Secret Ledger in Ukraine Lists Cash for Donald Trump’s Campaign Chief

[Rex Kwon Do]

It's funny, for all the Trumpsters' talk about "cucks (race traitors)," isn't Trump actually the cuckiest candidate ever? Like, the guy is basically inviting Putin to take over American foreign policy, right?

It is a bit cuckish, to be honest. I don't think a détente with Russia is out of order, but to have them so blatantly meddling in our election is embarrassing.

 

[Metal Cultist]

This election is beyond fucked.

Can we throw both these crooks in jail and just do Stein vs. Johnson for the general?

Hey, at least we would know that no new wars would be started unnecessarily... and that the war on drugs would pretty much stop.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Saudi's stick out to me specifically

I agree. Of course their human rights record is abysmal but after those arms sales they went on to bomb Yemen into a humanitarian disaster. The bulk of the blame lies on the Saudis of course but I see Clinton as complicit in that in a small way.

Yeah, except the State department doesn't sell arms or approve arms sales.

The Office of Regional Security and Arms Transfers (RSAT) advances U.S. foreign policy and national security interests through its management of bilateral/ multi-lateral political-military and regional security relations and the sale/transfer of U.S.-origin defense articles and services to foreign governments. PM/RSAT is the Department of State’s principal entry point for bilateral and regional political-military questions from the U.S. Government interagency and foreign governments. It is also a key link between the Departments of State and Defense, interfacing with the Office of the Secretary of Defense, Joint Staff, and the Combatant Commands on regional security issues.

http://www.state.gov/t/pm/rsat/index.htm

 

[Fawlty]

What I meant was that he's denying the cash payments that are tied to the anti-corruption investigation. He's never denied his professional work there. They haven't confirmed that the payments were made or if they were made, to whom.

This is a wait and see scenario. If they can actually connect the payments to Manafort, that' still only the 1st step. It still has to be shown that the payments involved something illegal from Manafort and that he was aware of it. If it was just payment for services but came out of a corrupt guy's slush fund, that's not enough for me. Although I won't be surprised if something eventually turns up.

Whatever it amounts to, the guy was a Yanukovych shill, which is to say he was for a long time employed ultimately in the interests of the Russian state, against American/NATO and popular Ukrainian interests. Whatever money he took for "services" is secondary here. A little corruption in eastern Europe isn't exactly news. But it's not something he wants scrutinized, obviously.

 

[Big_Chief_Stove]

I agree. Of course their human rights record is abysmal but after those arms sales they went on to bomb Yemen into a humanitarian disaster. The bulk of the blame lies on the Saudis of course but I see Clinton as complicit in that in a small way.


http://www.state.gov/t/pm/rsat/index.htm

Saudi royals fund wahabbism internationally too

 

[ultramanhyata]

Anyone else think Manaport-a-potty looks like Tony Curtis?

 

[ShinkanPo]

Don't worry, those arms were sold to responsible paragons of liberal democracy like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, and Algeria

Great !!

 

[Islam Imamate]

Saudi royals fund wahabbism internationally too

True and those activities have contributed greatly to the current state of international terrorism and some of the leaked Wikileaks cables shows Clinton was aware of the reluctance of the Saudis to crack down on their private financiers of terrorism. But I don't really blame Clinton for that. Even as SoS there's only so much we can do and the Gulf Arab countries are still our allies. They were before she became SoS and they continued to be afterwards so that's more of a reflection on US foreign policy more generally than Clinton herself. The arms sales are different because they were abnormal in their scope and were around the time of the Arab Spring in which the Gulf countries had showed themselves more than willing to brutally suppress their own people

 

[Islam Imamate]

That's why I think consistency is the only byword here. If we're going to jump on the Trump campaign here then we have to jump on Clinton. And if Clinton isn't that bad, this certainly isn't either. If anything, the Clinton stuff is worse and I still don't think it's that important. But that's me.

I think Clinton's issues reflect more on the state of US politics in general where as Trump and his connections to Putin seem unique to him. I'm not sure which conflict of interest here is worse.

 

[Diamond Jim]

I agree. Of course their human rights record is abysmal but after those arms sales they went on to bomb Yemen into a humanitarian disaster. The bulk of the blame lies on the Saudis of course but I see Clinton as complicit in that in a small way.


http://www.state.gov/t/pm/rsat/index.htm

Although the Department of Defense, through the Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA), is responsible for implementing individual FMS cases, the Department of State must first review and approve them. DSCA forwards all FMS cases to PM/RSAT, which is responsible for ensuring that they are properly reviewed within the Department for consistency with U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives. In close coordination with other Department bureaus and offices, PM/RSAT officers provide recommendations to PM leadership on whether to approve the potential sale of military equipment to foreign governments through FMS.

http://m.state.gov/mc14021.htm

In general, the executive branch, after complying with the terms of applicable U.S. law, principally contained in the AECA, is free to proceed with an arms sales proposal unless Congress passes legislation prohibiting or modifying the proposed sale. Under current law Congress must overcome two fundamental obstacles to block or modify a Presidential sale of military equipment:

- it must pass legislation expressing its will on the sale,

- and it must be capable of overriding a presumptive Presidential veto of such legislation.

Congress, however, is free to pass legislation to block or modify an arms sale at any time up to the point of delivery of the items involved.

http://www.dsca.mil/resources/arms-sales-congressional-review-process

Hillary Clinton did not sell arms to those countries. The state department approved, but so did other branches including congressional republicans.

 

[KILL KILL]

When the whole Russian email hack of the DNC thing was going on I could tell by the way Trump reacted to it that he and Putin had something going on. Trump should have denounced the whole thing, saying foreigners shouldn't be meddling in our elections and that stuff would never fly if he was president etc. etc. Instead, he used it as a way to make punchlines and grab headlines.

In the speech he just gave, he specifically stated that he wants to work hand in hand with Russia, sharing intel. He didn't mention a single current ally, but said he will work with Russia.

If he's not already working with Russia, then Putin really is playing him like a fiddle.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Although the Department of Defense, through the Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA), is responsible for implementing individual FMS cases, the Department of State must first review and approve them. DSCA forwards all FMS cases to PM/RSAT, which is responsible for ensuring that they are properly reviewed within the Department for consistency with U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives. In close coordination with other Department bureaus and offices, PM/RSAT officers provide recommendations to PM leadership on whether to approve the potential sale of military equipment to foreign governments through FMS.

http://m.state.gov/mc14021.htm

In general, the executive branch, after complying with the terms of applicable U.S. law, principally contained in the AECA, is free to proceed with an arms sales proposal unless Congress passes legislation prohibiting or modifying the proposed sale. Under current law Congress must overcome two fundamental obstacles to block or modify a Presidential sale of military equipment:

- it must pass legislation expressing its will on the sale,

- and it must be capable of overriding a presumptive Presidential veto of such legislation.

Congress, however, is free to pass legislation to block or modify an arms sale at any time up to the point of delivery of the items involved.

http://www.dsca.mil/resources/arms-sales-congressional-review-process

So the State Department does indeed approve arms sales and their approval is required before the Department of Defense can implement them. Which doesn't contradict anything I said and in fact contradicts your earlier post

Yeah, except the State department doesn't sell arms or approve arms sales.

Hillary Clinton did not sell arms to those countries.

I never claimed that she did. It was, along with other companies, Boeing who sold many of those arms. Coincidentally...

American defense contractors also donated to the Clinton Foundation while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state and in some cases made personal payments to Bill Clinton for speaking engagements. Such firms and their subsidiaries were listed as contractors in $163 billion worth of Pentagon-negotiated deals that were authorized by the Clinton State Department between 2009 and 2012.

The state department approved, but so did other branches including congressional republicans.

Sure, because its not a fundamentally different conception of foreign policy advocated by Bush and neocons in the GOP. Here's the difference

Under Clinton's leadership, the State Department approved $165 billion worth of commercial arms sales to 20 nations whose governments have given money to the Clinton Foundation, according to an IBTimes analysis of State Department and foundation data. That figure -- derived from the three full fiscal years of Clinton’s term as Secretary of State (from October 2010 to September 2012) -- represented nearly double the value of American arms sales made to the those countries and approved by the State Department during the same period of President George W. Bush’s second term.

...These extra sales were part of a broad increase in American military exports that accompanied Obama’s arrival in the White House. The 143 percent increase in U.S. arms sales to Clinton Foundation donors compares to an 80 percent increase in such sales to all countries over the same time period.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

In the speech he just gave, he specifically stated that he wants to work hand in hand with Russia, sharing intel. He didn't mention a single current ally, but said he will work with Russia.

If he's not already working with Russia, then Putin really is playing him like a fiddle.

What is inherently wrong with working with Russia?
We already work with China, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan.
We worked with Iran to defeat ISIS and could have worked with them even sooner to defeat AQ and the Taliban if W didn't label them as a member of the "Axix of Evil" (mwahahaha).

 

[panamaican]

I think Clinton's issues reflect more on the state of US politics in general where as Trump and his connections to Putin seem unique to him. I'm not sure which conflict of interest here is worse.

I say Clinton. Manafort's engagement happened before he worked for Trump and any potential conflicts will happen in the future. Clinton's stuff involved her foundation while she serving in office. I agree with the other guy that stuff that happens while in office is always worse than out of office stuff.

 

[klnOmega]

I think Clinton's issues reflect more on the state of US politics in general where as Trump and his connections to Putin seem unique to him. I'm not sure which conflict of interest here is worse.

Clinton has ties to Russia also. Recall the Russian One Uranium deals, and Bill's numerous $500k+ speaking fees with Russian companies.

Putin isn't an idiot, and he doesn't put all his eggs in one basket. He's involved with both candidates. Which is why we really, really, really fucking need to abandon the two party thinking in this election. If ever there was a time to turn over the chess board, its now.

 

[Islam Imamate]

I say Clinton. Manafort's engagement happened before he worked for Trump and any potential conflicts will happen in the future. Clinton's stuff involved her foundation while she serving in office. I agree with the other guy that stuff that happens while in office is always worse than out of office stuff.

I can buy that

 

[K1levelgrappler]

lmao Trump is an actual Manchurian candidate

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

I don't share your concerns. In this day and age, the line between the 2 is pretty blurry. Manafort being a private consultant doesn't mean that he didn't have significant influence over people in office.

The whole Grover Norquist tax situation should underscore that. He wasn't in office but influenced the legislative philosophy of dozens of elected officials.

But that just what lobbyist do -- attempt to influence people in power to persuade them to see issues as they want them to see it. I agree it's a blurred line of ethics but we elect officials in the hopes that they make the best decision despite of influence (obviously the honor method is flawed)

But when someone who is in office -- appointed by our elected officials is themselves the one who is initiating the blurred line deals, i consider it worst then the outsider.

Also, this was way before Trump was even a candidate or connected to Manafort -- Hillarys smoke was during a time when she was one of the highest ranking public servants in the land.

 

[panamaican]

But that just what lobbyist do -- attempt to influence people in power to persuade them to see issues as they want them to see it. I agree it's a blurred line of ethics but we elect officials in the hopes that they make the best decision despite of influence (obviously the honor method is flawed)

But when someone who is in office -- appointed by our elected officials is themselves the one who is initiating the blurred line deals, i consider it worst then the outsider.

Also, this was way before Trump was even a candidate or connected to Manafort -- Hillarys smoke was during a time when she was one of the highest ranking public servants in the land.

I mostly agree with you and said as much in a different post, particularly on which is worse and why I don't think Manafort is a big deal. But I don't think the Clinton thing is a big deal either although it's philosophically worse...provided someone can make more than a tenuous connect between donations and actions. Like I said somewhere else, the names they're picking for the donation list are just the biggest names. I'm certain that plenty of smaller donors with similar interests made donations too. That's the point of a charitable foundation...to solicit donations. Should they turn away everyone who might have a political goal? Of course not.

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

I mostly agree with you and said as much in a different post, particularly on which is worse and why I don't think Manafort is a big deal. But I don't think the Clinton thing is a big deal either although it's philosophically worse...provided someone can make more than a tenuous connect between donations and actions. Like I said somewhere else, the names they're picking for the donation list are just the biggest names. I'm certain that plenty of smaller donors with similar interests made donations too. That's the point of a charitable foundation...to solicit donations. Should they turn away everyone who might have a political goal? Of course not.

i agree with the fact that there is enough smoke to be aware of the situations and obvious connections that are easy to make without having a verdict connect the dots for us. Neither will see any sort of punishment for these accusations / nor will we ever be exposed to the full truth.

Im just more uncomfortable with the person in office who will to use their clout to obtain whatever monetary gain for whatever purpose -- charitable or otherwise. I guess the right in me is ok with Clinton using political stature to leverage pay for play -- most business would do the same.

Guess it comes down to Manafort willing to deal with shady characters to get paid and Clintons are willing to circumvent ethics to obtain monetary gain. Prediction is neither story will produce fruit and Clintons will be billionaires in 10 years time.