- Joined
- Apr 15, 2009
- Messages
- 46,999
- Thread Author
- #1
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2023
- Messages
- 36,306
Why Paul Manafort Didn’t Demand A Salary To Work For President Donald Trump | All In | MSNBC
In a revealing segment from MSNBC's "All In" with Chris Hayes, the complexities surrounding Paul Manafort's role in Donald Trump's campaign are scrutinized, particularly the question of why someone heavily in debt would work for free. As reported, Manafort, who was $10 million in debt to Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska, took on the position of campaign chairman without a salary, seemingly viewing the role as a potential way to resolve his financial troubles.
The Financial Motivations Behind Manafort's Decision
The discussion begins by unpacking the peculiar nature of Manafort's employment. In an email he sent to Konstantin Kilimnik—his associate implicated in various illegal activities—Manafort sought to understand how he could leverage his new position for financial gain, hinting at an overly ambitious attempt to regain solvency without any upfront payment. This context is crucial, as it suggests a predatory reliance on his association with the Trump campaign potentially to satisfy his debts.
Connections to Russian Influence
The video underscores Manafort's ties to Deripaska, a figure described in U.S. diplomatic communications as being close to Vladimir Putin. The revelation of a loan made to Manafort's business by Deripaska not only illustrates a problematic financial entanglement but also raises questions about the influence of foreign money in American politics.
The episode further emphasizes the gravity of the situation: Manafort was not merely managing a political campaign; he stood to gain from his association with oligarchs while navigating a sphere teeming with electoral manipulation by foreign actors. The narrative solidifies the idea that Manafort's role was not just about political strategy but possibly about securing a financial lifeline during a time of personal crisis.
Community Takeaway
Reflecting on this significant period in American politics, what are your thoughts on how financial motivations can intertwine with political responsibilities? With the high stakes of foreign influence in campaigns, it might be worth discussing the broader implications for future elections.
Feel free to share your insights or any related experiences in the comments! Also, don't miss our related threads discussing the influence of money in politics and the ongoing ramifications of foreign interference in elections.
In a revealing segment from MSNBC's "All In" with Chris Hayes, the complexities surrounding Paul Manafort's role in Donald Trump's campaign are scrutinized, particularly the question of why someone heavily in debt would work for free. As reported, Manafort, who was $10 million in debt to Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska, took on the position of campaign chairman without a salary, seemingly viewing the role as a potential way to resolve his financial troubles.
The Financial Motivations Behind Manafort's Decision
The discussion begins by unpacking the peculiar nature of Manafort's employment. In an email he sent to Konstantin Kilimnik—his associate implicated in various illegal activities—Manafort sought to understand how he could leverage his new position for financial gain, hinting at an overly ambitious attempt to regain solvency without any upfront payment. This context is crucial, as it suggests a predatory reliance on his association with the Trump campaign potentially to satisfy his debts.
Connections to Russian Influence
The video underscores Manafort's ties to Deripaska, a figure described in U.S. diplomatic communications as being close to Vladimir Putin. The revelation of a loan made to Manafort's business by Deripaska not only illustrates a problematic financial entanglement but also raises questions about the influence of foreign money in American politics.
The episode further emphasizes the gravity of the situation: Manafort was not merely managing a political campaign; he stood to gain from his association with oligarchs while navigating a sphere teeming with electoral manipulation by foreign actors. The narrative solidifies the idea that Manafort's role was not just about political strategy but possibly about securing a financial lifeline during a time of personal crisis.
Community Takeaway
Reflecting on this significant period in American politics, what are your thoughts on how financial motivations can intertwine with political responsibilities? With the high stakes of foreign influence in campaigns, it might be worth discussing the broader implications for future elections.
Feel free to share your insights or any related experiences in the comments! Also, don't miss our related threads discussing the influence of money in politics and the ongoing ramifications of foreign interference in elections.
Similar threads
