Kansas Crimson

twocoach wrote: ↑Mon Aug 10, 2020 12:46 pm

TDub wrote: ↑Mon Aug 10, 2020 9:56 am

jfish26 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 10, 2020 9:51 am

As I've said here, I will be highly skeptical of reports in that nature, and want to know with specificity where they come from. It is absolutely the case that one of the most obvious tools that can be deployed here is to create the impression of widespread interference and fraud (such that an adverse result simply cannot be legitimate).

Of course your skeptical. But you believe the russia fraud instantly

A microcosm of our country.

Trump has a history of shady dealings with Russia dating back to the mid to late 1980s so there a bit more to support those claims.

Have Iran and China been bailing Biden out of financial holes for the last 30+ years and I didnt know about it?

That isn't required for foreign election interference to be an issue.

IllinoisJayhawk wrote: ↑Mon Aug 10, 2020 1:12 pm

twocoach wrote: ↑Mon Aug 10, 2020 12:46 pm

TDub wrote: ↑Mon Aug 10, 2020 9:56 am

Of course your skeptical. But you believe the russia fraud instantly

A microcosm of our country.

Trump has a history of shady dealings with Russia dating back to the mid to late 1980s so there a bit more to support those claims.

Have Iran and China been bailing Biden out of financial holes for the last 30+ years and I didnt know about it?

That isn't required for foreign election interference to be an issue.

The discussion was about quickly believing it about Trump vs. being skeptical about it with Biden, not whether or not it was interference.

twocoach wrote: ↑Mon Aug 10, 2020 1:39 pm

IllinoisJayhawk wrote: ↑Mon Aug 10, 2020 1:12 pm

twocoach wrote: ↑Mon Aug 10, 2020 12:46 pm
Trump has a history of shady dealings with Russia dating back to the mid to late 1980s so there a bit more to support those claims.

Have Iran and China been bailing Biden out of financial holes for the last 30+ years and I didnt know about it?

That isn't required for foreign election interference to be an issue.

The discussion was about quickly believing it about Trump vs. being skeptical about it with Biden, not whether or not it was interference.

Well, tbh that (financial dealings) isn't what the discussion was about. That (financial dealings) is only what your comment was about.


And frankly, are you surprised trump has to look to overseas financiers for development projects after his history of bankruptcy? It is no shock american banks want no part of his speculative development projects. Not to mention only a very small % of banks are even big enough to take on projects of that size.

I would be curious to know if trump has ever had projects financed/back by Chinese banks/investors?

Also, i do not think the russia interference has much to do with his financial history with their banks/investors. It has to do with his foreign policy and being more friendly towards them that his predecessors and his previous opponent in Hilary.

Just as i dont think China's pro-biden interference has anything to do with Hunter Biden. It has to do with Biden having a history of being easier to deal with than trump (and trump being completely unpredictable) from China's perspective.

IllinoisJayhawk wrote: ↑Mon Aug 10, 2020 2:31 pm

twocoach wrote: ↑Mon Aug 10, 2020 1:39 pm

IllinoisJayhawk wrote: ↑Mon Aug 10, 2020 1:12 pm

That isn't required for foreign election interference to be an issue.

The discussion was about quickly believing it about Trump vs. being skeptical about it with Biden, not whether or not it was interference.

Well, tbh that isn't what the discussion was about. That (financial dealings) is only what your comment was about.


And frankly, are you surprised trump has to look to overseas financiers for development projects after his history of bankruptcy? It is no shock american banks want no part of his speculative development projects. Not to mention only a very small % of banks are even big enough to take on projects of that size.

I would be curious to know if trump has ever had projects financed/back by Chinese banks/investors?

Also, i do not think the russia interference has much to do with his financial history with their banks/investors. It has to do with his foreign policy and being more friendly towards them that his predecessors and his previous opponent in Hilary.

Just as i dont think China's pro-biden interference has anything to do with Hunter Biden. It has to do with Biden having a history of being easier to deal with than trump (and trump being completely unpredictable) from China's perspective.

What does "has much to do with" mean?

Because I'll bet you your greens fees that there's a relationship. It may not work exactly as many suspect (I think he is being used, as much as anything else), but there's a relationship.

jfish26 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 10, 2020 2:35 pm

IllinoisJayhawk wrote: ↑Mon Aug 10, 2020 2:31 pm

twocoach wrote: ↑Mon Aug 10, 2020 1:39 pm

The discussion was about quickly believing it about Trump vs. being skeptical about it with Biden, not whether or not it was interference.

Well, tbh that isn't what the discussion was about. That (financial dealings) is only what your comment was about.


And frankly, are you surprised trump has to look to overseas financiers for development projects after his history of bankruptcy? It is no shock american banks want no part of his speculative development projects. Not to mention only a very small % of banks are even big enough to take on projects of that size.

I would be curious to know if trump has ever had projects financed/back by Chinese banks/investors?

Also, i do not think the russia interference has much to do with his financial history with their banks/investors. It has to do with his foreign policy and being more friendly towards them that his predecessors and his previous opponent in Hilary.

Just as i dont think China's pro-biden interference has anything to do with Hunter Biden. It has to do with Biden having a history of being easier to deal with than trump (and trump being completely unpredictable) from China's perspective.

What does "has much to do with" mean?

Because I'll bet you your greens fees that there's a relationship. It may not work exactly as many suspect (I think he is being used, as much as anything else), but there's a relationship.

I think even without that "relationship" russia would have still VASTLY preferred him over Hilary and the interference would have been the same.

IllinoisJayhawk wrote: ↑Mon Aug 10, 2020 2:41 pm

jfish26 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 10, 2020 2:35 pm

IllinoisJayhawk wrote: ↑Mon Aug 10, 2020 2:31 pm

Well, tbh that isn't what the discussion was about. That (financial dealings) is only what your comment was about.


And frankly, are you surprised trump has to look to overseas financiers for development projects after his history of bankruptcy? It is no shock american banks want no part of his speculative development projects. Not to mention only a very small % of banks are even big enough to take on projects of that size.

I would be curious to know if trump has ever had projects financed/back by Chinese banks/investors?

Also, i do not think the russia interference has much to do with his financial history with their banks/investors. It has to do with his foreign policy and being more friendly towards them that his predecessors and his previous opponent in Hilary.

Just as i dont think China's pro-biden interference has anything to do with Hunter Biden. It has to do with Biden having a history of being easier to deal with than trump (and trump being completely unpredictable) from China's perspective.

What does "has much to do with" mean?

Because I'll bet you your greens fees that there's a relationship. It may not work exactly as many suspect (I think he is being used, as much as anything else), but there's a relationship.

I think even without that "relationship" russia would have still VASTLY preferred him over Hilary and the interference would have been the same.

I mean a relationship between his financial history and Russia's actions.

It is, and has always been, about the money. Whether by luck or design, or some combination, I think Russia found out it had quite an asset.

IllinoisJayhawk wrote: ↑Mon Aug 10, 2020 2:41 pm I think even without that "relationship" russia would have still VASTLY preferred him over Hilary and the interference would have been the same.

I think they would've preferred Trump > Hillary > Any other Republican. GOP used to be full of Russia hawks, but it seems have had a useful idiot fall into the White House, and able to use that relationship to basically sow discord in American on a greater scale then they could've ever imagine.

Don't forget, they think this whole thing is funny, and mocking the US every chance they get

https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/05/15/ru ... ed-states/

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/artic ... t-at-trump

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-des ... -all-of-us

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/heres ... 2019-10-10

jfish26 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 10, 2020 2:45 pm

IllinoisJayhawk wrote: ↑Mon Aug 10, 2020 2:41 pm

jfish26 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 10, 2020 2:35 pm

What does "has much to do with" mean?

Because I'll bet you your greens fees that there's a relationship. It may not work exactly as many suspect (I think he is being used, as much as anything else), but there's a relationship.

I think even without that "relationship" russia would have still VASTLY preferred him over Hilary and the interference would have been the same.

I mean a relationship between his financial history and Russia's actions.

It is, and has always been, about the money. Whether by luck or design, or some combination, I think Russia found out it had quite an asset.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.busine ... 8-11%3famp

This has a decent timeline breakdown of that financial history.

NiceDC wrote: ↑Mon Aug 10, 2020 2:46 pm

IllinoisJayhawk wrote: ↑Mon Aug 10, 2020 2:41 pm I think even without that "relationship" russia would have still VASTLY preferred him over Hilary and the interference would have been the same.

I think they would've preferred Trump > Hillary > Any other Republican. GOP used to be full of Russia hawks, but it seems have had a useful, compromised idiot fall into the White House, and able to use that relationship to basically sow discord in American on a greater scale then they could've ever imagine.

Don't forget, they think this whole thing is funny, and mocking the US every chance they get

https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/05/15/ru ... ed-states/

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/artic ... t-at-trump

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-des ... -all-of-us

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/heres ... 2019-10-10

Please see addition above in bold underline.

IllinoisJayhawk wrote: ↑Mon Aug 10, 2020 2:54 pm

jfish26 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 10, 2020 2:45 pm

IllinoisJayhawk wrote: ↑Mon Aug 10, 2020 2:41 pm

I think even without that "relationship" russia would have still VASTLY preferred him over Hilary and the interference would have been the same.

I mean a relationship between his financial history and Russia's actions.

It is, and has always been, about the money. Whether by luck or design, or some combination, I think Russia found out it had quite an asset.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.busine ... 8-11%3famp

This has a decent timeline breakdown of that financial history.

Sort of, but it leaves out the real significance of the US property transactions.

"Useful Idiot" is a term of art, not commentary. I think compromised is implied, but if not, "compromised useful idiot" would be proper here.

NiceDC wrote: ↑Mon Aug 10, 2020 2:46 pm

IllinoisJayhawk wrote: ↑Mon Aug 10, 2020 2:41 pm I think even without that "relationship" russia would have still VASTLY preferred him over Hilary and the interference would have been the same.

I think they would've preferred Trump > Hillary > Any other Republican. GOP used to be full of Russia hawks, but it seems have had a useful idiot fall into the White House, and able to use that relationship to basically sow discord in American on a greater scale then they could've ever imagine.

Don't forget, they think this whole thing is funny, and mocking the US every chance they get

https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/05/15/ru ... ed-states/

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/artic ... t-at-trump

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-des ... -all-of-us

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/heres ... 2019-10-10

The marketwatch article is worth reading by everyone.

jfish26 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 10, 2020 2:35 pm

IllinoisJayhawk wrote: ↑Mon Aug 10, 2020 2:31 pm

twocoach wrote: ↑Mon Aug 10, 2020 1:39 pm

The discussion was about quickly believing it about Trump vs. being skeptical about it with Biden, not whether or not it was interference.

Well, tbh that isn't what the discussion was about. That (financial dealings) is only what your comment was about.


And frankly, are you surprised trump has to look to overseas financiers for development projects after his history of bankruptcy? It is no shock american banks want no part of his speculative development projects. Not to mention only a very small % of banks are even big enough to take on projects of that size.

I would be curious to know if trump has ever had projects financed/back by Chinese banks/investors?

Also, i do not think the russia interference has much to do with his financial history with their banks/investors. It has to do with his foreign policy and being more friendly towards them that his predecessors and his previous opponent in Hilary.

Just as i dont think China's pro-biden interference has anything to do with Hunter Biden. It has to do with Biden having a history of being easier to deal with than trump (and trump being completely unpredictable) from China's perspective.

What does "has much to do with" mean?

Because I'll bet you your greens fees that there's a relationship. It may not work exactly as many suspect (I think he is being used, as much as anything else), but there's a relationship.

The problem is that Trump is so unlike us that people cannot picture him really behaving like he does. It is perfe try normal for Trump to court Russian favor. He LOVES to be thought of as a cool guy by powerful people who take what they want with brazen impunity.

Trump has no problem with taking money from criminal Russian oligarchs because, like most powerful Russians, he thinks anyone who would NOT do it is a weak idiot.

Trump is Putin's wet dream. A wanna-be tough guy who has never had to do anything tough in his life. An idiot who thinks he's smart is the easiest mark for someone of Putin's abilities.

Newflash: many/most/all real estate developers will take money from anyone for development projects. I am not alarmed solely because a bunch of rich Russians bought sweet condos in various cities in the USA where Trump has buildings.

And like i said, with his history of bankruptcy i doubt he turns down many guys willing to invest regardless of their background.

Not saying it is right or wrong, just that it is reality.

It is also interesting that some (not necessarily directed at anyone here fwiw) assume all rich russians are criminals (i am sure many are, heck many rich americans are borderline criminals as well), but dont view the rich/ruling class from China similarly when they have pretty bad human rights resumes as well.

IllinoisJayhawk wrote: ↑Mon Aug 10, 2020 6:11 pm Newflash: many/most/all real estate developers will take money from anyone for development projects. I am not alarmed solely because a bunch of rich Russians bought sweet condos in various cities in the USA where Trump has buildings.

And like i said, with his history of bankruptcy i doubt he turns down many guys willing to invest regardless of their background.

Not saying it is right or wrong, just that it is reality.

It is also interesting that some (not necessarily directed at anyone here fwiw) assume all rich russians are criminals (i am sure many are, heck many rich americans are borderline criminals as well), but dont view the rich/ruling class from China similarly when they have pretty bad human rights resumes as well.

I didn't assume anything. It has been covered extensively.

"all" was a key word there.

For fun, since it has been covered extensively (but i have my doubts you truly know any of these names, although you would never admit it), here is a summary of the handful of problematic russians that are allegedly somehow tied to trump in various ways, although i dont personally see how some of them ONLY owning a condo makes them anymore tied to Trump than i am to the person who developed my neighborhood... (it is interesting stuff to read about some of them for sure though)

Felix Sater:
Sater spent a year in prison for stabbing a man in the face with a broken margarita glass at the Rio Grande restaurant and bar in New York in 1991. According a lawsuit filed by former partner Jody Kriss, Sater held a controlling share of the Bayrock Group, which developed the Trump Soho condominium tower in New York that was completed in 2010.

A federal criminal complaint in New York in 1998 accused Sater of money laundering and stock manipulation but was kept secret by prosecutors because the Russian immigrant was working as a CIA informant, according to numerous published reports. Salvatore Lauria, a co-defendant and future partner at Bayrock, co-wrote in a 2003 book that he and Sater sought to reduce their sentences by acting as middlemen for the CIA to buy weapons that fell into the hands of mobsters after the fall of the Soviet Union. The scheme fell apart, but the relationships remained, according Lauria's book, The Scorpion and the Frog: High Crimes and High Times.

Kriss, a former finance director for the developers, accused Sater, Lauria and their Bayrock partners in a 2010 federal lawsuit of diverting millions of dollars to shell companies to avoid U.S. taxes. He also claimed they kept secret Sater's criminal past and his guilty plea to racketeering charges while “he was aiding the prosecution of his Mafia and Russian organized crime confederates.”

Kriss alleged that while Bayrock was seeking money from foreign investors for Trump SoHo, it considered two groups of Russians with offices in Iceland. One group offered better terms, but Bayrock rejected that and went with the FL Group, which provided $50 million in financing and was “in favor with Putin,” according to the lawsuit that is still pending.

Sater and his co-defendants denied the allegations, calling Kriss’ lawsuit a long-running extortion scheme. But many of the racketeering and fraud claims against them survived a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, according to a Dec. 2 order signed by U.S. District Judge Lorna Schofield.

Sater's criminal past came to light in 2007. That year, Trump testified in a deposition in a defamation lawsuit that he didn't think Sater was a principal at Bayrock and that he was considering not doing business with him anymore. But Sater subsequently traveled to Russia carrying business cards identifying him as a senior adviser to Trump with a Trump Organization phone number and email address, according to photos of the card posted online by NBC, the BBC and other news organizations. In 2013, Trump said in another deposition that he didn't think Sater was connected to the Mafia, that Sater mostly dealt "with my company, not me" and that "if he was sitting in the room right now I really wouldn't know what he looked like."

Sater told The Washington Post last year that he met one-on-one numerous times with Trump. He met alongside Donald Trump Jr. in Phoenix with local officials, and in New York he met repeatedly with Trump and his staff to talk about potential deals in Los Angeles, Ukraine and China, the Post reported.

Trump's lawyer, in interviews with The New York Times and the Post, downplayed the relationship between the two men, saying Trump met and spoke with lots of people but his relationship was with Bayrock, not Sater. Sater did not respond to calls and emails sent to his office.



Alexander Mashkevich:
Mashkevich, a Kazakh mining billionaire, was a source of money for the SoHo project, according to a Bayrock investment pamphet.

Investigators in Belgium accused Mashkevich and two of his Kazakh business partners of money laundering and forgery connected to the $55 million in alleged bribes they received from a Belgian company in the mid-1990s, according to the Financial Times. In 2011, all three men agreed to pay an undisclosed fine to settle the case. They admitted no wrongdoing, and the charges were dropped.

Mashkevich and former Bayrock partner Tevfik Arif were embroiled in a case in 2010, when Turkish police alleged prostitution and human trafficking after they raided a luxury yacht that Mashkevich chartered. After police boarded the Savarona — once owned by the founder of the modern Turkish state, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk — they arrested 10 wealthy men, including Arif, a former Kazakh official. They also found nine young women from Russia and Ukraine — two were 16 years old — and “a huge amount of contraceptives,” according to the Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth.

Mashkevich, who was not at the scene, and Arif denied being involved in anything illegal. The women stayed silent about their involvement, according to published reports. Mashkevich was not charged with a crime. Arif was charged but acquitted, and the court file was sealed.




Peter Kiritchenko:
Kiritchenko, a Ukrainian businessman who owned two condominiums with his daughter at Trump International Beach Resort in Sunny Isles Beach, Fla., was named in a money-laundering scheme involving former Ukraine prime minister Pavlo Lazarenko.

According to federal prosecutors in San Francisco in 2009, Kiritchenko helped Lazarenko launder millions of dollars obtained through extortion by purchasing luxury real estate in the United States and other countries. Kiritchenko was convicted of one count of receiving stolen property in California after he testified against the former prime minister. Lazarenko was sentenced to eight years in federal prison and fined $9 million after he was convicted on multiple counts of money laundering.

A federal appeals court said Kiritchenko was a "deep and willing" accomplice "in the heart of the conspiracy."


Viktor Khrapunov:
Khrapunov, a former Kazakhstan energy minister and mayor of Almaty, owns three units in the Trump SoHo through shell companies, according to lawyers for the Kazakh city who filed a 2014 federal lawsuit against him in Los Angeles. Almaty's lawyers alleged in the lawsuit that Khrapunov used real estate in California, New York, Europe and the Middle East to hide hundreds of millions of dollars looted by selling state-owned assets. Khrapunov, who lives in Switzerland, denies the claim, saying he and his family are being targeted by a political opponent, Kazakh President Nursultan Nazarbayev.


Anatoly Golubchik, Vadim Trincher and Michael Sall:
Three Trump condo owners — Golubchik, Trincher and Sall — were convicted in 2013 in federal court in New York of participating in an illegal high-stakes sports betting ring for a Russian-American organized crime group. The betting ring operated illegal gambling websites and catered almost exclusively to wealthy oligarchs from the former Soviet Union, according to prosecutors.

Golubchik and Sall own Trump condos in Sunny Isles Beach. And professional poker player Trincher owns a condo in Trump Tower in New York City.

Golubchik and Trincher were principal leaders of the enterprise, which included money laundering and extortion, prosecutors charged in the indictment.

The godfather of the operation was identified as Alimzhan Tokhtakhounov, who federal prosecutors said was a Vor, “a powerful figure in former Soviet Union organized crime” who never left Russia because he was under indictment in the U.S. for his role in allegedly bribing officials at the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City.

Sall helped launder tens of millions of dollars from the gambling enterprise, prosecutors said when they announced that all three condo owners pleaded guilty to lesser charges. Sall pleaded guilty to interstate travel in aid of an unlawful activity — illegal gambling. Golubchik and Trincher pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit racketeering. Tokhtakhounov remains in Russia, which does not have an extradition treaty with the United States.

Interesting that it says some money also went to democratic cadidates.

There is really no denying it is all truly problematic....my hope is that the same energy is kept by everyone when similar things are being done to help the candidates from the party people do/don't identify with.

Many Republicans seem to just brush this stuff to the side when it comes to Trump, but if/when similar things were being done to assist Obama or Hilary it was/would be an outrage.

The selective "giving a shit" by both sides when it comes to various topics is both interesting and nauseating.

IllinoisJayhawk wrote: ↑Tue Aug 11, 2020 9:23 am Interesting that it says some money also went to democratic cadidates.

There is really no denying it is all truly problematic....my hope is that the same energy is kept by everyone when similar things are being done to help the candidates from the party people do/don't identify with.

Many Republicans seem to just brush this stuff to the side when it comes to Trump, but if/when similar things were being done to assist Obama or Hilary it was an outrage.

The selective "giving a shit" by both sides when it comes to various topics is both interesting and nauseating.

In 2015-16, everything changed. Blavatnik's political contributions soared and made a hard right turn as he pumped $6.35 million into GOP political action committees, with millions of dollars going to top Republican leaders including Sens. Mitch McConnell, Marco Rubio and Lindsey Graham.

In 2017, donations continued, with $41,000 going to both Republican and Democrat candidates, along with $1 million to McConnell's Senate Leadership Fund.


Bothsidesism. GOP got $7.5 million, Dems $20k, both sides the same.

NiceDC wrote: ↑Tue Aug 11, 2020 9:40 am

IllinoisJayhawk wrote: ↑Tue Aug 11, 2020 9:23 am Interesting that it says some money also went to democratic cadidates.

There is really no denying it is all truly problematic....my hope is that the same energy is kept by everyone when similar things are being done to help the candidates from the party people do/don't identify with.

Many Republicans seem to just brush this stuff to the side when it comes to Trump, but if/when similar things were being done to assist Obama or Hilary it was an outrage.

The selective "giving a shit" by both sides when it comes to various topics is both interesting and nauseating.

In 2015-16, everything changed. Blavatnik's political contributions soared and made a hard right turn as he pumped $6.35 million into GOP political action committees, with millions of dollars going to top Republican leaders including Sens. Mitch McConnell, Marco Rubio and Lindsey Graham.

In 2017, donations continued, with $41,000 going to both Republican and Democrat candidates, along with $1 million to McConnell's Senate Leadership Fund.


Bothsidesism. GOP got $7.5 million, Dems $20k, both sides the same.

Oh definitely not saying it is the same when it comes to this specific guy/group of people. I just thought it was weird/interesting some also went to dems.

But lets not pretend there arent plenty of problematic people pumping money into democrats as well.