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.
Agreed, but so what? Crimea has been Ukainian territory since 1964 and was recognized as part of the Ukraine at the time of the Soviet breakup. Whether or not there was acrimony does not change that fact.
Exactly.
What is more serious is that the neighbors of Ukraine, including Russia, pledged to hold the borders of that state inviolate. This made possible the historic and unprecedented event of Ukraine giving up it's nuclear arsenal.
The nation was able and willing to denuclearize because of those international agreements. Failing to honor that agreement, and failing to protect Ukraine under those circumstances, undercuts all of our efforts to make the world safer and promote nuclear free peace on every continent.
This is why the Republican party was so concerned about Crimea, before Trump got his nomination.
Kudos to judge Ellis for being fair. Is he the judge that also rejected Manafort's lawyers request to dismiss the case? Yes he is. Isn't he the judge that rejected the change of venue request? Yes again. Immunity was granted for 5 witnesses by the judge to testify in the Manafort case. I'm glad he's doing things by the book. The truth needs to be respected.
Witness testimony is one thing. Documents quite another. This is primarily a document case. This trial is about bank fraud and tax evasion. Documents are black and white. They don't lie. This trial is not about Russia. Manafort's second trial begins in September with the charges of money laundering and failing to register as a foreign agent.
Last edited by animalcrazy; 08-03-2018 at 10:24 AM..
Russian Money. Manafort was lobbying AGAINST a free Ukraine and for it to be a Russian Controlled state...that what was he was paid for.
"made more than $60 million consulting for a Russia-backed political party"
You are correct - this trial is for bank fraud only and I think the next one for money laundering. Serious charges. But there is a missing link here somewhere - or a bunch of them.
Anyone with 1/2 a brain knows "what are the odds?" of so much Russian money and Russia-tied insiders being closely involved in a campaign AND in an administration. One of them...OK. Maybe two of them...possible...but, dang, everything is Russia, Russia Russia.
Manafort had to have been promised returns FAR above the 60 million he took from the Russians...to work for FREE to get Trump elected. This is not a charitable individual....and being in debt for his crazy lifestyle, the last thing he would do is work for free.
Then you have Gates, a senior white house advisor. Then you have Flynn. Then you have the chick with the NRA funds. LOTS more of them....the Trump Tower meeting, etc.
Then you have Trump, admittedly, saying that the Russians are the biggest investors in their Empire. Then you have Trump getting "great deals" on flipping some real estate to a Russian (not a valid transaction) and making tens of millions instantly. On top of this you have the "legal" vast Trump connections to the thousands of Russians buying his condos in Sunny Isles Beach...the town is pretty much built with Russian money and populated by thousands of Russians and even used as "Russian Anchor Baby Incubator" - with Trump properties offering such.
Something smells in River City.....and it ain't fish!
We may never know the extent of all of this...or we may know it well after the fact, but this is not "Q" or "Pizzagate", but real world stuff happening in front of our eyes.
Excellent recap. Thanks!
None of these players acted out of the goodness of their hearts.
None of them.
It's all about the money and it's clearly hitting close to home for the president, otherwise why the even more hysterical than usual damning of the press over the last couple of days.
He's got to be terrified that people are going to believe what's in front of their eyes as the transcripts are released and reported.
The tax documents preparer Philip Ayliff said he believed a number of foreign companies were clients of Paul Manafort’s; he did not think Mr Manafort controlled them.
It has to do with Manafort's action some 8-10 years ago, right? Long before he ever had any dealings with Donald Trump.
And he only worked for Trump for what, 90 days?
After nearly two years of "investigations" of supposed "Russian collusion", this is the best they can come up with?
"In 1980, Manafort, Charles Black and Roger Stone (all Ronald Reagan campaign officials) opened a lobbying shop in Washington, D.C. One of their very first clients: Donald Trump, who employed the lobbying firm of Black, Manafort & Stone through the early 1990s."
The tax documents preparer Philip Ayliff said he believed a number of foreign companies were clients of Paul Manafort’s; he did not think Mr Manafort controlled them.
"Philip Ayliff, a tax preparer for Paul Manafort, has testified to the jury that his tax preparation firm received several emails from Mr Manafort and his right hand man Rick Gates assuring the accountants that they had no foreign accounts. "
"Mr Ayliff said Mr Manafort never told him he held foreign bank accounts and a lack of accurate information would lead to an incorrect tax return."
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.
