At least now we know there won't be a repeat of that divisiveness in 2020 in the Democratic Party primaries.

...and suspicious.

Tad Devine sure knows the true 1%er oligarchs!

Devine.. so glad Robert Mueller busted that 1%er.

Mueller!

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/robert-schlesinger/2014/02/21/ukraines-long-history-with-us-political-consultants-and-lobbyists

"Manafort isn’t alone in plying his trade in the former Soviet republic; as the Times noted in 2007, former Bill Clinton pollster Stan Greenberg was working for Ukraine’s then-president, Viktor Yushchenko, as were GOP operatives Steve Schmidt and Neil Newhouse. By the 2010 presidential campaign, the Times reported, Yuschenko had retained another former Clinton strategist, Mark Penn, while then-Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko had hired David Axelrod’s old firm, AKPD Media. (It’s a small world after all: Schmidt would go on to manage John McCain’s 2008 presidential campaign against AKPD client Barack Obama; Newhouse would in 2012 poll for long-time client Mitt Romney in his presidential bid.)"

Hillary was the victim at the end of the day and Axelrod wasn’t directly involved in 2016 in any way.

Why have we only heard reports about Devine?

where he's been identified as a former Clinton strategist, implying that he's still a Democrat.

Seems like he's just a hired gun.

It sucks that everybody's for sale.

Stan Greenberg
Mark Penn
David Axelrod
Tad Devine

Let's see what Devine has to say.

What is this all about? I guess we will find out.

Link to tweet

Lol.

He created the "Lock her up" chant in the Ukraine while working with Manafort and Flynn - Flynn just recycled it against Hillary

Oh, and TAD penned the motto for that "Election" as well - I sounds kind of familiar...

Make Ukraine work again

Well that tells me a lot and confirms what I always thought about him and his influence in other quarters

Only ONE Senator voted against both the Magnitsky Act and the Russia Sanctions.

Whoever hired him demonstrated extremely poor judgement. This helps to illustrate the importance of proper vetting and background checks. Or, maybe the person who hired him knew everything already, but just didn't care.

Who knows? It would be interesting to find out for sure, though.

Was it bad judgement?

"Or, maybe the person who hired him knew everything already, but just didn't care."

The Senate approved the bill 98-2, with Republican Rand Paul of Kentucky and Independent Bernie Sanders of Vermont voting against the measure.

https://www.cnn.com/2017/06/15/politics/russia-sanctions-senate-trump/index.html

Unforgivable.

My opinion of him diminishes almost every day. How is it that someone who ATTACKS and SMEARS the Democratic Party with outrageous LIES (ie: "not the party of the workers" and "the party of the one-percent" and "ideologically bankrupt" and "feeble" and "corrupt&quot can still be considered to be an "ally"? How? That's really not how an ally behaves is it?

And how can it be that he would vote AGAINST the Russia sanctions bill? What's up with that? What is his motivation?

All I'm saying is that it seems to me that someone who was OPPOSED to Russian interference and influence in our nation's elections would want to do everything possible to discourage it, or to punish those who were guilty of it. Yet, here we are... he's essentially giving Russia a pass.

I'm sure his defenders will join together in a chorus of "it was going to pass anyway with or without him" and while that may be true, it really doesn't change the message he's sending to Russia AND to the American voters.

I'm very disappointed in him, but somehow, I can honestly say that I'm not surprised either.

This is his extremely flawed reason he gave for voting against it.

"I am strongly supportive of the sanctions on Russia included in this bill. It is unacceptable for Russia to interfere in our elections here in the United States, or anywhere around the world. There must be consequences for such actions. I also have deep concerns about the policies and activities of the Iranian government, especially their support for the brutal Assad regime in Syria. I have voted for sanctions on Iran in the past, and I believe sanctions were an important tool for bringing Iran to the negotiating table. But I believe that these new sanctions could endanger the very important nuclear agreement that was signed between the United States, its partners and Iran in 2015. That is not a risk worth taking, particularly at a time of heightened tension between Iran and Saudi Arabia and its allies. I think the United States must play a more even-handed role in the Middle East, and find ways to address not only Iran's activities, but also Saudi Arabia's decades-long support for radical extremism."

Look at this sentence.

"But I believe that these new sanctions could endanger the very important nuclear agreement that was signed between the United States, its partners and Iran in 2015."

How did that work out for you, Sanders?

Now look at comprehensive immigration reform in '07, where he sided with the Republicans. He claims he was opposing the legislation, which included a pathway to citizenship, because it increased the number of Visa's. So he blocked a pathway to citizenship and a short time later the increase in Visa's just went through a different piece of legislation. People forget that we were only three votes away in '07 for a pathway to citizenship for over ten million people. How are those Visa's doing?

Link to tweet

Manafort has put forward 12 witnesses

during.

Link to tweet