world

U.S. Treasury Department agents probe banking of ex-Trump campaign chief

20 Comments
By JACK GILLUM, MENELAOS HADJICOSTIS and ERIC TUCKER

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2017 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

20 Comments
Login to comment

With all this constant drama and chaos…does anyone else feel like a day is a year in Trump time?? It was obvious to any fool from the outset that Paul Manafort was hired by Trump because of the plan they hatched with Alimzhan Tokhtakhounov the Russian criminal working out of Trump Tower, to use the Russian troll army and KGB hackers he had managed in Ukraine to help Trump get elected with covert Russian assistance. Trump is an illegitimate President who could not have been elected in a fair and Democratic election.

10 ( +10 / -0 )

Trump really knows how to pick 'em.

11 ( +11 / -0 )

Paul Manafort was hired by Trump because of the plan they hatched with Alimzhan Tokhtakhounov the Russian criminal working out of Trump Tower, to use the Russian troll army and KGB hackers he had managed in Ukraine to help Trump get elected with covert Russian assistance.

My, my, my what on Earth....libs and their conspiracy theories were always interesting, but now you guys are starting to scare me. Good lord.....

Trump is an illegitimate President who could not have been elected in a fair and Democratic election.

ROFL

-14 ( +0 / -14 )

My, my, my what on Earth....libs and their conspiracy theories were always interesting, but now you guys are starting to scare me. Good lord.....

Except there's actual facts and circumstantial evidence that support the theory. More so than in the Benghazi case at least.

It's really amazing that some people on the right are now to the point where they're defending an authoritarian state like Russia where journalists die mysteriously and political rivals are slandered to oblivion in state-run media. Is it really such a leap in logic that they'd try to do the same in the US? Especially with this evidence of self-serving traitors like Manafort working for Russia against US interests?

7 ( +8 / -1 )

Except there's actual facts and circumstantial evidence that support the theory. More so than in the Benghazi case at least.

Ok, but all BS aside, even without the evidence, we all know what happened, the families know what and the men that tried to save them know what despite what the Big wigs try to spin in Washington.

It's really amazing that some people on the right are now to the point where they're defending an authoritarian state like Russia where journalists die mysteriously and political rivals are slandered to oblivion in state-run media.

If the previous admin. can defend a screwed up Iranian deal and a communist dictator off the coast of Florida that imprisons political dissent, executes anyone that speaks out against the regime. keeps the value of their currency of the pesos low while the elite us US dollars to by the best goods, then what's wrong with trying to establish better relations with one of our biggest adversaries? Because he's a conservative and the last president was a Democrat, so it was seen as ok?

Is it really such a leap in logic that they'd try to do the same in the US? Especially with this evidence of self-serving traitors like Manafort working for Russia against US interests?

Traitors? You mean like the comment that was made in 2012 "wait until after the election and then I should have more mobility" a comment made to then former Russian president Medvedev.

-10 ( +0 / -10 )

If the previous admin. can defend a screwed up Iranian deal and a communist dictator off the coast of Florida that imprisons political dissent, executes anyone that speaks out against the regime.

The Iran deal is another example of Republicans complaining about something because Obama. Should we have increased tensions or gone to war with Iran? You realize it was agreed upon by the UN security council too right?

then what's wrong with trying to establish better relations with one of our biggest adversaries?

Nothing is wrong with that, I think that's what Obama did in Cuba. It's undermining US interests/elections in favor of our adversaries that bothers me.

Traitors? You mean like the comment that was made in 2012 "wait until after the election and then I should have more mobility" a comment made to then former Russian president Medvedev.

No, I mean covertly working for Russia against the US. Your quote sounds more like trying to establish better relations with one of our biggest adversaries.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

Amazing how Bass can support inquiry after inquiry into Clinton's emails and Benghazi, even after they keep finding nothing, yet even try to mention an inquiry into a Republican and he starts going on about conspiracy theories. Then he tries to claim he's not partisan.

Yeah right.

Is there a bigger example of hypocrisy on this site?

4 ( +6 / -2 )

Why is there such a bizarre repub obsession with Putin and Russia? It's so astonishingly pathetic and creepy that I honestly question their mental state. Trump needs to come out and completely condemn this treasonous inbred, at least as a bare minimum of decency to his supposed own country. There is objectively no way Trump could support this person at this time

5 ( +5 / -0 )

The Iran deal is another example of Republicans complaining about something because Obama.

Behind closed doors, shutting out the Republicans in the process of the deal and look how that has turned out. Yeah, they have enough reason to complain.

Should we have increased tensions or gone to war with Iran?

You mean, "sanctions?" Yes, we should have.

You realize it was agreed upon by the UN security council too right?

So what. I do agree with what Trump once said about the UN, the facility would make some lavish condos.

Nothing is wrong with that, I think that's what Obama did in Cuba.

Ok, that's your take, I feel to do any deal with dictators like Castro or the Iranians was signaling to them without them giving anything up that it's ok for them to do as they please.

It's undermining US interests/elections in favor of our adversaries that bothers me.

You have proof of this so called collusion? Do you know something the FBI doesn't?

No, I mean covertly working for Russia against the US. Your quote sounds more like trying to establish better relations with one of our biggest adversaries.

And what's wrong with trying? Especially when Russia is willing to do the same?

you'd actually have to comment on the topic at hand, Paul Manafort. Which, in 2 posts, you haven't.

He's out, fired and irrelevant. There, you have my comment.

-10 ( +0 / -10 )

He's out, fired and irrelevant.

Apparently, he was never in or in for a minor period of time and had minimal influence on the campaign.

In fact, he worked for over a year and a half on the Trump campaign. He was the leader of the campaign for four months until he was outed by the news as a supporter of Russian interests in Ukraine.

While he advised the Trump campaign, their positions on Russia turned very sympathetic. Manafort was paid millions to change U.S. policy at the highest levels to be sympathetic to Russia. It seems he succeeded.

It's undermining US interests/elections in favor of our adversaries that bothers me. You have proof of this so called collusion? Do you know something the FBI doesn't?

The FBI has sufficient proof to investigate charges of collusion. They said that in testimony because the FBI must have sufficient evidence to meet a probable cause standard, which is required for an investigation.

The point of an investigation and the reason it will take time is to work that intelligence assessment and probable cause into evidence that meets the reasonable doubt threshold to allow prosecution. For example, their methods of intelligence collection may not meet the evidence standards required to be admitted in a court of law. So, they have to use that intelligence to find other ways to collect evidence that could be admitted into a court of law.

I for one would be terrified if the FBI counter-intelligence were investigating me for some reason because I would know they basically had all the goods on me, but they were just working on the case in order to prosecute. Their methods of collection are very heavy handed and they are relentless.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

Behind closed doors, shutting out the Republicans in the process of the deal and look how that has turned out. Yeah, they have enough reason to complain.

The Republicans made it very clear they were going to oppose any proposal from the Obama admin. Why would they be invited? And Republicans shut out other Republicans behind closed doors, so they're ones to talk.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/03/02/rand-paul-protests-outside-room-where-republicans-are-hammering-out-obamacare-replacement/?utm_term=.da1c41c8f586

You mean, "sanctions?" Yes, we should have.

Sanctions don't establish trust in relationships, they're punishments. They're also the one thing that would've derailed any deal from taking place. Iran gave up their nuclear weapons program and the US gave up... nothing? Not a bad deal.

You have proof of this so called collusion? Do you know something the FBI doesn't?

I was talking about Manafort for whom there's proof mentioned in the article. And he was Trump's campaign manager wasn't he? Maybe Trump didn't know and he's just a crap judge of character with piss poor vetting skills. Either way, it seems like he took Manafort's council to heart way past his firing.

And what's wrong with trying? Especially when Russia is willing to do the same?

Again... I don't have a problem with making peace with enemies. The ideal is to one day work together with countries like Iran, Cuba, and Russia, but MANAFORT secretly worked against the US for Russia. Do you not see the difference? He may be out and fired, but he's hardly irrelevant. The investigation in ongoing, and your lack of curiosity in seeing how deep this conspiracy goes is astounding.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

@SuperLib - Yeah, and the American people really know how to pick a POTUS, huh ? Oh yeah, that's right ! They really didn't, did they ? HRC won the popular vote by about 3M votes !

1 ( +1 / -0 )

In fact, he worked for over a year and a half on the Trump campaign. He was the leader of the campaign for four months until he was outed by the news as a supporter of Russian interests in Ukraine.

That doesn't mean, Trump knew anything, Easter hunt.

While he advised the Trump campaign, their positions on Russia turned very sympathetic. Manafort was paid millions to change U.S. policy at the highest levels to be sympathetic to Russia. It seems he succeeded.

And that's why he was given his walking papers.

The FBI has sufficient proof to investigate charges of collusion. They said that in testimony because the FBI must have sufficient evidence to meet a probable cause standard, which is required for an investigation.

The point of an investigation and the reason it will take time is to work that intelligence assessment and probable cause into evidence that meets the reasonable doubt threshold to allow prosecution.

So what if there is nothing found? Which seems to be the case, we are talking about the FBI, if Trump was implicated in anything, that would have surfaced a long time ago. We are not talking about the LAPD, we are talking about the FBI and even James Clapper a holdover from the Obama administration echoed there was nothing to his knowledge that there was anything nefarious going on with the Russians and he was head of the DNI.

I for one would be terrified if the FBI counter-intelligence were investigating me for some reason because I would know they basically had all the goods on me,

The entire administration seems calm and cool as a cucumber. I remember when everyone was saying he won't run, he's not serious, he can't win, he won't win, until now and for the last 2 years, you guys have been wrong every single step of the way. But I love the tenacity you guys possess. ROFL

but they were just working on the case in order to prosecute. Their methods of collection are very heavy handed and they are relentless.

What happens if it turns out to be a bunch of people from the Obama administration? Remember, the way it looks right now, Trump is in a pretty good standing.

The Republicans made it very clear they were going to oppose any proposal from the Obama admin.

Because they knew how toxic his policies were and they don't want to repeat the same thing, so if they could have bipartisan support that would help, because it's not about ideology, it's for the American people, but Dems have a short memory, if they ever get in power again, the GOP will do the same thing.

Why would they be invited?

They are the entitlement party, they should want to go and help their fellow man.

And Republicans shut out other Republicans behind closed doors, so they're ones to talk.

Well, they are just as bad.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

bass: So what if there is nothing found? Which seems to be the case

What did they tell you during your last FBI briefing?

3 ( +3 / -0 )

What did they tell you during your last FBI briefing?

apparently something different from what they told you.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Can you give me your sources that say there is no evidence whatsoever that you keep repeating?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Can you give me your sources that say there is no evidence whatsoever that you keep repeating?

Ask Merkel and Netanyau, those are the biggest sources. Sup, I could care less what's put on paper, if these foreign leaders were surveilled, there is nothing far fetched to believe that Trump is wrong in his accusation. Yes, hurling accusations without proof against Obama wasn't the smartest thing for Trump to do, but thinking that the previous admin. someone on that team surveilled them is without a doubt a very high possibility. The leaks didn't get out on their own, impossible. Kinda like when Nancy Pelosi keeps rambling how affordable the ACA is and No one thinks that, it doesn't matter what she says and it doesn't matter what's on paper.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Oh, I see. So when asked about your claims of "no evidence" on Trump and Russian collusion, you switch to talking about Obama and wiretapping as if you're just confused about the whole conversation.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Oh, I see. So when asked about your claims of "no evidence" on Trump and Russian collusion, you switch to talking about Obama and wiretapping as if you're just confused about the whole conversation.

It's pretty much an analogy for Bass' understanding on politics in general.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Oh, I see. So when asked about your claims of "no evidence" on Trump and Russian collusion,

What I am saying is, there doesn't seem to have been any collusion going on between Trump and the Russians, pretty much every report has verified that. Could there be something? I suppose there is always that possibility, but no bite so far.

you switch to talking about Obama and wiretapping as if you're just confused about the whole conversation.

No, you guys just want to dance around the issue as if it never happened and I submit to you, the leaks didn't come out of thin air someone from the last admin. leaked them to the press. The confusion rests with liberals trying to hop scotch over this.

It's pretty much an analogy for Bass' understanding on politics in general.

Right back at you, homie.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites