Quote:Special counsel Robert Mueller’s team has questioned several witnesses about millions of dollars in donations to President Donald Trump’s inauguration committee last year, including questions about donors with connections to Russia, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar, sources with direct knowledge told ABC News.

Those interviewed included longtime Trump friend and confidant Thomas Barrack, who oversaw the fundraising effort, as well as individuals familiar with the massive inaugural fund, according to sources with direct knowledge.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/exclusiv...d=55054482

Sources close to Bueller are reporting that when this one falls through, Bueller will examine claims that Trump once boasted of dropping a Russian ruble into a NYC parking meter.

Quick question, because I really don't know, is taking money from foreigners for the purposes of the inauguration a criminal matter?

(05-11-2018 11:25 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  Quick question, because I really don't know, is taking money from foreigners for the purposes of the inauguration a criminal matter?

I don't see how. I don't have any problem with it. I would be surprised if nobody did it before.

(05-11-2018 11:25 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  Quick question, because I really don't know, is taking money from foreigners for the purposes of the inauguration a criminal matter?

Sounds like Trump saved the american taxpayers money.

(05-11-2018 11:25 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  Quick question, because I really don't know, is taking money from foreigners for the purposes of the inauguration a criminal matter?

I don't know either, but doubt it. There's surely a process any inauguration committee is required to go through to document and report everything to the feds. Rest assured, Trump was not in the big-middle of what was transpiring in the details of his inauguration parties. He had other things on his mind like hiding his collusion with Putin from an upcoming special prostecutor's investigation.

Having said that, count on the MSM to report this as though Trump carried the uncashed foreign checks around in his wallet for a few days before depositing them into his personal account.

lol...Shows you what I know. I just assumed the US Treasury paid for inauguration.

(05-11-2018 11:25 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  Quick question, because I really don't know, is taking money from foreigners for the purposes of the inauguration a criminal matter?

I suppose it might be if it was part of a quid pro quo to influence policy matters of the US. Remember, trump was most likely not president yet when the donation was made.

I think the bigger problem with the inaugural funds is that they reportedly raised way more than they spent and there were some questionable payments to people from leftover funds.

It's likely nothing, but it could be something.

I would bet that this is pretty commonplace throughout inaugurations for both sides. Foreigners trying to wish the new king, I mean President, well and trying to curry a little favor at the same time.

(05-11-2018 11:59 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(05-11-2018 11:25 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  Quick question, because I really don't know, is taking money from foreigners for the purposes of the inauguration a criminal matter?

I suppose it might be if it was part of a quid pro quo to influence policy matters of the US.

Almost goes without saying, that's always illegal. By the way, it's illegal if that's done for Americans as well.

Quote:Remember, trump was most likely not president yet when the donation was made.

"most likely"... RU Serious.... Thomas J. Barrack was not even on the Committee until the middle of November..

I think the bigger problem with the inaugural funds is that they reportedly raised way more than they spent and there were some questionable payments to people from leftover funds.

Quote:It's likely nothing, but it could be something.

Is the current Muller philosophy of investigating stuff..

(05-11-2018 11:59 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(05-11-2018 11:25 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  Quick question, because I really don't know, is taking money from foreigners for the purposes of the inauguration a criminal matter?

I suppose it might be if it was part of a quid pro quo to influence policy matters of the US. Remember, trump was most likely not president yet when the donation was made.

Link to anything pointing to this? Or just your opinion? My personal opinion, I don't think this is something even thought about before the election. Well maybe a week or so before if a person was a 98% sure winner. But not if you had a 2% chance of being President. Again just my opinion but I think any thoughts of raising money before the election would be for that election

(05-11-2018 12:23 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(05-11-2018 11:59 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(05-11-2018 11:25 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  Quick question, because I really don't know, is taking money from foreigners for the purposes of the inauguration a criminal matter?

I suppose it might be if it was part of a quid pro quo to influence policy matters of the US. Remember, trump was most likely not president yet when the donation was made.

Link to anything pointing to this? Or just your opinion? My personal opinion, I don't think this is something even thought about before the election. Well maybe a week or so before if a person was a 98% sure winner. But not if you had a 2% chance of being President. Again just my opinion but I think any thoughts of raising money before the election would be for that election

Suppose.
Might.

Buy a dictionary.

(05-11-2018 12:32 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(05-11-2018 12:23 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(05-11-2018 11:59 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(05-11-2018 11:25 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  Quick question, because I really don't know, is taking money from foreigners for the purposes of the inauguration a criminal matter?

I suppose it might be if it was part of a quid pro quo to influence policy matters of the US. Remember, trump was most likely not president yet when the donation was made.

Link to anything pointing to this? Or just your opinion? My personal opinion, I don't think this is something even thought about before the election. Well maybe a week or so before if a person was a 98% sure winner. But not if you had a 2% chance of being President. Again just my opinion but I think any thoughts of raising money before the election would be for that election

Suppose.
Might.

Buy a dictionary.

I know what the words mean...but your comment of Trump most likely not being President is not a opinion or assuming. So you based this on being uninformed?

Nothing new there

(05-11-2018 11:59 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  I suppose it might be if it was part of a quid pro quo to influence policy matters of the US. Remember, trump was most likely not president yet when the donation was made.

Russia collusion to tip election which was the basis of mueller's charge fell by the wayside ...

ROADKILL

So this is what a special counsels investigation looks like when its in the final throws of a death spiral where the guy has nothing. Always wondered what one would look like if it were to ever happen.

(05-11-2018 12:40 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(05-11-2018 12:32 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(05-11-2018 12:23 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(05-11-2018 11:59 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(05-11-2018 11:25 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  Quick question, because I really don't know, is taking money from foreigners for the purposes of the inauguration a criminal matter?

I suppose it might be if it was part of a quid pro quo to influence policy matters of the US. Remember, trump was most likely not president yet when the donation was made.

Link to anything pointing to this? Or just your opinion? My personal opinion, I don't think this is something even thought about before the election. Well maybe a week or so before if a person was a 98% sure winner. But not if you had a 2% chance of being President. Again just my opinion but I think any thoughts of raising money before the election would be for that election

Suppose.
Might.

Buy a dictionary.

I know what the words mean...but your comment of Trump most likely not being President is not a opinion or assuming. So you based this on being uninformed?

Nothing new there

What I meant was that when the donation was made, it was likely before he was sworn in. Hence he was likely not president yet. I don't believe I'm making too big of an assumption.

And mostly confirmed by the link in the OP here:

Quote:Intrater serves as the CEO of Columbus Nova, an investment company based in New York. FEC records show Intrater made a $250,000 donation to the Trump inauguration committee in early January 2017.

Following the donation, he and Vekselberg attended Trump’s inauguration, according to published reports.

Tom I thought you left the board. These cons attack in packs and I need the back up. Check out a thread on using the Dossier in the FISA court. Wasn't it you who had the lengthy post that it was no where near the factor the righties portray. Like one piece of material out of 27? Wasn't that you? The outright lies and falsehoods around this place is a full time job. One guy can't keep up.

(05-11-2018 01:55 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Tom I thought you left the board. These cons attack in packs and I need the back up. Check out a thread on using the Dossier in the FISA court. Wasn't it you who had the lengthy post that it was no where near the factor the righties portray. Like one piece of material out of 27? Wasn't that you? The outright lies and falsehoods around this place is a full time job. One guy can't keep up.

(05-11-2018 01:55 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Tom I thought you left the board. These cons attack in packs and I need the back up. Check out a thread on using the Dossier in the FISA court. Wasn't it you who had the lengthy post that it was no where near the factor the righties portray. Like one piece of material out of 27? Wasn't that you? The outright lies and falsehoods around this place is a full time job. One guy can't keep up.

Might have been. I know I've posted several times that it was not the sole reason for the warrant as Schiff explained in the memo. But they ignore that and just focus on the fact that the Schiff memo didn't specifically call Nunes a liar, like that actually needed to be stated in writing!

Well, while he's got a proven track record of lying, Andy McCabe said that without the Steele Dossier, there would have been no FISA warrant.

Of course, today we learn that the FISA warrant may have been issued against the FBI's own mole in the Trump campaign, which would mean that NOTHING about Page interested them, they merely needed to open a back door into all of Trump's communications.

I'm sure RWT and others are horrified that this sort of thing could happen in America.

(05-11-2018 02:12 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  Well, while he's got a proven track record of lying, Andy McCabe said that without the Steele Dossier, there would have been no FISA warrant.

Of course, today we learn that the FISA warrant may have been issued against the FBI's own mole in the Trump campaign, which would mean that NOTHING about Page interested them, they merely needed to open a back door into all of Trump's communications.

I'm sure RWT and others are horrified that this sort of thing could happen in America.

You've said this before and I previously posted that McCabe disputes this.

So, I'll post it again for you.

Quote:The highly controversial memo from Committee Chairman Devin Nunes claimed McCabe testified that "no surveillance warrant would have been sought" for a Trump campaign aide without a disputed opposition-research dossier on Trump and Russia. Not so says McCabe -- the former No. 2 official at the FBI who signed one of the applications to surveil former Trump campaign foreign policy adviser Carter Page.

"We started the investigations without the dossier. We were proceeding with the investigations before we ever received that information," McCabe told CNN as part of a wide-ranging interview. "Was the dossier material important to the package? Of course, it was. As was every fact included in that package. Was it the majority of what was in the package? Absolutely not."

Some Republicans lawmakers have attempted to cast the dossier as an inherently unreliable piece of opposition research because it was funded through the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton campaign, but McCabe says his testimony was "selectively quoted" and "mischaracterized" in order to bolster the claim that the dossier served as the essential linchpin to the surveillance warrant on Page.

McCabe says Republicans 'mischaracterized' his testimony on Trump dossier

But yes, if the FBI did anything illegal, the parties involved need to be brought to justice. I'm not going to hold my breath though.