Manafort and Gates charged

[Dene]

Note the charges have nothing to do with the campaign. I can hear Rachel wailing.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/30/politics/paul-manafort-russia-investigation-surrender/index.html

[B...@onramp.net]

On Mon, 30 Oct 2017 07:09:26 -0700 (PDT), Dene <gds...@aol.com>
wrote:

>Note the charges have nothing to do with the campaign. I can hear Rachel wailing.

LOL. Does it occur to you that both men were heavily involved with the
Trump campaign during while this was going on? Manafort was chairman
and Gates his deputy. Oh, there are 12 counts and the headline says
"Cjarged with conspiracy against the U.S."

Then there's the blatant fact that this investigation is about
conspiracy with the Russian government's involvement in the 2016
election. Tax evasion is just along for the ride.

None of that gets through to you? Of course it has a lot to do with
the campaign, but keep your head in the sand until it all goes away.
Uh....that ain't gonna happen Greg.
>
>http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/30/politics/paul-manafort-russia-investigation-surrender/index.html

[Dene]

OL. Does it occur to you that both men were heavily involved with the
Trump campaign during while this was going on? Manafort was chairman
and Gates his deputy. Oh, there are 12 counts and the headline says
"Cjarged with conspiracy against the U.S."

Then there's the blatant fact that this investigation is about
conspiracy with the Russian government's involvement in the 2016
election. Tax evasion is just along for the ride.

None of that gets through to you? Of course it has a lot to do with
the campaign, but keep your head in the sand until it all goes away.
Uh....that ain't gonna happen Greg.
>
>http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/30/politics/paul-manafort-russia-investigation-surrender/index.html

None of your bluster contradicts the fact that these alleged crimes occurred long before he joined the Trump campaign. Apples and oranges.

[B...@onramp.net]

On Mon, 30 Oct 2017 11:16:41 -0700 (PDT), Dene <gds...@aol.com>
wrote:

These connections that Manafort made prior to 2016 didn't just go away
and weren't contacted during the election? How naive can you be? Your
head isn't in the sand, it's up your ass.

As far as bluster goes that's all you ever have to offer, seldom
common sense.

[-hh]

"Long before?" Some, but clearly not all. Here's references
to March 2016:

"Updated at 3:01 p.m. ET

Apparent Russian agents began reaching out to Donald Trump's
presidential campaign as early as March of 2016..."

<http://www.npr.org/2017/10/30/560786546/grand-jury-approves-first-charges-in-muellers-russia-investigation>


"By early 2016, the race had mostly centered on Trump and U.S.
Senator Ted Cruz.[349] On Super Tuesday [March 1, 2016], Trump won
the plurality of the vote, and he remained the front-runner
throughout the remainder of the primaries. By March 2016, Trump
became poised to win the Republican nomination.[350]"

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump#Republican_primaries>

...or is this 'different', because its the timeline for George
Papadopoulos, who's already pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI?

BTW, continuing from the first cite:

"What is now known is that Russia tried to infiltrate the Trump
campaign — and did so successfully, at least at some level. Put
in context of other reporting around the Russia story, it is a
remarkable establishment.

The court documents also establish that Russia promised "thousands
of emails" that would have "dirt" on Hillary Clinton to Papadopoulos
in April 2016. A trove of hacked Democratic emails was released by
WikiLeaks three months later — in the midst of the Democratic
National Convention."

and:

"This is the first time a connection between the Trump campaign
and Russia's attempt to interfere in the 2016 election has been
established by an ironclad official government source."


-hh

[Alan Baker]

Greg, you should listen to Donald's lies. Even a liar such as yourself
should know that much.

'In March 2016, then-candidate Trump tapped Manafort to manage the
Republican National Convention. In a press release announcing the
hiring, Trump praised Manafort as "a great asset and an important
addition" in consolidating the support Trump won during the primary season.


...

The money-laundering conspiracy is the second count in the indictment.

The government documented a large number of transactions between 2008
and 2014. But they continued into March 2016, the very beginning of
Manafort’s work with the Trump campaign.

In 2012, Manafort used an offshore account to buy a $2.8 million
condominium in New York City, which he rented out using, among other
services, Airbnb. In late 2015, he applied to get a mortgage on the
property. To get a lower interest rate, he and Gates invented documents
to say it was a second-home for his daughter and son-in-law.

Based on that assurance, in March 2016, government prosecutors said, a
bank gave Manafort a $1.185 million loan on the property.

Also in early 2016, Manafort misled another bank to secure a loan on a
second New York property.'

<http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/oct/30/donald-trump/trump-wrongly-says-manafort-crimes-came-years-he-j/>

However you want to parse it, March 2016 is not "long before" March 2016.

[-hh]

Reading through Seth Abramson's tweet analysis right now...whole
piece is here:

<https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/924988111880417280>

Ones which I find interesting include:


"17/ We mustn't forget that in a case in which evidence is *scarce* a
prosecutor would have to start *much* lower on the chain than Manafort."


"44/ Let me now make a *key* point: Mueller could *easily* get Flynn on
the same FARA charges we see here. So why hasn't Flynn been charged?

45/ The answer is that either there's a sealed indictment on Mike Flynn
the media doesn't know about—unlikely—or Flynn has already flipped."


"61/ If Manafort confirms he told Trump of the Kremlin outreach—and
Trump lied about that repeatedly thereafter—Trump enters the conspiracy.

62/ This is especially true given Papadopoulos had revealed himself to
Trump as a Kremlin agent seeking a Trump-Kremlin channel on March 31."


"70/ That is to say, it now seems release of the DNC emails was a
quid pro quo from Trump ordering Gordon to change the GOP platform 3/31/16."


"73/ I said this before—that the GOP platform change was *provably*
collusion—but *now* we know Mueller has that witness in his back pocket."


"93/ Note that the Papadopoulos plea establishes that *every attendee*
of the March 31st, 2016 meeting who spoke to the press lied about it."


"96/ To be clear, if you understand how the Trump NatSec team worked—
and didn't work—you now see Sessions is a *target* of the Mueller probe."


"120/ Understand: Papadopoulos was arrested *over three months ago*,
so the volume of information Mueller has we don't know is *staggering*."


"133/ What we're witnessing—and in real time—is the most spectacular
and harrowing political and legal news story of any of our lifetimes."

"PS3/ This can't be stated enough: the Trump/Sessions lunch today is
wildly inappropriate and possibly illegal. Both men are FBI targets.

PS4/ They now *must* have outside witnesses present at the lunch, as
any discussion of the Russia probe could constitute Witness Tampering."


Just ... wow.


-hh

[MNMikeW]

Moderate wrote:
> B...@Onramp.net Wrote in message:

> His connections in Ukraine?
>
> The mental defectives will continue to grasp at empty air for
> eternity.
> Their guessing game has been the entire
> investigation.

Now that the Podesta Group is in Muellers sights, Tony Podesta stepped
down today. This is only beginning.

[Alan Baker]

And you're desperately hoping that that's where it will end...

...but it won't.

:-)

[Dene]

Then why wasn't he charged for alleged crimes in 2015?
Reason is obvious to rational people. There was no collusion of any kind within the Trump campaign.

Deal with it.

[Alan Baker]

If you mean why weren't the charges LAID in 2015, how about because it
hadn't been discovered?

If you mean he hasn't charged for crimes COMMITTED in 2015...

...he has.

> Reason is obvious to rational people. There was no collusion of any kind within the Trump campaign.

Except that Papadopoulos admits he was colluding while working with the
Trump campaign...

>
> Deal with it.
>

[B...@onramp.net]

On Mon, 30 Oct 2017 13:37:38 -0700 (PDT), Dene <gds...@aol.com>

Who was investigating him in 2015? Mueller found all of this in
2016-17. Besides, your thought tat its all about tax evasion and
money laundering doesn't take into account that they are not the first
of the charges in the case. Conspiracy was.
>
>Deal with it.

You can't deal with it because its getting closer to the truth.

[MNMikeW]

Do ANY of these charges have to do with Russian collusion, yes or no?

[Alan Baker]

Papadopoulos's do...

But you want to ignore that, don't you, yes or no?

[John B.]

Greg and I bet $20 a few mos. ago that no one would be indicted
by Mueller. I suspect he's trying to wiggle out of paying by
saying no one associated with the campaign was indicted.
He'll say Popadopolous wasn't indicted, he pleaded guilty, so
that doesn't count.

[Dene]

On Monday, October 30, 2017 at 10:54:17 AM UTC-8, B...@onramp.net wrote:

This is all you got and it's a long shot.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/is-the-papadopoulos-case-the-real-bombshell-today/ar-AAuf4LS?ocid=spartanntp

[Dene]

If Mueller has the integrity and courage to go down that path....

[Dene]

Perfect question. Be interesting if he does the BK shuffle out of this one.

[Dene]

I'll have to research the perameters. Was Popadopolous accused of collusion?

[Dene]

I'm not afraid of the truth. Trump Campaign did not collude with the Russian in regards to the 2016 election. All you got is a smoke bomb with no fire.

[B...@onramp.net]

In my opinion, yes they will turn out to be complicit in collusion.

[B...@onramp.net]

On Mon, 30 Oct 2017 14:42:02 -0700 (PDT), Dene <gds...@aol.com>

You've been wrong so far. Remember that you said there would be no
indictments. The long shot is getting a lot closer and you just won't
face it.

[B...@onramp.net]

On Mon, 30 Oct 2017 14:42:47 -0700 (PDT), Dene <gds...@aol.com>

wrote:

>On Monday, October 30, 2017 at 12:15:17 PM UTC-8, MNMikeW wrote:
>> Moderate wrote:
>> > B...@Onramp.net Wrote in message:
>> >> On Mon, 30 Oct 2017 11:16:41 -0700 (PDT), Dene<gds...@aol.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >
>> >>>
>> >>> None of your bluster contradicts the fact that these alleged crimes occurred long before he joined the Trump campaign. Apples and oranges.
>> >>
>> >> These connections that Manafort made prior to 2016 didn't just go away
>> >> and weren't contacted during the election? How naive can you be? Your
>> >> head isn't in the sand, it's up your ass.
>> >>
>> >> As far as bluster goes that's all you ever have to offer, seldom
>> >> common sense.
>> >>
>> >
>> > His connections in Ukraine?
>> >
>> > The mental defectives will continue to grasp at empty air for
>> > eternity.
>> > Their guessing game has been the entire
>> > investigation.
>>
>> Now that the Podesta Group is in Muellers sights, Tony Podesta stepped
>> down today. This is only beginning.
>
>If Mueller has the integrity and courage to go down that path....

That is just stupid.Mueller was appointed by Trump's administration,
he was lauded by members of both houses of Congress and others.
Specifically regarding his integrity and non-partisanship. Now that
the Trump campaign looks to have been guilty of collusion you have the
gall to imply otherwise.

More bullshit than ever.

[MNMikeW]

How so? How is something that happened between 2006 and 2014 collusion?

[B...@onramp.net]

On Mon, 30 Oct 2017 14:44:08 -0700 (PDT), Dene <gds...@aol.com>

There is not nor ever has been shuffle from me. I've been steadfast
in my belief that some of the campaign officials in the Trump camp
have colluded with the Russians. Why? Because IMO only a total dunce
would believe otherwise. That would be you Greg. You're shuffling
now because of these indictments, looking for any lame excuse to
defend the crooks.

[Dene]

We will see what Mueller is made of in how he deals with the informant with the Uranium deal and of course, the 12 million dossier.

The real BS is you stretching today's indictments as proof that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians.

Next you will tell me there is some beachfront property in my Tucson backyard.

[Dene]

Who is this person?

[B...@onramp.net]

On Mon, 30 Oct 2017 14:46:23 -0700 (PDT), Dene <gds...@aol.com>

What parameters? He confessed to it.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/trump-campaign-adviser-george-papadopoulos-pleads-guilty-lying-n815596

[Dene]

Speculation. No evidence....right?

[Dene]

I believe I said no Trump campaign indictments proving collusion. You want to prove otherwise, then cite...or get your little RAT to do it for you.

[B...@onramp.net]

On Mon, 30 Oct 2017 14:47:40 -0700 (PDT), Dene <gds...@aol.com>

You're blind as a bat. The Trump campaign didn't do anything, but
officials of the Trump campaign have been indicted, and one has pled
guilty. Either you aren't keeping up with the news or as dense as
lead.

[B...@onramp.net]

Try to keep up. It continued into 2015 and probably longer. Don't even
ask me to prove that. Just read the news, its there in black and
white. Yeah, you think its fake news, just like the indictments are
fake.

[B...@onramp.net]

On Mon, 30 Oct 2017 15:11:18 -0700 (PDT), Dene <gds...@aol.com>

I never said anything like that. You jump to conclusions and when
proven you're wrong stick with them. Like the accusation that I and
others have said that Trump is guilty of collusion. You need to stop
while you're behind.

>
>Next you will tell me there is some beachfront property in my Tucson backyard.

Silliness doesn't become adults.
>

[B...@onramp.net]

On Mon, 30 Oct 2017 15:11:51 -0700 (PDT), Dene <gds...@aol.com>

If you mean the crooks, Manafort and Gates if for nothing other than
money laundering.

[B...@onramp.net]

On Mon, 30 Oct 2017 15:12:35 -0700 (PDT), Dene <gds...@aol.com>

Can't you read? OPINION. You have no evidence that it won't happen.

[Alan Baker]

He confessed to collusion.

[Alan Baker]

On 2017-10-30 2:29 PM, Moderate wrote:
> MNMikeW <mnmi...@aol.com> Wrote in message:

> Papadopoulos was a thirty year old who tried to set up a meeting
> with the campaign, but the meeting never happened.

And you know this.. ...how?

[Alan Baker]

1. There was no improper uranium deal.

2. Paying for opposition research isn't collusion...

...unless like Trump you're paying by making policy to suit a foreign
government.

[Alan Baker]

For a start, George Papadopoulos...

[B...@onramp.net]

On Mon, 30 Oct 2017 15:13:53 -0700 (PDT), Dene <gds...@aol.com>

Indictments aren't supposed to prove anything that's why there's a
trial. You're so screwed up that you have no idea what you're talking
about. Its obvious when you start bringing others into a discussion
and calling them names.

[Dene]

Close...as in a thousand miles away?
Russia, Russia, Russia

[Dene]

I know what an opinion is worth.
Breaking news on CNN.

[Dene]

Key word is "probably."

[B...@onramp.net]

On Mon, 30 Oct 2017 15:53:44 -0700 (PDT), Dene <gds...@aol.com>

Then you know what your opinion is worth...in your opinion.

[Dene]

I'm not jumping to conclusions.

[John B.]

On Monday, October 30, 2017 at 5:46:24 PM UTC-4, Dene wrote:
> On Monday, October 30, 2017 at 1:17:42 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
> > On Monday, October 30, 2017 at 4:40:14 PM UTC-4, Alan Baker wrote:

> > > On 2017-10-30 1:37 PM, Dene wrote:
> > > > On Monday, October 30, 2017 at 10:54:17 AM UTC-8, B...@onramp.net wrote:
> > > >> On Mon, 30 Oct 2017 11:16:41 -0700 (PDT), Dene <gds...@aol.com>
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> OL. Does it occur to you that both men were heavily involved with the
> > > >>> Trump campaign during while this was going on? Manafort was chairman
> > > >>> and Gates his deputy. Oh, there are 12 counts and the headline says
> > > >>> "Cjarged with conspiracy against the U.S."
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Then there's the blatant fact that this investigation is about
> > > >>> conspiracy with the Russian government's involvement in the 2016
> > > >>> election. Tax evasion is just along for the ride.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> None of that gets through to you? Of course it has a lot to do with
> > > >>> the campaign, but keep your head in the sand until it all goes away.
> > > >>> Uh....that ain't gonna happen Greg.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/30/politics/paul-manafort-russia-investigation-surrender/index.html
> > > >>>
> > > >>> None of your bluster contradicts the fact that these alleged crimes occurred long before he joined the Trump campaign. Apples and oranges.
> > > >>
> > > >> These connections that Manafort made prior to 2016 didn't just go away
> > > >> and weren't contacted during the election? How naive can you be? Your
> > > >> head isn't in the sand, it's up your ass.
> > > >>
> > > >> As far as bluster goes that's all you ever have to offer, seldom
> > > >> common sense.
> > > >
> > > > Then why wasn't he charged for alleged crimes in 2015?
> > >

> > > If you mean why weren't the charges LAID in 2015, how about because it
> > > hadn't been discovered?
> > >
> > > If you mean he hasn't charged for crimes COMMITTED in 2015...
> > >
> > > ...he has.
> > >

> > > > Reason is obvious to rational people. There was no collusion of any kind within the Trump campaign.
> > >

> > > Except that Papadopoulos admits he was colluding while working with the
> > > Trump campaign...
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Deal with it.
> > > >
> >
> > Greg and I bet $20 a few mos. ago that no one would be indicted
> > by Mueller. I suspect he's trying to wiggle out of paying by
> > saying no one associated with the campaign was indicted.
> > He'll say Popadopolous wasn't indicted, he pleaded guilty, so
> > that doesn't count.
>
> I'll have to research the perameters. Was Popadopolous accused of collusion?

He pleaded guilty to perjury.

[John B.]

Regarding the bet you made with me, there were no qualifications.
It was whether or not someone would be indicted, period. Two
people have been indicted. You owe me 20 bucks.

[Dene]

John....did a Google search, using "bet indictment" on RSG and I came up with a bet I proposed for $100 that there would be no indictments stemming from the infamous Donnie Jr. meeting. However, I didn't find your acceptance. Just some nonsense from Foghorn and the RAT.

I'm not calling you a liar and I would gladly pay the $20 to give you the benefit of the doubt. I'm just trying to find the particular bet and acceptance. I think Reagan called this "trust but verify."

Can you help me out?

[Alan Baker]

On 2017-10-30 4:12 PM, Moderate wrote:
> Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> Wrote in message:

> It is in the indictment, rat.
>

Quote it...

[Alan Baker]

On 2017-10-30 4:09 PM, Moderate wrote:
> Dene <gds...@aol.com> Wrote in message:

>> On Monday, October 30, 2017 at 1:17:42 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
>>> On Monday, October 30, 2017 at 4:40:14 PM UTC-4, Alan Baker wrote:

>>>> On 2017-10-30 1:37 PM, Dene wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, October 30, 2017 at 10:54:17 AM UTC-8, B...@onramp.net wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 30 Oct 2017 11:16:41 -0700 (PDT), Dene <gds...@aol.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> OL. Does it occur to you that both men were heavily involved with the
>>>>>>> Trump campaign during while this was going on? Manafort was chairman
>>>>>>> and Gates his deputy. Oh, there are 12 counts and the headline says
>>>>>>> "Cjarged with conspiracy against the U.S."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Then there's the blatant fact that this investigation is about
>>>>>>> conspiracy with the Russian government's involvement in the 2016
>>>>>>> election. Tax evasion is just along for the ride.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> None of that gets through to you? Of course it has a lot to do with
>>>>>>> the campaign, but keep your head in the sand until it all goes away.
>>>>>>> Uh....that ain't gonna happen Greg.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/30/politics/paul-manafort-russia-investigation-surrender/index.html
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> None of your bluster contradicts the fact that these alleged crimes occurred long before he joined the Trump campaign. Apples and oranges.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> These connections that Manafort made prior to 2016 didn't just go away
>>>>>> and weren't contacted during the election? How naive can you be? Your
>>>>>> head isn't in the sand, it's up your ass.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As far as bluster goes that's all you ever have to offer, seldom
>>>>>> common sense.
>>>>>

>>>>> Then why wasn't he charged for alleged crimes in 2015?
>>>>
>>>> If you mean why weren't the charges LAID in 2015, how about because it
>>>> hadn't been discovered?
>>>>
>>>> If you mean he hasn't charged for crimes COMMITTED in 2015...
>>>>
>>>> ...he has.
>>>>
>>>>> Reason is obvious to rational people. There was no collusion of any kind within the Trump campaign.
>>>>
>>>> Except that Papadopoulos admits he was colluding while working with the
>>>> Trump campaign...
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Deal with it.
>>>>>
>>>
>>> Greg and I bet $20 a few mos. ago that no one would be indicted
>>> by Mueller. I suspect he's trying to wiggle out of paying by
>>> saying no one associated with the campaign was indicted.
>>> He'll say Popadopolous wasn't indicted, he pleaded guilty, so
>>> that doesn't count.
>>
>> I'll have to research the perameters. Was Popadopolous accused of collusion?
>>
>

> No.
>

He confessed to it.

[Alan Baker]

On 2017-10-30 4:11 PM, Moderate wrote:
> B...@Onramp.net Wrote in message:

> He confessed to making false statements. That is all he was
> charged with.
>

Ummmm...


...no.

[Alan Baker]

Nope. The activities of Manafort that have indicted him continued until
October of 2016

[MNMikeW]

And had NOTHING to do with the election. NOTHING.

[MNMikeW]

You obviously didn't read the indictments. You cant prove shit as usual.

[MNMikeW]

LOL! Ok genius, what did he plead guilty to?

[B...@onramp.net]

You're getting to be as intractable as Greg. Of course the indictment
is tied to collusion both before, during and after the election. May
as well wait and see because our discussion isn't solving anything.

[B...@onramp.net]

Of course I read them..
You can't prove shit...as usual. Neither of us has all of the
answers, but I have confidence in Mueller to get to the bottom of
this.

[Dene]

You're getting to be as intractable as Greg. Of course the indictment
is tied to collusion both before, during and after the election. May
as well wait and see because our discussion isn't solving anything.

What is the tie in? Try to be specific.

[B...@onramp.net]

Lying to the FBI. I guess you think that he lied about his age but it
obviously had to do with his collusion.

[B...@onramp.net]

On Tue, 31 Oct 2017 08:01:04 -0700 (PDT), Dene <gds...@aol.com>
wrote:

Read the last sentence above or get someone to explain it to you.

[-hh]

Which is pretty much playing out the way that I had predicted: without
nailing down the specifics upfront, all that's going to happen is a
pissing contest with zero resolution.

<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.sport.golf/vkexRidb1fg/5OQ3XgFnBQAJ>

And what was already pointed out in the above thread is that Greg's
original statement was:

"$100 says there is no indictment for a violation of this statute
as pertains to the meeting in question."

And analysis thereof also noted:

"...since Greg's original statement was very broad, it
encompasses all participants at said meetings, which includes
the foreign nationals present, not just the Trump inner circle.

At which point, things get interestingly complicated quite
quickly: will all of these players be able to escape scrutiny
from Mueller (such as by Foreign Nationals fleeing the country)
and how will that be received? Similarly, if they do become
ensnared, what are the ramifications if Trump then chooses to
pardon just such a Foreign National in an attempt to try to
deny Mueller from having leverage over them as a strategy to
land the bigger (US Citizen) fish? Or would such an attempt
by Trump result in a more profound backfire & backlash?"


If memory serves, Papadopoulos was present ... and has now
reportedly plead guilty to charges and is cooperating.
Pragmatically, I'd conclude that Greg has already lost his $100.

At this "one and counting" point, Greg should consider himself
lucky for not inadvertently offering $100 for _each_ violation...


-hh

[Dene]

Here is USA Today article, BK, that tells the truth.

https://usat.ly/2zSNkBy

“While Mueller's filings did not allege there was collusion between the campaign and Russia, Papadopoulos’s attempts to contact Russians did take place during the campaign. Legal documents filed by Mueller show he was reporting to – and being encouraged by – top-level aides in the campaign.” 

The kid try to set up a meeting to acquire dirt on HRC. Trouble was....nobody senior in the Trump campaign was willing. Hence....no collusion. Note that he was not charged with meeting with professor. Why? Because it’s legal! What was illegal was lying to the FBI about it.

[Dene]

If memory serves, Papadopoulos was present ... and has now
reportedly plead guilty to charges and is cooperating.
Pragmatically, I'd conclude that Greg has already lost his $100.

Your memory isn’t serving you. The kid was not present.

At this "one and counting" point, Greg should consider himself
lucky for not inadvertently offering $100 for _each_ violation...

There is no indictment related to the meeting with Donnie Junior, nor have I found anything about a $20 bet with John. I do have a vague memory about it but I can’t find the thread. It’s not in the thread you cited.

[MNMikeW]

You make ZERO sense. Have you actually read the indictment?

[B...@onramp.net]

Yes.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/manafort-faces-charges-are-tough-beat-n815806

[Dene]

And since you read the indictment, what within it or your NBC article, supports your statement....

"Of course the indictment is tied to collusion both before, during and after the election."

Why is it inconceivable to you that the crime is independent of the Trump Campaign, same as the blue dress had nothing to do with Whitewater?

[Alan Baker]

In essence: colluding with Russia to win the election.

And from his sworn statement, we know other members of the Trump
campaign were involved.

[Alan Baker]

George Papadopoulos does....

[Alan Baker]

No. You are lying or ignorant.

[John B.]

Forget it. I have better things to do than try to track this down.

[Dene]

John B.

On Tuesday, October 31, 2017 at 12:56:45 AM UTC-4, Dene wrote:
> On Monday, October 30, 2017 at 4:36:50 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
> > On Monday, October 30, 2017 at 6:13:54 PM UTC-4, Dene wrote:
> > > On Monday, October 30, 2017 at 1:59:00 PM UTC-8, B...@onramp.net wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 30 Oct 2017 14:42:02 -0700 (PDT), Dene <gds...@aol.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >On Monday, October 30, 2017 at 10:54:17 AM UTC-8, B...@onramp.net wrote:
> > > > >> On Mon, 30 Oct 2017 11:16:41 -0700 (PDT), Dene <gds...@aol.com>

- show quoted text -

Forget it. I have better things to do than try to track this down.

You’re retired. You have the time. If you or somebody finds it, I will pay it.

[John B.]

I'm semi-retired and I don't have the time or inclination.

[Dene]

- show quoted text -

I'm semi-retired and I don't have the time or inclination.

So am I but I will be full-time starting tomorrow for six long weeks. Nonetheless I took the time to try and find the thread and I couldn’t do it. It’s your $20.

[Alan Baker]

Done.

In reply to John:

"Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2017 17:00:44 -0700 (PDT)

$20 says there are no indictments. You in?"

<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/rec.sport.golf/x4xB5HZEgWU/IqGrmwtdAQAJ>

No other conditions: just "no indictments".

Let the weaseling commence!

[MNMikeW]

Yes, because using Google is soooooooooooo hard to do.

[Alan Baker]

Not to worry, John.

I did it in about 3 minutes.

:-)

[Alan Baker]

And now you're lying:

<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/rec.sport.golf/authorname$3Adene$20$2420%7Csort:date>

A search turns it up as the (now) third (it was second when I first
searched, but GG now finds the post to which I'm replying as well) post
in the list.

But doing that search must have been too tough for you (you don't have
the wit to realize you can do "authorname:dene" as a search), so let's
look at this search:

<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/rec.sport.golf/$2420%7Csort:date>

Now it turns up as quoted text in the fifth and sixth results...

...and even you can do a search that is just "$20".

So you're a bald-face liar.

[Alan Baker]

<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/rec.sport.golf/$2420%7Csort:date>

Apparently too hard for Greg-the-weasel...

:-)

[Dene]

Well it didn't work for me. I tried "$20" in combination with "John" and found nothing. I also tried "bet" but that got the phone book.

Perhaps I made it too complicated or it's indicative I have a life away from a keyboard.

[Alan Baker]

Or maybe this post is just another example of what a coward you are,
Greg-the-weasel.

:-)

[B...@onramp.net]

On Tue, 31 Oct 2017 12:13:33 -0700 (PDT), Dene <gds...@aol.com>
wrote:
<clip>

>> Yes, because using Google is soooooooooooo hard to do.
>
>Well it didn't work for me. I tried "$20" in combination with "John" and found nothing. I also tried "bet" but that got the phone book.
>
>Perhaps I made it too complicated or it's indicative I have a life away from a keyboard.

Like today? LOL

[Alan Baker]

Hey, now!

Cheap shots are all weasel-boy's really got left.

:-(

[Dene]

Not today....working all day today. :)

[B...@onramp.net]

On Tue, 31 Oct 2017 12:36:04 -0700 (PDT), Dene <gds...@aol.com>

wrote:

>On Tuesday, October 31, 2017 at 11:32:25 AM UTC-8, B...@onramp.net wrote:
>> On Tue, 31 Oct 2017 12:13:33 -0700 (PDT), Dene <gds...@aol.com>
>> wrote:
>> <clip>
>> >> Yes, because using Google is soooooooooooo hard to do.
>> >
>> >Well it didn't work for me. I tried "$20" in combination with "John" and found nothing. I also tried "bet" but that got the phone book.
>> >
>> >Perhaps I made it too complicated or it's indicative I have a life away from a keyboard.
>>
>> Like today? LOL
>
>Not today....working all day today. :)

Twenty three posts on 10/31 (since 12:01) am

[MNMikeW]

It's called multitasking.

[B...@onramp.net]

But not indicative of life away from a keyboard.

[Dene]

I take breaks.
You should go outside.

[Dene]

I'm sporting a pretty good tan that proves I get outside....

[Alan Baker]

...you claim.

[Dene]

Yep....audible re-certification is blaring in the background.

[B...@onramp.net]

On Tue, 31 Oct 2017 13:40:31 -0700 (PDT), Dene <gds...@aol.com>

wrote:

>On Tuesday, October 31, 2017 at 11:50:11 AM UTC-8, B...@onramp.net wrote:
>> On Tue, 31 Oct 2017 12:36:04 -0700 (PDT), Dene <gds...@aol.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Tuesday, October 31, 2017 at 11:32:25 AM UTC-8, B...@onramp.net wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 31 Oct 2017 12:13:33 -0700 (PDT), Dene <gds...@aol.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> <clip>
>> >> >> Yes, because using Google is soooooooooooo hard to do.
>> >> >
>> >> >Well it didn't work for me. I tried "$20" in combination with "John" and found nothing. I also tried "bet" but that got the phone book.
>> >> >
>> >> >Perhaps I made it too complicated or it's indicative I have a life away from a keyboard.
>> >>
>> >> Like today? LOL
>> >
>> >Not today....working all day today. :)
>>
>> Twenty three posts on 10/31 (since 12:01) am
>
>I take breaks.

Dodging again. that number shows that you are as prolific on the
keyboard as anyone else.
>You should go outside.

I do.

[B...@onramp.net]

On Tue, 31 Oct 2017 13:41:19 -0700 (PDT), Dene <gds...@aol.com>

wrote:

>On Tuesday, October 31, 2017 at 12:00:39 PM UTC-8, B...@onramp.net wrote:
>> On Tue, 31 Oct 2017 14:56:45 -0500, MNMikeW <mnmi...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> >B...@Onramp.net wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 31 Oct 2017 12:36:04 -0700 (PDT), Dene<gds...@aol.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> On Tuesday, October 31, 2017 at 11:32:25 AM UTC-8, B...@onramp.net wrote:
>> >>>> On Tue, 31 Oct 2017 12:13:33 -0700 (PDT), Dene<gds...@aol.com>
>> >>>> wrote:
>> >>>> <clip>
>> >>>>>> Yes, because using Google is soooooooooooo hard to do.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Well it didn't work for me. I tried "$20" in combination with "John" and found nothing. I also tried "bet" but that got the phone book.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Perhaps I made it too complicated or it's indicative I have a life away from a keyboard.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Like today? LOL
>> >>>
>> >>> Not today....working all day today. :)
>> >>
>> >> Twenty three posts on 10/31 (since 12:01) am
>> >
>> >It's called multitasking.
>>
>> But not indicative of life away from a keyboard.
>
>I'm sporting a pretty good tan that proves I get outside....

Possibly, but you might have a tanning bed....but numbers don't lie.

[Dene]

I'm sporting a pretty good tan that proves I get outside....

Possibly, but you might have a tanning bed....but numbers don't lie.

Uh....I play golf 3 to 4 times a week and I live near Tucson.

I also use my devices quite a bit for my RSG getaways. Using one right now.

[B...@onramp.net]

On Tue, 31 Oct 2017 17:52:19 -0700 (PDT), Dene <gds...@aol.com>
wrote:

What devices? RSG getaways?

[Dene]

On Tue, 31 Oct 2017 17:52:19 -0700 (PDT), Dene <gds...@aol.com>
wrote:

- show quoted text -

What devices? RSG getaways?

iPhone and IPad.
RSG getaway is my term for the often entertaining time I spend here.

[B...@onramp.net]

On Tue, 31 Oct 2017 18:13:55 -0700 (PDT), Dene <gds...@aol.com>

wrote:

>On Tue, 31 Oct 2017 17:52:19 -0700 (PDT), Dene <gds...@aol.com>
>wrote:
>- show quoted text -
>What devices? RSG getaways?
>
>iPhone and IPad.
>RSG getaway is my term for the often entertaining time I spend here.

What iPhone do you have? I just ordered two Xs. Have had them from
the 3g on up but am gonna have to almost relearn everything over again
on this one. Big changes.

[Alan Baker]

Why did you opt for the X? I'm considering my next purchase, and I'd
welcome real world opinions; both pre and post purchase.

[B...@onramp.net]

On Tue, 31 Oct 2017 19:12:59 -0700, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net>
wrote:

I skipped the 7 and wanted all of those upgrades so rather than get
the 8 I figured to go the whole route and get what is a real change.
And I mean a REAL change.
:LLL

[Alan Baker]

My reasoning is more about the fact that with the X you get the biggest
screen for the overall size of the phone (and you get the good camera of
the Plus). The Plus is just too big for me to pocket comfortably.

[B...@onramp.net]

On Tue, 31 Oct 2017 19:47:49 -0700, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net>

All good reasons. The only drawback to me is the loss of the earphone
plug in, but it comes with an attachment for it. I'm gonna miss the
Home button and hope that the face recognition works as well as the
fingerprint. I was surprised that my wife wanted one too but she's
really into the camera.