Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ex-FBI Director Mueller appointed DOJ Special Counsel

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by astralis View Post
    ^ not really, that is more of what TRUMP'S been banging on about.

    the rest of the right is talking about Mueller's supposed bias and disputing Mueller's evidence (ie the Steele dossier). as a line of attack this makes more sense because the actual indictments are very much focused on the campaign/Russia, not, say, on Trump Hotel financial shenanigans.
    Not according to Manforts suit:

    (CNN) — Paul Manafort, the former Trump campaign chairman indicted on money laundering and other charges, filed a lawsuit challenging the broad authority of special counsel Robert Mueller and alleging the Justice Department violated the law in appointing Mueller.

    The suit brought Wednesday in US District Court in Washington, where Manafort and another former Trump campaign aide are charged, challenges Mueller's decision to charge Manafort with alleged crimes that they say have nothing to do with the 2016 campaign, but rather relate to lucrative lobbying work Manafort and his deputy did for a former Russia-friendly government in Ukraine. That work ended in 2014, the suit says. Manafort and his deputy Rick Gates deny the allegations in the charges.

    The legal action represents a new tack in a broader effort by supporters of the President to push back on the special counsel. Some Republicans have begun publicly calling for Mueller's probe to be shut down. Manafort's attorneys have echoed the President's criticism that Mueller's investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election is pursuing crimes that never happened.

    The Manafort lawsuit alleges Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and Mueller have unlawfully exceeded the authorities allowed under the law governing special counsel appointments. The lawsuit contends that the order Rosenstein signed to appoint Mueller "exceeds the scope of Mr. Rosenstein's authority to appoint special counsel as well as specific restrictions on the scope of such appointments."

    A DOJ spokesperson responded with a statement, saying: "The lawsuit is frivolous but the defendant is entitled to file whatever he wants."

    The lawsuit also includes new information on the scope of Mueller's probe: In August, the Mueller prosecutors issued more than 100 subpoenas related to Manafort, the lawsuit alleges.

    Some of those subpoenas seek records from as early as 2005. In August, a prosecutor from Mueller's office told Manafort that he'd be prosecuted for alleged crimes dating back to 2010, the complaint says. When Manafort's lawyers asked Rosenstein in fall 2017 for clarification on whether Mueller's team had the go-ahead to broaden the investigation into earlier years, they heard nothing back, the complaint says. Manafort's indictment includes actions he took from 2006 to 2014.

    In previous court filings, prosecutors said they've collected 400,000 documents related to Manafort and Gates' case, and identified 2,000 of those documents as especially relevant.

    The lawsuit's focus is on a part of the Rosenstein order that says that Mueller may investigate "any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation." The Manafort lawyers say that goes beyond what the law allows Rosenstein to empower Mueller to do.

    The Rosenstein order gives Mueller "carte blanche to investigate and pursue criminal charges in connection with anything he stumbles across while investigating, no matter how remote from the specific matter identified as the subject of the appointment order," the lawsuit says.

    The Manafort lawsuit alleges that even if Rosenstein's order is lawful, Mueller has exceeded his authority.

    It also says that Manafort met in 2014 with the Justice Department and the FBI in the government's investigation of his client, former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, ousted amid street protests that year. The Manafort suit claims the government told Manafort he was a witness in the investigation. The special counsel has now charged Manafort with conduct he had already voluntarily disclosed, the lawsuit says.

    Manafort "voluntarily met with DOJ prosecutors and FBI agents to discuss his offshore political consulting activities" in July 2014, the complaint says. At that time, the Justice Department told him they were working with Ukraine to locate stolen assets and focused on a former Ukrainian president, according to the complaint.

    "The office of the special counsel charged Mr. Manafort with the very conduct he voluntarily disclosed to DOJ almost three years prior to the appointment of Mr. Mueller as special counsel," the complaint says.

    Manafort's lawsuit notes that during his time working for the Ukrainian government he met regularly with the US ambassador in Kiev, suggesting that the US government knew what he was doing at the time.

    The suit also cites the July FBI raid on Manafort's home, in which the special counsel team said it was seeking records of possible financial crimes dating to January 2006 -- a decade before the presidential campaign Mueller is investigating.

    Manafort and Gates face a total of 12 criminal charges related to money laundering and failure to file federal disclosures. Both Manafort and Gates have pleaded not guilty and are scheduled to appear again before the judge in the criminal case on January 16.
    Last edited by bfng3569; 05 Jan 18,, 21:55.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by DOR View Post
      By GLENN R. SIMPSON and PETER FRITSCHJAN. 2, 2018

      A generation ago, Republicans sought to protect President Richard Nixon by urging the Senate Watergate committee to look at supposed wrongdoing by Democrats in previous elections. The committee chairman, Sam Ervin, a Democrat, said that would be “as foolish as the man who went bear hunting and stopped to chase rabbits.”

      Today, amid a growing criminal inquiry into Russian meddling in the 2016 election, congressional Republicans are again chasing rabbits. We know because we’re their favorite quarry.

      In the year since the publication of the so-called Steele dossier — the collection of intelligence reports we commissioned about Donald Trump’s ties to Russia — the president has repeatedly attacked us on Twitter. His allies in Congress have dug through our bank records and sought to tarnish our firm to punish us for highlighting his links to Russia. Conservative news outlets and even our former employer, The Wall Street Journal, have spun a succession of mendacious conspiracy theories about our motives and backers.

      We are happy to correct the record. In fact, we already have.

      Three congressional committees have heard over 21 hours of testimony from our firm, Fusion GPS. In those sessions, we toppled the far right’s conspiracy theories and explained how The Washington Free Beacon and the Clinton campaign — the Republican and Democratic funders of our Trump research — separately came to hire us in the first place.

      We walked investigators through our yearlong effort to decipher Mr. Trump’s complex business past, of which the Steele dossier is but one chapter. And we handed over our relevant bank records — while drawing the line at a fishing expedition for the records of companies we work for that have nothing to do with the Trump case.

      Republicans have refused to release full transcripts of our firm’s testimony, even as they selectively leak details to media outlets on the far right. It’s time to share what our company told investigators.

      We don’t believe the Steele dossier was the trigger for the F.B.I.’s investigation into Russian meddling. As we told the Senate Judiciary Committee in August, our sources said the dossier was taken so seriously because it corroborated reports the bureau had received from other sources, including one inside the Trump camp.

      The intelligence committees have known for months that credible allegations of collusion between the Trump camp and Russia were pouring in from independent sources during the campaign. Yet lawmakers in the thrall of the president continue to wage a cynical campaign to portray us as the unwitting victims of Kremlin disinformation.

      We suggested investigators look into the bank records of Deutsche Bank and others that were funding Mr. Trump’s businesses. Congress appears uninterested in that tip: Reportedly, ours are the only bank records the House Intelligence Committee has subpoenaed.

      We told Congress that from Manhattan to Sunny Isles Beach, Fla., and from Toronto to Panama, we found widespread evidence that Mr. Trump and his organization had worked with a wide array of dubious Russians in arrangements that often raised questions about money laundering. Likewise, those deals don’t seem to interest Congress.

      We explained how, from our past journalistic work in Europe, we were deeply familiar with the political operative Paul Manafort’s coziness with Moscow and his financial ties to Russian oligarchs close to Vladimir Putin.

      Finally, we debunked the biggest canard being pushed by the president’s men — the notion that we somehow knew of the June 9, 2016, meeting in Trump Tower between some Russians and the Trump brain trust. We first learned of that meeting from news reports last year — and the committees know it. They also know that these Russians were unaware of the former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele’s work for us and were not sources for his reports.

      Yes, we hired Mr. Steele, a highly respected Russia expert. But we did so without informing him whom we were working for and gave him no specific marching orders beyond this basic question: Why did Mr. Trump repeatedly seek to do deals in a notoriously corrupt police state that most serious investors shun?

      What came back shocked us. Mr. Steele’s sources in Russia (who were not paid) reported on an extensive — and now confirmed — effort by the Kremlin to help elect Mr. Trump president. Mr. Steele saw this as a crime in progress and decided he needed to report it to the F.B.I.

      We did not discuss that decision with our clients, or anyone else. Instead, we deferred to Mr. Steele, a trusted friend and intelligence professional with a long history of working with law enforcement. We did not speak to the F.B.I. and haven’t since.

      After the election, Mr. Steele decided to share his intelligence with Senator John McCain via an emissary. We helped him do that. The goal was to alert the United States national security community to an attack on our country by a hostile foreign power. We did not, however, share the dossier with BuzzFeed, which to our dismay published it last January.

      We’re extremely proud of our work to highlight Mr. Trump’s Russia ties. To have done so is our right under the First Amendment.

      It is time to stop chasing rabbits. The public still has much to learn about a man with the most troubling business past of any United States president. Congress should release transcripts of our firm’s testimony, so that the American people can learn the truth about our work and most important, what happened to our democracy.

      Glenn R. Simpson and Peter Fritsch, both former journalists, are the founders of the research firm Fusion GPS. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/02/o...usion-gps.html

      On Tuesday, Fusion GPS founders Glenn Simpson and Peter Fritsch wrote an op-ed for The New York Times. In it, they claimed they and their opposition research firm were nothing but an open book and were seeking greater transparency from three congressional committees who have been digging into the probe of Russian election meddling.

      All three committees have sought information from Fusion GPS and its principals, who were hired by Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Committee to do opposition research. That funding paid for the salacious and still-unsubstantiated dossier alleging treasonous collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign. In Fusion GPS’ vague telling, they’ve been nothing but forthright with the committees, which came as news to those committees.

      A spokesman for Sen. Chuck Grassley of the Senate Judiciary Committee reminded Fusion GPS that the firm and its principals routinely fought the committee. Spokesman Taylor Foy said, “Senator Grassley provided Fusion GPS an opportunity for transparency six months ago when he invited the firm to publicly testify at an open committee hearing. Mr. Simpson declined. When faced with a subpoena from the Chairman and Ranking Member, Mr. Simpson refused to provide public testimony, using his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination to negotiate for a closed-door interview. Despite his public statements, Mr. Simpson and his attorney demanded during the interview that the transcript be kept confidential. Mr. Simpson has refused to answer dozens of questions voluntarily, and has failed to provide the Committee with documents and responses to follow-up questions after the interview.”

      On the other side of the Hill, it’s also been far from the picture of compliance and transparency that Fusion GPS claimed in its op-ed. The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence has spent much of the previous year fighting Fusion for access to basic records tied to the investigation.

      On Thursday, a U.S. District Judge denied Fusion GPS’s effort to keep the House committee from bank records it sought. Judge Richard Leon, who took over the case after the previous judge Tanya Chutkan recused herself midway over unspecified conflicts, smacked down all four grounds by which Fusion GPS tried to block the congressional subpoena. That subpoena included requests for records of payments from Fusion GPS to journalists who have covered the Russian dossier story.

      Fusion said the request for records lacked a valid legislative purpose, were overbroad and irrelevant, violated First Amendment rights to speech and association, and violated financial privacy laws. The judge disagreed on each count.

      Lacked A Valid Legislative Purpose

      Fusion tried to argue that House Intel Chairman Devin Nunes (R-CA) lacked the authority to issue the subpoena, in part because they erroneously believed he had recused himself from the Russia probe. Judge Leon cited the U.S. Constitution, rules of the House of Representatives, and the public record to throw water on the argument. He said that at no time did Nunes “recuse” himself from the Russia investigation, though he did allow other committee members to take charge of it while he resolved his ethics investigation.

      “[H]e retained the power to issue the Subpoena at issues in this case… Indeed the Subpoena would be invalid without Chairman Nunes’s signature unless the full Committee authorized another member to sign it, which it did not,” Leon wrote.

      Incidentally, Nunes was cleared of ethics violations in early December. He had been accused of sharing classified information when he revealed that Obama administration officials had collected and unmasked much information about Trump campaign officials and spread it around. The committee found that he had not violated House rules or any other standard of conduct.

      Overbroad and Irrelevant

      Fusion then claimed that none of the law firms about which the committee sought information contracted to work on Russia or Donald Trump. It also said that records of transactions between Fusion and certain media companies and journalists were “not pertinent.”

      Judge Leon noted, given the balance of powers in the U.S. Constitution, courts are not to determine that legislative records requests aren’t proper unless they’re obviously irrelevant. Since the committee “has intelligence suggesting that Fusion directed [researcher Christopher] Steele to meet with at least five major media outlets to discuss his work on the Trump Dossier,” it’s reasonable to pursue records related to “various media companies and journalists to determine whether they, too, had involvement with the Trump Dossier or with Russian active measures directed at the 2016 Presidential election,” he wrote.

      Leon noted that Fusion had multiple ties to Russia and the Russia investigation. Mark Elias, an attorney with Perkins Coie who represented both the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee, retained Fusion for Russian opposition research. But Baker Hostetler had hired Fusion for work on behalf of Prevezon Holdings, a Russian state-owned company. In fact, this second law firm relationship led to accusations that Fusion GPS was acting as an unregistered foreign agent on behalf of Russia.

      Leon also noted that it was unwise to allow the subject of an investigation to determine what may be investigated, particularly since part of the committee’s work is classified and Fusion would not know the complete justification for document requests.

      First Amendment

      Fusion GPS also tried to argue that turning over the records would hamper their First Amendment rights to engage in free political speech, free political activity, and for good measure they added free association. Judge Leon noted they simply failed to even try to make their case. Even if they had tried, while the work they perform may be highly political, the business relationships they form are not. He said, “[T]he First Amendment is not a secrecy pact!”

      Judge Leon also dismissed Fusion’s concerns that the committee would not keep the information private. Fusion claimed that the committee had leaked the identity of their bank to the media, but provided no evidence to support those allegations. The judge said he needed evidence of wrongdoing by the committee, adding, “[t]his is especially true in light of the fact that Fusion itself has played a role in publicizing aspects of this litigation and the Committee’s investigation.”

      Comment


      • bfng,

        focusing on Manafort's financial shenanigans is the means of forcing Manafort to talk on Trump campaign issues. it's not the main focus.

        if Trump feels like Mueller is trying a see-what-sticks strategy, well, he drew a red line on it, and it is now up to Trump to enforce...or not...this red line.

        SCHMIDT: Last thing, if Mueller was looking at your finances and your family finances, unrelated to Russia — is that a red line?

        HABERMAN: Would that be a breach of what his actual charge is?

        TRUMP: I would say yeah. I would say yes.
        Trump hasn't. and seeing as how he hasn't, most of the right is following him and instead attacking other areas of the investigation.
        There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

        Comment


        • Originally posted by astralis View Post
          bfng,

          focusing on Manafort's financial shenanigans is the means of forcing Manafort to talk on Trump campaign issues. it's not the main focus.

          if Trump feels like Mueller is trying a see-what-sticks strategy, well, he drew a red line on it, and it is now up to Trump to enforce...or not...this red line.



          Trump hasn't. and seeing as how he hasn't, most of the right is following him and instead attacking other areas of the investigation.
          your comment stated that the indictments are focused on the campaign and Russia, which is clearly not the case.

          most of the right may not give a dam about Manfort and aren't focused on him at all.

          as has been proven though, Mueller clearly does not care about focusing on the campaign and Russia (probably because there is nothing there to focus on).

          So which is it? Is Mueller focusing on the campaign and Russia, or just what ever he get his hand on from the last 20 years?

          Comment


          • bfng,

            your comment stated that the indictments are focused on the campaign and Russia, which is clearly not the case.
            your counter-argument to this was to point at Manafort's suit...which has not been adjudicated. that hardly indicates that it's "clearly not the case" that the Mueller investigation is focused on the campaign/Russia. Trump thinks this whole thing is a hoax, does that mean we take this at face value too?

            basically, all we know about what's going on is from Mueller's public actions and the counter-actions. if Mueller's investigation is not focused on the campaign/Russia, then you tell me why Trump of all people hasn't fired Mueller/Rubenstein. after all...he fired Comey. under false pretenses, at that.
            There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

            Comment


            • Originally posted by astralis View Post
              bfng,



              your counter-argument to this was to point at Manafort's suit...which has not been adjudicated. that hardly indicates that it's "clearly not the case" that the Mueller investigation is focused on the campaign/Russia. Trump thinks this whole thing is a hoax, does that mean we take this at face value too?

              basically, all we know about what's going on is from Mueller's public actions and the counter-actions. if Mueller's investigation is not focused on the campaign/Russia, then you tell me why Trump of all people hasn't fired Mueller/Rubenstein. after all...he fired Comey. under false pretenses, at that.
              The only evidence of Russian collusion so far is between the Clintons not Trump. I wish you would step away from the DC Beltway laced koolaid and actually hear what is being said about the double standards. Trump's base isn't upset he is being investigated, but that a different standard is being applied. Either judge him by the Hillary standard, or judge her by his. The two tiered legal system you seem to be in favor of is by far the biggest long term threat to our system of government. It says corruption by the in group is permitted and even inuendo by the out group must be crushed.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by bfng3569 View Post
                your comment stated that the indictments are focused on the campaign and Russia, which is clearly not the case.

                most of the right may not give a dam about Manfort and aren't focused on him at all.

                as has been proven though, Mueller clearly does not care about focusing on the campaign and Russia (probably because there is nothing there to focus on).

                So which is it? Is Mueller focusing on the campaign and Russia, or just what ever he get his hand on from the last 20 years?
                Well, let's look at Rosenstein's special counsel order:

                (b) The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation confirmed by then-FBI Director James Comey in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on March 20, 2017, including:
                (i) any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and
                (ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and
                (iii) any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a).
                (c) If the Special Counsel believes it is necessary and appropriate, the Special Counsel is authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters.
                Manafort was in the meeting on the 25th floor of the Trump Tower with Trump, Jr. and Kushner. That meeting falls under:

                (i) any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump
                That makes Manafort a target of the investigation. In the course of the investigation, Mueller finds evidence of crimes that falls under:

                (ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation
                The money laundering and tax evasion charges aren't some wild tangent out of left field. Manafort traveled to Russia some 18 times, had millions stashed in dozens of Cypriot bank accounts (one of the premier places for Russian oligarchs and mafia to offshore their cash) which he's accused of laundering back to the US, he performed extensive lobbying work for a Russian-backed government, and so on.

                Mueller would be derelict in his duty as special counsel in not investigating these matters. It's not like they're indicting him with a single charge of pot plant in the basement, they've indicted him on charges that were part of a germane line on inquiry in their investigations into links/coordination.
                Last edited by Ironduke; 06 Jan 18,, 01:22.
                "Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."

                Comment


                • z,

                  The only evidence of Russian collusion so far is between the Clintons not Trump. I wish you would step away from the DC Beltway laced koolaid and actually hear what is being said about the double standards. Trump's base isn't upset he is being investigated, but that a different standard is being applied. Either judge him by the Hillary standard, or judge her by his. The two tiered legal system you seem to be in favor of is by far the biggest long term threat to our system of government. It says corruption by the in group is permitted and even inuendo by the out group must be crushed.
                  yes, yes, you've said this already. it's a pretty remarkable claim to make especially as we simply do not have full insight into what Mueller is actually -doing-.

                  moreover, if there was indeed a two-tiered system, then Trump would be fully within his rights, and ability, to fire Rosenstein and find someone to replace Mueller or stop the investigation altogether. and if i'm just drinking "dc beltway koolaid", then such a move would in fact be popular.

                  that he does not indicates that there is a high political price to be paid, which in turn means that apparently such a move would not be so popular after all.

                  in fact, Trump's last public comments of a week ago indicated that he thought Mueller is "going to be fair". so...is Trump wrong? you tell me.
                  There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Ironduke View Post


                    The money laundering and tax evasion charges aren't some wild tangent out of left field. Manafort traveled to Russia some 18 times, had millions stashed in dozens of Cypriot bank accounts (one of the premier places for Russian oligarchs and mafia to offshore their cash) which he's accused of laundering back to the US, he performed extensive lobbying work for a Russian-backed government, and so on.
                    Work done in part for the Podesta Group headed by Tony Podesta, brother of John Podesta. John Podesta as we know from Wikileaks had extensive and illegal dealings with the same Russian banks that have gotten Manafort in so much trouble. Yet we don't see Meuller moving to actually follow the money... hrmmmm???

                    Mueller would be derelict in his duty as special counsel in not investigating these matters.
                    So extensive evidence of Russian ties to a campaign director not being investigated would be dereliction of duty? From your finger tips to Mueller's ears...

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by astralis View Post
                      z,



                      yes, yes, you've said this already. it's a pretty remarkable claim to make especially as we simply do not have full insight into what Mueller is actually -doing-.

                      moreover, if there was indeed a two-tiered system, then Trump would be fully within his rights, and ability, to fire Rosenstein and find someone to replace Mueller or stop the investigation altogether. and if i'm just drinking "dc beltway koolaid", then such a move would in fact be popular.

                      that he does not indicates that there is a high political price to be paid, which in turn means that apparently such a move would not be so popular after all.

                      in fact, Trump's last public comments of a week ago indicated that he thought Mueller is "going to be fair". so...is Trump wrong? you tell me.
                      I'm not arguing Mueller should or shouldn't, Trump should or shouldn't. I'm saying the same legal standard should apply.

                      So lets stop beating around the Bush. Should A- Trump and his circle be gifted the same relaxed approach to Justice that Hillary got. B- Should the Hillary's case be -reopened and subjected to the same sort of fine toothed comb investigation be applied as is being used against Trump. C- Go on as we are, GOP gets judged by Y and Dems by X.

                      Pick one or outline your thoughts on the application of the law and the remarkable differences in effort in two otherwise seemingly similar situations involving so many of the same investigative and law enforcement players.

                      Comment


                      • simply, I pick D. there was a perfectly fine application of justice for Clinton and there is a perfectly fine application of justice for Trump.
                        There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by astralis View Post
                          simply, I pick D. there was a perfectly fine application of justice for Clinton and there is a perfectly fine application of justice for Trump.
                          Hence my comment about the DC Beltway Kool-aid. I'd love to see you square the circle irt Huma Abedin lying to the FBI about classified info and mishandlingn national secrets on Hillary's server and the way the FBI went after Flynn for lying about a legal conversation.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by zraver View Post
                            Work done in part for the Podesta Group headed by Tony Podesta, brother of John Podesta. John Podesta as we know from Wikileaks had extensive and illegal dealings with the same Russian banks that have gotten Manafort in so much trouble. Yet we don't see Meuller moving to actually follow the money... hrmmmm???

                            So extensive evidence of Russian ties to a campaign director not being investigated would be dereliction of duty? From your finger tips to Mueller's ears...
                            Mueller investigating and indicting Manafort resulted from a line of inquiry entirely germane to the scope of his special counsel appointment.

                            Manafort was part of the 25th floor meeting.

                            Mueller, who is naturally going to start looking into Manafort's body of Russia-related work, uncovers evidence of money laundering and tax evasion that is directly connected to Manafort's body of Russia-related work.

                            While the present allegations against Manafort may not include collusion, any prosecutor tasked with investigating coordination and links between Trump campaign officials (of which Manafort was) and Russia would be derelict not to look into Manafort's body of Russia-related work.

                            It just so happens, it is alleged, they uncovered crimes that at this point do not yet include collusion. That being said, it's still was an entirely natural, germane line of inquiry.

                            If Podesta was also a Trump campaign official and part of the 25th floor meeting, I'm sure Mueller would be investigating him as well.
                            Last edited by Ironduke; 06 Jan 18,, 07:28. Reason: grammar
                            "Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Ironduke View Post
                              Mueller investigating and indicting Manafort resulted from an entirely line of inquiry entirely germane to the scope of his special counsel appointment.

                              Manafort was part of the 25th floor meeting.

                              Mueller, who is naturally going to start looking into Manafort's body of Russia-related work, uncovers evidence of money laundering and tax evasion that is directly connected to Manafort's body of Russia-related work.

                              While the present allegations against Manafort may not be collusion, any prosecutor tasked with investigating coordination and links between Trump campaign officials and Russia would be derelict not to look into Manafort's body of Russia-related work.

                              It just so happens, it is alleged, they uncovered crimes. That being said, it's still was an entirely natural, germane line of inquiry.

                              If Podesta was also a Trump campaign official and part of the 25th floor meeting, I'm sure Mueller would be investigating him as well.

                              So its not any crimes that arise, but only crimes connected to those close to Trump.... OK Gotcha. Manafort has a long business relationship with the Podesta's, who do you think he was in Russia with?

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by zraver View Post
                                So its not any crimes that arise, but only crimes connected to those close to Trump.... OK Gotcha. Manafort has a long business relationship with the Podesta's, who do you think he was in Russia with?
                                Podesta was not a Trump campaign official. But if the line of inquiry from Manafort crimes leads to evidence of Podesta crimes, then he's fair game.
                                "Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X