New Emails Evidence Manafort/Calk Quid Pro Quo - Loans for Admin Appointment

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Sillyolme
Defense Rests...

After calling ZERO WITNESSES.

His lawyers must be idiots.

Or confident a case has not been built?

Exactly. If you out someone up there and start opening doors, it can bite you. It's not the type of charge that a witness is going to create an alibi. All the relevant players were already put on display by the prosecution and the defense got the chance to talk to them on cross. No reason to call anyone else.

I don't want him to walk, but I also hate the selective justice and a few things that look like the prosecution is playing loose and dirty.

Probably one of the most entertaining series of transcripts to read though.

a reply to: shooterbrody

So then why did the Muller investigation charge him with crap from 2005 that had been investigated before?

Because it wasn't from 2005? 2005 is when he first started working for Party of Regions/Yanukovych (and Deripaska) and that continued through to 2015. The important part with the ECFMU lobbying occurred in 2012-2014. The most recent charges were related to activity right through and after the election.

The talking points about "crimes from 2005" that were "already investigated" are red herrings.

I think a more reasonable question that has been asked is why didn't they go after Steven Calk. I think the answer to that is ROI. It's easier for them to prove bank fraud, of which the evidence of a quid pro quo is just part of the overall case then it would be say going after Calk for defrauding his own bank which would require convincing a jury of what was in Calk's mind when he approved the loans.

a reply to: TinySickTears

Dude all these people are the swamp. Just a different smell

You won't get any disagreement from me.

a reply to: Agit8dChop

Sure, fairs fair!... I guess we can start looking under the hood of the Democrats, Media Liaisons and dirty FBI/DNC plants too... being we're all high and mighty about justice and not ... letting... criminals.......walk!

I don't recall saying that any dirty Dems should be allowed to walk?

So what happened? Did Chalk become Secretary of the Army? .... or did nothing happen?

Thankfully he did not become Secretary of the Army.

Manaforts always been dirty, Trump trusted a friend, hired a goon and... fired him, right? when it was realised he was a grubby tosspot he got the ass. yeah?. and rightfully so!!!

Manafort has always been dirty but then so have their mutual friends and so has Trump. Manafort resigned when the reporting heated up about his dealings in Ukraine following the discovery of the black ledger. But let's not kid ourselves here, Manafort certainly wasn't an unknown. One could find out a lot about what kind of person he was from his Wikipedia page in 2015.

As it was, they had two close mutual acquaintances in Roger Stone and Tom Barrack. And as you can see from the emails, he was still exerting influence in Trump world months after he resigned from the campaign.

How does that comport with this notion of yours that nobody knew about Manafort and soon as they found out, they dropped him like a hot potato? It doesn't.

But thats not what this is all about right?... I mean, if you put a cop on anyone for 200miles they'll get a ticket... let alone a career millionaire businessman rubbing asses in corporate wallstreet america!

So you have no problem with what Manafort has done then? What about draining the swamp?

So Congrats, after 2 years of bullplop... Muellers managed to find a dirty businessman working out better rates for personal LOANS read it - not BRIBES!!!.....

...and you have the nerve to bring up Putin!.. classy!

It hasn't been two years, it's been about 15 months. That's just the emotional toll of desperation working on your perceptions.

I have the nerve to bring up Putin? Lmao. Manafort made tens of millions of dollars lobbying for Putin. During the campaign, Manafort was trying to figure out a way to "get whole" with Putin's pal Oleg Deripaska (who he'd ripped off for millions) using his position with the Trump campaign. (Deripaska being the one who paid him to lobby for Putin)

Why are you ignoring that?

Keep chasing that Russia Collusion rainbow fellow anti trumpers!!!... its probably best if you kinda people are kept distracted playing with fantasies!.... while the rest of us try to focus on fixing this nonsense!

I'm not chasing anything? What kind of person am I other than one who knows how to use ellipses? Don't worry though, you can keep ignoring things that emotionally trigger you.

a reply to: UKTruth

The OP needs reminding that the Manafory trial has zero top do with the President. The judge made sure to instil that into the proceedings.

No, I don't. This isn't Judge Ellis's court and we're not participants in the Manafort trial.

If Manafort did a favour for a favour, sure it stinks, but that is what Washington is all about. Selective outrage is not a good look.

Clearly why the "drain the swamp" crowd should get their act together.

If the OP was calling for the whole Washington swamp to be investigated for corrupt lobbying efforts instead of trying to make Manaforts case about the Trump administration, this thread might have more credibility.

What a strange ad hominem. I didn't try to make it about anything. I presented facts which speak for themselves. As to your insinuation, you couldn't be more wrong — I have said countless times that not only do I think that others should be prosecuted regardless of their political affiliations, I've spoken out repeatedly against the whole corrupt system and questioned the legitimacy of foreign lobbying, even when registered.

You're projecting a hang up that requires you to rush to the defense of Manafort on me. You think I'd be crying about Tony Podesta being on trial? Would you even care to comment about any of this if it wasn't for Manafort's association to Trump?

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: shooterbrody

So then why did the Muller investigation charge him with crap from 2005 that had been investigated before?

Because it wasn't from 2005? 2005 is when he first started working for Party of Regions/Yanukovych (and Deripaska) and that continued through to 2015. The important part with the ECFMU lobbying occurred in 2012-2014. The most recent charges were related to activity right through and after the election.

The talking points about "crimes from 2005" that were "already investigated" are red herrings.

I think a more reasonable question that has been asked is why didn't they go after Steven Calk. I think the answer to that is ROI. It's easier for them to prove bank fraud, of which the evidence of a quid pro quo is just part of the overall case then it would be say going after Calk for defrauding his own bank which would require convincing a jury of what was in Calk's mind when he approved the loans.

www.washingtonpost.com... 7cc-11e8-827e-190efaf1f1ee_story.html?utm_term=.78b1584eba16

The documents filed late Monday by prosecutors in the office of special counsel Robert S. Mueller III, who is investigating Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential campaign, show that the FBI had interviewed Manafort in March 2013 and again in July 2014. Manafort’s deputy, Rick Gates, who also held a top role with Trump’s campaign, was interviewed by the FBI in July 2014, the documents show.

So why the prosecution now and not in 2013 when they were investigating him?
edition.cnn.com...

A secret order authorized by the court that handles the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) began after Manafort became the subject of an FBI investigation that began in 2014. It centered on work done by a group of Washington consulting firms for Ukraine's former ruling party, the sources told CNN. The surveillance was discontinued at some point last year for lack of evidence, according to one of the sources. The FBI then restarted the surveillance after obtaining a new FISA warrant that extended at least into early this year.

had trump not been elected this guy would not have been prosecuted
that is why this is an issue
the fbi and clearly others knew about issues with this guy AT LEAST in 14
why was he not prosecuted then?
why was the incoming potus NOT briefed about this guy who was CLEARLY enough of a security issue in 14 to be fisa survailed?

Sources say the second warrant was part of the FBI's efforts to investigate ties between Trump campaign associates and suspected Russian operatives.

oh that is why
an easy already established backdoor for the former administration to spy on its political opponents

justify this bs behavior all you like
does not make it right
hopefully this disgusting behavior on manaforts part and the fbis part will no longer be allowed to continue

as to your "talking point" bs
the indictment reads 2006.......
www.vanityfair.com...

“Between at least 2006 and 2015, Manafort and Gates acted as unregistered agents of the Government of Ukraine, the Party of Regions,” the indictment reads. They “generated tens of millions of dollars in income as a result of their Ukraine work. In order to hide Ukraine payments from United States authorities, from approximately 2006 through 2016, Manafort and Gates laundered the money through scores of United States and foreign corporations, partnerships, and bank accounts,” and allegedly evaded taxes on the unreported income.

a reply to: shooterbrody

The argument here seems to be two-fold:

1) That being interviewed by the FBI and not facing charges is somehow tantamount to being investigated and "cleared" of any wrongdoing. That's not how criminal investigation works. Criminals are regularly interviewed by law enforcement and determinations are made based on the evidence currently in hand, decisions are made not to pursue charges.

There's no law or legal theory like double jeopardy that applies to a criminal investigation. You're basically saying that if a person is interviewed for suspicion of involvement in say a bank robbery and there's not enough evidence to charge them that if they continue to rob banks, law enforcement has to let them walk because they interviewed them once before.

2) You're also appear to be alleging that the FBI had enough to go after Manafort in 2014 but decided not to so that he could later be used to go after *somebody* — couldn't have been Trump because they had no way of knowing in 2014 that Trump would announce a bid for office in 2014 or that in 2016, he would become Trump's campaign manager.

justify this bs behavior all you like does not make it right hopefully this disgusting behavior on manaforts part and the fbis part will no longer be allowed to continue

I'm not justifying anything. I don't think that your hypothesis is correct so there's nothing for me to justify.

as to your "talking point" bs the indictment reads 2006.......

It actually reads "Between at least 2006 and 2015" and you just keep ignoring the 2015 part. Not only that, but that's only the charges of illegal foreign lobbying. Some of the money laundering and bank fraud for which he was charged continued all the way into 2017.

So tell me if his crimes continued into 2017 — why do you keep talking about 2005 and 2006? This was ongoing criminal enterprise. He didn't commit crimes in 2006 and then walk the straight and narrow for a dozen years before being brought to trial. This whole attempted line of defense is bizarre.

a reply to: theantediluvian

I have no argument with you. If manafort did the things alledged the jury will find him guilty and he will go to jail, and imo rightfully so.
I just think it is wrong for the fbi to have investigated this guy to the extent they were able to get a fisa warrant on him, and not tell the potential incoming potus about him. Then get another fisa warrant so they could backdoor the campaign of the opposition party DURING A POTUS ELECTION.
I think manafort would not have been prosecuted had trump not been elected. CLEARLY if not for the "russians" in the election manafort would still be scott free would he not?

It actually reads "Between at least 2006 and 2015" and you just keep ignoring the 2015 part. Not only that, but that's only the charges of illegal foreign lobbying. Some of the money laundering and bank fraud for which he was charged continued all the way into 2017.

You and others seem to ignore the 2006 portion. It is a crime even if you give it the label of "only". Prosecuting him for that crime would have meant he would NOT be continuing with the EXACT SAME CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR IN THROUGH 2017.
Also if we are going to prosecute manafort for this the fbi should be prosecuting EVERYONE who illegally lobbies for a foreign govenment.
Equal application of the law is what is sorely needed.
Too bad you and many others seem to miss that point in your never ending attempts to unseat a duly elected potus.

So tell me if his crimes continued into 2017 — why do you keep talking about 2005 and 2006? This was ongoing criminal enterprise. He didn't commit crimes in 2006 and then walk the straight and narrow for a dozen years before being brought to trial. This whole attempted line of defense is bizarre.

Would the crimes have continued if the fbi simply did their job?
Why did the fbi suddenly spring in to action against him again in 2016? Was there a "break in the cold case"?
Also there is no defense here, if manafort is found guilty he needs to spend time in the pokey and pay his fines. Along with everyone else on k street.