John Podesta's brother ensnared in Mueller investigation

[Stinky The Clown]

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/mueller-now-investigating-democratic-lobbyist-tony-podesta-n812776

I think this is the nub of it:

Manafort had organized a public relations campaign for a non-profit called the European Centre for a Modern Ukraine (ECMU). Podesta's company was one of many firms that worked on the campaign, which promoted Ukraine's image in the West.

The sources said the investigation into Podesta and his company began as more of a fact-finding mission about the ECMU and Manafort's role in the campaign, but has now morphed into a criminal inquiry into whether the firm violated the Foreign Agents Registration Act, known as FARA.

[Demsrule86]

1. And...I fail to see why this is even relevant...seems like you are smearing Podesta to me...

the worst sort of smear if you ask me using family members as if we are all responsible for what our family does or doesn't do. Now, why would you do that?...hmm. The primary is over (2016) and the election is over (2016). Let's move on.

[Stinky The Clown]

4. "You" as in me?

This was in at least a dozen news sources, including WaPo and the NYT.

And the intent was not to smear but to put it out there - forewarned is forearmed.

But you go ahead, smear ME for posting actual news from a mainstream source.

[OnDoutside]

7. Well said.

[Demsrule86]

14. Please...a guy named Podesta...you play right into their hands...

[Stinky The Clown]

16. You do realize that the story is factual, right?

It wasn't a "play". Do you understand that?

[Demsrule86]

22. You mean the story about the BROTHER possibly being a target of an investigation.

Sure but why is that relevant...if his name was joe shmoe...would you care? And it promotes the meme that the parties are the same which is simply not true...

[Stinky The Clown]

25. You can avoid facts or you can face them head on.

The story is factual. How it gets used is anyone's business. For me, I want to know more, not less, of what might become the next slime fling from the right.

Do you know the right wing twitterers is saying Sgt La David Johnson was found dead two days later is he deserted and then was killed. Would you rather not know that? I would rather know so when I see some right winger bringing it up, I can call him out on it.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

29. You were RIGHT to report this Stinky... see my other comment below (#27).

You shouldn't have to defend yourself, but, I can see why you feel you must.

[Demsrule86]

37. No...the OP was not correct to post something about a prominent Dem's BROTHER in the hopes it would

tarnish said Dem...should we start posting about Jane Sander's legal woes and then use it to cast aspersions on Sen. Sanders? It is the same thing.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

65. DR86, see my other response to this same comment. NO, John's brother Tony, at least ONCE a prominent

Democrat is the one being smeared.. My point was Stinky is right to bring the facts to people's attention, so as to combat the smear. At least that's how I saw it... but again, it's always my intention to assume people's intentions are good.

[Hortensis]

45. Of course. :) This is real news and this isn't a "post-fact" board.

The right will make major hay with this, and we certainly don't need to be learning about it via Fox.

There is no allegation that Tony Podesta's behavior has to do with the Russian warfare against the U.S. and possible collusion by Americans that is being investigated.

But it seems he may have failed to report his actions on behalf of another nation as required by federal law. And we don't know yet what else there might be. Apparently his firm was of interest to the investigation initially as witness but now it's a subject and perhaps a target for criminal charges.

Oh well, if so. Big no to lobbying firms breaking the law, even ones routinely ignored and not normally considered all that important.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

66. I hear what you're sayin... but what ever happened to innocent until proven guilty?

[Hortensis]

68. Only applies to court procedures?

And for sure it doesn't apply to the media, who of course don't just shape the news but often help create it. But sticking our heads in the sand isn't the way to deal with that hugely corrupting reality. (Plus, we don't have a Fox News to keep us happily deluded down there.)

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

70. That's true, but when it comes to media smears, I'm siding with the Democrat every time.

[Hortensis]

72. Oh, sure. Interestingly, all reports in reputable publications

so far are quoting NBC News in this.

It's likely to be a positive sign, though. If Rump associates are to be indicated for the crime of not registering as agents, others known to the investigation should be also. And, notably, vice versa. If Tony Podesta is..., then...

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

73. Abso-fuckin-lutely!!

[Demsrule86]

36. There are no facts...it is a smear...to post something about the brother of a prominent Dem in the

hopes it will tarnish the Dem...really awful actually and very obvious. It aids the GOP and is meaningless in any other way...I have a brother that went to jail for a white collar crime...served his time and has made a good life...does that have anything to do with my credibility? Seriously I would be ashamed to post this... I don't care where it comes from.

[jmowreader]

35. Simple, and disgusting

The alt-right will use this to smear Hillary and the Democrats...again. You realize those maniacs are going to continue to attack Hillary 20 years after she dies. Because Democrats have to be absolutely perfect, and Republicans can stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue eating fried-baby sandwiches without repercussions.

[Demsrule86]

38. Exactly right...it shows a lack of understanding of how one win's elections and that the hate is

strong towards the Party from some...any excuse to attack a Dem will suffice even when the Dem is not involved and then they talk about truth-blah blah...seriously ironic really.

[leftynyc]

60. And you think that if it's not posted here

they wont try it anyway? Why all this "head in the sand" nonsense?

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

27. Don't worry Stinky, this crap happens to me ALL the time...

people assuming some nefarious intent, by simply reporting a simple fact... the "mind reading" around here is amazing!! If only they could pick lottery numbers with such precsion!!

Anyway, thanks for bringing this to our attention, even though I DO think it's intended as a distraction from the real Russian collusion involving the tRump campaign. Appreciate the "heads up" though.

Peace.

[Demsrule86]

39. And yet... a post about the brother of a prominent Dem is used to smear the Dem and that is fine

with you...ah, I see.

[AngryAmish]

43. Billy Carter all over again.

[Demsrule86]

51. That is exactly right.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

48. Why do you insist on putting words in my mouth? I would never say smearing Dems is alright!!

Why would you smear a fellow Dem like that?!?!

[Demsrule86]

52. Do you not consider casting aspersions on a prominent Dem based on his brother's actions a smear?

I don't quite understand. If I misunderstood...my apologies

[leftynyc]

62. Since when

is it "casting aspersions" by merely posting a link to a story?

[bettyellen]

53. People here say they think you have nefarious intentions all the time?

You don't say, how unfortunate for you.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

58. Uh oh, here comes the "grammar police"!!!! Run!!!!

No bettyellen, I actually LOVE Maxine Waters. But tell everyone here on this thread how nefarious I am because I used an improper idium in the SAME sentence that I explicitly said I loved her, and from that you read my mind and amazingly deduced that I secretly HATE her.

So, go ahead and embarrass yourself further bettyellen... tell them all about your super-natural powers!!! ONE more time for old times sake!!!

[bettyellen]

59. Idiom. HA HA HA

You're always hilarious!

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

61. Thanks for proving my point!! LOL

[fallout87]

5. would

you rather ignore reality?

[Demsrule86]

12. What is the reality exactly and why is it even relevant?

[Hekate]

32. "What is the reality exactly and why is it even relevant?" Are you looking for alternative facts?

An alternative reality?

[Demsrule86]

40. They want to blame the Dem by using a family member...disgusting...will never read another post from

those who post or support this sort of thing without serious questions as to the content... I will take nothing at face value.

[Nevernose]

26. Tony Podesta is an enormously influential Democratic lobbyist

Who has worked for every big name Democrat AND many major corporations. He has for decades. The articles about his influence in Democratic circles go back to the 90s.

He’s not being “smeared” by every major news outlet because of lost elections. He’s being investigated for breaking some of the exact same laws that Trump’s campaign manager did. That’s news.

A crook is a crook, and — unlike the Republicans — we’re not afraid to dump the crooks (assuming he actually is a crook). I usually don’t think of us as hypocritical as the GOP.

[Demsrule86]

41. It is a smear...and whether he is a crook or not is not relevant...it is a smear to this prominent

Democratic brother...most here didn't even know there was a brother...and it plays into the GOP's hands.

[eShirl]

57. It kinda is relevant.

Sorry.

[Demsrule86]

69. How is it relevant? I could see a story that read prominent lobbyist is under investigation....

but the story reads 'the brother of prominent Democrat John Podesta is under investigation...that makes it a smear and clearly...it was intended to be so.

[TheBlackAdder]

8. Quite possible. I doubt Russia just courted the Republicans and Indys.

[Initech]

3. Good to see the Russian bots are out in full force today!

[Stinky The Clown]

9. Last I checked, I wasn't a bot and I wasn't Russian. What do you know that I don't?

[Initech]

10. Oh I was talking about Twitter and Facebook.

Any time a story with "Podesta" or "Clinton" breaks there's a storm of bot tweets and posts about the subject despite that they've never read past the headline.

[Stinky The Clown]

17. Heh! I guess I need to get out more.

I have no Facebook and no twitter and therefore no bots.

[Initech]

19. There was a story I saw last week on Twitter about Hillary Clinton.

I can't remember what it was, but at one point there were 32,000 tweets about it. The next time I checked it the numbers dropped to 16,000. Which means over 1/2 those were bot accounts or hate speech memes.

[Demsrule86]

42. Good to know...

[uponit7771]

6. For FARA violation, that's not such a big deal relative to bold faced lying on security forms

[gratuitous]

11. Oh, but there's a huge difference here

The Podesta name can be harnessed to a Democratic operative, and that makes all the difference. Sure, Jared Kushner can "revise" his disclosure form a few dozen times when he's reminded that, oh yeah, he had some other meetings with Russians, or oh yeah, he has a financial stake in this building or that company, or oh yeah, he plumb forgot about this holding. But, see, that's all totally fine and understandable in our popular media.

But someone named Podesta was operating as an unregistered foreign agent like a common Manafort, and there will be hell to pay! Both sides (but Democrats are somehow always worse)!

[Demsrule86]

13. Indeed and I wonder at the motivation of a person to even post this.

[gratuitous]

15. Forewarned is forearmed

If NBC is reporting it, you can bet that it will be used as a "both sides" cudgel against Democrats, no matter how far it has to be stove-piped.

[Demsrule86]

21. They often copy the rightwing...being fair I suppose...or trying to improve ratings.

[Demsrule86]

24. This is not helpful.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

33. Precisely... what's been the response to this? We need to fight fire with fire...

not "shoot the messenger."

[Demsrule86]

49. Who should we fight? Podesta's brother? Sorry, no interest in fight some lobbyist /business guy

when we have Trump and the entire Republican party available...should we shun Podesta for the actions of his brother? what is our course of action to ensure maximum party 'purity'?

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

54. Why do you insist on smearing ME, one of your fellow Dems???

YOU assume Tony Podesta is guilty... I don't!! So, when I say "fight fire with fire," I'm talking about fighting those who would smear Tony!!! So ironic that you would smear ME, for trying to defend HIM. WTF?!?!

[Demsrule86]

56. I like you;we have epic battles (love a good argument and you have stamina!)

Usually, I get where you are coming from. This time I don't see how reporting about a prominent Dem's brother's actions and somehow blaming the prominent Dem is fair or a reasonable thing to do...I get that the article came from various legitimate news sources...I would bet it started with the right wing though. I am just curious...do you think it is fair to blame a prominent Democrats for the actions of a family member? And I am sorry if any of my words appeared to be a 'smear' directed towards you...certainly not my intention.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

64. Thanks for that Demsrule... unlike many here, I think your intellectually honest and...

intentions are always good, even when I think you're wrong.

I do understand your point though. Tony Podesta is a prominent Democrat IN HIS OWN RIGHT, so I think Stinky was right to report the false allegations against him... so as to make people aware of the smear.

That's all I'm tryin to say.

[Demsrule86]

67. As long as we keep the focus on the right Podesta...it works for me...already online (twitter)

people are confusing the two. I always think you have good intentions too...even when I don't agree. You are also intellectually honest as well. I have never doubted your sincerity either. My issue is that the media and the right will work this story to death as a distraction from Trump and to reinforce the 'the party's are the same meme'...I just don't think we need to help them by posting this sort of thing here...we don't even know it is true...and I think this has the potential to dampens voter enthusiasm-not good with elections a year away. We really need to win in 18 and 20...and the GOP will demonize every Dem they can...at the least we should be wary. of some of the stuff that is bound to show up even in legitimate news sources.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

71. Yes, you're right again... points well taken.

[Demsrule86]

74. I take your point too. I have no idea why NBC framed it this way.

[Stinky The Clown]

18. At whose motivation are wondering?

[Demsrule86]

20. I am pretty clear...read over what I wrote.

You bring up an article about the brother of a Democrat who served in the Clinton White House and was involved in the Clinton campaign (Podesta)which attempts to slime him. The article is not from bad sources...often the mainstream press echos right wing 'news'-I give you that ...but it still implies that somehow Podesta (not the brother) is compromised...guilt by familial association...how exactly is that helpful to Democrats? It smacks of the both parties are the same meme, and we know this drives voters away from the Democratic party...the only party that can stop Trump and the GOP. I will never understand how one can hate the Democratic Party and give the GOP a pass...not saying you...a general observation...based on the constant threads attacking Democrats and the Party of late. One either elects a Democratic majority or a Republican majority...those are the only choices...personally. I will crawl across broken glass to vote for the Democrat all the way up from dogcatcher to president.

[Stinky The Clown]

23. You avoided my direct question.

What is the motivation you're saying I had to post this. That is a direct question and I'd appreciate a direct answer. The post to which this is a reply is oblique. My question is direct.

What is my motivation?

You can answer that or maybe reconsider your posts and delete them (which would be the honorable thing to do).

[gratuitous]

31. The poster's concern is duly noted

By me, at least.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

34. I think you've explained yourself quite clearly Stinky...

you'd think people could simply take your word on this.

[Demsrule86]

44. I answered that in my first post.

I know why you posted this...it is so obvious...and of course you know...so do most of the folks here. Why, You are just a person seeking enlightenment...and anxious to right wrongs...starting with the Democratic Party and Democrats of course. somebody's got to do it after all...Why we can't possibly support a less than perfect party...if a prominent Democrat's brother engages in possibly illegal conduct (nothing proven of course but Democrats never deserve the benefit of the doubt [sarcasm]...of course we must attack the prominent Democrat...obviously his family is not 'pure'.

[Stinky The Clown]

47. Still not clear.

What was my motivation?

Four words. Really direct. Not hard to understand.

Two, three, and four word sentences.


What

Was

My

Motivation?

[rusty fender]

28. Here's a good rule of thumb:

"Work with the facts and live with the truth."--Norman Goldman

[Demsrule86]

50. I know the truth is the truth.

[Hekate]

30. Stinky's been here since Day One, as far as I know. He has some cred here...

Yes, his personal info says 2004, but I remember him from when he was Husband to Sparkly when I got here in 2002, and I remember the name-change, because some people decided they wanted a new handle, and the Admins did a one-time thing. His posts were pretty colorful in those early days.

Anyway, you're not exactly a newbie yourself. You keep pushing this meme where you are questioning a long-time Duer's motivations in publishing factual information. What's up with that, Demsrule86? Just asking.

[Demsrule86]

46. I am not suggesting anything of the sort...I am questioning why a Democrat would use a

post about a prominent Democrat's brother's possibly illegal actions to cast aspersions on the prominent Democrat. If Podest himself and not his brother had been accused of wrongdoing. It certainly should be posted, but his brother? I just think it is a smear and an attack on a prominent Democrat based on the actions of a family member and not his own actions. I was perfectly fair in my remarks. And I have a right to my opinion...just like any other DU member.

[mercuryblues]

55. Whenever a story like this

hits the press immediate reaction is hair on fire!. Then a few days later more details emerge that show a different picture. But it is good to know where this is possibly heading.

To me, it sounds like money was laundered through a non-profit, then Manafort before it reached the 6 lobbying firms he hired. Depending on the work Podesta's firm did, depends on whether they broke laws.

This is a very telling sentence:

ECMU "had certified that it was neither funded nor directed by a foreign government or political party."

read that sentence again:

ECMU "had certified that it was neither funded nor directed by a foreign government or political party."

I also think the amended filing came after the fact because they found out, through this investigation that Manafort and the "non-profit" were less than truthful as to who was paying them and who they were representing. The real question is how much due diligence is required for Podesta's and the other 5 lobbying firms

Of course Mueller would want to investigate the people who Manafort hired. He would be lax if he didn't. Mueller knows the Manafort received and knew where the money was coming from. How he dispersed that money and represent the funders/ing to others?

[dlk]

63. Adults Don't Usually/Always Have Complete Control Over Their Adult Siblings' Behavior