home

Do All Roads Lead Through Manafort?

By Jeralyn, Section Trump Administration
Posted on Sun Oct 29, 2017 at 11:34:46 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Jason Leopold, writing for Buzzfeed, reports that 13 wire transfers from Manafort shell companies abroad to the U.S. are the basis for whatever charges are coming.

Federal law enforcement officials said they saw evidence of “layering,” the process by which the origin of money is obscured behind many layers of companies. Much of the money ended up in the US, sent to American home improvement contractors, a hedge fund, and even a car dealership.

The New York Times reported on the complicated connections in June, 2017, which include money used to remodel real estate projects involving his daughters and wife and involvement of some sort by his son-in-law.

Why did Roger Stone, former Manafort Partner, have a melt-down on Twitter yesterday?

I'm still not sure who has been indicted, if anyone.

< Sweating Out the First Weekend Before Russia Charges | Manafort, Gates, Papadopoulos Charges >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Do All Roads Lead Through Manafort? | 97 comments (97 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Remember Jack Abramoff? (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Aspidistra on Sun Oct 29, 2017 at 02:52:57 PM EST
    Is anyone else starting to get that deja vu feeling with Manafort being connected to pretty much everything? The news accounts of the extensiveness of Manafort's slippery corruption are starting to remind me of Jack Abramoff.  He ended up serving almost four years in prison.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Abramoff

    i think (none / 0) (#93)
    by linea on Mon Oct 30, 2017 at 10:44:17 PM EST
    it would be more accurate to say that the wealthy elite
    mingle and travel in the same circles.

    Parent
    I think (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by Yman on Tue Oct 31, 2017 at 09:18:41 AM EST
    ... your repeated attempts to smear the Clintons on any subject no matter  how unrelated to the topic is the laughable, blatant trolling of a Bitter Berner.

    Parent
    Roger Stone (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Oct 29, 2017 at 03:11:26 PM EST
    one of the interesting bits of Stones rant was this.  from TPM-

    Last night, as CNN's breaking news about a Mueller indictment was rippling across the interwebs, Roger Stone went on a Twitter tirade ranting at various people. One Tweet thought was quite specific.

    When AT&T aquires Time Warner the house cleaning at CNN of human excrement like @donlemon @jaketapper& dumbfu@k @ananavarrowill be swift

    -- Roger Stone

    Obviously, Roger Stone can rant and wish all he wants. He was in a splutter and a rage. How can he know what AT&T is going to do. But let's go back to one more thing we know. Roger Stone still regularly talks to President Trump. Is that what President Trump told Stone?

    AT&T is currently trying to finalize an $86 billion acquisition of Time Warner. It's actually behind schedule.  But not to worry. The companies say they are extending their deadline "for a short period of time to facilitate obtaining final regulatory approval required to close the merger."

    AT&T needs the Justice Department's approval for that deal. Normally, that decision would be housed off at the Antitrust Division at the Justice Department. But no one thinks that's how it works in the Trump Administration. AT&T needs Donald Trump's sign off, possibly mediated through the hand of Jeff Sessions but maybe not. Indeed, there has already been quite a bit of concern on Capitol Hill that Trump would try to hold up the AT&T deal as a way to exert pressure on Time Warner?

    Why would the President want to pressure Time Warner? Because Time Warner owns CNN. And the White House has already put out word that it wanted to use the deal as a way to place pressure on CNN to rein in its coverage.
    Roger sues Twitter (none / 0) (#17)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Oct 29, 2017 at 03:42:04 PM EST
    LINK

    Parent
    Speaking of Kushner (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by smott on Sun Oct 29, 2017 at 05:51:45 PM EST
    He apparently flew unannounced to Saudi Arabia this week.
    Supposed to be back Sat night.
    Do they have an extradition treaty w US? I thought No.

    i googled... (none / 0) (#22)
    by linea on Sun Oct 29, 2017 at 05:58:37 PM EST
    found this:

    OCTOBER 28, 2017
    JARED KUSHNER TO BE ARRESTED IN ROBERT MUELLER RUSSIA PROBE? DONALD TRUMP SON-IN-LAW IS TOP TARGET, RUMORS SAY

    After Special Counsel Robert Mueller filed the first charges in his investigation into collusion between Donald Trump and Russia, new rumors say that the first person arrested by Mueller will be 36-year-old Jared Kushner -- Trump's own son-in-law and a top White House adviser. Initial speculation among experts named former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort as the initial target for arrest. But Manafort himself -- through individuals close to him -- shot down that speculation on Saturday.


    Parent
    makes perfect sense to me (none / 0) (#23)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Oct 29, 2017 at 06:23:25 PM EST
    hard to imagine anything Mueller could do that would cause a bigger sh!tstorm short of indicting Trump himself.

    for the record there are other rumors there will not be just one arrest.

    Parent

    son AND son-in-law (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Oct 29, 2017 at 06:24:38 PM EST
    please oh please oh please

    Parent
    Palmer Report (none / 0) (#27)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Oct 29, 2017 at 06:29:18 PM EST
    shows where this could be coming from

    Political insider Scott Dworkin of the Democratic Coalition revealed on Saturday afternoon that he "was just told by attorney who used to work at FBI that Jared Kushner is most likely the one being arrested Monday." (link). Dworkin cautioned that "My bet's still Manafort." As Palmer Report pointed out earlier today, new details about jurisdiction seem to point to criminal charges being simultaneously or successively filed against multiple individuals across multiple grand juries (link) - so it's entirely possible that we're looking at multiple arrests this week. So what happens if Kushner is among them?

    we will see.  seems almost to good to hope for.

    Parent

    You (none / 0) (#28)
    by FlJoe on Sun Oct 29, 2017 at 07:33:27 PM EST
    have to take Palmer with a huge grain of salt.

    Kushner would be sweet but I can't quite pin down what crime that Mueller would have the needed slam dunk(or close) case he needed, Kushner is a relatively new blip on the radar and I just don't know if Mueller's team would be ready yet and I don't think his opening salvo would be just failing to disclose or some other "minor" move.

    That being said, Kushner is in way over his head and it is quite possible that he left a number of smoking guns that make him a sitting duck, so who really knows?

    Parent

    he was always (none / 0) (#29)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Oct 29, 2017 at 07:54:48 PM EST
    top o my list like i said in the first comment in the last thread.

    it really would be a gut punch.  and he is a very ripe target.  and he has been at the very center of everything.

    i actually think it could be right.  but if we are believing rumors it wont be just him.

    Parent

    also (none / 0) (#30)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Oct 29, 2017 at 07:59:47 PM EST
    its like a trap for Trump.

    if there is anything that would push him over the edge and make him try to fire Mueller or pardon obstructively that would be it.  i think maybe even more than Don Jr.

    Parent

    that's a gossip rag (none / 0) (#38)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Oct 30, 2017 at 12:19:29 AM EST
    that has frequently been factually inaccurate in my opinion. Please don't quote that junk here.

    Parent
    I want to wish everyone the sweetest of dreams (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Oct 29, 2017 at 06:26:12 PM EST
    Tonight. I don't know what tomorrow holds for us and accountability, it sounds like we get something tomorrow, anything is better than nothing.

    My closest friends here know that sleep can be elusive for me. It will not be tonight. Tonight, for one night, I sleep like a baby.

    Peace

    See, ... I'm just the opposite (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Yman on Sun Oct 29, 2017 at 08:23:11 PM EST
    It's like the night before Xmas and I want to see what I got ...

    Parent
    Same here (none / 0) (#32)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Oct 29, 2017 at 08:35:04 PM EST
    I will probably be up at five for morning joe.

    Parent
    Hmmmmm, what is that Papadopolous (none / 0) (#52)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 30, 2017 at 09:29:06 AM EST
    Guilty plea about?

    Because there was nothing for Flynn, did he flip? Or is that coming?

    Parent

    He made false statements to the FBI; (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Anne on Mon Oct 30, 2017 at 10:01:12 AM EST
    what those statements were, can be found here.

    And the lies are pretty interesting, not least because Papadopoulos tried to claim that certain things happened before he joined the campaign, or were just "nothing."

    This may have been a case of someone wanting to hit a home run and make a name for himself with the campaign.

    Parent

    Oh Wow (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 30, 2017 at 10:38:19 AM EST
    Papadopoulos signed a plea deal 25 days ago and has been working with Mueller since.

    Parent
    Which shows you what a tight ship (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by Anne on Mon Oct 30, 2017 at 10:41:58 AM EST
    Mueller is running, that none of this was leaked.

    If you're on Twitter, check out Renato Mariotti.

    Parent

    Yes and (none / 0) (#62)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 30, 2017 at 10:53:41 AM EST
    We have no idea still what they know or what cards Mueller holds.

    Parent
    He's been cooperating since (none / 0) (#101)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Oct 31, 2017 at 03:11:48 PM EST
    his first interview in January, 2017. He had another one in February, 2017. He was lawyered up before the first interview.

    Parent
    I'm reading that he (none / 0) (#55)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 30, 2017 at 10:13:09 AM EST
    Obstructed justice by shutting down a Facebook page that he used to communicate with Russian entities?

    Parent
    Morning Joe (none / 0) (#26)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Oct 29, 2017 at 06:28:02 PM EST
    would be a good place to be,

    Parent
    Watched this morning (none / 0) (#40)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 30, 2017 at 06:59:15 AM EST
    Sometimes they get on my nerves, but good this morning.

    Parent
    And...... (5.00 / 3) (#51)
    by FlJoe on Mon Oct 30, 2017 at 09:27:38 AM EST
    we have to first guilty as charged
    BREAKING: Former Trump campaign advisor George Papadopolous has pleaded guilty to making false statements to FBI agents.
    If all Muller has (1.50 / 2) (#1)
    by ragebot on Sun Oct 29, 2017 at 11:42:23 AM EST
    are obscure technical violation this may backfire on him.  With all the build up since Friday night I am becoming more and more convinced a lot of folks will say I spent too much time I will never get back wondering about the indictment(s).

    My bet is this turns out to be a tempest in a tea pot.

    But the bottom line for me may be that this is a last gasp from Muller.  He brow beat Manfort as long as he could and he could not get him to roll so he charged him.  Problem is Manfort (and almost every one else) knows Trump can pardon him and if that happens it will not be up to NY State to start charging him.

    Not sure about this but can a state prosecutor cut a deal with a perp if the perp agrees to roll on someone in a federal case.  Seems like a real stretch to me but I was a land use lawyer and would scream to high heaven if a deal I was involved in had this type of collusion.

    No, this is (5.00 / 4) (#2)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Oct 29, 2017 at 12:22:21 PM EST
    not the last gasp from Mueller. It is only the beginning.

    Mueller is already coordinating with Schneiderman in NY to avoid any pardons from Trump. Of course, pardoning Manafort would be political suicide.

    There is so much here to unpack that you can't possibly know how far and wide the net is going to be. Trump himself has done the same thing Manafort has done. So I can't imagine that Mueller is going to let him off the hook and charge Manafort.

    Parent

    There's simply no reason to believe that (5.00 / 5) (#3)
    by Anne on Sun Oct 29, 2017 at 01:05:54 PM EST
    "all" Mueller has are obscure technical violations; there's no basis for suggesting that, other than wishing and hoping, which don't count.

    By all accounts, Mueller is nothing if not thorough, so it's my opinion that whatever he's charging isn't going to be a tempest in a teapot - although you can be sure there will be a concerted effort to characterize it as such.

    Robert Mueller isn't new to this kind of work.  He's built an investigative and legal team comprising people who know what they're doing.  So, I do believe there is a method to Mueller's decisions, that this is a strategic move, and won't be the last of the charges to come out of the investigation (in fact, it may well be that once the dominoes start falling, we may see some new ones we weren't expecting - and no, that won't include charges against Hillary Clinton).

    We will know soon enough, but I think it's telling that the Twitter machine at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue has been eerily quiet.  

    Parent

    Lot's (none / 0) (#4)
    by FlJoe on Sun Oct 29, 2017 at 01:19:29 PM EST
    of whistling past the graveyard going on.

    Parent
    Trump screaming (none / 0) (#7)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Oct 29, 2017 at 01:43:15 PM EST
    DO SOMETHING on twitter really makes me think he knows what is coming down and is ordering somebody to fix this. Of course, this is how he has always operated. Would be interesting if Cohan the ultimate "fixer" was the one who is going up on charges tomorrow.

    Parent
    Nothing in Mueller's history suggests (5.00 / 4) (#10)
    by Molly Bloom on Sun Oct 29, 2017 at 02:47:34 PM EST
    Mueller is an out of control prosecutor.  

    I believe the answer to your question is yes

    Parent

    if both the state and federal prosecutor (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Oct 30, 2017 at 12:13:49 AM EST
    Not sure about this but can a state prosecutor cut a deal with a perp if the perp agrees to roll on someone in a federal case.  Seems like a real stretch to me but I was a land use lawyer and would scream to high heaven if a deal I was involved in had this type of collusion.

    If both the state and federal prosecutors agree,  they can do a global plea agreement that encompasses both jurisdictions.

    Parent

    Hardly an obscure technical violation (5.00 / 4) (#72)
    by Towanda on Mon Oct 30, 2017 at 12:12:40 PM EST
    to have a plea of perjury about collusion with Russia.

    Now, IANL, but logic tells me that means, y'know, that Mueller has the evidence that it was perjury.

    And that means that Mueller has the evidence that there was collusion with Russians.

    Parent

    Stone's insanity in Twitter (none / 0) (#5)
    by smott on Sun Oct 29, 2017 at 01:36:14 PM EST
     Made me think he was in the thick of it.
    But they're all losing their sh-t I suppose.

    I do wonder if anyone is going to hop a private jet out of the country at midnight!....Kushner comes to mind.

    Strange cast (none / 0) (#8)
    by FlJoe on Sun Oct 29, 2017 at 02:05:27 PM EST
     of characters dealing with Assange, Rohrabacher (aka Putin's congresscritter), Stone (rat-fcker extroidenare)and Cambridge Analytica (data miners for right wing causes world wide). Strange bedfellows indeed, it reads like a bad spy novel.

    Working with Wikileaks for items obtained (none / 0) (#11)
    by Molly Bloom on Sun Oct 29, 2017 at 02:51:56 PM EST
    From the someone else's computer might prove problematic for Stone. I think there is a technical term for this kind of agreement...

    Let (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by FlJoe on Sun Oct 29, 2017 at 03:34:32 PM EST
    us not forget Cambridge Analytica, who did the same thing while they were being paid millions by the campaign.  

    Parent
    Well, Cambridge Analytica (none / 0) (#74)
    by NYShooter on Mon Oct 30, 2017 at 02:54:19 PM EST
    was/is owned by Robert Mercer (or, his daughter.) And, in as much as the Mercers dumped countless millions into the Trump Campaign, whatever Cambridge was paid would, simply, be a bookkeeping transaction.

    Parent
    I (none / 0) (#75)
    by FlJoe on Mon Oct 30, 2017 at 03:08:18 PM EST
    don't care if it was chump change, they were soliciting to obtain stolen goods. Sure smells criminal to this layman.

    Parent
    I don't know what you're referring to, (none / 0) (#77)
    by NYShooter on Mon Oct 30, 2017 at 03:57:29 PM EST
    I was just talking about the money, "they were being paid millions by the campaign." In reality, it was taking out of one pocket, and, putting it into another. Mathematically, they weren't "paid" anything.  

    Parent
    I (none / 0) (#14)
    by FlJoe on Sun Oct 29, 2017 at 03:18:43 PM EST
    think Manafort would be out of the loop on any obstruction charges. Kushner and maybe Flynn would be the key there (Sessions is probably untouchable).

    Maybe it's wishful thinking, but it seems possible that Mueller has plenty of ammo on that front already via Priebus and Spicer, who had a front row seat to the Comey firing.

    worth remembering (none / 0) (#15)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Oct 29, 2017 at 03:22:34 PM EST
    the investigation was already months old when Mueller joined.

    all the talk about it taking years seems like it might be true normally but in this case the targets were so flagrant and stupid it really did  not take years of work to nail them dead to rights.

    Parent

    Actually (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by FlJoe on Sun Oct 29, 2017 at 03:59:33 PM EST
    the feds have had their eye on Manafort since 2014, including FISA wiretaps. By the time Mueller brought on the A-Team much of the ground work had been done. For my money Manafort was the smartest of the bunch, a skilled political operative who managed to stay one step ahead of the law, while earning a good living catering to the political wishes of some of the most dangerous people in the world.......then he met tRump.

    As for the rest, they really really suck at being international men of mystery.  

    Parent

    the reality is that (none / 0) (#19)
    by linea on Sun Oct 29, 2017 at 04:33:54 PM EST
    a skilled political operative who managed to stay one step ahead of the law, while earning a good living catering to the political wishes of some of the most dangerous people in the world

    russia is a mafia-state run by ex-KGB officers and organized crime elements originating from the soviet union era. anyone involved with that mess quickly gets in deep. but i agree, getting involved with Trump & Co put him in the spotlight. i wonder what Flynn was after when he discussed lifting sanctions with the russian ambassador.

    Parent

    Flynn (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by FlJoe on Sun Oct 29, 2017 at 05:10:08 PM EST
    always seems like the odd duck in this one, all the rest of them have been up to their arms in Russians for years, playing with millions, Flynn was playing  for peanuts.

    IMO Flynn sold out his country over his blind ideological and personal hatred of Obama (for firing him). That same hatred drove him straight into the arms of tRump, who was in the process of selling out the country over greed and hatred.

    Parent

    Something to consider on Manafort: (none / 0) (#33)
    by Anne on Sun Oct 29, 2017 at 08:37:39 PM EST
    There Was No Reason To Hire Manafort Except to Collude with Russia

    Beyond pathetically attempting to redirect attention to Hillary Clinton and attack the integrity of the Steele dossier, the conservative line is that while Manafort may have been involved in shady dealings, and while Trump's family and campaign may have met with Russians promising to deliver dirt on his opponent, Trump himself was not complicit with Russia to interfere in the election.

    This is almost assuredly untrue, because there was no reason to hire Manafort in the first place except to collude with Trump.

    It's hard to remember sometimes given the insanity that has occurred since, but eyebrows were raised across the spectrum when Manafort was initially hired as Trump's campaign manager back in 2016. Manafort was an ancillary player in Republican politics and already clearly compromised. My colleague Martin Longman noted earlier this year that Manafort was closely connected to Roger Stone, himself a disgraced crackpot with his own insalubrious ties and connection to likely Russian hacker Guccifer 2.0.

    Manafort was a terrible choice for campaign manager, both in terms of competence and optics. It was neither a pick designed to buoy his populist credentials, nor was it a sop to the GOP establishment that Trump desperately needed at the time. The only thing Manafort had in his favor was his close ties to Putin, and there is no conceivable reason to have hired him except to leverage those ties.

    If Manafort is indeed the primary target of Mueller's probe, it's a guarantee that the Trump campaign absolutely intended to collude closely with Russia as a longshot path to a difficult election.

    Which means that one of two things is true: either Donald Trump was not closely involved in hiring his campaign manager or the rationale for it, or he directly intended to use Russian interference to win.

    This would be a good time to remember that Trump's last press conference of the campaign was the one in July 2016, in which he begged Russia to find the rest of the Clinton's emails.

    He did it. He knows he did it. And so do all his enablers in the Republican Party and the conservative media.

    Yup.

    Parent

    I (none / 0) (#39)
    by FlJoe on Mon Oct 30, 2017 at 06:08:23 AM EST
    disagree somewhat. Manafort worked for free, was an experienced hand in presidential campaigns with some convention/delegate wrangling cred. Manafort was a huge value to tRump, Russian connection or not.

    It's true that Manafort had fallen out of favor with mainstream Republicans(a plus with his base), mainly because of his sketchy foreign endeavors(not a disqualifier to  tRump).

    While I have little doubt that Manafort was a main conduit between Russia and the campaign, I do not think he was hired because of it (at least from tRumps side). I am more of a mind that the Russians "inserted" him into an ongoing operation (the work for free dangle). I am certain that tRump has had Russian minders for years (they keep a close eye on their billion dollar laundromats), Manafort was just another in the line.

    Parent

    The indictments against Manaford and Gates (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by NYShooter on Mon Oct 30, 2017 at 03:51:41 PM EST
    have nothing to do with Trump, or, his campaign. The charges go back many, many years, and, while I haven't studied them closely, they have to do with alleged big-time money laundering.(Before he ever met Trump.)

    All these things will, supposedly, be tied together down the road, but, today's indictments are sideshows to the hoped for, eventual "Russian Collusion" connection.

    Basically, while they have nothing to do with Mueller's mandate, which is, basically, investigating any links between Trump, his campaign, and/or associates ......and, Russia. Naturally, the mandate includes the "catch-all," like Bill Clinton's dalliance with an intern, "any matters arising from the investigation." So, if Mueller finds Manaford didn't pay his full share of taxes 35 years ago, he can indict him for tax evasion, and use it as leverage to get him to spill his guts about possible wrongdoing by Donald Trump.

    Look, no one hates Donald Trump more than I do, nor does anyone understand more than I do that the man is a deranged human aberration, and, an existential threat to all mankind. Still, there are those much more educated in the law than I am who have serious questions as to whether the powers we give these special counsels do more long term damage to our Constitutional understanding of the law than the good they may do.

    Parent

    Today's charges against Manafort and (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Anne on Mon Oct 30, 2017 at 05:12:24 PM EST
    Gates do not appear on the surface to connect to the Trump campaign, but there's nothing to suggest that these will be the only charges, or that future charges will be as seemingly disconnected.

    I think the Manafort charges are foundational, that flipping Papadopoulos should be making Manafort's - and others' - blood run cold, and what we've seen today is just the beginning, not the end.

    It has been posited - and I happen to agree - that it was Manafort's Russian connections that made him valuable to the campaign; certainly it was important to Manafort's standing with the Russians that he make himself important to the campaign, and this is why I see today's charges as foundational.

    Also, you are making the same mistake that the WH is, in characterizing the Manafort charges as pertaining to things that go back many years; yes, some are older, which is why the charges needed to be brought now, so as not to run into statute of limitations problems, but some of the crimes being charged only go back a year or two.

    And Manafort has been in law enforcement's sights since at least 2014 - well before Trump was a candidate.

    And it appears, with good reason.  There's a lot at stake for Manafort; it may just be that the Papadapoulos plea agreement will encourage Manafort to cut his losses and tell what he knows to mitigate the damage.

    Parent

    Yes (none / 0) (#86)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 30, 2017 at 09:40:19 PM EST
    There's no need for Mueller to throw everything out there. Manafort dies in prison with just what Mueller easily threw out there. It's an invitation to not die in jail. Tell me everything you know about everything else now Paul.

    Parent
    ha! millionaire white collar crimes (none / 0) (#87)
    by linea on Mon Oct 30, 2017 at 09:45:20 PM EST
    posh `club fed' is more likely

    Parent
    Total myth. There is no such thing (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by Peter G on Mon Oct 30, 2017 at 09:59:57 PM EST
    as a "posh 'Club Fed'" prison. How many have you visited, Linea? I have been in most of them, from minimum security "camps" to high security penitentiaries. And very glad (and grateful) to able to leave each and every time, regardless of security level.

    Parent
    i googled... (4.00 / 1) (#92)
    by linea on Mon Oct 30, 2017 at 10:19:15 PM EST
    Total myth. There is no such thing
    by Peter G

    fact-based documentaries support your assertion. there are minimun-security prisons but they are pretty horrible and there are no special rich-people faux-prisons. hardly my fault when i hear it routinely described that way by legitimate news media,

    Parent

    That's quite a change of heart you've had with (5.00 / 3) (#79)
    by vml68 on Mon Oct 30, 2017 at 05:32:16 PM EST
    Look, no one hates Donald Trump more than I do, nor does anyone understand more than I do that the man is a deranged human aberration, and, an existential threat to all mankind.

    regards to Tr*mp. Last year (Nov 14th) you described him as "a brilliant manager and strategist" and as having "some wacky personal ideas". That comment pissed me off enough that I still remember it a year later!

    Parent

    I'm sorry you feel that way, vml68 (none / 0) (#94)
    by NYShooter on Mon Oct 30, 2017 at 11:22:55 PM EST
    I've written a few times here about my Corporate career, and, my meetings with a good number of the country's most powerful and successful CEO'S. Some of them were downright disgusting human beings, imo. Yet, none of them were ignorant fools. My point was, idiots don't get to become Fortune 500 CEO'S, and, neither do Idiots become Presidents of the United States. It has nothing to do with honoring, or, praising them.

    Do I really have to explain that?

    And, as to him having "some wacky personal ideas," I just don't like using over-the-top hyperbole in describing people. I don't recall you objecting to Bernie Sanders being described as a "stumbling, fumbling, do nothing, hiding in a corner, giving Blowjobs to colleagues in order to get bills passed. Yes, and, that's not my overactive imagination.

    You know, I was a pretty successful negotiator in my job. And, I don't recall ever have won a negotiation by beginning with, "good afternoon, Stupid."

    Parent

    With enough money, an idiot certainly can (5.00 / 3) (#95)
    by Anne on Tue Oct 31, 2017 at 07:31:19 AM EST
    become a CEO, and if, after 9 months of an incurious, entirely self-centered and -absorbed, immature, pathological liar in the WH, you aren't convinced that it is absolutely possible for for someone unqualified and temperamentally unfit to be elected, I can't help you, other than to suggest that perhaps your instincts and assumptions need some review.

    In an environment where he answered to no one, where checks and balances did not exist, where his word and his decision was always final, where he didn't answer to stockholders, Trump could think of himself as being as great and powerful and smart and savvy as he needed to in order to hold his fragile ego in place; that has been on full display as president, and it's not a good look. If anything, ascending to this level has exposed his flaws, failings, inadequacies and insecurities.

    I have no idea why, in the face of growing evidence, you seem to think the Mueller investigation is somehow unfair, or threatening to the Constitution; in my book, the apparent relentless efforts of a foreign power, with the far-ranging help of numerous Trump campaign officials, operatives and major players, to manipulate the outcome of a presidential election was and is the real threat.

    Parent

    If you think that idiots don't get to become (5.00 / 3) (#96)
    by vml68 on Tue Oct 31, 2017 at 07:50:51 AM EST
    Fortune 500 CEOs or POTUS, you haven't been paying attention. Some people have become CEOs despite being idiots, due to personal connections. I am not calling any of the people in the article idiots but not everyone there would have become CEO if they had to make it on their own. While, these are only a few examples, a little bit of research will give you plenty of examples of the 'idiots'.

    I am not sure why the fact that some CEOs are disgusting human beings is surprising to you. 'Disgusting humans' exist in every profession and economic class.

    as to him having "some wacky personal ideas," I just don't like using over-the-top hyperbole in describing people

    I am going to channel McEnroe here and say, "You cannot be serious!"

    I don't recall you objecting to Bernie Sanders being described as a "stumbling, fumbling, do nothing, hiding in a corner, giving Blowjobs to colleagues in order to get bills passed. Yes, and, that's not my overactive imagination.

    I did not realize I was blog monitor and was supposed to react/object to every comment on here. For the record, I do not know who wrote that or remember ever reading it. And, in all honesty the only part of that comment that would have bothered me, is the "bl0wj0b" part.

    You know, I was a pretty successful negotiator in my job. And, I don't recall ever have won a negotiation by beginning with, "good afternoon, Stupid."

    I have no idea what this has to do with anything.

    I don't think I am the only one who has noticed that when it comes to Tr*mp and collusion with Russia, you always try to downplay the issue.

    Parent

    You actually DO need to (5.00 / 3) (#98)
    by Yman on Tue Oct 31, 2017 at 09:26:46 AM EST
    My point was, idiots don't get to become Fortune 500 CEO'S, and, neither do Idiots become Presidents of the United States. It has nothing to do with honoring, or, praising them.
    Do I really have to explain that?

    ... explain it, since Trump never ran a Fortune 500 company and was never a Fortune 500 CEO.  He took over Daddy's business and ran it.  

    Parent

    Nice (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by FlJoe on Mon Oct 30, 2017 at 06:13:39 PM EST
    repetition of tRumps talking points, and of course lies.  Some of charges cover activities up to and into this year. Manafort has reportedly known tRump for decades through their mutual pal Stone for decades.

    Blah, blah, blather about catch all mandates and thirty five year old tax returns, get over it, Manafort was committing crimes before and during the campaign. Some of those crimes were committed in collusion with actors who were at least tangentially involved with the same Russian actors involved in the Russian interference.

    IMO,Looking into Manafort's financial dealings was well within Mueller's mandate, no matter how narrow, if that look exposes years of crimes, too fkng bad.

    Parent

    Nice (5.00 / 3) (#81)
    by FlJoe on Mon Oct 30, 2017 at 06:13:39 PM EST
    repetition of tRumps talking points, and of course lies.  Some of charges cover activities up to and into this year. Manafort has reportedly known tRump for decades through their mutual pal Stone for decades.

    Blah, blah, blather about catch all mandates and thirty five year old tax returns, get over it, Manafort was committing crimes before and during the campaign. Some of those crimes were committed in collusion with actors who were at least tangentially involved with the same Russian actors involved in the Russian interference.

    IMO,Looking into Manafort's financial dealings was well within Mueller's mandate, no matter how narrow, if that look exposes years of crimes, too fkng bad.

    Parent

    For a guys who claims to ... (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Yman on Mon Oct 30, 2017 at 07:10:07 PM EST
    ... "hate Donald Trump", you tend to frequently make characterizations favorable to him and overlook facts in the process.  Whatever you think is "basically" Mueller's mandate, you would be wrong.

    The indictments against Manaford and Gates have nothing to do with Trump, or, his campaign. The charges go back many, many years, and, while I haven't studied them closely, they have to do with alleged big-time money laundering.(Before he ever met Trump.)

    That would be completely false.  Apart from the fact that you have no way of knowing how the charges may or may not be tied to the Trump campaign, much of the activity continued through the time period that they worked on the Trump campaign.

    All these things will, supposedly, be tied together down the road, but, today's indictments are sideshows to the hoped for, eventual "Russian Collusion" connection.

    You keep making this claim, after previously arguing that (in your opinion), there was nothing to this investigation, without ever offering the slightest bit of evidence to support your claim(s).  All of which completely ignores Papadopulous guilty plea which, by itself - in addition to several other instances - established attempts to collude between the campaign and the Russians.

    BTW - Never got to respond to your @ssinine "bicycle seat" comment awhile back, since it was deleted.  Looking forward to you trying that again.

    Parent

    The statute of limitations (5.00 / 3) (#84)
    by Peter G on Mon Oct 30, 2017 at 09:18:42 PM EST
    for tax evasion prosecutions is six years, not 35 years.  For money laundering, the SoL is 10 years.  And to suggest that support for Ukraine's pro-Russia political party and its despotic leader has "nothing to do with Russia" is ridiculous.

    Parent
    Manafort surrenders (none / 0) (#41)
    by Anne on Mon Oct 30, 2017 at 07:14:01 AM EST
    Per TPM:

    President Donald Trump's former campaign manager Paul Manafort surrendered to the FBI Monday, following the first charges from special counsel Robert Mueller's probe, The New York Times reported Monday.

    One of Manfort's business associates is expected to surrender as well. The exact charges against Manafort and his business associate Rick Gates were not clear early Monday, according to the Times. Manafort arrived at the FBI field house for processing just after 8:00 a.m. Monday.

    CNN also reported a Manafort indictment will be unsealed Monday.

    Gates is linked to Manafort's business dealings with politicians and corporations in Eastern Europe.

    Manafort's foreign business dealings have been under investigation by Mueller for months, as the special counsel looks into the Trump campaign and Russian interfering in the 2016 election.

    This is not a surprise to him.

    feel a little like the kid (none / 0) (#42)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Oct 30, 2017 at 07:51:39 AM EST
    in A Christmas Story who wanted a beebee gun and got a bunny suit.

    still sure there is a beebee gun someplace.

    Parent

    Conspiracy (none / 0) (#46)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Oct 30, 2017 at 08:16:18 AM EST
    against the US is what CNN is reporting. That should move you back to BB gun territory.

    Parent
    It's conspiracy to defraud, and none of (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by Anne on Mon Oct 30, 2017 at 08:41:53 AM EST
    the charges have to do with the campaign, or meddling in the election, or connections to Trump - these are all financial crimes.

    No question this connects Manafort to Russia, the question will be whether that connection can, in turn, be connected to the campaign.

    I'm thinking it will, that this is not just a criminal indictment, but a foundational document.

    Parent

    Conspiracy to defraud the United States (5.00 / 3) (#61)
    by Peter G on Mon Oct 30, 2017 at 10:49:01 AM EST
    is a conspiracy to interfere by trickery or dishonesty with the proper and effective functioning of a government agency or program. It is a weird law: the only sort of criminal conspiracy in the federal code where the object of the conspiracy is not itself necessarily a substantive crime. According to the Supreme Court, to "defraud" the United States in this law "means to cheat the government out of property or money, or to interfere with or obstruct one of its lawful governmental functions by deceit, craft, or trickery, or at least by means that are dishonest." To call it "conspiracy against the United States" is rather misleading, because it makes the crime sound like something akin to treason or sedition.

    Parent
    I think making (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Oct 30, 2017 at 11:11:43 AM EST
    it sound like treason or sedition is the goal, Peter.

    Parent
    It seems a little misleading in this context (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 30, 2017 at 11:29:58 AM EST
    It looks to me like the Republicans have to get rid of Trump soon. Manafort chose Pence. Is Pence burnt too?

    That means Paul Ryan

    Is this going to become a Republican party bloodbath?

    Just please, get rid of him before he kills millions in Korea

    Parent

    I really have no idea (none / 0) (#67)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Oct 30, 2017 at 11:39:54 AM EST
    what is going to happen but so far Ryan is pretending that nothing is going on and they are going to move forward with tax cuts. Maybe tax cuts will solve the North Korea problem is probably their thinking since they seem to think tax cuts are the solution to every problem on the planet.

    Pence has long been part of the conspiracy with Russia though if Trump goes it's not like Pence is probably going to go immediately. Mueller is going to have to make his case against Pence too. I read where it is expected that it is going to take until 2019 for Mueller to complete the entire investigation.

    Parent

    I always thought Paul Ryan (none / 0) (#69)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 30, 2017 at 11:43:35 AM EST
    Would cut his own mother to become President.

    Parent
    I have now read the indictment, and I see (none / 0) (#83)
    by Peter G on Mon Oct 30, 2017 at 09:11:59 PM EST
    that it uses the expression "conspiracy against the United States" as shorthand for "conspiracy to defraud the United States and to commit offenses under the laws of the United States." I still don't like the expression, which I have never previously seen used.

    Parent
    so... (none / 0) (#85)
    by linea on Mon Oct 30, 2017 at 09:40:07 PM EST
    if manafort gets convicted, for the next three years, i get to read hysterical posts that, "it's proven that Manafort commiited conspiracy against the United States!!! Why isn't Trump in jail?!"

    it's hard enough trying to explain to people that it isn't treason to do business with russia because we aren't actually at war with russia. in fact, other than a few slap-the-hand sanctions that president obama enacted it's business as usual with russia.

    Parent

    The reasons for asking, "Why isn't (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by Peter G on Mon Oct 30, 2017 at 09:53:30 PM EST
    Tr*mp in jail," are hardly limited to the activities that Manafort engaged in on his behalf. I don't consider asking that question to be hysterical at all. And I sure hope it doesn't continue for another three years.

    Parent
    Who are these people ... (none / 0) (#89)
    by Yman on Mon Oct 30, 2017 at 09:59:02 PM EST
    ... that think doing business with Russia is, per se, "treason"?  If they actually exist, they're not very bright.

    Parent
    Peter, I also saw that Mueller (none / 0) (#91)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 30, 2017 at 10:11:18 PM EST
    Was able to have Paul Manafort's attorney client privilege waived for his past attorney. Is that really difficult to get? Is there special criteria to meet before a judge will allow this?

    Parent
    The prosecutor can seek a ruling (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by Peter G on Tue Oct 31, 2017 at 12:17:48 PM EST
    from the judge that the attorney-client privilege has been forfeited. The most common ways this can happen are due to the client's or the lawyer's failure to protect the privilege (allowing third parties into what would otherwise be a confidential conversation, for example), and the so-called "crime-fraud exception." I suspect here it was the latter. The "crime-fraud exception" is triggered if the client (with or without the lawyer's knowledge) uses or tries to use the lawyer's services in furtherance of an ongoing crime or fraud.  In terms of your question whether such a ruling is "difficult to get," the answer unfortunately (IMO) is no. The prosecutor's showing can often be made ex parte (without allowing a prior response, subject only to later review), and requires only a prima facie (facially sufficient) showing that the standard has been met, not necessarily clear proof.

    Parent
    Eye opening (none / 0) (#100)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Oct 31, 2017 at 01:12:28 PM EST


    Parent
    And that seems to be it (5.00 / 2) (#102)
    by Peter G on Tue Oct 31, 2017 at 09:30:11 PM EST
    Allegation is that Manafort scripted lies and fed them to his lawyer to include in Foreign Agent Registration filings. The grand jury supervising judge at least thought there was sufficient basis to call this a misuse of the lawyer's assistance in committing a crime. The lawyer in question is said to be a former aide to Mitch McConnell.

    Parent
    Yes, but (none / 0) (#48)
    by KeysDan on Mon Oct 30, 2017 at 08:47:21 AM EST
    the charges, of course, have a lot to do with the campaign manager, if not the campaign (so far).  And, Trump picking the best people..."conspiracy against the US,"  and the whiff of espionage.  

    Parent
    Gates (none / 0) (#49)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Oct 30, 2017 at 08:49:30 AM EST
    was involved until this last spring.

    Parent
    Gates has been in and out of the White House (none / 0) (#70)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 30, 2017 at 11:47:19 AM EST
    Manafort stayed away.

    Parent
    Another "fine man" whom Trump doesn't (none / 0) (#50)
    by Anne on Mon Oct 30, 2017 at 09:00:15 AM EST
    really know that well, and who wasn't with the campaign for very long.  He might have met him, possibly he did, some might say he did...

    Here's my question: did the campaign hire Manafort because of his Russia connections, or did they hire him and then realize they could parlay his connections to to their advantage?

    I just can't see a good reason why they would have hired him without the Russia connections.

    Parent

    According to Talking Points Memo (none / 0) (#66)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 30, 2017 at 11:39:06 AM EST
    Tom Barrack suggested Manafort join the campaign.

    Jesus, how dirty is Tom Barrack?

    Parent

    And who has been wearing a wire? (none / 0) (#68)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 30, 2017 at 11:41:37 AM EST
    For 25 days or longer? If I worked with any of these guys I'd be having one long panic attack ;)

    Parent
    Did the news (none / 0) (#71)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Oct 30, 2017 at 11:52:40 AM EST
    say he has been wearing a wire or is that just a guess?

    Parent
    No, the news didn't say he had been wearing (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 30, 2017 at 12:54:22 PM EST
    A wire

    I was remembering about a month ago the stories that individuals in the White House feared subordinates could be wired by Mueller.

    Parent

    Remember (none / 0) (#53)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 30, 2017 at 09:42:40 AM EST
    Our journey into and out of Watergate started with investigating a 3rd rate burglary attempt :)

    Parent
    One of the Gates /Manafort charges (none / 0) (#56)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 30, 2017 at 10:15:06 AM EST
    Is conspiracy against the United States.

    Parent
    "...knowingly and intentionally (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Anne on Mon Oct 30, 2017 at 10:36:13 AM EST
    conspired to defraud the US by impeding, impairing, obstructing and defeating the lawful government functions of a government agency, namely the Department of Justice and the Department of the Treasury, and to commit offenses against the US, to wit, the violations of law charged in Counts Three though Six and Ten through Twelve."

    Three though Six are Failure to File Reports of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts, and Ten through Twelve are Unregistered Agent of a Foreign Principal, False and Misleading FARA Statements, and False Statements.

    Trump is already tweeting that this is old stuff, from before the campaign, and it just isn't his problem.

    Waiting for him to claim that Papadapoulos was a rogue member of the campaign.  That could be hard, as I think he's either going to flip or has already done so - if he can connect some of the dots, I think that would be huge.

    Parent

    Gates and Manafort are also firmly (none / 0) (#65)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 30, 2017 at 11:37:02 AM EST
    Connected to Tom Barrack?

    Parent
    Toobin and Callan (none / 0) (#57)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 30, 2017 at 10:29:34 AM EST
    Claim there is no way Manafort/Gates goes to trial inside 6 Mos, and there are undoubtedly going to be more indictments that will have Mueller busy well into 2019.

    This indictment may have been first because the statute of limitations was going to run out on some the tax violations.

    Parent

    Once the accused have "surrendered" (none / 0) (#43)
    by Peter G on Mon Oct 30, 2017 at 07:53:35 AM EST
    the charges will be unsealed on the court docket and publically available. Momentarily I would expect.

    Parent
    the charges are all (none / 0) (#44)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Oct 30, 2017 at 08:05:43 AM EST
    financial.  they are reading them on tv.  
    conspiracy against the us
    conspiracy to launder money
    unregisterd agents of a foreign principal
    misleading FARA statements
    7 counts od failure to file reports on foreign financial accounts


    Parent
    Here's (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by FlJoe on Mon Oct 30, 2017 at 08:16:18 AM EST
    the indictment.

    Parent
    Do All Roads Lead Through Manafort? | 97 comments (97 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment