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

originally posted by: soberbacchus

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.

Gotta be more to it...they are said to be telling clients they are taking the Podesta name off of their group, as in renaming themselves and completely regarding.

Something much larger is coming that is going to ruin the Podesta name for good I believe.

originally posted by: soberbacchus
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.

Judge doesn't exist in a grand jury. A judge doesn't enter the picture until he is given the indictments then a magistrate judge does the paperwork to issue subpoenas and arrest warrants through the courts.

He never hears testimony he is not there to judge anything the grand jury decides. He isn't even there to make sure it's legal according to the law that is the prosecutors job through grand jury instructions.

Literally a grand jury could get an indictment on anything for anything. They could get one on your car for coruption charges.And the judge would allow it because under the law he doesn't have the power to over ride a grand jury decision only impliment their findings.

Grand jury proceedings are much more relaxed than normal court room proceedings. There is no judge present and frequently there are no lawyers except for the prosecutor. The prosecutor will explain the law to the jury and work with them to gather evidence and hear testimony. Under normal courtroom rules of evidence, exhibits and other testimony must adhere to strict rules before admission. However, a grand jury has broad power to see and hear almost anything they would like.

criminal.findlaw.com...

a reply to: introvert

You are correct but the problem is we do not know what other work the Podesta or the Mercury group was doing. This is one thing related to Manafort. They are a global organization and they do things like they did for the Ukraine all the time.

It is lobbying at its finest in Washington.

Both groups are exposed. If this was as simply RNC side witch hunt I am not sure that Mercury would have been included if they were simply going after Trump.

This is why i am really starting to believe that Mueller is being used to take down not Trump with Russian Collusion but going after someone else really big. Like they say follow the money but at some time someone had to make the decision to make that money and when it is found that there were sitting political figures who were assisting or making suggestions it will crack this all wide open.

a reply to: soberbacchus

It appears that, from something that I read yesterday, The Podesta Group had been losing income to about the tune of just under $1M per quarter over the past two quarters, and with the starting point being (from memory) in the mid-$7M, that's a LOT of loss...all presumed to be from the Manafort issues and their connection to him.

a reply to: dragonridr

Pretty much spot on.

Literally, in short, a grand jury is a bunch of citizens looking at the evidence that the attending prosecutor has, weighs it against he elements of the charge(s), and basically says that they do or do not agree that there is enough evidence to go forward officially with charges in a courtroom.

The evidentiary standards are also really lax in a grand jury versus a courtroom, so what evidence can result in an indictment may not be the same type or amount that makes it to trial. This is how, often times, cases get thrown out, because the evidence was sufficient for indictment, but not for trial...and THAT instance is where a judge can override a grand jury decision to go to trial, even if it's a roundabout way to do it.

ETA:

This site explains it quite well, and also mentions "preliminary hearings," which do involve a judge and is often substituted for a grand jury:

How Does A Grand Jury Work?

a reply to: SlapMonkey

The problem that I had with homefry's earlier comments is that he/she was using the argument that because a judge doesn't sit on the grand jury, the article was fake.

It utterly ignored the fact that the only thing the judge did was issue a ruling on the motion to compel, and instead tried to somehow claim that because the article mentioned a judge at all, it was fake.

Then went back and edited the original comment, and started trying to tell everybody else they don't know what a grand jury is.

As I said way back on page one, I didn't (and don't) agree with the spin that either the OP or the source opinion piece put on the judge's ruling....but I also don't agree with trying to spin it that because the OP source mentioned a judge at all, it's all fake.

a reply to: Shamrock6

Yeah, it seems that there is a lot of "adjusted" statements in this thread. It gets frustrating and hard to follow, and, quite honestly, makes me feel like I'm losing my mind because I remember reading on thing and then something else is claimed to have been said, then when I look back, I was correct.

I'm probably going to slowly back away from this thread at this point, as I think that I've contributed just about as much as I personally can on the matter and am going cross-eyed otherwise.

Maybe it's time for a second lunch...

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Is first lunch over? Then of course it's time for second lunch.

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

What dream - The charges against Manafort have nothing to do with Trump, and he is not flipping on him - he has already told this to his friend Roger Stone.

You are the one dreaming, praying that this somehow will affect Trump - it won't.

a reply to: dragonridr

Glad you are reading up on how Grand Jury's operate.

This is what you posted (even after editing)

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: aethertek



Need to close this for fake news!!! There is no judge at a grand jury

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!!!!

Hopefully by now you can acknowledge that Judge compelled testimony by Manafort's attorney.

secondly you say oddly false claims like this

originally posted by: [post=22826220]dragonridr

Never stick Mueller has to show he was attempting to hide the money from the government.

...

Other problem Mueller didnt charge him with tax evasion. This should have been his first charge just think Al capone it would out weigh every charge he made. But Mueller doesnt include it on the indictment?

The charges include precisely hiding money from the government and filing false tax returns.

docs.cbsnews.com...

Not sure how to discuss with someone that is incapable of agreeing the earth is round.

originally posted by: proximo

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

What dream - The charges against Manafort have nothing to do with Trump, and he is not flipping on him - he has already told this to his friend Roger Stone.

You are the one dreaming, praying that this somehow will affect Trump - it won't.

Politics aside...Manafort spent millions on socks and suits alone. He enjoys his lifestyle. G. Gordan Liddy he is not. Manafort will squeal the minute it looks like he will serve more than 24 hours behind bars.

a reply to: soberbacchus

Martha Stewart didn't squeal. People make deals you would never know about and he winds up taking a plea and doing a few years of Federal Prison Time. He comes out and he goes to his offshore accounts and he is back in business.

These guys in these positions are like the mob and no one goes to jail unless you have to or want to in the upper echelon.

There is more to come....

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: SlapMonkey

The problem that I had with homefry's earlier comments is that he/she was using the argument that because a judge doesn't sit on the grand jury, the article was fake.

It utterly ignored the fact that the only thing the judge did was issue a ruling on the motion to compel, and instead tried to somehow claim that because the article mentioned a judge at all, it was fake.

Then went back and edited the original comment, and started trying to tell everybody else they don't know what a grand jury is.

As I said way back on page one, I didn't (and don't) agree with the spin that either the OP or the source opinion piece put on the judge's ruling....but I also don't agree with trying to spin it that because the OP source mentioned a judge at all, it's all fake.

No that was what you decided not me. You apparently don't read or did not follow the conversation.

Either way the article claimed 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

This is untrue and fake news on the part of the opinion piece. He was not required to prove anything until he takes his case to court. The whole article is based on a false presumption.

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: soberbacchus

Martha Stewart didn't squeal.

Who the hell could she squeal on? Herself?

People make deals you would never know about and he winds up taking a plea and doing a few years of Federal Prison Time. He comes out and he goes to his offshore accounts and he is back in business.

Right. He is 68 and hasn't worked an honest day in his life. He spent 1.3 Million on clothes...He is not the type to spend any of his remaining days behind bars. He will squeal in trade for reduced sentence or probation. We wont hear about it until crap hits the fan.

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: soberbacchus

Martha Stewart didn't squeal.

Who the hell could she squeal on? Herself?

People make deals you would never know about and he winds up taking a plea and doing a few years of Federal Prison Time. He comes out and he goes to his offshore accounts and he is back in business.

Right. He is 68 and hasn't worked an honest day in his life. He spent 1.3 Million on clothes...He is not the type to spend any of his remaining days behind bars. He will squeal in trade for reduced sentence or probation. We wont hear about it until crap hits the fan.

No he wont your right ill bet Trump would commute any sentence he got. He will use hs age as the reason. In fact ill gi as far as saying Trump would have told him this.

a reply to: dragonridr

Meh. I'm not in the habit of trying to debate somebody who's demonstrated that they're willing to go back and edit posts to try and change their arguments.

For the third time: I said on page one I didn't see why, nor agree with, the OP and his source putting the spin on it that they did. But, that being said, the source is a blog and not a reputable journalist. It's an opinion piece, and it may be an opinion based off a faulty understanding of the grand jury process, but it's still an opinion and not fake news.

The subsequent pages worth of arguing has just been you trying to be right about something, when nobody else is even arguing about the topic you've shifted to try and argue about. Everybody you've engaged with knows that the judge isn't the one that heard testimony, so all your arguments about that point have been a waste of server space and time.

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: soberbacchus

Martha Stewart didn't squeal.

Who the hell could she squeal on? Herself?

People make deals you would never know about and he winds up taking a plea and doing a few years of Federal Prison Time. He comes out and he goes to his offshore accounts and he is back in business.

Right. He is 68 and hasn't worked an honest day in his life. He spent 1.3 Million on clothes...He is not the type to spend any of his remaining days behind bars. He will squeal in trade for reduced sentence or probation. We wont hear about it until crap hits the fan.

No he wont your right ill bet Trump would commute any sentence he got. He will use hs age as the reason. In fact ill gi as far as saying Trump would have told him this.

You still seem to be playing catch up.

Mueller involved state level prosecutors as he built his case.
The indictment was Federal, but there is a State level case in waiting if Trump looks to pardon and pardons don't cover state charges.

Investigations of Manafort in New York Are Beyond Trump’s Power to Pardon
www.nytimes.com...

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: soberbacchus

Martha Stewart didn't squeal. People make deals you would never know about and he winds up taking a plea and doing a few years of Federal Prison Time. He comes out and he goes to his offshore accounts and he is back in business.

These guys in these positions are like the mob and no one goes to jail unless you have to or want to in the upper echelon.

There is more to come....

Plea deals aside: If convicted on all counts...Manafort faces up to 80 years in federal prison, and Gates, who also worked for Trump, faces up to 70 years; including millions of dollars of fines for either one.

originally posted by: Erno86

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: soberbacchus

Martha Stewart didn't squeal. People make deals you would never know about and he winds up taking a plea and doing a few years of Federal Prison Time. He comes out and he goes to his offshore accounts and he is back in business.

These guys in these positions are like the mob and no one goes to jail unless you have to or want to in the upper echelon.

There is more to come....

Plea deals aside: If convicted on all counts...Manafort faces up to 80 years in federal prison, and Gates, who also worked for Trump, faces up to 70 years; including millions of dollars of fines for either one.

Just thinking out loud here.
Manafort has been living off of Dirty Money coming from Cypress shell companies he set up. He can't pay his lawyers without furthering his crimes?
Who is going to pay his legal fees?

I remember seeing this earlier this year:
Trump using campaign, RNC funds to pay legal bills from Russia probe:
www.reuters.com... OS

Wonder if he will pick up the tab for Paul as he seems in a bind.

a reply to: Erno86

That's how it works. You give someone 10 counts lets say. Then they plea down to one or two and he gets a few years and some fines. If he flips it could even be more different. The tops guys are not scared.

The little guy, the one who did flip, he was scared. They scared him enough he was working with the investigators. I am sure he had a wire.

That is how it works. The rich stay rich. Sucks doesn't it?