The Manafort indictment is a historic test for American democracy

[annabenedetti]

Mueller, Manafort, and the Trump era's biggest crisis

The indictment of former Trump campaign chair Paul Manafort sets the stage for a historic test of the American legal and political systems, which could soon come under new attack from a president who has previously asked his advisers about firing Special Counsel Robert Mueller and pardoning those caught up in the Russia probe.

Mueller’s painstakingly detailed 31-page indictment of Manafort and former Trump campaign aide Rick Gates alleges that the two men concealed their ties to the government of Ukraine, kept huge amounts of money in offshore shelters, and laundered more than $18 million since 2006.

The indictment doesn’t allege that they colluded with Moscow to help Trump win the 2016 election, which the president and his aides are already using to try to undermine Mueller and dismiss the ongoing probes into team Trump’s ties to Russia as partisan witch hunts.

But the key thing to understand about the indictments — and the guilty plea of a lesser-known Trump adviser named George Papadopoulos — isn’t about their possible impact on the current course of the Trump-Russia scandal. It’s about their probable impact on what’s still to come.

That’s because Mueller’s moves increase the likelihood that campaign advisers or administration staffers who find themselves in the special counsel’s crosshairs may look to strike plea bargains where they swap damaging information on Trump in exchange for lesser charges. Papadopoulos is already cooperating with the Mueller team.

As a result, Trump may decide that he has no choice but to try to protect himself by firing Mueller or issuing preemptive pardons to Manafort or others ensnared in the investigation.

Either move would trigger a political and legal crisis on a scale that hasn’t been seen since Watergate, with federal courts having to decide whether to overturn any of the Trump pardons and Republicans facing a moment of truth about their willingness to substantively stand up to Trump instead of merely criticizing him publicly.

The investigation into Trump’s ties to Russia has been simmering along for months, and it wasn’t clear if, or when, it would move from a political scandal to a legal one. With Monday’s moves by the Mueller team, it has. The question is how far Trump is willing to go to protect himself from an investigation that threatens the future of his presidency — and whether Congress and the courts are up to the challenge.

This is a historic and dangerous moment for the Trump-Russia scandal...

... more at the link
​

 

[annabenedetti]

The cowardice of Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell

. . . . This is an extraordinary time in American politics; a test not just of our institutions but of our leaders. And it is a test Republicans are failing. In back rooms and background briefings, they are more caustic and despairing even than liberals; they are not ignorant of the threat Trump represents, nor of the dangers his impulsiveness poses. Those of them who take their conservatism seriously, who consider themselves constitutionalists, who believe the best of their party, feel the injury of Trump’s behavior keenly.

But afraid of his wrath, confused by their base, and hopeful that some good can still be wrung out of this crisis, they talk themselves, daily, into small acts of cowardice and silence, and then they find themselves committing big ones, as they are too invested, too culpable, to change their tune now. Trump has humbled them, left them like hungry gamblers deep in a losing streak; they need a win, they need something, so they can justify all they have already done, all they have already excused.​

 

[annabenedetti]

 

[Rusha]

As I noted PRIOR to the election, Trump will take the Republican party down with him. I am fine with this ... and will just file it under ... deservedness.

 

[annabenedetti]

As I noted PRIOR to the election, Trump will take the Republican party down with him. I am fine with this ... and will just file it under ... deservedness.

What Trump bumbles through and into, is what people like Steve Bannon are actively working towards, while the rest of the GOP fiddles.

I think Bannon's taken a page from the Cloward-Piven strategy of orchestrated chaos that the right was always warning about and he's using it to foment exactly that - orchestrated chaos - not from the left as the warning went, but from the alt-right. After all, Bannon did say his aim was the "deconstruction of the administrative state."

And now there's this: Steve Bannon "looking to kneecap Mueller"

 

[musterion]

Manafort has been charged for things he did well before he was with the Trump campaign. This is just a pressure tactic.

 

[annabenedetti]

White House wants credit for Papadopoulos arrest

The White House on Tuesday sought to take credit for the arrest of a former Trump campaign aide who had repeated contacts with Russia-linked officials offering “dirt” on Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton — marking the latest damage control move as the Russia probe intensifies.​

:chuckle:

 

[annabenedetti]

 

[annabenedetti]

This is helpful:

This Newsletter Can See Russia From Its House: A Legal Expert Explains the Manafort Indictment
Welcome to the Interpreter newsletter, by Max Fisher and Amanda Taub, who write a column by the same name.

​

On Monday, we learned that former Trump campaign manager Paul J. Manafort and his longtime associate Richard W. Gates have been indicted on twelve criminal counts relating to money laundering and failure to register as a foreign agent — the first indictment to be made public from Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into ties between the Trump administration and the Russian government.​

Mueller also revealed that George Papadopoulos, a foreign policy adviser to the Trump campaign, pleaded guilty to charges of lying to the F.B.I. about his contacts with the Russians, which were apparently quite extensive.​

We’re watching Mueller’s investigation closely, not just for what it reveals about the Trump campaign, but also for what it can tell us about Russia’s goals and tactics during the 2016 election.​

But reading the charges raised more questions for us than it answered. Why were all three men charged with secondary offenses like lying to investigators or concealing money, rather than offenses relating directly to collusion? What is the significance of the investigators making the Papadopoulos plea public on the same day they unsealed the Manafort and Gates indictments? And what is likely to happen next?​

So Amanda called Alex Little, a former federal prosecutor who has worked on white-collar criminal and national security cases, to get an expert’s-eye view of how to interpret the indictments.​

Are these charges a big deal? How big a deal are they? Let’s find out.​

(The interview has been edited for length and clarity)​

Why Mueller Would Want Papadopoulos’s Cooperation to be Public Record: Leverage​

Amanda Taub: Hi Alex. Thanks for taking the time to chat.​

When I first emailed you, you said that you thought the most interesting line in these documents is the last line in the Papadapoulos Statement of Offense.​

It says “following his arrest, defendant Papadapoulos met with the government on numerous occasions to provide information and answer questions.”​

What made that line seem so significant?​

Alex Little: With Papadopoulos, they now know everything they need to know about him. He's told them everything. And they're now working their way up the chain with the collusion charges — my guess is they want to indict Manafort and Gates.​

That's a much bigger indictment. Because the hope is that they are at the top of the chain, right at the time of the collusion or the seeking information from the Russians. At the top of that pyramid.​

Turning Up the Pressure​

Amanda Taub: You’re suggesting that they might be working toward similar allegations against Manafort and Gates. But this week’s charges against those guys seem like kind of small potatoes. They don’t contain anything like the allegations of actual communications between Russia and the campaign that you saw in the Papadopoulos case, for instance.​

Alex Little: Right. But the way you get a complete indictment of Manafort that details all of the facts is you get his cooperation.​

And one way to do that is to lock him down on charges that he can't beat.​

You let him know that he’s facing a decade in prison, and then use that leverage to flip him to talk about the stuff you actually care about.​

So these other charges against Manafort, these were ancillary. They’re to tell him: “Listen: you're going to jail no matter what. So the question now is, are you going to cooperate with us on this other stuff, or not?”​

And you tip him off to the stuff you really care about by releasing that Papadopoulos indictment.​

The Pardon Problem​

Amanda Taub: One of the strange things about this investigation, compared to a more typical prosecution like the ones you’ve worked on, is that President Trump has made it very clear that he is unhappy it is happening at all. And he has the power to pardon the people Mueller indicts.​

How do you think that fits into the calculations of Mueller and his team of prosecutors as they conduct their investigation and start to make arrests?​

Alex Little: If Trump pardons Manafort today — which he could do! — the only way, really, in the arsenal of any investigators to protect against that is to get ancillary state charges.​

Amanda Taub: Because President Trump can only pardon federal crimes, not state ones.​

Alex Little: Based on what's in the indictment, you could charge things like bank fraud under New York state law. You almost certainly could charge state tax evasion.​

Amanda Taub: Interesting. So they might be conveying that information to Manafort and Gates as well.​

Alex Little: That, to me, is the far more interesting question in terms of things we don't know: Are there sealed state indictments in New York or elsewhere against Manafort and Gates?​

‘Just the First Act’​

Amanda Taub: Obviously this will just be a guess. But based on your experience, when you see charges like these in a complex investigation, what comes next? Is the investigation just beginning? Or should we read this week’s events as a sign that Mueller is almost done?​

Alex Little: This is just the first act. Mueller has a pretty good idea of where he's going.​

This is certainly a chess move. He will expect the situation to change as a result. And then he'll have to make a decision about their second move based on how people respond to this one.​

​

 

[jgarden]

Manafort has been charged for things he did well before he was with the Trump campaign. This is just a pressure tactic.

Manafort, Gates, Papadopoulos, Flynn - for a President who claimed that he would attract and hire only the "best" people, "The Donald" appears to have an affinity for attracting "ne'r-do-wells!"

If Trump and his Campaign had taken the time to do their "due diligence," he could have avoided finding himself surrounded by this "motley crew" of "best people!"

 

[rexlunae]

At the end of the next three panels, he's swearing allegiance to Mother Russia.

 

[annabenedetti]

Trump Nominee Sam Clovis testified days before Papadopoulos's guilty plea was unsealed.

Sam Clovis, President Donald Trump’s controversial nominee to be the Agriculture Department’s chief scientist, has been “a fully cooperative witness” in the Senate Intelligence Committee’s investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election, Senate Agriculture Chairman Pat Roberts told POLITICO.

Clovis, a former co-chair and policy adviser to Trump’s campaign, knew that another campaign adviser, George Papadopoulos, was talking to Russians, according to news reports based on documents released Monday as part of special counsel Robert Mueller’s probe.

Clovis’ nomination to the top scientific job at the Agriculture Department has already drawn significant opposition from Democrats and scientists who have raised concerns about his climate-change skepticism, his credentials and his history of making disparaging statements about blacks, women, LGBT individuals and others. But there’s been no public opposition from Republicans, and Roberts said he plans to continue with a planned Nov. 9 confirmation hearing.​

 

[annabenedetti]

Trump Accuses Clinton of Deliberately Losing Election So He Could Be Impeached

:chuckle:

 

[annabenedetti]

Back to the serious:

A former top Mexican diplomat accused the Trump administration this week of using official diplomatic channels to funnel business to Donald Trump’s hotels.

Arturo Sarukhan, who served as Mexico’s ambassador to the United States from 2007 to 2013, tweeted on Tuesday that a former U.S. diplomat told him the U.S. State Department’s protocol emphasizes to world leaders that they should use Trump’s D.C. hotel for official visits.

Sarukhan’s tweet also uses the term “kakistocracy,” which means government by the worst people.

If the State Department is, in fact, helping Trump drive foreign governments’ business to his hotels, then it is complicit in a violation of the Constitution. The Constitution provides that no “person holding any office of profit or trust” under the United States may “without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.” ​

 

[annabenedetti]

And... Trump has thrown his son-in-law under the bus:

From Breitbart

Donald Trump reportedly blames his son-in-law, White House Senior Adviser Jared Kushner, for his role in the decision to appoint special counsel Robert Mueller, according to Vanity Fair’s Gabriel Sherman.

On a phone call Tuesday with Breitbart News Executive Chairman and former White House Chief Strategist Stephen K. Bannon, “Trump blamed Jared Kushner for his role in decisions, specifically the firings of [former National Security Adviser] Mike Flynn and [former FBI Director] James Comey, that led to Mueller’s appointment,” according to a source who was briefed on the call.
​

Breitbart has the long knives out:

Kushner, who was tasked with a massive portfolio by Trump that includes solving America’s opioid crisis, tackling criminal justice reform, and bringing peace to the Middle East — despite having no experience in any of these areas and achieving virtually no accomplishments in his time in the West Wing — is now reportedly shrinking his role, along with Ivanka, following their repeated terrible advice to the president and “periodic confusion and resentment” caused by their presence.

​

“Jared is the worst political adviser in the White House in modern history,” Nunberg tells Sherman. “I’m only saying publicly what everyone says behind the scenes at Fox News, in conservative media, and the Senate and Congress.”






​

 

[patrick jane]

Fake News

 

[annabenedetti]

And... Trump has thrown his son-in-law under the bus:

From Breitbart

Donald Trump reportedly blames his son-in-law, White House Senior Adviser Jared Kushner, for his role in the decision to appoint special counsel Robert Mueller, according to Vanity Fair’s Gabriel Sherman.

On a phone call Tuesday with Breitbart News Executive Chairman and former White House Chief Strategist Stephen K. Bannon, “Trump blamed Jared Kushner for his role in decisions, specifically the firings of [former National Security Adviser] Mike Flynn and [former FBI Director] James Comey, that led to Mueller’s appointment,” according to a source who was briefed on the call.
​

Breitbart has the long knives out:

Kushner, who was tasked with a massive portfolio by Trump that includes solving America’s opioid crisis, tackling criminal justice reform, and bringing peace to the Middle East — despite having no experience in any of these areas and achieving virtually no accomplishments in his time in the West Wing — is now reportedly shrinking his role, along with Ivanka, following their repeated terrible advice to the president and “periodic confusion and resentment” caused by their presence.

​

“Jared is the worst political adviser in the White House in modern history,” Nunberg tells Sherman. “I’m only saying publicly what everyone says behind the scenes at Fox News, in conservative media, and the Senate and Congress.”






​

Fake News

What part of it is fake?

 

[drbrumley]

This is helpful:

Evil Prosecutors And what’s really going on in DC. Article by Judge Napolitano The Tip of a Prosecutorial Iceberg? By Andrew P. Napolitano November 2, 2017 Earlier this week, the government revealed that a grand jury sitting in Washington, D.C., indicted a former Trump presidential campaign chairman and his former deputy and business partner for numerous felonies. Both were accused of working as foreign agents and failing to report that status to the federal government, using shell corporations to launder income and obstruction of justice by lying to the federal government. The financial crimes are alleged to have occurred from 2008 to 2014, and the obstruction charges from 2014 to 2017. At the same time it announced the above, the government revealed that a low-level former foreign policy adviser to the Trump campaign, George Papadopoulos, had pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI and become a government witness. Does any of this relate to President Donald Trump? Here is the back story. At the same time that Paul Manafort and his business partner Rick Gates were guiding the Trump campaign in the summer of 2016, Russian agents were manipulating American social media sites so as to arouse chaos in general and animosity toward Hillary Clinton in particular. The Department of Justice appointed former FBI Director Robert Mueller as independent counsel to determine whether any Americans had criminally helped the Russians. The alleged crimes of Manafort and Gates appear to have nothing to do with Trump, nor have they any facial relationship to the Russians. So why were these two indicted by a grand jury hearing evidence about alleged American assistance to Russian interference with the 2016 presidential campaign? When prosecutors confront a complex series of potentially criminal events, they often do not know at the outset of their investigation where the evidence will lead them. Sometimes they come upon a person who they believe has knowledge of facts they seek and that person declines to speak with them. Such a refusal to speak to the government is perfectly lawful in America, yet it often triggers a prosecution of the potential witness so that prosecutors may squeeze him — not literally, of course — for evidence to which they believe he can lead them. The ultimate target of Mueller’s investigation is President Trump. It is standard operating procedure when prosecutors have a high-level target to charge those below the target with something just to get them to cooperate. Though the charges against Manafort and Gates need not be related to the Russians or to Trump, they must be real. It’s clear they are, as each is facing more than 20 years in prison. Mueller believes that that prospect is enough to dispatch their lawyers to make deals with him. The danger of such a deal is that Manafort and Gates may offer to tell Mueller what they think he wants to hear — even if it is not truthful — so that they can have their prison exposure lessened. There is more danger in the seemingly smallest of this week’s Mueller-generated events. Papadopoulos was interviewed voluntarily by the FBI on Jan. 27. He was arrested on July 27 for lying to FBI agents during that interview. In a secret federal court proceeding on Oct. 5, he pleaded guilty. In a profound miscarriage of justice, federal law permits FBI agents to lie to us but makes it a crime for us to lie to them. Nevertheless, why was the Papadopoulos guilty plea kept secret? What was he doing between his arrest and his plea and between his plea and its revelation? Judges are very reluctant to close their courtroom doors in any criminal proceeding, even if both the prosecutors and the defense counsel request it. The public has a right to know whom the government is prosecuting and what deals or punishments it may be obtaining. Yet if prosecutors can convince a judge that public knowledge of the existence of a guilty plea might harm an ongoing criminal investigation, the judge can keep the plea secret. That is apparently what happened here. It appears that Papadopoulos was gathering evidence for Mueller, probably by talking to his former Trump campaign colleagues while wired — a process that would have been fruitless if his guilty plea had become public. Because Papadopoulos admitted under oath that he lied to FBI agents, the courts will treat his guilt as certain. That gives Mueller great leverage with him. It also gives Papadopoulos great incentive to help Mueller — truthfully or not — because he knows he is going to federal prison. He also knows that if Mueller likes what he hears, a five-year prison term could be reduced to six months. Hence, Papadopoulos could be a treasure-trove for Mueller on the production of any evidence linking the Trump campaign and the Russians and any evidence of Trump’s personal knowledge or acquiescence. Papadopoulos has already produced a wild tale about meetings with a Russian professor and a female Russian government agent in London that the FBI apparently believes. Is this any way to conduct a prosecution? I have argued for years that squeezing defendants and witnesses by threats and promises to get them to spill the beans is a form of extortion or bribery — not much different from the extortion and bribery that the government regularly prosecutes. “You tell us what we want to hear and we will ask a judge to go easy on you. If not, you will suffer great losses.” It is bad enough that the feds can legally lie to us and get away with it, but can they also legally threaten and bribe witnesses to testify against us and get away with it? Can they do this to the president? In a word, yes. My arguments have fallen on deaf ears. Squeezing witnesses and defendants is a way of life for federal prosecutors. For the president, it is the tip of a dangerous iceberg.

And this is America today...you wanted it, you can reap in it.

 

[rexlunae]

Evil Prosecutors And what’s really going on in DC. Article by Judge Napolitano The Tip of a Prosecutorial Iceberg? By Andrew P. Napolitano November 2, 2017 Earlier this week, the government revealed that a grand jury sitting in Washington, D.C., indicted a former Trump presidential campaign chairman and his former deputy and business partner for numerous felonies. Both were accused of working as foreign agents and failing to report that status to the federal government, using shell corporations to launder income and obstruction of justice by lying to the federal government. The financial crimes are alleged to have occurred from 2008 to 2014, and the obstruction charges from 2014 to 2017. At the same time it announced the above, the government revealed that a low-level former foreign policy adviser to the Trump campaign, George Papadopoulos, had pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI and become a government witness. Does any of this relate to President Donald Trump? Here is the back story. At the same time that Paul Manafort and his business partner Rick Gates were guiding the Trump campaign in the summer of 2016, Russian agents were manipulating American social media sites so as to arouse chaos in general and animosity toward Hillary Clinton in particular. The Department of Justice appointed former FBI Director Robert Mueller as independent counsel to determine whether any Americans had criminally helped the Russians. The alleged crimes of Manafort and Gates appear to have nothing to do with Trump, nor have they any facial relationship to the Russians. So why were these two indicted by a grand jury hearing evidence about alleged American assistance to Russian interference with the 2016 presidential campaign? When prosecutors confront a complex series of potentially criminal events, they often do not know at the outset of their investigation where the evidence will lead them. Sometimes they come upon a person who they believe has knowledge of facts they seek and that person declines to speak with them. Such a refusal to speak to the government is perfectly lawful in America, yet it often triggers a prosecution of the potential witness so that prosecutors may squeeze him — not literally, of course — for evidence to which they believe he can lead them. The ultimate target of Mueller’s investigation is President Trump. It is standard operating procedure when prosecutors have a high-level target to charge those below the target with something just to get them to cooperate. Though the charges against Manafort and Gates need not be related to the Russians or to Trump, they must be real. It’s clear they are, as each is facing more than 20 years in prison. Mueller believes that that prospect is enough to dispatch their lawyers to make deals with him. The danger of such a deal is that Manafort and Gates may offer to tell Mueller what they think he wants to hear — even if it is not truthful — so that they can have their prison exposure lessened. There is more danger in the seemingly smallest of this week’s Mueller-generated events. Papadopoulos was interviewed voluntarily by the FBI on Jan. 27. He was arrested on July 27 for lying to FBI agents during that interview. In a secret federal court proceeding on Oct. 5, he pleaded guilty. In a profound miscarriage of justice, federal law permits FBI agents to lie to us but makes it a crime for us to lie to them. Nevertheless, why was the Papadopoulos guilty plea kept secret? What was he doing between his arrest and his plea and between his plea and its revelation? Judges are very reluctant to close their courtroom doors in any criminal proceeding, even if both the prosecutors and the defense counsel request it. The public has a right to know whom the government is prosecuting and what deals or punishments it may be obtaining. Yet if prosecutors can convince a judge that public knowledge of the existence of a guilty plea might harm an ongoing criminal investigation, the judge can keep the plea secret. That is apparently what happened here. It appears that Papadopoulos was gathering evidence for Mueller, probably by talking to his former Trump campaign colleagues while wired — a process that would have been fruitless if his guilty plea had become public. Because Papadopoulos admitted under oath that he lied to FBI agents, the courts will treat his guilt as certain. That gives Mueller great leverage with him. It also gives Papadopoulos great incentive to help Mueller — truthfully or not — because he knows he is going to federal prison. He also knows that if Mueller likes what he hears, a five-year prison term could be reduced to six months. Hence, Papadopoulos could be a treasure-trove for Mueller on the production of any evidence linking the Trump campaign and the Russians and any evidence of Trump’s personal knowledge or acquiescence. Papadopoulos has already produced a wild tale about meetings with a Russian professor and a female Russian government agent in London that the FBI apparently believes. Is this any way to conduct a prosecution? I have argued for years that squeezing defendants and witnesses by threats and promises to get them to spill the beans is a form of extortion or bribery — not much different from the extortion and bribery that the government regularly prosecutes. “You tell us what we want to hear and we will ask a judge to go easy on you. If not, you will suffer great losses.” It is bad enough that the feds can legally lie to us and get away with it, but can they also legally threaten and bribe witnesses to testify against us and get away with it? Can they do this to the president? In a word, yes. My arguments have fallen on deaf ears. Squeezing witnesses and defendants is a way of life for federal prosecutors. For the president, it is the tip of a dangerous iceberg.

And this is America today...you wanted it, you can reap in it.

Which part of this is supposed to be a scandal?

 

[drbrumley]

Which part of this is supposed to be a scandal?

Um, what scandal? Did I say anything about a sandal?