Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Russia probes kick into high gear


Farmer77

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

I've been away from the thread for a while. Whatever happened to the Doomesday Nunes Memo that was going to bring the entire edifice of western civilisation crashing down ? 

The world ended...didn't you notice? 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Lilly said:

The world ended...didn't you notice? 

Weeeeell... KFC ran out of chicken... but.... I'm not sure that really counts ? 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Lilly said:

But, if Manafort just makes up some BS to save his own skin (in other words, can't produce any actual verifiable evidence) then there's no court in the land that will just up and believe the word of a known criminal liar. 

I agree and you can't criminally prosecute a sitting president but Muller's marching orders, at least in my thinking, is to get enough to allow the democrats, after winning win their majorities in both houses this November :rolleyes:, can start impeachment proceedings.  I agree with you on the Steele dossier, the evidence he has re. this collusion is info recieved directly from Russian Intelligence source, you know the ones with that urinating on the bed story. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Lilly said:

I'm just not going to accept the Steel dossier as being a form of supporting evidence until the claims made therein are verified and confirmed. Now, if Mueller had actual proof "that there was a well-developed conspiracy of co-operation between them and the Russian leadership" then Mueller wouldn't have to be diddling around with Manafort and Gates, period. 

Depends which sources and methods Mueller would have to burn to prove it in a court of law.

As a pure hypothetical -- remember Trump's claim that the UK Government were wiretapping Trump Tower? That claim marries up with a longstanding rumor that GCHQ had hot-mike'd Manafort's mobile phone.

If -- and again, this is a pure hypothetical -- if they did do that -- then they'll have recorded the Don Jr meeting at Trump Tower.

And if they did -- then Mueller will know exactly what was said during that meeting.

And if there really was "a well-developed conspiracy of co-operation between them and the Russian leadership" which was discussed during that meeting -- then Mueller would know all about it.

In that sort of scenario -- less embarrassing international incidents all round if he can just get Manafort to 'fess, and point to where all the bodies are hidden.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Tiggs said:

Actually -- the latest indictments were for crimes committed by Manafort while he was working for free as Trump's campaign manager, and after.

 

Oh come on, you know better than that!  What was the bank fraud etc. related to?  (Hint it had nothing to do with Trump campaign)  This kind of nitpicking doesn't fit with your statement that " Spoiler: I'm not going to prefix everything I say with IMO. "  = Only Tiggs gets to nitpick.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

Oh come on, you know better than that!  What was the bank fraud etc. related to?  (Hint it had nothing to do with Trump campaign)  This kind of nitpicking doesn't fit with your statement that " Spoiler: I'm not going to prefix everything I say with IMO. "  = Only Tiggs gets to nitpick.  

Lilly said they were for crimes prior to them working for the campaign.

I said that the latest indictments weren't and then also went on to add in the very same post that there was nothing in there related to Russia.

Need to read past the first sentence, Merc.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe the first batch of charges were for the time period before the Trump Campaign. I agree the most recent charges were during the Campaign time period (but not related to Russia). Actually, (if I'm not mistaken) I don't think any of the charges are in regard to Russia, but rather in regard to criminal actions in the Ukraine. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

Weeeeell... KFC ran out of chicken... but.... I'm not sure that really counts ? 

Absolutely counts...chicken can be really important when you're hungry. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Lilly said:

The thing is, if there aren't any "bodies hidden" then it really won't matter what Manafort claims. 

In that case, Mueller will exonerate Trump, and Manafort's likely to be in jail for the rest of his life for money laundering and avoiding taxes.

Seems win-win, from my perspective.
 

4 minutes ago, Lilly said:

I believe the first batch of charges were for the time period before the Trump Campaign. I agree the most recent charges were during the Campaign time period (but not related to Russia). Actually, (if I'm not mistaken) I don't think any of the charges are in regard to Russia, but rather in regard to criminal actions in the Ukraine. 

Agreed (and related US money-laundering charges from those Ukrainian kickbacks).

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I must agree, Manafort certainly appears to be a mega-sleaze ball crook. I wonder what the real reason was for Trump firing Manafort? Guess we'll never know for sure. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Lilly said:

I must agree, Manafort certainly appears to be a mega-sleaze ball crook. I wonder what the real reason was for Trump firing Manafort? Guess we'll never know for sure. 

Trump claimed that Manafort offered his resignation, which he accepted.

Likely to be the emerging press stories regarding those payments from the Ukraine that made his position untenable, I'd imagine.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Tiggs said:

Trump claimed that Manafort offered his resignation, which he accepted.

Likely to be the emerging press stories regarding those payments from the Ukraine that made his position untenable, I'd imagine.

I dunno...I think he was most likely fired. Just my personal opinion though. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Lilly said:

I dunno...I think he was most likely fired. Just my personal opinion though. 

I seem to fuzzily recall at the time that Trump appointed Bannon and Conway to basically take on Manafort's role, leaving him nothing to do -- which is a fairly subtle way of telling someone they're no longer required.

Indirect firing, I guess, we could call it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Tiggs said:

Depends which sources and methods Mueller would have to burn to prove it in a court of law.

As a pure hypothetical -- remember Trump's claim that the UK Government were wiretapping Trump Tower? That claim marries up with a longstanding rumor that GCHQ had hot-mike'd Manafort's mobile phone.

If -- and again, this is a pure hypothetical -- if they did do that -- then they'll have recorded the Don Jr meeting at Trump Tower.

And if they did -- then Mueller will know exactly what was said during that meeting.

And if there really was "a well-developed conspiracy of co-operation between them and the Russian leadership" which was discussed during that meeting -- then Mueller would know all about it.

In that sort of scenario -- less embarrassing international incidents all round if he can just get Manafort to 'fess, and point to where all the bodies are hidden.

I find that somewhat unlikely. Granted that Manafort might have been of interest to GCHQ as a result of the Karachi affair, and Manafort's connections with the Pakistani ISI, but.... there are a LOT of "people of interest" on the planet, and I can't really see that Paul Manafort would be of THAT much interest to the UK's version of the NSA, given the limited manpower and resources that GCHQ has. 

Recall that GCHQ has only a tenth of the budget of the NSA, and only around 5000 employees (compared to the NSA's 30-40,000). In addition, spying on a US citizen - on US soil - would be a diplomatic "no-no", unless the NSA had already authorised it. And if they HAD authorised it, then they would be effectively spying on a US citizen by proxy , and without a legal license to do so. 

As I said... this might be technically possible, but would Manafort have been of sufficient interest to either organisation - at the time that the alleged surveillance happened - to take such political risks ? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

As I said... this might be technically possible, but would Manafort have been of sufficient interest to either organisation - at the time that the alleged surveillance happened - to take such political risks ? 

Considering the gravity and potential flashpoint nature of the Ukraine situation at the time I think its plausible 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It does seem Mueller is very interested in Manafort, for some reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, RAyMO said:

It does seem Mueller is very interested in Manafort, for some reason.

Desperation ? 

9 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

Considering the gravity and potential flashpoint nature of the Ukraine situation at the time I think its plausible 

Perhaps.... but - considering their limited manpower - why continue to monitor him during the Trump campaign ? Paul Manafort's involvement with the Ukraine surely ended in 2010 ? Why would he be an 'item of interest' to GCHQ six years later ?

In addition, I don't think mobile phones back then COULD be 'remote-activated' ? Even if they could, surely Paul Manafort would have changed his phone subsequently ? 

Sorry, but it all seems highly improbable. Not impossible, but unlikely. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, RAyMO said:

It does seem Mueller is very interested in Manafort, for some reason.

I think that's because he comes across as one of the few Trump associates who has the ability to think on their own (seriously look into Carter Page or Stephen Milers eyes and tell me that elevator goes all the way to the top)  which most likely means he was thinking for Trump during their time together. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

Desperation ? 

Yes I can see why you would say this.

But in my view if Mueller completes an unhindered investigation and finds "No collusion" then that is equally as successful as finding "Collusion".

In other words he is charged to find the truth, irrespective of whether or not that results in "collusion" charges.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

I find that somewhat unlikely. Granted that Manafort might have been of interest to GCHQ as a result of the Karachi affair, and Manafort's connections with the Pakistani ISI, but.... there are a LOT of "people of interest" on the planet, and I can't really see that Paul Manafort would be of THAT much interest to the UK's version of the NSA, given the limited manpower and resources that GCHQ has. 

Recall that GCHQ has only a tenth of the budget of the NSA, and only around 5000 employees (compared to the NSA's 30-40,000). In addition, spying on a US citizen - on US soil - would be a diplomatic "no-no", unless the NSA had already authorised it. And if they HAD authorised it, then they would be effectively spying on a US citizen by proxy , and without a legal license to do so. 

As I said... this might be technically possible, but would Manafort have been of sufficient interest to either organisation - at the time that the alleged surveillance happened - to take such political risks ? 

* Puts on tinfoil fedora *

If MI6 weren't several months ahead of Steele, I'd be very much surprised.

In regards to legality -- I believe there's a longstanding special arrangement between the two countries.
 

2 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

In addition, I don't think mobile phones back then COULD be 'remote-activated' ? Even if they could, surely Paul Manafort would have changed his phone subsequently ? 

Subsequent to what?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tiggs said:

* Puts on tinfoil fedora *

If MI6 weren't several months ahead of Steele, I'd be very much surprised.

In regards to legality -- I believe there's a longstanding special arrangement between the two countries.
 

Subsequent to what?

Subsequent to 2010, when Manafort's involvement with the Ukraine ended. And "special arrangements" don't - or shouldn't - supersede the legal rights of US citizens. :)

I'd also note - from your link - 

.... The information was picked up amid routine surveillance of Russian targets and was not part of a spying operation aimed at Trump's team, the Guardian said... ......It is understood that GCHQ was at no point carrying out a targeted operation against Trump or his team or proactively seeking information.

I would suggest that there is no substantiation in this article of the idea that GCHQ had remotely activated Manafort's mobile phone microphone. Indeed, it suggests the opposite. Nor does it state that Paul Manafort was one of the people that GCHQ had informed the US Government about.  :) 

.. however, you DO look good in the Fedora ! 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, RAyMO said:

Yes I can see why you would say this.

But in my view if Mueller completes an unhindered investigation and finds "No collusion" then that is equally as successful as finding "Collusion".

In other words he is charged to find the truth, irrespective of whether or not that results in "collusion" charges.

Fair point. :) 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • The topic was locked
  • The topic was unlocked
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.