RoscoePColtrane said:

---

akm91 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Wait, what???? Herridge just reported that Weissman was in the loop when the Steele dossier was being assembled? And now he's on Team Mueller? He's a freakin' fact witness!

---

Why would that be a surprise, given the actions of DoJ and FBI leadership regarding several high profile investigations in the last four years?

---

Technically Rosenstein could be classified as a fact witness I guess, since he signed off on the FISA warrant

---

Yeah but he didn't actually read it, so there's that. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!

aggiehawg said:

---

VaultingChemist said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Wait, what???? Herridge just reported that Weissman was in the loop when the Steele dossier was being assembled? And now he's on Team Mueller? He's a freakin' fact witness!

---

Also this on Manafort from last month:

Quote:

---

The recent filing contains two newly disclosed FBI memos documenting the April 2017 meeting. It included three FBI agents; a Justice Department trial attorney; an assistant U.S. attorney and Andrew Weissmann, then chief of the DOJ's fraud division before he moved on to Special Counsel Robert Mueller's Russia probe. The meeting also included four AP reporters: Chad Day, Jack Gillum, Ted Bridis and Eric Tucker.

---

---

If that doesn't show the sorry state of affairs at DOJ, the former Head of the Fraud division at DOJ has been filing fraudulent pleadings in federal courts, I don't know what would.

---

What fraudulent pleadings?

aggiehawg said:

---

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

akm91 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Wait, what???? Herridge just reported that Weissman was in the loop when the Steele dossier was being assembled? And now he's on Team Mueller? He's a freakin' fact witness!

---

Why would that be a surprise, given the actions of DoJ and FBI leadership regarding several high profile investigations in the last four years?

---

Technically Rosenstein could be classified as a fact witness I guess, since he signed off on the FISA warrant

---

Yeah but he didn't actually read it, so there's that. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!

---

Well. there were career FBI or DOJ professionals asserting its accuracy.

VaultingChemist said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Wait, what???? Herridge just reported that Weissman was in the loop when the Steele dossier was being assembled? And now he's on Team Mueller? He's a freakin' fact witness!

---

Also this on Manafort from last month:

Quote:

---

The recent filing contains two newly disclosed FBI memos documenting the April 2017 meeting. It included three FBI agents; a Justice Department trial attorney; an assistant U.S. attorney and Andrew Weissmann, then chief of the DOJ's fraud division before he moved on to Special Counsel Robert Mueller's Russia probe. The meeting also included four AP reporters: Chad Day, Jack Gillum, Ted Bridis and Eric Tucker.

---

---

How in the hell did he get that gig, given his history as a US Attorney with the Enron and Merrill Lynch "convictions"?

Quote:

---

Weissmann also went on to get convictions against two Enron clients: accounting giant Arthur Andersen which was forced out of business and executives at banking dynamo Merrill Lynch.

The Supreme Court, in a 9-0 vote in 2005, overturned the Andersen conviction. A year later, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals erased all the fraud convictions against four Merrill Lynch managers.

"People went off to prison for a completely phantom of a case," said Kirkendall.

---

Sentencing Recommendation in the Papadopoulus case. They claimed Papadopoulus prevented them from having the ability to interview Josef Mifsud when he was in DC for a State Department meeting when in fact, the FBI did conduct such an interview and had follow-up communications with Mifsud after he left DC.

Those statements conveniently overlook that the FBI had known about the meetings between Papadopoulus and Mifsud since July 2016 when Crossfire Hurricane was first opened. What Papadopoulus did or didn't say nearly six months later in January 2017 had nothing to do with the FBI's ability to talk with Mifsud. He wasn't in hiding back then. He went into hiding after the Papadopoulus plea agreement was announced.

aggiehawg said:

---

Sentencing Recommendation in the Papadopoulus case. They claimed Papadopoulus prevented them from having the ability to interview Josef Mifsud when he was in DC for a State Department meeting when in fact, the FBI did conduct such an interview and had follow-up communications with Mifsud after he left DC.

Those statements conveniently overlook that the FBI had known about the meetings between Papadopoulus and Mifsud since July 2016 when Crossfire Hurricane was first opened. What Papadopoulus did or didn't say nearly six months later in January 2017 had nothing to do with the FBI's ability to talk with Mifsud. He wasn't in hiding back then. He went into hiding after the Papadopoulus plea agreement was announced.

---

I could be wrong, but didn't the sentencing recommendation say they were unable to detain him while he was in DC? That's a distinction with a difference. They could travel outside the US and interview him after he left the US if he was willing, but they could not detain and conduct a custodial interrogation.

Mueller not done with squeezing not only Manafort but now his lawyers.

Quote:

---

Special counsel Robert Mueller's team wants to review emails between Paul Manafort and one of his former lawyers messages that would typically be protected by attorney-client privilege.

Manafort's emails are a special case, Mueller's team argued in a court motion Wednesday. Attorney-client privilege doesn't apply when the client enlists a lawyer's help to commit a crime and that's what Mueller's team is arguing that Manafort did.

---

About his FARA filings.

Quote:

---

The question of how attorney-client privilege applies to a lawyer who advised Manafort and his former deputy, Rick Gates, around their foreign lobbying work on behalf of former Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych has dogged the Washington case for nearly a year.

A federal judge ruled last year that the lawyer, who had responded to inquiries from the Justice Department about why Manafort and Gates hadn't registered as foreign agents, could be forced to testify in Manafort's trial. Attorney-client privilege didn't apply to Manafort's discussions with the lawyer, U.S. District Court Judge Beryl Howell wrote, because Mueller's team had demonstrated that Manafort "likely violated federal law" by failing to register.

"In essence, the law refuses to recognize that there was even a legitimate attorney-client relationship because clients may not use legal help to commit crimes or frauds," Stephen Gillers, a law professor at New York University, wrote in an email to POLITICO.

---

LINK

Good grief!

He is hyper aggressive to the point of being unethical (which some strangely view as an asset for a prosecutor that has the power to destroy lives almost at will with little consequence and a huge budget), and has friends in higher places.

How about possibly using legal help trying to avoid committing fraud? Plausible at least, and entirely protected.

If the OIG ends up raising issues on the FISA warrants and an investigation is started on those, would Sessions have standing on that or would Rosenstein, who would then have to revise himself also?

It's funny, I really don't believe many folks know the information you just posted. I've read several articles about Weissman, and his borderline zealotry, but it's certainly why Mueller chose him.

To my knowledge, there's only been one judge to ever castigate Weissman for the actions during his legal cases, and even then, it was similar to a verbal slap on the wrist. I don't believe he's ever been disciplined by anyone.

That's why I'm so sure the final report by Mueller will carry an impeachment recommendation.

MouthBQ98 said:

---

How about possibly using legal help trying to avoid committing fraud? Plausible at least, and entirely protected.

---

Particularly so since FARA cases haven't been prosecuted for decades and were usually handled administratively. Manafort is likely going to die in prison anyway but there's still some blood left in him to further drain, I guess.

This is resembling more of a quest for vengeance than a criminal prosecution, at this point.

When the prosecution is making a sleaze like Manafort look like a victim, they're going too far.

MouthBQ98 said:

---

If the OIG ends up raising issues on the FISA warrants and an investigation is started on those, would Sessions have standing on that or would Rosenstein, who would then have to revise himself also?

---

Sessions won't touch it, and Rosy will never recuse himself so it will be swept under the rug.

aggiehawg said:

---

Mueller not done with squeezing not only Manafort but now his lawyers.

Quote:

---

Special counsel Robert Mueller's team wants to review emails between Paul Manafort and one of his former lawyers messages that would typically be protected by attorney-client privilege.

Manafort's emails are a special case, Mueller's team argued in a court motion Wednesday. Attorney-client privilege doesn't apply when the client enlists a lawyer's help to commit a crime and that's what Mueller's team is arguing that Manafort did.

---

About his FARA filings.

Quote:

---

The question of how attorney-client privilege applies to a lawyer who advised Manafort and his former deputy, Rick Gates, around their foreign lobbying work on behalf of former Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych has dogged the Washington case for nearly a year.

A federal judge ruled last year that the lawyer, who had responded to inquiries from the Justice Department about why Manafort and Gates hadn't registered as foreign agents, could be forced to testify in Manafort's trial. Attorney-client privilege didn't apply to Manafort's discussions with the lawyer, U.S. District Court Judge Beryl Howell wrote, because Mueller's team had demonstrated that Manafort "likely violated federal law" by failing to register.

"In essence, the law refuses to recognize that there was even a legitimate attorney-client relationship because clients may not use legal help to commit crimes or frauds," Stephen Gillers, a law professor at New York University, wrote in an email to POLITICO.

---

LINK

Good grief!

---

They're bending every rule in the book in my layman's opinion. Good grief indeed.

Rapier108 said:

---

MouthBQ98 said:

---

If the OIG ends up raising issues on the FISA warrants and an investigation is started on those, would Sessions have standing on that or would Rosenstein, who would then have to revise himself also?

---

Sessions won't touch it, and Rosy will never recuse himself so it will be swept under the rug.

---

Sessions is like the cowardly lion in the wizard of Oz.

Synopsis said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

MouthBQ98 said:

---

If the OIG ends up raising issues on the FISA warrants and an investigation is started on those, would Sessions have standing on that or would Rosenstein, who would then have to revise himself also?

---

Sessions won't touch it, and Rosy will never recuse himself so it will be swept under the rug.

---

Sessions is like the cowardly lion in the wizard of Oz.

---

And still hiding from Al Franken.

Agree, under that standard every criminal attorney consulting with their client could arguably be engaging in a crime. It certainly is loosy-goosy.

aggiehawg said:

---

Mueller not done with squeezing not only Manafort but now his lawyers.

Quote:

---

Special counsel Robert Mueller's team wants to review emails between Paul Manafort and one of his former lawyers messages that would typically be protected by attorney-client privilege.

Manafort's emails are a special case, Mueller's team argued in a court motion Wednesday. Attorney-client privilege doesn't apply when the client enlists a lawyer's help to commit a crime and that's what Mueller's team is arguing that Manafort did.

---

About his FARA filings.

Quote:

---

The question of how attorney-client privilege applies to a lawyer who advised Manafort and his former deputy, Rick Gates, around their foreign lobbying work on behalf of former Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych has dogged the Washington case for nearly a year.

A federal judge ruled last year that the lawyer, who had responded to inquiries from the Justice Department about why Manafort and Gates hadn't registered as foreign agents, could be forced to testify in Manafort's trial. Attorney-client privilege didn't apply to Manafort's discussions with the lawyer, U.S. District Court Judge Beryl Howell wrote, because Mueller's team had demonstrated that Manafort "likely violated federal law" by failing to register.

"In essence, the law refuses to recognize that there was even a legitimate attorney-client relationship because clients may not use legal help to commit crimes or frauds," Stephen Gillers, a law professor at New York University, wrote in an email to POLITICO.

---

LINK

Good grief!

---

Just to clarify for people who may be confused. Judge Beryl Howell was the judge overseeing the grand jury proceedings against Manafort and Gates. Her ruling was on whether Manafort's attorney could be compelled to testify before the grand jury. She found that they could.

Now that ruling is being brought up in the DC trial before Judge Amy Berman Jackson to gain access to the email communications between Manafort and that attorney. Now it will her decision whether to allow it or not.

(I'd bet the farm, she does.)

I'm not even sure Sessions knows that Mueller's investigation is still ongoing.

I was hopeful that Sessions, via Huber, was doing the Lord's work, so to speak, by carrying out investigations on Uranium 1, Clinton's e-mails, and the Clinton Foundation, not to mention State, DOJ, FBI, and CIA. A clandestine investigation would fit with Trump's MO and Sun Tzu. You know, keep your enemies close, and faint with the left hand, while the right is a hammer............

However, if Huber hasn't interviewed either of the Ohr's, or Toensing's Uranium 1 client, then this investigation carries a Deep State type of charade, and Trump HAS to know this.

Curious how they frame this FARA case when it reflects on the facts that Manafort was working as a consultant with the Podesta Group, and the dealing in Ukraine. How are they not going to lock up the Podesta's if they go full tilt on Manafort? Something tells me they get him on something besides FARA. Isn't there some money charges over the the DC court as well?

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

Curious how they frame this FARA case when it reflects on the facts that Manafort was working as a consultant with the Podesta Group, and the dealing in Ukraine. How are they not going to lock up the Podesta's if they go full tilt on Manafort? Something tells me they get him on something besides FARA. Isn't there some money charges over the the DC court as well?

---

Podesta has lawyered up. Will be interesting to see if he gets some type of immunity deal however. In my mind, since Manafort hired him to handle the CONUS part of the Ukrainian campaign, he would be a defense witness for Manafort.

Thus, Mueller likely won't give him immunity so he'll take the Fifth and not be available to the defense.

Sessions is doing nothing. Huber is doing nothing. Horowitz is doing nothing.

And as a result, none of the real criminals will ever be held accountable.


But Mueller and Weisman are running wild with their bunch of outlaws like Curly Bill and Johnny Ringo, wreaking havoc and ruining lives. And there's no Wyatt Earp or Doc Holliday in sight.

Quote:

---

But Mueller and Weisman are running wild with their bunch of outlaws like Curly Bill and Johnny Ringo, wreaking havoc and ruining lives. And there's no Wyatt Earp or Doc Holliday in sight.

---

Funny, I was thinking Mueller was taking the Wyatt Earp I'm-coming-for-you-and-hell-is-coming-with-me approach with Manafort. He won't rest until Manafort is six feet under.

aggiehawg said:

---

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

Curious how they frame this FARA case when it reflects on the facts that Manafort was working as a consultant with the Podesta Group, and the dealing in Ukraine. How are they not going to lock up the Podesta's if they go full tilt on Manafort? Something tells me they get him on something besides FARA. Isn't there some money charges over the the DC court as well?

---

Podesta has lawyered up. Will be interesting to see if he gets some type of immunity deal however. In my mind, since Manafort hired him to handle the CONUS part of the Ukrainian campaign, he would be a defense witness for Manafort.

Thus, Mueller likely won't give him immunity so he'll take the Fifth and not be available to the defense.

---

Mueller and Comey let Sammy the Bull, walk and that guy had a pile of bodies taller than him. Same thing with Mueller and Whitey Bulger. Gohmert goes nuts when you bring that up.

So, they have to determine if the evidence shows the attorney aided the criminal acts in some material way to break the confidentiality and thus compel testimony or remove privileged and inadmissible status from communications records?

Obviously the prosecution believes it has evidence of involvement that would satisfy the judge.

MASAXET said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Sentencing Recommendation in the Papadopoulus case. They claimed Papadopoulus prevented them from having the ability to interview Josef Mifsud when he was in DC for a State Department meeting when in fact, the FBI did conduct such an interview and had follow-up communications with Mifsud after he left DC.

Those statements conveniently overlook that the FBI had known about the meetings between Papadopoulus and Mifsud since July 2016 when Crossfire Hurricane was first opened. What Papadopoulus did or didn't say nearly six months later in January 2017 had nothing to do with the FBI's ability to talk with Mifsud. He wasn't in hiding back then. He went into hiding after the Papadopoulus plea agreement was announced.

---

I could be wrong, but didn't the sentencing recommendation say they were unable to detain him while he was in DC? That's a distinction with a difference. They could travel outside the US and interview him after he left the US if he was willing, but they could not detain and conduct a custodial interrogation.

---

They did interview him in DC. They could have detained him then. They had six months to build a case to detain him, had they wanted to. Fact is, Mifsud was more closely allied with Western Intelligence than he was with Russian intelligence and had been for a very long time. CIA and FBI knew who he was.

Here's the other thing, Mifsud was interviewed in February 2017. But Papadopoulus's plea deal wasn't announced until later in the fall and that's when he went into hiding. He was living openly in Rome for the intervening months. We have extradition treaties with Italy. If they felt he was lying to him or committed some other crime, indict his butt and file for extradition.

Mueller hit the ground running on the Manafort case, secretly suspending the Statute of Limitations on charging Manafort and carrying out searches on Manafort's storage unit within a few weeks of his appointment. Papadop's boozy conversation with the Aussie, Downer, was allegedly the original trigger for Crossfire Hurricane which was the reason Mueller was even appointed in the first place, not Manafort. He would have seemed to be a pretty high priority rather than Manafort through those lens.

Rapier108 said:

---

Synopsis said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

MouthBQ98 said:

---

If the OIG ends up raising issues on the FISA warrants and an investigation is started on those, would Sessions have standing on that or would Rosenstein, who would then have to revise himself also?

---

Sessions won't touch it, and Rosy will never recuse himself so it will be swept under the rug.

---

Sessions is like the cowardly lion in the wizard of Oz.

---

And still hiding from Al Franken.

---

I'm of the opinion that someone on the Dem side has dirt on Sessions. Its derelict what he's allowed to continue to prosper under his watch.

MouthBQ98 said:

---

So, they have to determine if the evidence shows the attorney aided the criminal acts in some material way to break the confidentiality and thus compel testimony or remove privileged and inadmissible status from communications records?

Obviously the prosecution believes it has evidence of involvement that would satisfy the judge.

---

I have no idea. I think the argument is that Manafort directed the attorney to file a bogus FARA filing and thus was complicit?? Maybe?? My best guess.

rosco511 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Wait, what???? Herridge just reported that Weissman was in the loop when the Steele dossier was being assembled? And now he's on Team Mueller? He's a freakin' fact witness!

---

So Sessions has to recuse himself because of conflicts but Weissman does not? Makes perfect sense...

---

Sessions has been in DC a long time. Seems clear someone has leverage on him as he's just standing to side on anything Trump related. Almost feels like he is the unnamed insurance policy in all the redacted stuff.

Alright fellers, y'all keep up the good work, I'm on the way down to Mecca (Cstat) for the game.

Catch up on the ride.

If I see Weissman thumbing it on Hwy. 6, I'll get him with the passenger door!

fasthorses05 said:

---

Alright fellers, y'all keep up the good work, I'm on the way down to Mecca (Cstat) for the game.

Catch up on the ride.

If I see Weissman thumbing it on Hwy. 6, I'll get him with the passenger door!

---

LOL!

Safe trip! And WHOOP!

If Mueller is after Manafort's lawyer regarding emails, you know Mueller already has the emails, and it follows that the emails were obtained via a FISA on Manafort.