Below is my column in USA Today on the collapse of the cooperation agreement with Paul Manafort. As predicted in the column, President Donald Trump picked up on the conflict to allege that Mueller is pressuring people to lie in order to make a case against him. In the meantime, the White House confirmed that Manafort’s counsel has been conferring with the Trump legal team to tell them what Manafort was supplying and the questions being asked under the cooperation agreement. It is a highly unusual move and prosecutors usually bar such joint defense agreements or meetings from contenting for obvious reasons. It is not clear what Manafort was told but it is hard to believe that Mueller would be moronic enough to fail to make such a clear condition.
Here is the column:
A short three-page filing in federal court by Special Counsel Robert Mueller has again sent Washington into a frenzy. Mueller informed a court that former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort was not cooperating and thus in violation of his plea deal. Some experts immediately declared that the breakdown of cooperation was “good news for Trump” while others insisted that Mueller’s willingness to toss an important witness must mean that the case against Trump is overwhelming.
Welcome to November in Washington. With little information on the status of the investigation and Mueller reportedly preparing his final report, experts now regularly engage in a type of legal Kremlinology — akin to how experts once gauged inner workings of secretive Russian politburo based on who was standing closest to the Russian premier on Lenin’s tomb during the November military parade. Your distance from the premier often reflected if you were ascending or descending in power.
Manafort’s not the first on wrong side of Mueller
For two years, the plea deals with Mueller have offered the only indication of the direction of the Russian investigation with a smattering of indictments. When key figures appeared next to the special counsel in federal court, their cooperation would be immediately interpreted as a new and menacing stage for President Trump.
Manafort was treated as the most significant and ominous change for investigation. It was described as a “nightmare” and a hurricane hitting Washington. Democratic strategist and MSNBC contributor Scott Dworkin predicted President Trump would resign within two weeks of the plea.
At the time, I was less convinced that the move was as apocalyptic as portrayed. I wrote that the plea agreement could well fizzle out and, given Manafort’s history, that the operative language of the deal for Mueller should be “caveat emptor,” buyer beware. While Manafort lost much in taking a plea to 10 felony counts, he was already convicted in Virginia and facing an even more brutal trial in Washington D.C. Most importantly, it was not clear Manafort had real “deliverables” on Trump.
Mueller of course did not come away empty handed. Manafort has given him months of testimony and cooperation. Manafort also cannot back out of his guilty pleas, though the crimes are virtually all unrelated to the Trump campaign. Mueller will now seek sentencing above the agreed upon range — a sentence that could easily result in Manafort dying in prison unless he is pardoned by President Trump.
Manafort is not the first person to make news by standing with Mueller only to find himself on the wrong side of the special counsel. Former campaign adviser George Papadopoulos was one of the first cooperating witnesses for Mueller and the filing confirming his cooperation led to the Huffington Post to declare that it “establishes conclusively that the Trump campaign colluded with Russian representatives.” However, like Manafort, Mueller would insist that Papadopoulos was not cooperating and seek a higher sentence. Papadopoulos insisted that he would not lie and only said what he knew to be true. While Mueller sought the six-month maximum allowed by the deal. Papadopoulos received a mere 14 days in jail — a sentence that he began on Monday.
Other have also accused the special counsel of conditioning a plea on giving false testimony. Jerome Corsi, an associate of former Trump campaign adviser Roger Stone, said last week that he turned down a plea deal because it required him to lie about knowledge of Russian collusion. He said “They want me to swear in front of a judge that I am a felon. I believe I did not lie to them. I handed over everything.”
Manafort did not give Mueller what he wanted
Manafort, Stone, Papadopoulos, Corsi and others could be used later by the Trump team to paint the Mueller investigation as coercive and biased. Manafort and Papadopoulos now occupy a bizarre category of hostile “cooperating” witnesses while Corsi and Stone insist that they would rather face jail than falsely testify for Mueller.
In the short-term, the Manafort dispute could yield a long-awaited insight into Mueller’s evidence and the direction of his investigation. Mueller has indicated that he would likely be filing details of Manafort’s “crimes and lies” after his plea in the days to come. While he could seek to file under seal, he will have to establish with a fair degree of certainty that Manafort intentionally lied to undo the plea deal. To do so, he will have to disclose other sources of evidence contradicting Manafort.
Mueller has only said that Manafort lied — not what he lied about. Mueller prosecuted Manafort on crimes wholly unrelated to the Trump campaign, though Manafort did work for shady Ukrainian figures with close Russian connections. If Russians were looking for a conduit for collusion, Manafort would have seemed a natural choice.
One intriguing possibility is a new account today that says that Manafort visited Julian Assange, the founder of Wikileaks who leaked the hacked emails of Democratic figures, in Ecuador’s London embassy in 2013, 2015 and in spring 2016. That last visit is particularly intriguing because it coincided with Manafort’s selection as Trump campaign chair. Ecuador’s Senain intelligence agency reportedly said that the logs include “Paul Manaford [sic]” and mentioned “Russians.”
At a minimum, Mueller’s filing suggests that, on the areas of factual conflict, Mueller had some degree of redundancy in his evidence to be able to show Manafort had lied. That makes sense in that no responsible prosecutor would build a case solely on such a highly unreliable witness as Manafort. Yet, Manafort has the broadest array of criminal acts and those contradictions could involve a host of different matters, including conflicts with intercepts on his shady foreign dealings in Ukraine.
So the figures have shifted again and pundits are struggling to find some cryptic Kremlinological meaning in this latest development. The most that can be said is that (like Papadopoulos and Corsi) Manafort did not give Mueller what he wanted — or at least all that he wanted. Indeed, what Mueller wanted from Manafort is the far more interesting question than what he got.
Jonathan Turley, a member of USA TODAY’s Board of Contributors, is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. Follow him on Twitter: @JonathanTurley
There’s more probable cause to investigate Hilary Clinton than Donald Trump. The left just can’t get over the simple fact that he won the election. Elections have consequences.
In Mueller I trust.
You? Not so much.
Or, as the members of the most professional law enforcement agency in America are saying by their filings and guilty pleas: “Justice will be done.” So sorry for your loss.
this is to “but what is that ticking sound?” bobbie
Mueller is not investigating any crimes. He’s investigating a citizen. Plain and simple.
Mueller is investigating 18 USC 371 Conspiracy Against The United States under the offenses clause for the 12 GRU officers who hacked and leaked the DNC, DCCC and Podesta emails and under the “defraud” clause for member of the Trump campaign and Trump associates. The defraud clause of 18 USC 371 does not require the violation of any underlying criminal statute. Even so, the Russian hack and le4ak operation did, in fact, violate an underlying criminal statue.
Meanwhile, The Trump Tower Moscow was offered as a consolation prize if Trump lost the election. A conspiracy does not have to come to fruition in order to be charged as a conspiracy. All that is needed is for Mueller and crew to prove that the Trump campaign took at least one overt act toward the furtherance of their conspiracy with Russia to defraud the United States.
Be advised, if Senate Republicans decriminalize 18 USC 371 with respect to federal elections, then the only reason that future Democratic candidates for federal offices would not do the same thing that Trump did will be a deep love of country over party and over self that Republicans and Trump have abandoned–assuming that they ever had it to begin with.
Those stirring statements about “deep love of country” make me wanna go out and buy John Phillip Sousa records, and an American flag as large as L4B’s so I can wrap myself up in one, too.
L4D’s U.S. Flag is big enough for the whole kennel full of Turleyan blawg hounds and then some.
You will all be brought back into the fold. Resistance is futile.
L4Yoga/Annie/Inga enables David Benson, and the NPCs R. Lien and Marky Mark Mark – my memory of the Trump hotel in Moscow was that it was a branding deal. Trump was mostly hands off, he only gave support when he thought his weight was needed to swing the deal.
3 law enforcement agencies are asked to go into a forest and find a rabbit. First comes the CIA. They check out the forest with all kinds of electronic survalence equipment. Listening devices, drones and satellites. They can’t find a rabbit. Next the FBI. The go into the forest with the lattest in forensic technology. After a while they say no rabbit in the forest. Last but not least the LAPD. A bunch of street savy cops go into the forest. In .a little while the LAPD are seen dragging a little raccoon out of the woods. The raccoon is really beat up bad. Bloody nose black eye, lots of bruises. The raccoon can be he,ard saying, ” Ok, I’m am rabbit”! This is the Mueller investigation.
The rabbit said: “I am Mister Rab Bit, and I am here with the itShay.” If you translate the piglatin word you will get the rhyme, and the reason.
Turley wrote, “While he [Mueller] could seek to file under seal, he will have to establish with a fair degree of certainty that Manafort intentionally lied to undo the plea deal. To do so, he will have to disclose other sources of evidence contradicting Manafort.”
According to emptywheel, “With Gates, the standard the government has to prove to argue he has breached his agreement is preponderance of the evidence or, in case of committing a crime, probable cause. With Manafort, the government only has to prove “good faith.””
I’m not sure who’s correct on the standard of proof. But I’m pretty sure that classified information would be the only evidence that Mueller would file under seal. Whatever else Mueller has to bring to bear against Manafort will be publicly reported. And it could be a very long sentencing memo.
The plea agreement with Rick Gates included a condition that Gates could not discuss his interviews with the special counsel’s office with anyone without the special counsel’s prior approval. IOW, Gates was gagged. But Manafort was not gagged and remained in Trump’s JDA. That means that Mueller was not concerned with keeping secrets from Trump by gagging Manafort. And that, in turn, suggests that Mueller may have already had what he needed from sources other than Manafort. Curious. And. Intriguing.
no, he will file whatever he wants under seal, cram anything embarrassing to himself under seal, by excuse of classified whatever, and maybe or maybe not get away with it. lawyers love to try and seal more than the rules allow, if they can get away with it.
if the judge is tough, he’ll make him only put under seal what belongs there. if not he will let Meuller have his way with whatever
Mueller will use Manafort’s sentencing memo as a substitute for the final report that Whiatker was hired to suppress. Whitaker cannot suppress Mueller’s sentencing memo on Manafort. The only evidence against Manafort that gets sealed is the stuff that was already classified before Whitaker was appointed. The evidence, if any, that was gathered after Whitaker’s appointment cannot be classified to spare embarrassment nor to conceal a crime without Whitaker violating the law. Try to keep up, Matlock. Stay fluid.
The quote from emptywheel was based upon a comparison of the plea agreement for Rick Gates versus the plea agreement for Paul Manafort.
Mueller has a much lesser burden of proof under the Manafort plea agreement than under the Gates plea deal.
The only comment worth making is like the rest of that mess it has nothing to do with the russia – connection – candidate reason it was started to begin with but the senate has now begun to finally do Meullers job for him since he has so far refused to do so
Like former AUSA Joe diGenova predicted last night, Mueller’s report will read: “I could have proved collusion except all those mean people lied.” Mueller will be the new Peter Sellers wondering “Does your dog bite?”
I recall that Lawrence Walsh’s thesis (propagated by The New York Review of Books was that he’d have had Ronald Reagan dead to rights if Reagan’s clever staff hadn’t erected such a ‘firewall’.
Walsh’s last act was an indictment of Caspar Weinberger for perjury a few days before the 1992 elections. The substance of the indictment was absurd (there was a discrepancy between Weinberger’s notes of a meeting and Weinberger’s oral testimony about the meeting 15 months later. The discrepancy concerned something unimportant and Weinberger had freely provided the notes) and the indictment was invalid due to the passage of time. Mueller isn’t the first high-class shyster to land a special prosecutor gig.
Mueller seems to be on a slow roll, indicting some, making deals, keeping his cards close to his chest, and driving the dupes that support Trump crazy; because crazy is the only way to describe most of these posts. Manafort has always been a train wreck waiting to happen. He may have gotten himself forced into a deal. He may have broken the deal with his negligence. He is sloppy, that’s for sure. Now Trump is sloppy and crooked, a liar, and a cheat; but that seems to be OK with the dupes that back him. The Mueller investigation will continue and continue to drive Trump and others nuts. The big question may just be a lot of little answers turning the screws. Right now the big question is will Trump pardon Manafort? Are his supporters that rabid to let him get away with that level of obstruction? If he does, after what he can pardon Manafort for, will other charges that are outside of his arena come up and will Manafort go to jail anyway. Tune in folks; keep tuned in.
“…driving the dupes that support Trump crazy; because crazy is the only way to describe most of these posts. ”
Ha ha dream on. This doesn’t make me crazy; i was already crazy!
Oh yes. Keep tuned in. The True American Patriot Robert Mueller, III, has the ball-baggers of the day glo bozo (and the day glo bozo himself) squealing like extras from the movie “Deliverance.”
The NPC Marky Mark Mark runs the word salad script making no sense at all.
I can hear the banjo music, too. Sooweee!
PC Schulte,…
There is some clarification, taking L4B’s comment in conjunction with Mark’s.
The young banjo virtuosa featured in the movie Deliverance is one of Mark’s relatives.
I’ve been considering the thought process of our AM frequent commentor, and I see some parallels with the process involved in the image I’ll try to post.
https://goo.gl/images/RTz9BS
What is the purpose of items J and K in the Rube Goldberg Machine?
Just because some people use a toothpick to fish olives out of a long-necked bottle doesn’t mean that anybody else has to pick his or her teeth with a teasing brush.
Mule-er and Man- a- fart sitting in a tree… k i s s i n g. First came love, then came marriage, then came Hillary without a baby carriage.
I’m so relieved that Hilary didn’t have to go through all of these investigations by Meuller and his crew.
Bob, Hillary went through years of House investigations. They went on longer than Mueller has been Special Counsel.
The crime was stated.
Any reasonable person agrees that Hillary was given special treatment, but who expects you to be reasonable?
Haha. Rich. What you really want is “MORE BENGHAZI HEARINGS!” So sorry for your disability and your loss.
this is to “in the world I inhabit, I’m considered reasonable” allen / allan
Not really, but you fools are focusing in on a Trump Tower in Moscow that was never built and wouldn’t be illegal if it had been built. However, there are so many things to focus in on like the jail term of a sailor for a picture he sent to his girl friend which was a lapse in security consciousness. Then we can look at Hillary and we can forget about all her emails that were insecure. That is fine but when she was supposed to keep them she doubled down and destroyed them. Then she used bleach on her hard drive. Maybe one can forget about the emails but the continued lawlessness is something that we should have paid more attention to.
No I don’t think you are reasonable when you think defiance of the law and bleaching the hard drive was totally normal. You are supposedly a lawyer, but then again we know there are lawyers like Michael Cohen and it sounds like you could be one of them. Dishonest to the core.
The Trump Tower Moscow was dangled as a consolation prize in case Trump lost the election. The minute the hack of the DNC email server was reported on July 14th, 2016, Cohen and Trump et al. dropped the deal like the toxic hot potato they should’ve realized it was from the get-go.
Did you know that a conspiracy does not have to come to fruition in order to be charged as a conspiracy? All you need to demonstrate is that at least one overt act was taken in furtherance of said conspiracy. I’d bet Michael D. Cohen knows that fact at least by now. Time to catch up, Allan. Tick tock tick tock tick tock . . .
“Did you know that a conspiracy does not have to come to fruition in order to be charged as a conspiracy?”
Did you know the President can’t be charged with conspiracy.
If Trump had built the Moscow Tower that would be legal as well. Trump as President did nothing wrong. Hillary as Secretary of State did a lot wrong and remains out of jail. I’m not advocating anything with regard to Hillary, but I can recognize her crimes based solely on her actions and her words. You stretch facts saying ‘Trump is guilty if and if and if to such an extent that anyone can recognize you don’t know what you are talking about.
Provide the factual material about Trump Tower that Michael Cohen has. He was far removed from any decision making.
they could only dig so far on Benghazi because, besides from the major hillary snafu of failing to provide adequate security and telling the rescue team to stand down, and thereby losing an ambassador as a result, a travesty not seen since 1974 when an ambassador was lost in Cypus; but Hillary was executing a long standing Deep State strategy to overthrow secular Arab tyrants in Iraq, Libya, and Syria. (the ones in Egypt were “our” tyrants” so they only got recycled from Mubarak to whomever is in charge now; but Hussein had gone rogue and Libya and Syria were aligned with Russia. The plot failed as to Syria as we have seen)(Iran is not Arab but Persian and they are definitely on the same “regime change” list)
So since everybody knows this is what the Libya bombing by NATO was all about, and that the “Saudi allies” were the paymasters for the jihaadists who took down Qadaffi, there is only so much digging the Congress was going to do. Much more digging and the Deep State would have had to admit the underlying policy is bad.
That was left to the voters to say when they elected Donald J Trump who identified the policy in his pithy way in the campaign and blamed it on Hillary. In a way that was unfair because of course it came into express action with the invasion of Iraq under Geo Bush the Second. it’s a bipartisan policy of foreign destabilization so they could only blame her so much.
And it’s great Trump slowed the policy down in Syria, a little, and has not gone too far too fast against Iran, but you can see he’s still advancing the same thing.
Maybe the Deep State is right about the need to pressure Syria and Iran; or maybe not, but more shooting wars or funding of jihaadist terrorists should not be the means. And in Iran that has been happening too or so the rumor goes (MEK)
https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2018/07/20/why-trumps-hawks-back-the-mek-terrorist-cult/
So Trump slowed it down but can’t stop it. Hell he can’t even command his own Department of Justice. but under hillary it would have been more of this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fgcd1ghag5Y
Despicable woman, dancing in the blood of sovereign leader, executed without any trial by a bunch of terrorist thugs! NO hint of concern over her own role or any remorse for the loss of the ambassador. Sick!
Saddam Hussein was never not rogue. Iraq was a hostile state from 1958 to 2003, bar a brief run of years (1963-67) when it appeared to be on a path back to one of practical dealings with the United States. Syria has been an antagonist throughout the post-war period.
Both Saddam and Ghadaffi were bad dudes, but our policy is what matters.
Regarding Saddam, when one makes a decision of such seriousness where there are many ambiguities one can fall on either side of the line whether one should go to war or not. In fact many people were trying to say I am 40% on this side and 60% on the other side so the choice recognized that the decision might very well be wrong. Bush’s problem in Iraq (though it is clear to me today the war should not have been fought) was that he stayed too long, dismantled the Republican army and destroyed a clear path to leadership that met our stratigic needs. Prior to the war there was a stratigic balance of power that was destroyed.
Despicable woman, dancing in the blood of sovereign leader,
His position in Libya was never legitimate and he really doesn’t merit anyone’s sympathy. Quite a mass of people were willing to pick up a gun to fight him – for a reason.
He was the lawful sovereign for decades. Removing him from office by these means was a foolish enterprise. An unethical one and a counterproductive diplomatic mistake.
Encouraging his assassination by a pack of jihaadist jackals was very foolish. Europe is now awash with refugees precisely due to this and the mess in Syria.
They mock Trump for undignified conduct but her laughing like that was a severe embarrassment to our nation. So what if he was an adversary! The killing of enemies is not a laughing matter any more than the killing of anybody.
He came to power in an antimonarchical coup in 1969. He was a socialist and a “Muslim modernist” whom fundamentalist Muslims always disliked. He was a critic and sometime enemy of the United States., but a predictable one.
The only standard under which the situation is better for America now is probably oil exploration. A lot of the mischief he ginned up in the past was long under the bridge.
It is certainly far worse for our Italian allies, a true friend of the United States unlike the desert camel riders from Saudi who helped fund the jihaad against Qadaffi.
give me honest adversaries over scheming false friends any day!
that’s just my preference but what do I know, I am a nobody and our foreign policy follows patterns set down that not even a President can change.
DSS, regarding Ghadaffi: he did our bidding and then we ended up involved in killing him. That makes agreement with other dictators that much more difficult.
Ghadaffi was a horror but anarchy with warring groups is a worse horror and doesn’t satisfy our stragic needs.
The NPC Marky Mark Mark runs the More BENGHAZI Hearings script.
Actually it was Mr. Kurtz, Allan Wretched Spam Filter who took the cue and ran that script just like Mr. M. knew they would. Ha-Ha!
P.S. How many more “bad days” can The Trump Troupers take? Tick tock tick tock tick tock . . . .
Those who frequently hear ticking sounds may have a uncommon form of tinnitus.
It usually accompanied by hearing phantom voices, and sometimes imagining apparitions.
Gee wilikers, Ptom. You flubbed your email address again. Didn’t you?
Now seriously, does that sounds like something that I would write. ME?
About Trump’s open-book take-home test with private tutors cribbing Trump’s answers for him:
https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/28/politics/trump-mueller-answers-wikileaks-trump-tower/index.html
Excerpted from the article linked above:
President Donald Trump told special counsel Robert Mueller in writing that Roger Stone did not tell him about WikiLeaks, nor was he told about the 2016 Trump Tower meeting between his son, campaign officials and a Russian lawyer promising dirt on Hillary Clinton, according to two sources familiar with the matter.
One source described the President’s answers without providing any direct quotes and said the President made clear he was answering to the best of his recollection.
Remember this question from the list of 44 or so questions that Sekulow/Dowd leaked to The NYT way back when?
What communication did you have with Michael D. Cohen, Felix Sater and others, including foreign nationals, about Russian real estate developments during the campaign?
To tell you the truth, I had completely and totally forgotten about that question. Surpise. Surprise. I bet Trump lied about it in his written answers to Mueller’s actual questions. Or not. But Donald Trump Jr. lied about it in his Congressional testimony way back when. Uh-oh! Spaghetti-Os! Today is Friday; isn’t it? I’m not ready yet. Make it next Friday instead. Or not.
The reasons Trump’s lawyers delayed submitting Trump’s written answers to Mueller’s questions:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/27/us/politics/jerome-corsi-roger-stone-wikileaks.html
Excerpted from the article linked above:
Mr. Corsi’s dealings with Mr. Mueller’s prosecutors have caused alarm among the president’s legal team, who were informed of developments by Mr. Corsi’s lawyer. President Trump’s lawyers were especially troubled by a draft statement of offense against Mr. Corsi that was passed on to them, according to people familiar with the situation. In it, prosecutors claimed that Mr. Corsi understood that Mr. Stone was “in regular contact with senior members of the Trump campaign, including with then-candidate Donald J. Trump” when he asked Mr. Corsi in late July 2016 to “get to” Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks.
The reference to Mr. Trump coincided with other events that so disturbed the president’s lawyers that they delayed turning in his responses to written questions after negotiating over them with the special counsel for nearly a year. At roughly the same time, the Justice Department inadvertently released a secret criminal complaint against Mr. Assange and Mr. Trump’s legal team learned that prosecutors were accusing Paul Manafort, Mr. Trump’s campaign chairman, of lying. Only after Mr. Mueller’s team reassured Mr. Trump’s lawyers that they were not trying to lure the president into a trap did they forward his answers on Nov. 20
Repeated for emphasis:
President Donald Trump told special counsel Robert Mueller in writing that Roger Stone did not tell him about WikiLeaks.
Mr. Trump’s legal team learned that prosecutors were accusing Paul Manafort, Mr. Trump’s campaign chairman, of lying.
[end excerpt]
Just because Trump told Mueller that Roger Stone didn’t tell Trump about Wikileaks doesn’t mean that Mueller can’t prove that Manafort may have lied to Mueller if Manafort denied having told Trump about Wikileaks.
the hunter lures the buck in with fake deer piss
sure, whatever you say
Actually, it looks more like a misdirection ploy, now. Kinda like a “head fake” in hoops. You know, I forgot all about Cohen, too. So I can’t fault Trump for not remembering it to the best of his recollection, either. Ha-Ha!
Maybe Trump answered the Cohen/Sater question truthfully. Ha-Ha!
Turley wrote, “It is a highly unusual move and prosecutors usually bar such joint defense agreements or meetings from contenting for obvious reasons. It is not clear what Manafort was told but it is hard to believe that Mueller would be moronic enough to fail to make such a clear condition.”
He’s gone way too far with those two sentences. First off, what Turley calls “contenting” is what the law calls “subornation of perjury.” Second, Mueller is under no obligation whatsoever to prevent Trump’s JDA “omerta” from obstructing justice in the act of suborning perjury from one another. Surely Turley’s complaint to the contrary is moronic. And here’s why:
There’s a reason that Mueller waited until Trump’s lawyers had submitted Trump’s written answers to Mueller’s questions about the Trump campaign’s conspiracy with Russia to defraud the United States. Mueller can and will prove each and every last one of Manafort’s “crimes and lies” in both the publically disclosed and the classified portions of Mueller’s upcoming sentencing memos on Manafort. And because of the Trump campaign’s JDA “omerta,” the proof for Manafort’s crimes and lies will also be the proof for Trump’s crimes and lies. IOW, Mueller didn’t really flip Manafort for the usual reasons. Instead, Mueller recruited Manafort to play the part of a mole within the Special Counsel’s investigation who would then unwittingly expose Trump’s JDA “omerta” to charges of obstruction of justice in the collective act of suborning perjury from one another. Now here’s the kicker:
If you all close your eyes, none of you will be able to read Mueller’s upcoming sentencing memo for Manafort. Brilliant!
Definition and description of “omerta” at the link below:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omert%C3%A0
Omertà /oʊˈmɛərtə is a Southern Italian code of honor and code of silence that places importance on silence in the face of questioning by authorities or …
stop defaming Trump, and defaming Italians.
Trump is not a criminal
secondly Italian gangs are not special in this.
all criminal organizations have ethical norms against snitching
every prison in America has norms against snitching
every group of little kids has norms against snitching!
if you want to talk about different ethnic groups and their approaches to lying, you might observe that Jews forgive themselves of all the lies they have told under oath each year at Yom Kippur. Let me know if I’m wrong about that
https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/kol-nidrei/
stop defaming italians every day here or I’ll have a lot more to say about various other non-Italian groups and their various approaches to “truth” and “informing”
“, you might observe that Jews forgive themselves of all the lies they have told under oath each year at Yom Kippur.”
God’s forgiveness! Your article states it correctly. I think that is something that is important to understand no matter what religious choice one has made.
“Kol Nidrei has no effect upon vows or promises that we make and break with other people. They still remain valid and, if broken, forgiveness and absolution must be sought from the people affected — and not from God. As the Talmud teaches, “Yom Kippur does not forgive transgressions between a man and his fellow — until (or unless) he seeks forgiveness from him (directly)”
The poor country lawyer, Matlock, said, “stop defaming Trump, and defaming Italians.”
Go file a Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation lawsuit against Wikipedia, Matlock!
Excerpted from the article linked above:
The basic principle of omertà is that it is not “manly” to seek aid from legally constituted authorities to settle personal grievances. The suspicion of being a cascittuni (an informant) constitutes the blackest mark against manhood, according to Cutrera. An individual who has been wronged is obligated to look out for his own interests by avenging that wrong himself or finding a patron but not the state to do the job.
so you’re defaming men now as well as Italians?
we all know women are bigger natural experts in lying than men!
And if we don’t know that, then we haven’t lived very long!
Go file a S.L.A.P.P suit against Wikipedia, Matlock!
https://goo.gl/images/tsi8Jc
Also excerpted from the article linked above:
Observers of the Mafia debate whether omertà should best be understood as an expression of social consensus for the Mafia or whether it is instead a pragmatic response based primarily on fear, as implied by a popular Sicilian proverb Cu è surdu, orbu e taci, campa cent’anni ‘mpaci (“He who is deaf, blind and silent will live a hundred years in peace”).
let me give you another italian saying that applies to people who defame the honor of the italian people
va-fan-culo
can you make that out eh?
here’s another one that Mr Trump probably does live by and i sure do:
TANTI NEMICI, TANTO ONORE
The paraphrase worked out better for Salvini than the original worked out for Mussolini.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/30/europe/salvini-mussolini-italy-intl/index.html
But thanks, anyway, for linking Trump to poor benighted Il Duce.
BTW, for exactly how long by now have you been channeling Ezra Pound???
P.S. Let the cork out, Kurtz.
“In the meantime, the White House confirmed that Manafort’s counsel has been conferring with the Trump legal team to tell them what Manafort was supplying and the questions being asked under the cooperation agreement. It is a highly unusual move and prosecutors usually bar such joint defense agreements or meetings from contenting for obvious reasons.”
Oh, you mean like the FBI barred Attorney/Potential Defendant Cheryl Mills from representing multiple clients during the Hillary email investigation??? Oh wait. . .
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Exactly!
I couldn’t through either the comments of Gary or George… The stench of guano was too much!
The Skeptical Cynic – your problem is not this site, it is personal and you should have it checked out. A website has no stench, therefore you are being attacked by phantom odors. This is serious. Think brain tumor. Mayo Clinic serious!!! Call your GP first thing.
PAUL MANFORT IS MYSTERY MAN ON-THE-MAKE
HIS CHOICE AS CAMPAIGN CHAIRMAN WAS HIGHLY FLAWED
Trump supporters love Donald because he’s a ‘maverick outsider bucking the establishment’. Trump’s lack of experience was an imagined asset. Imagined in the minds of people who think business experience is equal to public office.
Had Trump been a savvy politician, with experience in public office, he would not have chosen Manafort as campaign manager. Manafort had been in the Ukraine working for a Putin ally. No savvy politician wants a link like that!
No savvy politician would choose Michael Flynn as National Security Adviser. Flynn was a man-on-the-make with his lobbying activities. Michael Cohen is another man on-the-make. No savvy politician would have a lawyer like Cohen. No savvy politician would appoint their daughter and son-in-law to senior White House positions.
Because Trump surrounded himself with family, hustlers and mystery men, they created webs of intrigue. Trump is guilty of bad judgement if nothing else. And that is often the case with political scandals: ‘The politician shows terrible judgement in their associations’.
Peter Hill – one of the other candidates was trying to get the Trump delegates to switch to him after the first ballot if Trump did not win. Manafort was brought in like the little Dutch boy to stick his finger in the dike to stop the leak of delegates. It worked.
“Trump’s lack of experience was an imagined asset.”
GDP up, Unemployment down, food stamps down, total working population up, plus a lot of other excellent moves. Imaginary? Only to Shills and people that are unable to understand data.
Trump rid himself of Manafort very quickly. How long has it taken for the DNC to rid themselves of HIllary? …uranium one, Clinton Foundation, pay to play, unfair treatment of Bernie Sanders, general stupidity etc.
False equivalencies, Allen. And no one expects this economy to last.
of course! they never do., it’s called the business cycle. presidents always claim more credit than they are due, and take more blame.
we all know that if we had econ 101
What are the false equivalencies? That is where you fail. Your statements are empty of data.
“no one expects this economy to last.”
Peter, what you don’t seem to recognize is our economy is cyclic so of course we will see a downturn. Obama merely flattened things out so our average growth over the years would be less than under a President like Trump. Despite what Obama says today his tune about GDP growth was quite different while he was President. You don’t like the facts so all we hear from you is rhetoric absent facts.
right well said and the biggest thing Trump is rectifying is decades of wimpy trade policy allowing China to totally rip off American technology and IP. For that alone he deserves the gratitude of every American.
Do you think she whose husband took donations from the PRC, would have gone to task on them?
https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/07/chinese-illegally-donated-bill-clinton-reelection-campaign-media-downplayed/
Two decades ago, the media weren’t obsessed with Chinese interference in a presidential election.
This summer we mark the 20th anniversary of a major investigation by Congress of attempts by a hostile foreign power to influence an American presidential election.
I’m glad the news media is pursuing the Trump–Russia scandal, but let’s not forget the differences between how they are covering Russia compared with how they reported a similar story — this one involving Communist China — that developed during Bill Clinton’s 1996 reelection campaign. The Washington Post reported in 1998 that “evidence gathered in federal surveillance intercepts has indicated that the Chinese government planned to increase China’s influence in the U.S. political process in 1996.”
Many people still believe that a major cover-up of that scandal worked — in part because the media expressed skepticism and devoted only a fraction of resources they are spending on the Trump–Russia story. Network reporters expressed outright skepticism of the story, with many openly criticizing the late senator Fred Thompson, the chair of the Senate investigating committee, for wasting time and money. On June 17, 1997, Katie Couric, then the Today co-anchor, asked the Washington Post’s Bob Woodward about the story: “Are members of the media, do you think, Bob, too scandal-obsessed, looking for something at every corner?”
According to an analysis by the Media Research Center, the news coverage of the congressional hearings on the China scandal in the summer of 1997 were dwarfed by reports on the murder of fashion designer Gianni Versace and the death of Princess Diana.
The Chinese fundraising scandal involving DNC finance vice chairman John Huang first came to light in the final weeks of the 1996 presidential campaign. A former Commerce Department official, Huang was a top fundraiser who scooped up suspect foreign cash for Team Clinton.
A 1998 Senate Government Affairs Committee report on the scandal found “strong circumstantial evidence” that a great deal of foreign money had illegally entered the country in an attempt to influence the 1996 election. The DNC was forced to give back more than $2.8 million in illegal or improper donations from foreign nationals.
The most suspect funds were brought in by Johnny Chung, a bagman for the Asian billionaire Riady family. Chung confessed that at least $35,000 of his donations to the Clinton campaign and the DNC had come from a Chinese aerospace executive — a lieutenant colonel in the Chinese military. Chung said the executive had helped him meet three times with General Ji Shengde, the head of Chinese military intelligence. According to Chung’s testimony, General Shengde had told him: “We really like your president. We hope he will be reelected. I will give you $300,000 U.S. dollars. You can give it to . . . your president and the Democratic party.”
The sprawling fundraising scandal ultimately led to 22 guilty pleas on various violations of election laws. Among the Clinton fundraisers and friends who pleaded guilty were John Huang, Charlie Trie, James Riady, and Michael Brown, son of the late Clinton Commerce secretary Ron Brown. But many questions went unanswered, even after the revelations that Clinton had personally authorized offering donors Oval Office meetings and use of the Lincoln bedroom. A total of 120 participants in the fundraising scandal either fled the country, asserted their Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, or otherwise avoided questioning. The stonewalling worked — and probably encouraged Hillary Clinton in her own cover-up of her private e-mail server and her ties with the Clinton Foundation.
Indeed, much of the media basically gave the Clintons a pass on evidence that special-interest donors to the Clinton Foundation frequently managed to score favors from the State Department. Journalist Peter Schweitzer revealed in his book Clinton Cash that State had helped move along an infamous deal that granted the Russians control of more than 20 percent of the uranium production here in the United States. The company involved in acquiring the American uranium was a very large donor to — you guessed it — the Clinton Foundation.
like paul said it was a good choice
manafort’s problems relate to pre election poor choices concerning his taxes
This entire “investigation” is unconstitutional. Trump is under investigation without being charged with any specific crime. I didn’t vote for Trump, but no one deserves this treatment. And it’s all because the left are horrible losers. I’m sick of it.
Are you saying that a person should only be investigated AFTER they are charged with a crime ?? I thought the point of an investigation was to see if there was, in fact, any evidence of a crime. And if there was, then charges would follow. I think you have things backwards.
Haha. Thanks for your expert opinion, “counselor.” Pro tip: this isn’t reddit, or some other imbecile watering hole where the poorly-educated, cognitively-deficient ball-baggers of the day glo bozo gather to trade happy talk about how he’s gonna keep the dusky types in line. Rather, this is a legal blog, frequented by lawyers–most of whom can spot a cretin from jump. So sorry for your misfortune and disability.
this is to “I’m not really addle-brained, just drunk” marie
The NPC Marky Mark Mark runs the I’m pretending to be a lawyer so I am way smarter than you are script. Oddly enough, the script reads at a 5th grade level.
Manafort always said he had nothing to trade for a plea deal. I was very surprised when they offered him one.
Manafort made a proffer to get the plea agreement. Exactly what Manafort proffered remains to be seen. But Mueller would not accuse Manafort of lying without proof of Manafort’s lies. Exactly what lies Manafort told and exactly what proof Mueller has for those lies will soon be submitted in Mueller’s detailed sentencing memo on Manafort.
L4Yoga/Annie/Inga enables David Benson, and the NPCs R. Lien and Marky Mark Mark – it is my understanding that if they turn down the plea deal the prosecution cannot use the proffer against him.
You cannot possibly think that Manafort’s proffer is the only evidence that Mueller has against Manafort. You can, however, insinuate that without actually thinking it.
L4Yoga/Annie/Inga enables David Benson, and the NPCs R. Lien and Marky Mark Mark – I never said Mueller’s team did not have more evidence. Mueller would want a proffer on what he could give him on Trump. Without it a plea deal is useless to Mueller.
However, it is my understanding that with the plea deal off the table, the proffer and any information in it cannot be used by the prosecution.
I never said that you said that Mueller didn’t have more evidence. I said that you insinuated something that you could not possibly think.
P. S. I presume that you are correct about the proffered testimony being inadmissible at a trial against Manafort. But it might be admissible in a sentencing memo on Manafort. Or not. How should I know? Whether the proffered testimony would be admissible at a trial for somebody else besides Manafort is also unknown to me. But, since Mueller is accusing Manafort of being a big fat lying liar, I suspect that Manafort’s proffered testimony would be effectively useless at a trial for anyone else in addition to be being inadmissible against Manafort.
“How should I know?”
Diane, you should start and end all of your postings with that phrase, How should I know?
Excerpted from The New Yorker without a link:
“We might not know what Manafort will tell them, but Mueller knows,” Benjamin Wittes, of the Brookings Institution and the editor of its Lawfare blog, told me. He pointed out that the plea agreement refers to a proffer session, earlier in the week, “in which the prosecutors will have sussed out what Manafort might be able to contribute.”
Instead running cover for corrupt Muller you should be calling for a special prosecutor to investigate Muller for suborning false testimony, falsifying testimony in the Whitey Bulger case, acting as a bag man for Hillary in the Uranium One. Covering up who did 911 etc.
bulger’s water under the bridge. and the whole FBI will stonewall anything more about that.
you could go back to Meuller cocking up the Hells Angel RICO trial against Sonny Barger and co. which probably used a lot of snitches too, and ended in AQUITTAL
ouch, he couldn’t convict a bunch of outlaw motorcycle gangs of dealing drugs? wow that should be about as hard as convicting bums of vagrancy and drunk and disorderly
Haha. He said “Uranium One.” How’s the search for Bigfoot coming, detective?
this is to “AND, I’ve got the inside skinny on the Trilateral Commission, to boot” gary
The NPC Marky Mark Mark runs the the Bigfoot script, not realizing the documentary Smallfoot revealed the existance of a huge population of Big Feet. The search is over.
American Kafkaesque!
Obergruppenfuhrer Robert “Mike Nifong” Mueller needs to go to prison for “malicious prosecution.”