"Instead, it describes in granular detail Mr. Manafort’s lobbying work in Ukraine and what prosecutors said was a scheme to hide that money from tax collectors and the public. The authorities said Mr. Manafort laundered more than $18 million. 'Manafort used his hidden overseas wealth to enjoy a lavish lifestyle in the United States without paying taxes on that income,' the indictment reads.... 'As part of the scheme, Manafort and Gates repeatedly provided false information to financial bookkeepers, tax accountants and legal counsel, among others,' the indictment read.... Mr. Manafort has expected charges since this summer, when F.B.I. agents raided his home and prosecutors warned him that they planned to indict him."
Says the NYT, in
"Paul Manafort, Once of Trump Campaign, Indicted as an Adviser Admits to Lying About Ties to Russia."
Trump's reaction:
And that's followed by:
....Also, there is NO COLLUSION!
Posts
383 comments:
1 – 200 of 383 Newer› Newest»Witch hunt finds it's first witch
The first accomplices have been recruited. They'll lead you to the smoking gun unless there's no smoking gun. Then they'll help you craft one.
What did Paul Manafort do that Hunter Biden (Joe's son) didn't do?
Trump has already proven that he'll pardon the innocent so Manafort should be aware of that.
Papadopulos didn't lie under oath. He made material misstatements in an FBI "interview". IOW, he got Scooter'd. He got Stewart'ed.
Wouldn't it be funny if he said, "I've got nothing on Trump but start recording what I'm about to say about Podesta"?
sparrow ...A witch that practiced his witchcraft way before the 2016 election. In other words, he found a witch he was not looking for.
Isn't it obvious that Democrats are crooked! Look at their history, starting with Watergate.
Scooter Libby, part 2.
"he found a witch he was not looking for." But witch hunts always succeed.
The Mueller persecution is one more reason to despise the "rule of law" in America.
What did Paul Manafort do that Hunter Biden (Joe's son) didn't do?
More.
Off the top of my head, I can think of only one honest Democrat and that is Alan Dershowitz.
Hm. He deserves to be indicted, and his indictment makes it look as though the investigation really is a witch hunt. The tension of politics.
Poor Manafort he probably would still have his lavish life style on laundered money form the Ukraine if Trump and not run for office with his coat tails dragging an entourage of Russian connections just asking to be investigated. Sad.
So far we have a fired campaign manager, whose tenure as such was 3 months long, being indicted for tax fraud.
In the same WEEK we have multiple sources reporting Hillary's campaign paid Fusion GPS who paid a former british intelligence spy to build a dossier on Trump & Russia that became a cited reason for a FISA warrant against Trump as he campaigned, with the sitting President's admin unmasking and showing personal involvement in at least some element of that surveillance.....crying for a probe into Trump's Russian Collusion and calling into question the results of the election and interference by Russia....
I mean, seriously, this is a bad novel at this point. And still, the press reports on the fired campaign manager.
You can look at this from 30,000 and see the collusion here - and it ain't with Russia.
"Scooter Libby, part 2."
Except Trump will pardon Manafort. Bush is basically not a very smart person and shame on him for not doing the right thing.
I'm curious to know how much money Mueller has spent on this to date. I suspect more than eighteen million. Having foreign bank accounts I don't see how that income wasn't reported to the IRS since any foreign bank that even accepts American account holders (and most won't take Americans) complies with US disclosure laws.
It is time for Trump to appoint a special prosecutor to look in to obstruction of justice in the DoJ , State,the FBI and the IRS going back to January 2009. Mueller has a lot of explaining to do. So does a number of present and former officials.
Steroids in baseball, redux.
Nice harmless result from the investigation. Squirrel!
We know that the CIA and the FBI have over the last 50 or 60 years help to overthrow foreign governments, it looks like this time they're trying to overthrow our duly elected president.
If they wanted Manafort to face charges for this... why didn't they charge him nearly a year ago when he admitted to not properly filing his company/himself? He eventually did, but he technically was way, way too late to do it "legally."
But, if that's a chargeable offense, I'm wondering when the hammer falls on the Podesta Group, which likewise had to finally claim themselves as a foreign whatever due to the investigation "unearthing" that they never had.
"Papadopulos didn't lie under oath. He made material misstatements in an FBI "interview". IOW, he got Scooter'd. He got Stewart'ed."
-- So? That's not a crime the FBI punishes. We know this since Abedin could lie about still having Clinton emails on a device and not face charges. I don't see why Papadopulos should face any trouble given the rules the FBI has told us they play by.
These indictments prove only one thing to me - US government law enforcement is so thoroughly corrupt it is completely unsalvageable.
"Poor Manafort he probably would still have his lavish life style on laundered money form the Ukraine if Trump and not run for office with his coat tails dragging an entourage of Russian connections just asking to be investigated. "
-- You can only believe this if you think the investigation into Manafort -- that was already ongoing before Mueller's -- would have let him off the hook, save for his connection to a Republican. Which means, you think the only reason Manafort is being prosecuted is for political reasons.
Now come on don't be so political. If Manafort received 18 million dollars in undeclared income then he deserves to be charged and convicted. But I'll withhold judgement at this time because if it was such an easy case why wasn't he charged in 2014 when they first investigated these allegations.
The other guy's indictment smells fishy but I've read almost nothing about it. Did he admit he "lied." I can't tell from the snippet in the NYT (which makes me suspicious they are slanting the news again).
But I'm sure Manafort never intended to break the law. Isn't that the standard when it comes to federal crimes?
dreams said...
"Scooter Libby, part 2."
Except Trump will pardon Manafort. Bush is basically not a very smart person and shame on him for not doing the right thing.
10/30/17, 10:17 AM
---------
I'm not so sure on this one. I'm not seeing the incentive for Trump...yet.
I'm wondering when the hammer falls on the Podesta Group...
Probably when another special prosecutor is appointed to another, separate investigation.
This indictment is a mile outside of Meuller's scope. Where do we go to hold him accountable for misuse of public funds?
"I'm curious to know how much money Mueller has spent on this to date. I suspect more than eighteen million. Having foreign bank accounts I don't see how that income wasn't reported to the IRS since any foreign bank that even accepts American account holders (and most won't take Americans) complies with US disclosure laws."
-- He was already under investigation. This is, essentially, an incredibly expensive secondary investigation on Manafort that found the same information the FBI had (unless the original investigation team was incompetent).
Sounds like he violated US tax law, so he might have had better luck getting a pardon from Clinton, who has a history in these things.
Matthew Sablan said...
-- He was already under investigation. This is, essentially, an incredibly expensive secondary investigation on Manafort that found the same information the FBI had (unless the original investigation team was incompetent).
10/30/17, 10:28 AM
Good Point. An eight month investigation on "Russian Collusion" and all they've been able to find is something they knew about before the investigation began.
Freeman Hunt said...
He deserves to be indicted, and his indictment makes it look as though the investigation really is a witch hunt.
The real question is why Manafort took such a risk given his very dodgy background, knowing he had a high probability of being exposed under the Klieg lights of a presidential campaign. See here for discussion.
There is clearly more to come about the role of the Russians in all of this. This doesn't mean Trump personally colluded with the Russians but it is getting harder to argue that some of his advisors didn't.
"BREAKING: Another Charged"
That's in the NYT article.
Trump hired Manafort in anticipation of a fight on the floor at the Republican National Convention. That fight never materialized and Manafort resigned after the convention.
Manafort was ALREADY under scrutiny for failure to properly register / pay taxes etc. This would be a complete nothing burger if it weren't for the cozy relationship between Manafort and the Podesta Group.
Trump should pat Mueller on the back and accept his resignation - or fire him - and then turn this whole sordid affair over to a new Special Prosecutor - I'd pick Rduy - and tell him to leave now stone un-turned. lol
I just glanced at the Indictment and some of the specified acts go back to 2006. Are any of these charges barred by a statute of limitations?
Actually Manafort is not the central person here. Instead, read the charging documents against Trump campaign official George Papadopoulos who copped a plea.
"I'm not so sure on this one. I'm not seeing the incentive for Trump...yet."
If Manafort isn't sure Trump will pardon him then he might throw something to Mueller to save his own hide, there is your incentive. Manafort just needs to know that Trump will pardon him eventually, of course Trump can't pardon him now.
Trump is the target.
"The real question is why Manafort took such a risk given his very dodgy background, knowing he had a high probability of being exposed under the Klieg lights of a presidential campaign. "
-- This is a clear misunderstanding of what is going on, or a deliberately misleading statement. Manafort was already investigated BEFORE joining Trump. He was ALREADY under investigation. There was zero risk in joining the Trump campaign.
Not only that, as we've learned, the sorts of things Manafort did were common -- so common that the Podesta group also did them. As Roesch made clear: Had Manafort not allied with Trump, the FBI would not have felt the need to attack him. Roesch acknowledged, without realizing it, that Manafort (despite possibly actually committing a crime) is only being charged because of his Trump connection.
He took a risk because the numerator of people charged for this stuff is very small compared to the denominator of people who do it. Nation of men not laws. Just ask Jon Corrine who gets a CFTC civil action against him for stealing $1.6 billion in client funds instead of a criminal indictment. But if you're friends with the president and attorney general, then this is how it works
Yeah, Manafort's mistake was becoming Trump's campaign manager.
This would be another Marc Rich pardon. Trump should not do it.
Now that the Feds have Manafort's balls in the vise, who knows what he'll say when they start turning the screw ?
Again: If he committed crimes, sure. Go at'em.
But this looks clearly political to me, especially since the indictment didn't list the members of the Podesta group that the investigation ALSO found to have screwed up their FARA paperwork like Manafort did.
is the geithner,rangel,turbotax defense available?
And of course, the Ukrainian government was trying to get Hillary elected.
Lying to the FBI is not a big deal. See Petraeus
See how easy it is for the FBI to issue indictments When they don't offer immunity to all the key players first?
Lying to a grand jury is not a big deal. See Clinton
Maybe he can plead lack of mens rea, like Hillary did.
Matthew Sablan said...
There was zero risk in joining the Trump campaign.
Are you familiar with how politics works? Of course he was taking a risk, if he had something to hide in his background. The question is why he took the risk and who outside the US knew that it might be possible to put pressure on him.
Seems like Hillary lied regarding listing payments to GPS as legal fees, so she's next, right?
Trump can commute his sentence and let him pay a fine. See Libby
"Are you familiar with how politics works?"
-- If you already have cancer, you aren't taking a risk by smoking cigarettes to get cancer. Manafort was ALREADY under investigation. There was no risk he'd be under double secret probation. Unless you believe that Mueller's investigation was purely political.
AReasonableMan said...
...but it is getting harder to argue that some of his advisors didn't.
No. It was always hard to argue that some of his advisers didn't, simply because you can't prove a negative. There is still absolutely zero evidence ( at least as far as what has been publicly released ) that any of his advisers did collude.
BREAKING NEWS: Trump campaign aide pleads GUILTY to lying to the FBI about his bid to get 'thousands of Hillary emails' from Russian he knew was close to Kremlin
"This would be another Marc Rich pardon. Trump should not do it."
Bullshit! This is more like Scooter Libby. Marc Rich make off with a lot of other people's money and fled to another country where he couldn't prosecuted.
I figured Manafort was dirty to some degree. I don't think that you can do business in that part of the world and come away spic and span clean. I suspect the Podesta boys are in the same situation. They must be sweating bullets at this point.
The smell emanating from some of the people in both parties is pretty bad - although most of it has little or nothing to do directly with the 2016 presidential campaign - except the dossier of course; oh, and Hillary's illegal server. Clinton/Obama and the Uranium One deal are getting closer to the bulls-eye. Comey is certainly going to get dragged through the mud (deservedly). Mueller is investigating things that have nothing to do with his initial charge. His investigation will begin to look more and more like a witch hunt to both parties. It will be interesting to see how far Sessions let's him go. (Nobody in DC seems to learn the lesson of the dangers of "Independent Counsels".)
My feeling today (and we'll see how things play out) is that the general public is going to conclude that there should be a pox on both "establishments" and will continue to feel that a swamp cleaning is overdue.
Great. If that's a crime, then I wonder when the FBI will charge the Clinton campaign folks who lied about paying Russian Kremlin agents for information about Trump.
They are all dirty to some degree. The powerful ones skate
"They must be sweating bullets at this point."
-- The Podesta Group has the protection of Clinton. Given that Mueller had the chance to indict them for the same crimes as Manafort and Papadopulus and chose not to, despite knowing about the same crimes at the same time, it is clear that Podesta and Clinton's lieutenants have nothing to fear at this juncture.
One thing that came to light from/during this collusion investigation? Abedin lied to the FBI about not having more of Clinton's deleted emails. So did Hillary Clinton.
Is lying to the FBI a crime, or just a crime for people Mueller WANTS to punish?
Comey lied to Congress. Give him the Roger Clemens treatment
"This doesn't mean Trump personally colluded with the Russians but it is getting harder to argue that some of his advisors didn't."
There's nothing in the indictment about colluding with the Russians. Why is it okay to keep talking about that? I thought we were supposed to care about fake news.
The biggest fake news was the dossier, and the fog it created.
If you think Papadopoulos is important, please state in one clear sentence what he did and why you care.
I chose to leave the Papadopoulos stuff out of the post, though I read it in the article. It didn't seem too important to me. He screwed up, and he took a plea.
"Why is it okay to keep talking about that?"
-- It is deliberately designed to confuse. It is entirely possible Papadopulus knew that someone he was talking to promising him dirt on Clinton was Russian. This is supposed to be the COLLUSION! we were warned about. Same with Don Jr.'s meeting with a Russian Lawyer. COLLUSION!
To believe those things are collusion requires the person pushing that argument to not let you know the following two facts:
1. The dossier was paid for by Clinton, to a foreign spy who in turn bought information from Russian sources in the Kremlin.
2. The lawyer Donald Jr. met with was a source the Obama administration ALSO used. Was Obama colluding with Russia?
Real news would be to disclose what use was made of the "dossier" by Obama.
Unmasking is Nixon to the nth.
I expect that eventually Trump will appoint a special prosecutor to investigate Mueller, Hillary and others in the Russia uranium deal. Unlike other Republicans who rollover for the crooked Democrats and the crooked liberal media, Trump fights and he knows how to win, to be continued.
"Unmasking is Nixon to the nth."
-- Unmasking by unknown individuals using a high ranking administration personnel's credentials should be a huge scandal.
But, here we are.
The indictments were politically timed to distract from the Uranium Scandal and Mueller's involvement in the non prosecution.
Manafort if he had not been involved with Trump, would have not been charged.
The politicization of charging of Republicans is frightening. Dinesh D'Souza went to jail, over stuff that is rarely prosecuted for. The double standards are wrong, and frightening.
I am still surprised that Bush did not pardon Libby Scooter. This is why you got Trump, he's willing to fight, and take care of his people (Sheriff Joe). That gets a lot of respect among the deplorables.
All Out War is out today. As usual Klein has the insider point of view.
What is amazing to me is how serious the media are taking this wild hoax because Russia, Russia, Russia means mandatory impeachment of our President. Tail gunner Joe would be proud of the technique. What it really means is that Podesta and Hillary are going to jail.
Was Obama colluding with Russia?
No reasonable prosecutor would ever bring such a case against the Obama administration.
"Separately, one of the early foreign policy advisers to Mr. Trump’s presidential campaign, George Papadopoulos, pleaded guilty to lying to the F.B.I. about a contact with a Russian professor with ties to Kremlin officials, prosecutors said on Monday."
He was a foreign policy adviser. Is that much of a connection to Trump? And he had some contact with a Russian professor. Do you care? The Russian professor in turn had "ties to Kremlin officials," and what Papadopoulos did wrong was not tell the FBI exactly that. He shouldn't have lied to the FBI, but what does that have to do with Trump. The connection to the Russian professor doesn't seem significant enough to sully Trump who was just using this guy as an adviser (an "early" advisor).
Manafort was campaign manager for a short while, brought it to whip some order into the Trump campaign and then cut off abruptly. He did some tax cheating, allegedly. That's not about Trump, and it happened long ago.
If this is all there is... pfffft.
There's nothing in the indictment about colluding with the Russians.
I assume that he was referring to the Papadopolous indictment, not Manafort.
I'm curious about the timing of unsealing that today. Who decides that, and if it's arbitrary than doesn't this look like Mueller wanted the two to be linked in people's minds so that it looked like the charges against Manafort also included collusion even though that's not the case?
The NYT's opening paragraph is grossly journalistically incompetent:
"WASHINGTON — President Trump’s campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, was indicted Monday on charges that he funneled millions of dollars through overseas shell companies and used the money to buy luxury cars, real estate, antiques and expensive suits."
This makes it sound like Manafort was Trump's chairman for a significant amount of time, and that he did these things while the campaign chairman. Any news editor should have kicked that opener (not to mention the gorntastic headline) back for re-writes.
"Maybe he can plead lack of mens rea, like Hillary did."
As Steve Martin explained long ago, all you have to do is when they come for you, just say "I forgot."
"You.. can be a millionaire.. and never pay taxes! You can be a millionaire.. and never pay taxes! You say.. "Steve.. how can I be a millionaire.. and never pay taxes?" First.. get a million dollars. Now.. you say, "Steve.. what do I say to the tax man when he comes to my door and says, 'You.. have never paid taxes'?" Two simple words. Two simple words in the English language: "I forgot!" How many times do we let ourselves get into terrible situations because we don't say "I forgot"? Let's say you're on trial for armed robbery. You say to the judge, "I forgot armed robbery was illegal." Let's suppose he says back to you, "You have committed a foul crime. you have stolen hundreds and thousands of dollars from people at random, and you say, 'I forgot'?" Two simple words: Excuuuuuse me!!" "
By the way, that's what Kevin Spacey is doing — saying "I forgot."
Dreams at 10:14: another honest Democrat is Jonathan Turley.
bookkeepers
Subbookeepers has even more doubled letters. Borgmann, Language on Vacation.
What Happened should have been titled I Don't Remember
Setting up The Prisoners Dilemma...Mueller is now untouchable...The pressure that leads to something else...What are you going to give us in return?...Enables Mueller to squeeze Manafort and Gates...Collusion is not a crime...DNC Investigation?Not by this prosecutor...outrageous that is hasn't been investigated yet...there will be other indictments as well...
I read the indictment and it looks like Mueller has Manafort and Gates dead to rights on the tax charges, and possibly on money laundering. But it's hard to say on the foreign agent registration charges, as it's not clear what the elements of the failure to register crime are that Mueller would have to prove.
As the Ukranian government Manafort was repping was the old one with the ties to Putin, the fact that this went on for years up to Manafort becoming Donald Trump's campaign manager is going to be Donald's political problem. But it's probably survivable, like BCCI, Deaver, Silverado, Whitewater, Enron, and Blagojevich were for his predecessors.
The "not as crooked as Hillary" defense is still admitting that you are crooked.
Ann I think you are correct about your "pffft". It will take a couple of days of the MSM hyperventilating then Uranium One will sneak back on the stage.
Escalation will follow escalation.
"But it's hard to say on the foreign agent registration charges, as it's not clear what the elements of the failure to register crime are that Mueller would have to prove."
-- He shouldn't have to prove that they didn't; they admit that they didn't and fixed it. If the crime is simply NOT doing it, then, he's got them there too.
"Dreams at 10:14: another honest Democrat is Jonathan Turley."
Yeah, there are some but most of them have to keep a low profile unless they looking for trouble.
I offer my lawlyerly defense services to Mr. Manafort during this trying time. Here is my proposed statement for him:
"These are serious charges about the integrity of our democratic process. I don't remember anything. If I did collude with the Russians, I sincerely apologize to all I've hurt. Also, I've been living a Republican lie for nearly 70 years. I am gay. And I intend to live my life as gay from now on."
"Except Trump will pardon Manafort"
I'm not sure that this will result in a conviction. Remember the Ray Donovan case ?
In a highly publicized case,[1] Donovan and six other defendants were indicted by a Bronx County, New York, grand jury for larceny and fraud in connection with a project to construct a new line extension for the New York City Subway, through a scheme involving a Genovese crime family associate and a minority-owned subcontractor.[2] Schiavone Construction was required by its contract with the NYCTA to subcontract part of the work to a minority-owned enterprise. The essence of the charge was that the minority owned firm (Jo-Pel Contracting and Trucking Corp) leased equipment from Schiavone and therefore was not truly independent of Schiavone. On May 25, 1987, Donovan (and all of the other defendants) were acquitted, after which Donovan was famously quoted as asking, "Which office do I go to to get my reputation back?
Indictment, especially in political cases, doesn't equal conviction.
Tom DeLay is another example.
Bookkeeping committee has a lot.
Anyways, I am sure that at the rate the horse shit is piling up, there will be a pony! It's a certainty at this point! Funny that all of the people who claimed that torture never worked, and just caused the victim to put out a lot of false stories to save themselves are sort of counting on that, it seems.
Nothing at all to do with Trump or the 2016 election. What a joke!
Ann Althouse said...
pfffft
I think most Americans will take a slightly more nuanced view of this than the professor. Clearly Manafort was potentially subject to blackmail. His willingness to work for the campaign pro bono underscores the question of what exactly was his motivation in seeking out Trump. It is certainly an issue that should be answered as thoroughly as is possible under the law.
That other advisors thought it wise to lie about their contacts with Russian agents doesn't exactly improve the optics here.
"By the way, that's what Kevin Spacey is doing — saying "I forgot.""
Yeah, but I read somewhere that the media thought he was just coming out gay, per the Instapundit.
Two NYT in one:
"The charges against Mr. Manafort and his longtime associate Rick Gates represent a significant escalation in a special counsel investigation that has cast a shadow over Mr. Trump’s first year in office. ... The special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, was assigned in May to investigate whether anyone close to Mr. Trump participated in a Russian government effort to influence last year’s presidential election."
"The indictment of Mr. Manafort and Mr. Gates makes no mention of Mr. Trump or election meddling."
Why is the fact the indictment makes no mention of Trump or election meddling higher in the story? Inverted pyramid people! The most newsworthy thing in this are: The guy who admitted to lying, that the indictment has nothing to do with the election. Those should be leading.
"These are serious charges about the integrity of our democratic process. I don't remember anything. If I did collude with the Russians, I sincerely apologize to all I've hurt. Also, I've been living a Republican lie for nearly 70 years. I am gay. And I intend to live my life as gay from now on."
You forgot the part about leading the charge against the NRA.
What it sounds like is that the guy deposited a lot of money her earned overseas in an overseas bank account, and as a US citizen, he owed taxes on that money, whether he repatriated it or not, unlike just about any other country, but those are the rules, anyway, he. then took money out of the bank to buy stuff.
This isn't on a Marc Rich level, but still, the guy should have paid his taxes or renounced his citizenship. No pardon is justified. Had it been an inadvertent misstatement to investigators, that would be different.
"Mr. Papadopoulos told the authorities that the conversation occurred before he became an adviser to Mr. Trump’s campaign."
-- ... THIS is the collusion?
If this is all there is... pfffft.
You now have people close to the administration on the hook for jail time. You have partners. Things you can get from this:
1. The smoking gun that gets Trump.
2. The flimsy evidence you can manipulate to build the smoking gun that gets Trump.
3. Justification for the continuation of the special prosecutor and team that leaks rumor and innuendo that hurts Trump until he can be blunted in the next election cycle.
ARM: "Clearly Manafort was potentially subject to blackmail."
Ouch.
ARM inadvertantly indicts Hillary.
He'll figure out how in just a moment.....
You forgot the part about leading the charge against the NRA.
Not to mention that sonofabitch Johnson and his damn war!
He'll figure out how in just a moment.....
No he won't.
3. Justification for the continuation of the special prosecutor and team that leaks rumor and innuendo that hurts Trump until he can be blunted in the next election cycle
Bingo.
I don't think it will work though, even with a "scooter libby" or two.
"American intelligence agencies have concluded that President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia launched a stealth campaign of hacking and propaganda to try to damage Hillary Clinton and help Mr. Trump win the election."
-- That's not an accurate statement in the NYT article. Intelligence agencies have stated the goal was just to sow general discord, hence they backed things like pipeline protests and BLM, who are decidedly more pro-Clinton than pro-Trump.
If you think Papadopoulos is important, please state in one clear sentence what he did and why you care.
What he did that's interesting?: He got a plea deal and is a cooperating witness.
Why I care?: Mueller strikes me a methodical person who would know how to build a case with a cooperating witness.
Sablan: "-- ... THIS is the collusion"
No.
But there are enough of the key words/terms used to make it seem that way, which is the entire point.
Papadopoulos is much more interesting then Manafort.
think most Americans will take a slightly more nuanced view of this than the professor. Clearly Manafort was potentially subject to blackmail. His willingness to work for the campaign pro bono underscores the question of what exactly was his motivation in seeking out Trump. It is certainly an issue that should be answered as thoroughly as is possible under the law. - ARM
This from a guy who thinks that taking ONE HUNDRED AND FORTY FIVE MILLION DOLLARS from the Russians, and selling them 20%. of our Uranium, despite the discovery of a Russian spy ring that had had some success in corrupting the North American uranium industry with bribes and kickbacks, and evidence that they believed that the money to the Clintons would buy them influence, that all of that is a nothing burger.
What Manafort is charged with had nothing to do with the Trump campaign. Therefore, it's outside of Sessions' recusal. So Sessions should exercise his authority as Attorney General to take the Manafort case away from Mueller and turn it over to a regular career prosecutor. Sessions should also direct Mueller to limit his investigations to matters connected to Russian collusion with the Trump campaign.
I'm convinced that Papadopoulos's misstating of the timing he met with a Russian was worth the millions we spent. I mean, we don't bother investigating when people destroy subpoenaed evidence, but lie about when you had a meeting?
That's worth an indictment.
This pretty much puts the kibosh on the Russian Collusion story. The lack of any verifiable detail being leaked to the press that supported this conspiracy theory was always the tell, and today's indictments confirm this once again.
I know Trump haters will console themselves with the idea that Manafort will now flip on Trump, but the odds of Manafort actually knowing anything like this he could prove with physical evidence is vanishingly small, and that is me accepting for purposes of debate that there was collusion that Manafort could truthfully reveal.
CStanley said...
I'm curious about the timing of unsealing that today.
This is Josh Marshall's take on this same question. There is clearly another shoe to yet drop, whether it is a big metal toed work boot or a flimsy Manolo Blahnik remains in question.
Papadopoulos is much more interesting then Manafort.
Care to share specifics? Or would you rather stick to vague statements that might mean anything?
It's a rhetorical question, I know you don't want to give any specifics that will be torn apart immediately.
Clearly Manafort was potentially subject to blackmail.
Mueller seems to be counting on it.
"Sessions should also direct Mueller to limit his investigations to matters connected to Russian collusion with the Trump campaign."
-- He can't. The rules that established Mueller's current office included anything he discovered while investigating the collusion, even if it was unrelated to the campaign.
Ann and her conservative fandom sure have different standards when it comes to Trump and his team compared to Clinton. Ann’s “cruel neutrality” my ass.
(On that rule for Mueller, at the time, a lot of people complained it was too broad, and was essentially, allowing Mueller to go fishing. I thought it made sense. 'Of course he should be able to investigate things he finds,' but, much like the Libby pardon, I may turn out to be have been wrong.)
There seems to be slowly increasing support for looking into the Clinton/Uranium One scandal.
First the squish Susan Collins, now Doug Schoen.
Now I Know!: If the FBI had followed my druthers on holding Clinton to the same rules as other people, then I'd have no problem with them suddenly deciding lying to them and hiding evidence was bad. My problem is specifically that Clinton's people got special treatment.
I've said above, if Manafort did the crimes, go at'em. But let's not pretend that Manafort isn't being treated differently due to having had the mistake to align with Trump instead of Clinton. Even Rosech realized that it was only Manafort's alliance with Trump that is causing him pain.
Two quotes from ARM's link to "Talking Points Memo," the money quotes
"We can’t know these things for sure. "
"This may be projecting too much. "
But whoopee, does he have Trump nailed now!
Bill, Republic of Texas said...
I can't tell from the snippet in the NYT (which makes me suspicious they are slanting the news again).
10/30/17, 10:26 AM
You know a sure fire way to tell if the NYT is slanting the news? Is there ink on paper? Every single word they print is slanted including "the".
Ann and her conservative fandom sure have different standards when it comes to Trump and his team compared to Clinton.
Either you don't read this blog with any understanding, or you are just making crap up. But projection seems to be one of your strong points, so I will go with the answer "both."
Remember Ken Starr putting Gov Jim Guy Tucker and the McDougels on trial? Rightwingers had no problem with that having nothing to do with the Clintons.
Even Rosech realized that it was only Manafort's alliance with Trump that is causing him pain.
Manafort knew he was laundering money from sketchy people in the Ukraine. It's interesting that Manafort was wiling take a prominent spot on Trump's campaign pro-bono. Why go into the public eye? Why seek out the Trump campaign?
A quick Google confirms what I thought. Tucker and McDougels were directly related to the Whitewater investigation, and not being charged with things that were unrelated, years ago, to the investigation. Your example is not analogous.
Who has any problem with these guys serving time for breaking the law, our problem is that Hillary does the same or worse and skates because, for example, she was "extremely careless" but not "grossly negligent." according to Comey.
Mueller and Manafort are old men. They play old games
"Why go into the public eye? Why seek out the Trump campaign?"
-- Manafort was already a well known Republican strategist; he was already IN the public eye. He sought out the Trump campaign for It Doesn't Matter Why, but let's say, he liked Trump's policies and thought he could win.
Your questions however have no bearing on the crimes that occurred years before Trump ran for President.
Your questions however have no bearing on the crimes that occurred years before Trump ran for President.
Yeah - I agree -- the questions have no bearing. ((Warning: Total and Complete Speculation Follows)) Unless Manafort sought out the campaign under the request of people in the Ukraine for $$. Mueller will try to turn Manafort. It will be quite difficult to turn him, as Manafort would be targeted by the Kremlin with death/poison. He would need protective custody to turn.
Now I Know! said...
Ann’s “cruel neutrality” my ass.
To be fair, I haven't heard Althouse make this claim for some time. The blog is nakedly partisan now and, from my perspective, poorer for this. Whether this change is due to the Trump presidency or her retirement from UW is unclear but certainly there has been a change in tone.
Shouldn’t a law professor know this?
“Black's Law Dictionary defines collusion as "a deceitful agreement or compact between two or more persons, for the one party to bring an action against the other for some evil purpose, as to defraud a third party..." A conspiracy, on the other hand, is defined as "a combination or confederacy between two or more persons formed for the purposes of committing, by their joint efforts, some unlawful or criminal act, or some act which is innocent in itself, but becomes unlawful when done by the concerted action of the conspirators." Got it? You can have collusion without having a criminal conspiracy, but you can't have a criminal conspiracy without some sort of collusion.”
"Rightwingers had no problem with that having nothing to do with the Clintons."
Left wingers forget that Susan McDougal went to prison rather than testify and her husband went to prison.
You lefties sure have selective memories.
What are the 11 criminal charges to me made against Manafort and Gates in a short while? Conspiracy will be among them.
Matthew Sablan said...
Manafort was already a well known Republican strategist; he was already IN the public eye.
Not really, when Manafort came on board the Trump campaign there was considerable head scratching because Manafort was viewed as yesterday's man, someone whose due date had come and gone. It was viewed as a sign of desperation on the part of the Trump campaign that they couldn't get anyone relevant, although the price was right.
Shorter ARM: "Waaaaaaaaah!"
Susan got a pardon for her loyalty. That's how the game is played
Manafort was brought on because of a rumored floor fight for delegates. He was let go after the convention when that skill set was no longer needed. Try to pay attention, ARM.
ARM, I direct you to the NYT description of Trump hiring Manafort.
"Mr. Manafort, 66, is among the few political hands in either party with direct experience managing nomination fights: As a young Republican operative, he helped manage the 1976 convention floor for Gerald Ford in his showdown with Ronald Reagan, the last time Republicans entered a convention with no candidate having clinched the nomination."
So... you're just flat out wrong about the interpretation of hiring Manafort.
Matthew Sablan said...
1976
"... and used the money to buy luxury cars, real estate, antiques and expensive suits."
So, what else would you use money for - legally acquired or not?
This is just stirring up the mob for a lynching.
The Podestas just lawyered-up. Hillary's in trouble!
Oddly enough, The Hill cites Manafort's international experience with the Ukraine in 2016 as a plus.
"Manafort has worked as an international political consultant and served as a senior adviser to former President Viktor F. Yanukovych of Ukraine."
I thought Mueller's charge as special prosecutor involved supposed collusion with Russia and any other criminal acts that were discovered as a result of the investigation, or words to that effect. If that is the case, and if Manafort was already being investigated by the FBI and was the subject of a still active, if semi-dormant FBI investigation, how does that square with Mueller's charge? Did Manafort's alleged crimes arise from the investigation, or did the investigation focus on those crimes because the investigators already knew about them? It would seem to me that Manafort's alleged crimes could not have arisen out of the investigation because they were already suspected before the special investigation began. That's what makes these charges today resemble a witch hunt. Can on of the legal folks on the blog explain where am I going wrong with this line of reasoning?
ARM: Cite me a source that views Manafort as "yesterday's man whose time has come and gone." The Hill and the NYT saw it as a logical, smart move of hiring someone with experience in exactly what he was looking for.
Hagar said...
So, what else would you use money for - legally acquired or not?
Helping the poor?
“Russian professor in turn had "ties to Kremlin officials," and what Papadopoulos did wrong was not tell the FBI exactly that. He shouldn't have lied to the FBI, but what does that have to do with Trump. The connection to the Russian professor doesn't seem significant enough to sully Trump who was just using this guy as an adviser (an "early" advisor).
Manafort was campaign manager for a short while, brought it to whip some order into the Trump campaign and then cut off abruptly. He did some tax cheating, allegedly. That's not about Trump, and it happened long ago.
If this is all there is... pfffft.”
This is an opinion from a law professor, seriously? It’s a good thing she never practiced law.
The whole country has had a "change of tone".
That is what happens during a preference cascade.
A lot of people are more willing to move that which was in the back of their minds, to the front.
I saw such a thing happen to millions of people over one day in 1983. On that scale, manifested physically, it is an awesome thing. The same has been happening, much more gradually and largely virtually, in the US.
. . . and used the money to buy hamburgers, Snickers Bars, and a Giant Schnauzer."
Old Marbledome:
I think most Americans will take a slightly more nuanced view of this than the professor. Clearly Manafort was potentially subject to blackmail. His willingness to work for the campaign pro bono underscores the question of what exactly was his motivation in seeking out Trump. It is certainly an issue that should be answered as thoroughly as is possible under the law.
Huh? One's motives for volunteering to join a political campaign is subject to criminal investigation and possible prosecution? In what law code is that stated?
" ....Also, there is NO COLLUSION!"
Ah, persuasion.
Here is a more reasoned and intelligent take on what just happened.
“The indictment targeting Manafort and his business associate Rick Gates—itself a political bombshell—is likely to be merely the first step in a potentially long investigation. Details from the indictment—and other emerging public court documents—will immediately help to shed further light on the tangle of relationships that Manafort and others had with various Russian and Ukrainian contacts in recent years, but there are plenty more investigative avenues that Mueller appears to be following, some far removed from Manafort's orbit.
Manafort faces a long list of charges that includes conspiracy against the United States, conspiracy to launder money, false statements, acting as an unregistered agent as a foreign principal, making misleading statements in violation of the Foreign Agent Registration Act, and seven counts of failing to file reports of foreign bank and financial accounts. That's a dozen in all. Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos also pleaded guilty to making false statements, accompanied by a bombshell plea agreement that includes several key details about Russia's alleged attempts to reach out to the Trump campaign.”
https://www.wired.com/story/how-to-interpret-robert-muellers-new-charges/
AReasonableMan said...
"Matthew Sablan said...1976"
I assume you are implying that Manafort had no recent experience with a convention strategy, only that is one of the things he did in Ukraine for 10 years or so as a consultant according to reports I have read. Which is also why Trump brought him in just before the convention.
You realize the "conspiracy against the United States" charges, like the rest of the charges against Manafort, are not from when he was part of the campaign, right? Wired is normally not so sloppy.
Reading through the Papadopoulos stipulation of facts for his guilty plea, it still looks like there was no underlying crime. He was contacted by some people who claimed they had ties to Russian officals, they talked about setting up meetings with the Russian Ministry of Foreign affairs, some of the people they talked to mentioned having 'dirt' on Clinton regarding e-mails, and people on both sides talked about having better relations between the US and Russia. None of that is illegal. Papadopoulos got dinged on section 1001 for false statements and material omission to the FBI. The only thing I can see coming from Papadopoulos's testimony, unless there is something else, is that they might be able to charge another Trump campaign staffer with section 1001, because he stipulates that he sent an e-mail to a campaign staffer regarding the Russian MFA.
Manafort looks like he is getting dinged mainly for not registering as a representative of a foreign agent. Something tells me someone in the Podesta group will face the same issue. There is still no evidence of collusion. No matter how many times people keep repeating, "Trump-Russia Collusion!" it won't be so unless there is evidence to support it.
Maybe someone already asked, but I read this:
"Manafort used his hidden overseas wealth to enjoy a lavish lifestyle in the United States without paying taxes on that income,' the indictment reads.... 'As part of the scheme, Manafort and Gates repeatedly provided false information to financial bookkeepers, tax accountants and legal counsel, among others,' the indictment read.... "
And I have to ask, is it illegal to keep money overseas to avoid paying taxes? I was always taught tax avoidance was legal (and smart) but tax evasion was illegal.
Secondly, is it illegal to (even repeatedly) provide false information to your financial bookkeepers, tax accountants and legal counsel? The client tells the accountants and the lawyers what he/she wants to tell them, and the hired help does what they're hired to do.
This is such a nothing burger....
Papadopoulos has been cooperating with the FBI as early as July. I don't think he's been telling them his baklava recipe.
Reasoned and intelligent takes don't employ the hyperbolic "bombshell" twice in two paragraphs. Lulz
"And I have to ask, is it illegal to keep money overseas to avoid paying taxes? I was always taught tax avoidance was legal (and smart) but tax evasion was illegal."
-- My understanding is if you *leave* it overseas, then it is fine and legal avoidance. But if you bring it back (or engage in a shady deal like buying a super fancy car and importing it without declaring it), then that is evasion. The problem is, it sounds like Manafort spent foreign money on things, then brought the things to America without declaring it.
-- He was already under investigation. This is, essentially, an incredibly expensive secondary investigation on Manafort that found the same information the FBI had (unless the original investigation team was incompetent).
Manafort was investigated and not prosecuted because he was one of them. He worked extensively with democrats for years. It wasn't until he went turncoat and worked on the Trump campaign. Even then, it wasn't an issue. It became an issue when Trump won.
All of this is about one thing--punishing anyone and everyone that had a hand in electing Trump, including the voters.
"Papadopoulos has been cooperating with the FBI as early as July. I don't think he's been telling them his baklava recipe."
-- That's the same thing people said about Manafort. And, yet, here we are.
Blogger AReasonableMan said...
Hagar said...
So, what else would you use money for - legally acquired or not?
Helping the poor?
10/30/17, 11:37 AM
By giving it to the Clinton Foundation
“ nearly all charges that stem from this case—based, at least on publicly available tea leaves—are likely to focus on targeting individual crimes reflecting aspects of the complex web of Russian influence in 2016, rather than a neatly-tied-up-with-a-bow conspiracy. Early rounds of charges may even likely focus on business dealings far removed from the questions of the 2016 election.
Expect to see garden-variety white-collar crimes—charges like money laundering, mail fraud, wire fraud, and “structuring,” (arranging financial transactions to avoid federal reporting requirements)—as well as the possibility of some more exotic charges like violating the nation’s election laws or the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, or there’s a general catch-all known as 18 USC Sec. 371, “conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States.””
This is a rough left wing equivalent to the Clinton conspiracies promoted on this site.
There is certainly something odd about Trump's post bankruptcy business model, but that doesn't mean that these stories are true.
Personally I would be happy to see them all go to jail.
Structuring isn't a big deal. See Spitzer
If that's more from the Wired article, that's terribly written. "nearly all charges that stem from this case" implies the *current* charges that are out there. But... NONE OF THE CHARGES do any of the things it says. Did Wired write a dishonest article, or is the quote deliberately manipulative?
Old Marbledome's arguments boils down to that Manafort is suspected of "wrong-think."
Bushman said: But I'm sure Manafort never intended to break the law. Isn't that the standard when it comes to federal crimes?
Dude, that was the old standard. Applicable to Hillary and company. New standard is "whenever we indict a ham sandwich, guilty as charged! No intent necessary, no trial even necessary."
OK sarc off, I do have to ask. The list of 12 counts in the indictment that I read was a list of "failure to file" charges and 2 "conspiracy" charges related to them. Really? If they cant find a filing that someone failed to complete properly or on time, then they are complete idiots.
If I was a left-wing talking head, to combat the fact that there doesn't seem to be any underlying crime involving the Trump campaign, I would note that Manafort is indicted on tax fraud and compare that to Al Capone only ever being convicted of tax fraud.
And I have to ask, is it illegal to keep money overseas to avoid paying taxes?
It isn't illegal to keep money overseas but for US citizens foreign earned income is subject to US taxation.
is it illegal to (even repeatedly) provide false information to your financial bookkeepers, tax accountants and legal counsel?
Even if someone else prepares your return you're responsible for what it says. You sign your return under penalties of perjury so lying to your preparer doesn't let you off the hook.
Papadopoulos has been cooperating with the FBI as early as July. I don't think he's been telling them his baklava recipe.
True, they probably also discussed yoga and their grandchildren.
The British journalist Robert Fisk wrote that he asked Saddam Hussein why he had executed a former minister, and Saddam answered that his was a "red revolution" and no proof of disloyalty was required; suspicion was sufficient.
Read the charges for yourselves.
Read the dates mentioned in “The Scheme”. 2008-2017.
If info was collected pursuant to search warrants based on FusionGPS unverified claims then it might be completely tossed as fruit of the poisonous tree.
“Not really, when Manafort came on board the Trump campaign there was considerable head scratching because Manafort was viewed as yesterday's man, someone whose due date had come and gone. It was viewed as a sign of desperation on the part of the Trump campaign that they couldn't get anyone relevant, although the price was right.”
In “Get Me Roger Stone” (Netflix), Stone claims that he worked hard behind the scenes to oust Lewandowski and bring in Manafort, in a counter-coup to Lewandowski’s own lobbying to get rid of Stone previously. According to the doc, Manafort had a lot of convention experience and so he was brought on to reduce the risk of the nomination being stolen from Trump at the finish line.
"No mention ..."
Women, children, and life-long Republicans most affected.
It may have been illegal for Manafort to bring his car and expensive clothes to the United States with him, but ARM's arguments for his "wrong-think" will not wash.
Sounds like collusion.
“In April, the professor introduced Papadopoulos through email to a person in Moscow who supposedly had close ties to officials within the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. He then had a series of conversations with this person about establishing “the groundwork” for a meeting between the campaign and Russian government officials. At one point, they discussed Papadopoulos getting together in London with the Russian ambassador to discuss the next steps.
In late April, Papadopoulos’ efforts took a turn. The professor (who is not named in Mueller’s statement) told him he had just returned from Moscow where he had met with senior Russian officials and learned that the Russians had obtained “dirt” on Clinton. This included, as Papadopoulos later told the FBI, “thousands of emails.” So at this time, Papdopoulos, as an official representative of the Trump campaign, was talking to a go-between with Russia about inside (and stolen) information on Clinton that Moscow possessed. The statement suggests but does not explicitly state that Papadopoulos was interested in how the campaign could benefit from this material. It also does not indicate whether these emails are related to the Democratic National Committee or John Podesta emails hacked by the Russians. It would not be until June 14, 2016, that the DNC hack would become public.
In early June, Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner, and Manafort met with a Russian lawyer whom they were told was bringing them negative information on Clinton as part of a secret Russian government plot to help Trump. Here’s an interesting question: had any of them been told that Papadopoulos had heard the Russians had emails related to Clinton?
Papadopoulos continued to communicate with campaign officials about arranging a meeting between the campaign and Russian officials. He informed the campaign that Putin was interested in hosting Trump. At one point, according to the statement, one campaign official emailed another, “We need to communicate that DT is not doing these trips. It should be someone low level in the campaign so as not to send any signal.” Did that mean the campaign did not want to offend Putin by rejecting the offers Papadopoulos was relaying?
Still, the statement notes that from mid-June through mid-August 2016, Papadopoulos pursued an “off the record” meeting between one or more campaign representatives and “members of Putin’s office” and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. On August 15, Papadopoulos’ supervisor told him, “I would encourage you” and another foreign policy adviser to the camapign “to make the trip, if it is feasible.””
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/10/robert-mueller-releases-information-showing-trump-campaign-tried-to-collude-with-russia/
Beat that thing like it owes you money, Inga, ARM etc.
If that is collusion -- a campaign aid following-up to see if a foreign government had dirt on a political opponent -- what do you consider paying foreign spies to bankroll espionage against a political opponent?
"Did that mean the campaign did not want to offend Putin by rejecting the offers Papadopoulos was relaying?"
-- Can the person writing this not read? It means that they wanted to send a completely neutral signal. They didn't want to embrace or offend.
"If info was collected pursuant to search warrants based on FusionGPS unverified claims"
Yes. I say it's 50 50 that Manafort walks. This is lawfare by a bunch of leftist radicals.
"In early June, Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner, and Manafort met with a Russian lawyer whom they were told was bringing them negative information on Clinton as part of a secret Russian government plot to help Trump."
-- Why does Mother Jones not include the fact that this Russian lawyer had been frequently used by Obama to brief Congress, and that Obama's administration approved her to work in the United States? Surely, if we want to understand whether Trump's people were engaging with known Russian agents, it is important to note that the U.S. government had vetted the individual and found her acceptable.
"The professor (who is not named in Mueller’s statement) told him he had just returned from Moscow where he had met with senior Russian officials and learned that the Russians had obtained “dirt” on Clinton."
-- Why is the professor not named? How can someone be charged with talking to someone that the prosecutor won't even name? Sure, in this case, Papadopoulos gave out, but ... how is that responsible?
If we're really going to be impartial, nonpartisan observers regarding the possibility of hostile governments trying to influence US policy, just from what we already know can anyone deny:
1. Hillary Clinton and the DNC sought dirt on Trump from agents of the Russian government, but with layers in between to cover it up (using a lawyer as the bagman so that they could claim attorney-client privilege when the financial records are sought, and then using Steele as a "Westen diplomat" as a go between.)
2. Political neophytes in the Trump campaign appeared to have also sought dirt from agents of the Russian government. They did not put layers between themselves and these agents in order to cover their tracks.
3. There is much circumstantial evidence that HRC allowed herself to be compromised while she was a cabinet member of the US government, and that she received payments while promoting pro-Russia policy.
4. There is circumstantial evidence that the Trump campaign employed people who were receiving financial gain from people with pro-Russia agenda, and this might have influenced the platform positions that the candidate ran on.
5. Both campaigns had high ranking employees who failed to register as foreign agents for their lobbying efforts.
If this investigation only focuses on Trumps campaign it will be a travesty, and if partisan Democrats cheer that on, shame on them.
Was there a classifiable crime before or after the Obama-backed coup in Kiev?
“1. Hillary Clinton and the DNC sought dirt on Trump from agents of the Russian government“
Wrong. Trump’s associates sought dirt from those who openly stated they were connected to the Russian government. This was a plus to them, they wanted the Russian governments help.
I'm waiting to see an Andy McCarthy analysis of this case. So far nothing on the NRO web site.
He is the only one over there I trust,
Matthew Sablan said...
Sure, in this case, Papadopoulos gave out
Is this the euphemism that the hip kids are using for 'pleaded guilty'?
Nothingburger.
CStanley said...
If this investigation only focuses on Trumps campaign it will be a travesty
One problem with the 'they are both guilty' argument is that only one is president. Clearly it is of greater public interest to understand what the president's team is guilty of than it is to understand what happened on the losers campaign. Justice should be blind but also a bit practical with respect to setting priorities. No one made Trump campaign in Wisconsin.
The Professor said: By the way, that's what Kevin Spacey is doing — saying "I forgot."
I'm no fan of Spacey in general, nor of pedophilia in particular, but the allegation was that he made a pass at a kid, one time, after a party that was literally 30 years ago. No other contact afterwards between the two.
I can't remember half the stuff I did 30 days ago. I think its fair to say "I don't remember that" for something that supposedly happened 30 years ago. Plus, if it did happen as described, it may very well be that he was drunk and can't remember.
Not trying to excuse any such behavior, especially with underage kids, but ....
Hard for me to knock the guy for "I don't remember that thing that you're alleging I did thirty years ago"
And I have to say this whole mob mentality about past sexual abuse/harassment/misconduct is just too "old testament" for me. Any issue, from however far in your past, and you are exiled. Banished. East of Eden for you! Ugh. Who wants to live in that world.
"Clearly it is of greater public interest to understand what the president's team is guilty of than it is to understand what happened on the losers campaign."
-- It is funny how "priorities work out." Somehow, a member of the Trump campaign who got fired is a higher priority than the previous Secretary of State, who we know benefited to the tune of millions of Russian dollars.
"No reasonable prosecutor." Just keep repeating that phrase.
why the he'll do these people ever talk to the FBI, ever? How many Martha Stewarts and Scooter Libbys does it take? Never talk to the feds. Ever!
As to Mantafort, eh. Seems like a pretty slimy lobbyist swamp guy. No altimeter than most of them (Podesta included--esp since Podestas form did work for Mantafort's backers!) and maybe even a little less slimy than some (like Blumenthal).
I see a bunch of magic eight ball spinning from the usual suspects, not worth the effort to clarify the true facts beyond the spin. Wake me up when you find that pony.
The next show drops.
Democratic power lobbyist Tony Podesta, founder of the Podesta Group, is stepping down from the firm that bears his name after coming under investigation by special counsel Robert Mueller.
Podesta announced his decision during a firm-wide meeting Monday morning and is alerting clients of his impending departure.
Podesta is handing over full operational and financial control to longtime firm CEO Kimberley Fritts, according to multiple sources with knowledge of the meeting. Fritts and a senior group of the Podesta team will be launching a new firm in the next one or two days. Sources said the transition has been in the works for the past several months.
Spending more time with family before he goes to prison.
Again: I'm fine if Manafort did something illegal for him to go to jail. But, I'd like more people to accept like Roesch did that this is a purely political prosecution. He's being held to standards that, unless we get some more indictments soon, Clinton's lieutenants were not. If that's the sort of law you want, fine. But it isn't law at all.
. According to the doc, Manafort had a lot of convention experience and so he was brought on to reduce the risk of the nomination being stolen from Trump at the finish line.
Yes. If you recall, and apparently not many do, Ted Cruz was running around stealing delegates from State Trump won, and Manafort was brought in to put a stop to it. Which, he did.
Post a Comment