reasoned posts responded to with "crack is whack". It's silly and immature, and does nothing to increase the overall level of understanding.
If you don't have anything substantive to add, please refrain from posting and wasting everyone's time with your childish rubbish.
Which points do you want refuted?
For one thing, I'd like to know what the uranium thing is. Did America sell uranium to Russia? Why? Russia has plenty of its own sources for uranium. Why did this happen, if it did?
The uranium issue is totally off-topic for this thread AND has been fact-checked out the wazoo and determined to be false.
http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-uranium-russia-deal/
http://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-russia-hillary-uranium-575071
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/mar/28/fact-checking-donald-trumps-tweets-about-hillary-c/
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/16/trump-claims--falsely--that-clinton-gave-russia-20-of-us-uranium.html
https://www.cbsnews.com/videos/fact-checking-trumps-claim-that-russia-paid-hillary-clinton-for-uranium/
Those are not credible sources. All have an obvious leftist bias.
You'll have to do better.
Psssst...
Anonymous
09/21/2017 20:57
Subject: Re:Manafort: "If [Oleg Deripaska] needs private briefings" on the Trump campaign "we can accommodate."
Joshua Johnson devoted an entire program to Paul Manafort and he went into the matter of the FISA warrants in some detail. A nice explanation about how they are requested and why there might be a lapse between two warrants. One question that came up is whether it is possible that Russia was helping the Trump campaign during the primaries in which case I would imagine that many Republicans would be interested in finding out whether Russia interfered with the Republican primary. If there are any Republican posters who preferred another Republican nominee I would imagine they would find this a troubling prospect.
http://www.npr.org/podcasts/510316/1a
http://www.npr.org/podcasts/510316/1a
Anonymous
09/21/2017 20:04
Subject: Manafort: "If [Oleg Deripaska] needs private briefings" on the Trump campaign "we can accommodate."
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Why is there never any refutation of points ? Only ridicule of the posters for being crazy, on drugs, russian, or whatever.
As someone who could been seen as an outsider trying to gain a better understanding of both sides of this, it's extremely disheartening to me to see compelling, reasoned posts responded to with "crack is whack". It's silly and immature, and does nothing to increase the overall level of understanding.
If you don't have anything substantive to add, please refrain from posting and wasting everyone's time with your childish rubbish.
Which points do you want refuted?
For one thing, I'd like to know what the uranium thing is. Did America sell uranium to Russia? Why? Russia has plenty of its own sources for uranium. Why did this happen, if it did?
The uranium issue is totally off-topic for this thread AND has been fact-checked out the wazoo and determined to be false.
http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-uranium-russia-deal/
http://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-russia-hillary-uranium-575071
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/mar/28/fact-checking-donald-trumps-tweets-about-hillary-c/
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/16/trump-claims--falsely--that-clinton-gave-russia-20-of-us-uranium.html
https://www.cbsnews.com/videos/fact-checking-trumps-claim-that-russia-paid-hillary-clinton-for-uranium/
Those are not credible sources. All have an obvious leftist bias.
You'll have to do better.
CBS has a "leftist bias"? Newsweek?
What do you consider to be a reputable source?
I think PP's sarcasm is on-point.
Anonymous
09/21/2017 19:09
Subject: Manafort: "If [Oleg Deripaska] needs private briefings" on the Trump campaign "we can accommodate."
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Why is there never any refutation of points ? Only ridicule of the posters for being crazy, on drugs, russian, or whatever.
As someone who could been seen as an outsider trying to gain a better understanding of both sides of this, it's extremely disheartening to me to see compelling, reasoned posts responded to with "crack is whack". It's silly and immature, and does nothing to increase the overall level of understanding.
If you don't have anything substantive to add, please refrain from posting and wasting everyone's time with your childish rubbish.
Which points do you want refuted?
For one thing, I'd like to know what the uranium thing is. Did America sell uranium to Russia? Why? Russia has plenty of its own sources for uranium. Why did this happen, if it did?
The uranium issue is totally off-topic for this thread AND has been fact-checked out the wazoo and determined to be false.
http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-uranium-russia-deal/
http://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-russia-hillary-uranium-575071
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/mar/28/fact-checking-donald-trumps-tweets-about-hillary-c/
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/16/trump-claims--falsely--that-clinton-gave-russia-20-of-us-uranium.html
https://www.cbsnews.com/videos/fact-checking-trumps-claim-that-russia-paid-hillary-clinton-for-uranium/
Those are not credible sources. All have an obvious leftist bias.
You'll have to do better.
CBS has a "leftist bias"? Newsweek?
What do you consider to be a reputable source?
Anonymous
09/21/2017 19:09
Subject: Manafort: "If [Oleg Deripaska] needs private briefings" on the Trump campaign "we can accommodate."
Anonymous wrote:Why is there never any refutation of points ? Only ridicule of the posters for being crazy, on drugs, russian, or whatever.
As someone who could been seen as an outsider trying to gain a better understanding of both sides of this, it's extremely disheartening to me to see compelling, reasoned posts responded to with "crack is whack". It's silly and immature, and does nothing to increase the overall level of understanding.
If you don't have anything substantive to add, please refrain from posting and wasting everyone's time with your childish rubbish.
You didn't exactly add anything either, snowflake.