Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If it was merely a matter of poor vetting, and there seems to be plenty of that, then why was team Trump trying to unwind the Russian sanctions the minute their feet touched the West Wing floor?
Why did Trump openly pass classified intel to the Russian ambassador?
Why did Trump refuse to implement the sanctions mandated by law?
Maanfort is one of the keys to unlocking this Russian conspiracy puzzle.
Manafort is one of the keys to unlocking this Russian conspiracy puzzle.
I have an additional reason for my interest in Manafort. Manafort "advised" quite a few GOP candidates over the last two decades, including some who I voted for, so I'm also interested in learning more about him from that perspective.
Of course, the GOP isn't the only party that used the services of people like Manafort. In fact, Manafort's old company also advised DNC candidates.
So, to me, it is fascinating to dig deeper into Manafort's past as it sheds new light on how our political process works. We all see the candidates and think they're showing us their "true" selves, but in truth, what we are seeing - and voting for - are carefully cultured personas crafted by people like Manafort. I knew this, of course, but reading about Manafort makes me rethink how I've made some voting decisions in the past. Manafort isn't the only political "advisor" obviously, but he is the one who is currently in the spotlight.
And the fact that Manafort (and others) also advised foreign leaders adds further questions in my mind that go behind the Russian interference in our last election.
In short, in order to understand whether our votes really matter, we need to understand the process of how those votes are influenced, and (unfortunately) paid for -- and not just by the Russians.
Regarding Manafort's possible past conflicts of interest in advising foreign leaders while also serving as a "campaign adviser" to presidential candidates, here are two examples of what I'm talking about:
In the first, Manafort was being paid as a lobbyist by Ferdinand E. Marcos at the same time that he was serving as an "unpaid" campaign adviser to Ronald Reagan. They were doing so without filing as a foreign lobbyist, but then were caught and said, "oops, we'll file right away." In the second, Manafort's company promised the government of the Bahamas that it could use "back-channel" connections in the U.S. government to help influence a U.S. investigation into the Bahamian leaderships support of drug cartels.
The firm then had multiple contacts with Vice President George H.W. Bush. This was revealed when Manafort was serving as an "unpaid" campaign advisor in Bush's Presidential bid.
So, clearly, the 2016 Presidential campaign is not the first time that there have been questions about Manafort's foreign government involvement while working as a "campaign adviser."
I've said previously that I am willing to give Trump the benefit of the doubt that he just has had terrible luck with his associates. I'd like to know more about how Manafort wormed his way into Trump's campaign. Did he approach Trump, or did Trump approach him? What promises did Manafort make to Trump AND to other foreign governments about his influence? I'm sure that is part of what Mueller might be investigating.
(Again, I want to be fair: The GOP is not alone in having hired people like Manafort. Manafort's company also did work for the DNC.)
In 1976, SCOTUS decided in Bukley v. Valeo that campaign contributions are free speech and it's been downhill for democracy ever since.
The ability to vote can be powerful, but doesn't hold a candle to the ability to bribe.
This SCOTUS decision legalized bribery, calling it "campaign contributions."
That we would end up where we are today is far from surprising.
The Russian angle is just a new twist on the demise of democracy.
There are campaign contributions and then there is promising foreign leaders that, for a price, you have "influence" with the American candidates you are also advising.
At the very least, Manafort's history shows that we need stronger rules against "consultants" playing both sides of the fence.
And, that's not a partisan issue; it's a simple American political process issue.
Just adding one more story about Manafort's past history of advising somewhat "questionable" foreign leaders while also advising an American presidential candidate:
In this case, it was Jonas Savimbi, the Angolan rebel leader, and President Ronald Reagan. Manafort served as an "unpaid" campaign advisor for Reagan and then went on to arrange meetings with Reagan for Savimbi who was Manafort's paying client.
The article discusses how Manafort and his team helped re-engineer Savimbi's image in the U.S. using his connections to Reagan. From the article:
"The promotion of Mr. Savimbi is, of course, partly a product of the times; it would not have worked without a conservative Administration pledged, as Mr. Reagan said in his State of the Union Message Tuesday, ''to support with moral and material assistance'' the cause of ''freedom fighters'' around the world, including Angola."
(Again, I am sure there are plenty of examples of similar lobbying efforts happening on the Democrat side. I'm just focusing on Manafort for right now because he is the topic of this thread and seems to be the focus of much of Mueller's investigation.)
Location: Big Island of Hawaii & HOT BuOYS Sailing Vessel
5,277 posts, read 2,801,130 times
Reputation: 1932
Quote:
Originally Posted by GotHereQuickAsICould
In 1976, SCOTUS decided in Bukley v. Valeo that campaign contributions are free speech and it's been downhill for democracy ever since.
The ability to vote can be powerful, but doesn't hold a candle to the ability to bribe.
This SCOTUS decision legalized bribery, calling it "campaign contributions."
That we would end up where we are today is far from surprising.
The Russian angle is just a new twist on the demise of democracy.
Front and center is the person who paid James Bopp Jr. Bopp filed all the important lawsuits and pushed cases like Citizen United. This gave billionaires the ability to shell out unlimited funding for that "free speech".
Front and center is the person who paid James Bopp Jr. Bopp filed all the important lawsuits and pushed cases like Citizen United. This gave billionaires the ability to shell out unlimited funding for that "free speech".
Who paid for the services of Bopp?
Hint. She is in Trump's cabinet now.
Let me guess. Your neighbor, Devos?
Speaking of whom, what do you know about Devos' brother? Stumbled upon this article while researching Manafort's lobbying and don't remember hearing much about this lobbying connection (I might have just missed it): Devos Brother Tried to Open Back Channel Between Trump Russia: Report The article is from last spring.
I'm beginning to believe that instead of follow the money, it should be follow the lobbyists. Some might argue that it is one and the same, of course.
There certainly are a lot of possibilities for "Person A" and "Person A's family" once you start digging.
Well, the new charges have now been filed against both Manafort and Gates. The new indictment contains 32 counts, including tax charges. I'll start with Fox news' report first.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
