The Robert Mueller Investigation

[Hornius Emeritus 12804]

2 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Mueller was appointed on May 17, 2017.  I see you caught the lying gene from your orange overlord.

Why do you hate America?

 

Krutov (Крутов)  is the Russian word for "cool."

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13629]

i go by the months of interview requests and the "not a target" representation, to conclude mueller has finished investigating (subject to flipping more people) and has nothing on trump.

"Okay. Here's the game plan, Mr. President. You publicly say you want to interview with Mueller even though we're going to object to the conditions and draw this out as long as possible. And THEN, we portray this fraction of a timespan it takes to investigate a land deal in Arkansas as some unprecedented, maniacal fixation on the part of Mueller even though we're the source of this minuscule delay, and then we go out and sell that shit to moron America. They buy anything!"

[jimmyjazz 47205]

Forget the details of the timeline.  By any historic measure, this investigation is in its infancy, and enabling dipshits like krutov and Tahoe would be most helpful to the US by finding solace on the business end of a  . . .  you pick, boys.

[krutov 18]

 

24 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

The purpose of the investigation was not to investigate Trump.  It was to investigate people like Manafort and Flynn, whom Trump was protecting.  I'm not "heading off into obstruction territory" when I talk about investigating Flynn and Manafort.

 

Mueller had evidence of crimes to investigate and any time you start doing that other stuff comes up, and you chase that too.  I'm sure that's what he's doing.

is this some kind of conspiracy theory?  he had no such mandate to just investigate these guys.  mueller had a mandate to investigate russian collusion by the trump campaign. even with rosenstein's secret memo, the mandate to pursue manafort collaterally is bootstrapped from that original publicly stated mandate.  the mueller team claims their investigation within their mandate led them to manafort's collateral crimes.

and how was trump protecting these guys?

 

 

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13629]

are you suggesting the hillary and mueller investigations are comparable in terms of tactics or zeal?

I sure the fuck hope not. If fish start jumping in the boat at one fishing hole in the fraction of the time you can't get a nibble at another, I hope you start putting more lines in at the one you're actually catching fish. Crazy, I know.

[krutov 18]

11 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Mueller was appointed on May 17, 2017.  I see you caught the lying gene from your orange overlord.

Why do you hate America?

 

if i hated america, it would be for the way it invented an internet to empower idiots like you to join groups of like minded idiots and  confidently make asses of yourselves without repercussions and debase the english language while you are at it.

but to humour you, please tell me, what was happening in the summer of 2016 with page, and papadopolous and halper?  was that an "investigation of the trump campaign"?  how about the fisa warrants on page in 2016?  were those part of an "investigation of the trump campaign"? 

 

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Just asking questions 

[krutov 18]

37 minutes ago, Hornius Emeritus said:

 

Krutov (Крутов)  is the Russian word for "cool."

i did not know that.  cool.

[krutov 18]

40 minutes ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

 

 

"Okay. Here's the game plan, Mr. President. You publicly say you want to interview with Mueller even though we're going to object to the conditions and draw this out as long as possible. And THEN, we portray this fraction of a timespan it takes to investigate a land deal in Arkansas as some unprecedented, maniacal fixation on the part of Mueller even though we're the source of this minuscule delay, and then we go out and sell that shit to moron America. They buy anything!"

 

that's a pretty stealthy but hillary.

[jimmyjazz 47205]

if i hated america, it would be for the way it invented an internet to empower idiots like you to join groups of like minded idiots and  confidently make asses of yourselves without repercussions and debase the english language while you are at it.

You should probably refrain from accusing others of debasing the English language when you can't even find the shift or hyphen keys, not to mention avoid putting multiple spaces between words within a sentence.

[atomheartbevo 90650]

9 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

You should probably refrain from accusing others of debasing the English language when you can't even find the shift or hyphen keys, not to mention avoid putting multiple spaces between words within a sentence.

Do you know how hard it is to type when a Frenchman just mangled your hand?

[krutov 18]

2 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

You should probably refrain from accusing others of debasing the English language when you can't even find the shift or hyphen keys, not to mention avoid putting multiple spaces between words within a sentence.

those are concerns about grammar and punctuation, not the english language.  i think that makes you a "liar" according to the special jimmy-jazz definition of that word where it means "possibly mistaken but i haven't really checked very carefully".

did i get the usage right?  i do so want to learn new-speak.

[David Dennison 19542]

Just so everyone is on the same page, here is Mueller's mandate in its entirety, signed by Rosenstein on 5/17/17 (emphasis mine):

By virtue of the authority vested in me as Acting Attorney General, including 28 U.S.C. §§ 509, 510, and 515, in order to discharge my responsibility to provide supervision and management of the Department of Justice, and to ensure a full and thorough investigation of the Russian govemmenfs efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election, I hereby order asfollows:

(a) Robert S. Mueller III is appointed to serve as Special Counsel for the United States Department of Justice.

(b) The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation confirmed by then-FBI Director James B. Comey in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on March 20, 2017, including:

(i)  any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and

(ii)  any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and

(iii)  any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a).

(c) If the Special Counsel believes it is necessary and appropriate, the Special Counsel is authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters.

(d) Sections 600.4 through 600.10 of Title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations are applicable to the Special Counsel.

[krutov 18]

12 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Just so everyone is on the same page, here is Mueller's mandate in its entirety, signed by Rosenstein on 5/17/17 (emphasis mine):

By virtue of the authority vested in me as Acting Attorney General, including 28 U.S.C. §§ 509, 510, and 515, in order to discharge my responsibility to provide supervision and management of the Department of Justice, and to ensure a full and thorough investigation of the Russian govemmenfs efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election, I hereby order asfollows:

(a) Robert S. Mueller III is appointed to serve as Special Counsel for the United States Department of Justice.

(b) The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation confirmed by then-FBI Director James B. Comey in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on March 20, 2017, including:

(i)  any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and

(ii)  any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and

(iii)  any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a).

(c) If the Special Counsel believes it is necessary and appropriate, the Special Counsel is authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters.

(d) Sections 600.4 through 600.10 of Title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations are applicable to the Special Counsel.

so is your theory that "individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump" defines the class of people who may be investigated but does not define or limit the subject matter of the investigation, and thus such individuals may be investigated for "any links and/or coordination between the Russian government" at any time in their lives in relation to any subject matter?  in other words the "links" and "coordination" being investigated do not need to to be related to "the campaign of president donald trump"?

is that the reading?

because to me they are limited to investigating "links" or "coordination" related to " the campaign" plus "any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation" of "the campaign" plus process crimes.

 

 

 

 

[David Dennison 19542]

He is authorized to investigate "any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation."

That means any matters.

[WhatTheBuck 28930]

2 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

The only fool here is the one thinking that just because we didn’t vote for Trump, that must mean we voted for Hillary. 

If you didn't vote for Hillary, you voted for Trump. You should've voted for Hillary. 

[krutov 18]

8 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

He is authorized to investigate "any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation."

That means any matters.

...that arose or may arise directly from the investigation.

 

 

[ndawg 1242]

2 minutes ago, krutov said:

...that arose or may arise directly from the investigation.

 

 

Narrator: that also means any matters.

[David Dennison 19542]

3 minutes ago, krutov said:

...that arose or may arise directly from the investigation.

That means anything that he uncovers during the investigation. His mandate is extremely broad.

[Pods 7637]

You guys have spent 17 hours arguing with an obvious troll and it's been pointed out to you. His username is Russian for fuck's sake. He's not even trying to be subtle. 

[krutov 18]

2 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

That means anything that he uncovers during the investigation. His mandate is extremely broad.

that's an interesting thing for you to be advocating.  are you a fan of ken starr?

he has a mandate to investigate crimes he uncovers in the course of investigating possible collusion with russia by the trump campaign.

he does not have a mandate to go look for other crimes committed by the people he is investigating.

 

 

 

[krutov 18]

3 minutes ago, Pods said:

You guys have spent 17 hours arguing with an obvious troll and it's been pointed out to you. His username is Russian for fuck's sake. He's not even trying to be subtle. 

i had this username for years on shaggy.  long before trump.  you can check.

and the definition of "troll" used in this subforum seems to be unique on the internet.  maybe this is jimmy-jazz again with his english language shenanigans?  anyway, it does not mean people who disagree with you and think you are stupid and are prepared to debate you.  otherwise, you are all trolls.

 

 

[SubliminalHorn 7009]

Never heard of you on shaggy, troll

[krutov 18]

2 minutes ago, SubliminalHorn said:

Never heard of you on shaggy, troll

i didn't say i was a vic mackey on shaggy.  i am not trying to be one of the shaggy cool gang, but just making the point that the russian sounding username is not a troll, trump related or otherwise.

 

[Pods 7637]

16 minutes ago, krutov said:

i had this username for years on shaggy.  long before trump.  you can check.

and the definition of "troll" used in this subforum seems to be unique on the internet.  maybe this is jimmy-jazz again with his english language shenanigans?  anyway, it does not mean people who disagree with you and think you are stupid and are prepared to debate you.  otherwise, you are all trolls.

 

 

Don't care. Maybe someone even had a Russian name on horn fans. Maybe it was you. Maybe you've been a Russian stooge forever. 

Your posting style is obvious troll. No posts, all of a sudden shit tons of posts, including knowing inside jokes. Extreme hyperbolic statements in your post and rehashing erroneous claims that have already been thoroughly debunked. 

Also, the fact that you lied leading this off claiming Mueller had been investigating for 2 years, when it's only been 1. 

In a best case, you are horrifically misinformed, but don't let that stop you from having very strong opinions. You don't strike me as an idiot though, so my reading of you is troll. The end result is troll whether you're doing this intentionally, or because you are stupid, so I haven't spent much time thinking about it, because it's not really an important distinction. 

This will be the last time I'll engage you directly. I'll be calling you out as the troll you are. If you change your posting behavior in the future, I'll stop. I'm happy to put the credibility of my posting history on the line against yours going forward. 

Edited June 9, 2018 by Pods

[krutov 18]

2 minutes ago, Pods said:

Don't care. Maybe someone did have a Russian name on horn fans. Maybe it was you. Maybe you've been a Russian stooge forever. 

Your posting style is obvious troll. No posts, all of a sudden shit tons of posts, including knowing inside jokes. Extreme hyperbolic statements in your post and rehashing erroneous claims that have already been thoroughly debunked. 

Also, the fact that you lied leading this off claiming Mueller had been investigating for 2 years, when it's only been 1. 

In a best case, you are horrifically misinformed, but don't let that stop you from having very strong opinions. You don't strike me as an idiot though, so my reading of you is troll. The end result is troll whether you're doing this intentionally, or because you are stupid, so I haven't spent much time thinking about it, because it's not really an important distinction. 

This will be the last time I'll engage you directly. I'll be calling you out as the troll you are. If you change your posting behavior in the future, I'll stop. I'm happy to put the credibility of my posting history on the line against yours going forward. 

i'm willing to take that challenge from a guy clueless enough to still think i'm a jimmy-jazz-liar.  you seem like the kind of complete dumbass bully who populates this thread,  but time will tell which of us is a better poster.  in the mean time, thanks for the negs, you pompous douchebag.

 

 

 

 

[WhatTheBuck 28930]

58 minutes ago, Pods said:

You guys have spent 17 hours arguing with an obvious troll and it's been pointed out to you. His username is Russian for fuck's sake. He's not even trying to be subtle. 

Have you put sheeeit on ignore yet?

I've been online for 25 years. I've never seen a more easily trolled community than shaggy/surly. 

[Pods 7637]

1 minute ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Have you put sheeeit on ignore yet?

I've been online for 25 years. I've never seen a more easily trolled community than shaggy/surly. 

For the most part. I only point his tactics out when he manages to successfully side track shit for multiple pages. I don't read any of his posts unless a bunch of posters have already responded to him and then I call him out in this exact same way I just did here. Feel free to skip my posts, or add me to ignore if that's your solution to things. 

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13629]

that's a pretty stealthy but hillary.

Ha! The "creature" was in your mouth first, Smirnoff.

[JimmyJames 12271]

18 hours ago, krutov said:

if new evidence is discovered.

at which point mueller would have to apprise trump's lawyers of the status change or terminate interview negotiations

 

You have no idea what you are talking about. You got a source for that statement? 

[jimmyjazz 47205]

2 hours ago, krutov said:

so is your theory that "individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump" defines the class of people who may be investigated but does not define or limit the subject matter of the investigation, and thus such individuals may be investigated for "any links and/or coordination between the Russian government" at any time in their lives in relation to any subject matter?  in other words the "links" and "coordination" being investigated do not need to to be related to "the campaign of president donald trump"?

is that the reading?

because to me they are limited to investigating "links" or "coordination" related to " the campaign" plus "any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation" of "the campaign" plus process crimes.

 

 

 

 

It's hard to believe a master of the English language would struggle so much with such simple verbiage.

[jimmyjazz 47205]

1 hour ago, krutov said:

i had this username for years on shaggy.  long before trump.  you can check.

and the definition of "troll" used in this subforum seems to be unique on the internet.  maybe this is jimmy-jazz again with his english language shenanigans?  anyway, it does not mean people who disagree with you and think you are stupid and are prepared to debate you.  otherwise, you are all trolls.

 

 

MY "english language-shenanigans"?  Troll or not, you brought it up.

[krutov 18]

2 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

You have no idea what you are talking about. You got a source for that statement? 

the lawyer's code of professional conduct?  they are negotiating a voluntary interview and doj has told them in thos negotiations that trump is a subject not a target.  i suppose you could assume trump's lawyers are incompetent and have not stipulated that they be updated if that status changes, or mueller has refused to commit to do that and trump's lawyers are still negotiating.  those are very remote possibilities.

 

 

[JimmyJames 12271]

1 minute ago, krutov said:

the lawyer's code of professional conduct?  they are negotiating a voluntary interview and doj has told them in thos negotiations that trump is a subject not a target.  i suppose you could assume trump's lawyers are incompetent and have not stipulated that they be updated if that status changes, or mueller has refused to commit to do that and trump's lawyers are still negotiating.  those are very remote possibilities.

 

 

Total troll post. Again you have no idea what you are talking about troll. But hey trolls gotta troll. Amright? 

[krutov 18]

12 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

MY "english language-shenanigans"?  Troll or not, you brought it up.

how does that hyphen you added work there?  are we talking about language shenanigans committed in england now?

 

 

 

 

[krutov 18]

4 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

Total troll post. Again you have no idea what you are talking about troll. But hey trolls gotta troll. Amright? 

so you got nothing but the old "shut up troll because shut up" routine.  got it.  you seem dumb.

 

 

[JimmyJames 12271]

Just now, krutov said:

so you got nothing but the old "shut up troll because shut up" routine.  got it.  you seem dumb.

 

 

Yep. That’s my usual reaction to a guy who just makes shit up to troll a message board. 

[krutov 18]

58 minutes ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

3 hours ago, krutov said:

that's a pretty stealthy but hillary.

Ha! The "creature" was in your mouth first, Smirnoff.

i think i like you more than the others.

[jimmyjazz 47205]

6 minutes ago, krutov said:

how does that hyphen you added work there?  are we talking about language shenanigans committed in england now?

 

 

 

 

You'll notice that I never claimed to be a master of the English language.  On the other hand, you apparently think it's a wicked burn to criticize someone's communication skills (with no particular evidence), while simultaneously fucking up after fucking up.  But kudos for calling out the guy on one slip of the keyboard while you continue to ass-fuck anything resembling proper English.  You're the dude, Komrade.

[Judge Roybeanbag 11860]

2 hours ago, krutov said:

i'm willing to take that challenge from a guy clueless enough to still think i'm a jimmy-jazz-liar.  you seem like the kind of complete dumbass bully who populates this thread,  but time will tell which of us is a better poster.  in the mean time, thanks for the negs, you pompous douchebag.

 

 

 

 

Whoa there, krushev,   Pods has gone through enough, and if you don’t know that you are a troll. Frankly I say you keep on posting and get exposed. 

Edited June 9, 2018 by Judge Roybeanbag

[krutov 18]

15 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

You'll notice that I never claimed to be a master of the English language.  On the other hand, you apparently think it's a wicked burn to criticize someone's communication skills (with no particular evidence), while simultaneously fucking up after fucking up.  But kudos for calling out the guy on one slip of the keyboard while you continue to ass-fuck anything resembling proper English.  You're the dude, Komrade.

i get it.  anyone who disagrees with you is a troll, and any time they make a mistake it's a lie.  great trolling playbook. 

but if you fuck up implementing such a simple fucking plan and call someone a liar who didn't even make a mistake, i think you should be willing to take the abuse for it.  you seem thin skinned.

 

 

 

 

[jimmyjazz 47205]

8 minutes ago, krutov said:

i get it.  anyone who disagrees with you is a troll, and any time they make a mistake it's a lie.  great trolling playbook. 

but if you fuck up implementing such a simple fucking plan and call someone a liar who didn't even make a mistake, i think you should be willing to take the abuse for it.  you seem thin skinned.

 

 

 

 

The next post you make that is mistake-free will be the first.

[krutov 18]

51 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

Yep. That’s my usual reaction to a guy who just makes shit up to troll a message board. 

yet another shitty implementation of the "liar" troll move. 

 

some guy posts shit you disagree with

 

-look for mistakes and call them lies. 

-look for any inferences he can't source to a nytimes reporter and call that making stuff up.

-repeatedly call them a troll

 

hopefully i will leave soon and you can go back to lapping hugo's asshole and waiting for the collusion rapture.

[krutov 18]

2 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

The next post you make that is mistake-free will be the first.

well i do keep quoting you guys in my posts.

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13629]

* Well

[TwiceHorn 32079]

18 hours ago, Gil Bang said:

You concede, I assume, that Mueller could drop enough evidence (in theory) to cause impeachment and removal, and indictment shortly thereafter?

Of course.  I assume, though, that by the time any indictments are returned against Teh Donald, Robert S. Mueller will be a private citizen again.

[Gil Bang 26240]

Of course.  I assume, though, that by the time any indictments are returned against Teh Donald, Robert S. Mueller will be a private citizen again.

Won’t he just turn his files over to the US Atty?

[bolverk 30325]

7 hours ago, krutov said:

i had this username for years on shaggy.  long before trump.  you can check.

 

 

2

Krutov has a grand total of 99 posts from Nov 2013 until present on shaggy and has the same posting style: use of English spelling (e.g., neighbour) and lack of capitalization. Could certainly be someone's sock.

[Pods 7637]

https://www.justsecurity.org/57518/thin-evidence-manaforts-witness-tampering-meets-standard/

Far from “Thin,” Evidence of Manafort’s Witness Tampering Likely Meets Necessary Standard

 

by Alex Whiting and Renato Mariotti

June 7, 2018

• 
•  
• 
•  
• 
•  

How strong is the evidence that Paul Manafort tampered with witnesses in his criminal case, as Special Counsel Robert Mueller now alleges in his motion to revoke Manafort’s bail or modify his conditions of release? Paul Rosenzweig at Lawfare claims that the evidence is “thin,” and on the basis of that conclusion engages in a bit of “speculation” (his word) that Mueller is feeling “pressure” from President Donald Trump, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, or the public to move more quickly, and is therefore seeking to “ramp up the pressure” on Manafort in a seemingly desperate bid to get him to cooperate.

We disagree. First, in our view, Rosenzweig mis-analyzes the available facts and assesses them against the wrong legal standard. When all of the evidence is considered together, rather than piecemeal, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that Manafort sought to persuade witnesses in his case to testify falsely. It is frankly naïve to think otherwise. Second, regardless of how one ultimately views the strength of the tampering evidence, the suggestion that Mueller could be panicking is completely unwarranted. Any responsible prosecutor would bring this kind of evidence of tampering to the court’s attention in precisely the manner that Mueller has, regardless of the circumstances, in order to dissuade Manafort from additional attempts to obstruct justice. The fact that Mueller has brought this motion says absolutely nothing about where things stand in his larger investigation.

Although Rosenzweig does not specifically identify the applicable legal standard, he suggests it is high: “[T]hey are a long way from substantial, persuasive evidence that would convince an unbiased trier of fact that witness tampering was attempted.” But in fact, as Mueller explains in his filing to the court, he need only show “probable cause to believe” that Manafort has committed the crime of witness tampering while on bail, the lowest possible standard of proof. Mueller quotes a Second Circuit decision to further clarify that probable cause in this context “requires only a practical probability that the evidence supports a finding that the defendant has committed a crime while on bail.” (emphasis added).  Such a showing then triggers a rebuttable presumption that Manafort should be detained pending trial, meaning that he will be detained unless his lawyers can persuade the judge that there exist conditions of release that will ensure that he will not continue to commit crimes in the future, including the crime of witness tampering.

So, let’s look at the facts. On February 23, a grand jury returned a superseding indictment against Manafort alleging in relevant part that he and his co-conspirators secretly created and funded the so-called “Hapsburg” group, which was comprised of several former European politicians, tasked with lobbying on behalf of Ukraine in the United States. Because Manafort and his cohorts never registered as foreign agents, they were in violation of the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA). Manafort, co-defendant Richard Gates, and someone referred to as Person A in Mueller’s filing, communicated with the members of the Hapsburg group through persons D1 and D2, who were themselves principals in a public-relations company. On the same day the superseding indictment was returned and made public, Gates pled guilty and agreed to cooperate with Mueller’s inquiry.

The very next day, a Saturday, Manafort suddenly reached out to D1, with whom he had not spoken for six months. First in a telephone call, Manafort identified himself and told D1 that he wanted to give him a “heads-up” about Hapsburg. D1 immediately ended the call, which lasted only for one minute and 24 seconds, as Rosenzweig noted. Just before or after the call, Manafort sent a message to D1 saying, “This is paul.” Person D1 told federal investigators that he ended the call so quickly with Manafort because “he was concerned about the outreach.”

Two days later, Manafort sent more messages to D1, using an encrypted application on his phone. First he sent a link to an article by Michael Kranz in Business Insider entitled, “Former European leaders struggle to explain themselves after Mueller claims Paul Manafort paid them to lobby for Ukraine.” The article includes the allegation in Manafort’s indictment that Manafort secretly funneled money to members of the Hapsburg group to conduct lobbying in the United States. A minute later, Manafort sent a message saying, “We should talk. I have made clear that they worked in Europe.” The following day, Manafort again tried twice to call D1.

Let’s pause and take stock. Is there any doubt what’s going on here? Key to the FARA allegation is that the members of the Hapsburg group lobbied while in the United States as unregistered foreign agents. Manafort is reaching out to an almost certain witness in the case, who could be an intermediary to other witnesses in the case, to persuade him to falsely say that the lobbying was in Europe. If this were all, it would be enough to satisfy the probable cause standard that Manafort attempted to tamper with witnesses.

But there’s more. The following day, Person A sent a series of texts to D2, using an encrypted messaging application:

“[Person D2], hi! How are you? Hope you are doing fine. ;))”

“My friend P is trying to reach [Person D1] to brief him on what’s going”

“If you have a chance to mention this to [Person D1] – would be great.”

“Basically P wants to give him a quick summary that he says to everybody (which is true) that our friends never lobbied in the US, and the purpose of the program was EU.”

Four hours later, Person A sent the same series of messages to D2 via another encrypted messaging application, adding at the end: “If you have a chance to mention this to [Person D1] – it would be great. It would be good to get them connected to discuss in person. P is his friend.” D2 had not had any recent contact with Person A or Manafort.

Rosenzweig dismisses these communications from Person A to D2 because he says there is “very little evidence” that Person A was acting at Manafort’s direction and communicating the story Manafort wanted told. Really? The close timing of the communications, the similarity of the content of the messages (that the lobbying occurred in Europe and not the United States), Person A’s indication that he was acting for “P” (Paul Manafort), and the fact that Manafort alone stood to gain from the witness tampering efforts all strongly suggest that Manafort and Person A were working together. The notion that Manafort and Person A coincidentally peddled the same cover story at the same time without coordination is hard to believe. A probable cause standard is plainly satisfied here.

And just to nail the point down even further, approximately one month later Person A again sent messages to both D1 and D2. To D1, Person A texted: “Hi. This is [Person A’s first initial]. My friend P is looking for ways to connect to you to pass you several messages. Can we arrange that.” To D2, Person A texted: “Hey. This is [Person A]. My friend P asked me again to help connect him with [Person D1]. Can you help?” These messages just further reinforce the obvious conclusion that Manafort, with the assistance of Person A, repeatedly tried to coach Persons D1 and D2, no doubt with the further hope that they would coach the members of the Hapsburg group, on the false story that the group lobbied only in Europe and not in the US. If this evidence is not convincingly countered by Manafort’s lawyers, it should be enough to trigger the rebuttable presumption that Manafort should be detained pending trial.

But regardless of how one assesses the strength of this evidence, it provides no basis whatsoever to speculate that Mueller has his back up against the wall or is deploying this evidence in order to pressure Manafort to cooperate. First, Rosenzweig’s speculation is self-refuting. If the evidence of witness tampering is “thin,” then the tactic that Rosenzweig ascribes to Mueller will likely backfire, as Mueller would well know. If Rosenzweig is right, the judge will scoff at Mueller’s motion and send him packing, further emboldening Manafort in his fight.

Second, Rosenzweig seems to presume that Mueller’s decision to bring this evidence forward is akin to a charging decision, a step to be taken only if the evidence is sufficiently strong. But it’s not like that at all. The case is already charged, and the question now is whether Manafort should be detained pending trial because of his efforts to interfere with witnesses. Mueller had a responsibility to the integrity of the case and to the court to bring this evidence forward once it was developed. What are the alternatives? Sit on it? Call Manafort’s lawyers and tell them to convey to their client that he needs to cut it out? No. The only reasonable thing the prosecution could do in this situation is to make the evidence available to the court to allow the judge to decide, which has the added benefit of alerting other potential witnesses in the case to Manafort’s antics, allowing them to take proactive steps to avoid his communications. Given that Mueller little choice but to bring this evidence forward, the fact that he did so tells us nothing about his state of mind or the posture of the larger investigation.

In our view, the evidence of tampering as it now stands more than meets the probable cause standard, triggering the rebuttable presumption. Of course, it will be up to the judge to make this determination and to decide if, even assuming the presumption applies, Manafort should be detained or subjected to more restrictive conditions of release.

[MaybeACoordinator 8350]

9 hours ago, krutov said:

i'm willing to take that challenge from a guy clueless enough to still think i'm a jimmy-jazz-liar.  you seem like the kind of complete dumbass bully who populates this thread,  but time will tell which of us is a better poster.  in the mean time, thanks for the negs, you pompous douchebag.

 

 

 

 

Hey Krutov, Troll Detective MaC here:

 

Just curious? Why did you choose that handle? First google hit you get is for that hockey player I linked who was a superstar in the USSR but a bust in a half-season for the Canucks 28 years ago. Seems like a weird dude to honor for someone on a Texas board. Or maybe it's something else? If so I'm all ears.