• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

[AP] Paul Manafort emails prove illegally working in US to lobby for Ukraine [now fbi investigation]

gorobei

gorobei

Diamond Member
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/6eed...rump-advisers-waged-covert-influence-campaign
WASHINGTON (AP) — A firm run by Donald Trump's campaign chairman directly orchestrated a covert Washington lobbying operation on behalf of Ukraine's ruling political party, attempting to sway American public opinion in favor of the country's pro-Russian government, emails obtained by The Associated Press show. Paul Manafort and his deputy, Rick Gates, never disclosed their work as foreign agents as required under federal law.
Click to expand...
Under the U.S. Foreign Agents Registration Act, people who lobby on behalf of foreign political leaders or political parties must provide detailed reports about their actions to the Justice Department. A violation is a felony and can result in up to five years in prison and a fine of up to $250,000.
Click to expand...

guess its a good thing trump as a spare campaign manager.
 
...lobbying operation on behalf of Ukraine's ruling political party, attempting to sway American public opinion in favor of the country's pro-Russian government...
Click to expand...

Ukraine... pro Russia? How?
They're at war...
 
Between 2012 and 2014
Click to expand...

Gotcha, and the law makes it illegal to be a foreign lobbyist without disclosure. Plus they did it on behalf of pro-Russia. That's interesting.
Guess Trump hires the best people... to match his best words?
 
The new details about Mr. Manafort’s business in Ukraine also appeared to stir lingering tension between him and Corey Lewandowski, his predecessor, who was ousted from the campaign this year. Mr. Lewandowski, now a CNN analyst, posted the Times report on Twitter on Sunday evening without comment.

Asked on the network about his intentions, Mr. Lewandowski said he was not passing judgment on Mr. Manafort and complained about the lack of attention given to Mrs. Clinton’s staff.

“It was just a story,” Mr. Lewandowski said.
Click to expand...

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/18/business/media/what-is-breitbart-news.html?ref=politics

How classy.
 
zinfamous said:
Have you been asleep for the last 5 years?
Click to expand...

Not glued to MSM and what's probably their 24/7 Dump Trump train which no doubt covers this subject daily.

Present ties with Ukraine would be anti-Russia, and the context of WHEN this occurred was missing in the OP and buried in the article. I stopped when they grossly contradicted present circumstances without proper context. Moreover, ivwshane already addressed this and I already replied with more context and relevance.

Your replies are both off topic and outdated.
 
Jaskalas said:
Not glued to MSM and what's probably their 24/7 Dump Trump train which no doubt covers this subject daily.

Present ties with Ukraine would be anti-Russia, and the context of WHEN this occurred was missing in the OP and buried in the article. I stopped when they grossly contradicted present circumstances without proper context. Moreover, ivwshane already addressed this and I already replied with more context and relevance.

Your replies are both off topic and outdated.
Click to expand...

MSM have been some of the ones most pumping Trump.
 
Jaskalas said:
Ukraine... pro Russia? How?
They're at war...
Click to expand...

The former pro-Russian government led by PM Viktor Yanukovych, that the U.S. Government helped overthrow in order to install a pro-Western government. The "war" didn't really start until after that happened when the provinces geographically east and south (closer to Russia in both terms of distance, culture, and influence) began demonstrations against the new government. At which point Russia started getting involved.

This ought to give you a quick primer on the events; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_pro-Russian_unrest_in_Ukraine
 
dank69 said:
Is there no length that Hillary Clinton, in conjunction with the liberal mainstream media, won't go to to tarnish the campaign of Donald Trump?
Click to expand...

Yep, that liberal mainstream media is hard at work on this one /s

I miss the Colbert.

zinfamous said:
Have you been asleep for the last 5 years?
Click to expand...

You can cut me later 🙂

Jaskalas said:
Not glued to MSM and what's probably their 24/7 Dump Trump train which no doubt covers this subject daily.

Present ties with Ukraine would be anti-Russia, and the context of WHEN this occurred was missing in the OP and buried in the article. I stopped when they grossly contradicted present circumstances without proper context. Moreover, ivwshane already addressed this and I already replied with more context and relevance.

Your replies are both off topic and outdated.
Click to expand...

Most things I see you post recently seems pretty outdated, for someone who posts in P&N so often.

Manafort will still have ties to his campaign though I'd imagine, even if not publicly.

*edit* Actually, I guess he never left, was just demoted.
 
Last edited:
Jaskalas said:
Not glued to MSM and what's probably their 24/7 Dump Trump train which no doubt covers this subject daily.

Present ties with Ukraine would be anti-Russia, and the context of WHEN this occurred was missing in the OP and buried in the article. I stopped when they grossly contradicted present circumstances without proper context. Moreover, ivwshane already addressed this and I already replied with more context and relevance.

Your replies are both off topic and outdated.
Click to expand...

Ah, you came into this with a silly assumption (that this ever had anything to do with Trump) and so you were either ignorant of what was going on in Ukraine ~8-6 years ago, or just blinded by present-day news and how Trump now strangely connects to Yanukovich.

It's specious to criticize this story by arguing that "present-day Ukraine is anti-Russian!" Such ignorance misses the entire geopolitical movements of that region of the world in the last 8 or so years--a very short time frame in the recent past. It's even crazier than the tired-old "Well, democrats are the real racists because look at how many racists they had that voted against Civil Rights prior to Johnson!"...but 60+ years ago, and when all of those democrat racists moved over to and reshaped the current republican party into the party of racists for these last 60 years. I mean, why are we going down this road, picking and choosing which windows in time are specifically relevant for our arguments?
 
Jaskalas said:
Not glued to MSM and what's probably their 24/7 Dump Trump train which no doubt covers this subject daily.

Present ties with Ukraine would be anti-Russia, and the context of WHEN this occurred was missing in the OP and buried in the article. I stopped when they grossly contradicted present circumstances without proper context. Moreover, ivwshane already addressed this and I already replied with more context and relevance.

Your replies are both off topic and outdated.
Click to expand...

WRT the bolded, some parts and citizens of Ukraine are anti-Russia and other parts are pro-Russia. The current government (which the U.S. helped bring into power) is much more pro-West than the previous one. It's hard to separate how much anti-Russia feeling is natively present in that government versus how much is a reaction to Russia's involvement to support the separatist movements ("pro Federation" in Russian formulation) in those pro-Russia regions. If Russians didn't have covert forces working in the russophile areas and had not actively facilitated "pro Federation" moves like annexing the Crimea I still doubt that Ukraine-Russia relations would be particularly warm, but there probably wouldn't be open hostilities either.
 
glenn1 said:
WRT the bolded, some parts and citizens of Ukraine are anti-Russia and other parts are pro-Russia. The current government (which the U.S. helped bring into power) is much more pro-West than the previous one. It's hard to separate how much anti-Russia feeling is natively present in that government versus how much is a reaction to Russia's involvement to support the separatist movements ("pro Federation" in Russian formulation) in those pro-Russia regions. If Russians didn't have covert forces working in the russophile areas and had not actively facilitated "pro Federation" moves like annexing the Crimea I still doubt that Ukraine-Russia relations would be particularly warm, but there probably wouldn't be open hostilities either.
Click to expand...

Yes, Ukraine is rather culturally divided. Traditionally, I believe they are generally, culturally, attuned to Russia through an obviously shared history, moreso than any of the other previously occupied states of the former USSR. Still, Ukraine was an independent state prior to the USSR and after, so it can't honestly be argued that the country as a whole hasn't valued their separation from Russia. But you do see the majority of support in the eastern regions closest to Russia--as you see with most of the former occupied territories. But these are from populations that are more ethnically Russian than they are natives to that state--Simply the families of transplanted Russians that have lived in that territory for generations. They may call Ukraine their home, but they only ever consider themselves Russians, much to the chagrin of native Ukrainians.

This causes very real problems in all of the independent states of the former Soviet Union, but due to Ukraine's traditional shared/mixed culture with Russia, these problems have obviously become far more dire compared to other states.

As for the current government "which US helped to bring to power": Is it not worth pointing out that the previous Yanukovich government was brought into power by Putin (and we now know--with a US citizen in Paul Manafort illegally acting in these machinations?) Why, from your (assumed?) US perspective, do you see value in criticizing US involvement in overthrowing Yanukovich, but remain silent about Putin's actions to overthrow the previous 2 democratically elected governments of Ukraine that were unfriendly to him? Recall that the previous president, Yushenko, was popularly elected (in the face of a very possibly poisoning by his rivals in 2004), and lost to Putin's puppet, the extremely unpopular Yanukyovich in 2010, via Manafort's work.

Only Yanukyovich/Putin's Ukrainian government was not pro-west. Ukraine was very much pro-west prior to that puppet (which is why he was more or less exiled form Ukraine prior to 2009). The revolution that took him down, through US aid or not, was very much lead by the Ukrainian people to oust an individual that was clearly working against their country's best interest.
 
zinfamous said:
Yes, Ukraine is rather culturally divided. Traditionally, I believe they are generally, culturally, attuned to Russia through an obviously shared history, moreso than any of the other previously occupied states of the former USSR. Still, Ukraine was an independent state prior to the USSR and after, so it can't honestly be argued that the country as a whole hasn't valued their separation from Russia. But you do see the majority of support in the eastern regions closest to Russia--as you see with most of the former occupied territories. But these are from populations that are more ethnically Russian than they are natives to that state--Simply the families of transplanted Russians that have lived in that territory for generations. They may call Ukraine their home, but they only ever consider themselves Russians, much to the chagrin of native Ukrainians.

This causes very real problems in all of the independent states of the former Soviet Union, but due to Ukraine's traditional shared/mixed culture with Russia, these problems have obviously become far more dire compared to other states.

As for the current government "which US helped to bring to power": Is it not worth pointing out that the previous Yanukovich government was brought into power by Putin (and we now know--with a US citizen in Paul Manafort illegally acting in these machinations?) Why, from your (assumed?) US perspective, do you see value in criticizing US involvement in overthrowing Yanukovich, but remain silent about Putin's actions to overthrow the previous 2 democratically elected governments of Ukraine that were unfriendly to him? Recall that the previous president, Yushenko, was popularly elected (in the face of a very possibly poisoning by his rivals in 2004), and lost to Putin's puppet, the extremely unpopular Yanukyovich in 2010, via Manafort's work.

Only Yanukyovich/Putin's Ukrainian government was not pro-west. Ukraine was very much pro-west prior to that puppet (which is why he was more or less exiled form Ukraine prior to 2009). The revolution that took him down, through US aid or not, was very much lead by the Ukrainian people to oust an individual that was clearly working against their country's best interest.
Click to expand...
Thanks for clarifying for the people who must have been on vacation for the last 8 years.
Why is this not known for fact?
 
Please pardon my ignorance, where have this/these emails come from? I am sincerely getting concerned about foreign governments screwing around with a US election. This goes for either party and whether its Trump or Hillary.
Its nice to know something illegal may have happened but you have to keep the source in mind and I know its complicated.
Similar to NK's Sony hack it's interesting to know they pay women less but I don't like the idea that a dictator can influence the news or media with hacking. Dangerous precident
 
zinfamous said:
As for the current government "which US helped to bring to power": Is it not worth pointing out that the previous Yanukovich government was brought into power by Putin (and we now know--with a US citizen in Paul Manafort illegally acting in these machinations?) Why, from your (assumed?) US perspective, do you see value in criticizing US involvement in overthrowing Yanukovich, but remain silent about Putin's actions to overthrow the previous 2 democratically elected governments of Ukraine that were unfriendly to him? Recall that the previous president, Yushenko, was popularly elected (in the face of a very possibly poisoning by his rivals in 2004), and lost to Putin's puppet, the extremely unpopular Yanukyovich in 2010, via Manafort's work.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure of what actions you're referring to by Putin because the previous 2 governments weren't overthrown. There were allegations of election fraud in the 2004 elections that Yanukovych ultimately lost. And in any event whatever actions you're alleging Putin committed, they didn't serve to compromise Ukraine's territorial integrity. Nor did they directly overthrow a democratically elected government like the U.S. did. Given the alternatives, would you rather have a Russian-aligned Ukraine that was whole, or a western-aligned Ukraine where Russia used that as a pretext to seize Crimea?

And Yushenko lost in the 2010 election versus both Yanukovych and Tymoshenko, who lost in the runoff to the former.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top