The Briefing Room
General Category => Trump Legal Investigations => Topic started by: Right_in_Virginia on July 08, 2018, 12:38:21 pm
-
Mueller WILL NOT Present Collusion Evidence At Manafort Trial
Daily Caller, Jul 7, 2018, Chuck Ross
Special counsel Robert Mueller said in a court filing Friday that his prosecutors will not present evidence regarding Trump campaign collusion with Russia at an upcoming trial for former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort.
“The government does not intend to present at trial evidence or argument concerning collusion with the Russian government,†reads a filing submitted by Mueller’s team in federal court in Virginia on Friday.
The filing sheds light on one of the largest questions looming over the Manafort case. Mueller’s prosecutors have indicted Manafort in federal court in Virginia and Washington, D.C., on a slew of charges related to his consulting work for former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych. (RELATED: Manafort Lawyers Say Mueller Team Unable To Provide Evidence Of Collusion)
Manafort ended the work in 2014, and it has been unclear whether Mueller’s team planned to reveal evidence about President Donald Trump or the campaign.
More: http://dailycaller.com/2018/07/07/mueller-manafort-collusion/ (http://dailycaller.com/2018/07/07/mueller-manafort-collusion/)
-
There was no collusion. Yet Mueller continues this witch hunt unchecked and Manafort, not convicted of any crime, sits in a prison's solitary confinement cell.
Fundamental change did, indeed, come to America.
-
There was no collusion. Yet Mueller continues this witch hunt unchecked and Manafort, not convicted of any crime, sits in a prison's solitary confinement cell.
They could drop the case against Manafort, pretrial, and still have screwed over him in several ways. I don't think this is how it's supposed to work.
-
They could drop the case against Manafort, pretrial, and still have screwed over him in several ways. I don't think this is how it's supposed to work.
I agree ... it's horrifying.
-
They could drop the case against Manafort, pretrial, and still have screwed over him in several ways. I don't think this is how it's supposed to work.
They cannot kill the king, so they torture those allied to him. The message in political circles is clear; in the future don't even think of opposing us, because we will destroy you!
-
There was no collusion. Yet Mueller continues this witch hunt unchecked and Manafort, not convicted of any crime, sits in a prison's solitary confinement cell.
Fundamental change did, indeed, come to America.
Manafort is in solitary because he’s a dirt little tax cheat who tried to tamper with witnesses.
He is not some innocent being scapegoated as a way of getting g to Trump by proxy.
Lie down with dogs, get up with fleas.
-
Manafort is in solitary because he’s a dirt little tax cheat who tried to tamper with witnesses.
He is not some innocent being scapegoated as a way of getting g to Trump by proxy. Lie down with dogs, get up with fleas.
Lying down with dogs is not a crime. Manafort is convicted of absolutely nothing. Or didn't they cover this in law school?
-
Lying down with dogs is not a crime. Manafort is convicted of absolutely nothing. Or didn't they cover this in law school?
You really don’t know much of anything, do you? The law gives a judge the power to deny a defendant bail under appropriate circumstances, and the existence of credible evidence indicating that a defendant has attempted to tamper with a witness, and will continue to do so, is one of those appropriate circumstances. And solitary is one way of making sure that there can be no further attempts at communication with witnesses. If the judge’s decision was too harsh, then I’m sure the court to which Manafort has appealed this decision will change it. Otherwise, he has nobody but himself to blame for his current living conditions.
-
You really don’t know much of anything, do you?
I know this ... when Avenetti's tax evasion case gets to court, I'll look for you. Until then .....
-
I know this ... when Avenetti's tax evasion case gets to court, I'll look for you. Until then .....
Thank you for proving - yet again - that you have no clue what you’re talking about.
-
Why would he present evidence at trial for something not listed in the indictments? Besides, the original scope of the investigation doesn't say 'collusion,' it says contacts with Russians by campaign members. That will be covered in the report sent to Congress. It's irrelevant to this jury.
-
Why would he present evidence at trial for something not listed in the indictments? Besides, the original scope of the investigation doesn't say 'collusion,' it says contacts with Russians by campaign members. That will be covered in the report sent to Congress. It's irrelevant to this jury.
But, "contacts with Russians by campaign members" is not illegal.
-
But, "contacts with Russians by campaign members" is not illegal.
So what? Tax evasion is illegal, even for Trump minions, is it not?
Witness tampering is illegal, even for Trump minions, is it not?
-
But, "contacts with Russians by campaign members" is not illegal.
It can be. The communications between Manafort and Kilimnik show he was willing to offer briefings to Deripaska. Had they occurred, Manafort could have been facing more charges, depending on what he provided and/or received in return.
It’s a similar situation with the Trump Tower meeting, where Manafort was also in attendance. There were expectations of receiving damaging material. They were conned, instead. Being a dupe isn’t against the law. Obstructing an investigation and providing false statements is. Prosecution of Manafort is leverage to see if he’ll give anything up about it.
-
All pontificating aside this 'investigation' is political in nature, and being political relies on public support for fuel. Support which is eroding daily.
In the end millions will be spent for a few tax violation and false statement convictions. And Mueller's name will be synonymous with prosecutorial abuse.
I suspect the false statement ones will eventually be overturned. At least Flynn's will be.
As Crazy Uncle Joe would say, big effin deal.
-
All pontificating aside this 'investigation' is political in nature, and being political relies on public support for fuel. Support which is eroding daily.
In the end millions will be spent for a few tax violation and false statement convictions. And Mueller's name will be synonymous with prosecutorial abuse.
I suspect the false statement ones will eventually be overturned.
As Crazy Uncle Joe would say, big effin deal.
So why not let it burn down in that direction instead of continually trying to make it all about Trump? Let Mueller have his fun with a shitty little tax cheat who tries to tamper with witnesses, and limit him to that?
-
So why not let it burn down in that direction instead of continually trying to make it all about Trump? Let Mueller have his fun with a shitty little tax cheat who tries to tamper with witnesses, and limit him to that?
Agree. I didn't write the article.
-
All pontificating aside this 'investigation' is political in nature, and being political relies on public support for fuel. Support which is eroding daily.
In the end millions will be spent for a few tax violation and false statement convictions. And Mueller's name will be synonymous with prosecutorial abuse.
Twenty years ago, Starr was being savaged by Carville and the Clinton war room as the bedroom police prosecutorial perv. He received more heat and with media cooperation. Nevertheless, he finished his report and Clinton was impeached. BJ is still answering for his conduct today. You rarely hear anything about Starr.
-
It can be. The communications between Manafort and Kilimnik show he was willing to offer briefings to Deripaska. Had they occurred, Manafort could have been facing more charges, depending on what he provided and/or received in return.
It’s a similar situation with the Trump Tower meeting, where Manafort was also in attendance. There were expectations of receiving damaging material. They were conned, instead. Being a dupe isn’t against the law. Obstructing an investigation and providing false statements is. Prosecution of Manafort is leverage to see if he’ll give anything up about it.
I just said "contacts" because that's what I meant. You've added some conditions to my statement that I didn't.
-
So what? Tax evasion is illegal, even for Trump minions, is it not?
Witness tampering is illegal, even for Trump minions, is it not?
And, what has that got to do with what I said? You seem to be determined to make your case, regardless of what I write. It doesn't enhance your credibility.
-
I just said "contacts" because that's what I meant. You've added some conditions to my statement that I didn't.
Yes, I did, because the two biggest examples of 'contact' in this investigation weren't arranged to just say 'hello.' It's a fairly important detail.
-
Manafort is in solitary because he’s a dirt little tax cheat who tried to tamper with witnesses.
They put Wesley Snipes and Darryl Strawberry in Solitary?
I love how deranged you Jennifer Rubin/George Will types are now. Delightful to watch.
-
Twenty years ago, Starr was being savaged by Carville and the Clinton war room as the bedroom police prosecutorial perv. He received more heat and with media cooperation. Nevertheless, he finished his report and Clinton was impeached. BJ is still answering for his conduct today. You rarely hear anything about Starr.
Mueller had a record of malfeasance & overreach going in to this charade, Starr did not. While Starr's probe did indeed expand beyond its original charter, thats due to the nature of the IC law itself. My understanding is he was presented with evidence that led to the increased scope. Mueller clearly is fishing.
Starr ended up with tangible results with which he can at least validate the expansion. Not the mickey mouse crap Mueller is offering up.
-
Mueller had a record of malfeasance & overreach going in to this charade, Starr did not. While Starr's probe did indeed expand beyond its original charter, thats due to the nature of the IC law itself. My understanding is he was presented with evidence that led to the increased scope. Mueller clearly is fishing.
Starr ended up with tangible results with which he can at least validate the expansion. Not the mickey mouse crap Mueller is offering up.
That's how I see it.
-
Mueller had a record of malfeasance & overreach going in to this charade, Starr did not. While Starr's probe did indeed expand beyond its original charter, thats due to the nature of the IC law itself. My understanding is he was presented with evidence that led to the increased scope. Mueller clearly is fishing.
Starr ended up with tangible results with which he can at least validate the expansion. Not the mickey mouse crap Mueller is offering up.
After and because of that investigation, the IC rules were changed to the SC rules we currently have. We have no idea of the totality of what the investigation has. If truly wanted to fish and desired to expand the probe, he wouldn't have handed off the Cohen case to SDNY.
-
And, what has that got to do with what I said? You seem to be determined to make your case, regardless of what I write. It doesn't enhance your credibility.
Because you seem to think that Mueller can only focus on “collusion†and must be willfully blind to any other criminal conduct he may have come across in his investigation. And that is simply flatly not true. Manafort was included in the original investigation because of his position and role with the Trump campaign, and that investigation brought to light the criminal conduct for which Manafort has been charged, and which Mueller has been authorized to prosecute. As such, it is utterly irrelevant that Mueller will not be introducing any evidence of collusion at Manafort’s trial; such evidence, if offered, would in fact be excluded, or should be excluded, under the rules of evidence as being both irrelevant to the charges for which he’s being prosecuted and unduly prejudicial to Manafort.
-
After and because of that investigation, the IC rules were changed to the SC rules we currently have. We have no idea of the totality of what the investigation has. If truly wanted to fish and desired to expand the probe, he wouldn't have handed off the Cohen case to SDNY.
Or maybe he realized Cohen is a dry hole. As I said, Starr was presented with a blue dress. What did Mueller have to justify the expansion?
-
Because you seem to think that Mueller can only focus on “collusion†and must be willfully blind to any other criminal conduct he may have come across in his investigation. And that is simply flatly not true. Manafort was included in the original investigation because of his position and role with the Trump campaign, and that investigation brought to light the criminal conduct for which Manafort has been charged, and which Mueller has been authorized to prosecute. As such, it is utterly irrelevant that Mueller will not be introducing any evidence of collusion at Manafort’s trial; such evidence, if offered, would in fact be excluded, or should be excluded, under the rules of evidence as being both irrelevant to the charges for which he’s being prosecuted and unduly prejudicial to Manafort.
I can't do it. You've moved the goalposts so many times, I'm not sure what yard we're on now.
-
I can't do it. You've moved the goalposts so many times, I'm not sure what yard we're on now.
So let’s make it simple: why should evidence of collusion be introduced in a prosecution for tax evasion?
-
So let’s make it simple: why should evidence of collusion be introduced in a prosecution for tax evasion?
:rolling:
I never said it should be! See, you've confused yourself.
-
:rolling:
I never said it should be! See, you've confused yourself.
Ok. So what is your problem with prosecuting Manafort?
-
Or maybe he realized Cohen is a dry hole. As I said, Starr was presented with a blue dress. What did Mueller have to justify the expansion?
You might recall that the dress was presented, because Linda Tripp convinced Monica to keep it and had recordings of her statements contradicting her previous sworn statement. She was given immunity to provide the garment and change her testimony. They're still in the process of sifting through millions of Cohen's documents. So far, a very small percentage has been deemed privileged. Who knows what's in them or may become germane to Mueller's investigation? Even if there's nothing, it's not inconceivable Cohen could negotiate a deal to reduce/avoid prison with relevant information.
-
You might recall that the dress was presented, because Linda Tripp convinced Monica to keep it and had recordings of her statements contradicting her previous sworn statement. She was given immunity to provide the garment and change her testimony. They're still in the process of sifting through millions of Cohen's documents. So far, a very small percentage has been deemed privileged. Who knows what's in them or may become germane to Mueller's investigation? Even if there's nothing, it's not inconceivable Cohen could negotiate a deal to reduce/avoid prison with relevant information.
One would think if Mueller thought that was a reasonable possibility he wouldn't have handed the case off.
-
Ok. So what is your problem with prosecuting Manafort?
My 2 cents - many of us don't have a problem prosecuting a tax cheat.
We DO have a problem with Mueller's heavy handedness. No bail, 23 hrs daily solitary confinement.
C'mon.
-
One would think if Mueller thought that was a reasonable possibility he wouldn't have handed the case off.
One could also think the review of a lawyer's files would require a lot of resources dedicated specifically to it and anything pertinent can always be referred back.
-
One could also think the review of a lawyer's files would require a lot of resources dedicated specifically to it and anything pertinent can always be referred back.
Mueller's currently adding headcount... what better reason to add more prosecutors than to peruse Trump's 'bagman' attorney's files?
-
My 2 cents - many of us don't have a problem prosecuting a tax cheat.
We DO have a problem with Mueller's heavy handedness. No bail, 23 hrs daily solitary confinement.
C'mon.
So how do you prevent someone who has already attempted to contact witnesses for the purposes of tampering with them from continuing to do so?
And this wasn’t some unilateral decision by Mueller; this was a decision by the judge, and by the corrections officials who have stated that it is the only way to guarantee his safety.
Are all of these people in on some vast grand conspiracy with Mueller to pick on poor little Mr. Manafort?
-
My 2 cents - many of us don't have a problem prosecuting a tax cheat.
We DO have a problem with Mueller's heavy handedness. No bail, 23 hrs daily solitary confinement.
C'mon.
Especially when we have tangible proof that Stupid Bobby and his team of Clinton campaign workers have fabricated evidence to make cases. That is why the taxpayers have doled out over $100 million dollars to cover for Stupid Bobby's corrupt prosecutions.
-
Especially when we have tangible proof that Stupid Bobby and his team of Clinton campaign workers have fabricated evidence to make cases. That is why the taxpayers have doled out over $100 million dollars to cover for Stupid Bobby's corrupt prosecutions.
Uh yeah. You have even a scintilla of evidence that any of the evidence against Manafort that supports the charges in question has been manufactured?
-
Mueller's currently adding headcount... what better reason to add more prosecutors than to peruse Trump's 'bagman' attorney's files?
Some of the additions are in place to take over cases like Concord Management. People say he's handing it off, because it's a loser. The argument can also be made that the case will drag out. Even if he gets a favorable verdict, there's never going to be an appearance by the people involved. There's no value for him to personally see it through, since the indictment information will be included in his final report and no deal from individuals would be made to further his case.
-
Are all of these people in on some vast grand conspiracy with Mueller to pick on poor little Mr. Manafort?
Obviously so.
Most reasonable people understand Mueller is squeezing the hell out of Manafort for reasons other than his tax filing habits. And, lacking results, he's squeezing him as a warning to others.
And thats bullsh*t in a free country.
-
Uh yeah. You have even a scintilla of evidence that any of the evidence against Manafort that supports the charges in question has been manufactured?
Yeah, because your hero of the stupid Bobby has cost the American taxpayers over $100 million dollars because he is a lying sack of shit. His number 2 capo has been hauled in front of disciplinary boards for being a corrupt liar and almost disbarred.
The burden of proof is on your filthy lying pack of openly Leftist shitbag attorneys who threw this dude in solitary. Judging by the disaster that Stupid Bobby is having with his other prosecutions in this witch hunt, I'll bet a dollar there will be more disciplinary hearings and taxpayer payouts in their future.
-
Obviously so.
Most reasonable people understand Mueller is squeezing the hell out of Manafort for reasons other than his tax filing habits. And, lacking results, he's squeezing him as a warning to others.
And thats bullsh*t in a free country.
No, it’s not bullshit. Manafort is scheduled to go on trial for the charges of bank fraud and tax evasion just like any other defendant charged with similar crimes. He had his bail revoked because - as the judge found - he attempted to tamper with witnesses, and the corrections officials put him into solitary to protect his safety.
Considering how even administration officials who haven’t done anything are being harassed right now, and given that Scalise was shot, it seems to me that there are serious concerns about his safety. If there really was this vast conspiracy designed to squeeze an otherwise innocent Manafort, don’t you think that Mueller would have wanted him in the general population, where some enforced could reach out and “touch†him with relative impunity?
Manafort is being prosecuted because he committed serious tax evasion - to the tune of millions - as well as bank fraud, not because Mueller thinks he can turn Manafort into some sort of anti-Trump puppet.
-
Here's the thing with Manafort. Back in 2014, the DOJ, under Holder, was investigating the corruption of Yanukovych. The FBI was aware he engaged in suspicious activities and questioned Manafort at the time. They took no action against him, because he wasn't the direct target. That kind of negates political motivations. So what does he do? Knowing he had been under fed scrutiny two years prior, Manafort weasels his way into the campaign manager position by working for free, so he can re-establish those shady foreign contacts and cash flow. He offers personal 'briefings' on the campaign to a Russian oligarch. He secures a loan from Stephen Calk, by saying he'd put in a good word for consideration as Army Secretary. That's pay to play, on top of all the other corruption for which he's currently charged. We should really be saying good riddance to this guy.
-
Yeah, because your hero of the stupid Bobby has cost the American taxpayers over $100 million dollars because he is a lying sack of shit. His number 2 capo has been hauled in front of disciplinary boards for being a corrupt liar and almost disbarred.
The burden of proof is on your filthy lying pack of openly Leftist shitbag attorneys who threw this dude in solitary. Judging by the disaster that Stupid Bobby is having with his other prosecutions in this witch hunt, I'll bet a dollar there will be more disciplinary hearings and taxpayer payouts in their future.
In other words, you have no such evidence, so all you can resort to is character assassination.
-
No, it’s not bullshit. Manafort is scheduled to go on trial for the charges of bank fraud and tax evasion just like any other defendant charged with similar crimes. He had his bail revoked because - as the judge found - he attempted to tamper with witnesses, and the corrections officials put him into solitary to protect his safety.
Considering how even administration officials who haven’t done anything are being harassed right now, and given that Scalise was shot, it seems to me that there are serious concerns about his safety. If there really was this vast conspiracy designed to squeeze an otherwise innocent Manafort, don’t you think that Mueller would have wanted him in the general population, where some enforced could reach out and “touch†him with relative impunity?
Manafort is being prosecuted because he committed serious tax evasion - to the tune of millions - as well as bank fraud, not because Mueller thinks he can turn Manafort into some sort of anti-Trump puppet.
If it were a SC without the track record of guys like Mueller and Weinstein your point would be compelling. But prosecutorial overreach seems to be their MO.
-
If it were a SC without the track record of guys like Mueller and Weinstein your point would be compelling. But prosecutorial overreach seems to be their MO.
Where is the prosecutorial overreach? Are you saying that Mueller fabricated the evidence of tax evasion and bank fraud? Are you saying that Mueller fabricated the evidence of witness tampering? Are you saying that No judge has had a say in Manafort ending up in jail?
Even granting all the salacious character assassination of Mueller for the sake of argument does not vitiate what Manafort himself has done, or the consequences he’s now dealing with. Even a stopped clock gets the time right twice a day.
-
Where is the prosecutorial overreach? Are you saying that Mueller fabricated the evidence of tax evasion and bank fraud? Are you saying that Mueller fabricated the evidence of witness tampering? Are you saying that No judge has had a say in Manafort ending up in jail?
Even granting all the salacious character assassination of Mueller for the sake of argument does not vitiate what Manafort himself has done, or the consequences he’s now dealing with. Even a stopped clock gets the time right twice a day.
Why wasn't Mueller Manafort prosecuted in 2014?
I guess we won't find out until we see what was on the FISA warrant that supposedly prompted Mueller to re-open his case in 2016.
-
Why wasn't Mueller prosecuted in 2014?
I guess we won't find out until we see what was on the FISA warrant that supposedly prompted Mueller to re-open his case in 2016.
You mean Manafort?
Prosecutorial discretion.
It’s also irrelevant. Just because a prosecutor chooses not to prosecute on one occasion does not bar another prosecutor from prosecuting at a later date.
Perhaps it’s as simple as he fact that Mueller realized he needed something concrete for his efforts, and that since there really wasn’t anything showing illegal collusion on the part of Trump, it was Manafort’s time in the docket.
In other words, just because the first cop doesn’t pull you over for speeding, doesn’t mean the second one cannot.
-
Here's the thing with Manafort. Back in 2014, the DOJ, under Holder, was investigating the corruption of Yanukovych. The FBI was aware he engaged in suspicious activities and questioned Manafort at the time. They took no action against him, because he wasn't the direct target. That kind of negates political motivations. So what does he do? Knowing he had been under fed scrutiny two years prior, Manafort weasels his way into the campaign manager position by working for free, so he can re-establish those shady foreign contacts and cash flow. He offers personal 'briefings' on the campaign to a Russian oligarch. He secures a loan from Stephen Calk, by saying he'd put in a good word for consideration as Army Secretary. That's pay to play, on top of all the other corruption for which he's currently charged. We should really be saying good riddance to this guy.
No, that shows that before there was an elected president who wasn't Hillary Clinton, the DOJ did not feel the need to go after someone who would end up working very briefly on the campaign of the person who beat Clinton. There are a number of people the DOJ could have gone after and chose not to, Manafort and Podesta included. Not sure how you see that as anything BUT politics. Well, and corruption.
-
No, that shows that before there was an elected president who wasn't Hillary Clinton, the DOJ did not feel the need to go after someone who would end up working very briefly on the campaign of the person who beat Clinton. There are a number of people the DOJ could have gone after and chose not to, Manafort and Podesta included. Not sure how you see that as anything BUT politics. Well, and corruption.
The only corruption here is on the part of Manafort.
-
The only corruption here is on the part of Manafort.
Keep clicking those ruby slippers together.
-
Why wasn't Mueller prosecuted in 2014?
As I previously said, the Holder-led DOJ was after Yanukovych.
I guess we won't find out until we see what was on the FISA warrant that supposedly prompted Mueller to re-open his case in 2016.
I'm supposing you'd mean Comey. Mueller left the FBI in 2013 and was in the private sector through the election. How would anyone foresee Manafort would be campaign manager two years later? Knowing he'd previously been involved with Russian figures, why wouldn't that trigger legitimate suspicion once he got involved? Add the previously investigated Carter Page and it practically demands scrutiny.
-
No, that shows that before there was an elected president who wasn't Hillary Clinton, the DOJ did not feel the need to go after someone who would end up working very briefly on the campaign of the person who beat Clinton. There are a number of people the DOJ could have gone after and chose not to, Manafort and Podesta included. Not sure how you see that as anything BUT politics. Well, and corruption.
And like I said, knowing he was on FBI radar, Manafort went right back to the well at his first opportunity. He's either really corrupt or extremely stupid. Perhaps both.
-
Keep clicking those ruby slippers together.
A politically-motivated prosecution is only corrupt if there is no basis for the prosecution. The mere fact that the prosecutor has a political point of view does not taint all of his or her prosecutions; if it did, then no prosecutor could ever prosecute someone with a different political viewpoint, no matter what the evidence showed.
Manafort almost certainly committed tax evasion and bank fraud, and now witness tampering, and no amount of sugar-coating or character assassination of Mueller will make that go away.
-
As I previously said, the Holder-led DOJ was after Yanukovych.
I'm supposing you'd mean Comey. Mueller left the FBI in 2013 and was in the private sector through the election. How would anyone foresee Manafort would be campaign manager two years later? Knowing he'd previously been involved with Russian figures, why wouldn't that trigger legitimate suspicion once he got involved? Add the previously investigated Carter Page and it practically demands scrutiny.
Manafort was subject to counter intelligence surveillance both before and after the election. Details were provided to Mueller's team, which, I assume, have led to his prosecution.
In hindsight, and in the context of the media narrative, sure it demands scrutiny.
But in reality there is no proof election collusion with Trump's team & Russia existed. So what the hell are we talking about?
-
Manafort was subject to counter intelligence surveillance both before and after the election. Details were provided to Mueller's team, which, I assume, have led to his prosecution.
In hindsight, and in the context of the media narrative, sure it demands scrutiny.
But in reality there is no proof collusion existed.
It would appear that this is a distinct possibility. Which is why Mueller should be allowed to prosecute the actual criminal he found and go on his merry way.
-
It would appear that this is a distinct possibility. Which is why Mueller should be allowed to prosecute the actual criminal he found and go on his merry way.
I have no brief for Manafort. A court will determined whether his consulting work was done in the US and is subject to US tax law or not.
I'm just concerned about equal justice, punishment fitting the crime, or alleged crime, etc. I also have a problem with prosecutions made with an eye on their political effect.
-
Manafort was subject to counter intelligence surveillance both before and after the election. Details were provided to Mueller's team, which, I assume, have led to his prosecution.
In hindsight, and in the context of the media narrative, sure it demands scrutiny.
But in reality there is no proof election collusion with Trump's team & Russia existed. So what the hell are we talking about?
We're talking about an investigation into contacts people associated with the Trump campaign had with Russians. That's the verbiage of the Rosenstein memo, assigning the SC. Collusion isn't mentioned. Much of, if not all, is a self-induced debacle by the campaign. In June, they had the meeting at Trump Tower. By the time the convention rolled around, they were getting briefings from the FBI, warning them foreigners may try to contact them. Did they say, "Hey, yeah, this crazy Russian lawyer said she had info on Hillary, then tried to convince us to change Maginsky."....? No, they hid it, because it was politically embarrassing and potentially damaging. That faux pas, along with Cambridge Analytica, Wikileaks, and other things contributed to this mess. Trey 'hurry the hell up' Gowdy even said it was a problem this past February.
REP. GOWDY: No-- not to me, it doesn't -- and I was pretty integrally involved in the drafting of it. There is a Russia investigation without a dossier. So to the extent the memo deals with the dossier and the FISA process, the dossier has nothing to do with the meeting at Trump Tower. The dossier has nothing to do with an email sent by Cambridge Analytica. The dossier really has nothing to do with George Papadopoulos' meeting in Great Britain. It also doesn't have anything to do with obstruction of justice. So there's going to be a Russia probe, even without a dossier.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/02/05/gowdy_there_is_a_russia_investigation_without_a_dossier.html (https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/02/05/gowdy_there_is_a_russia_investigation_without_a_dossier.html)
-
I have no brief for Manafort. A court will determined whether his consulting work was done in the US and is subject to US tax law or not.
I'm just concerned about equal justice, punishment fitting the crime, or alleged crime, etc. I also have a problem with prosecutions made with an eye on their political effect.
Then so far you should have nothing to be concerned about. He was properly indicted by a grand jury, the probable cause underlying the charges appears to have been vetted, and Mr. Manafort is on track to be tried in the normal course, just like anyone else charged with similar crimes.
The biggest difference here is that he ended up having bail revoked and is now back in prison. But that is his fault, not Mueller’s, because he attempted to tamper with witnesses. He isn’t in jail now as special political punishment, he’s in jail because he violated the terms of his bail.
And quite honestly, there would be more cause for concern if Mueller had said he was going to introduce evidence of collusion, because that would be nothing more than bad character evidence since it has no relevance to the crimes charged. Thus, Mueller’s statement, if anything, indicates that the prosecution is not politically motivated, rather than the contrary.
-
We're talking about an investigation into contacts people associated with the Trump campaign had with Russians. That's the verbiage of the Rosenstein memo, assigning the SC. Collusion isn't mentioned. Much of, if not all, is a self-induced debacle by the campaign. In June, they had the meeting at Trump Tower. By the time the convention rolled around, they were getting briefings from the FBI, warning them foreigners may try to contact them. Did they say, "Hey, yeah, this crazy Russian lawyer said she had info on Hillary, then tried to convince us to change Maginsky."....? No, they hid it, because it was politically embarrassing and potentially damaging. That faux pas, along with Cambridge Analytica, Wikileaks, and other things contributed to this mess. Trey 'hurry the hell up' Gowdy even said it was a problem this past February.
REP. GOWDY: No-- not to me, it doesn't -- and I was pretty integrally involved in the drafting of it. There is a Russia investigation without a dossier. So to the extent the memo deals with the dossier and the FISA process, the dossier has nothing to do with the meeting at Trump Tower. The dossier has nothing to do with an email sent by Cambridge Analytica. The dossier really has nothing to do with George Papadopoulos' meeting in Great Britain. It also doesn't have anything to do with obstruction of justice. So there's going to be a Russia probe, even without a dossier.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/02/05/gowdy_there_is_a_russia_investigation_without_a_dossier.html (https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/02/05/gowdy_there_is_a_russia_investigation_without_a_dossier.html)
I wonder what all this would look like if we also knew, in detail, what points of contact the campaign and president elect's team had with the
British
Chinese
Germans
Iraqis
Italians
Indians
Yemenis
etc etc
Pick one and with the right storyline, even without the covert efforts to promote it by the leadership of the FBI, and repeated incessantly it can be made to look nefarious. Of course the Russians make it look easy as they've been effing around in US elections since 1919.
-
I didn't think this trial was about the "Russian Collusion," it's about Manafort's ancient crimes. I don't even know if the witness tampering is part of it.
Why would Mueller's team even bring collusion into this trial anyway? As much as we may like to put Mueller on trial here, it's not the place or time. I hope eventually that happens, because I think Mueller and his team are dirty, but it's not going to happen here. It's not relevant to this case.
-
I wonder what all this would look like if we also knew, in detail, what points of contact the campaign and president elect's team had with the
British
Chinese
Germans
Iraqis
Italians
Indians
Yemenis
etc etc
Pick one and with the right storyline, even without the covert efforts to promote it by the leadership of the FBI, and repeated incessantly it can be made to look nefarious. Of course the Russians make it look easy as they've been effing around in US elections since 1919.
Except the storyline wasn't chosen. It is what it is, because of ill-advised actions. Any individuals, from any country, with direct ties to intel services and their government offering politically damaging information is going to want something in return. I would think that bears a look, whether information was obtained or not.
-
I didn't think this trial was about the "Russian Collusion," it's about Manafort's ancient crimes. I don't even know if the witness tampering is part of it.
Why would Mueller's team even bring collusion into this trial anyway? As much as we may like to put Mueller on trial here, it's not the place or time. I hope eventually that happens, because I think Mueller and his team are dirty, but it's not going to happen here. It's not relevant to this case.
On that we can generally agree.
-
Except the storyline wasn't chosen. It is what it is, because of ill-advised actions. Any individuals, from any country, with direct ties to intel services and their government offering politically damaging information is going to want something in return. I would think that bears a look, whether information was obtained or not.
Sure it was. It started out as oppo research before trump was even the presumptive nominee.
-
Sure it was. It started out as oppo research before trump was even the presumptive nominee.
I'm referring to the tower meeting, which has zero to do with the dossier.
-
I'm referring to the tower meeting, which has zero to do with the dossier.
The only reason the tower meeting has any significance at all is because the Russia narrative by that time was established by Trumps political opposition. It certainly wasn't illegal.
-
The only reason the tower meeting has any significance at all is because the Russia narrative by that time was established by Trumps political opposition. It certainly wasn't illegal.
All the more reason it was foolish to take the meeting, hide it later, and lie about the president's role in the statement. It's usually the stuff that happens after the incident that gets you in trouble.