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

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.

That is not proof that they are not from the Planet Mars either.

If you are claiming that Tony Podesta worked directly for Ukraine or Russia, then support the claim rather than demand people disprove a negative.

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

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.

Until there is a 12 count indictment that remains "speculation".

originally posted by: introvert
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.

Silly games?

This is what you do.

You say that we cant make definitive claims unless we have absolute proof, and if you do that you are a liar.

The indictment saying they worked for Manafort is in no way proof that they did not work directly for a foreign government.

I dont have to provide proof of anything; you are the one claiming you that it is a fact that they didnt work directly with a foreign government.

So go ahead, show me the proof that they didn't or admit that you were lying.

a reply to: introvert

In the interest of getting all relevant information out there:

The Podesta Group filed disclosures admitting they'd done work that had ended up benefitting a foreign political party.

That was months ago, and it was the second filing related to their work for Manafort that they'd submitted (second, because the first one they filed circumvented the FARA rules) that acknowledged who the beneficiary was.

So it's really more a question of what did they know at the time, rather than if they did or did not know, period.

a reply to: soberbacchus

And it was being rumored by sources within the campaign that trump maintained communication with Manafort for a long time after he left.

originally posted by: soberbacchus

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.

That is not proof that they are not from the Planet Mars either.

If you are claiming that Tony Podesta worked directly for Ukraine or Russia, then support the claim rather than demand people disprove a negative.

Where did I claim that.

Intorvert has repeatedly called me a liar for saying that i make absolutist claaims without proof.

Here he is making an absolutist claim.

He didnt say "I havent seen evidence they worked directly with a foreign government"

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

Then he again lied and said that the indictment and the portion on the working with Manafort proved this.

So as per his own standars, nothing he says is to be trusted because he is lying about this.

a reply to: introvert

Not yet...you really do not think it weird Tony Podesta suddenly stepped down?

a reply to: introvert

The Podestas worked directly for the Ukrainian government.How they said they worked for them is what is under investigation.

Link

The Podesta Group said it arranged meetings with unnamed "Ukrainian officials." One of those meetings connected Ukraine's foreign minister Leonid Kozhara met with Senator Christopher Murphy, a Connecticut Democrat who was chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's Europe subcommittee, Murphy spokesman Chris Harris said. Kozhara was a founder of the center and a close adviser to President Yanukovych.

The Podesta Group said it was not trying to conceal the Kozhara meeting, and that it named only former heads of state for whom it arranged meetings. As Podesta Group lobbyists met privately with officials in Washington, they left a clear impression that they were representing Ukraine's government, according to seven people who were lobbied. "It seemed pretty clear (the center) was just a front for Yanukovych," said Dan Harsha, who was lobbied in 2013 while he was communications director for Democrats on the House Foreign Affairs Committee. "It wasn't just an independent think tank in Europe. There are not too many nonprofits with the wherewithal or the resources to hire perhaps the most prestigious Democratic lobbying group." Kenneth Wollack, president of the National Democratic Institute, which promotes democracy internationally, recalled meeting with Tony Podesta in April 2012 as his group was focusing on the upcoming Ukrainian election. "That's when I found out there was a connection between the Podesta Group and the Ukraine government," Wollack said. The Podesta Group did not dispute that its employees said they were representing the Ukrainian government's interests.

a reply to: Sillyolme

Oh no! They talked. Can the POTUS not talk with Private Citizens...I think this is the part of your fairy tale you spin....better than hanging out with he Muslim Brotherhood.

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: introvert
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.

Silly games?

This is what you do.

You say that we cant make definitive claims unless we have absolute proof, and if you do that you are a liar.

The indictment saying they worked for Manafort is in no way proof that they did not work directly for a foreign government.

I dont have to provide proof of anything; you are the one claiming you that it is a fact that they didnt work directly with a foreign government.

So go ahead, show me the proof that they didn't or admit that you were lying.

I did not lie.

Read the Manafort indictment.

They worked for Manafort.

a reply to: Grambler

From the Podesta Group's perspective:

The Podesta Group has repeatedly insisted that it was unaware that Manafort was using the European Centre for a Modern Ukraine to improve the image of then-Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych.

The Podesta Group's work for ECFMU, a nonprofit think tank, was in support of Ukraine's admission to the EU, a position supported by foreign policy experts at the time. The ECFMU provided formal certification that it was neither funded by nor directed by a government or political party."

CNN

I'm no legal expert, so I'm not sure if that means anything. I've heard that Mueller is investigating the Podesta Group, I'm not against that.

I guess you could say that the Podesta Group had good reason to believe that they were not working for a foreign government.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: soberbacchus

And it was being rumored by sources within the campaign that trump maintained communication with Manafort for a long time after he left.

Just a sample from Nov. 28 2016

Manafort may never have the same visible role in Trump’s inner circle that he once had, but he maintains strong ties with key members of the transition team and with Trump himself.

Since then, he hasn’t gone away so much as reverted to form, working behind the scenes. In the campaign’s final weeks, he was in close touch with Trump; Politico reported that Manafort helped the campaign develop a strategy to exploit the news when James Comey announced, 11 days before the election, that the FBI was looking at a new trove of e-mails from the private server Clinton operated as secretary of state. In the closing days, according to Politico, Manafort encouraged Trump to go after blue-collar votes in Michigan, which he did. Manafort’s advice, and his loyalty, proved useful until the end.

A source close to Manafort says he’s in regular contact with the vice president-elect, as well as with Trump’s attorney general pick, Jeff Sessions, the Republican senator from Alabama and a Trump supporter and confidant. (Manafort and Sessions have known each other since the ’70s.) And Manafort is also close with Tom Barrack, the billionaire founder of Colony Capital, who has a spot at the top of Trump’s inaugural committee.

www.bloomberg.com...

a reply to: Grambler

Intorvert has repeatedly called me a liar for saying that i make absolutist claaims without proof.

No. I called you a liar for making false statements and fabricating nonsense.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: introvert

In the interest of getting all relevant information out there:

The Podesta Group filed disclosures admitting they'd done work that had ended up benefitting a foreign political party.

That was months ago, and it was the second filing related to their work for Manafort that they'd submitted (second, because the first one they filed circumvented the FARA rules) that acknowledged who the beneficiary was.

So it's really more a question of what did they know at the time, rather than if they did or did not know, period.

That is much more accurate. They will have to account for the work they have done.

Fact remains, they worked for Manafort and not directly for the Ukrainian government.

originally posted by: introvert
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.

Where there's smoke....

They've already been outed as having to refile multiple deals under FARA....and not just related to Manafort. A lobbying company knows the rules....especially after this long. Filing incorrectly is not a mistake they make, it is a mindful and purposeful decision made by the top dogs.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: introvert
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.

Silly games?

This is what you do.

You say that we cant make definitive claims unless we have absolute proof, and if you do that you are a liar.

The indictment saying they worked for Manafort is in no way proof that they did not work directly for a foreign government.

I dont have to provide proof of anything; you are the one claiming you that it is a fact that they didnt work directly with a foreign government.

So go ahead, show me the proof that they didn't or admit that you were lying.

I did not lie.

Read the Manafort indictment.

They worked for Manafort.

Again, that does not prove they also didnt directly work for a foreign government, which was your claim.

like if I say "Intorvert doesnt eat bananas"

Someone may say prove it.

I then say "we have proof that yesterday introvert ate an apple"

That is not proof you dont eat bananas.

PM me if you need a quick run down on how basic logic works.

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: introvert

The Podestas worked directly for the Ukrainian government.How they said they worked for them is what is under investigation.

Link

The Podesta Group said it arranged meetings with unnamed "Ukrainian officials." One of those meetings connected Ukraine's foreign minister Leonid Kozhara met with Senator Christopher Murphy, a Connecticut Democrat who was chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's Europe subcommittee, Murphy spokesman Chris Harris said. Kozhara was a founder of the center and a close adviser to President Yanukovych.

The Podesta Group said it was not trying to conceal the Kozhara meeting, and that it named only former heads of state for whom it arranged meetings. As Podesta Group lobbyists met privately with officials in Washington, they left a clear impression that they were representing Ukraine's government, according to seven people who were lobbied. "It seemed pretty clear (the center) was just a front for Yanukovych," said Dan Harsha, who was lobbied in 2013 while he was communications director for Democrats on the House Foreign Affairs Committee. "It wasn't just an independent think tank in Europe. There are not too many nonprofits with the wherewithal or the resources to hire perhaps the most prestigious Democratic lobbying group." Kenneth Wollack, president of the National Democratic Institute, which promotes democracy internationally, recalled meeting with Tony Podesta in April 2012 as his group was focusing on the upcoming Ukrainian election. "That's when I found out there was a connection between the Podesta Group and the Ukraine government," Wollack said. The Podesta Group did not dispute that its employees said they were representing the Ukrainian government's interests.

Here is the title of the piece you just linked:

Podesta lobby group did not disclose extent of work for Ukrainian campaign advised by Paul Manafort

Advised by Paul Manafort.

Manafort hired them.

Manafort paid them.

They thought they were working for Manafort on behalf of a non-profit NGO.

As another member stated, what they knew and when they knew it remains to be seen.

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

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.

"from his days with the dems"

Keep those blinders fixed tight. First off, you got the years wrong. Secondly, right-wingers somehow keep ignoring that Podesta Group was ONE of TWO DC lobbying firms contracted for the ECFMU (Ukrainian) lobbying.

The other firm was GOP super-lobbyist (and former senior assistant to Newt Gingrich) Ed Kutler's firm, Mercury. Just like Podesta Group, they lobbied for Ukraine under the direction of Manafort/Gates and just like the Podesta Group, they didn't do their FARA filing until after Manafort did his in April.

Manafort is a Republican, has been forever. Worked on campaigns of Ford, Reagan, H.W. Bush and Dole, including producing national conventions.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: SlapMonkey


Read the media reports and the indictment for Manafort.

I did read the endictment--all of it--the morning that it was released.

I also understood it, as reading federal indictments in a part of my day job.

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.

I edited and modified my comment to which you responded to explain the "why" behind the Podesta Group being legally culpable under the same charge (22 U.S. Code § 612), but I'll expand even further.

The definition of a "principal" is as follows:

18 U.S. Code § 2 - Principals

(a) Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal.

(b) Whoever willfully causes an act to be done which if directly performed by him or another would be an offense against the United States, is punishable as a principal.

The notes of this section indicate this:

The section as revised makes clear the legislative intent to punish as a principal not only one who directly commits an offense and one who “aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures” another to commit an offense, but also anyone who causes the doing of an act which if done by him directly would render him guilty of an offense against the United States.

It removes all doubt that one who puts in motion or assists in the illegal enterprise but causes the commission of an indispensable element of the offense by an innocent agent or instrumentality, is guilty as a principal even though he intentionally refrained from the direct act constituting the completed offense.

So, as I noted, whether the Podesta Group was the direct "Agent of a Foreign Principal," or if they were just acting on behalf of one--even as a paid lobbyist--they are still just as guilty as Manafort.

See, media reports don't mean jack to those of us whose day job it is to actually understand the elements of U.S. code and how indictments are written. I fully understand what is included in the indictment, and I fully comprehend the reality that the Podesta Group could be charged exactly the same way that Manafort and Gates are under Count 10 of their indictment.

I hope that this helps you understand the same thing.

a reply to: introvert

I'm a little lost at what you guys are arguing about, although to me, it seems apparent that the Podesta Group was working for a non-profit, not a foreign government, and that non-profit had claimed that they were not funded or directed by a government or political party.

The Podesta Group said in the new filings that it did not know who funded the center, and provided a written statement in which the center's executive director says it is not "supervised, directed, controlled, financed or subsidized" by a foreign government or political party.

CNN

Even so, I get the picture that the center may have been working for Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych (although the Podesta Group did not know this). It is a little unclear to me.

Meanwhile, Paul Manafort was probably acutely aware of this, as he was active in promoting Viktor Yanukovych using the center's resources...