Originally posted by @mott-the-hoopleLMAO! Manafort had his day in court and the Judge found probable cause that he had attempted to witness tamper. The evidence in favor of that allegation is strong, if not overwhelming:
http://www.independentsentinel.com/usa-police-state-under-special-counsel-robert-mueller/
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.
https://www.justsecurity.org/57518/thin-evidence-manaforts-witness-tampering-meets-standard/
"Police state"? That might describe a country which puts kids in cages but hardly describes jailing someone a few weeks in advance of their trial for doing what Manafort did.
07 Jul 18
Originally posted by @no1marauderHow does a police state begin? With people like Mott enthusiastically supporting that very thing and staunchly defending criminals because they happened to be helping the Great Leader.
"Police state"? That might describe a country which puts kids in cages but hardly describes jailing someone a few weeks in advance of their trial for doing what Manafort did.
07 Jul 18
Originally posted by @mott-the-hooplehow a police state begins: following proper legal procedure after months of investigation.
http://www.independentsentinel.com/usa-police-state-under-special-counsel-robert-mueller/
08 Jul 18
Originally posted by @no1marauderSo, let’s look at the facts.
LMAO! Manafort had his day in court and the Judge found probable cause that he had attempted to witness tamper. The evidence in favor of that allegation is strong, if not overwhelming:
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 ...[text shortened]... dly describes jailing someone a few weeks in advance of their trial for doing what Manafort did.
I think you lost him after that one. 😀
08 Jul 18
Originally posted by @mott-the-hoopleOh dear Mottlballs… Looks like you're post has been shot down before you'd finished the bloody sente….
http://www.independentsentinel.com/usa-police-state-under-special-counsel-robert-mueller/
08 Jul 18
Originally posted by @mott-the-hoopleDid you bang your head somewhere, moople?
http://www.independentsentinel.com/usa-police-state-under-special-counsel-robert-mueller/
08 Jul 18
My favorite line here:
Manafort was jailed because he spoke with a witness which he is not allowed to do. The rub is Manafort doesn’t know who the witnesses are because the government won’t tell him.
This is one of the more clear examples of the unequal application of the law that we are facing as the hangovers from the Obama regime, in cahoots with the media, continue their hard obstruction, soft coup toward the President.
Originally posted by @philokaliaManafort contacted one of the witnesses who are expected to testify at his trial. That is against the law.
My favorite line here:
Manafort was jailed because he spoke with a witness which he is not allowed to do. The rub is Manafort doesn’t know who the witnesses are because the government won’t tell him.
This is one of the more clear examples of the unequal application of the law that we are facing as the hangovers from the Obama regime, in cahoots with the media, continue their hard obstruction, soft coup toward the President.
The witness reported the contact to authorities, who declined to tell Manafort which witness came forward.
Where is the "unequal application of the law"?