|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
Northern Ireland23900 Posts
I don’t think it particularly matters if he broke tax law or not, it’s a convention that IMO is quite a decent political convention to have, that he didn’t do.
If you’re going to ‘drain the swamp’ and you don’t even adhere to that, it’s pretty obvious why you would do such a thing. Illegal tax evasion doesn’t actually annoy people all that much as all the perfectly legal forms of it that are open to those of means, which is especially pertinent when an individual is potentially going to have influence on tax codes.
I’m with Daunt only insofar that there is a section of the media and populace that is desperate to take Trump down and can be hysterical.
I’m probably more left wing than most, even by European standards, and I don’t think the collusion charge has merit in anything actionable, but an investigation was perfectly reasonable to have, by the sounds of this thread many are of that mind.
|
The NYT article conclusively proved with documents that Trump committed tax fraud. The argument that it was his accountants' fault is contrary to reality. The family passed Fred's wealth to the children through fraudulent means.
|
On April 05 2019 23:06 Wombat_NI wrote:
I don’t think it particularly matters if he broke tax law or not, it’s a convention that IMO is quite a decent political convention to have, that he didn’t do.
If you’re going to ‘drain the swamp’ and you don’t even adhere to that, it’s pretty obvious why you would do such a thing. Illegal tax evasion doesn’t actually annoy people all that much as all the perfectly legal forms of it that are open to those of means, which is especially pertinent when an individual is potentially going to have influence on tax codes.
I’m with Daunt only insofar that there is a section of the media and populace that is desperate to take Trump down and can be hysterical.
I’m probably more left wing than most, even by European standards, and I don’t think the collusion charge has merit in anything actionable, but an investigation was perfectly reasonable to have, by the sounds of this thread many are of that mind.
I don’t find it that alarming or strange that the only presidential candidate in the history of this country to be elected with a negative approval rating has prompted this response. Furthermore, Trump has shown zero interest in improving his standing with voters outside of his base or patching up his relationship with the news agencies that cover him. This is the presidency folks voted for and how it was always going to be.
|
United States42008 Posts
On April 05 2019 12:48 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2019 11:59 JimmiC wrote:
When you say anything are you including the tax evasion? Or do you feel that breaking the law in that way is not wrong? I was only referring to the Mueller stuff -- collusion/conspiracy and obstruction. But I have a hard time thinking that Trump did anything wrong on his taxes, either, given 1) how many times that he has been audited without consequence, and 2) the fact that he has an army of accountants handling this stuff for him, so it is highly unlikely that he even knows what's going on below him.
Hi. I can chime in on this as an expert. Tax accountants assist the client with putting the information generated by the client on the forms in line with the tax strategy selected by the client. And we make the client sign a piece of paper legally absolving us from responsibility for the legality and accuracy of that. The IRS needs to prove that we knew the info was false to get us.
Public accounting is a fraudulent and morally bankrupt profession. We’re paid to operate as a smokescreen between the public and individuals but we don’t verify things. We just write endless memos to legally cover our asses in the event that we get sued. Clients lie to us all the time, and we know they’re lying. But they pay us to repeat their lies with an aura of respectability and we charge to not see things.
|
Currently reading Reading Deep State by George Papadopoulos. It actually seems very plausible that a "sting" was run against him by US & allies to see if he would take the bait of an opportunity to collude with Russia. As opposed to him seeking out collusion or contacting Russians on his own.
|
United States42008 Posts
On April 05 2019 22:53 Plansix wrote:
Ignorance of the law is rarely a defense to violating the law. The only way Trump would be able to make that argument is if his accountant did it without his knowledge and pocketing the gains. Also, the Trump has been in business for a long time and claims to know what he is doing.
Tax professionals don’t take responsibility for assisting the client with fraud. We take money for it, but not responsibility. There will be a piece of paper somewhere which states Trump made all the decisions and that the accountants worked in good faith because we don’t touch anything without that CYA doc.
|
United States42008 Posts
We also sell audit opinions for what it’s worth. If you want a seal of approval on your fraud then that can be arranged for a price.
|
On April 05 2019 23:43 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2019 23:06 Wombat_NI wrote:
I don’t think it particularly matters if he broke tax law or not, it’s a convention that IMO is quite a decent political convention to have, that he didn’t do.
If you’re going to ‘drain the swamp’ and you don’t even adhere to that, it’s pretty obvious why you would do such a thing. Illegal tax evasion doesn’t actually annoy people all that much as all the perfectly legal forms of it that are open to those of means, which is especially pertinent when an individual is potentially going to have influence on tax codes.
I’m with Daunt only insofar that there is a section of the media and populace that is desperate to take Trump down and can be hysterical.
I’m probably more left wing than most, even by European standards, and I don’t think the collusion charge has merit in anything actionable, but an investigation was perfectly reasonable to have, by the sounds of this thread many are of that mind. I don’t find it that alarming or strange that the only presidential candidate in the history of this country to be elected with a negative approval rating has prompted this response. Furthermore, Trump has shown zero interest in improving his standing with voters outside of his base or patching up his relationship with the news agencies that cover him. This is the presidency folks voted for and how it was always going to be.
Especially when it's a presidential candidate who makes a business and habit of lying about easily verifiable things like saying that he can't release his returns because they're under audit.
Or that Republicans were about to pass more tax reform in the 2018 midterm elections.
Or that he had a functional healthcare plan that would cover everyone. You always bring up Obama lying about keeping your doctor, but compare "you can keep your doctor" to "the GOP and I have a healthcare plan."
It turns out being a serial liar makes it real easy for people to really, really hate you.
|
Northern Ireland23900 Posts
On April 05 2019 23:43 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2019 23:06 Wombat_NI wrote:
I don’t think it particularly matters if he broke tax law or not, it’s a convention that IMO is quite a decent political convention to have, that he didn’t do.
If you’re going to ‘drain the swamp’ and you don’t even adhere to that, it’s pretty obvious why you would do such a thing. Illegal tax evasion doesn’t actually annoy people all that much as all the perfectly legal forms of it that are open to those of means, which is especially pertinent when an individual is potentially going to have influence on tax codes.
I’m with Daunt only insofar that there is a section of the media and populace that is desperate to take Trump down and can be hysterical.
I’m probably more left wing than most, even by European standards, and I don’t think the collusion charge has merit in anything actionable, but an investigation was perfectly reasonable to have, by the sounds of this thread many are of that mind. I don’t find it that alarming or strange that the only presidential candidate in the history of this country to be elected with a negative approval rating has prompted this response. Furthermore, Trump has shown zero interest in improving his standing with voters outside of his base or patching up his relationship with the news agencies that cover him. This is the presidency folks voted for and how it was always going to be.
Who possibly could have predicted that an A grade narcissist with no consistent political principles would govern in such a way?
I mean more in the sense that he has so many verifiable and incontrovertible check marks against him that it seems redundant to me to speculate on other things, or bemoan the Mueller investigation too much.
That said I’m partly of that mind so that Trump can’t feed his victim complex and drag people with him, but I’m skeptical that even restricting coverage like I said would even mitigate that at all.
|
On April 05 2019 23:54 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2019 12:48 xDaunt wrote:On April 05 2019 11:59 JimmiC wrote:
When you say anything are you including the tax evasion? Or do you feel that breaking the law in that way is not wrong? I was only referring to the Mueller stuff -- collusion/conspiracy and obstruction. But I have a hard time thinking that Trump did anything wrong on his taxes, either, given 1) how many times that he has been audited without consequence, and 2) the fact that he has an army of accountants handling this stuff for him, so it is highly unlikely that he even knows what's going on below him. Hi. I can chime in on this as an expert. Tax accountants assist the client with putting the information generated by the client on the forms in line with the tax strategy selected by the client. And we make the client sign a piece of paper legally absolving us from responsibility for the legality and accuracy of that. The IRS needs to prove that we knew the info was false to get us. Public accounting is a fraudulent and morally bankrupt profession. We’re paid to operate as a smokescreen between the public and individuals but we don’t verify things. We just write endless memos to legally cover our asses in the event that we get sued. Clients lie to us all the time, and we know they’re lying. But they pay us to repeat their lies with an aura of respectability and we charge to not see things.
No argument from me on this stuff. But a couple points of clarification. First, Trump's stuff is privately owned, so it isn't subject to the same public accounting rules, though I have no doubt that the basic "fraudulent and morally bankrupt" process applies. Second, Trump's business empire is a conglomerate of multiple businesses collectively worth billions of dollars. Each discrete business is going to have an executive and bookkeeping/accounting team (there may be some overlap). Each of these executive and bookkeeping/accounting teams in turn feed financial information related to their respective business to whoever the tax people are (it's quite likely that there are multiple firms handling this given the overall load of work). The idea that Trump has personal knowledge of what each of these persons is doing -- and more so the idea that he is personally manipulating them -- is ludicrous. So if we circle back to the idea of whether Trump is constantly committing tax fraud and should be held criminally liable for questionable tax accounting practices at any one of his businesses or his charitable foundation, it just doesn't hold up. Yeah, he may be ultimately responsible for covering any shortfall in tax liability, but that's not the same as tax fraud or some other criminal liability as is being alleged.
|
Northern Ireland23900 Posts
On April 06 2019 00:00 Doodsmack wrote:
Currently reading Reading Deep State by George Papadopoulos. It actually seems very plausible that a "sting" was run against him by US & allies to see if he would take the bait of an opportunity to collude with Russia. As opposed to him seeking out collusion or contacting Russians on his own.
I don’t think it’s all that plausible. As a test or to entrap him?
If there was a sting to trap him, I think it wouldn’t have been difficult at all to push Trump and his gang over the line towards actual collusion.
It’s increasingly difficult to pull this kind of thing entirely in secret, people carry devices capable of recording audio and video 24/7, it’s hard to totally wipe a digital paper trail completely etc etc, plus organisations like Wikileaks exist so you can leak anonymously in ways you couldn’t before.
There’s more conspiracy theories than ever in an era where it’s harder to hide such things.
|
Why are we accepting someone like George Papadopoulos’s expert opinion on how the US government set him up with the help of the Russians? Honest question.
|
On April 06 2019 00:14 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2019 23:54 KwarK wrote:On April 05 2019 12:48 xDaunt wrote:On April 05 2019 11:59 JimmiC wrote:
When you say anything are you including the tax evasion? Or do you feel that breaking the law in that way is not wrong? I was only referring to the Mueller stuff -- collusion/conspiracy and obstruction. But I have a hard time thinking that Trump did anything wrong on his taxes, either, given 1) how many times that he has been audited without consequence, and 2) the fact that he has an army of accountants handling this stuff for him, so it is highly unlikely that he even knows what's going on below him. Hi. I can chime in on this as an expert. Tax accountants assist the client with putting the information generated by the client on the forms in line with the tax strategy selected by the client. And we make the client sign a piece of paper legally absolving us from responsibility for the legality and accuracy of that. The IRS needs to prove that we knew the info was false to get us. Public accounting is a fraudulent and morally bankrupt profession. We’re paid to operate as a smokescreen between the public and individuals but we don’t verify things. We just write endless memos to legally cover our asses in the event that we get sued. Clients lie to us all the time, and we know they’re lying. But they pay us to repeat their lies with an aura of respectability and we charge to not see things. No argument from me on this stuff. But a couple points of clarification. First, Trump's stuff is privately owned, so it isn't subject to the same public accounting rules, though I have no doubt that the basic "fraudulent and morally bankrupt" process applies. Second, Trump's business empire is a conglomerate of multiple businesses collectively worth billions of dollars. Each discrete business is going to have an executive and bookkeeping/accounting team (there may be some overlap). Each of these executive and bookkeeping/accounting teams in turn feed financial information related to their respective business to whoever the tax people are (it's quite likely that there are multiple firms handling this given the overall load of work). The idea that Trump has personal knowledge of what each of these persons is doing -- and more so the idea that he is personally manipulating them -- is ludicrous. So if we circle back to the idea of whether Trump is constantly committing tax fraud and should be held criminally liable for questionable tax accounting practices at any one of his businesses or his charitable foundation, it just doesn't hold up. Yeah, he may be ultimately responsible for covering any shortfall in tax liability, but that's not the same as tax fraud or some other criminal liability as is being alleged.
I’m not an expert like Kwark, but my understanding is he frequently paid personal debts from his charitable foundation. That seems like a pretty open-and-shut financial crime (and one he was pretty clearly aware he was doing). Care to fill me in on what I’m missing here?
|
On April 06 2019 00:26 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2019 00:14 xDaunt wrote:On April 05 2019 23:54 KwarK wrote:On April 05 2019 12:48 xDaunt wrote:On April 05 2019 11:59 JimmiC wrote:
When you say anything are you including the tax evasion? Or do you feel that breaking the law in that way is not wrong? I was only referring to the Mueller stuff -- collusion/conspiracy and obstruction. But I have a hard time thinking that Trump did anything wrong on his taxes, either, given 1) how many times that he has been audited without consequence, and 2) the fact that he has an army of accountants handling this stuff for him, so it is highly unlikely that he even knows what's going on below him. Hi. I can chime in on this as an expert. Tax accountants assist the client with putting the information generated by the client on the forms in line with the tax strategy selected by the client. And we make the client sign a piece of paper legally absolving us from responsibility for the legality and accuracy of that. The IRS needs to prove that we knew the info was false to get us. Public accounting is a fraudulent and morally bankrupt profession. We’re paid to operate as a smokescreen between the public and individuals but we don’t verify things. We just write endless memos to legally cover our asses in the event that we get sued. Clients lie to us all the time, and we know they’re lying. But they pay us to repeat their lies with an aura of respectability and we charge to not see things. No argument from me on this stuff. But a couple points of clarification. First, Trump's stuff is privately owned, so it isn't subject to the same public accounting rules, though I have no doubt that the basic "fraudulent and morally bankrupt" process applies. Second, Trump's business empire is a conglomerate of multiple businesses collectively worth billions of dollars. Each discrete business is going to have an executive and bookkeeping/accounting team (there may be some overlap). Each of these executive and bookkeeping/accounting teams in turn feed financial information related to their respective business to whoever the tax people are (it's quite likely that there are multiple firms handling this given the overall load of work). The idea that Trump has personal knowledge of what each of these persons is doing -- and more so the idea that he is personally manipulating them -- is ludicrous. So if we circle back to the idea of whether Trump is constantly committing tax fraud and should be held criminally liable for questionable tax accounting practices at any one of his businesses or his charitable foundation, it just doesn't hold up. Yeah, he may be ultimately responsible for covering any shortfall in tax liability, but that's not the same as tax fraud or some other criminal liability as is being alleged. I’m not an expert like Kwark, but my understanding is he frequently paid personal debts from his charitable foundation. That seems like a pretty open-and-shut financial crime (and one he was pretty clearly aware he was doing). Care to fill me in on what I’m missing here?
It's not really that simple. For starters, it's not per se criminal to the extent that it even gives rise to one kind of civil liability or another (like alter ego claims). There's a substantial amount of gray area to work in here. You can question the ethics of it, but calling it an "open-and-shut financial crime" is not accurate.
|
United States42008 Posts
On April 06 2019 00:14 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2019 23:54 KwarK wrote:On April 05 2019 12:48 xDaunt wrote:On April 05 2019 11:59 JimmiC wrote:
When you say anything are you including the tax evasion? Or do you feel that breaking the law in that way is not wrong? I was only referring to the Mueller stuff -- collusion/conspiracy and obstruction. But I have a hard time thinking that Trump did anything wrong on his taxes, either, given 1) how many times that he has been audited without consequence, and 2) the fact that he has an army of accountants handling this stuff for him, so it is highly unlikely that he even knows what's going on below him. Hi. I can chime in on this as an expert. Tax accountants assist the client with putting the information generated by the client on the forms in line with the tax strategy selected by the client. And we make the client sign a piece of paper legally absolving us from responsibility for the legality and accuracy of that. The IRS needs to prove that we knew the info was false to get us. Public accounting is a fraudulent and morally bankrupt profession. We’re paid to operate as a smokescreen between the public and individuals but we don’t verify things. We just write endless memos to legally cover our asses in the event that we get sued. Clients lie to us all the time, and we know they’re lying. But they pay us to repeat their lies with an aura of respectability and we charge to not see things. No argument from me on this stuff. But a couple points of clarification. First, Trump's stuff is privately owned, so it isn't subject to the same public accounting rules, though I have no doubt that the basic "fraudulent and morally bankrupt" process applies. Second, Trump's business empire is a conglomerate of multiple businesses collectively worth billions of dollars. Each discrete business is going to have an executive and bookkeeping/accounting team (there may be some overlap). Each of these executive and bookkeeping/accounting teams in turn feed financial information related to their respective business to whoever the tax people are (it's quite likely that there are multiple firms handling this given the overall load of work). The idea that Trump has personal knowledge of what each of these persons is doing -- and more so the idea that he is personally manipulating them -- is ludicrous. So if we circle back to the idea of whether Trump is constantly committing tax fraud and should be held criminally liable for questionable tax accounting practices at any one of his businesses or his charitable foundation, it just doesn't hold up. Yeah, he may be ultimately responsible for covering any shortfall in tax liability, but that's not the same as tax fraud or some other criminal liability as is being alleged.
Trump is not subject to PCAOB but it still falls under public accounting. PCAOB is a fraction of the whole, nonissuers like Trump are the vast majority of public accounting clients. Public accountant doesn’t equate to publicly traded.
Trump probably has got strategically placed fall guys assuming responsibility for things, I just wanted to clarify that the accountants aren’t taking responsibility for the fraud, despite being the ones who execute it. That’s just not how we do business.
|
On April 06 2019 00:22 Plansix wrote:
Why are we accepting someone like George Papadopoulos’s expert opinion on how the US government set him up with the help of the Russians? Honest question.
His opinion alone wouldn't be worth much, but it's the facts and evidence. The people with whom he was interacting, who told him about Russia having Hillarys emails, and who he relayed that information to, were all affiliated with western countries/governments/Intel agencies. As soon as it became public that he was a trump advisor, he was enveloped by them (not by his own initiative - they came to him) and they pushed their ability to connect him with people in russia. Being young and stupid and naive and egotistic and ambitious (the perfect target) he didnt question any of it and eagerly participated. But again, these people worked at western institutions in Europe. Universities and think tanks etc affiliated with western governments and Intel agencies/law enforcement. This is what leads to the inference of a sting.
Coincidentally, he already worked in that environment described (foreign policy think tanks) before he joined the campaign.
|
United States42008 Posts
On April 06 2019 00:45 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2019 00:26 ChristianS wrote:On April 06 2019 00:14 xDaunt wrote:On April 05 2019 23:54 KwarK wrote:On April 05 2019 12:48 xDaunt wrote:On April 05 2019 11:59 JimmiC wrote:
When you say anything are you including the tax evasion? Or do you feel that breaking the law in that way is not wrong? I was only referring to the Mueller stuff -- collusion/conspiracy and obstruction. But I have a hard time thinking that Trump did anything wrong on his taxes, either, given 1) how many times that he has been audited without consequence, and 2) the fact that he has an army of accountants handling this stuff for him, so it is highly unlikely that he even knows what's going on below him. Hi. I can chime in on this as an expert. Tax accountants assist the client with putting the information generated by the client on the forms in line with the tax strategy selected by the client. And we make the client sign a piece of paper legally absolving us from responsibility for the legality and accuracy of that. The IRS needs to prove that we knew the info was false to get us. Public accounting is a fraudulent and morally bankrupt profession. We’re paid to operate as a smokescreen between the public and individuals but we don’t verify things. We just write endless memos to legally cover our asses in the event that we get sued. Clients lie to us all the time, and we know they’re lying. But they pay us to repeat their lies with an aura of respectability and we charge to not see things. No argument from me on this stuff. But a couple points of clarification. First, Trump's stuff is privately owned, so it isn't subject to the same public accounting rules, though I have no doubt that the basic "fraudulent and morally bankrupt" process applies. Second, Trump's business empire is a conglomerate of multiple businesses collectively worth billions of dollars. Each discrete business is going to have an executive and bookkeeping/accounting team (there may be some overlap). Each of these executive and bookkeeping/accounting teams in turn feed financial information related to their respective business to whoever the tax people are (it's quite likely that there are multiple firms handling this given the overall load of work). The idea that Trump has personal knowledge of what each of these persons is doing -- and more so the idea that he is personally manipulating them -- is ludicrous. So if we circle back to the idea of whether Trump is constantly committing tax fraud and should be held criminally liable for questionable tax accounting practices at any one of his businesses or his charitable foundation, it just doesn't hold up. Yeah, he may be ultimately responsible for covering any shortfall in tax liability, but that's not the same as tax fraud or some other criminal liability as is being alleged. I’m not an expert like Kwark, but my understanding is he frequently paid personal debts from his charitable foundation. That seems like a pretty open-and-shut financial crime (and one he was pretty clearly aware he was doing). Care to fill me in on what I’m missing here? It's not really that simple. For starters, it's not per se criminal to the extent that it even gives rise to one kind of civil liability or another (like alter ego claims). There's a substantial amount of gray area to work in here. You can question the ethics of it, but calling it an "open-and-shut financial crime" is not accurate.
He’s almost certainly going to lose his Foundation and be barred from serving on the Board of any other non profit as a result of his self dealing. And even if he wasn’t legally barred no non profit would take him. Self dealing is pretty much the one thing you can’t do on the Board of a non profit.
But as you say, it’s not clear what criminal proceedings will take place. It’ll most likely end in a tax bill to the IRS and a ruling that he’s too unethical to be responsible for a non profit, which is amusing given his current position.
|
There are few open and shut cases, for sure. But the evidence around Trump’s foundation not only damning, but also voluminous. He has been using the foundation as a check book to pay for everything from legal settlements to bidding up portraits of himself as auction. And he has been doing for as long as the foundation existed. I feel confident the only reason the AG of New York didn’t bring criminal charges of some sort is because Trump is currently President and that is just beyond New York AG to bring that case successfully while he holds office.
|
On April 06 2019 00:53 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2019 00:22 Plansix wrote:
Why are we accepting someone like George Papadopoulos’s expert opinion on how the US government set him up with the help of the Russians? Honest question. His opinion alone wouldn't be worth much, but it's the facts and evidence. The people with whom he was interacting, who told him about Russia having Hillarys emails, and who he relayed that information to, were all affiliated with western countries/governments/Intel agencies. As soon as it became public that he was a trump advisor, he was enveloped by them (not by his own initiative - they came to him) and they pushed their ability to connect him with people in russia. Being young and stupid and naive and egotistic and ambitious (the perfect target) he didnt question any of it and eagerly participated. But again, these people worked at western institutions in Europe. Universities and think tanks etc affiliated with western governments and Intel agencies/law enforcement. This is what leads to the inference of a sting. Coincidentally, he already worked in that environment described (foreign policy think tanks) before he joined the campaign.
Why would it be a sting and not the Russian government trying to reach out while the US government is also investigating Russia’s efforts?
|
On April 06 2019 01:00 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2019 00:53 Doodsmack wrote:On April 06 2019 00:22 Plansix wrote:
Why are we accepting someone like George Papadopoulos’s expert opinion on how the US government set him up with the help of the Russians? Honest question. His opinion alone wouldn't be worth much, but it's the facts and evidence. The people with whom he was interacting, who told him about Russia having Hillarys emails, and who he relayed that information to, were all affiliated with western countries/governments/Intel agencies. As soon as it became public that he was a trump advisor, he was enveloped by them (not by his own initiative - they came to him) and they pushed their ability to connect him with people in russia. Being young and stupid and naive and egotistic and ambitious (the perfect target) he didnt question any of it and eagerly participated. But again, these people worked at western institutions in Europe. Universities and think tanks etc affiliated with western governments and Intel agencies/law enforcement. This is what leads to the inference of a sting. Coincidentally, he already worked in that environment described (foreign policy think tanks) before he joined the campaign. Why would it be a sting and not the Russian government trying to reach out while the US government is also investigating Russia’s efforts?
Because Russians weren't contacting Papadopoulos. Western agents were. A western agent is the one who suggested to Papadopoulos that the Russians had Hillary's emails.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
