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.

 

Manafort’s Lawyer briefed Trump Attorneys on What He Told Mueller

page: 3
17
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 28 2018 @ 02:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Look2theSacredHeart

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: sligtlyskeptical

originally posted by: Fools
Got to love the spin on this one. Basically no law was broken but let's just go ahead and pretend one was. What in the hell is wrong with journalists these days? Are they all that mentally simple?


I think the issue is that Manafort was feeding Mueller junk info. Mueller accepted it at face even though he knew it was lies. And then Trump answers the questions in writing going with the same story that Mueller already knows is lies. Won't end up very well for Trump if this is the case.


Why does Trump need to lie? Why would you align your “story” with someone already known as a liar, and under surveillance?
Why would someone innocent need to be fed information about an investigation in the first place?
Because you can. It's justified and legal. You seem to be not able to read and or comprehend.

The sole reason for Trumps Tweets is the witchhunt, which it is.




posted on Nov, 28 2018 @ 02:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: underwerks
a reply to: Look2theSacredHeart

Hey, just saw this thread! It seems one piece of Marcy Wheelers story has been corroborated. As I just told the yapping hyenas in the other thread, time will tell if the other, illegal part is true. I think we’ll need Trumps answers to Muellers questions for that.

It’s been known for a while that Trump and Manaforts lawyers have had a communication agreement between themselves to share information. The illegal part comes in if Trump was using that agreement to mislead the Mueller investigation.

I had a late night last night and just woke up, but seeing Trumps rage tweets this morning makes me think the illegal part might very well be true.

Time will tell.

Yeah, NO. Been debunked already, sorry.



posted on Nov, 28 2018 @ 02:50 PM
link   
a reply to: underwerks

Nothing in this Mueller investigation or surrounding it, is as it seems on the surface.



posted on Nov, 28 2018 @ 02:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Arnie123

originally posted by: underwerks
a reply to: Look2theSacredHeart

Hey, just saw this thread! It seems one piece of Marcy Wheelers story has been corroborated. As I just told the yapping hyenas in the other thread, time will tell if the other, illegal part is true. I think we’ll need Trumps answers to Muellers questions for that.

It’s been known for a while that Trump and Manaforts lawyers have had a communication agreement between themselves to share information. The illegal part comes in if Trump was using that agreement to mislead the Mueller investigation.

I had a late night last night and just woke up, but seeing Trumps rage tweets this morning makes me think the illegal part might very well be true.

Time will tell.

Yeah, NO. Been debunked already, sorry.


Yeah no. Your made up interpretation isn’t what the other thread or this one is about.

Try again.




posted on Nov, 28 2018 @ 02:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Arnie123

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: BlackJackal
You really should read the source material you are commenting on prior to commenting, otherwise you may end up looking like you don't know what you are commenting about.



While Mr. Downing’s discussions with the president’s team violated no laws


Ooops too late.
BJ is prone to emotional outburst, as all leftist are, they never read beyond the title and first paragraph, a failing proving to be there downfall and reinforces my view that they never think critically, just too literally.


Ironically he's actually replying with thoughtfulness and substance, unlike you who continues to muddy up this thread with propaganda drivel couched as some obvious wisdom. You live in a world where if you think you shout it loud enough and long enough that it becomes true, and you've voted and support a man who is proving that very thing.



posted on Nov, 28 2018 @ 02:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: underwerks

Nothing in this Mueller investigation or surrounding it, is as it seems on the surface.


When it comes out that the Mueller investigation isn’t really investigating Hillary and Obama (which should be obvious to everyone at this point) will you make a thread about how you were wrong?

Or just fade into the background like all the other Trumpers when reality destroys their imaginary house of cards?




posted on Nov, 28 2018 @ 03:01 PM
link   
Looks like this applies and if sought, Trump may be in some real hot water.


18 U.S. Code § 1505 - Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees US Code

Whoever, with intent to avoid, evade, prevent, or obstruct compliance, in whole or in part, with any civil investigative demand duly and properly made under the Antitrust Civil Process Act, willfully withholds, misrepresents, removes from any place, conceals, covers up, destroys, mutilates, alters, or by other means falsifies any documentary material, answers to written interrogatories, or oral testimony, which is the subject of such demand; or attempts to do so or solicits another to do so; or

Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication influences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States, or the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by either House, or any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress—

Shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both.



posted on Nov, 28 2018 @ 03:09 PM
link   
a reply to: sirric

If he pardons Manafort, then it's sealed and done.

Until then, it's just lawyers talking that's prove able.



posted on Nov, 28 2018 @ 03:09 PM
link   
CNN is freaking out right at this moment. Bob Mueller lawyers have confirmed that they are willingly briefing President Trump's lawyers even though their formal agreement has expired. It is now a verbal team to team agreement.

There is more going on behind the scenes than even the mainstream media can wrap their heads around.


edit on 11/28/2018 by carewemust because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 28 2018 @ 04:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Arnie123

Contradicted and denied is not the same thing as debunked.



posted on Nov, 28 2018 @ 04:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Fools
Got to love the spin on this one. Basically no law was broken but let's just go ahead and pretend one was. What in the hell is wrong with journalists these days? Are they all that mentally simple?




As you can tell, there is no such thing as investigative journalism now. If you do actually investigate, you're fired, or employed at an alternative news agency, and then subsequently banned from the press table.

Everything you see on TV news, all the way to the LOCAL level is just scripted by the CIA as evidenced in the video above.



posted on Nov, 28 2018 @ 04:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Look2theSacredHeart

Joint Defense Privilege

The joint defense privilege, or common-interest rule, is an extension of the attorney–client privilege.[1] Under “common interest” or “joint defense” doctrine, parties with shared interest in actual or potential litigation against common adversary may share privileged information without waiving their right to assert attorney–client privilege.[2] Because the joint defense "privilege sometimes may apply outside the context of actual litigation, what the parties call a ‘joint defense’ privilege is more aptly termed the ‘common interest’ rule.”


This was known about months ago and it's perfectly legal.
www.thedailybeast.com...

The president’s personal lawyers have teamed up with attorneys for other individuals embroiled in special counsel Bob Mueller’s probe, multiple sources tell The Daily Beast. For a while, the president’s lawyers even had regular conference calls with other attorneys to discuss the Mueller investigation, according to one source familiar with the calls.

The arrangement is known as a joint defense agreement, and it allows the lawyers to share information—without violating attorney-client privilege. It’s a common strategy when multiple defendants are dealing with the same prosecutor on the same matter.



The Trump White House isn’t the first one to use joint defense agreements as a legal tool. Wisenberg, who was deputy independent counsel to Ken Starr on the Whitewater and Lewinsky investigations, said the Clinton White House employed them as well.

“They’re very common,” he said. “Clinton had them with virtually everybody when we were investigating him and there’s absolutely nothing wrong with them whatsoever.”


This will be yet another embarrassing dead-end if the left opts to pursue it as some manner of crime. You cannot retroactively change long standing rules arbitrarily and then try to prosecute those who were simply following standard past protocol beforehand. That's how third world hells with kangaroo courts operate.



posted on Nov, 28 2018 @ 04:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: BlackJackal
a reply to: Look2theSacredHeart

This is called obstruction of justice. Trump's lawyers are now in hot water themselves if this is true. They should have reported this attempted sharing of investigation material with the DOJ immediately.

I have no idea if this is true and can be proven, but if so, even if Trump is innocent he just screwed himself royally.


Except it's not illegal and never has been. Just the possibility that Trump could find himself in litigation against a common adversary (Mueller) alongside any of the folks who have been accused in Mueller's dragnet allows his legal team to kibitz with the legal team and litigants of the other parties as part of their legal procession. No laws were broken here and yes, there is a huge list of precedent, even from within past White House administrations, of legally applying these practices, as well as it being very commonplace and court tested in RICO and RICO-like cases. It is also likely why Mueller hasn't attempted to apply RICO to the handful of cooperating accused... that would blow the doors off of this and effectively permit ALL involved to pool resources, information, and make it an all or nothing for Mueller, which he knows he'd lose.



posted on Nov, 28 2018 @ 04:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Look2theSacredHeart
Why would someone innocent need to be fed information about an investigation in the first place?


Only a fool rejects knowledge and information.



posted on Nov, 28 2018 @ 05:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Look2theSacredHeart

Your source says everything that was done is legal. So what is your problem?



posted on Nov, 28 2018 @ 06:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Look2theSacredHeart

Your source says everything that was done is legal. So what is your problem?


No problem. I never debated the legality. I wondered about 2 things:
Is it wise for Trump's lawyer to say they were getting ammo against Mueller?

If Trump pardons someone who fed his lawyers info about the investigation, and lied to Mueller despite a plea deal, would that be witness tampering?



posted on Nov, 28 2018 @ 07:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Look2theSacredHeart

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Look2theSacredHeart

Your source says everything that was done is legal. So what is your problem?


No problem. I never debated the legality. I wondered about 2 things:
Is it wise for Trump's lawyer to say they were getting ammo against Mueller?

If Trump pardons someone who fed his lawyers info about the investigation, and lied to Mueller despite a plea deal, would that be witness tampering?


I guess the DNC rigging the primary to run a less likable candidate than Trump, or the DNC running a candidate that sparked no rapport with individuals, had consequences.

And if there was witness “tampering” as defined by the law, then laws were broken......

So, what laws were broken.

What lies are there concerning Trump? Like a FISA warrant based on rumors and right out fabrications?



posted on Nov, 28 2018 @ 07:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Look2theSacredHeart

Lied according to Mueller, maybe he did maybe he didn't. I would say it's very wise if it is indeed a witch hunt.

You seem to have an issue with what Trump did even though he followed the law. It is clearly an anti-Trump post and you called out and referenced a Trump hater and their anti-Trump post. Stop kidding yourself, you aren't fooling us.
edit on 28-11-2018 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 28 2018 @ 07:48 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Anti-Trump because it's not flattering information? I never said my opinion of Trump in this thread. Stayed as neutral as possible with the unflattering info so that there could be actual discussion.



posted on Nov, 28 2018 @ 07:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Arnie123

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: BlackJackal
You really should read the source material you are commenting on prior to commenting, otherwise you may end up looking like you don't know what you are commenting about.



While Mr. Downing’s discussions with the president’s team violated no laws


Ooops too late.
BJ is prone to emotional outburst, as all leftist are, they never read beyond the title and first paragraph, a failing proving to be there downfall and reinforces my view that they never think critically, just too literally.


No, I'm afraid I'm correct. If this really did play out like the news said it did, it is obstruction of justice.


Some legal experts believe that the feeding of information by Manafort's lawyers to the Trump legal team could amount to obstruction of justice or witness tampering, if Manafort disclosed confidential information or the president's side discussed the possibility of a pardon. But that would depend on exactly what was said.



"If you are trying to corruptly influence his testimony by dangling a pardon, that could be witness tampering," Daniel Goldman, a former federal prosecutor who is now an NBC News and MSNBC legal analyst, said on "Andrea Mitchell Reports."


link< br />

edit on 28-11-2018 by BlackJackal because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join