Bloomberg: Manafort Alerted Authorities About Russian Meeting

New_Bloomberg_Logo.svgBuried in a new article out of Bloomberg is an understated but potentially significant statement: “In fact, Manafort had alerted authorities to a controversial meeting on June 9, 2016, involving Trump’s son Donald Jr., other campaign representatives and a Russian lawyer promising damaging information on Hillary Clinton, according to people familiar with the matter.”  That would be a huge development in this controversy if true, particularly if the notice occurred before the Russian meeting occurred.

Much of the criticism directed at Donald Trump Jr. and Paul Manafort has been that only chumps would have gone to this meeting or, at a minimum, alerted authorities.  Now Bloomberg is saying that it has sources saying that Manafort did indeed alert authorities.  That would go a long way to defusing the conspiracy theories surrounding the meeting and shatter the narrative put forward by critics.

What is also concerning is that, if true, this fact is one of the only facts not leaked out of Congress.  It seems that closed sessions have been mere precludes to media leaks.  Yet, members have been saying as a mantra that the FBI or some other agency should have been notified.  Ironically, this is the most significant part of the Bloomberg story but is buried without further comment.  Why?  There is no indication of who was informed or when. This would seem one of the most important developments in the controversy but we are left in the dark on the details.  Hopefully we will see in the coming days whether this account is confirmed and, if so, what details can be shared.

61 thoughts on “Bloomberg: Manafort Alerted Authorities About Russian Meeting”

  1. JT should have read just a little further in the referenced article. “Manafort disclosed the meeting to lawmakers about three months ago in response to a congressional request for any information related to Russia during his time on the campaign.”..

    While alert can be used to warn of something that is going to happen, it can also be used to warn of something that has already happened but needs to looked into.

    The news here is that we know the source of the information that the meeting occurred. It was Manafort speaking to a Congressional committee.

  2. How does Turley put, “If true, this fact” right next to each other? As for some of the commenters. They appear to be latching on to every hopeful bit of information, true or not to proclaim their man innocent. I have a somewhat unrelated question. For those concerned about an overly broad scope of the investigation, what crimes would you be willing to overlook is shown to be committed by Trump?

    1. Tax evasion. Oops. I’m not supposed to answer the question. But that would be an overly broad scope for investigation. Unless . . .

    2. Trump said his supporters would overlook him as a murderer of a random person on Fifth Ave.

      1. Go to “Clinton Body Count” but Google has blocked it (thanks, Bill) so use a different search engine.

        After Seth Rich sold e-mails to Wikileaks (per Seymour Hirsch), what happened to him…oh yeah, he was assassinated. And right after Seth Rich was assassinated, three top DNC officials immediately resigned. Oh yeah, and then Debbie Wasserman Schultz was investigated by her own brother, US Attorney Steve Wasserman.

        Did you say “…overlook him as a murderer…?”

        1. The mindset of the Kremlin leadership is murdering opponents. The Clintons have never said anything that remotely sounds like a motivation to kill. On the other hand, Trump must have been thinking about how murdering random people would play out or else, he wouldn’t have made the comment.
          Clinton’s alleged targets are awfully far down the totem pole. Like the pizza parlor fake creation, a little logic tells a reasonable American that taking grave risks is illogical and unnecessary to achieve political objectives.
          Look what the Koch’s have achieved with just money.

    3. “What crimes would you be willing to overlook is shown to be committed by Trump?” Which we have no direct or stated evidence.

      What crimes would you be willing to overlook is shown to be committed by Clinton? Which we have direct and stated evidence.

  3. “In fact, Manafort had alerted authorities to a controversial meeting on June 9, 2016, involving Trump’s son Donald Jr.,…”


  4. The article says, “In fact, Manafort had alerted authorities to a controversial meeting on June 9, 2016, involving Trump’s son Donald Jr., other campaign representatives and a Russian lawyer promising damaging information on Hillary Clinton, according to people familiar with the matter. The president and his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, were dragged into the matter in July as details repeatedly emerged that contradicted the initial accounts of that meeting.

    Manafort disclosed the meeting to lawmakers about three months ago in response to a congressional request for any information related to Russia during his time on the campaign. He also provided more than 300 relevant documents to Congress, though he no longer had access to emails from the campaign.”
    Which might make Manaforte a snitch, but hardly helps Trump, Jr, since the clear implication is that Manafort told ‘lawmakers’ of the meeting well after it occurred(‘about three months ago’), not before.

  5. By Thomas | Featured Commentator | August 8, 2017 3:00PM

    Jay Seculow of the American Center for Law & Justice – who is now an attorney for President Donald J. Trump – made a shocking accusation on his Tuesday radio show. He said he has discovered an email that connects the Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch tarmac meeting scandal directly to the Obama White House.

    We’re learning more about this meeting, and it’s clear it was the point in which the Clintons were able to avoid criminal prosecution charges, which once seemed likely.

    This is a stunning development, as Obama Administration alumni are denying involvement and are trying to protect their legacy. After all, their efforts didn’t work out as planned and Trump won the election despite this extraordinary level of corruption on behalf of Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

    Watch as Sekulow explains the email, and then plays a clip of former Press Secretary Josh Earnest denying any involvement. Sekulow’s leadership position in the Trump legal team means these details are more than just rumors:

    More W/video

    1. Great. If the evidence warrants, indict Hillary and Trump. Doesn’t bother me. The “I’m not Hillary” meme is not a get out of jail free card for Trump. If this is all that Sekulow has in the way of a defense of Trump, it’s no defense at all. It is what courtroom lawyers call “irrelevant and immaterial.”

      If they both get convicted, maybe they could have a special jail where they get to be cellmates.

      1. What crime can they convict Trump of?

        His son met with the same Russians that Hillary, Pelosi and others met with? He was and still is a private citizen.

        That he fired his FBI Director at the urging of both of his DOJ heads or other reasons which is given him by the Constitution.

        Try reading Presidential Powers, as the FBI Director works for the executive branch. It’s not wholly independent as Comey acted.

        Hillary’s crimes are too many to mention. Some were read out loud by Comey in July 2016. He claimed there’s no there, there, however he didn’t look everywhere. Hillary had 4 more private servers that Comey didn’t bother to look at. He’s incompetent and that proves it.

  6. I almost wish Yellowstone would go ahead and blow. At least that would be real news. Of course, if it did, it would be President Trump’s fault.

    1. Of course. It’s the orange hair. Doesn’t mix well with the water from “Old Faithful.” But you know in your heart that Trump would blame Obama.

      On a more historical note, my recollection is that Yellowstone, which is one of a relatively small number of super volcanoes in the world, is on an eruption cycle of once every 600,000 years and that it has been well over 600,000 years since the last eruption. If it blows, Salt Lake City is toast, along with lots of other places. The midwest will be eating ashes for a long time. North Korea doesn’t need to nuke the US, they just need to find a way to get Yellowstone to blow.

      1. Oliver Clozoff – it does not matter where you live if Yellowstone erupts because there will be a nuclear winter for at least two years. Start stocking food staples, guns and ammo. 🙂

  7. What a stretch. If, if, if… Manafort’s home was raided by the FBI which suggests a different spin on his level of cooperation

    .You don’t know when he spoke about the meeting and this kind of speculation reeks of desperation. Why?

    You know that Don jnr gave several iterations of the reason for the meeting and that doesn’t suggest he colluded with Manafort in any prior disclosure of the meeting does it? A glaring contradiction.

    Perhaps Manafort wanted to sell-out his fellow alleged conspirators because he knew he was being investigated for all of his alleged dodgy dealings and had already decided to offer his version of cooperation. We don’t know. Yet.

  8. WHEN were “authorities” notified, and WHICH authorities were notified? Of exactly WHAT were they notified? JT claims that this story should mollify critics, but not without these details, which I haven’t seen.

        1. “t’s unclear when Manafort told authorities about the meeting, which is a detail of some import. But if we assume Manafort tipped off investigators about the meeting before it became public last month, then he’s shown some openness to helping out the prosecution, which may give Mueller reason to believe he can be persuaded to fully switch sides.

          That could explain why the special counsel is reportedly being so aggressive in his pursuit of Manafort’s records, sending grand jury subpoenas to banks, raiding his house, and expanding the probe to look into the business dealings of his business partner, Rick Gates, and his son-in-law.

          Mueller’s investigation into Manafort was helped along by work done by former Southern District of New York U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara. When Bharara was fired in March, Mueller reportedly took over the probe into Manafort’s sketchy real-estate dealings in what appears to be an attempt to gain leverage over him.

          As an anonymous source told Reuters a couple weeks back, “If Mueller’s team can threaten criminal charges against Manafort, they could use that as leverage to convince him to cooperate.” The revelation from Thursday’s Bloomberg report suggests it might already be working.

        2. In the Bloomberg: Manafort Alerted Authorities About Russian Meeting thread, on August 10th 2017 at 5:02pm, Natacha stated the following: No, I just like to receive facts before arriving at conclusions.

          That’s hilarious! Good luck with that. Bwahahahahahaha!

          1. The Trump haters are popping Rolaids and Xanax over this tidbit. I think they’re also drinking some chardonnay to kick it up a notch. LOL!

        3. Wow, that’s brilliant. With what Turley “conclusion” do you disagree? Straw man, much?

        4. No, I just like to receive facts before arriving at conclusions.

          Well, Natacha, we often don’t see ourselves as others do.

          1. “No, I just like to receive facts before arriving at conclusions.”
            Not to worry N, I fixed it for you:

            “No, I just like to arriv(e) i̶n̶g̶ at conclusions before receive̶(ing) facts.”

      1. When it comes to anything related to Trump, Natachacha gotcha is ALWAYS upset! She/he/it is never upset when it comes to the Clinton/Obama shenanigans!

    1. What a stupid and/or naïve Progressive twat.

      The fact is every and anything condemning of Trump is leaked almost immediately whether confirmed or not. The most infamous leak is the report of Trump’s alleged crimes in Russia, a report written by a retired MI6 agent with zero corroboration. Such reports Natacha swallows hook line and sinker.

      Then Turley reports the allegation that Manafort reported to the FBI, the most remarkable connection (so far) between the Trump camp and Russia, before the meeting took place. Which causes Natacha to blow every fuse.

      And what a liar! Nowhere does Turley state “this story should mollify critics.” Anyone with a brain knows Natacha is not mollified short of Trump’s death or removal from office. He typed if true it would be a “huge…important development,” a statement with which (of course) Natacha disagrees. Natacha would just chose to disbelieve it, as she would anything that minimizes Trump’s guilt.

      At least the screaming/all upper case is a nice, subtle touch!

      1. JoJo, The Professor’s phrases were ” . . . defusing the conspiracy theories surrounding the meeting and shatter the narrative put forward by critics.”

        Admittedly, The Professor did not use the verb to mollify in reference to anyone. Nevertheless, The Professor’s chosen words could be construed as mollifying Trump’s supporters and apologists. Surely you can concede that much; can’t you, JoJo?

    2. Pauly snitched on Junior and the family put the shiv in Pauly. That is how the story goes.

  9. To Steve Fleischer- “LET THE PROCESS WORK.” Umm..,respected Steve. The Meuller and Schneiderman investigations ARE THE PROCESS.!!

    If there’s nothing;’s there, DJT has no worries. If there’s something there, why is DJT exploring the PARDON process? The US Constitution specifies removal from office for “high crimes and misdemeaners” No drama Obama [with whom I take exceptions] apparently takes pride in two terms w/o so-called scandal.

    I’m a shrink, not a lawyer but IIRC J. Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote THE OFFER OF A PARDON IMPLIES GUILT. ACCEPTANCE CONFIRMS IT So like you, Steve, let’s forget hating on DJT and let the process run it’s course.


  10. Turley throws the Trumpsters a bone and they suck it up and choke on it. Small bone but it’s all there is. You have your clan of buffoons in the White House acting like buffoons and now someone admitted that they were buffoons and this is supposed to give them credibility; of course if you are a supporter of buffoons then I suppose so.

    The Trumpsters keep demanding to leave fish mouth alone and let him do his job. There is nothing standing in the way of this idiot and his job but the mirror. Perhaps our exalted leader should simply put down the tweeter, work out some solutions, and see what sort of response he might get. Instead he gets into a pi**ing contest with the second (after himself) most idiotic leader in the world. Trump might just be working on some ideas to solve some problems or he just might be talking to himself; cuz that’s soon all he will have, himself.

    1. It’s nice to know HRC is not a buffoon, after losing to Trump with 40% approval pre-election.

      Butt sore Democrat loser Progressive maybe?

      1. JJ

        Hillary may or may not be a buffoon. Trump is undeniably a buffoon. They are both the ultimate in scumbaggery. Trump has Clinton on lies by a yuge margin. Clinton can’t pull off the clown show as well as Trump. Clinton is not entertaining but Trump certainly is, or would be if he/when he wasn’t President. I used to laugh at Trump the idiot who had no regard for anything decent. But, now he’s our exalted leader, cheats at golf, is fat, laughably bombastic, and so on. Now who does that remind you of? Hint, they both have clown hairdos. They both can’t keep their mouths shut. They both take pageantry to the extreme. And, they both threaten to blow each other up.

        As per Clinton, we simply will never know.

    2. “I’m an excellent driver, definitely an excellent driver.” Canadian Rain Man.

      1. The people that should worry are the people that have memorized an entire movie dialogue.

  11. Why?
    Perpetually maintaining the controversy sells more copy than not.

    In other news, Trump drank a glass of water and failed to put it in the sink, forcing kitchen staff to clean up after him. The patriarchy continues.

    1. why? because you have so many If clauses in here that your question makes no sense.

      If this, if that… Yes, when those IF’s come out one way or the other, then ask your question, or sustain your insinuations…Till then your functioning like fox news… I expect better of you and this board… Perhaps I should not.?

  12. Perhaps I have my dates incorrect


    At the time of the meeting June 9, 2016

    Wasn’t Don jr surrounded by Secret Service people?

    And if so

    Why would Secret Service let the meeting happen if it was thought to be a threat or of inappropriate means

    1. My understanding is that Secret Service protection to extended family doesn’t happen until the person is the chosen candidate. My understanding is that this meeting was before the Republican convention, so Chump wasn’t a candidate yet.

    2. Besides the limited nature of protection at that time, the Secret Service should not be determining who family members of a candidate should meet in the absence of some physical threat. Can you imagine the outcry if the Secret Service started determining whether particular meetings or communications were “appropriate”?

  13. I, and I suspect many Americans are getting pretty tired of the unrelenting drumbeat of Trump hatred coming from the MSM and the Dems.

    Time for them to shut up and let the process work.

    I suspect that that there is less support for press freedoms today than a year ago.

    The First Amendment is inviolate, but I thought that of the Second and the left have whittled it down to a regional privilege.

  14. So the meeting went nowhere and then Manafort heroically decided to cover his rear by informing authorities *after* the meeting?? Had he received damaging info on Clinton, he wouldn’t have informed anyone.

    Or, he notified authorities about the meeting prior to attending, *and then* went? Wtf.

    “I know the best people,” like Manafort, Flynn, and Moochbag.

    1. “Manafort disclosed the meeting to lawmakers about three months ago in response to a congressional request for any information related to Russia during his time on the campaign.” The Bloomberg article says he disclosed it three months ago and not prior to the meeting.

      1. Yup. But that doesn’t stop Prof. Turley from “speculating,” based on nothing other than the shine on his own shoes, that Manafort may have alerted “the authorities” (Dudley Dooright? Wonder Woman?) about the meeting BEFORE the meeting took place.

        Sounds to me like what really happened was that Manafort’s attorney advised him to tell Congress about the meeting three months ago, to help his client’s cause. That’s all. Not unimportant, but hardly a “bombshell.”

        Sounds to me like you are shilling for someone, Professor. Tsk, Tsk.

      2. Professor Turley recounts the Bloomberg article which states that Manafort “alerted.”

        It is impossible to “alert” someone post-facto.

        Alert – to forewarn.

        1. George. how are you? It seems an awful lot of emphasis to put on one word (‘alert’), let alone any word from any newspaper. But I’ll gladly concede the futility of post-facto alarums, if you’ll refrain from imbuing them with pre-hoc existential import.

          1. Oh my. I am so sorry. I must have misunderstood what the author wrote in his article. As much as you would like it to, “alert,” in this case, has nothing to do with Professor Turley or me. It is the word that the author used, we presume, to communicate its definition. You must believe the author to be completely incompetent. I take him at his word. The world according to Diane. Don’t you have some babies to bear? You know the American birthrate is in a “death spiral.” We do have to prioritize, right? What good are the opinions of women, as affirmative action beneficiaries, if there are no people because women had no babies? You go, girl…get to work on that which is imperative.

            1. George, calm down. You’re scaring the children.

              FTR, my days as an procreator were over and done with a long time ago. And, frankly, I’m shocked to hear anyone imbue “the world according to Diane” with existential import. Just imagine such a magical power being applied to “the world according to George.” Oily Crepe.

  15. Perhaps the Bloomberg writer doesn’t understand the significance. He/she is likely not a lawyer.

Comments are closed.