Agree Agree:  2
Likes Likes:  3
Page 12 of 12 FirstFirst ... 289101112
Results 166 to 169 of 169
  1. #166

    Re: The Manafort Trials

    The same story via Spy Twitter

    Jon Swaine
    @jonswaine

    NEW: Paul Manafort's attorneys failed to properly redact their filing. They reveal that Mueller alleges Manafort "lied about sharing polling data with Mr. Kilimnik related to the 2016 presidential campaign". Konstantin Kilimnik has alleged ties to Russian intelligence.

    Manafort attorneys also accidentally reveal via failed redaction that Mueller says Manafort was in contact with "a third-party asking permission to use Mr. Manafort’s name as an introduction in the event the third-party met the President."

    Brandi Buchman
    @BBuchman_CNS

    NOW: Paul Manafort claims he did not intentionally lie to investigators.
    The redacted response, in full, here: (link: https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...-Response.html) documentcloud.org/documents/5677…
    @CourthouseNews

    https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...-Response.html
    "Even if you dance for your enemy on the rock, he will accuse you of splashing water on him." ~ African Proverb




  2. #167

    Re: The Manafort Trials

    Revelations about Manafort’s 2016 interactions with Russian associate show special counsel’s intense focus on Russia contacts

    by Rosalind S. Helderman and Tom Hamburger January 13 at 6:40 PM

    New revelations about Paul Manafort’s interactions with a Russian associate while he was leadingTrump’s campaign provide a window into how extensively the special counsel has mapped interactions between Trump associates and Russians in his 20-month-long investigation.

    When Manafort pleaded guilty in September to federal crimes related to his work advising Ukrainian politicians, Trump said the admissions by his former campaign chairman had “nothing to do” with the special counsel’s main mission, which Trump described as “looking for Russians involved in our campaign.”

    But new details inadvertently revealed in a court filing last week — including the fact that Manafort shared polling data about the 2016 race with an associate who allegedly has ties to Russian intelligence — indicate that special counsel Robert S. Mueller III has also been scrutinizing interactions between Russians and Manafort while he led Trump’s presidential bid.

    Manafort is among at least 14 Trump associates who interacted with Russians during the campaign and transition, according to public records and interviews.

    The new examples of Manafort’s communications serve as a reminder that much about Mueller’s findings remains unknown in what are widely believed to be the closing weeks of his probe.

    Advisers to Trump are bracing for a final report by the special counsel, a confidential document summarizing his findings that they say could be turned over to senior Justice Department officials next month.

    (...)

    The new information about Manafort indicates Mueller has been exploring what he may have communicated to Russians while working for Trump. And it serves as a stark reminder that as Trump was offering Russia-friendly rhetoric on the campaign trail, his White House bid was led for a time by a man with long-standing ties to powerful Russian figures.

    Manafort, an international lobbyist and political strategist, was embroiled in a multimillion-dollar financial dispute with Russian businessman Oleg Deripaska, who is close to President Vladi*mir Putin, according to court filings. He was also owed money by a political party in Ukraine that had failed to pay him for work he did after his client, the ousted leader Viktor Yanukovych, fled to Moscow amid public protests in 2014, filings show.

    Even as he was working for the Trump campaign, Manafort continued to communicate with Konstantin Kilimnik, a Russian employee of his consulting business who the FBI says was linked to Russian intelligence, prosecutors said in court papers last year.

    A talented translator with impressive language skills, Kilimnik had been trained at a Moscow university known as a recruiting ground for the Russian intelligence services. After a stint in the military and time spent working for the International Republican Institute in Moscow, he was hired by Manafort in 2005 to assist his political consulting business in navigating the complicated Ukrainian political scene. Friends said Kilimnik emerged as Manafort’s right-hand man in Kiev and Russia, including serving as Manafort’s liaison to Deripaska.

    In a written statement to The Washington Post in 2017, Kilimnik denied that he had connections to Russian intelligence. But in documents filed in court last year, Mueller’s prosecutors wrote that Manafort’s deputy, Rick Gates, had said Kilimnik told him that he had formerly been an officer in the GRU, the Russian military intelligence unit accused of engineering the 2016 election interference. Prosecutors said the FBI has assessed that Kilimnik’s intelligence ties continued into that year.

    New details about what Manafort and Kilimnik discussed during the campaign emerged last week when Manafort’s team sought to rebut the allegation by the special counsel that Manafort lied to investigators after he pleaded guilty last fall and agreed to cooperate.

    His attorneys argued that Manafort, who has been jailed since June and they said is suffering from gout and depression, simply failed to remember certain key details until prosecutors refreshed his memory with documents and other evidence. In previous court filings, they have contended that Mueller has never turned over evidence to show that Manafort was in contact with Russian government or intelligence officials, suggesting prosecutors have not detailed their evidence against Kilimnik.


    Still, in sections of a court filing that they had intended to be sealed from public view, Manafort’s lawyers did not contest new details that Mueller’s team apparently accused Manafort of lying about: that he shared polling data related to the presidential election with Kilimnik and discussed with him a possible peace plan for Ukraine.

    In their filing, Manafort’s attorneys said he did not recall either topic because he was busy with his campaign duties.

    A spokesman for Manafort declined to comment.

    A judge has ordered Mueller’s team to file on Monday a new document explaining the “factual and evidentiary basis” to believe that Manafort lied in his interviews. The document will probably lay out in more detail what evidence Mueller has gathered about Manafort’s communications with Kilimnik. However, that information may be redacted from public view.

    The United States had imposed punishing sanctions on Russia after it invaded Crimea in 2014. Anders Aslund, an economist and senior fellow at the Atlantic Council who has studied Russia and Ukraine, said a top Russian priority was a solution for Ukraine that recognized Russian control of Crimea and lifted sanctions.

    Any assurance Manafort might have offered that a Trump administration would accept such terms would have created a powerful incentive for Russia to root for a Trump victory — and work to secure that outcome.

    “It’s clear that Moscow hoped Trump would win,” said John Herbst, a former ambassador to Ukraine, who served in top State Department posts under Democratic and Republican administrations. “And then Moscow hoped the new administration would pursue a weaker policy, meaning weakening existing sanctions against Russia and not treating Russian aggression in Ukraine as an obstacle to better relations with Washington.”

    After Trump’s inauguration, a Ukrainian peace plan considered friendly to Moscow’s interests was delivered to Trump’s personal lawyer Michael Cohen by a Ukrainian lawmaker.

    “The point here is that all roads go to the Kremlin,” Aslund said.

    (...)

    Kilimnik has told The Post that he and Manafort met at the Grand Havana Room in New York City on Aug. 2. But he insisted his in-person meetings with Manafort were “private visits.”

    “They were in no way related to politics or [the] presidential campaign in the U.S.,” he wrote.

    He said the two men discussed unpaid bills and the situation in Ukraine. It is not clear what else they might have talked about.

    But the court document filed last week showed that Mueller has gathered evidence that Manafort and Kilimnik had discussed a peace plan for Ukraine “on more than one occasion,” including during the campaign when Manafort’s lawyers said his attention was focused elsewhere.

    Days after the two men met in New York, Manafort was forced to contend with damaging news stories about his work in Ukraine. He resigned from the campaign on Aug. 19.

    Devlin Barrett contributed to this report.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...=.60e87c393e12
    "Even if you dance for your enemy on the rock, he will accuse you of splashing water on him." ~ African Proverb




  3. #168

    Re: The Manafort Trials

    Caroline Orr @RVAwonk

    Special counsel Mueller filed a new document today providing supporting evidence re. the allegation that Paul Manafort lied. The document is a 31-page sworn declaration from an FBI agent, and it is supplemented by a few hundred pages of exhibits.

    https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/...0597.476.0.pdf

    Here, Mueller's filing shows that Paul Manafort gave permission for someone to name-drop him during a meeting with Trump. This was in May 2018, just a month before Manafort's bail was revoked for violating the terms of his house arrest. Mueller has the text message.



    *wow*. Paul Manafort reportedly told Rick Gates in Jan. 2017 that he was using "intermediaries" to get people appointed in the Trump administration. That is new information.



    Manafort lied about turning over his electronic devices to investigators. According to today's filing, "in more than ten instances," Manafort failed to give investigators passwords to his electronic communications, thumb drives, or documents.



    This is a good time to remember that Rick Gates was still making regular trips to the White House through at least June 2017.

    (And as we learned today, Gates is still cooperating & providing valuable info to investigators in *multiple* investigations).

    https://www.thedailybeast.com/despit...he-white-house



    https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1...425057792.html
    "Even if you dance for your enemy on the rock, he will accuse you of splashing water on him." ~ African Proverb




  4. #169

    Re: The Manafort Trials

    Brandi Buchman @BBuchman_CNS
    a day ago

    Manafort Update: Judge ABJ will not reschedule the Jan 25 hearing and Manafort's attys must respond to Muellers allegation re: plea deal breach by Jan 23 at 10AM.

    From the minute entry: "Given the parties' shifting positions on what issues need to be resolved by the Court...
    "..and at what point in the proceedings, the Court wishes to hear from them in person again to establish a plan for moving forward."

    The judge continues: "But the parties should also come prepared to discuss the question of whether the material that has been submitted shows that the defendant intentionally provided false information in connection with any of the five subject matter areas that have been ID'ed..

    "...in the event the Court decides to hear argument at that time on the merits of that dispute -- either in open court or at a sealed proceeding. If either party is of the view that such a determination would require the testimony of any witness, it should inform the court."

    If a witness is to be called, the deadline is Friday, Jan 18.

    34 minutes ago,

    NEW: An update to yesterday's developments (See thread) Mueller's team wants to keep the Jan 25 hearing for Manafort and writes: "The question of whether live testimony will be necessary to resolve any factual issue will depend on the defendant’s upcoming submission."

    This morning's filing:

    https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...-Response.html

    @CourthouseNews

    Recall, on Thurs the judge ordered all parties to inform the court if they would require witness testimony to resolve their factual disputes about the plea ag breach allegations. But, today SPC sums it up:
    Excerpt: The def. has not submitted any evidence to date. If it does not, the Court can resolve the factual issues based on the evidence submitted, drawing inferences regarding intent from that evidence, w/the benefit of the parties’ arguments at the conference scheduled for 1/25


    https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1...383646213.html
    "Even if you dance for your enemy on the rock, he will accuse you of splashing water on him." ~ African Proverb




Page 12 of 12 FirstFirst ... 289101112

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •