I yield to no one in my disdain for President Trump. And I certainly have no brief for Manafort, who has been accused of laundering tens of millions of dollars from sources connected with Russia and the Ukraine. Thus my overall assessment is that Manafort has some significant legal exposure and that, given his role in the Trump presidential campaign, that exposure is of concern to Trump and of interest to the special counsel.
All that said, I think that the special counsel's allegations of witness tampering are rather ... thin. The FBI agent's declaration in support of the allegations is long on detail about what Manafort and the "Hapsburg Group" did before the elections and short on information about the tampering allegation itself. Drill down into the exhibits and you will see that only one, Exhibit N, is evidence of communications between Manafort and the witnesses he is alleged to have contacted in a tampering effort.
But direct evidence against Manafort is almost nonexistent. Saying "we should talk" and "I want to give you an update" or a "heads-up" is hardly the stuff that true witness-tampering charges are made of. And, more to the point, if the entire conversation in which Manfort participated lasted for less than a minute and a half, he'd have to be a very, very fast talker to have accomplished tampering. (link)So what to make of the most recent indictment against Paul Manafort? I have to agree with the same "anti-Trump legal expert" when he states:
My speculation is simple: This is a sign that they are feeling pressure. Possibly from Trump. Possibly from Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. Possibly just from their reading of the public tea leaves. Whatever the source of the pressure, they have an increased sense of urgency to move quickly
And that translates to the want, and need, for Manafort's cooperation. Not later but now. And the only way to get that cooperation now is to ramp up the pressure. The motion, if successful, would put Manafort in jail sooner rather than later, at the end of what promises to be a lengthy trial. That would concentrate Manafort's mind quite a bit—and this is the type of pressure tactic that prosecutors use all the time. So that isn't a surprise.I guess this ties into Mueller asking for people's phones so that he can seek out their secret encrypted messages that were otherwise hidden from him. There seems to be a very harsh reality for Mueller, Rosenstein, and gang... and that is that the American public is quickly losing confidence, and patience with this investigation. Mueller is running out of time, and he knows it. Now is the time to make your big move. Pull your goaltender. Bring in that pinch hitter. Full court press. Toss the Hail Mary.
Of course the bigger problem is that it is actually unlikely that Manafort is holding out on Mueller. It's even more unlikely that people had secret conversations, using encryption apps, have so far gotten away with all their deceit, but yet were stupid enough to have hung to the incriminating phones, rather than smash them into little bits of metal.
BTW:
TAMPERING WITH A WITNESS Title 18, U.S.C., Sec. 1512, makes it a Federal crime or offense for anyone to use intimidation or physical force to threaten another person with intent to influence the testimony of a witness in any Court proceeding.
A person can be found guilty of that offense only if all of the following facts are proved beyond a reasonable doubt: First: That the witness was scheduled to be a witness in court; Second: That the person used intimidation/physical force against such witness; and Third: That the person did so knowingly and willfully with the intent to influence the testimony of the witness.
To act with intent to "influence" the testimony of a witness means to act for the purpose of getting the witness to change or color or shade his or her testimony in some way; but it is not necessary to prove that the witness' testimony was, in fact, changed in any way.
39 comments:
Trump has been successfully confusing you and the rest of his base that the whole thing is a deep state conspiracy viruse that has infected you with his propaganda campaign.
He's being very friendly with Kim Jong Un and Vladimir Putin than to our NATO allies with his trade war. He's supporting to include Russia in the J7. He's arriving late tonight and leaving early because he allegedly has to prepare for his meeting with Kim Jong Ung although he's been saying that he is going to follow his feelings instead of doing intense historical analysis.
He was shouting at the press and saying that "Russia should be invited ".
After his tweet tirade this morning.
But all you do is agree with the President and he has the authority to pardon himself and anyone else who might have damaging information on your President.
Your analogy to hockey is as ridiculous as you have ever said.
You're following your feelings not your intellect.
Once again, an unhinged rant from Roger which has absolutely nothing to do with the topic.
Your link is from Wednesday. It doesn't include the new indictments.
Skip right over Roger's stupid posts
After his tweet tirade this morning.
But all you do is agree with the President and he has the authority to pardon himself and anyone else who might have damaging information on your President.
On topic twit. Since he took away the rights for anyone else on his Trumpism blog. He avoids the most important stories because they may prove that his love for Trump is no longer rational.
"Since he took away the rights for anyone else on his Trumpism blog. He avoids the most important stories because they may prove that his love for Trump is no longer rational."
He didn't take anything away, you stupid, insignificant troll.
HE never allowed you to "post" in the first place.
YOU and James ruined the other blog.
Don't like HIS rules?
Start YOUR own blog chicken shit.
Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, in fact, has been quietly de-fanging the president’s most feverish claims for much of the past month, using the partisan battle over the D.O.J.’s transparency to put hard evidence on the table. When Trump and his allies originally demanded that the department turn over documents related to the origins of the Russia probe, Rosenstein, F.B.I. Director Christopher Wray, and Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats refused, arguing that doing so would jeopardize a critical intelligence source. Republicans seized on that hesitance as further proof that the special counsel’s investigation is a “witch hunt.” But when the D.O.J. relented, providing two briefings to lawmakers in late May, the conspiracy theory quickly fell apart. Democrats emerged from the briefings more assured than ever that the president’s claims were groundless: “Nothing we heard today has changed our view that there is no evidence to support any allegation that the F.B.I. or any intelligence agency placed a spy in the Trump campaign or otherwise failed to follow appropriate procedures and protocols,” ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee Adam Schiff told reporters. Republicans who had attended the briefing, meanwhile, were noticeably quiet—even Devin Nunes, one of the president’s most vociferous defenders, declined to comment.
The fallout from that briefing continues: last week, Congressman Trey Gowdy, who is retiring at the end of his term, conceded that the briefing had convinced him the F.B.I. had actually acted completely appropriately in its use of a confidential informant. On Wednesday, he got additional backing from House Speaker Paul Ryan, who said he agreed with Gowdy’s “initial assessment” and that he had not yet seen any evidence that the F.B.I. had done anything untoward. In the wake of Ryan’s defection, Republican Congressman Tom Rooney—who also sits on the House Intelligence panel—offered the bluntest critique yet of Trump’s Spygate theory. “What is the point of saying that there was a spy in the campaign when there was none?” Rooney said in an interview with Politico on Wednesday. “You know what I’m saying? It’s like, ‘Let’s create this thing to tweet about knowing that it’s not true.’ . . . Maybe it’s just to create more chaos, but it doesn’t really help the case.”
Popular opinion on the case of obstruction of justice is irrelevant because it won't matter when the final document is released.
Yawn.
Bye Bye ObamaCare, thanks to Chief Justice Roberts tying the "Constitutionality" to it being a tax. With the tax part gone. The US Justice Dept. Will no longer Defend it.
Ette, Alky is a broken 8 track tape.
"He's supporting to include Russia in the J7. " Typing while Alky
"Ette, Alky is a broken 8 track tape."
They, Roger and James, aren't smart enough to debate CH...so they troll with unhinged stupidity.
Yep, so sad.
Trump has been successfully confusing you and the rest of his base that the whole thing is a deep state conspiracy viruse that has infected you with his propaganda campaign.
I am just following the facts here Rog...
There is no tangible factual evidence that Mueller has anything on Trump. Trump factually is not a "target" and never has been. The polls are moving against Mueller and in Trump's favor.
What's confusing about it?
Roger AmickJune 7, 2018 at 9:57 PM
The "Lost Years" DOJIA went from 7,000 to almost 20,000."
The problem for the Lost Years. Is that the negro was left behind, only 22 % invest. Hispanics invest at only 25%. Making the rise of the "DOJIA" nearly meaningless. But, our little Alky is just so woefully under educated to understand.
Your link is from Wednesday. It doesn't include the new indictments.
Rosenzweig followed up on this today. I wrote this post after reading his follow up:
"Apparently, Mueller has the strength of his convictions and he, at least—as well as Alex Whiting and Renato Mariotti at Just Security—thinks I'm wrong. Perhaps so. I look forward to the evidentiary presentation next Friday."
Let's be reasonable and logical here Roger...
The argument Mueller seems to be making is that the fact that Manafort reached out to people who might be interviewed is (all by itself) witness tampering.
That would be similar to stating that Donald Trump cannot talk to anyone who Mueller might interview as part of his probe, because it would be witness tampering to do so.
Or it would be similar to saying that Clinton would have had to have stopped talking to any or all of her aides, because those aides are going to be providing testimony to the FBI in that probe.
Witness tampering is what Bill Clinton got accused of, when he sent attorneys to Lewinski with a false affidavit and attempted to get her to sign it, and testify to those grounds.
Here is the legal definition of Witness Tampering at the Federal level:
TAMPERING WITH A WITNESS
Title 18, U.S.C., Sec. 1512, makes it a Federal crime or offense for anyone to use intimidation or physical force to threaten another person with intent to influence the testimony of a witness in any Court proceeding.
A person can be found guilty of that offense only if all of the following facts are proved beyond a reasonable doubt: First: That the witness was scheduled to be a witness in court; Second: That the person used intimidation/physical force against such witness; and Third: That the person did so knowingly and willfully with the intent to influence the testimony of the witness.
To act with intent to "influence" the testimony of a witness means to act for the purpose of getting the witness to change or color or shade his or her testimony in some way; but it is not necessary to prove that the witness' testimony was, in fact, changed in any way.
"Let's be reasonable and logical here Roger..." CHT
Truly a bridge too far.
Scott let's be reasonable.
A person can be found guilty of that offense only if all of the following facts are proved beyond a reasonable doubt: First: That the witness was scheduled to be a witness in court: the prosecution has to provide a list of witnesses.
Second: That the person used intimidation/physical force against such witness; The/ is "or" not "and". Intimidation has many meanings. They could threaten them financially or literally with physical intimidation and we know that people have been injured or even killed.
Third: That the person did so knowingly and willfully with the intent to influence the testimony of the witness. This is one root of this indictment. They could offer a pardon from the President. He allegedly requested for false testimony.
To act with intent to "influence" the testimony of a witness means to act for the purpose of getting the witness to change or color or shade his or her testimony in some way; but it is not necessary to prove that the witness' testimony was, in fact, changed in any way. This is the root of this indictment. They could also offer a pardon from the President also.
The indictment was on solid evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.
No Rog...
A conviction is based on solid evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.
An indictment simply means that the grand jury believes there is enough evidence to hold a trial. They only hear the prosecutor, and hear nothing from the defense. There is no promises that the grand jury even really understands the case, other than how the prosecution presents it. Rarely does a grand jury fail to indict.
This grand jury has already indicted a Russian company that didn't exist.
There is absolutely zero evidence (even alleged in the indictment) that Manafort threatened or otherwise attempted to intimidate anyone. Mueller is making up his own crime, because he knows he might be able to get away with it short term and put more pressure on Manafort "today".
Muller is a highly respected man. Your allegations There is absolutely zero evidence (even alleged in the indictment) that Manafort threatened or otherwise attempted to intimidate anyone. Mueller is making up his own crime, is another one of your assumptions that are speculation because you don't have access he provided to the grand Jury. You again believe that he has absolutely nothing to make Trump a subject of the investigation.
Just because what is public has been vague doesn't mean that behind the curtains isn't explosive.
I still can't believe that you think that Muller is part of a vast and powerful conspiracy that destroy the President.
To bad you aren't one of those who despise the President. He is a compulsive liar. You don't deny that but it doesn't reduce your respect for him. As a father you're going to have to tough time justifying your support for this President to your grandchildren.
Way over your head again kput'z
Oh look alky is ranting, angry and stupid. Must be Saturday.
Let's be reasonable and logical here Roger..." CHT
Truly a bridge too far.
Measured responses are far beyond your limited ability to understand what we discussed.
Blogger Roger Amick said...
Muller is a highly respected man.
not by anyone who knows his background.
got anthrax? heh.
Just because what is public has been vague doesn't mean that behind the curtains isn't explosive.
still wishing that the government has something they haven't yet leaked to us, eh alky?
The indictment was on solid evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.
uh no. that's not how or why indictments are issued.
and this is why no one takes you seriously, alky. most of what you post is not your own, and what IS your own is so fraught with error it's not even worth reading. you've become the pederast. a poster only worthy of skippy over because you're such an asshole.
speculation because you don't have access he provided to the grand Jury.
I stated that there was no alleged evidence shown in the indictment. I can read both original request to revoke Manafort's bail, as well as the indictment (they are basically the same doc).
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1bgDhshFGNfxqsE9Wja0TJA1Wt4fyh8Gb/view?usp=sharing
So can you.
If you wanted to be taken seriously in this situation, that is what you would do. You would actually read the official documentation that Mueller wrote and make a determination if I am right or wrong.
The fact that you refuse to verify what I am saying, and rather simply knee jerk defend Mueller's indictment is exactly why you are not actually "debating" anyone.
Whether you or I like either Manafort or Mueller is 100% irrelevant to whether or not Mueller makes any allegations that Manafort threatened or intimidated anyone.
So why do you bring your feelings about the two of them into the conversation?
The silly part Roger...
Is if you read the documentation, you would see that Mueller himself is ADMITTING that he doesn't have any allegation that Manafort threatened anyone.
In fact he spends several paragraphs on the subject listing other cases that were brought where he felt the ruling under cut the need for threats of coercion.
The alternate cases are either where Judges ruled that evidence of "corrupt influence" (which is generally considered something like a bribe or implied threat) could be used in replacement of a "threat or coercion)... or where there was a very specific request for false testimony (such as asking someone to sign a false statement or affidavit).
Also, to be clear, we only see the portions of these cases that Mueller wants us to see. As might be seen in the recent court case regarding the baker and gay couple, you could spin that decision in many different ways by picking and choosing your passages.
Obviously Mueller believes he can win (based on comparing Manafort's efforts to these alternative cases). But it seems to be a pattern from start to finish with this investigation. Nearly every indictment, allegation, or whatever comes with some foot-note about how this case needs to be treated "differently" than the stated law.
Actually - I might want to rephrase that. Mueller obviously believes he can persuade a judge to consider that the charges are enough to warrant the cancelling of bail, or enough to warrant a trial.
I am not as convinced that Mueller believes he can ultimately prove "witness tampering" based on the evidence he provided in his documentation.
joe digenova is on the record stating that rosenstein is in the process of scrubbing the IG report for anything that could be embarrassing to the DOJ or FBI.
sadly he's probably right.
If you wanted to be taken seriously in this situation, that is what you would do. You would actually read the official documentation that Mueller wrote and make a determination if I am right or wrong.
now you've done it. prepare for an alky-lanche of copy/pastes.
joe digenova is on the record stating that rosenstein
Digenova is a faux hack, just like you rat hole.. He's worked for trump and supports trump and for him to be on record against rosenstein is like you being on record hating beaners and moose limbs....
Let's be reasonable and logical here Roger..." CHT
Truly a bridge too far.
And still Roger has yet to start the trip. First, Rog put done the pen and phone.
Lame King James, 0 - 4.
Oh well, there is always next year.
Ron put done the pen and phone.
WHATTA ASSHOLE!!!! Put done!!!!!!!
Post a Comment