the "very definition of collusion".... sure
It's only a matter of time for Trump.
So thanks for posting something completely useless to most of us.
Also I do not have a Washington Post subscription either.
-- Modified on 3/29/2018 11:24:56 AM
The first time I clicked on it, the link was obscured by a page telling me I had to subscribe to the Post in order to read the article. The second time I tried, it did not happen.
Perhaps any righty can explain after reading this how there is "no collusion." These contacts Gates made seem to be the very definition of collusion.
So Gates, who was an assistant to or associate of Manafort talked to some Russians some time after Manafort resigned from the campaign in mid August? Now if you can complete the circle and show Manafort talking to Trump or the campaign in September or October you might have something.
when he talked to the Russian intelligence officer only a month before the election. Which raises the question, did you even read the article? Or do you simply have reading comprehension issues.
always nice to wander on here and have some low life insult me, I got only as far as "“Manafort associate had Russian intelligence ties during 2016 campaign, prosecutors say,” reads The Post’s headline this morning." which for some reason does not mention Gates as a Trump campaign official (as I see it does now further along in the story). If the story is really about Gates connection to Trump, why is he so often described as a Manafort associate?
But since we need to read along further, the story hardly concludes what you did.
"First, let’s note the reasons for caution about this story. As Paul Rosenzweig, who was special counsel during Ken Starr’s investigation of Bill Clinton, pointed out to me today, we don’t yet know how deep this associate’s “ties” to Russian intelligence remained at that point. And we don’t know what the discussions about the stolen emails really amounted to. It’s perfectly possible they were merely talking about something that was in the news. A Manafort spokesman has claimed this to be the case, adding that eventually it will be shown that no “conspiracy” was being discussed.
But Rosenzweig also said that these new revelations do raise some important possibilities. First, they suggest that Manafort — who was Trump’s campaign chair deep into August 2016 — likely knew his associate had connections to Russian intelligence, since if Gates knew, Manafort also probably knew. “At a minimum that says something about his willingness to work with people who have ties to Russian intelligence agencies,” Rosenzweig said. “That raises the question of whether Manafort was a conduit of Russian influence on the campaign,” though he may have been an “unwitting dupe” in this regard."
Speaking of comprehension, collusion is defined as "secret agreement or cooperation especially for an illegal or deceitful purpose acting in collusion with the enemy". A meeting or contacting someone is not, as you put it, the very definition of collusion. The most incriminating act seems to have been Manfort's apparent discussion of the hacking of the DNC emails - in August - after the fact. But that is Manafort, not Gates.
So this is an interesting development, but collusion? - no we are not quite there yet.
By the way, if you look at the actual Mueller document, this is how the contacts were described. "Further, van der Zwaan in fact had a series of calls with Gates and Person A—as well as the lead partner on the matter—in September and October 2016. The conversations concerned potential criminal charges in Ukraine about the Tymoshenko
report and how the firm was compensated for its work." [a report concerning the trial of the former Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko. ] This seems to be the basis of some of the lies they got Gates on.
I got as far as your bleat about being insulted, after which you called me a rude name. Hypocrite.
let me summarize the novel for you. you are full of crap on this one.
It doesn't say what you claim it does. You erroneously think Gates and Manafort are joined at the hip. And you failed to point out Gates stayed on at the campaign after Manafort left, working for Bannon. And THAT'S when his final contacts occurred with the Russian agent, only a few weeks before election day.
You're what I call a "sneaky partisan." Why? Because you falsely present yourself as open-minded, much as Jack Duncey does, when in fact you are both Republican bots at heart.
Why don't you wait until Mueller presents what Gates -- and others -- have spilled.
You are right on the timing of the contacts and I did not contest that. However your claim that the contact constitutes, as you said, "the very definition of collusion" (I think I got your words right) is wrong. First, collusion is more than just contact, or even conversation. It involves some sort of secret, coodinated likely illegal scheme. So for example, two competing store owners have lunch. Is that collusion? No, unless they discuss some sort of coordinated effort on prices, working against another competitor, or the like. The Mueller document that I attached previously states that the purpose of these contacts were some sort of case in the Russian courts. There is no mention of anything to do with Trump, Clinton, emails, the campaign, or anything else U.S. related that I saw. It is significant to Mueller because 1) possibly Gates lied about these contacts, and 2) it may have (likely?) involved some money of Manaforts that was related to the laundering charges against him.
So please, tell me how this was collusion? For anyone [else] who reads, again collusion is defined as a "secret agreement or cooperation especially for an illegal or deceitful purpose acting in collusion with the enemy".
As far as waiting, I will. Why don't you take your own advice before jumping to conclusions?
There's only one person who knows for sure what Gates did, said or has admitted to. His name is Mueller. What you want to do is pick apart all your many assumptions. What a waste of time.
Talk about jumping to conclusions.
As for collusion, I'm surprised you failed to point out it isn't a crime.
No, actually I want to follow the facts (or at least the ones we know). I do not see the facts supporting collusion yet. I note you did not respond on how the Gates contacts are collusion. You are right, as far as I know, on collusion on the election not being a crime. Despite that, I would have serious problems with Trump if he conspired with any foreign power(s) in order to get elected. That could have grave consequences.
the "very definition of collusion".... sure
Why would you assume I had "run for the hills." I simply took your rather conciliatory post as signaling your abject surrender and actually agreed with most of it.
You would do well to remember the words of Mark Twain: "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt." Hint: it applies to your last comment here.
You have been given three chances to explain how a simple meeting was "the very definition of collusion" and you have ducked each time.
Jake is absurdly combative. Jake bashes honorable righty’s like Jack. Jake is a bot. Nothing new here lol. Time for another Vegas run to liven things up or are you just gonna sit here as usual like a troll with less than no life?
You and DUANE are both frauds. Jack is NOT an "honorable righty" he's a joke. So are you.
As for Vegas runs, I've had a few. Have you? Who's the fraud? You are.
You have no idea about what having a life is,
Yes Jake, your Vegas runs are legendary. In your own mind. Thanks for the reply. As usual you just can’t resist can you?
And while I don’t know Jack, your disparaging of him tells me all I need to know. 😘
Btw if you need me to teach you how to use the WaPo website please holler anytime!!
-- Modified on 4/2/2018 7:12:24 AM
If you are going to argue about the definition of “collusion,” you need to define the word correctly:
Collusion is …."a secret agreement or cooperation especially for an illegal or deceitful purpose." "Collusion with the enemy," the clause you tacked onto this definition, is not part of the definition – it is an example of a specific kind of collusion.
We know from the Mueller sentencing memo filing
1. that Trump campaign official Gates, in the weeks prior to the election, had repeated phone calls with Person A, a guy the FBI believes had active links with Russian spy services;
2. that these phone calls were made in secret – or at least not disclosed by Gates to the FBI; and
3. they were for an illegal or deceitful purpose with respect to the financial crimes Gates committed- Person A stated on the calls that there were additional payments made that would be a blow to both Gates and himself.
That is the “very definition of collusion” between Gates and Person A.
What we do not know is whether Gates was also wearing his Trump campaign hat and if Person A was wearing his links with Russian spy services hat – the predicate facts needed for collusion with the enemy. But the sentencing memo states that the Gates-Person A calls were “pertinent to the investigation” specifically bc Person A had ties to Russian intelligence.
What is the “investigation?” Well, the primary one is illegal "collusion" -or more accurately conspiracy etc - between the Trump campaign and Russia. So that is pretty good indication that we not only have "collusion" which is undisputed but also some evidence of "collusion with the enemy."
The collusion you claim to establish is collusion against the U.S. government with regards to money laundering and taxes. This has nothing to do with the election, which is the subject about which everyone is looking into evidence of collusion. So, perhaps technically collusion, though I am not sure I even agree on that. When I think of examples of collusion, I think of two parties conspiring in some way against a third, for example two competitors conspiring against their customers on price. As far as what is the "investigation", you left out one thing - the suspected collusion is regarding the election.
But thank you for the response.
Although you are correct that one aspect of the “suspected collusion” is "regarding the election,” that is a popular media concept- those words do not actually appear in the Mueller appointment. He is charged to investigate:
“any links and or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and
any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation;
So wouldn’t you agree that the Gates revelation is a “link”between the Russian government and an individual associated with the Trump campaign? We do not know yet if the link resulted in “coordination” but it does not have to be about the election at all.
It does seem that there was some “coordination” aka collusion between Gates and the Russian agent about financial crimes. We don’t know if there was a quid pro quo here but again it would not have to be about the election – a promise by Gates to lobby Trump to ease Russian sanctions in return for Person A’s silence on the money laundering would be enough.
Now think-how does Russian intelligence recruit someone? Blackmail them –help us, and we will keep silent about the crime. That is what I suspect Muller is investigating- not whether this contact played any role in the election. You are right that if we define "collusion" as a secret agreement with Russians regarding the election, we don't have that - but we certainly seem to have collusion as to other matters within the scope of his appointment and I think that was what Jake was getting at.
I still think calling these contacts collusion is a stretch - by this definition any two criminals planning a heist are "colluding" . I agree that Muller can basically investigate anything he wants, and investigating Gates for these contacts falls under what you quoted.
But the original intent of this whole things was to investigate Russian interference in the election including coordination/collusion with the campaign. It has wandered into financial crimes of some of those involved in the campaign. I think you are giving Jake a little too much credit on what his intent grand statement about the very definition of collusion was though.
The discussion about the finances is as follows. "In van der Zwaan’s recorded conversation with Person A, in
Russian, Person A suggested that “there were additional payments,” that “[t]he official contract
was only a part of the iceberg,” and that the story may become a blow for “you and me
personally.”1"
with the footnote 1 "As referenced in the indictment, the law firm had been paid over $5 million for its work,
largely through third-party payments by a Ukrainian oligarch, funneled through a Manafort and
Gates Cypriot account. The Ukraine potential criminal matter concerned the allegation that in
2012-13 the then-government of Ukraine had disclosed that the firm was being paid only about
$12,000 (an amount above which Ukraine law would have required a different procurement
process)."
It is not clear to me that Manafort/Gates were working in a coordinated fashion with Russians to hide the money. The money seemed to be hidden from the Ukraine government. Was not the payment merely sent to the Manafort Account? I don't doubt they were hiding to money for a second though, hence the account they directed the monies to be sent to. But I will admit I am getting a little over my head on this.
and since you seem to like being picky about reading, actually I insulted you before I mentioned your insult. Notice the order of the statement "always nice to wander on here and have some low life insult me".
It also seems he has graduated from the LilMamasan School of Nit-Picking.
How feeble.
I tried to keep each one short and only on one subject, so you could follow it!