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

originally posted by: SlapMonkey


And for the nth and final time, that doesn't matter in regard to the law--and the law is what causes indictments to happen, and the law is what we're discussing in this thread.

As far as failure to register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act?

Many people and organizations are in violation of it.

So sure, technically the Podesta Group (could be) in violation of the act. Ditto Manafort. Ditto Flynn and others.

But that charge is a gravy charge, rarely applied by itself.

Much like someone that fires a gun in their backyard in a neighborhood for target practice might receive a charge of public endangerment, so might someone that shot three people on the corner, but they get public endangerment plus murder and a dozen other charges.

A lobbyist failing to register as an agent of a foreign government is one thing.
The Presidents Campaign Manager and National Security Advisor is another thing.

Of the 12 count indictment that Paul Manafort faces, the failure to register as a foreign agent is one of the lessor charges, but one of the most pivotal given he lied repeatedly about it in furtherance of a Money Laundering and Tax Evasion scheme involving Russian Oligarch's and Putin Allies.

And now this:

Trump nominee for top Agriculture post withdraws amid Russia probe
www.cnn.com...

Carter Page who just last week said he was taking the 5th, is now testifying to Congress.

People seem to be running scared.

Edit to add:
It does seem strange that despite the past 6 months of revelations, Trump CONTINUES to nominate, appoint and promote people who are revealed to have sufficiently illicit relations with Russia to warrant resignations and recusals.

originally posted by: soberbacchus
And now this:

Trump nominee for top Agriculture post withdraws amid Russia probe
www.cnn.com...

Carter Page who just last week said he was taking the 5th, is now testifying to Congress.

People seem to be running scared.

Edit to add:
It does seem strange that despite the past 6 months of revelations, Trump CONTINUES to nominate, appoint and promote people who are revealed to have sufficiently illicit relations with Russia to warrant resignations and recusals.

under normal circumstances another guy with obvious russian links would hopefully warrant a thread but hillary.

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: aethertek



Need to close this for fake news!!! There is no judge at a grand jury they are a group of citizens that a prosecutor selects tohear his case.

...
There is no judge i will say again there is no judge and the fact that the article lies. And this whole rticle is dependent on the fact that there is a judge makes everything they said wrong. Again fake news!!!!

Chief Judge Beryl A. Howell
The ruling here.
www.politico.com...

Judges are involved in the process of Subpoena's and issuing indictments etc (e.g. rule on whether certain witnesses can be compelled to testify)

Your post qualifies as "fake news" aimed at obfuscation and a false narrative.

Wrong judge doesnt hear any testimony to the grand jury. He. Simply takes their recomendations at face value. Its not his job to decide the legal merrits that is handled in the trial. This is why prosecutors get indictments 99.9 percent of the time. They control what the grand jury hears and sees without a judge or opposing council.

When the grand jury makes a decision it is taken to a federal judge aka magistrate judge to enforce the decisions not argue their Merritt.

a reply to: dragonridr

Wrong judge doesnt hear any testimony to the grand jury.

Sober didn't say a judge did hear testimony.

When the grand jury makes a decision it is taken to a federal judge to enforce the decisions

Which would be how a judge is involved in the process, which is what Sober did say.

And none of what you said does anything to support your original claim that this was "fake news" anyway.

a reply to: Shamrock6

If the magistrate judge doesnt hear testimony and isnt there to make decisions of merrits. Meaning he ist there to decide if the grand jurys decision is legal since you fail to see the relevance. The article claims because the judge allowed something which he ha no control of somehow means he agrees with Mueller. Again fake news

a reply to: soberbacchus

So, you're using the meh-it's-not-that-big-of-a-deal-because-it-doesn't-get-charged-that-much defense to try and trivialize my points for Tony Podesta and his group?

I don't care about it being one of the least-hefty charges, in the context that I'm discussing it with Introvert, it matters.

#AllChargesMatter

It's of further importance to focus on that charge because, as far as The Podesta Group is concerned, they filed incorrectly at the time, and didn't submit for a reclassification under FARA mandates until AFTER Manafort was getting called out on his wrongdoings.

It was a CYA move, and I suspect that The Podesta Group knew exactly what they were doing all along and were intentionally hiding the fact for political reasons (I mean...the brother of John Podesta?...that doesn't raise red flags?). Sure, the max penalty for failing to file under FARA "only" brings with it a fine of $10,000 or imprisonment of no more than five years, but it's not the judicial punishment that is the biggest thing with these people, it's the deeper ramifications--it's the actual enforcement of these laws so that maybe it starts curbing future behavior by these groups and people; it's the restoring of the rule of law that comes with it; it's the reality that, no matter what side of the aisle that you're on, laws matter at all times.

So, sure, it may not have the sex appeal of other charges or the dollar amounts associated with them, but the law still matters and is worth indicting over.

And the filing under FARA is supposed to happen every six months, so if they did it for two years, there could conceivably be four or five counts for the same charge, bringing the penalties up to 20-25 years in prison. That's not insignificant.

Paul Manafort exhibited a pattern of criminal behavior that went beyond failing to file proper forms.

If the Podesta Group is guilty of not filing appropriate forms, it should be punished.

This is merely another smoke-screen in the larger scheme of things.

a reply to: dragonridr

The article isn't an article, it's an opinion piece.

So no, I don't "see the relevance" because you're splitting a hair that nobody who understands the law is splitting. You're ignoring, either willfully or ignorantly, the facts of the matter in your pursuit to control the narrative.

The judge didn't hear testimony. The only person arguing about that is you.

The judge did hear a motion to compel testimony, and issued a ruling. The only person ignoring that is you.

The judge, and only the judge, can hear motions to compel testimony. A grand jury is not qualified to do so, and does not do so.

The entire memo issued by the judge pertains to compelling the witness to testify. The word "indict" is used only once in the entire 37 page document, and even then it's only used in reference to a Position Paper the defense sent the prosecutor asking them not to indict.

You're trying to dismiss the entire thing because you're ignoring most of what is actually said and chasing a rabbit that is entirely of your own fabrication. You clearly have decided to interpret the fact that a judge heard arguments for a motion to compel testimony as somehow meaning the article claims the judge heard grand jury arguments and issued a decision. That is utterly false, and the only person claiming that narrative is you.

Again, either you're being willfully disingenuous in an effort to control the narrative, or you're just laughably clueless about a topic you've decided to try and debate.

a reply to: bgerbger

Tock, tock, Boom!

"It now appears that despite pledges to the contrary, U.S. uranium made its way overseas as a part of the Uranium One deal," Grassley said in the statement. "What’s more disturbing, those transactions were apparently made possible by various Obama Administration agencies while the Democrat-controlled Congress turned a blind eye.

Uranium One deal led to some exports to Europe, memos show

a reply to: thepixelpusher

Hmmm ... wrong thread?

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: soberbacchus

#AllChargesMatter

Love that hash-tag. Perhaps share it with the Whitehouse?

a reply to: Shamrock6

This opinion piece is based on a false premise. A magistrate judge must have agreed with Mueller based off the fact he issued a subpoena. Took make this easy for you the grand jury decides who to indict and who to subpoena. They hand a list to the magistrate and he issues them. He is not herr tomake any legal judgment on their validity. That point will be argued at the trial then a federal judge will make a decision if a lawyer should be compelled to testify.

So since this opinion implies the judge issuing the subpoena must somehow prove anything is stupid. His job is to issue any and all subpoenas they request.

a reply to: dragonridr

you continue to be wrong in multiple ways even after pretending you never claimed this was fake news and the judge did not exist.

a reply to: dragonridr

Can you remind us of any special qualifications you have to make pronouncements on legal and law-enforcement matters?

You seem to be struggling in a mire of generality ...

a reply to: dragonridr

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.”

Try again, your deflection shields seem to be malfunctioning.

K~

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Paul Manafort exhibited a pattern of criminal behavior that went beyond failing to file proper forms.

If the Podesta Group is guilty of not filing appropriate forms, it should be punished.

This is merely another smoke-screen in the larger scheme of things.

That is how I am taking this.

The Podesta Group would not have been required to register under the FARA act if they were not working on behalf of a foreign political party or government. They would only have to register under the Lobbying Disclosure Act, which they had done.

Once it was discovered that they were in fact working for a government-backed think tank, they filed with FARA.

This is all going to boil down to what they knew and when they knew it. If they were deceived and did not know all of the details, I think they will be fine.

If they knew full well who they were working with, then they will get slapped pretty hard.

a reply to: dragonridr

K well that's not what you've been arguing about all along, and I'm not really interested in chasing down your goalposts.

I said way back on page one that I disagreed with the spin that the opinion piece was putting on the fact that the judge agreed with the motion to compel.

Took make this easy for you

You can stop with that nonsense because at this point I think it's pretty evident that there are several people in this thread, myself included, that a) know better than you do how a grand jury works and b) can make a clear and concise point about it, which you've so far failed to do.

His job is to issue any and all subpoenas they request.

No, it's not. Which is why the prosecution had to file a motion to compel testimony, given that the witness in question had attempted to invoke attorney-client privilege. The judge had to rule whether or not attorney-client privilege applied to the attorney in question or not.

(That's another example of how several other people, myself included, have a better grasp on the legal system than you do, in case you're confused. )

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Paul Manafort exhibited a pattern of criminal behavior that went beyond failing to file proper forms.

If the Podesta Group is guilty of not filing appropriate forms, it should be punished.

This is merely another smoke-screen in the larger scheme of things.

Here's the problem at this point: We don't know what else has been uncovered about The Podesta Group, so we shouldn't just assume that failing to properly file is the only evidence that we have at this point.

But, we agree--if that's all that they're guilty of, they should be punished. I doubt that's all that will come of this investigation, though. "Just" not filing (well, filing incorrectly) shouldn't be enough to have pushed Tony Podesta to leave his group. Methinks there are more shenanigans that will be revealed.

Methinks also that "methinks" is an underused word.

Low blood sugar...must...eat...something...

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Paul Manafort exhibited a pattern of criminal behavior that went beyond failing to file proper forms.

If the Podesta Group is guilty of not filing appropriate forms, it should be punished.

This is merely another smoke-screen in the larger scheme of things.

"Just" not filing (well, filing incorrectly) shouldn't be enough to have pushed Tony Podesta to leave his group. Methinks there are more shenanigans that will be revealed.

My thinking was that Tony Podesta became a liability once it became public he had worked with Paul Manafort representing an org that was a front for the corrupt leader of Ukraine/Putin Puppet.

More that he would cost them business if he stayed.

It will be interesting to see where it leads though.