|
Post by soonernvolved on Aug 3, 2018 9:10:03 GMT -6
Techno Fog @techno_Fog Obama's former White House Counsel and his firm Skadden were funnelled $4 million to "pay secretly for a report" to whitewash a politically charged prosecution. $4 million for a report? BS. I bet that $4 million was for something else - like access. 11:51 AM - Aug 2, 2018 ..... Based Basterd @basedbasterd This is exactly why they left @paulmanafort alone.......... It implicated Gregory Craig and Clifford Sloan The @fbi already let him walk in 2014https://hotair.com/archives/2018/02/20/breaking-new-mueller-indictment-handed/ … pic.twitter.com/cXUGKnyHUV 12:34 PM - Aug 2, 2018 ....... Glenn York @glennyork So that is why Rosenstein & BHO DOJ dismiss'd Manafort case? In FBI's interview w/Manafort in 2014 re: the "misuse of Ukrainian gov't funds"... Why did that 2014 investigation go nowhere? Because it implicated Obama's former White House Counsel Greg Craig & Clifford Sloan. 2:19 PM - Aug 2, 2018 9 See Glenn York's other Tweets
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Aug 3, 2018 11:45:42 GMT -6
lawandcrime.com/awkward/judge-ellis-loses-all-patience-with-prosecutors-and-ends-court-early-over-major-screw-up/Judge Ellis Loses Patience with Mueller Prosecutors and Ends Court Early Over Screw-Up ...... The last witness called to the stand was J. Philip Ayliff, a certified public accountant (CPA) at Paul Manafort’s long-serving tax-preparation agency, Kositzka, Wicks and Co. (KWC), of Richmond, Virginia. As time inched along during the last witness’s testimony, nothing of particular interest seemed to be occurring at all. Ayliff was mostly providing foundational testimony regarding the basic functions of a tax-preparation company. Prosecutors then moved on to specifics and attempted to “publish” one of Manafort’s e-file forms. Judge T.S. Ellis III‘s weariness all but amazed the courtroom as he denied the request–complete with an actual and pronounced finger-wag–before shouting:
“No! You move it along!”[/i] Composing themselves again, the prosecution moved slowly forward before asking Ayliff to define the term “financial interest.” Ayliff began to answer the question but was immediately cut off by Ellis who noted that Ayliff was not a noticed expert. The defense then belatedly objected, prompting a quick and sarcastic dressing-down from the judge–but it was again the prosecution’s turn for scorn. Static filled the courtroom as the longest bench conference of the day ensued. Upon returning to Ayliff’s testimony, the jury learned that the issue had been deferred until Friday–if ever. Then, Assistant U.S. Attorney Uzo Asonye asked about another term of art contained on federal tax forms. Judge Ellis, who was already standing by this point, advised Ayliff to wait and announced the court would recess early. ....... After the jury left, Judge Ellis explained to the press what was discussed during the bench conference.: That is, not only was Ayliff not an expert and not a noticed expert as necessitated by the Federal Rules of Evidence–but his testimony had the potential to derail an already-agreed-upon definition of the term(s) in question. This, Ellis said, could have “confused or clouded” things for the jury. ......... This is the second day where team Mueller looked like amateur hour and got severely rebuked by the Judge. This is not starting off well for them at all.
|
|
|
Post by oilsooner on Aug 3, 2018 12:22:13 GMT -6
Struggling a bit on this Mannafort deal.
First off, I totally agree it’s a politically motivated prosecution, and that’s wrong. I haven’t really seen anyone argue otherwise.
However, if he did the crime....well, it’s hard for me to feel complete empathy for him.
Which is paramount? Are we standing idly by as the wheels of justice are squared to convict someone we are sure is otherwise justified the punishment? Or, are we just prosecuting crimes committed?
It’s hard to too strongly back the latter, because things happen in context. And, there are rules against presupposing someone’s guilt for a reason.
Should Trumps past transgressions force his impeachment? That’s likely what this is coming to, and should be the context in which we are considering it.
Honestly, I’d want Trump to go down if it was proven he was part of the Deep State, or colluded with Russia. But, the time is upon us when those from the other side will be tested to see if they will stand up for what’s empirically just, even if to their own ideological detriment. Given the context to date, I’ve had better odds. But, I still hope for the best.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Aug 3, 2018 14:06:57 GMT -6
So, when’s the investigation into collusion, etc for this one? Seriously, 20 years by her side & nobody knew anything? sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2018/08/01/details-chinese-spy-dianne-feinstein-san-francisco/New details emerged Wednesday about how a mole for the government of communist China managed to stay by Senator Dianne Feinstein’s side for nearly 20 years. It happened five years ago, but additional information is just surfacing about how the Bay Area senator’s office was infiltrated by a Chinese spy. The Bay Area is a hotbed for Russian and Chinese espionage. Late last year, the feds shut down the Russian consulate in San Francisco. You may remember the thick black smoke that billowing from building before Russian diplomats turned it over to authorities, presumably produced by burning documents. Now, all eyes are on Chinese intelligence in the Bay Area after the website Politico reported last week that a staffer for Senator Feinstein turned out to be a Chinese spy who reported back to the government officials about local politics. On Wednesday, the San Francisco Chronicle uncovered additional details in a column written by reporters Phil Matier and Andy Ross. The column revealed that the Chinese spy was Feinstein’s driver who also served as a gofer in her Bay Area office and was a liaison to the Asian-American community. He even attended Chinese consulate functions for the senator. Feinstein — who was Chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee at the time — was reportedly mortified when the FBI told her she’d be infiltrated.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Aug 3, 2018 14:19:57 GMT -6
www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/08/03/sen-mark-warner-strays-from-dem-talking-point-says-foreign-interference-didnt-favor-any-party/NEW YORK — Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), vice chairman of the Senate intelligence committee, seems to have strayed from the Democrats’ talking point, reinforced by Obama-era intelligence agencies, that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election specifically to ensure that Donald Trump was victorious. Warner stated: “This is one where there is no Democratic or Republican answer since clearly the goal of our adversaries was not to favor one party over the other. It was to wreak havoc and split divisions.”[/i] Warner made those brief closing remarks at the end of Wednesday’s Senate intelligence committee hearing on “foreign influence on social media” that focused significantly on the 2016 election. The hearing took place nearly one month after Warner’s Senate intelligence committee released a seven-page report documenting its initial findings in its investigation into alleged Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and affirming a U.S. Intelligence Community report alleging the Russian government specifically sought to aid Donald Trump’s election chances. ...... Seems someone forgot their talking points.
|
|
|
Post by kcrufnek on Aug 3, 2018 15:40:26 GMT -6
Struggling a bit on this Mannafort deal. First off, I totally agree it’s a politically motivated prosecution, and that’s wrong. I haven’t really seen anyone argue otherwise. However, if he did the crime....well, it’s hard for me to feel complete empathy for him. Which is paramount? Are we standing idly by as the wheels of justice are squared to convict someone we are sure is otherwise justified the punishment? Or, are we just prosecuting crimes committed? It’s hard to too strongly back the latter, because things happen in context. And, there are rules against presupposing someone’s guilt for a reason. Should Trumps past transgressions force his impeachment? That’s likely what this is coming to, and should be the context in which we are considering it. Honestly, I’d want Trump to go down if it was proven he was part of the Deep State, or colluded with Russia. But, the time is upon us when those from the other side will be tested to see if they will stand up for what’s empirically just, even if to their own ideological detriment. Given the context to date, I’ve had better odds. But, I still hope for the best. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk If he hadn't been associated with Trump these charges would never have been brought. Something from 2006? Isn't that a little past the expiration date? And if tax evasion is a reason for solitary confinement why isn't Sharpton on trial? This is pure bullshit and everyone knows it.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Aug 3, 2018 16:59:33 GMT -6
www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/jw-v-doj-02046-hillary-r-clinton-part-24-of-24/Surprise! Hillary lawyers announce that there is a “successor server” that they can request access to. FBI is not thrilled with the revelation. — Jordan Schachtel (@jordanschachtel) August 3, 2018 ........ FBI has released new info on Hillary Clinton investigation. Most interesting thing I’ve seen thus far is timeline documenting back & forth btwn DOJ & Hillary’s lawyers over what they could & could not see. A lot of negotiating! Was she hiding something?https://t.co/2G6oA7vDDv pic.twitter.com/nlbYIncsKu — Jordan Schachtel (@jordanschachtel) August 3, 2018 ......
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Aug 3, 2018 17:19:44 GMT -6
Hillary Clinton’s attorney’s initially did not disclose the existence of the PRN server to the FBI. These letters/docs show the negotiation of giving the FBI access. Why is the FBI negotiating evidence? 10/3/15 – access given Part 1, pgs 6-7; Part 10, pgs 8, 17, now part 24 too t.co/fNdt8UBbor— Katica (@goppollanalyst) August 3, 2018 .... FBI turns over more Clinton investigative file docs, thanks to @judicialwatch lawsuit. Includes pics of infamous Platte River Clinton server. Show Obama DOJ/FBI kowtowing to Clinton gang lawyers. t.co/6B2CT9cF7f— Tom Fitton (@tomfitton) August 3, 2018
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Aug 3, 2018 18:43:19 GMT -6
www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-fbi-records-show-dossier-author-deemed-not-suitable-for-use-as-source-show-several-fbi-payments-in-2016/Judicial Watch announced today the FBI turned over 70 pages of heavily redacted records about Christopher Steele, the former British spy, hired with Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee funds, who authored the infamous Dossier targeting President Trump during last year’s presidential campaign. The documents show that Steele was cut off as a “Confidential Human Source” (CHS) after he disclosed his relationship with the FBI to a third party. The documents show at least 11 FBI payments to Steele in 2016 and document that he was admonished for unknown reasons in February, 2016. The documents were turned over in response to Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Justice for records of communications and payments between the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele and his private firm, Orbis Business Intelligence (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice(No. 1:17-cv-00916)). The documents include a “source closing communication” that states that Steele (referred to as “CHS” or Confidential Human Source) “is being closed” because: CHS confirmed to an outside third party that CHS has a confidential relationship with the FBI. CHS was used as a source for an online article. In the article, CHS revealed CHS’ relationship with the FBI as well as information that CHS obtained and provided to FBI. On November 1, 2016, CHS confirmed all of this to the handling agent. At that time, handling agent advised CHS that the nature of the relationship between the FBI and CHS would change completely and that it was unlikely that the FBI would continue a relationship with the CHS. Additionally, handling agent advised that CHS was not to operate to obtain any intelligence whatsoever on behalf of the FBI. The documents also show that Steele was paid repeatedly by the FBI and was “admonished” for some unknown misconduct in February, 2016. The documents include: ...... President of Judicial Watch Tom Fitton had this to say about the Steele docs: “These new docs show that the shady, cash-based relationship the Obama FBI had with Clinton operative Christopher Steele. The anti-Trump Russia ‘investigation’ had Christopher Steele at its center and his misconduct was no impediment to using information from his Russia intelligence collaborators to spy on the Trump team. The corruption and abuse is astonishing.”
|
|
|
Post by atl1979 on Aug 3, 2018 20:06:03 GMT -6
So which entity paid the most money to the British spy to collect propaganda from the Russians, DNC or FBI?
|
|
|
Post by Boots on Aug 3, 2018 20:14:07 GMT -6
So which entity paid the most money to the British spy to collect propaganda from the Russians, DNC or FBI? I have been screaming in the wind since this stuff came out that if Steele paid current Russian officals for this information, the people who paid for those services are guilty of Foreign Corrupt Practices Act violations.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Aug 4, 2018 4:19:01 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Aug 4, 2018 4:20:06 GMT -6
So which entity paid the most money to the British spy to collect propaganda from the Russians, DNC or FBI? I have been screaming in the wind since this stuff came out that if Steele paid current Russian officals for this information, the people who paid for those services are guilty of Foreign Corrupt Practices Act violations. That might be part of the reason nearly all of the released report was redacted.
|
|
|
Post by politicalmexininja on Aug 4, 2018 5:51:34 GMT -6
It's past time for Trump to declassify EVERYTHING for the betterment of America....this is the one time he needs to ignore the 'advice' he's getting...unlike Twitter....I really wish he'd just quit being so petty...
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Aug 4, 2018 10:46:16 GMT -6
Interesting questions arise if this is true/accurate,(namely did Mueller get paid for the trip & photo op with the Ukraine President, did he file a FARA form? Etc sites.google.com/view/politicscentral/home/paul-manaforts-friendsFor a little back story, Yulia Tymoshenko runs for reelection in Ukraine, she loses, and just like Hillary, Tymoshenko fails to lose gracefully and promises to #Resist. Her victorious opponent, Viktor Yanukovytch, throws her in jail for what many claim to be bogus charges [something President Trump has not yet done to Hillary Clinton.] ....... While she was in jail, guess who pleaded for her release? John McCain. As a matter of fact, John McCain thought the Ukrainian election was of such paramount importance to the United States that he gets the Senate to form a Ukrainian Caucus in order to further Ukrainian interests, of which John McCain is a member. When she gets out of jail, there’s a push for an investigation into the mishandling of her trial and the charges themselves. So the Ukrainian government, which is still run by the guy she lost the election to, Viktor Yanukovych, hires the law firm of Skadden Arps, specifically Greg Craig [Obama’s former White House Counsel], and a lobbyist, Paul Manafort. Greg Craig’s team of attorneys included Alex Van Der Zwann. Van Der Zwann’s father-in-law is a business partner to the same Oleg Deripaska that is connected to the Clintons and the Obamas, the same Oleg Deripaska that paid for the Steele dossier, the Steele dossier that Manafort’s lobbying partner and McCain’s chief of staff went to pick up in London. Van Der Zwann is the same guy that Mueller just indicted for lying to the FBI. And Oleg Deripaska is suing Manafort for monies that the Russian oligarch believes Manafort stole from him in a business deal gone bad. And if your head isn’t spinning fast enough from all these connections so far, let me add to it by saying, let us not forget that Paul Manafort was McCain’s campaign manager during McCain’s failed bid to become President of the United States. (Side note: Is McCain holding a grudge? We know he is with Sarah Palin.) Anyway, due to all the negative publicity stemming from the Tymoshenko debacle, Yanukovytch tried to repair his image before the public, so he hires the lobbyist, Paul Manafort, who then hires John Podesta’s lobbying outfit. Their job was to make Yanukovytch seem like a really likable guy to the Ukrainian public, so Podesta gets both Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John Kerry’s State Department to do photo ops with Yanukovytch because, you know, the DNC coffers needed to be filled during election time, so they had to sell Yanukovytch as a real class act to the adoring public. Obama even went so far as to declare the Ukrainian election to be free and fair. But guess who else did photo ops with Yanukovytch? Bob Mueller, the same Mueller that’s now prosecuting these very people. Rod Rosenstein’s memo said Mueller was specifically authorized to investigate allegations that Manafort “[c]ommitted a crime or crimes arising out of payments he received from the Ukrainian government before and during the tenure of President Viktor Yanukovych.” Did Bob Mueller allow these photos to be taken out of the goodness of his heart, or did he monetarily benefit from them? Hmmm, let me think about that one. If Mueller was paid for these photo ops, did he declare these monies? Surely Mueller would not have paid for his own airfare to the Ukraine. If somebody else paid for his airfare, did Mueller declare that too? Did Mueller fill out a FARA form? Same questions for all of the others involved, like, Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John Kerry’s people. But isn’t it the most interesting of all that all these people who monetarily benefited from this situation are now the very same ones who are behind the prosecution of Paul Manafort?
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Aug 5, 2018 18:47:08 GMT -6
Conversation Paul Sperry Paul Sperry @paulsperry_ Look this month for POTUS to declassify ...
-- 20 redacted pages of June 2017 FISA renewal
... and possibly ...
-- 63 pages of emails and notes b/t Ohr & Steele
-- FD-302 summaries of 12 FBI interviews w/ Ohr re Steele
... and watch Dems and media toadies become apoplectic 9:37 AM · Aug 5, 2018 1.9K Retweets 3.5K Likes
|
|
|
Post by NN on Aug 6, 2018 8:52:37 GMT -6
Struggling a bit on this Mannafort deal. First off, I totally agree it’s a politically motivated prosecution, and that’s wrong. I haven’t really seen anyone argue otherwise. However, if he did the crime....well, it’s hard for me to feel complete empathy for him. Which is paramount? Are we standing idly by as the wheels of justice are squared to convict someone we are sure is otherwise justified the punishment? Or, are we just prosecuting crimes committed? It’s hard to too strongly back the latter, because things happen in context. And, there are rules against presupposing someone’s guilt for a reason. Should Trumps past transgressions force his impeachment? That’s likely what this is coming to, and should be the context in which we are considering it. Honestly, I’d want Trump to go down if it was proven he was part of the Deep State, or colluded with Russia. But, the time is upon us when those from the other side will be tested to see if they will stand up for what’s empirically just, even if to their own ideological detriment. Given the context to date, I’ve had better odds. But, I still hope for the best. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk If he hadn't been associated with Trump these charges would never have been brought. Something from 2006? Isn't that a little past the expiration date? And if tax evasion is a reason for solitary confinement why isn't Sharpton on trial? This is pure bullshit and everyone knows it. 1. He's in jail because he was a flight risk. 2. Solitary, do you think he'd be safe if he weren't in solitary? 69 year old rich white guys associated with trump I don't think would be very popular the guest of the jail. 3. Manafort is a means to an end. They have Gates in their pocket, I'm sure they'd like to have a second person to strengthen or make their case.
|
|
|
Post by okirishfan on Aug 6, 2018 9:08:11 GMT -6
If he hadn't been associated with Trump these charges would never have been brought. Something from 2006? Isn't that a little past the expiration date? And if tax evasion is a reason for solitary confinement why isn't Sharpton on trial? This is pure bullshit and everyone knows it. 1. He's in jail because he was a flight risk. 2. Solitary, do you think he'd be safe if he weren't in solitary? 69 year old rich white guys associated with trump I don't think would be very popular the guest of the jail. 3. Manafort is a means to an end. They have Gates in their pocket, I'm sure they'd like to have a second person to strengthen or make their case. It wasn't just that he was a flight risk. He was, dare I use the word, "colluding' or attempting to collude with witnesses in the trial. Apparently the judge didn't like the idea of the accused trying to work stories out with witnesses. Shocking, I know.
|
|
|
Post by NN on Aug 6, 2018 9:34:04 GMT -6
1. He's in jail because he was a flight risk. 2. Solitary, do you think he'd be safe if he weren't in solitary? 69 year old rich white guys associated with trump I don't think would be very popular the guest of the jail. 3. Manafort is a means to an end. They have Gates in their pocket, I'm sure they'd like to have a second person to strengthen or make their case. It wasn't just that he was a flight risk. He was, dare I use the word, "colluding' or attempting to collude with witnesses in the trial. Apparently the judge didn't like the idea of the accused trying to work stories out with witnesses. Shocking, I know. Oh yeah, I forgot all about him trying to witness tamper. Thanks for the reminder.
|
|
|
Post by xingtherubicon on Aug 6, 2018 10:05:54 GMT -6
Is Collusion in jail yet? Lolz.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Aug 6, 2018 11:59:46 GMT -6
dailycaller.com/2018/08/06/comey-leaker-lawsuit/The Daily Caller News Foundation is suing the Department of Justice for failing to produce records regarding the Columbia University professor who received four memos from former FBI Director James Comey, one of which was leaked to The New York Times. Cause of Action Institute, a conservative nonprofit watchdog, filed the lawsuit on behalf of TheDCNF Monday after the Justice Department and the FBI failed to produce any records related to Daniel Richman in response to the news organization’s April 25 Freedom of Information Act request. Richman is a long-time friend and confidante of Comey and obtained at least four of the former FBI director’s memos about his conversations with President Donald Trump, two of which contained classified information, according to news reports. He leaked at least one Comey memo to The New York Times. (RELATED: Congress Wants Details Of Comey Friend’s Handling Of Trump Memos) Meanwhile, Comey, in a July 5, 2016 press conference, absolved then-Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton of any criminal activity in using her private server for government business while she served as secretary of state, saying that she was “extremely careless,” but not grossly negligent in using a private server for official government business. Gross negligence would constitute a federal offense tied to the mishandling of classified government secrets.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Aug 6, 2018 12:11:06 GMT -6
www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-08-06/trump-override-rosenstein-declassify-remaining-doj-fisa-docs-reportAfter months of dribbling out incomplete document requests made by frustrated GOP lawmakers, President Trump may be about to override Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and use his presidential authority to declassify several caches of information related to the DOJ/FBI's ongoing Trump-Russia counterintelligence operation, according to former IBD Bureau Chief Paul Sperry. Sperry tweeted on Sunday that President Trump may declassify: 20 redacted pages of a June, 2017 FISA renewal, "and possibly" 63 pages of emails and notes between "Ohr & Steele," and FD-302 summaries of 12 interviews - In reference to twice-demoted DOJ official Bruce Ohr and/or his wife Nellie, both of whom were working with opposition research firm Fusion GPS to investigate Trump.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Aug 6, 2018 14:32:15 GMT -6
www.politico.com/story/2018/08/06/rick-gates-set-to-take-the-stand-in-manafort-trial-764866Rick Gates, the longtime deputy of former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, is set to take the stand Monday afternoon in Manafort’s trial on charges of bank and tax fraud related to overseas earnings, a lawyer for Gates told POLITICO. Gates is considered the star witness for the prosecution against Manafort — and his testimony in an Alexandria, Virginia courtroom is the first time he’s known to have faced Manafort since he agreed to cooperate with special counsel Robert Mueller’s team in February. Gates’ central roles in the campaign and transition of President Donald Trump have made him a pivotal witness in Mueller’s ongoing probe. But he was also at Manafort’s side while the pair conducted a lobbying effort on behalf of a pro-Russia political party in Ukraine years before they joined Trump.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Aug 6, 2018 17:04:56 GMT -6
www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/08/06/rick-gates-testifies-committed-crimes-while-working-for-paul-manafort.htmlRick Gates on Monday took the stand in the federal fraud case against his former business partner, ex-Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, testifying that he committed crimes while working for Manafort. “Were you involved in criminal activity when you worked for Paul Manafort?” federal prosecutor Greg Andres asked the witness. “Yes,” Gates replied. “Did you commit a crime?” Andres asked. “Yes,” Gates said. ..... www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/manafort-trial/index.htmlGates told the jury he helped Manafort file false tax returns by lying to his boss’ accountants about under-reporting income, creating false loans, and not disclosing Manafort’s ownership of the foreign accounts. In each of those instances Gates told the jury he lied “at the direction of Mr Manafort.” Prosecutor Greg Andres began walking Gates through his plea agreement with Gates explaining his legal trouble increased after he lied to prosecutors during the investigation. Rick Gates said he had been cheating Paul Manafort out of money to the tune of “several hundred thousand” dollars. Gates told the jury that as part of his plea with the government, he revealed several other crimes that were not previously known and are not in the federal indictments of him and Manafort. Gates said he stole the money from Manafort by submitting to him false expense reports. Those expenses paid to him came out of the foreign bank accounts in Cyprus that Gates said he and Manafort knowingly did not disclose to the federal government. Gates said he also created a fake letter to an investment company for a different colleague, Steve Brown. He also overreported his income on mortgage and credit card applications and lied to his own personal tax accountant.
|
|
|
Post by kcrufnek on Aug 6, 2018 17:45:23 GMT -6
www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/08/06/rick-gates-testifies-committed-crimes-while-working-for-paul-manafort.htmlRick Gates on Monday took the stand in the federal fraud case against his former business partner, ex-Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, testifying that he committed crimes while working for Manafort. “Were you involved in criminal activity when you worked for Paul Manafort?” federal prosecutor Greg Andres asked the witness. “Yes,” Gates replied. “Did you commit a crime?” Andres asked. “Yes,” Gates said. ..... www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/manafort-trial/index.htmlGates told the jury he helped Manafort file false tax returns by lying to his boss’ accountants about under-reporting income, creating false loans, and not disclosing Manafort’s ownership of the foreign accounts. In each of those instances Gates told the jury he lied “at the direction of Mr Manafort.” Prosecutor Greg Andres began walking Gates through his plea agreement with Gates explaining his legal trouble increased after he lied to prosecutors during the investigation. Rick Gates said he had been cheating Paul Manafort out of money to the tune of “several hundred thousand” dollars. Gates told the jury that as part of his plea with the government, he revealed several other crimes that were not previously known and are not in the federal indictments of him and Manafort. Gates said he stole the money from Manafort by submitting to him false expense reports. Those expenses paid to him came out of the foreign bank accounts in Cyprus that Gates said he and Manafort knowingly did not disclose to the federal government. Gates said he also created a fake letter to an investment company for a different colleague, Steve Brown. He also overreported his income on mortgage and credit card applications and lied to his own personal tax accountant. Sounds like they have a great case against Gates.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Aug 6, 2018 18:30:02 GMT -6
So, the Chinese spy was identified & he wasn’t just Feinstein’s driver, but her office manager:
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Aug 6, 2018 18:31:53 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Aug 6, 2018 18:39:25 GMT -6
www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/08/06/rick-gates-testifies-committed-crimes-while-working-for-paul-manafort.htmlRick Gates on Monday took the stand in the federal fraud case against his former business partner, ex-Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, testifying that he committed crimes while working for Manafort. “Were you involved in criminal activity when you worked for Paul Manafort?” federal prosecutor Greg Andres asked the witness. “Yes,” Gates replied. “Did you commit a crime?” Andres asked. “Yes,” Gates said. ..... www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/manafort-trial/index.htmlGates told the jury he helped Manafort file false tax returns by lying to his boss’ accountants about under-reporting income, creating false loans, and not disclosing Manafort’s ownership of the foreign accounts. In each of those instances Gates told the jury he lied “at the direction of Mr Manafort.” Prosecutor Greg Andres began walking Gates through his plea agreement with Gates explaining his legal trouble increased after he lied to prosecutors during the investigation. Rick Gates said he had been cheating Paul Manafort out of money to the tune of “several hundred thousand” dollars. Gates told the jury that as part of his plea with the government, he revealed several other crimes that were not previously known and are not in the federal indictments of him and Manafort. Gates said he stole the money from Manafort by submitting to him false expense reports. Those expenses paid to him came out of the foreign bank accounts in Cyprus that Gates said he and Manafort knowingly did not disclose to the federal government. Gates said he also created a fake letter to an investment company for a different colleague, Steve Brown. He also overreported his income on mortgage and credit card applications and lied to his own personal tax accountant. Sounds like they have a great case against Gates. I saw these two comments elsewhere that summed it up perfectly for me: #1: If I were on the jury I would not give much weight to the testimony of an admitted, liar, thief and embezzler like Gates. He would say anything to stay out of prison himself. #2: Based on what we saw today I would say that any competent juror is looking around and saying "what am I doing here?" I am supposed to convict one guy of a 15 year old tax reporting case on the word of the very guy who was in charge of the reporting, who admits that he lied and misled the accountant and who, oh by the way, just happened to embezzle hundreds of thousands of dollars from the guy he is now testifying against? I would be voting to end this charade and ask the judge to sanction the idiots that brought the case to trial.
|
|
|
Post by politicalmexininja on Aug 6, 2018 19:08:52 GMT -6
Sounds like they have a great case against Gates. I saw these two comments elsewhere that summed it up perfectly for me: #1: If I were on the jury I would not give much weight to the testimony of an admitted, liar, thief and embezzler like Gates. He would say anything to stay out of prison himself. #2: Based on what we saw today I would say that any competent juror is looking around and saying "what am I doing here?" I am supposed to convict one guy of a 15 year old tax reporting case on the word of the very guy who was in charge of the reporting, who admits that he lied and misled the accountant and who, oh by the way, just happened to embezzle hundreds of thousands of dollars from the guy he is now testifying against? I would be voting to end this charade and ask the judge to sanction the idiots that brought the case to trial. No way this ends with Manafort doing jail time much less paying a fine, etc. I think Ellis is making it pretty clear this is a BS prosecution. Is this the kind of trial Ellis could throw out the verdict and 'free' Manafort if there is a 'guilty' verdict? Esquires???
|
|
|
Post by kcrufnek on Aug 6, 2018 19:16:12 GMT -6
No way this ends with Manafort doing jail time much less paying a fine, etc. I think Ellis is making it pretty clear this is a BS prosecution. Is this the kind of trial Ellis could throw out the verdict and 'free' Manafort if there is a 'guilty' verdict? Esquires??? If so expect Rodney King part II
|
|