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

originally posted by: ketsuko
I'm getting a sinking feeling that these two lobbying firms have been the main clearinghouses for dirty foreign influence peddling, and what we're going to see is basically a version of the ACORN takedown. All sound a fury signifying nothing. A few heads will roll, but the main operations will more or less scatter away to new clearinghouses in the swamp and business will continue as usual.

For sure...but there is another power player too...Edelman. wouldn't be surprised if they/he is shredding docs and refilling plenty as I type this.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

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

Ok. I was speaking about the technicalities involved. Specifically in regards to the lobbying groups and who they worked for.

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

I never said that. I said that what they did is slightly different. In regards to the law, they may look at it the same way, but it is still different.

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).

Ok. They still did not directly work for the Ukrainian government, as far as I know.

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 claimed no such thing.

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.

It seems you are trying to argue a point with me that I never made.

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

That they did not do exactly the same thing as Manafort.

originally posted by: ketsuko
I'm getting a sinking feeling that these two lobbying firms have been the main clearinghouses for dirty foreign influence peddling, and what we're going to see is basically a version of the ACORN takedown. All sound a fury signifying nothing. A few heads will roll, but the main operations will more or less scatter away to new clearinghouses in the swamp and business will continue as usual.

This is why I have been patient with Mueller.

he could turn out to be a stooge for Trump or Hillary.

But I have a gut feeling that there are a lot of people in all areas involved with this, hence the revolving door between military, politciians, lobbbyists, intel agencies, etc.

The best chancce we have against them is sort of a benevolent individual that isnt hamstrung by them.

I am not optimistic, but maybe Mueller has had a gut full and he will go for anyone guilty he finds on any side.

I dont care if its trump, Obama, Hillary, Pence, McCain, whoever. Drain all of the swamp.

Now realistically, that most likely not going to happen.

It willl probably be all bluster, and no real person of consequence will get punished.

But I can dream

a reply to: Damiel

I feel certain he got it straight from Steele. He has had it in for Trump and could easily have been the Republican entity that also paid Fusion for the info prior to the DNC jumping in.

With lobbying companies playing both sides it is a likely scenario actually.

a reply to: Vasa Croe
It's all about golf courses and real estate baybee !

Golf courses and real estate ..
In nice warm, sandy, prohibitionist countries

From Newsweek last year :

How the Trump Organization's Foreign Business Ties Could Upend U.S. National Security

If Donald Trump is elected president, will he and his family permanently sever all connections to the Trump Organization, a sprawling business empire that has spread a secretive financial web across the world?

Or will Trump instead choose to be the most conflicted president in American history, one whose business interests will constantly jeopardize the security of the United States?

... Intro ..
Most relevant part about Saudi and middle east in general :

Trump has pursued business opportunities in the oil-rich nation for years, with mixed success.

His first venture was in 2005, when the Trump Organization struck a branding deal with a top Emirates developer called Nakheel LLC, backed by Dubai’s royal family, that planned to build a tulip-shaped hotel on a man-made island designed to look like a palm tree.

In 2008, a bribery and corruption probe was launched involving the company’s multibillion-dollar Dubai Waterfront project.

Two Nakheel executives were charged with fraud and cleared, but Nakheel’s financial condition deteriorated amid a collapse in real estate prices; the Trump project was delayed and then canceled.

So, in 2013, the Trump Organization struck another branding deal, this time with Nakheel’s archrival, Damac Properties, a division of the Damac Group, that wanted the Trump name on a planned 18-hole PGA Championship golf course.

The deal was negotiated by Hussain Ali Sajwani, chairman of Damac, who had engaged in controversial land deals with senior government officials in the UAE.

He met personally with Trump about the project, and their relationship grew, ultimately leading to Damac working with the Trump Organization on two branded golf courses and a collection of villas in Dubai.

According to the former executive with the Trump Organization, Trump has said he personally invested in some of the Dubai projects.

Trump became president of the goddamUSofA
to sell more Golf courses !?!

The more I am reading the more it seems this Mueller investigation may be backfiring for those how wanted to take Trump down. It is once again simply showing what we knew all along. There is no two party system. They all work both sides of the aisle until they need something on one side. Then there is debate. Concessions. and LOTS of money.

The DNC and the RINOs are all suddenly exposed and there is no way to walk it back because you do not have the protection they did in Lynch, Comey, Holder, Clinton and Obama along with folks like McCain and his merry band of Republicans. The list goes on and on.

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: angeldoll

This doesn't mean what you think it means.

oh. Can somebody link me up to what it means? (I really thought it was treason.)
Seriously.

Introvert? help.

originally posted by: angeldoll

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: angeldoll

This doesn't mean what you think it means.

oh. Can somebody link me up to what it means? (I really thought it was treason.)
Seriously.

Introvert? help.

I think treason entails a charge that the individual has declared or engaged in war against the US, or aiding it's enemies.

a reply to: angeldoll

I could be wrong, but the charge of conspiracy against the US seems to be that they lied about things invoving hiding money of info from the US in an illegal manner.

Dont get me wrong, its still a serious matter, but I dont think it carries any where near the implications of treason.

a reply to: Vasa Croe

I feel certain he got it straight from Steele

"

Figures : it adds chuttzpah to the dossier !
A respected congressman hands it in
must be credible then !

if we forget that

"He has had it in for Trump and could easily have been the Republican entity that also paid Fusion for the info prior to the DNC jumping in."

Could Macain even be the instigator ?
The DNC initiator ?
That would be an amazing turn of events !

I'd finally go with a much more mundain Cruz though
initally funded by Mercer, before he switched to Trump ... :

Trump’s Money Man


Mercer is the co-C.E.O. of Renaissance Technologies, which is among the most profitable hedge funds in the country.

A brilliant computer scientist, he helped transform the financial industry through the innovative use of trading algorithms. But he has never given an interview explaining his political views.

Although Mercer has recently become an object of media speculation, Trevor Potter, the president of the Campaign Legal Center, a nonpartisan watchdog group, who formerly served as the chairman of the Federal Election Commission, said, “I have no idea what his political views are—they’re unknown, not just to the public but also to most people who’ve been active in politics for the past thirty years.”

Potter, a Republican, sees Mercer as emblematic of a major shift in American politics that has occurred since 2010, when the Supreme Court made a controversial ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.

That ruling, and several subsequent ones, removed virtually all limits on how much money corporations and nonprofit groups can spend on federal elections, and how much individuals can give to political-action committees.

Since then, power has tilted away from the two main political parties and toward a tiny group of rich mega-donors.
...Snip ...

During the 2016 campaign, as the Mercers considered which Presidential candidate to back, they rejected insiders such as Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio, who they believed couldn’t win.

They initially gravitated toward Ted Cruz, in part because he was an outsider in the Senate—loathed by even his Republican peers.

During the primaries, the Mercers gave eleven million dollars to a super PAC supporting Cruz, run by Kellyanne Conway. According to Politico, Rebekah Mercer soon “wore out her welcome” with the Cruz campaign by offering withering appraisals of his debate performances. She also insisted that the campaign hire Cambridge Analytica, even though Cruz campaign officials were skeptical of it.

Oops, did i just read that right ?
Kellyanne C. insisted that Cambridge Analytica be on board with Team Trump ?

a reply to: angeldoll

If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

If, however, the offense, the commission of which is the object of the conspiracy, is a misdemeanor only, the punishment for such conspiracy shall not exceed the maximum punishment provided for such misdemeanor.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 701; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)

18 U.S. Code § 371 - Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States

It has to do with the Tax fraud they perpetrated in not properly reporting income or perhaps the laundering of the money they got from the Ukrainian government.

originally posted by: Damiel
a reply to: Vasa Croe

I feel certain he got it straight from Steele

"

Figures : it adds chuttzpah to the dossier !
A respected congressman hands it in
must be credible then !

if we forget that

"He has had it in for Trump and could easily have been the Republican entity that also paid Fusion for the info prior to the DNC jumping in."

Could Macain even be the instigator ?
The DNC initiator ?
That would be an amazing turn of events !

I'd finally go with a much more mundain Cruz though
initally funded by Mercer, before he switched to Trump ... :

Trump’s Money Man


Mercer is the co-C.E.O. of Renaissance Technologies, which is among the most profitable hedge funds in the country.

A brilliant computer scientist, he helped transform the financial industry through the innovative use of trading algorithms. But he has never given an interview explaining his political views.

Although Mercer has recently become an object of media speculation, Trevor Potter, the president of the Campaign Legal Center, a nonpartisan watchdog group, who formerly served as the chairman of the Federal Election Commission, said, “I have no idea what his political views are—they’re unknown, not just to the public but also to most people who’ve been active in politics for the past thirty years.”

Potter, a Republican, sees Mercer as emblematic of a major shift in American politics that has occurred since 2010, when the Supreme Court made a controversial ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.

That ruling, and several subsequent ones, removed virtually all limits on how much money corporations and nonprofit groups can spend on federal elections, and how much individuals can give to political-action committees.

Since then, power has tilted away from the two main political parties and toward a tiny group of rich mega-donors.
...Snip ...

During the 2016 campaign, as the Mercers considered which Presidential candidate to back, they rejected insiders such as Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio, who they believed couldn’t win.

They initially gravitated toward Ted Cruz, in part because he was an outsider in the Senate—loathed by even his Republican peers.

During the primaries, the Mercers gave eleven million dollars to a super PAC supporting Cruz, run by Kellyanne Conway. According to Politico, Rebekah Mercer soon “wore out her welcome” with the Cruz campaign by offering withering appraisals of his debate performances. She also insisted that the campaign hire Cambridge Analytica, even though Cruz campaign officials were skeptical of it.

Oops, did i just read that right ?
Kellyanne C. insisted that Cambridge Analytica be on board with Team Trump ?

It says she insisted it for Cruz from what you highlighted.

a reply to: Vasa Croe
Would it be *that* un-reasonable to believe that KC
saw the value of CA to Team Trump
and brought them with her
tagged'em on to Team Trump ?

Steve Bannon was already way in deep with Mercer :

...huge snip ...

original article...

In 2011, the Mercers met Andrew Breitbart, the founder of the fiery news outlet that bears his name, at a conference organized by the Club for Growth, a conservative group.

They were so impressed by him that they became interested in investing in his operation. Breitbart, a gleefully offensive provocateur, was the temperamental opposite of Robert Mercer.

Nevertheless, the Mercers were attracted to Breitbart’s vision of “taking back the culture” by building a media enterprise that could wage information warfare against the mainstream press, empowering what Breitbart called “the silenced majority.”

Breitbart soon introduced the Mercers to Steve Bannon ...

.. snip ...

In 2011, Bannon drafted a business plan for the Mercers that called for them to invest ten million dollars in Breitbart News, in exchange for a large stake.

At the time, the Breitbart site was little more than a collection of blogs.
The Mercers signed the deal that June, and one of its provisions placed Bannon on the company’s board.

And the rest is history ...

Trump, Brexit and Catalonia
A manufactured co-incidence
contrived by CA's doings

Who are the Mercers ?

Thank you all for the clarifications. Treason then, is conspiracy to actually try to overthrow the government, while Manafort moreless just conspired to hide money from them. Yes, big big difference.

originally posted by: matafuchs
The more I am reading the more it seems this Mueller investigation may be backfiring for those how wanted to take Trump down. It is once again simply showing what we knew all along. There is no two party system. They all work both sides of the aisle until they need something on one side. Then there is debate. Concessions. and LOTS of money.

The DNC and the RINOs are all suddenly exposed and there is no way to walk it back because you do not have the protection they did in Lynch, Comey, Holder, Clinton and Obama along with folks like McCain and his merry band of Republicans. The list goes on and on.

SOooo ... the DNC (check) and the RINOs (check) are exposed. Are you saying the "true Republicans" are safe and innocent somewhere? Just trying to understand the world-view here.

originally posted by: angeldoll
Thank you all for the clarifications. Treason then, is conspiracy to actually try to overthrow the government, while Manafort moreless just conspired to hide money from them. Yes, big big difference.

Still a serious crime though.

If he is found guilty, he should have to face the consequences.

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: aethertek
Read the article, but it distills down to this.

The presiding Judge for the Manafort indictments found the evidence so compelling that Manaforts lawyer was implicated & forced to testify about his role in aiding continuing criminal activity.

Judge Beryl A. Howell decided to compel grand jury testimony from a lawyer representing Manafort and Gates under the crime-fraud exception to attorney-client privilege.

However, privileges are not absolute; among other exceptions is the “crime-fraud” exception to attorney-client privilege. Under this exception when a privileged relationship is used to further a crime, fraud, or other misconduct, the lawyer doesn’t get to use that relationship as a shield.

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.

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.”

lawnewz.com...

OUCH!
K~

Nice. So no shield for what he did from 2006-2014 as long as this attorney was the same one then. I bet the Podestas are freaking out over this news right now because it means regardless of what their attorney covers under privilege, Manaforts has to talk....LOL!

Same should apply to PerkinsCoie and Elias. Fusion GPS, Obama. They use the same law firm.

We'll see.

originally posted by: Damiel
a reply to: Vasa Croe
Would it be *that* un-reasonable to believe that KC
saw the value of CA to Team Trump
and brought them with her
tagged'em on to Team Trump ?

Steve Bannon was already way in deep with Mercer :

...huge snip ...

original article...

In 2011, the Mercers met Andrew Breitbart, the founder of the fiery news outlet that bears his name, at a conference organized by the Club for Growth, a conservative group.

They were so impressed by him that they became interested in investing in his operation. Breitbart, a gleefully offensive provocateur, was the temperamental opposite of Robert Mercer.

Nevertheless, the Mercers were attracted to Breitbart’s vision of “taking back the culture” by building a media enterprise that could wage information warfare against the mainstream press, empowering what Breitbart called “the silenced majority.”

Breitbart soon introduced the Mercers to Steve Bannon ...

.. snip ...

In 2011, Bannon drafted a business plan for the Mercers that called for them to invest ten million dollars in Breitbart News, in exchange for a large stake.

At the time, the Breitbart site was little more than a collection of blogs.
The Mercers signed the deal that June, and one of its provisions placed Bannon on the company’s board.

And the rest is history ...

Trump, Brexit and Catalonia
A manufactured co-incidence
contrived by CA's doings

Who are the Mercers ?

Not unreasonable, but I do believe that he knew what was happening with the lobbyists and PACs and didn't like it and majority funded his campaign with his own money so he wouldn't be beholden to anyone else and could actually say he gave more than any of them so didn't owe them any favors if they did contribute. I'd even go as far as to say they were likely told upfront that contributions would not buy favors as he didn't really need them and could have paid the entire thing on his own.

originally posted by: burgerbuddy

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: aethertek
Read the article, but it distills down to this.

The presiding Judge for the Manafort indictments found the evidence so compelling that Manaforts lawyer was implicated & forced to testify about his role in aiding continuing criminal activity.

Judge Beryl A. Howell decided to compel grand jury testimony from a lawyer representing Manafort and Gates under the crime-fraud exception to attorney-client privilege.

However, privileges are not absolute; among other exceptions is the “crime-fraud” exception to attorney-client privilege. Under this exception when a privileged relationship is used to further a crime, fraud, or other misconduct, the lawyer doesn’t get to use that relationship as a shield.

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.

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.”

lawnewz.com...

OUCH!
K~

Nice. So no shield for what he did from 2006-2014 as long as this attorney was the same one then. I bet the Podestas are freaking out over this news right now because it means regardless of what their attorney covers under privilege, Manaforts has to talk....LOL!

Same should apply to PerkinsCoie and Elias. Fusion GPS, Obama. They use the same law firm.

We'll see.

Careful. You could lose an eye.

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.

They worked for many governments.

That's what they do. It's their job, right?