Soup of the Day

Discussion in 'General Politics' started by JoeKing, Feb 27, 2019.

  1. cml750

    cml750 Well-Known Member

    1,263 Messages
    1,242 Likes Received
    Upstate GOP leaders plotting to impact SC Democratic primary by boosting Bernie Sanders
    They are going to engage in an Operation Chaos plan if anyone remembers when Rush Limbaugh suggested it in 2008 ( I think that was the year off the top of my head). If Republicans start voting for Bernie in primaries it will force the DNC into their nightmare scenario. I will have to study my local primary a little bit first but I may try this if there are no races I am concerned with for my local Republican primary races. If Bernie were to start winning the DNC would be forced to either let him be the nominee or pull off some shenanigans where they screw him over pissing off the Bernie bros. If he were to get the nomination, everyone but communist and naive millennials who are fooled by the "everything is free and someone else will pay for it" nonsense will see through his bullcrap. If he is the nominee Trump wins in a HUGE landslide and a firm lid will be slammed back on "Democratic Socialism" for a while.
     
    Robbie likes this.
  2. speedkilz88

    speedkilz88 Well-Known Member

    1,418 Messages
    1,618 Likes Received
  3. speedkilz88

    speedkilz88 Well-Known Member

    1,418 Messages
    1,618 Likes Received
  4. speedkilz88

    speedkilz88 Well-Known Member

    1,418 Messages
    1,618 Likes Received
  5. zrinkill

    zrinkill Well-Known Member

    1,125 Messages
    822 Likes Received
    The Democratic party is imploding.

    Hopefully this will allow the Democrats that have common sense to take back their party from the crazy left-wing nutcases.
     
    JoeKing likes this.
  6. cml750

    cml750 Well-Known Member

    1,263 Messages
    1,242 Likes Received
    If they had common sense they would not be democRATS.
     
    JoeKing likes this.
  7. speedkilz88

    speedkilz88 Well-Known Member

    1,418 Messages
    1,618 Likes Received
  8. speedkilz88

    speedkilz88 Well-Known Member

    1,418 Messages
    1,618 Likes Received


    One of Robert Mueller’s pivotal trial witnesses told the special prosecutor’s team in spring 2018 that a key piece of Russia collusion evidence found in Ukraine known as the “black ledger” was fabricated, according to interviews and testimony.

    The ledger document, which suddenly appeared in Kiev during the 2016 U.S. election, showed alleged cash payments from Russian-backed politicians in Ukraine to ex-Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort.

    “The ledger was completely made up,” cooperating witness and Manafort business partner Rick Gates told prosecutors and FBI agents, according to a written summary of an April 2018 special counsel’s interview.

    In a brief interview with Just the News, Gates confirmed the information in the summary. “The black ledger was a fabrication,” Gates said. “It was never real, and this fact has since been proven true.”

    Gates’ account is backed by several Ukrainian officials who stated in interviews dating to 2018 that the ledger was of suspicious origins and could not be corroborated.

    If true, Gates’ account means the two key pieces of documentary evidence used by the media and FBI to drive the now-debunked Russia collusion narrative — the Steele dossier and the black ledger — were at best uncorroborated and at worst disinformation. His account also raises the possibility that someone fabricated the document in Ukraine in an effort to restart investigative efforts on Manafort’s consulting work or to meddle in the U.S. presidential election.

    Much mystery has surrounded the black ledger, which was publicized by the New York Times and other U.S. news outlets in the summer of 2016 and forced Manafort out as one of Trump’s top campaign officials.

    After gaining wide attention as purported evidence of Russian ties to the Trump campaign, the ledger was never introduced as evidence at Manafort’s 2018 trial or significantly analyzed in Mueller’s final 2019 report, which concluded that Trump did not collude with Russia to influence the 2016 election. No FBI 302 interview reports have been released either showing what the FBI concluded about the ledger.

    Gates’ interview with the Mueller team now provides a potential clue as to why.

    By April 2018, Gates had reached a plea deal to testify against Manafort in a criminal case that ultimately resulted in Manafort’s conviction on tax and illegal lobbying charges. As the day-to-day manager of Manafort’s political consulting and lobbying efforts for former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, Gates handled Manafort’s operations and was deeply familiar with when and how payments were made and from whom.

    During a debriefing with Mueller’s team on April 10, 2018, Gates was asked about the August 2016 New York Times article that first alerted the public to the existence of the black ledger and eventually led to Manafort’s downfall.

    “The article was completely false,” Gates is quoted as telling Mueller’s team in a written summary of the interview created by some of the attendees. “As you now know there were no cash payments. The payments were wired. The ledger was completely made up.”

    When pressed as to why he was so certain, Gates explained the ledger did not match the way Yanukovych’s Party of Regions made payments to consultants like Manafort.

    “It was not how the PoR [Party of Regions] did their record keeping,” Gates told the prosecution team, according to the written summary.

    Furthermore, Gates revealed that Manafort’s team had confirmed with the party’s former accountant that the black ledger could not be a contemporaneous document because the party’s official accounting books burned in a 2014 fire during Ukraine’s Maidan uprising.

    “All the real records were burned when the party headquarters was set on fire when Yanukovych fled the country,” Gates told the investigators, according to the interview summary.

    The Party of Regions accountant reached by Manafort’s team told them that the black ledger was a “copy of a document that did not exist” and it “was not even [the accountant’s own] handwriting,” Gates told the prosecutors.

    Gates’ account to prosecutors closely matches what several Ukrainian officials have said for more than a year.

    Ukraine’s Special Anti-Corruption Prosecutor Nazar Kholodnytskyy told me last spring that he believed the black ledger was not a contemporaneous document, and likely manufactured after the fact.

    “It was not to be considered a document of Manafort,” Kholodnytskyy said in an interview. “It was not authenticated. And at that time it should not be used in any way to bring accusations against anybody.”

    Likewise, one of Gates’ and Manafort’s Ukrainian business partners, Konstantin Kilimnik, who is now indicted in the same case as Manafort but remain at large, wrote a senior U.S. State Department official in summer 2016 that the black ledger did not match actual payments made to Manafort’s firm.

    “I have some questions about this black cash stuff because those published records do not make sense,” Kilimnik wrote the State official in August 2016. “The time frame doesn’t match anything related to payments made to Manafort. … It does not match my records. All fees Manafort got were wires, not cash.”

    In December 2018, a Ukrainian court ruled that two of that country’s government officials — member of parliament Sergey Leschenko and Artem Sytnyk, the head of the National Anticorruption Bureau of Ukraine — illegally interfered in the 2016 U.S. election by publicizing the black ledger evidence.

    While that ruling has been overturned on a technicality, the role of Sytnyk and Leschenko in pushing the black ledger story remains true.

    In an interview last summer, Leschenko said he first received part of the black ledger when it was sent to him anonymously in February 2016, but it made no mention of Manafort. Months later, in August 2016, more of the ledger became public, including the alleged Manafort payments.

    Leschenko said he decided to publicize the information after confirming a few of the transactions likely occurred or matched known payments.

    But Leschenko told me he never believed the black ledger could be used as court evidence because it couldn’t be proved beyond a reasonable doubt that it was authentic, given its mysterious appearance during the 2016 election.

    “The black ledger is an unofficial document,” Leschenko told me. “And the black ledger was not used as official evidence in criminal investigations because you know in criminal investigations all proof has to be beyond a reasonable doubt. And the black ledger is not a sample of such proof because we don’t know the nature of such document.”

    In the end, the black ledger did prompt the discovery of real financial transactions and real crimes by Manafort, which ultimately led to his conviction.

    But its uncertain origins raise troubling questions about election meddling and what constitutes real evidence worthy of starting an American investigation.
     
    cml750 and JoeKing like this.
  9. JoeKing

    JoeKing Well-Known Member

    4,331 Messages
    2,087 Likes Received
    It's about time. I don't recall ever quoting the troll, but maybe so.
     
  10. JoeKing

    JoeKing Well-Known Member

    4,331 Messages
    2,087 Likes Received
    Just my opinion, the DNC will not be manipulated in that way. These are people that are willing to kill to get their way. If Sanders gets so popular that he would have to be given the Dem nomination, they would have him eliminated soon after, make it look like a heart attack or some other natural cause. I'm still looking for how the DNC gets the nomination to Hillary Clinton.
     
    cml750 likes this.
  11. JoeKing

    JoeKing Well-Known Member

    4,331 Messages
    2,087 Likes Received
    The Dems running for president are their own worst enemy. People want to know what their policy positions are and what they have to offer. Most do a good job of talking without being committed to specific details on policy but then they slip up and reveal their true thoughts. Warren has lost so much steam since releasing her "Medicare for All" plan. Bernie Sanders has been brutally honest with his intentions to raise taxes significantly to pay for his vision of a socialist utopia. Now Bloomberg is pledging war with the coal industry. Does he not remember what happened to Hillary after she promised to do the same? These people didn't learn from the example of Obama... Iie. I'm not saying these are honest people because they are far from it. They just don't relate to what is most important to middle America. They think we lose sleep at night worrying about climate change when it's actually paying our bills and what someone else is telling our children that we struggle with when we are left alone with our thoughts.
     
    zrinkill, Robbie and cml750 like this.
  12. speedkilz88

    speedkilz88 Well-Known Member

    1,418 Messages
    1,618 Likes Received
  13. JoeKing

    JoeKing Well-Known Member

    4,331 Messages
    2,087 Likes Received
    It's my belief Sanders won in Iowa and the DNC didn't want that narrative to snowball on them so they nipped it in the bud by delaying the results and casting doubt on the whole process that Iowa uses. The app developer at the center of the controversy is reportedly a Clinton supporter in previous election seasons so how hard is it to think a back door was built into that software to allow the results to be corrupted when the first results revealed such a huge lead for Sanders over Biden? Remember, Biden did no better than 4th despite having the advantage of campaigning full time in Iowa, an advantage Senators Sanders and Warren did not have. The app was never vetted before the Iowa caucus took place so you have to ask why not? How does that happen? A poor performance in Iowa has sunk Biden's presidential hopes in previous campaigns so how has he been able to explain away his 4th place finish this time and just move on to New Hampshire where he isn't winning there either?
     
  14. JoeKing

    JoeKing Well-Known Member

    4,331 Messages
    2,087 Likes Received


    How does this happen? Is this the failure of this voter or the Dem party? I thought it was common knowledge that the Mayor is gay but why does it matter to Dem voters?
     
    cml750 likes this.
  15. cml750

    cml750 Well-Known Member

    1,263 Messages
    1,242 Likes Received
    So many of them are naive. They only watch the mainstream media which has focused almost elusively on the "Orange Man Bad" narrative for three straight years. They are clueless about any real issues or anything about the democRAT candidates they support. The lady probably picked Pete because she thought he was good looking or some silly cap like that only to have that crushed when she found out he is not only gay but married to a man.
     
    JoeKing likes this.
  16. JoeKing

    JoeKing Well-Known Member

    4,331 Messages
    2,087 Likes Received
    Counting her vote for Buttigieg should be a lesson to her to stay home on voting day or be more informed about who she is voting for.
     
    cml750 and zrinkill like this.
  17. speedkilz88

    speedkilz88 Well-Known Member

    1,418 Messages
    1,618 Likes Received
  18. speedkilz88

    speedkilz88 Well-Known Member

    1,418 Messages
    1,618 Likes Received
  19. speedkilz88

    speedkilz88 Well-Known Member

    1,418 Messages
    1,618 Likes Received
  20. cml750

    cml750 Well-Known Member

    1,263 Messages
    1,242 Likes Received
    Bernie is actually right here. Killing babies is built into the party platform. Anyone who supports the democRAT party by default supports murdering babies. Basically the phrase "pro-life democRAT" is an oxymoron.
     
    JoeKing likes this.

Share This Page