It was the DNC, through Alexandra Chalupa that obtained the 'black ledger."Quote:
In search warrant affidavits, the FBI portrayed the ledger as one reason it resurrected a criminal case against Manafort that was dropped in 2014 and needed search warrants in 2017 for bank records to prove he worked for the Russian-backed Party of Regions in Ukraine.
There's just one problem: The FBI's public reliance on the ledger came months after the feds were warned repeatedly that the document couldn't be trusted and likely was a fake, according to documents and more than a dozen interviews with knowledgeable sources.
For example, Ukraine's top anti-corruption prosecutor, Nazar Kholodnytskyy, told me he warned the U.S. State Department's law enforcement liaison and multiple FBI agents in late summer 2016 that Ukrainian authorities who recovered the ledger believed it likely was a fraud.
"It was not to be considered a document of Manafort. It was not authenticated. And at that time it should not be used in any way to bring accusations against anybody," Kholodnytskyy said, recalling what he told FBI agents.
Likewise, Manafort's Ukrainian business partner Konstantin Kilimnik, a regular informer for the State Department, told the U.S. government almost immediately after the New York Times wrote about the ledger in August 2016 that the document probably was fake.
Manafort "could not have taken large amounts of cash across three borders. It was always a different arrangement payments were in wire transfers to his companies, which is not a violation," Kilimnik wrote in an email to a senior U.S. official on Aug. 22, 2016.
He added: "I have some questions about this black cash stuff because those published records do not make sense. The timeframe doesn't match anything related to payments made to Manafort. It does not match my records. All fees Manafort got were wires, not cash."
Special counsel Robert Mueller's team and the FBI were given copies of Kilimnik's warning, according to three sources familiar with the documents.
Quote:
Submitting knowingly false or suspect evidence whether historical or to support probable cause in a federal court proceeding violates FBI rules and can be a crime under certain circumstances. "To establish probable cause the affiant must demonstrate a basis for knowledge and belief that the facts are true," the FBI operating manual states.
But with Manafort, the FBI and Mueller's office did not cite the actual ledger which would require agents to discuss their assessment of the evidence and instead cited media reports about it. The feds assisted on one of those stories as sources.
For example, agents mentioned the ledger in an affidavit supporting a July 2017 search warrant for Manafort's house, citing it as one of the reasons the FBI resurrected the criminal case against Manafort.
"On Aug. 19, 2016, after public reports regarding connections between Manafort, Ukraine and Russia including an alleged 'black ledger' of off-the-book payments from the Party of Regions to Manafort Manafort left his post as chairman of the Trump campaign," the July 25, 2017, FBI agent's affidavit stated.
AAARRRRRGGGHHHHHHH! Newpaper reports are HEARSAY!!!! This bugs the crap out of me. If the FBI cannot independently corroborate whatever allegations some goofy reporter says, there is no probable cause.Quote:
Three months later, the FBI went further in arguing probable cause for a search warrant for Manafort's bank records, citing a specific article about the ledger as evidence Manafort was paid to perform U.S. lobbying work for the Ukrainians.
"The April 12, 2017, Associated Press article reported that DMI (Manafort's company) records showed at least two payments were made to DMI that correspond to payments in the black ledger," an FBI agent wrote in a footnote to the affidavit.
Quote:
There are two glaring problems with that assertion.
First, the agent failed to disclose that both FBI officials and Department of Justice (DOJ) prosecutor Andrew Weissmann, who later became Mueller's deputy, met with those AP reporters one day before the story was published and assisted their reporting.
An FBI record of the April 11, 2017, meeting declared that the AP reporters "were advised that they appeared to have a good understanding of Manafort's business dealings" in Ukraine.
So, essentially, the FBI cited a leak that the government had facilitated and then used it to support the black ledger evidence, even though it had been clearly warned about the document.
Secondly, the FBI was told the ledger claimed to show cash payments to Manafort when, in fact, agents had been told since 2014 that Manafort received money only by bank wires, mostly routed through the island of Cyprus, memos show.
Quote:
Liberal law professor Alan Dershowitz said FBI affidavits almost never cite news articles as evidence. "They are supposed to cite the primary evidence and not secondary evidence," he said.
"It sounds to me like a fraud on the court, possibly a willful and deliberate fraud that should have consequences for both the court and the attorneys' bar," he added.
First of all, I hate your reason, because it makes sense, and I can't stand the people I want to use it to be used against.aggiehawg said:It is mostly a practicality in preserving resources. Cold cases are notoriously difficult to try as witnesses are lost or their memory fades, evidence gets misplaced or degrades and other factors. Our justice system is designed to utilize their prosecutorial power in the most effective manner possible. If a successful prosecution is very much in doubt, don't waste the resources on it.hawk1689 said:
I thought about starting a thread to discuss this, but I think it's relevant to the discussion. What are the societal benefits of statutes of limitation for criminal acts? I've all too often come across stories similar to the one discussed here where our system is hampered by these artificial time constraints to justice.
At minimum Mueller and members of his team should lose their licenses to practice law. If true justice was to be served they should be in federal prison.will25u said:
Tolling of the Statute of Limitations is not a common occurrence but it does happen. Most often in mob and terrorism related cases just because of how complex those cases can be over a number of years.Quote:
Seriously, I have two questions, and the first has to do with Mueller extending the limitations statute. I know it can be exteneded, and seemed to be done rather casually against Manafort. Is the limitations statute often extended?
Secondly, let's assume Comey is found culpable for some felony, which I believe he will be at some point. Once the sheer breadth of the Clinton e-mail disaster/investigation is completed, I hope it will be shown that Comey issued immunity to interested too casually, with malice to the investigation to protect himself and Clinton, and were therefore issued erroneously. As such, there's got to be a way to show Comey's issuance of immunity was done so with criminal intent, or malpractice, or something that shows it was done illegally?
She wasn't the only one to receive immunity. I'm sure immunity is difficult to recall, so to speak, and rightfully so, but Comey seems to have given an almost blanket immunity to many involved.
For many minor crimes (petty theft, etcetera), if the offender hasn't repeated offenses what is the point or benefit of prosecution(re: unless you're Mueller or Weissmann trying to overreach in a political vendetta).hawk1689 said:
I thought about starting a thread to discuss this, but I think it's relevant to the discussion. What are the societal benefits of statutes of limitation for criminal acts? I've all too often come across stories similar to the one discussed here where our system is hampered by these artificial time constraints to justice.
I was speaking of the IG's findings regarding the Hillary email investigation, not Trump/Russia and the dossier.fasthorses05 said:
I'll take a little umbrance with "reasonable reasons", simply because the testimony of McCabe stating "without the dossier, there would be no investigation".
Just because I have an issue with it, doesn't mean it's not considered "reasonable", so as usual, I'm sure you're correct. I just severely dislike those *******s handing out immunity like they're sticks of gum!
And while we're at it, and since I'm certain Flynn will suit the **** out of the government (Mueller), how much of the government "facts" can be allowed to be used in any suit, not just Flynn's? I ask because I don't think Flynn will be the only lawsuit.
If an indictment is sealed, then the SOL has been met and is not available as a defense. True.will25u said:
If anyone has a sealed indictment, SOL stops, correct? So could that be what has happened for some of this?
fasthorses05 said:
I'll take a little umbrance with "reasonable reasons", simply because the testimony of McCabe stating "without the dossier, there would be no investigation".
Just because I have an issue with it, doesn't mean it's not considered "reasonable", so as usual, I'm sure you're correct. I just severely dislike those *******s handing out immunity like they're sticks of gum!
And while we're at it, and since I'm certain Flynn will suit the **** out of the government (Mueller), how much of the government "facts" can be allowed to be used in any suit, not just Flynn's? I ask because I don't think Flynn will be the only lawsuit.
DING! DING! DING! Federal judges usually don't sign off on immunity deals unless they are given a good reason to do so. Such as the immunized testimony is critical to an ongoing or shortly to commence grand jury investigation. As such, those requests are normally presented to the same judge that is presiding or will preside over the grand jury.Quote:
The Clinton immunity deals aren't reasonable IMO because they got no convictions. Immunity is generally done to get cooperation to convict others. The Clinton deals seem to be to protect them from prosecution with no benefit to the government in other matters.
Actually, I think the exact opposite. Would explain John Kerry running all over God's green earth to meet with Iranians and now Obama's good will tour meeting with European heads or former heads of state. They really thought Trump would have been gone by now. Maybe Pence too.MouthBQ98 said:
Anyone suspect this entire charade was intended to try to run out statues of limitations, or at least create time separation for interested parties to lose interest, as much as anything else?
Is Aggiehawg... an MF Barnes sock?!?!?!?RiskManager93 said:
Longtime lurker with just one or two posts on this thread, but I've followed it closely for more than 850 pages and I think it's time to finally admit it -- I've got huge intellectual crush on aggiehawg.
Thank you for your tireless efforts in keeping everyone informed. It is a real challenge for me to keep up with all of the plot twists in this sordid saga, and as a non-practicing attorney, I rely on your expertise in helping to bridge the gaps where my understanding falls short.
You are a TexAgs treasure.
Yeah, how many immunity deals were cut with key players in the FBI's investigations of Trump?VegasAg86 said:fasthorses05 said:
I'll take a little umbrance with "reasonable reasons", simply because the testimony of McCabe stating "without the dossier, there would be no investigation".
Just because I have an issue with it, doesn't mean it's not considered "reasonable", so as usual, I'm sure you're correct. I just severely dislike those *******s handing out immunity like they're sticks of gum!
And while we're at it, and since I'm certain Flynn will suit the **** out of the government (Mueller), how much of the government "facts" can be allowed to be used in any suit, not just Flynn's? I ask because I don't think Flynn will be the only lawsuit.
The Clinton immunity deals aren't reasonable IMO because they got no convictions. Immunity is generally done to get cooperation to convict others. The Clinton deals seem to be to protect them from prosecution with no benefit to the government in other matters.
None that I am aware of. Flynn tried to get immunity but Team Mueller didn't find his information 'helpful' to them thus denied.Quote:
Yeah, how many immunity deals were cut with key players in the FBI's investigations of Trump?
Quote:
.....Now there is more. The Justice Department has recently allowed members of some congressional committees to view the scope memos, and out of that has come the news that there was a third scope memo to Mueller. Dated Oct. 20, 2017, its contents remain a secret. But its very existence suggests something was going on behind the scenes in the relationship of Mueller and his supervisors at the Justice Department......
Your hypothetical failed at the premise.fasthorses05 said:
I promise I'll quit asking questions after this one.
IF Cheryl and Abedin did actually disclose criminal activity to Comey, and he didn't act on it, does that make him culpable? I suspect it didn't happen, because Comey probably gave them immunity without ANY questions, and certainly without ascertaining if there was criminal activity by Clinton, but I wondered.
akm91 said:
Those eyebrows.....
Quote:
.....A May 24, 2019 order in the "Russian interference" case United States v. Concord Management & Consulting exposes a particularly troubling flaw in the government's effort to control, manage, and curate political ideas from abroad. The special counsel appears to have forgotten to explain how foreign political speech broke U.S. law.
According to the May 24 order, the government is required to demonstrate that Russia-based company Concord had a duty to play "Mother, may I?" with the DOJ and the Federal Elections Commission before posting political speech on the internet using assumed names. Without that, the entire criminal case falls apart.
As noted by Judge Dabney L. Freidrich, speech that might "sow discord among US voters through divisive social media posts and political rallies by itself, was not illegal." Truly, all political speech has the potential to be divisive or sow discord. The prosecution of any political criticism of Hillary Clinton without citing the specific laws supposedly being violated is troubling, to say the least......
ZING!!!Quote:
The mere existence of Mueller's Concord case deters foreign speech likely to offend our left-leaning DOJ. Suppose, and I'm picking a hypothetical example totally at random, a foreigner has information that a candidate's son took money from a foreign interest while that interest had business pending before the candidate when he served in the government? If that candidate has the best chance to defeat Trump, should the DOJ deploy its awesome criminal prosecution powers to prevent that information from reaching the eyes and ears of the American electorate?
What eyebrows...Sarge 91 said:akm91 said:
Those eyebrows.....