It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Grand Jury Docs Have Been Unsealed, and It’s Looking Even Worse for Manafort

page: 1
30
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+7 more 
posted on Nov, 1 2017 @ 11:07 AM
link   
Read the article, but it distills down to this.

The presiding Judge for the Manafort indictments found the evidence so compelling that Manaforts lawyer was implicated & forced to testify about his role in aiding continuing criminal activity.



Judge Beryl A. Howell decided to compel grand jury testimony from a lawyer representing Manafort and Gates under the crime-fraud exception to attorney-client privilege.




However, privileges are not absolute; among other exceptions is the “crime-fraud” exception to attorney-client privilege. Under this exception when a privileged relationship is used to further a crime, fraud, or other misconduct, the lawyer doesn’t get to use that relationship as a shield.





Mueller’s office would have had to prove that the lawyer in question made the communication with the intent to further an unlawful or fraudulent act, and that Manafort and Gates actually carried out the crime or fraud. In other words, the judge at the grand jury proceeding found that there was plenty of evidence that Manafort and Gates had committed crime or fraud.


The Judges decision,



“Through its ex parte production of evidence, the SCO has clearly met its burden of making a prima facie showing that the crime-fraud exception applies by showing that the Targets were “engaged in or planning a criminal or fraudulent scheme when [they] sought the advice of counsel to further the scheme.”

lawnewz.com...

OUCH!
K~



+10 more 
posted on Nov, 1 2017 @ 11:10 AM
link   
I'm just gonna LEAVE this here for all the Trump-bots:



+17 more 
posted on Nov, 1 2017 @ 11:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: aethertek
Read the article, but it distills down to this.

The presiding Judge for the Manafort indictments found the evidence so compelling that Manaforts lawyer was implicated & forced to testify about his role in aiding continuing criminal activity.



Judge Beryl A. Howell decided to compel grand jury testimony from a lawyer representing Manafort and Gates under the crime-fraud exception to attorney-client privilege.




However, privileges are not absolute; among other exceptions is the “crime-fraud” exception to attorney-client privilege. Under this exception when a privileged relationship is used to further a crime, fraud, or other misconduct, the lawyer doesn’t get to use that relationship as a shield.





Mueller’s office would have had to prove that the lawyer in question made the communication with the intent to further an unlawful or fraudulent act, and that Manafort and Gates actually carried out the crime or fraud. In other words, the judge at the grand jury proceeding found that there was plenty of evidence that Manafort and Gates had committed crime or fraud.


The Judges decision,



“Through its ex parte production of evidence, the SCO has clearly met its burden of making a prima facie showing that the crime-fraud exception applies by showing that the Targets were “engaged in or planning a criminal or fraudulent scheme when [they] sought the advice of counsel to further the scheme.”

lawnewz.com...

OUCH!
K~


Nice. So no shield for what he did from 2006-2014 as long as this attorney was the same one then. I bet the Podestas are freaking out over this news right now because it means regardless of what their attorney covers under privilege, Manaforts has to talk....LOL!
edit on 11/1/17 by Vasa Croe because: (no reason given)


+36 more 
posted on Nov, 1 2017 @ 11:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: DanteGaland
I'm just gonna LEAVE this here for all the Trump-bots:



Guessing you didn't read the indictment....the fraud is all from his days with the dems....2006-2014....and the Podestas in particular.



posted on Nov, 1 2017 @ 11:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: aethertek
The presiding Judge for the Manafort indictments found the evidence so compelling that Manaforts lawyer was implicated & forced to testify about his role in aiding continuing criminal activity.


Slight corrections, the attorney is a she and this doesn't mean she was complicit, this unusual tactic is typically employed when the prosecutor believes the client lied to the attorney which caused the attorney to misrepresent the client's case to the government.




edit on 1-11-2017 by AugustusMasonicus because: networkdude has no beer


+3 more 
posted on Nov, 1 2017 @ 11:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vasa Croe
I bet the Podestas are freaking out over this news right now because it means regardless of what their attorney covers under privilege, Manaforts has to talk....LOL!

But...but...but...Hillary!



posted on Nov, 1 2017 @ 11:21 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Well that's one way to frame it.


Mueller’s office would have had to prove that the lawyer in question made the communication with the intent to further an unlawful or fraudulent act, and that Manafort and Gates actually carried out the crime or fraud.


Either way the important point being compelling evidence was shown to the Judge that facilitated this unusual legal circumstance.

K~


+2 more 
posted on Nov, 1 2017 @ 11:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck

originally posted by: Vasa Croe
I bet the Podestas are freaking out over this news right now because it means regardless of what their attorney covers under privilege, Manaforts has to talk....LOL!

But...but...but...Hillary!


Nope...just that nobody see.s to have read the indictment and the OP is about fraud....his fraudulent activity started 11 years before Trump became POTUS....your PIC is more appropriate for But Trump....



posted on Nov, 1 2017 @ 11:30 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Yep. Reading the actual document pretty clearly lays that, so I'm not sure why the opinion-writer went the direction he did with it.

The judge clearly makes repeated references to the Targets (Manafort and Gates) lying, either outright or by minimizing and omitting, to the Witness (which is the attorney) and causing her to both say and write false or misleading information.



posted on Nov, 1 2017 @ 11:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: aethertek
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Well that's one way to frame it.


Mueller’s office would have had to prove that the lawyer in question made the communication with the intent to further an unlawful or fraudulent act, and that Manafort and Gates actually carried out the crime or fraud.


Either way the important point being compelling evidence was shown to the Judge that facilitated this unusual legal circumstance.

K~


It's not a matter of framing it (except in the over-excited opinion piece you use for the OP), it's a matter of understanding what it actually means.

Communication aimed to further a crime doesn't necessarily mean the attorney is involved in anything criminal. It means the client is using the attorney to commit a crime. IE a client lies to an attorney and gets the attorney to file false information on the client's behalf. The attorney hasn't necessarily done anything wrong just because they filed false information, but the client has absolutely broken the law.



posted on Nov, 1 2017 @ 11:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: aethertek
Read the article, but it distills down to this.

The presiding Judge for the Manafort indictments found the evidence so compelling that Manaforts lawyer was implicated & forced to testify about his role in aiding continuing criminal activity.



Judge Beryl A. Howell decided to compel grand jury testimony from a lawyer representing Manafort and Gates under the crime-fraud exception to attorney-client privilege.




However, privileges are not absolute; among other exceptions is the “crime-fraud” exception to attorney-client privilege. Under this exception when a privileged relationship is used to further a crime, fraud, or other misconduct, the lawyer doesn’t get to use that relationship as a shield.





Mueller’s office would have had to prove that the lawyer in question made the communication with the intent to further an unlawful or fraudulent act, and that Manafort and Gates actually carried out the crime or fraud. In other words, the judge at the grand jury proceeding found that there was plenty of evidence that Manafort and Gates had committed crime or fraud.


The Judges decision,



“Through its ex parte production of evidence, the SCO has clearly met its burden of making a prima facie showing that the crime-fraud exception applies by showing that the Targets were “engaged in or planning a criminal or fraudulent scheme when [they] sought the advice of counsel to further the scheme.”

lawnewz.com...

OUCH!
K~


Nice. So no shield for what he did from 2006-2014 as long as this attorney was the same one then. I bet the Podestas are freaking out over this news right now because it means regardless of what their attorney covers under privilege, Manaforts has to talk....LOL!


I don't know how much Manafort plans on talking.
He pleaded not guilty, but that might simply for a full look at the evidence against him.

Other interesting news is that it came out he has 3 different passports and also traveled to Mexico and China with a fake name on email and burner phone.


+6 more 
posted on Nov, 1 2017 @ 11:37 AM
link   
When we find out Mueller cut a deal with Trump, Manafort is takes his sword and the Clinton/Podesta Cabal finally collapses we can all have a good laugh. That is looking like the end game. Manafort has done the same thing as both Podestas. They lobby. No conspiracy against the US for any of them. Just greed. When you become rich by illegal means sometimes you get caught but only for a reason.

Manafort is not the president. He was a 3 month part of the campaign and when some irregularities were found he was fired. Not kept on but fired. This has nothing to do with the presidency no matter the wet dream you Anti-Trumpers want to believe.



posted on Nov, 1 2017 @ 11:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

Right.

I would add to that that the judge only allowed Mueller to ask specific questions of the Attorney approved by the Judge.

I think Mueller was only permitted to ask 7 questions.

So they still do take attorney-client privilege pretty seriously, even when the perp uses the attorney to further a criminal effort.



posted on Nov, 1 2017 @ 11:42 AM
link   
This reminds me of an article I read a couple weeks ago. I guess Mueller is known for this tactic.

news.wgbh.org...


My secretary typed up the affidavit that the witness was going to sign. Just as he picked up the pen, he looked at me and said something like: “You know, all of this is actually false, but your client is an old friend of mine and I want to help him.” As I threw the putative witness out of my office, I noticed, under the flowing white shirt, a lump on his back – he was obviously wired and recording every word between us.



posted on Nov, 1 2017 @ 11:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: matafuchs
When we find out Mueller cut a deal with Trump, Manafort is takes his sword and the Clinton/Podesta Cabal finally collapses we can all have a good laugh.


Ya..Stick to that wild fantasy.


Manafort has done the same thing as both Podestas.


Not at all.



He was a 3 month part of the campaign


5 months or 4 months and change.


and when some irregularities were found he was fired.

Irregularities were found and reported on for months before he resigned, not fired.
His co-conspirator gates was kept on the campaign to maintain Manaforts control outside of public view.



edit on 1-11-2017 by soberbacchus because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 1 2017 @ 11:45 AM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus

Yep.

From the ruling, he was allowed to ask questions that amounted to "who told you to say what's in this filing?" and "who told you to file this?" and "who had you prepare this filing?" and that's about it.

I genuinely don't understand why the source article is spinning this as the attorney somehow being in trouble because it's plainly evident from the questions asked that the Special Counsel is trying to prove Manafort used her to commit criminal acts, rather than the SC is trying to prove she herself is the criminal.



posted on Nov, 1 2017 @ 11:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: aethertek
Read the article, but it distills down to this.

The presiding Judge for the Manafort indictments found the evidence so compelling that Manaforts lawyer was implicated & forced to testify about his role in aiding continuing criminal activity.



Judge Beryl A. Howell decided to compel grand jury testimony from a lawyer representing Manafort and Gates under the crime-fraud exception to attorney-client privilege.




However, privileges are not absolute; among other exceptions is the “crime-fraud” exception to attorney-client privilege. Under this exception when a privileged relationship is used to further a crime, fraud, or other misconduct, the lawyer doesn’t get to use that relationship as a shield.





Mueller’s office would have had to prove that the lawyer in question made the communication with the intent to further an unlawful or fraudulent act, and that Manafort and Gates actually carried out the crime or fraud. In other words, the judge at the grand jury proceeding found that there was plenty of evidence that Manafort and Gates had committed crime or fraud.


The Judges decision,



“Through its ex parte production of evidence, the SCO has clearly met its burden of making a prima facie showing that the crime-fraud exception applies by showing that the Targets were “engaged in or planning a criminal or fraudulent scheme when [they] sought the advice of counsel to further the scheme.”

lawnewz.com...

OUCH!
K~


Nice. So no shield for what he did from 2006-2014 as long as this attorney was the same one then. I bet the Podestas are freaking out over this news right now because it means regardless of what their attorney covers under privilege, Manaforts has to talk....LOL!


I don't know how much Manafort plans on talking.
He pleaded not guilty, but that might simply for a full look at the evidence against him.

Other interesting news is that it came out he has 3 different passports and also traveled to Mexico and China with a fake name on email and burner phone.


My guess is those passports and travels were used to open more accounts/businesses in different areas. While the indictment lists what they found so far, I would bet there are more accounts spread around and more front businesses that they have run money through.



posted on Nov, 1 2017 @ 11:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Vasa Croe

2006 - 2017



posted on Nov, 1 2017 @ 11:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: aethertek
The presiding Judge for the Manafort indictments found the evidence so compelling that Manaforts lawyer was implicated & forced to testify about his role in aiding continuing criminal activity.


Slight corrections, the attorney is a she and this doesn't mean she was complicit, this unusual tactic is typically employed when the prosecutor believes the client lied to the attorney which caused the attorney to misrepresent the client's case to the government.



I would only add that it is not enough for the prosecutor to believe that the attorney falsely provided information or documents, they must prove it. In Manaforts case they did that.



posted on Nov, 1 2017 @ 11:49 AM
link   
a reply to: aethertek

Damn! He's such a scum bag that he implicated his own lawyer. That is insane!



new topics

top topics



 
30
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join