That sounds like something that would be better left to prosecutorial discretion and isn't something that helps protect the rights of the citizens.

From Will's link:

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.

---

It was the DNC, through Alexandra Chalupa that obtained the 'black ledger."

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.

---

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.

---

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.

But wait it actually gets worse!!!

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.

---

Dersh agrees with me.

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.

---

aggiehawg said:

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

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 parties 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.

Damn the torpedoes (or something like that). This isn't a normall case. I know most elected Republican's know the importance of American's trusting government institutions is at a tipping point. I already don't,, but a lot of the voting public who aren't sure want to be reassured..

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.

---

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.

When applied to Manafort, that was a more questionable move and I confess I have never seen the justification Team Mueller used to get a court to toll it. But then again virtually nothing Team Mueller did to Manafort made jurisprudence sense to me as it was all designed to be a squeeze play, not bringing a criminal to justice. You can guaradamntee that if Manafort had really bad dirt on Trump, Mueller would have let him skate on the vast majority of it by turning state's evidence.

The Comey scenario presents and interesting issue as it was not him acting alone, it was a conspiracy involving a lot of folks. Arguably, until DOJ and FBI were in the control of the Trump administration, there could be a tolling. As all of the people in charge were involved in obstructing justice and there was no one else left to bring charges.

The legal theory would be roughly like this: Comey, Lynch, McCabe, Strzok, Page and others were part of a grand conspiracy that lasted throughout the Hillary email investigation and then continued on in the Trump Russia investigation. The players were the same. The motive was the same, protecting Hillary, then protecting Hillary from Trump. That conspiracy remained in effect, with people coming and going until the end of the Mueller investigation. Linking acts committed in 2015-2016 to a broader conspiracy that lasted until May 2019.

Throw in Mueller's fantastically elastic view of defrauding the government by the government officials and Voila!

All of that having been said, I'm not confident that such and argument would win the day even if it were ever made. Reason being is the IG Report on possible bias during the email investigation. His finding was that were reasonable reasons supporting the actions the FBI and DOJ took that could not be solely attributed to mal-intent. Judgments calls.

Comey's action with his memos (stealing government records and illegal leaks of classified information) and his perjury before Congress on multiple occasions in 2017, are still in play however.

Aaannndd Mueller is still a POS.

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.

---

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).

On the other hand, maybe certain crimes should have a longer statute of limitations. I would put abuse of government powers in the category.

This is just sickening.

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.

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.

---

I was speaking of the IG's findings regarding the Hillary email investigation, not Trump/Russia and the dossier.

Since Flynn has just hired a boutique law firm that specializes in suing the government, I'll leave the decisions an whether and when to do so on Flynn's behalf in their capable hands.

As to McCabe I am frankly bumfuzzled as to why he hasn't been indicted yet. He's a direct line to Comey. I'd rather have Comey indicted than McCabe. Give McCabe a Queen for a Day and find out what he has and get on with it already.

If anyone has a sealed indictment, SOL stops, correct? So could that be what has happened for some of this?

will25u said:

---

If anyone has a sealed indictment, SOL stops, correct? So could that be what has happened for some of this?

---

If an indictment is sealed, then the SOL has been met and is not available as a defense. True.

That is in no way an affirmation nor suggestion that there are sealed indictments having anything to do with Trump/Russia nor other wrongdoing by the Comey Cabal. I'll leave that speculation to the Q thread.

I am definitely not a lawyer but look at it from the perspective of the defendant. I get that you shouldn't have to prove your own innocence, but a lot of the evidence disappears over time.

A real life example: what would have happened with the Kavanaugh mess if there was no statute of limitations? The frothy mob calls for an indictment, then what? At the very least, he would have had to expend legal fees to defend himself. Ridiculous.

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?

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?

---

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.

Not for anything he did or did not do with the Russians but for obstruction. First Comey and thenTeam Mueller was trying to provoke Trump into doing something that would cause his support to wane.

They failed.

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.

---

Is Aggiehawg... an MF Barnes sock?!?!?!?


(I KEED I KEED!!!!! don't kill me)

I do love Hawg-posts... I wish I understood them more than 25% of the time.

Poor idea. Nice try at a save.

Keep your day job because humor isn't your strong point.

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.

---

Yeah, how many immunity deals were cut with key players in the FBI's investigations of Trump?

Quote:

---

Yeah, how many immunity deals were cut with key players in the FBI's investigations of Trump?

---

None that I am aware of. Flynn tried to get immunity but Team Mueller didn't find his information 'helpful' to them thus denied.

Cohen tried desperately to gain immunity but also denied.

Guess Team Mueller couldn't buy any Skittles to hand out like Comey and DOJ did during the Hillary investi...er...matter.

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.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/byron-york-now-word-of-a-mysterious-third-scope-memo-for-robert-mueller

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......

---

Authorization for the 'obstruction of justice' investigation?

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.

---

Your hypothetical failed at the premise.

Funny.

Those eyebrows.....

akm91 said:

---

Those eyebrows.....

---

https://thefederalist.com/2019/06/20/special-counsel-case-russian-company-takes-page-soviet-handbook/

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......

---

That Concord Management case is something else. Fascinating read.

Sarge 91 said:

---

akm91 said:

---

Those eyebrows.....

---

---

What eyebrows...

SIAP:

Was just coming here to post that. Summary: Stone posted to FaceBook and Instagram links to recent articles regarding the lack of a final CrowdStrike report on the DNC hacking. The government contends that is a violation of the Court's gag order and wants him to be jailed.

As a general rule, not a fan of gag orders in any case but in some instances they are necessary. However, a mere assertion of innocence or a link to news articles raising questions about the government's case does not warrant imprisonment. A defendant still maintains their Fifth and First Amendment rights while under indictment.

But that's not a view shared by Judge Amy Berman Jackson.

Stone's screwed here.

ETA: I see Team Mueller toadie Zelinsky is a Special Assistant US Attorney and still on the case.