With this new revelation of Oleg Deripaska and Steele, do any of you remember the "Wag the Dog" OP-ED he wrote in the Daily Caller? Sent the left into a tizzy and gave them fuel to their narrative that Russia was in the bag for Trump, and here this "Russian Oligarch" was defending him in a right wing media site. I remember thinking what in the world motivated this. Well now we know. This is Master Class level ass covering, and in the same instance fueling the Russia narrative, at the same time.


https://web.archive.org/web/20180310013045/http://dailycaller.com/2018/03/08/the-ever-changing-russia-narrative-in-american-politics-is-cynically-false-public-manipulation/

Not only is it strange the article came out, but even stranger is, why is it archived in the FARA offices?

https://www.fara.gov/docs/5934-Informational-Materials-20180629-3.pdf

This is 100% propaganda laid out in place on purpose. In one fell swoop Deripaska befriended the Breitbart crowd and gave the left a boogie man when in fact he is working with Steele against Trump. This is world class misdirection.

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

With this new revelation of Oleg Deripaska and Steele, do any of you remember the "Wag the Dog" OP-ED he wrote in the Daily Caller? Sent the left into a tizzy and gave them fuel to their narrative that Russia was in the bag for Trump, and here this "Russian Oligarch" was defending him in a right wing media site. I remember thinking what in the world motivated this. Well now we know. This is Master Class level ass covering, and in the same instance fueling the Russia narrative, at the same time.


https://web.archive.org/web/20180310013045/http://dailycaller.com/2018/03/08/the-ever-changing-russia-narrative-in-american-politics-is-cynically-false-public-manipulation/

Not only is it strange the article came out, but even stranger is, why is it archived in the FARA offices?

https://www.fara.gov/docs/5934-Informational-Materials-20180629-3.pdf

This is 100% propaganda laid out in place on purpose. In one fell swoop Deripaska befriended the Breitbart crowd and gave the left a boogie man when in fact he is working with Steele against Trump. This is world class misdirection.

---

One knew there was no way Deripaska was ever on the good-guys side (pro-Trump) because of Deripaska's ties to McCain...it goes way back to Montenegro circa 2005-2007. Although McCain professed to be a hardliner, he was actually pro-Putin.

https://www.thenation.com/article/mccains-kremlin-ties/

Deripaska may have been the principal source for many parts of the dossier. Ohr's notes. Now you see the reason for Ohr's subpoena.

Steele is a business genius though. Was getting paid by 3 entities for the same work.

FBI + DNC + Russian Oligarch. What a pro.

I'm confused. I thought mentions of Trump and the Trump campaign were verboten? Wasn't the sealed material from the bench conference related solely to the Trump campaign? Now the prosecution is going to introduce testimony on the same subject?

Have I missed something?

I'd have to go back and look at the limine order, but my memory is that talking about Trump campaign colluding with Russia is what is not to be talked about. I don't recall a blanket exclusuon of anything about the campaign.

I don't know what the specific allegations as a relates to this loan & the campaign

Thanks. I didn't recall it being that narrowly drawn that evidence on the campaign was only prohibited if it were specifically tied to Russian collusion. But that raises the question of what does Gates know that was the subject of that bench conference, then?

He was asked by Downing if he (Gates) had been interviewed by Team Mueller regarding the campaign. That led to the bench conference and sealing of 6 or so pages of the transcript from the sidebar, on the basis of 'pending investigation.'

I am not seeing how that particular bank official wanting a position on the campaign and role in the administration is material and relevant to the actual charges being tried, though.

Curious. Just seems a bit odd to me.

BMX Bandit said:

---

I'd have to go back and look at the limine order, but my memory is that talking about Trump campaign colluding with Russia is what is not to be talked about. I don't recall a blanket exclusuon of anything about the campaign.

I don't know what the specific allegations as a relates to this loan & the campaign

---

You are correct

Thanks. Had forgotten that one exception was carved out for that one witness. Still don't know exactly how probative the expected testimony will be, nor on which crime it will be probative.

On a sidenote: Went back and looked at an older Solomon article( which has already been referenced and discussed on this thread) from May about Deripaska, Mueller, Hillary and the attempted rescue of a retired FBI agent but then CIA operative Robert Levinson, captured in Iran in 2007.

This caught my eye:

Quote:

---

Deripaska also appears to be one of the first Russians the FBI asked for help when it began investigating the now-infamous Fusion GPS "Steele Dossier." Waldman, his American lawyer until the sanctions hit, gave me a detailed account, some of which U.S. officials confirm separately.

Two months before Trump was elected president, Deripaska was in New York as part of Russia's United Nations delegation when three FBI agents awakened him in his home; at least one agent had worked with Deripaska on the aborted effort to rescue Levinson. During an hour-long visit, the agents posited a theory that Trump's campaign was secretly colluding with Russia to hijack the U.S. election.

"Deripaska laughed but realized, despite the joviality, that they were serious," the lawyer said. "So he told them in his informed opinion the idea they were proposing was false. 'You are trying to create something out of nothing,' he told them." The agents left though the FBI sought more information in 2017 from the Russian, sources tell me. Waldman declined to say if Deripaska has been in contact with the FBI since Sept, 2016.

---

LINK

Oh and this:

Quote:

---

Third, agents knew Deripaska had been banished since 2006 from the United States by State over reports he had ties to organized crime and other nefarious activities. He denies the allegations, and nothing was ever proven in court.

The FBI rewarded Deripaska for his help. In fall 2009, according to U.S. entry records, Deripaska visited Washington on a rare law enforcement parole visa. And since 2011, he has been granted entry at least eight times on a diplomatic passport, even though he doesn't work for the Russian Foreign Ministry.
Former FBI officials confirm they arranged the access.

---

How convenient.

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2018/08/10/olegs-story-yes-the-russians-were-involved-in-the-2016-election/

Quote:

---

...The Russians (Deripaska) really do have leverage and blackmail but it ain't over Trump. Oleg has blackmail on Comey, McCabe and conspiracy crew. Oleg Deripaska must be kept away from congress and away from exposing the scheme.

Guess who else must be controlled and/or kept away from congress?

Julian Assange.

Assange has evidence the Russians didn't hack the DNC.

Between Deripaska's first-hand knowledge of the DOJ/FBI work on both the Dossier and the DOJ/FBI intention for his use as a witness; and Julian Assange's first-hand knowledge of who actually took the DNC email communication; well, the entire Russian narrative could explode in their faces....

---

Good read on Deripaska. ...oh,yes, there is a Deripaska/Mueller connection too.

Is there a transcript of the trial from yesterday? I want to read the full exchange that has the prosecution in a tizzy today.

Seems to me Ellis was trying to get them to move on to actual bank fraud and get off the inchoate crime of attempted bank fraud but need to see what else was said.

Roscoe?

I thought this was a good summary of the "insurance policy" line of thinking.

http://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/401116-what-would-the-intelligence-communitys-insurance-policy-against-trump#.W2z3IXJwSnM.twitter

Russians were always better at Chess. (Fischer notwithstanding)

aggiehawg said:

---

Is there a transcript of the trial from yesterday? I want to read the full exchange that has the prosecution in a tizzy today.

Seems to me Ellis was trying to get them to move on to actual bank fraud and get off the inchoate crime of attempted bank fraud but need to see what else was said.

Roscoe?

---

Something is about to pop in this case. One side is going to have a bad afternoon IMO. 30 mins late resuming.

Seems like the Russians pulled all the Dems strings knowing exactly how they'd react...

Thanks, Roscoe.

That was a painful read. I can only imagine the jury falling asleep during that testimony. I understand Ellis' impatience with going through all of that on a loan where the witness isn't even sure why the loan was not completed.

Asonye had a point but that wasn't bad enough to warrant a curative instruction since the jury instructions on conspiracy to commit bank fraud have already been agreed to. (Presumption but in a normal trial they would.)

Interesting that Asonye would ask if the bank received items requested but did not ask if they received them each from Manafort or Gates. Seems Gates was tasked with responding to much of that.

Also, how long was the construction part supposed to take? If over a year, claiming the Howard Street address as primary residence in the meantime isn't unusual. The plan being once construction was completed on Union Street and the loan became permanent, either sell Howard Street to his daughter or re-fi it.

Now failure to disclose contingent liabilities such as a guarantor on business loans is not good but we also don't know the terms of the guaranty. Could be the whole thing could be limited to a certain amount.

Rather than have an agent testify to more emails and documents, prosecutor Greg Andres said he planned to use that evidence in his closing argument, which he expects to take about two hours.

"That's within the outer universe of reasonable," Ellis said. But, he added, "It's no accident that television programs are half an hour. If you think you can hold a juror's attention for two hours, you live on a different planet than I do."

Defense attorneys said they also thought they would need two hours for their closing argument.

Ellis gave in, although he urged both sides to consider brevity. "Most jurors don't punish lawyers for being prolix," he said. "But they aren't very happy about it."

Manafort's attorneys gave no indication of whether they plan to offer any evidence in his defense. Ellis said he will hold a conference on jury instructions after the evidence and before closing arguments.

Well, I can't see the defense needing two hours if they are not intending to present a defense or a very truncated version at least.

There's only so many times they can say, "Rick Gates did it!"

Question? Has there been testimony that Manafort is in default on all of these loans? Or any of them before his indictment? Have the banks sued?

aggiehawg said:

---

Question? Has there been testimony that Manafort is in default on all of these loans? Or any of them before his indictment? Have the banks sued?

---

Actually none of them were defaulted on.

The fraud they are claiming are lies and fudged numbers on applications,

I just assumed he had defaulted on at least a few of them. You know, the obtaining something by fraud and not paying it back part. In fact, his ability to service these loans at a time when he has little to no income other than investment income would appear to bolster the tax evasion case, perhaps.

Guess the guy is more loaded than any one thought.

aggiehawg said:

---

Question? Has there been testimony that Manafort is in default on all of these loans? Or any of them before his indictment? Have the banks sued?

---

this is what I have been asking from day one. Where are the "victims"?

blindey said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Question? Has there been testimony that Manafort is in default on all of these loans? Or any of them before his indictment? Have the banks sued?

---

this is what I have been asking from day one. Where are the "victims"?

---

The Prosecutions witnesses today testified that all their loans were secure, and if they are defaulted on there is more than enough collateral to offset the debt. This case is very strange.

He fudged numbers a little, claiming more value on assets than they were worth, but the actual worth is still enough to cover loans. He had a friendly banker that wanted an appointment with Trump.

Reported income amounts that were actually bogus loans from his own companies that he was going to never pay back, to get a lower tax rate. So he shorted the IRS about $13mm - $18MM depending on who's reporting it. No full audit is complete and certified as of yet. Another head scratcher. Because of the complications of his holdings, it's ongoing

And Manafort failed to disclose foreign bank accounts on Tax returns and loan documents.


And they want to try and give him 280 years?

Quote:

---

Westling then sought to show that the loans Manafort did receive had adequate collateral attempting to undercut the notion that Federal Savings Bank was defrauded. For the $9.5 million loan on Manafort's Bridgehampton property, Westling asked, wasn't it true that the cash Manafort received would pay off the home which was appraised at around $13 million and that he was offering an additional $2.5 million in collateral through a Virginia property?

Raico testified that was true: Essentially Manafort was providing $15.5 million in collateral for a $9.5 million loan. And under Westling's questioning, Raico acknowledged the second loan Manafort received, to complete construction on a property on Union Street in New York, had a similar situation.

Manafort, he acknowledged, had put down a $2.5 million cash deposit on top of a property that was appraised to sell at $6.3 million when it was complete. The bank, he said, had loaned Manafort $6.5 million.
Prosecutors, in their final round of questioning of Raico, pointed again to bank chairman Steve Calk's involvement in the loan, and again got Raico to acknowledge it made him uncomfortable.
"It was not the norm," he said.

When prosecutor Greg Andres and Judge T.S. Ellis III pressed Raico on whether he believed Calk was "seeking something" from Manafort, Raico ultimately hedged, saying he could point to "nothing concrete."

---

blindey said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Question? Has there been testimony that Manafort is in default on all of these loans? Or any of them before his indictment? Have the banks sued?

---

this is what I have been asking from day one. Where are the "victims"?

---

Technically, you don't need them, of course as the fudged numbers go towards establishing a scheme to avoid taxes and hide income.

Spending 40 minutes going through the nitty-gritty details of a loan app that was never consummated was a bit of over kill. Particularly so since the witness did not know exactly why. The presumption is that it was because of Manafort's skullduggery but the testimony didn't exactly back that up. She just knew that the closing didn't happen.

I also feel that charging the inchoate crime of attempted bank fraud (no loan occurred) when there are other charges of actual bank fraud (loan occurred) runs the risk of conflation for the jury. Instead of Manafort appearing to be adept at financial skullduggery such that bank underwriting standards were fooled is thwarted by the banks that identified the discrepancies and the loan not going through. Logical conclusion just means the other bank's underwriting practices were crappy. And we all know how much juries just loooooooove themselves some banks. If the bank screwed up? Is the jury going to get that bent out of shape about it?

I'm thinking Team Mueller may have overcharged a bit. We'll see if that comes back to bite them. (Might also partially explain Ellis' mood and opinion about the whole case.)

ETA: And the loans were fully collateralized according to testimony?? Holy crap! Now I know it was overcharged.

It all makes sense now to me. Mueller needs a win. And a big one. A trophy that he can mount on the wall.

So they overcharged. A lot.

But that explains why they used the strategy they did at trial: because they needed a BIG win.

So they wanted to open by making the jury hate manafort as much as possible, slide the boring stuff in on the back end, and hope the jury gets on a roll writing "guilty" into all of the blanks when they deliberate.

They're going after a guy for bank fraud on oversecured loans. LOL.

I thought Team Mueller was supposed to have financial crime experts. If the loans were over collateralized and being serviced according to terms, the crime on the apps are perjury crimes, in my view.

I understand Manafort may have deceived the banks with the intent of recognizing some type of financial gain, but are the banks actually victims of fraud if they have not suffered any damages?

aggiehawg said:

---

I thought Team Mueller was supposed to have financial crime experts. If the loans were over collateralized and being serviced according to terms, the crime on the apps are perjury crimes, in my view.

---

This has been asked before, but were over 500 pages, and I don't remember where.

If any of the evidence, and I suspect it's more than 5%, is found to be fraudulent in the hiring of Mueller, does that nullify the investigation?

I only asked because it's only a matter of time until the dossier is found to be completely false, except they got Trump's name correct. Not to mention the FISC and FISA are screwball.

fasthorses05 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

I thought Team Mueller was supposed to have financial crime experts. If the loans were over collateralized and being serviced according to terms, the crime on the apps are perjury crimes, in my view.

---

This has been asked before, but were over 500 pages, and I don't remember where.

If any of the evidence, and I suspect it's more than 5%, is found to be fraudulent in the hiring of Mueller, does that nullify the investigation?

I only asked because it's only a matter of time until the dossier is found to be completely false, except they got Trump's name correct. Not to mention the FISC and FISA are screwball.

---

You are asking what you consider is a simple question of fairness and justice. It doesn't work that way. Maybe in a year or two SCOTUS decides Mueller's appointment was void ab initio* but the pathway to get there is a torturous one. The most likely avenue I can see at the moment is that someone like Flynn sues the government for damages over Mueller's tactics to extract his guilty plea and all of the facts about the dossier being a manufactured product by the FBI/DOJ/CIA/DNI being proven in court.

Tall order when all of the guilty parties take the 5th.

ETA: Oops! Forgot my asterisk. That means "void from initiation." Sorry.

Charles Keating got the maximum 10-year prison sentence, the judge could impose, and the want to give Manafort 280 years?

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

Charles Keating got the maximum 10-year prison sentence, the judge could impose, and the want to give Manafort 280 years?

---

Why the overcharging, to intimidate Manafort into composing, not singing.