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

originally posted by: introvert
What the Podestas may have done is not comparable to what Manafort has done.

Out of sheer curiosity, how do you know that? You have the evidence against the Podestas? Have you seen an indictment? Have you talked with investigators or the prosecutors?

You are making quite the bold assertion without anything with which to bolster the claim.

ETA:

originally posted by: introvert
Manafort is accused of ... working for the head of a foreign government pushing pro-Russia interests.

The Podesta Group worked for Manafort for what was supposed to be a non-profit NGO, doing some lobbying work.

Come to find out it was an organization backed by foreign government money.

Connected, yes, but not the same.

I see where the hole in your logic is: The charge isn't that he was acting as an agent of a foreign government (that is legal), it's that he was an agent of a foreign government and associated lobbying groups WITHOUT DECLARING IT (an "Unregistered Agent of a Foreign Principal).

If the Podesta Group was doing the same thing, even as a third-party group, and didn't declare it, they, too, can be charged under the same 22 U.S. Code § 612.

It is the same thing, even if it's one company removed.

haha... all leading back to the dems

a reply to: SlapMonkey

You are making quite the bold assertion without anything with which to bolster the claim.

Read the media reports and the indictment for Manafort.

The Podesta Group has not been accused of any money schemes and the Podesta Group did not work directly for a foreign head of state trying to push pro-Russian interests.

a reply to: Vasa Croe

Except that the behavior continued right up until recently. As soon as he became chair of the campaign he was on the computer sending emails to interests in Cyprus asking how he can get whole. I'm no international financial genius but I think he was implying that he was in a position to grant favors and Indeed did present an abridged republican platform lessening strangle holds on Russia to the republican national committee at the convention. Soooooo🎶

a reply to: matafuchs

Once upon a time, a long long time ago there lived a.....oh wait...I thought it was fairy tale hour for a moment there.

a reply to: soberbacchus

Everything about this guy is sleazy. He's like a tv thug mafia don.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Except that the behavior continued right up until recently. As soon as he became chair of the campaign he was on the computer sending emails to interests in Cyprus asking how he can get whole. I'm no international financial genius but I think he was implying that he was in a position to grant favors and Indeed did present an abridged republican platform lessening strangle holds on Russia to the republican national committee at the convention. Soooooo🎶

Seriously? Lessening? The only lessening that was done was when Obama and Hillary allowed Russia to buy our Uranium, build RUSNANO USA in the US. The stranglehold was put on Russia because they likely realized they were being played by the Obama administration and tried to fight back...hence sanctions which were conveniently avoided by RUSNANO, the Presid3nt of which was appointed by Putin himself, and the President of the US division was conveniently on the board of Joule....you know....that company John Podesta made $35million from....coincicidence though right?

Playing dumb and being dumb are 2 totally different beasts.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: SlapMonkey

You are making quite the bold assertion without anything with which to bolster the claim.

the Podesta Group did not work directly for a foreign head of state trying to push pro-Russian interests.

Prove it.

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: SlapMonkey

You are making quite the bold assertion without anything with which to bolster the claim.

the Podesta Group did not work directly for a foreign head of state trying to push pro-Russian interests.

Prove it.

Easy. They worked for Manafort.

a reply to: introvert

So are the Podestas. You are all in denial now that the truth is out. If Manafort did those things send him away. Not my president and not part of his Cabinet and not part of my government.

Same thing with the Podestas. If you did something wrong you need to pay for your crime when there is evidence. The issue with the Podestas is that is a direct line to Clinton..and Obama.

This is a good article that was out recently.

Link

Justice officials involved in the “silent” 2009 to 2015 investigation of Rosatom include Robert Mueller, James Comey, Rod Rosenstein, and Andrew McCabe – all intertwined in the ongoing investigation of President Donald Trump’s alleged collusion with Russia. The failure of this “gang of four” to blow the whistle on Rosatom means they must recuse themselves from any Russian investigations, Robert Mueller included. The attempts in Washington to link Trump with Russia may turn out to shine light on much bigger scandals. It is time to investigate the investigators.

Comey would not play ball and he is gone. Only one left is Mueller. He has a job to do and it is not to convict DJT of anything. It is to save his own ass.

a reply to: introvert

I agree with introvert, the Podestas weren't involved in laundering Manafort's money, although it seems like Manafort and Gates were working together. There is no evidence or even speculation that the Podestas were involved in money-laundering like Manafort was.

Of course, Tony Podesta could be in trouble.

The Podesta Group didn't properly file disclosure forms detailing the 32 meetings it had with government officials at the State Department and the Vice President's office on behalf of the European Centre for a Modern Ukraine

CNN

I don't see how these are equal crimes, though. The money-laundering is definitely worse.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: SlapMonkey

You are making quite the bold assertion without anything with which to bolster the claim.

the Podesta Group did not work directly for a foreign head of state trying to push pro-Russian interests.

Prove it.

Easy. They worked for Manafort.

That is not proof they did not directly work for a foreign government.

They could have done both at the same time.

Prove your claim.

a reply to: matafuchs

That's all fine and dandy, but the PD has still not been accused of doing what Manafort has been accused of.

originally posted by: darkbake
a reply to: introvert

I agree with introvert, the Podestas weren't involved in laundering Manafort's money, although it seems like Manafort and Gates were working together. There is no evidence or even speculation that the Podestas were involved in money-laundering like Manafort was.

Of course, Tony Podesta could be in trouble.

The Podesta Group didn't properly file disclosure forms detailing the 32 meetings it had with government officials at the State Department and the Vice President's office on behalf of the European Centre for a Modern Ukraine

CNN

I don't see how these are equal crimes, though. The money-laundering is definitely worse.

It does appear as though Tony Podesta could be in a bit of trouble.

originally posted by: darkbake
a reply to: introvert


I don't see how these are equal crimes, though. The money-laundering is definitely worse.

Yes but we are all concerned mainly about Russian influence.

Isnt that what this is all about?

When it comes to peddling russian influence, it seems that Mercury LLC and the podesta group were working with Manafort and gates to do just that.

That to me is the most concerning charge in this indictment.

originally posted by: darkbake
a reply to: introvert

I agree with introvert, the Podestas weren't involved in laundering Manafort's money, although it seems like Manafort and Gates were working together. There is no evidence or even speculation that the Podestas were involved in money-laundering like Manafort was.

Of course, Tony Podesta could be in trouble.

The Podesta Group didn't properly file disclosure forms detailing the 32 meetings it had with government officials at the State Department and the Vice President's office on behalf of the European Centre for a Modern Ukraine

CNN

I don't see how these are equal crimes, though. The money-laundering is definitely worse.

Actually there has been speculation of Tony laundering through his art collection. I would not be surprised at all if this comes up again and is found to be true....he has MILLLIONS in art.

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: SlapMonkey

You are making quite the bold assertion without anything with which to bolster the claim.

the Podesta Group did not work directly for a foreign head of state trying to push pro-Russian interests.

Prove it.

Easy. They worked for Manafort.

That is not proof they did not directly work for a foreign government.

They could have done both at the same time.

Prove your claim.

I've seen no evidence to even suggest they worked directly for a foreign government.

Are you asking me to disprove a negative?

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: SlapMonkey

You are making quite the bold assertion without anything with which to bolster the claim.

the Podesta Group did not work directly for a foreign head of state trying to push pro-Russian interests.

Prove it.

Easy. They worked for Manafort.

That is not proof they did not directly work for a foreign government.

They could have done both at the same time.

Prove your claim.

I've seen no evidence to even suggest they worked directly for a foreign government.

Are you asking me to disprove a negative?

No I am asking you to prove your claim

the Podesta Group did not work directly for a foreign head of state trying to push pro-Russian interests.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: soberbacchus

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.

In fairness there is a slippery slope.

If in the limited questions the Special Counsel asked the Attorney, the Attorney lies, then the Attorney gets charged and the attorney-client privilege starts to disintegrate in it's entirety.

HERE is the Judges Ruling on allowing the Questioning of the Attorney:
www.politico.com...

Target 1, who was associated with the campaign of one presidential candidate—now the
President—and Target 2, who was Target 1’s employee (collectively, “the Targets”) at Target
Company, may have concealed from the government the extent of their lobbying actions on
behalf of a foreign government and foreign officials, in violation of federal criminal laws, by
submitting two letters through their former counsel, the Witness, containing false and misleading
information to the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”).1 The SCO seeks to compel the Witness
to testify before a grand jury regarding limited aspects of her legal representation of the Targets,
which testimony the SCO believes will reveal whether the Targets intentionally misled DOJ

With respect to the planned questions to the Witness before the grand jury, the SCO
stated that the witness would be asked “narrow questions to confirm the source of the facts she
submitted to the government, including whether her clients gave her the information represented
in the letter as coming from them and/or reviewed a draft of the letter for accuracy.”

1) “[W]ho are the sources of the specific factual representations in the November 2016 and
the February 2017 letters that [the Witness] sent to the FARA Registration Unit at DOJ?”
Hr’g Tr. (Sept. 26, 2017) (“Sept. 26 Tr.”) at 23:8–11, ECF No. 13-1
2) “Who are the sources of [Target Company’s] e-mail retention policy that was attached to
the November 2016 letter to the FARA Registration unit at DOJ?” Id. at 23:13–16;
3) “Whether --or if, [Target 2], [Target 1] or anyone else within [Target Company]
approved the [November 2016 or February 2017] letters before [the Witness] sent the two
letters to the FARA Registration Unit at DOJ?” Id. at 23:7–23;
4) “For each of the sources that are identified in response to th[e] prior three questions, what
did the source say “to [the Witness] about the specific statement in the letter?” Id. at
23:24–25, 24:1–3;6
5) “When” and “how” the Witness received communications from her clients, including
whether the conversations were by “phone, telephone, [or] e-mail[?]” Id. at 25:14–25,
26:1;
6) “[D]id anyone raise any questions or corrections with respect to the letter[?]” Id. at
26:13–15;
7) “[D]id [the Witness] memorialize [the conversations with her clients] in any way?” Id. at
26:15–16;
8) Whether [the Witness] “was careful with submitting these representations to the
Department of Justice? And if that was her practice, to review the submissions with her
clients before she did so[?]” Id. at 26:12–20.7

www.politico.com...

I think question 8 was the only one not allowed.

a reply to: Grambler

No I am asking you to prove your claim

We have no evidence to suggest they did work directly for a foreign government and in this case they worked for Manafort. So in this case we can say they did not work directly for a foreign head of state trying to push pro-Russian interests. Want proof? Read the Manafort indictment.

Do you have evidence they did work directly for a foreign government? If so, provide it.

Otherwise, it appears you are just trying to play silly games.