Who Meddled more Putin or Trump? The Collusion Thread visits Venezuela
paulsurovell said:
The dossier says Manafort "managed" the conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Russian government and that he had a corrupt relationship with "pro-Russian" Yanukovych. Also, that Putin and Yanukovych were worried about US media coverage of that relationship.
Did you see where the dossier described Manafort’s role as exerting a pro-Kremlin influence on Yanukovych, which is the specific allegation at issue here? Neither did I. The context of the dossier’s references to Manafort was financial.
I don’t think your luck was any better than mine.
DaveSchmidt said:
paulsurovell said:Did you see where the dossier described Manafort’s role as exerting a pro-Kremlin influence on Yanukovych, which is the specific allegation at issue here? Neither did I. The context of the dossier’s references to Manafort was financial.
The dossier says Manafort "managed" the conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Russian government and that he had a corrupt relationship with "pro-Russian" Yanukovych. Also, that Putin and Yanukovych were worried about US media coverage of that relationship.
I don’t think your luck was any better than mine.
Agreed that the dossier doesn't say Manafort influenced Yanukovych per se and agree that references to the Manafort-Yanukovych relationship were financial, but the implication is that the relationship was also "pro-Russian" which wasn't the case. Lots of docs on this with the plea deal, such as this:
paulsurovell said:
Agreed that the dossier doesn't say Manafort influenced Yanukovych per se
OK. Unless Graham Stack exposed another allegation about the Steele dossier in his article, our agreement puts this in a different light:
Another major allegation of the Steele dossier exposed as falsehood.
South_Mountaineer said:
paulsurovell said:What "major allegation" about Manafort is "exposed as falsehood" by that article? What quotes from the Steele dossier show that allegation?
Another major allegation of the Steele dossier exposed as falsehood.
https://www.kyivpost.com/article/opinion/op-ed/graham-stack-everything-you-know-about-paul-manafort-is-wrong.html
paulsurovell said:
DaveSchmidt said:The dossier says Manafort "managed" the conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Russian government and that he had a corrupt relationship with "pro-Russian" Yanukovych. Also, that Putin and Yanukovych were worried about US media coverage of that relationship.
South_Mountaineer said:I just searched the document for references to Manafort. None of them contain this allegation, as far as I could find. Maybe Paul will have better luck.
What "major allegation" about Manafort is "exposed as falsehood" by that article? What quotes from the Steele dossier show that allegation?
What we got wrong about Manafort – and what Mueller has got partly right in his indictment – is that Manafort was nothing like a pro-Kremlin influence on the former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, as the dossier alleged.
The Manafort's role in Ukraine was at the time falsely portrayed as being "pro-Russian" in the media as it is clearly implied in the dossier.
Edited to Add: For those Steele dossier believers -- who took over as "manager" of the conspiracy after Manafort resigned?
So the claim "Another major allegation of the Steele dossier exposed as falsehood" isn't true. There is no "major allegation" in the dossier about anything addressed in the article.
And if you're arguing that Yanukovich wasn't "pro-Russian", you're in an alternate reality - no matter how many rhetorical questions you come up with.
DaveSchmidt said:
paulsurovell said:OK. Unless Graham Stack exposed another allegation about the Steele dossier in his article, our agreement puts this in a different light:
Agreed that the dossier doesn't say Manafort influenced Yanukovych per se
Another major allegation of the Steele dossier exposed as falsehood.
"Different light" is a mild way of saying it.
South_Mountaineer said:So the claim "Another major allegation of the Steele dossier exposed as falsehood" isn't true. There is no "major allegation" in the dossier about anything addressed in the article.
And if you're arguing that Yanukovich wasn't "pro-Russian", you're in an alternate reality - no matter how many rhetorical questions you come up with.
No, Manafort wasn't pro-Russian as the dossier implies and as the mainstream media has been regurgitating for two years.
South_Mountaineer said:
DaveSchmidt said:"Different light" is a mild way of saying it.
paulsurovell said:OK. Unless Graham Stack exposed another allegation about the Steele dossier in his article, our agreement puts this in a different light:
Agreed that the dossier doesn't say Manafort influenced Yanukovych per se
Another major allegation of the Steele dossier exposed as falsehood.
I'll revise the statement to "allegation by innuendo."
jamie said:
I think we've already discussed the reasons why the association agreement to the EU was Manafort's attempt trying to keep Yanakovych in power.
I missed that. Where?
The EU association agreement was 100% political. Here a pretty decent rundown from a MSM source:
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/what-did-ex-trump-aide-paul-manafort-really-do-ukraine-n775431
paulsurovell said:
South_Mountaineer said:No, Manafort wasn't pro-Russian as the dossier implies and as the mainstream media has been regurgitating for two years.
So the claim "Another major allegation of the Steele dossier exposed as falsehood" isn't true. There is no "major allegation" in the dossier about anything addressed in the article.
And if you're arguing that Yanukovich wasn't "pro-Russian", you're in an alternate reality - no matter how many rhetorical questions you come up with.
Your response is untrue on several levels. As already noted by several posters. Repeating the untrue claim is just digging the hole deeper.
Manafort is pro-Manafort. He has a lot of financial ties to Russians. Like his former boss, Trump.
South_Mountaineer said:
paulsurovell said:Your response is untrue on several levels. As already noted by several posters. Repeating the untrue claim is just digging the hole deeper.
South_Mountaineer said:No, Manafort wasn't pro-Russian as the dossier implies and as the mainstream media has been regurgitating for two years.
So the claim "Another major allegation of the Steele dossier exposed as falsehood" isn't true. There is no "major allegation" in the dossier about anything addressed in the article.
And if you're arguing that Yanukovich wasn't "pro-Russian", you're in an alternate reality - no matter how many rhetorical questions you come up with.
Manafort is pro-Manafort. He has a lot of financial ties to Russians. Like his former boss, Trump.
So do a lot of other companies. It's about capitalism.
paulsurovell said:
South_Mountaineer said:So do a lot of other companies. It's about capitalism.
paulsurovell said:Your response is untrue on several levels. As already noted by several posters. Repeating the untrue claim is just digging the hole deeper.
South_Mountaineer said:No, Manafort wasn't pro-Russian as the dossier implies and as the mainstream media has been regurgitating for two years.
So the claim "Another major allegation of the Steele dossier exposed as falsehood" isn't true. There is no "major allegation" in the dossier about anything addressed in the article.
And if you're arguing that Yanukovich wasn't "pro-Russian", you're in an alternate reality - no matter how many rhetorical questions you come up with.
Manafort is pro-Manafort. He has a lot of financial ties to Russians. Like his former boss, Trump.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-russia-sanctions-companies-factbo/factbox-u-s-companies-with-exposure-to-russia-idUSKBN1KU2L8
http://www.aalep.eu/american-companies-operating-russia
Manafort's financial dealings aren't your basic "American Chamber of Commerce" dealings. Pretty sure you're aware of that. He apparently owes a lot of money to Putin's buddies.
Example: "Deripaska invested millions in a private-equity fund that Manafort established, with the intent of buying assets across the former Soviet Union. Based on various court filings and lawsuits, we know that the relationship went very badly. In these documents, Deripaska suggests that Manafort might have stolen his money. And based on the special counsel’s filings, we also know that Manafort owed Deripaska even more money in the form of unpaid loans. Instead of making an effort to settle these large debts, Deripaska says that Manafort simply stopped returning his messages."
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/09/paul-manafort-cooperating-mueller/570364/
South_Mountaineer said:
paulsurovell said:Manafort's financial dealings aren't your basic "American Chamber of Commerce" dealings. Pretty sure you're aware of that. He apparently owes a lot of money to Putin's buddies.
South_Mountaineer said:So do a lot of other companies. It's about capitalism.
paulsurovell said:Your response is untrue on several levels. As already noted by several posters. Repeating the untrue claim is just digging the hole deeper.
South_Mountaineer said:No, Manafort wasn't pro-Russian as the dossier implies and as the mainstream media has been regurgitating for two years.
So the claim "Another major allegation of the Steele dossier exposed as falsehood" isn't true. There is no "major allegation" in the dossier about anything addressed in the article.
And if you're arguing that Yanukovich wasn't "pro-Russian", you're in an alternate reality - no matter how many rhetorical questions you come up with.
Manafort is pro-Manafort. He has a lot of financial ties to Russians. Like his former boss, Trump.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-russia-sanctions-companies-factbo/factbox-u-s-companies-with-exposure-to-russia-idUSKBN1KU2L8
http://www.aalep.eu/american-companies-operating-russia
Example: "Deripaska invested millions in a private-equity fund that Manafort established, with the intent of buying assets across the former Soviet Union. Based on various court filings and lawsuits, we know that the relationship went very badly. In these documents, Deripaska suggests that Manafort might have stolen his money. And based on the special counsel’s filings, we also know that Manafort owed Deripaska even more money in the form of unpaid loans. Instead of making an effort to settle these large debts, Deripaska says that Manafort simply stopped returning his messages."
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/09/paul-manafort-cooperating-mueller/570364/
You mean the same Deripaska for whom Christopher Steele was urging Bruce Ohr to get a US visa? The same Deripaska who may have employed Christopher Steele (an allegation Steele has not denied)?
paulsurovell said:You mean the same Deripaska for whom Christopher Steele was urging Bruce Ohr to get a US visa? The same Deripaska who may have employed Christopher Steele (an allegation Steele has not denied)?
Pssst. You know what else I noticed? Neither South_Mountaineer nor nohero has denied they aren’t the same Orthrus.
For those who believe in the Steele Dossier, here's a question:
Since Manafort has "flipped" and the Dossier says he "managed" the conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Russian government, why does this not appear in his plea deal with Mueller?
Here's the relevant passage in the Dossier:
Speaking in confidence to a compatriot in late July 2016, Source E, an ethnic Russian close associate of Republican US presidential candidate Donald TRUMP, admitted that there was a well-developed conspiracy of co-operation between them and the Russian leadership. This was managed on the TRUMP side by the Republican candidate’s campaign manager, Paul MANAFORT, who was using foreign policy advisor, Carter PAGE, and others as intermediaries. The two sides had a mutual interest in defeating Democratic presidential candidate Hillary CLINTON, whom President PUTIN apparently both hated and feared.
Second question, for those who defend Bob Woodward's claim that the answer to collusion can't be found in the US -- what's your take on this?
Third question, for anyone who believes in Trump-Russia collusion -- Who do you think took over management of the conspiracy after Manafort resigned?
DaveSchmidt said:
paulsurovell said:Pssst. You know what else I noticed? Neither South_Mountaineer nor nohero has denied they aren’t the same Orthrus.
You mean the same Deripaska for whom Christopher Steele was urging Bruce Ohr to get a US visa? The same Deripaska who may have employed Christopher Steele (an allegation Steele has not denied)?
Even if "they" did, it would have to be under oath.
Second question: On the one hand, Woodward is a great reporter who couldn’t find evidence. On the other, Woodward is a crummy reporter who doesn’t know what the job entails. I don’t think Woodward is a crummy reporter, so I take his caveat at face value.
First question: This one wasn’t addressed to me, but I’d continue to consider the possibility that Mueller isn’t showing all the cards he holds.
The third question also wasn’t addressed to me, which is just as well because it seems premature and beyond my ken.
As I've said all along, finding true "collusion" (which is not a legal term) will be very difficult even if there is something there. In some respects, I think the Trump team was treated as useful idiots by the Russians as they tried to influence the election and establish their priorities should Trump win. On the other hand, I think there is something like money laundering or other shady business dealings. Trump has made it explicitly clear that he's afraid of what Mueller might find.
Putin has stuff on Trump. What it is, I hope we find out.
paulsurovell said:
For those who believe in the Steele Dossier, here's a question:
Since Manafort has "flipped" and the Dossier says he "managed" the conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Russian government, why does this not appear in his plea deal with Mueller?
Here's the relevant passage in the Dossier:
Speaking in confidence to a compatriot in late July 2016, Source E, an ethnic Russian close associate of Republican US presidential candidate Donald TRUMP, admitted that there was a well-developed conspiracy of co-operation between them and the Russian leadership. This was managed on the TRUMP side by the Republican candidate’s campaign manager, Paul MANAFORT, who was using foreign policy advisor, Carter PAGE, and others as intermediaries. The two sides had a mutual interest in defeating Democratic presidential candidate Hillary CLINTON, whom President PUTIN apparently both hated and feared.Second question, for those who defend Bob Woodward's claim that the answer to collusion can't be found in the US -- what's your take on this?
Third question, for anyone who believes in Trump-Russia collusion -- Who do you think took over management of the conspiracy after Manafort resigned?
Re: the first - It's not in the plea deal because it's not part of the case, He wasn't charged with anything dealing with the Trump campaign. You know that, Mr. Surovell.
And it's basically Flipped Witness 101 - when the witness takes a plea, you don't put everything he's spilled into the plea deal while the investigation is under way. We haven't gotten to Donald's deposition yet.
Re: the second - At what point in his research would Woodward have had discussions with Manafort, Carter Page, or "Source E, an ethnic Russian close associate"? I have no idea, but if you that would help.
Re: the third - No idea. Was there more to conspire about at that point? More important, can you entirely account for your whereabouts during the Fall 2016 campaign?
nohero said:
paulsurovell said:Re: the first - It's not in the plea deal because it's not part of the case, He wasn't charged with anything dealing with the Trump campaign. You know that, Mr. Surovell.
For those who believe in the Steele Dossier, here's a question:
Since Manafort has "flipped" and the Dossier says he "managed" the conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Russian government, why does this not appear in his plea deal with Mueller?
Here's the relevant passage in the Dossier:
Speaking in confidence to a compatriot in late July 2016, Source E, an ethnic Russian close associate of Republican US presidential candidate Donald TRUMP, admitted that there was a well-developed conspiracy of co-operation between them and the Russian leadership. This was managed on the TRUMP side by the Republican candidate’s campaign manager, Paul MANAFORT, who was using foreign policy advisor, Carter PAGE, and others as intermediaries. The two sides had a mutual interest in defeating Democratic presidential candidate Hillary CLINTON, whom President PUTIN apparently both hated and feared.Second question, for those who defend Bob Woodward's claim that the answer to collusion can't be found in the US -- what's your take on this?
Third question, for anyone who believes in Trump-Russia collusion -- Who do you think took over management of the conspiracy after Manafort resigned?
But it says so right in the Dossier. Why wasn't he charged with it?
nohero said:
Re: the second - At what point in his research would Woodward have had discussions with Manafort, Carter Page, or "Source E, an ethnic Russian close associate"? I have no idea, but if you that would help.
But you do know that Manafort and Page are not in Russia.
nohero said:
Re: the third - No idea. Was there more to conspire about at that point? More important, can you entirely account for your whereabouts during the Fall 2016 campaign?
You mean the conspiracy ended in mid-August? I've got an ironclad Woodward-alibi -- I wasn't in Russia.
paulsurovell said:
nohero said:But it says so right in the Dossier. Why wasn't he charged with it?
paulsurovell said:It's not in the plea deal because it's not part of the case, He wasn't charged with anything dealing with the Trump campaign. You know that, Mr. Surovell.
Since Manafort has "flipped" and the Dossier says he "managed" the conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Russian government, why does this not appear in his plea deal with Mueller?
What would he be charged with. You keep telling us "collusion is not a crime". Now you're just asking stupid questions to create a façade of making a point.
Manafort wasn't charged last week, he was charged when the case started. You kept telling us "There's nothing in the case about collusion" as if that mattered. NOW your point is, "Why wasn't he charged with collusion?" All your arguments are a Gish Gallop of random garbage that you throw at the wall to make it stick.
paulsurovell said:
Second question, for those who defend Bob Woodward's claim that the answer to collusion can't be found in the US -- what's your take on this?
Third question, for anyone who believes in Trump-Russia collusion -- Who do you think took over management of the conspiracy after Manafort resigned?
nohero said:But you do know that Manafort and Page are not in Russia.
Re: the second - At what point in his research would Woodward have had discussions with Manafort, Carter Page, or "Source E, an ethnic Russian close associate"? I have no idea, but if you that would help.
nohero said:You mean the conspiracy ended in mid-August? I've got an ironclad Woodward-alibi -- I wasn't in Russia.
Re: the third - No idea. Was there more to conspire about at that point? More important, can you entirely account for your whereabouts during the Fall 2016 campaign?
So what if Manafort and Page aren't in Russia. Why would either talk to Woodward? Besides, Manafort has been a little "detained" for a while now.
Not being in Russia isn't much of an alibi for what you were doing during the Fall 2016 campaign.
nohero said: More important, can you entirely account for your whereabouts during the Fall 2016 campaign?
Sources say he was spotted in Salisbury, checking out the Cathedral.
nohero said:
paulsurovell said:What would he be charged with. You keep telling us "collusion is not a crime". Now you're just asking stupid questions to create a façade of making a point.
nohero said:But it says so right in the Dossier. Why wasn't he charged with it?
paulsurovell said:It's not in the plea deal because it's not part of the case, He wasn't charged with anything dealing with the Trump campaign. You know that, Mr. Surovell.
Since Manafort has "flipped" and the Dossier says he "managed" the conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Russian government, why does this not appear in his plea deal with Mueller?
Manafort wasn't charged last week, he was charged when the case started. You kept telling us "There's nothing in the case about collusion" as if that mattered. NOW your point is, "Why wasn't he charged with collusion?" All your arguments are a Gish Gallop of random garbage that you throw at the wall to make it stick.
Saddle up!
nohero said:
paulsurovell said:What would he be charged with. You keep telling us "collusion is not a crime". Now you're just asking stupid questions to create a façade of making a point.
nohero said:But it says so right in the Dossier. Why wasn't he charged with it?
paulsurovell said:It's not in the plea deal because it's not part of the case, He wasn't charged with anything dealing with the Trump campaign. You know that, Mr. Surovell.
Since Manafort has "flipped" and the Dossier says he "managed" the conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Russian government, why does this not appear in his plea deal with Mueller?
Manafort wasn't charged last week, he was charged when the case started. You kept telling us "There's nothing in the case about collusion" as if that mattered. NOW your point is, "Why wasn't he charged with collusion?" All your arguments are a Gish Gallop of random garbage that you throw at the wall to make it stick.
The Steele Dossier says Manafort managed the conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Russian government. The DOJ and FBI used the Dossier as evidence for the FISA cour application, why not use it to charge Manafort with conspiracy? It's right there in the Dossier.
paulsurovell said:The Steele Dossier says Manafort managed the conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Russian government. The DOJ and FBI used the Dossier as evidence for the FISA cour application, why not use it to charge Manafort with conspiracy? It's right there in the Dossier.
You’d save yourself a lot of questions of you just accepted that some of us believe Mueller’s investigation isn’t over yet.
paulsurovell said:
nohero said:The Steele Dossier says Manafort managed the conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Russian government. The DOJ and FBI used the Dossier as evidence for the FISA cour application, why not use it to charge Manafort with conspiracy? It's right there in the Dossier.
What would he be charged with. You keep telling us "collusion is not a crime". Now you're just asking stupid questions to create a façade of making a point.
Manafort wasn't charged last week, he was charged when the case started. You kept telling us "There's nothing in the case about collusion" as if that mattered. NOW your point is, "Why wasn't he charged with collusion?" All your arguments are a Gish Gallop of random garbage that you throw at the wall to make it stick.
Conspiracy to do what crime, Mr. Matlock?
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
I think we've already discussed the reasons why the association agreement to the EU was Manafort's attempt trying to keep Yanakovych in power.
Graham says - he "Shares the blame" but there is very little information about his role in the formation of the dossier - maybe I'm wrong - but this is the first time I've heard of him.
Fortunately - we have Manafort talking to Mueller - so I'm just going to wait for the report.
I have also recently read that the US wanted to protect Steele's source and bring him here for protection. He chose not to because it would endanger the rest of his family and relatives left behind in Russia.