Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2017 13:02:30 GMT -5
|
|
Nevada Hoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 18,485
|
Post by Nevada Hoya on Oct 30, 2017 14:07:52 GMT -5
Sorry Manafort has two degrees from Georgetown and is in this mess.
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Oct 30, 2017 14:23:32 GMT -5
Sorry Manafort has two degrees from Georgetown and is in this mess. It is not that big of a deal for GU. Remember we produced one of only two Presodents ever impeached...
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 18,398
|
Post by SSHoya on Oct 30, 2017 14:43:04 GMT -5
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 18,398
|
Post by SSHoya on Oct 30, 2017 14:44:32 GMT -5
Sorry Manafort has two degrees from Georgetown and is in this mess. It is not that big of a deal for GU. Remember we produced one of only two Presodents ever impeached... And John Dean, GULC '65!
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,459
|
Post by TC on Oct 30, 2017 14:49:21 GMT -5
Sorry Manafort has two degrees from Georgetown and is in this mess. It is not that big of a deal for GU. Remember we produced one of only two Presodents ever impeached... We were a Rick Gates away from All Big East Treason - Papadopolous from Depaul, Manafort from GU, Gates went to William and Mary though.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2017 16:17:02 GMT -5
NBC News and Yahoo are reporting the campaign official referenced in the footnote was Former Trump Campaign manager Paul Manafort...
|
|
hoyarooter
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 10,224
|
Post by hoyarooter on Oct 30, 2017 19:37:18 GMT -5
Sorry Manafort has two degrees from Georgetown and is in this mess. It is not that big of a deal for GU. Remember we produced one of only two Presodents ever impeached... Andrew Johnson attended Georgetown? Oh, wait, it's that other guy.
|
|
tashoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 12,331
|
Post by tashoya on Oct 30, 2017 20:54:59 GMT -5
This whole thing is depressing. And I don't just mean the charges and the investigations. I mean the state of our government, such as it is, as a whole. How far gone is the notion of working hard for the betterment of one's constituency out of a sense of purpose and duty? Where did the sense of community over party affiliation go? It used to be that, in the worst of times at least, we could still come together. Now we can't even seem to agree on the importance and urgency of helping Americans lacking basic necessities after horrific storms. As a country, we should be embarrassed and ashamed. Whatever one's beliefs, I find it difficult to imagine that there are many among us that think that we're on a path toward providing a brighter tomorrow for the next generations. If I'm wrong about that, please tell me that I am and explain why. A little optimism would be greatly appreciated.
|
|
|
Post by HometownHoya on Oct 30, 2017 21:39:13 GMT -5
This whole thing is depressing. And I don't just mean the charges and the investigations. I mean the state of our government, such as it is, as a whole. How far gone is the notion of working hard for the betterment of one's constituency out of a sense of purpose and duty? Where did the sense of community over party affiliation go? It used to be that, in the worst of times at least, we could still come together. Now we can't even seem to agree on the importance and urgency of helping Americans lacking basic necessities after horrific storms. As a country, we should be embarrassed and ashamed. Whatever one's beliefs, I find it difficult to imagine that there are many among us that think that we're on a path toward providing a brighter tomorrow for the next generations. If I'm wrong about that, please tell me that I am and explain why. A little optimism would be greatly appreciated. A lot was lost the day that corporations became "people". Politics shouldn't be for the pay, as you said, it should be about serving your community. Unfortunately, money pays the big campaigns and corporations have more money then people. Really at this point a good bet is to be active in local politics and improve your world. Hopefully it'll trickle up. Fortunately this investigation has been bi-partisan (Mueller is a republican, etc), so it gives you hope that there are still some out there in DC that serve what's best for the nation.
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 18,398
|
Post by SSHoya on Oct 31, 2017 5:11:57 GMT -5
The cast of campaign officials in the Trump campaign who knew about Papadopoulos's approach to the Russian cut-out, the Professor. Hard to argue that the guilty plea has nothing to do with the campaign, right? (If Papadopoulos was pro-actively cooperating with Mueller, I hope he was wired up or had some good telcons or email exchanges with these folks since he started cooperating -- here's hoping that Flynn has cut a similar deal with Mueller). As a matter of tradecraft, Veselnitskaya and the Professor appear to be cutouts or co-optees used by the RIS to approach potential assets (whether witting or unwitting) to determine whether they may be amenable to Russian intelligence active measures. The use of cutouts or co-optees affords the Russian government plausible deniability, which the idiots at Fox, fools like Limbaugh, and Trump supporters desperately want to believe. Imagine if you worked in a Presidential political campaign and was approached by a Russian claiming that he could set up a meeting with Russian government officials who may have emails of your political opponent. Shouldn't your first move be to call your campaign's lawyer and perhaps get in touch with the FBI? If you work in the Trump campaign, the answer is no; instead, you seek ways to procure the illegally procured emails to use for your perceived political advantage. And I guess no American should be concerned that Trump's campaign chairman and deputy campaign chair were allegedly paid undisclosed agents of a foreign principle aligned with a hostile foreign power. www.washingtonpost.com/politics/whos-who-in-the-george-papadopoulos-court-documents/2017/10/30/e131158c-bdb3-11e7-97d9-bdab5a0ab381_story.html?hpid=hp_rhp-top-table-main_whos-who-papadopoulos-10pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.f978741e32b8And remember when Trump said he was going to hire the very best people? For the time being, however, there’s one clear takeaway: Paul Manafort, Rick Gates, and George Papadopoulos should have never been anywhere near a major presidential campaign, and their hiring reinforces concerns about President Trump’s judgment. www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/10/how-did-these-guys-get-hired/544358/And for those still enamored by the bright shiny object known as Uranium One: Uranium One’s U.S. business has shrunk so quickly that it now represents a tiny part of U.S. production. In 2016, its Willow Creek facility extracted just 23 tons. That’s 2.3 percent of all U.S. production. In 2015, the project represented 3.6 percent of U.S. production and in 2014, 11.3 percent. In 2013, it was still 20 percent. Two other Uranium One facilities currently are not being mined. www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/10/31/the-repeated-incorrect-claim-that-russia-obtained-20-percent-of-our-uranium/?hpid=hp_rhp-more-top-stories_fact-checker-uranium-327am%3Ahomepage%2Fstory
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Oct 31, 2017 6:20:44 GMT -5
The cast of campaign officials in the Trump campaign who knew about Papadopoulos's approach to the Russian cut-out, the Professor. Hard to argue that the guilty plea has nothing to do with the campaign, right? (If Papadopoulos was pro-actively cooperating with Mueller, I hope he was wired up or had some good telcons or email exchanges with these folks since he started cooperating -- here's hoping that Flynn has cut a similar deal with Mueller). As a matter of tradecraft, Veselnitskaya and the Professor appear to be cutouts or co-optees used by the RIS to approach potential assets (whether witting or unwitting) to determine whether they may be amenable to Russian intelligence active measures. The use of cutouts or co-optees affords the Russian government plausible deniability, which the idiots at Fox, fools like Limbaugh, and Trump supporters desperately want to believe. Imagine if you worked in a Presidential political campaign and was approached by a Russian claiming that he could set up a meeting with Russian government officials who may have emails of your political opponent. Shouldn't your first move be to call your campaign's lawyer and perhaps get in touch with the FBI? If you work in the Trump campaign, the answer is no; instead, you seek ways to procure the illegally procured emails to use for your perceived political advantage. And I guess no American should be concerned that Trump's campaign chairman and deputy campaign chair were allegedly paid undisclosed agents of a foreign principle aligned with a hostile foreign power. www.washingtonpost.com/politics/whos-who-in-the-george-papadopoulos-court-documents/2017/10/30/e131158c-bdb3-11e7-97d9-bdab5a0ab381_story.html?hpid=hp_rhp-top-table-main_whos-who-papadopoulos-10pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.f978741e32b8And remember when Trump said he was going to hire the very best people? For the time being, however, there’s one clear takeaway: Paul Manafort, Rick Gates, and George Papadopoulos should have never been anywhere near a major presidential campaign, and their hiring reinforces concerns about President Trump’s judgment. www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/10/how-did-these-guys-get-hired/544358/And for those still enamored by the bright shiny object known as Uranium One: Uranium One’s U.S. business has shrunk so quickly that it now represents a tiny part of U.S. production. In 2016, its Willow Creek facility extracted just 23 tons. That’s 2.3 percent of all U.S. production. In 2015, the project represented 3.6 percent of U.S. production and in 2014, 11.3 percent. In 2013, it was still 20 percent. Two other Uranium One facilities currently are not being mined. www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/10/31/the-repeated-incorrect-claim-that-russia-obtained-20-percent-of-our-uranium/?hpid=hp_rhp-more-top-stories_fact-checker-uranium-327am%3Ahomepage%2FstoryI was with you all the way until you tried to minimize the wrongdoing relative to Uranium One. That its business has shrunk Post-bribery does not make that one okay.
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 18,398
|
Post by SSHoya on Oct 31, 2017 7:10:55 GMT -5
The cast of campaign officials in the Trump campaign who knew about Papadopoulos's approach to the Russian cut-out, the Professor. Hard to argue that the guilty plea has nothing to do with the campaign, right? (If Papadopoulos was pro-actively cooperating with Mueller, I hope he was wired up or had some good telcons or email exchanges with these folks since he started cooperating -- here's hoping that Flynn has cut a similar deal with Mueller). As a matter of tradecraft, Veselnitskaya and the Professor appear to be cutouts or co-optees used by the RIS to approach potential assets (whether witting or unwitting) to determine whether they may be amenable to Russian intelligence active measures. The use of cutouts or co-optees affords the Russian government plausible deniability, which the idiots at Fox, fools like Limbaugh, and Trump supporters desperately want to believe. Imagine if you worked in a Presidential political campaign and was approached by a Russian claiming that he could set up a meeting with Russian government officials who may have emails of your political opponent. Shouldn't your first move be to call your campaign's lawyer and perhaps get in touch with the FBI? If you work in the Trump campaign, the answer is no; instead, you seek ways to procure the illegally procured emails to use for your perceived political advantage. And I guess no American should be concerned that Trump's campaign chairman and deputy campaign chair were allegedly paid undisclosed agents of a foreign principle aligned with a hostile foreign power. www.washingtonpost.com/politics/whos-who-in-the-george-papadopoulos-court-documents/2017/10/30/e131158c-bdb3-11e7-97d9-bdab5a0ab381_story.html?hpid=hp_rhp-top-table-main_whos-who-papadopoulos-10pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.f978741e32b8And remember when Trump said he was going to hire the very best people? For the time being, however, there’s one clear takeaway: Paul Manafort, Rick Gates, and George Papadopoulos should have never been anywhere near a major presidential campaign, and their hiring reinforces concerns about President Trump’s judgment. www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/10/how-did-these-guys-get-hired/544358/And for those still enamored by the bright shiny object known as Uranium One: Uranium One’s U.S. business has shrunk so quickly that it now represents a tiny part of U.S. production. In 2016, its Willow Creek facility extracted just 23 tons. That’s 2.3 percent of all U.S. production. In 2015, the project represented 3.6 percent of U.S. production and in 2014, 11.3 percent. In 2013, it was still 20 percent. Two other Uranium One facilities currently are not being mined. www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/10/31/the-repeated-incorrect-claim-that-russia-obtained-20-percent-of-our-uranium/?hpid=hp_rhp-more-top-stories_fact-checker-uranium-327am%3Ahomepage%2FstoryI was with you all the way until you tried to minimize the wrongdoing relative to Uranium One. That its business has shrunk Post-bribery does not make that one okay. Stipulated: the Clintons are all about the money and not my favorite people. But as Elijah Cummings said, go ahead have the Congressional investigation. I agree and have no objection to that although I think it's a waste of money but have at it. Let the CI testify in open session. Regardless, there certainly appears to be a statute of limitations issue regarding any alleged bribery. Steve Grundman quoted below is a Georgetown SFS '83. As Daniel Patrick Moynihan reportedly said, "You may be entitled to your opinion, but you're not entitled to your own facts." State Department is one of 9 votes and the SOS rarely gets involved in CFIUS decisions. “The secretary of state is one, and frankly not usually a very powerful, member of the committee,” said Steve Grundman, a fellow at the Atlantic Council who dealt with CFIUS reviews while serving in the Pentagon in the 1990s. “You have to remember with CFIUS, the first letter stands for the committee.” “Secretary Clinton never intervened with me on any CFIUS matter,” Fernandez told Time in 2015. Two former State Department officials who served under Clinton told Newsweek that Clinton would have been notified of a CFIUS decision only if there were disagreement among members of the committee, which would push a final decision to the president. The CFIUS decision on the Uranium One deal, however, was unanimous—all nine representatives agreed to approve it. The claim that Clinton received big money for the Clinton Foundation from those tied to the Tenex–Uranium One deal is also tenuous. PolitiFact reviewed that claim, which was floated in a book by an editor at the far-right media outlet Breitbart, and found that almost all the money came from Frank Giustra, who sold his stake in Uranium One before Clinton became secretary of state. www.newsweek.com/hillary-clinton-uranium-conspiracy-theory-distraction-trump-russia-694525The fact is, Clinton was one of nine voting members on the foreign investments committee, which also includes the secretaries of the Treasury, Defense, Homeland Security, Commerce and Energy, the attorney general, and representatives from two White House offices — the United States Trade Representative and the Office of Science and Technology Policy. (Separately, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission needed to approve (and did approve) the transfer of two uranium recovery licenses as part of the sale.) www.factcheck.org/2015/04/no-veto-power-for-clinton-on-uranium-deal/
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 31, 2017 7:45:18 GMT -5
I was with you all the way until you tried to minimize the wrongdoing relative to Uranium One. That its business has shrunk Post-bribery does not make that one okay. Stipulated: the Clintons are all about the money and not my favorite people. But as Elijah Cummings said, go ahead have the Congressional investigation. I agree and have no objection to that although I think it's a waste of money but have at it. Let the CI testify in open session. Regardless, there certainly appears to be a statute of limitations issue regarding any alleged bribery. Steve Grundman quoted below is a Georgetown SFS '83. As Daniel Patrick Moynihan reportedly said, "You may be entitled to your opinion, but you're not entitled to your own facts." State Department is one of 9 votes and the SOS rarely gets involved in CFIUS decisions. “The secretary of state is one, and frankly not usually a very powerful, member of the committee,” said Steve Grundman, a fellow at the Atlantic Council who dealt with CFIUS reviews while serving in the Pentagon in the 1990s. “You have to remember with CFIUS, the first letter stands for the committee.” “Secretary Clinton never intervened with me on any CFIUS matter,” Fernandez told Time in 2015. Two former State Department officials who served under Clinton told Newsweek that Clinton would have been notified of a CFIUS decision only if there were disagreement among members of the committee, which would push a final decision to the president. The CFIUS decision on the Uranium One deal, however, was unanimous—all nine representatives agreed to approve it. The claim that Clinton received big money for the Clinton Foundation from those tied to the Tenex–Uranium One deal is also tenuous. PolitiFact reviewed that claim, which was floated in a book by an editor at the far-right media outlet Breitbart, and found that almost all the money came from Frank Giustra, who sold his stake in Uranium One before Clinton became secretary of state. www.newsweek.com/hillary-clinton-uranium-conspiracy-theory-distraction-trump-russia-694525The fact is, Clinton was one of nine voting members on the foreign investments committee, which also includes the secretaries of the Treasury, Defense, Homeland Security, Commerce and Energy, the attorney general, and representatives from two White House offices — the United States Trade Representative and the Office of Science and Technology Policy. (Separately, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission needed to approve (and did approve) the transfer of two uranium recovery licenses as part of the sale.) www.factcheck.org/2015/04/no-veto-power-for-clinton-on-uranium-deal/Haha... you're quoting www.factcheck.org. You really think these people give a about facts?
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 18,398
|
Post by SSHoya on Oct 31, 2017 8:06:41 GMT -5
Stipulated: the Clintons are all about the money and not my favorite people. But as Elijah Cummings said, go ahead have the Congressional investigation. I agree and have no objection to that although I think it's a waste of money but have at it. Let the CI testify in open session. Regardless, there certainly appears to be a statute of limitations issue regarding any alleged bribery. Steve Grundman quoted below is a Georgetown SFS '83. As Daniel Patrick Moynihan reportedly said, "You may be entitled to your opinion, but you're not entitled to your own facts." State Department is one of 9 votes and the SOS rarely gets involved in CFIUS decisions. “The secretary of state is one, and frankly not usually a very powerful, member of the committee,” said Steve Grundman, a fellow at the Atlantic Council who dealt with CFIUS reviews while serving in the Pentagon in the 1990s. “You have to remember with CFIUS, the first letter stands for the committee.” “Secretary Clinton never intervened with me on any CFIUS matter,” Fernandez told Time in 2015. Two former State Department officials who served under Clinton told Newsweek that Clinton would have been notified of a CFIUS decision only if there were disagreement among members of the committee, which would push a final decision to the president. The CFIUS decision on the Uranium One deal, however, was unanimous—all nine representatives agreed to approve it. The claim that Clinton received big money for the Clinton Foundation from those tied to the Tenex–Uranium One deal is also tenuous. PolitiFact reviewed that claim, which was floated in a book by an editor at the far-right media outlet Breitbart, and found that almost all the money came from Frank Giustra, who sold his stake in Uranium One before Clinton became secretary of state. www.newsweek.com/hillary-clinton-uranium-conspiracy-theory-distraction-trump-russia-694525The fact is, Clinton was one of nine voting members on the foreign investments committee, which also includes the secretaries of the Treasury, Defense, Homeland Security, Commerce and Energy, the attorney general, and representatives from two White House offices — the United States Trade Representative and the Office of Science and Technology Policy. (Separately, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission needed to approve (and did approve) the transfer of two uranium recovery licenses as part of the sale.) www.factcheck.org/2015/04/no-veto-power-for-clinton-on-uranium-deal/Haha... you're quoting www.factcheck.org. You really think these people give a about facts? 1. What about the cited statement is inaccurate? 2. www.treasury.gov/resource-center/international/foreign-investment/Pages/cfius-members.aspxDoes this citation satisfy you? 3. What's your particular problem with it? [Or am I misreading your post and "these people" refer to Trump supporters/apologists/enablers?]
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 31, 2017 8:45:14 GMT -5
Haha... you're quoting www.factcheck.org. You really think these people give a about facts? [Or am I misreading your post and "these people" refer to Trump supporters/apologists/enablers?] Bingo. Sorry for the confusion
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 18,398
|
Post by SSHoya on Oct 31, 2017 14:52:24 GMT -5
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 18,398
|
Post by SSHoya on Nov 1, 2017 5:19:31 GMT -5
Contains many additional facts about Manafort and Gates financial status and conduct. It is amazing to me that the Republican Party continues to be willfully blind that the campaign chair of the President was an agent of a hostile foreign power but excuses the conduct in order to get "tax reform." On Oct. 31, the government filed a memorandum in United States of America v. Paul J. Manafort, Jr. and Richard W. Gates III, to advise the court of three issues prior to the scheduled Nov. 2, 2017 court appearance. First, the government outlines the current bail conditions facing the defendants, arguing that the court should find that the defendants pose a "serious risk of flight." Second, the government asks the court to designate this case "complex" under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B)(ii), impacting the timeline of trial. Last, the government provides the defendants notice pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3505 of its intent to use specific foreign bank records, or a "foreign record of regularly conducted activity," in the impending proceedings. www.lawfareblog.com/document-government-memo-manafort-and-gates-conditions-release-case-designation-and-notice-intentHow did this guy make it into the Trump campaign? Pure incompetence. www.washingtonpost.com/politics/for-low-level-volunteer-papadopoulos-sought-high-profile-as-trump-adviser/2017/10/31/dc737a42-be5f-11e7-8444-a0d4f04b89eb_story.html?utm_term=.5cc3d78ca107WaPo picked picked up on Mueller's use of the crime-fraud exception. www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/mueller-willing-to-use-suspects-lawyers-against-them/2017/10/31/6b09e98a-be6f-11e7-959c-fe2b598d8c00_story.html?hpid=hp_rhp-top-table-main_lawyers-710pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.68cfaa923611
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 18,398
|
Post by SSHoya on Nov 1, 2017 13:52:23 GMT -5
|
|
Nevada Hoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 18,485
|
Post by Nevada Hoya on Nov 1, 2017 17:40:32 GMT -5
Jared Kushner’s plan to reinvent 666 Fifth Avenue has been deemed “not feasible” by the project’s partner. The Manhattan property, which is already saddled with $1.2 billion in debt, was meant to become a mix of luxury residences and retail. But Steven Roth, who owns 49.5 percent of 666’s offices, said he doesn't believe that plan will be successful — especially as investors have avoided the project while Robert Mueller reportedly investigates Kushner’s finances.
Ah, the sign of the beast has reared its awful head.
|
|