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

a reply to: SlapMonkey

You are being willfully ignorant, then, because the notes that I directly quoted for you expressly notes that someone doesn't have to be the

I was not speaking in terms of legalities only.

That is why I said "As it applies to how the law will look at this, I will have to look at it a bit further".

Did I not?

So, I don't think that I need to bold or italicize the pertinent portions of that definition--I'm certain that you can see that, by definition, "Company B" (Podesta Group) qualifies as an "Agent of a Foreign Principal" and could be charged under 22 U.S. Code § 612 in the same manner as Manafort and Gates if they did not register such activity with the Attorney General within specified timelines.

Quite possible, yes. Though, my original point still stands.

a reply to: matafuchs

Yet another right-winger who just wants to talk about Podesta Group. I mean, I get that nobody wants to talk about the dirt on their side in mixed company but in this specific circumstances, it's completely asinine.

They were both contracted by Manafort — one to handle the GOP and the other the Dems clearly — they both reported to and took direction from Manafort/Gates, they both new they were in effect acting as foreign agents and they both failed to file as such.

a reply to: matafuchs

Sure he can.
Can't a private citizen talk to a DOJ and not have his motives questioned?

Do you think they talked about golf and the grandkids?

a reply to: SlapMonkey

What's really interesting in all this (beyond the obvious indictment) is just how loosely lobbying is enforced in the US.

You have the Lobbying Disclosure Act which is supposed to be for domestic entities, which is what the Podesta Group initially filed under. I presume they did this because Manafort would be considered "domestic" in one definition or another.

Then you have the FARA (Foreign Agents Registration Act) which is for, obviously, foreign entities. Podesta Group filed their second disclosure under FARA, while the first was under the LDA.

FARA requires registration within 10 days of accepting a client. LDA requires 45. Both require multiple disclosures be filed each year. FARA is governed by DoJ. LDA is governed by the Senate Secretary and House Clerk.

Yet every single article I've found makes mention of the fact that DoJ "almost never prosecutes these types of issues, preferring to bring companies into compliance." Chris Dodd stated during a Senate Hearing that his committee had referred over 2,000 cases of noncompliance to DoJ and hadn't heard back about a single one of them.

It really is no wonder at all that a) lobbyists have such a firm grip on the government and b) that high powered lobbyists are willing to do what Manafort appears to have done, because up until Monday the chances of getting charged criminally for it were practically nil.

a reply to: soberbacchus

No they were just chatting.
One private citizen to another...



plotting to take over the world lol.

a reply to: Shamrock6

I'm going to go out on a limb and say the loose enforcement has a lot to do with the fact that the relationship between Congress and lobbyists is like a massive orgy and all their figurative appendages are so entwined that they can't be disentangled without causing substantial injury to both.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: matafuchs

Yet another right-winger who just wants to talk about Podesta Group. I mean, I get that nobody wants to talk about the dirt on their side in mixed company but in this specific circumstances, it's completely asinine.

They were both contracted by Manafort — one to handle the GOP and the other the Dems clearly — they both reported to and took direction from Manafort/Gates, they both new they were in effect acting as foreign agents and they both failed to file as such.

Yes are you in agreement that so far this is the biggest revelation in the indictments.

I have looked into the Mercury LLC, and it seems to me they were basically an equivalent of the Podesta group but for Republicans.

Now we find out both sides were pushing basically Russian influence to who knows how many political figures.

This raises the following questions to me.

- What other lobbying firms were doing similar things, perhaps even with Manafort?
- Who else may these firms have been working for (other countries)?
- How much influence did these groups actually have?
- Did they influence Trump at the behest of Russia?
- Did they influence Hillary?
- How many politicians knew they were working for foreign governments when consulting with them?


And so forth.

My predicition is that there are people on both sides that dont want this investigation to go too deep.

a reply to: theantediluvian

Absolutely.

You can tell what a high priority it is for "them" by the fact that they have a whopping twelve investigators assigned to the unit that "enforces" FARA compliance.

I'm trying to find the article I saw that in, but that made my jaw drop a little.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Shamrock6

I'm going to go out on a limb and say the loose enforcement has a lot to do with the fact that the relationship between Congress and lobbyists is like a massive orgy and all their figurative appendages are so entwined that they can't be disentangled without causing substantial injury to both.

Which coming from my perspective (admittedly from the right) makes me question many peoples push that somehow Trump may be uniquely guilty for things like this.

Now maybe the investigation will show Trump promised Russia things for help winning the election; if show he should be removed from office and put in jail.

But as far as how its looking so far, it looks like a best for the people who want to see trump go down, he was mixed up with people that many other republicans and democrats, including Hillary, were also mixed up with.

At worst, it looks like the dirt actually may be even more on the establishment Republicans and democrats than Trump.

But who knows, perhaps Mueller has much more to show.

www.cnn.com... cnns take on podesta issue

On Monday, Podesta -- Tony, that is -- announced he was leaving the firm to concentrate full-time on his ties to special counsel Bob Mueller's investigation into Russia's attempt to influence the 2016 election. How did a prominent Democratic lobbyist get wrapped up in an investigation of Russia's efforts to help Trump and hurt Clinton in the 2016 race? By working with none other than Paul Manafort, the one-time campaign chairman for Trump, who now faces a 12-count indictment linked to his work in Ukraine. The Podesta Group, along with Manafort's firm, were tasked with leading an PR effort on behalf of a group called the European Centre for a Modern Ukraine. The ECFMU was a non-profit group whose true goal was allegedly to soften the Obama administration's opposition to the pro-Russian Ukrainian government in power at the time. (Several Ukrainian leaders were facing public condemnation from the American government for their treatment of political opponents.) The Podesta Group, along with Manafort's firm, were tasked with leading that effort on behalf of the European Centre for a Modern Ukraine. (In the indictment of Manafort unsealed on Monday, the Podesta Group appears to be referred to as "Company B" but never referred to specifically by name.)

so it seems podesta group is group b and hes being looked into becuase he and manaforte worked together ,the article states further down no evience as of yet has been found to disprove podestas claims but it is the early stages of the investigation

www.politico.com...

Democratic power lobbyist Tony Podesta, founder of the Podesta Group, is stepping down from the firm that bears his name after coming under investigation by special counsel Robert Mueller. Podesta announced his decision during a firm-wide meeting Monday morning and is alerting clients of his impending departure. Podesta’s decision to leave the firm came on the same day that former Donald Trump campaign aides Paul Manafort and Rick Gates were indicted on multiple charges, including money laundering, operating as federal agents of the Ukrainian government, failing to disclose overseas bank accounts and making false statements to federal authorities. Trump campaign foreign policy advisor George Papadopoulos pleaded guilty earlier this month for lying to the FBI about his contacts with Russian officials, according to court records. The investigation into Podesta and his firm grew out of investigators’ examination of Manafort’s finances. Manafort organized a PR campaign on behalf of a nonprofit called the European Centre for a Modern Ukraine. Podesta Group was one of several firms that were paid to do work on the PR campaign to promote Ukraine in the U.S. Podesta Group filed paperwork with the Justice Department in April stating that it had done work for the European Centre for a Modern Ukraine that also benefited the same Ukrainian political party that Manafort once advised. Podesta Group said at the time it believed its client was a European think tank untethered to a political party. Podesta is handing over full operational and financial control of the firm to longtime firm CEO Kimberley Fritts, according to multiple sources with knowledge of Monday's meeting. Fritts and a senior group of the Podesta team will be launching a new firm in the next one or two days. Sources said the transition has been in the works for the past several months.

so it seems its just in the early stages of the investigation and his stepping down has more to do with him wanting to devote more time to answer questions about his interactions with manforte.

www.nbcnews.com... it does seem there is an investigation into podesta but where that is going as of yet has not been made clear

WASHINGTON — Tony Podesta and the Podesta Group are now the subjects of a federal investigation being led by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, three sources with knowledge of the matter told NBC News. The probe of Podesta and his Democratic-leaning lobbying firm grew out of Mueller's inquiry into the finances of former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, according to the sources. As special counsel, Mueller has been tasked with investigating possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.

a reply to: theantediluvian

So, if you boss tells you to do something illegal there is nothing wrong with that? You will not get in trouble? Nice try.

It also does not matter who hired them. They did not file the correct paperwork. They did not disclose their actions. It is illegal. They did not file to hide what they did.

This is not right or left wing. I do not consider my self right wing. If the DNC or another party put up a better candidate in 2016 I would have voted for them. You assume to much sometimes.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
Yep. Reading the actual document pretty clearly lays that, so I'm not sure why the opinion-writer went the direction he did with it.

I'm pretty sure why, it makes for a better story since it sounds more conspiratorial.

originally posted by: soberbacchus
I would only add that it is not enough for the prosecutor to believe that the attorney falsely provided information or documents, they must prove it. In Manaforts case they did that.

I didn't see the documents but if he got his attorney to unwittingly file false documents on his behalf and they have evidence of this then the scumbag really screwed himself.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: soberbacchus
I would only add that it is not enough for the prosecutor to believe that the attorney falsely provided information or documents, they must prove it. In Manaforts case they did that.

I didn't see the documents but if he got his attorney to unwittingly file false documents on his behalf and they have evidence of this then the scumbag really screwed himself.

I posted it earlier, but will again here for reference:

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: soberbacchus


Thanks, missed them earlier.

Yeah, it looks like they lied to her and got the attorney to misrepresent their dealings.

They're screwed.

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

Guessing you didn't read the indictment....the fraud is all from his days with the dems....2006-2014....and the Podestas in particular.

I guess do not think that President Trump only been in office like less than a year, but somehow he is the focus of all this going back 10 plus years...lol

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: matafuchs

Yet another right-winger who just wants to talk about Podesta Group. I mean, I get that nobody wants to talk about the dirt on their side in mixed company but in this specific circumstances, it's completely asinine.

They were both contracted by Manafort — one to handle the GOP and the other the Dems clearly — they both reported to and took direction from Manafort/Gates, they both new they were in effect acting as foreign agents and they both failed to file as such.

Which is where McCain comes in and makes it obvious to anyone looking that he is VERY involved in this mess.

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: theantediluvian

So, if you boss tells you to do something illegal there is nothing wrong with that? You will not get in trouble? Nice try.

It also does not matter who hired them. They did not file the correct paperwork. They did not disclose their actions. It is illegal. They did not file to hide what they did.

This is not right or left wing. I do not consider my self right wing. If the DNC or another party put up a better candidate in 2016 I would have voted for them. You assume to much sometimes.

No, you're not understanding. There were TWO groups — Podesta Group and Mercury. You keep talking about Podesta Group but you're ignoring Mercury.

Both of them are guilty of exactly the same thing. They were doing the exact same Ukrainian lobbying for Manafort. They are referenced as "Company A" and "Company B" in the indictment. I'm not defending Podesta Group at all, I'm trying to point out that that's there's ALSO this other group, Mercury, that you keep missing.

Which kinda illustrates what I was saying.

originally posted by: theantediluvian

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: theantediluvian

So, if you boss tells you to do something illegal there is nothing wrong with that? You will not get in trouble? Nice try.

It also does not matter who hired them. They did not file the correct paperwork. They did not disclose their actions. It is illegal. They did not file to hide what they did.

This is not right or left wing. I do not consider my self right wing. If the DNC or another party put up a better candidate in 2016 I would have voted for them. You assume to much sometimes.

No, you're not understanding. There were TWO groups — Podesta Group and Mercury. You keep talking about Podesta Group but you're ignoring Mercury.

Both of them are guilty of exactly the same thing. They were doing the exact same Ukrainian lobbying for Manafort. They are referenced as "Company A" and "Company B" in the indictment. I'm not defending Podesta Group at all, I'm trying to point out that that's there's ALSO this other group, Mercury, that you keep missing.

Which kinda illustrates what I was saying.

Have you been able to find anything on Mercury.

I spent about a half hour looking in to them, and cant find much.

I know they were founded by a Republican, and they seemed to work the republican angle more than democrats. But I didnt find if they were attached to any specific people.

The whole things a damn mess.

But I think its a win for the people that this is coming to light.

The biggest reason i voted for Donald was to show the corruption of the establishment, and how the major players on both parties are actually on the same corrupt team.

Ironically, this investigation; which could take trump himself down with it, may be the best chance of that happening.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: SlapMonkey


I was not speaking in terms of legalities only.

That is why I said "As it applies to how the law will look at this, I will have to look at it a bit further".

Did I not?

But I am speaking in terms of legalities only--that has been my entire chain of discussion since my first comment in this thread.

I was just helping you look at it a bit further, because you were being very adamant that The Podesta Group didn't do anything as serious as Manafort and Gates--my contention is that (a) you don't know that, and (b) from what we seem to know, assuming that they are actually "Company B," yes, they did ,in terms of illegalities (at least as it applies to being an agent of a foreign principal, which is all that I've been arguing from the start).

You claimed that, since they were 'just a third-party contractor,' so to speak, that weren't an agent of a foreign principal. I have shown you otherwise.

I'm not sure what more you need, to be honest. Like I said, if you still won't accept it, that's willful ignorance by definition.

Quite possible, yes. Though, my original point still stands.

Again...no, not "quite possible," but Company B absolutely falls under the definition of an agent of a foreign principal--again, what more do you need?

Also, what point still stands? I've lost your original point in the shuffle of my back-and-forths in this thread.

Keep in mind, I've never claimed that either is absolutely guilty, just that they all could be charged under the elements of 612. Guilt can only be decided in a court of law.