Russia Probe

Manafort Sent to Jail over Accusations of Witness-Tampering

Bail revoked for breaking one of the fundamental rules: Don't meddle with the court case.

|

Paul Manafort
JONATHAN ERNST/REUTERS/Newscom

Paul Manafort, formerly President Donald Trump's campaign manager, is heading to a jail cell after a judge revoked his bail today.

Manafort faces a host of federal charges. He is accused of concealing millions of dollars in income while representing pro-Russian political interests in Ukraine, and of not properly reporting this money to the IRS. When he was initially charged in February, he was granted bail.

Bail comes with conditions, like not committing any additional crimes while you're free and not contacting or otherwise meddling with witnesses. Earlier this month, prosecutors said Manafort broke these conditions by contacting two witnesses and trying to get them to say that Manafort's work lobbying for Ukraine did not include work in the United States. They charged him with a new obstruction of justice complaint and asked for his bail to be revoked.

Today, U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson agreed. The Washington Post reports:

"This is not middle school. I can't take away his cellphone," [the judge] said. "If I tell him not to call 56 witnesses, will he call the 57th?" She said she should not have to draft a court order spelling out the entire criminal code for him to avoid violations.

"This hearing is not about politics. It is not about the conduct of the office of special counsel. It is about the defendant's conduct," Jackson said. "I'm concerned you seem to treat these proceedings as another marketing exercise."

None of the current charges against Manafort connect back to Trump. (As Trump would yell, "No collusion!") It might be worthwhile to remind Trump that Manafort's charges don't connect to him, because he responded to the judge's decision by tweeting in outrage:

Manafort does not actually have a "tough sentence," or any sentence, because he has not been convicted. But Trump's typical way of misspeaking does inadvertently highlight some serious problems with America's bail system. There are, in fact, hundreds of thousands of Americans sitting in jail cells who have, like Manafort, not yet been convicted of crimes.

While judges frequently keep defendants in jail cells because of concerns that they'll interfere with the trial or because they're flight risks, many others are stuck simply because they cannot afford the financial demands of cash bail. As a result, low-level offenders often end up serving the equivalent of a short prison sentence while sitting in jail waiting for the wheels of justice to turn—or, more frequently, for the defendant to give up and accept a plea deal.

So for some people, not getting bail is equivalent to a "sentence." There is a significant reform push underway to attempt to make pretrial criminal justice less punitive and less likely to demand that people shell out money for the right to be free before their trial. Indeed, the bail reform movement is the subject of Reason's next cover story, for the August/September issue, written by yours truly.

As for Manafort, he'll be facing trial in July and September for his charges. That's a pretty speedy trial when compared to what many others experience.

Advertisement

NEXT: Trump Says Comey 'Totally Protected Hillary' but Was Fired for Actions That Hurt Her

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “He is accused of concealing millions of dollars in income while representing pro-Russian political interests in Ukraine, and of not properly reporting this money to the IRS.”

    You should probably specify that those “pro-Russian” political interests in Ukraine was the democratically elected government of Ukraine.

    1. Is he being charged with representing them? Oh, no, just like it says in the very thing you quoted, that’s not what he’s charged with. Lobbying for unseemly foreign leaders and oligarchs is fine. And definitely so libertarian.

      1. “He is accused of concealing millions of dollars in income while representing pro-Russian political interests in Ukraine”

        What are you talking about? It says it right there in the article. How is lobbying for a foreign government a violation of libertarianism? And how was the former democratically elected government of Ukraine an oligarchy?

        1. Correction. First he was employed by a private party and then the government of Ukraine.

          From WaPo:

          “In 2005, Manafort was hired by Rinat Akhmetov, a Ukrainian steel magnate who wanted to burnish his international image.

          Akhmetov’s company was based in a heavily industrialized, mostly Russian-speaking part of eastern Ukraine. He was one of a large group of Ukrainian oligarchs with close ties to Viktor Yanukovych, the leader of the Russia-friendly Party of Regions. Manafort was hired by the political party soon thereafter.”

          1. So, it is correct to say, as Tony did, that he was employed by an “oligarch” (which is a name only employed for eastern European businesses that live off of government contracts, but not Elon Musk and our brave “capitalists”), before being employed by the government of Ukraine

            1. Never fear, Tony’s friend Torquemada is on the case!

              Andrew Weissmann, Mueller’s top gun in Russia probe known for hardball tactics, overturned rulings

              Quotes (but read the whole article):
              Defense attorneys say Mr. Weissmann bent or broke the rules. As proof, they point to appeals court decisions, exhibits and witness statements.

              They say he intimidated witnesses by threatening indictments, created crimes that did not exist and, in one case, withheld evidence that could have aided the accused. At one hearing, an incredulous district court judge looked down at an Enron defendant and told him he was pleading guilty to a wire fraud crime that did not exist.

              “Weissmann seemed more interested in obtaining convictions than in promoting justice,” said Tom Kirkendall, a Houston lawyer who represented an Enron executive.

              Said Mr. Cogdell, a colorful courtroom performer dubbed a “gunslinger” by the local press, “He’s the most aggressive prosecutor I’ve ever been up against. He is, if not win at all cost, he’s win at almost any cost.”

            2. Not true. In the context of the article it is referring to the tight circle of billionaire Putin cock suckers who murder and make Putin richer while doing the same for themselves. When they step out of line with Putin they die, but as long as they provide regular metaphorical BJs for him they just get richer.

        2. The accusation is of concealing income from the IRS, as you just repeated.

          You’re welcome to defend the business of lobbying on behalf of tyrants. It just doesn’t seem to have anything to do with libertarianism to me, for what should be obvious reasons.

          1. Again, Bill Kristol, how was the democratically elected government of Ukraine “tyrants”? Because they were pro-Russian rather than pro-Brussels?

            Why even have elections if they just continue to disappoint you, Tony.

            1. You can have a soy boy revolution. All you skinny jean wearing effeminate men can play toughies and overthrow democratically elected governments for the greater glory of The Weekly Standard

              1. I see the definition of democratic has gotten rather loose since Putin started meddling in everyone’s shit. Literally eliminate the opposition? Democratic! Lose the actual democratic contest, still get to be president? Democratic!

                1. “Literally eliminate the opposition? Democratic! Lose the actual democratic contest, still get to be president? Democratic!”

                  She didn’t get away with it, so we’re good and you lost.

                2. My God, that’s delusional, Tony. If anything, the Europeans meddled in Ukraine by working with the US to overthrow Yanukovych. Then Russia meddled by invading and taking Crimea. Stop watching Rachel Maddow.

                  1. I’m now composing a parody of NWA’s “Don’t Beleive the Hype”, titled “Don’t Believe the Dyke”.

                    1. You might want to start with Public Enemy. It will be easier.

            2. “Again, Bill Kristol, how was the democratically elected government of Ukraine “tyrants”? Because they were pro-Russian rather than pro-Brussels?”

              Maybe when they shot at protestors?

              1. Israel just proved that shooting at ‘Protesters’ is legitimate.

            3. Because it has been shown over and over that the Ukraine “democratically elected” politicians are not. They load up the ballots with fake votes to guarantee that they win and don’t allow international independent groups to audit their crooked elections.

      2. Bill Kristol Tony

        1. Do you mean that everyone on planet earth all the way to the left and all the way to the right up to Bill Kristol and his ilk are horrified at what’s going on in Washington, and that the only people who aren’t are cut-rate mobsters and cousinfucking hillbillies? Totally agree.

          1. Frankly, the Left and Bill Kristol have always had more in common than anyone on the Right. Neoconservatives and the Left have always been pro-war.

            1. The neocons and their misadventures are who radicalized me against Republicans and American conservatism forever. They are not my friends.

              If you weren’t so fucking dumb you’d figure out that since everyone is against you except said slicked-back dregs of capitalism and buck-toothed meth heads, maybe you’re on the wrong side of history here what with your incessant, embarrassing apologetics for Trump and his minions.

              1. Tony, you are pimping wars over conspiracy theories that have no basis in reality. You are making accusations that are utterly unfounded. And the people who support you in this misadventure are neoconservatives. You are a neoconservative.

                1. You have got to get your information from someplace real.

                  You probably think the North Koreans have given up all their nukes too.

                  1. Tony, you’re insane. Your TDS has poisoned your brain. Russia fever dreams are bat shit crazy and have no basis in reality

                    1. Unlike you I’m waiting for the actual real investigation to complete before making judgments on Russia. Investigations aren’t fake just because they’re directed at Republicans.

                      What you’re doing is defining wrongdoing down so much that anything short of actual treason and Trump wins at life (meaning you do too, because you’ve inexplicably tied your credibility to the least credible human on planet earth).

                      Suffice it to say I won’t be buying it.

                    2. That’s a lie, Tony. You’ve been pimping wackier fever dreams than the knucklehead writers here. And all of these fever dreams always seem to work to the benefit of the war caucus. You are who you allegedly hate.

                      It has nothing to do with the political party and everything to do with involving the US further into Syria and maintaining a quasi Cold War with Russia.

                      It’s bizarre that Bush administration talking points have been recycled by the Leftists today while they cuddle with Bill Kristol

                    3. I don’t know what the shit you’re talking about, as I’ve been consistently anti-Republican for my entire adult life. That’s whether they were torturing people and starting wars based on lies or whether they were conspiring with Russia to undermine US democracy. Or undermining US democracy all on their own. Or putting children in concentration camps.

                      You’re the libertarian. You defend that shit since you seem so eager to.

              2. Tony|6.15.18 @ 3:54PM|#
                “The neocons and their misadventures are who radicalized me…”

                Yeah, your fucking imbecility is someone else’s fault.

              3. Tony, your support of Hillary, who IS a neocon, makes YOU a neocon. How can you not understand that?

                1. And your support of everyone who ever even thought of putting an (R) after his name makes you what? A pacifist?

            2. Conservatives have been pro war as well. Since at least the early 80s they and the neocons decended from war hawk democrats all want a US hegemony across the entire world. This point of view has been disproven over and over and over as a reasonable foreign strategy. As wealth increases around the world it will only decrease. These neocon and conservative cocksuckers can’t give up on their demented new world order however. The only sane foreign “war” policy is not to engage in it. Lead by example through economic success and fair trade. If they want to self destruct then let them. We have always failed at controlling third world countries in the middle east and in the Americas.

          2. You are an arrogant, willfully ignorant sort of swine, aren’t you?

            1. Willfully ignorant is interesting, as while I’m curious about many things, there’s not enough time to be an expert at all of them, so in a way I have “willfully” chosen to accept a measure of ignorance in specific subjects as I pursue the life of a multipotentialite. They key, of course, is knowing precisely what one doesn’t know. That would be the key to not being an all-around dumbfuck.

              1. Tony, you ARE an all around dumbfuck, and the punchline to a lot of jokes.

            2. So you can’t come up with an argument so you resort to name calling and attaching the other debator? Fucking pathetic.

    2. What part of democracy includes poisoning rival candidates?

      1. Happy Chandler|6.15.18 @ 3:53PM|#
        “What part of democracy includes poisoning rival candidates?”

        What part of your comment has to do with the subject?

      2. That was not Yanukovych. That was in the early 2000’s.

        1. Yanukovych was elected in 2010 and the election was declared “free and fair” by Western observers, before they decided to overthrow him

        2. What do you think Yanukovich was doing in the early 2000’s (2004, to be exact)?
          He was running for President against an opponent who was poisoned.
          I’m sure he cleaned up after that though.

          1. So the West was lying when they declared the 2010 election to be “free and fair”?

            Leftists and neocons are indistinguishable at this point

            1. Okay, he stopped poisoning people, but hadn’t quite gotten around to shooting protestors. That was a time of FREEDOM!

          2. Hey, you don’t get paid the big bucks for being a publicist for Mother Theresa.

  2. I’m just glad this monster is behind bars where he can’t hurt anyone else.

    1. Sure, but was he separated from his children?

      1. They might not really mind.

    2. We have a crack team working to put him and keep him there.

      When Comey and Mueller Bungled the Anthrax Case

      Quotes (but read the whole article):
      Comey and Mueller badly bungled the biggest case they ever handled. They botched the investigation of the 2001 anthrax letter attacks that took five lives and infected 17 other people, shut down the U.S. Capitol and Washington’s mail system, solidified the Bush administration’s antipathy for Iraq, and eventually, when the facts finally came out, made the FBI look feckless, incompetent, and easily manipulated by outside political pressure.

      The FBI ignored a 2002 tip from a scientific colleague of the actual anthrax killer, who turned out to be a Fort Detrick scientist named Bruce Edwards Ivins; the reason is that they had quickly obsessed on an innocent man named Steven Hatfill; the bureau was bullied into focusing on the government scientist by Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy (whose office, along with that of Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, was targeted by an anthrax-laced letter) and was duped into focusing on Hatfill by two sources ? a conspiracy-minded college professor with a political agenda who’d never met Hatfill and by Nicholas Kristof, who put his conspiracy theories in the paper while mocking the FBI for not arresting Hatfill.

  3. Manafort attempted to use his position working for a presidential candidate to benefit Oleg Deripaska (“Can we use this to get whole?”). Besides being part of a conspiracy against the US, this was also a crime against Trump’s campaign. He was dishonestly using his work for the campaign in ways that did not benefit the candidate, unless it was done in concert with the candidate.

    1. Happy Chandler|6.15.18 @ 3:59PM|#
      “Manafort attempted to use his position working for a presidential candidate to benefit Oleg Deripaska (“Can we use this to get whole?”).”
      So?

      “Besides being part of a conspiracy against the US, this was also a crime against Trump’s campaign.”
      Your stupidity overcomes you attempt at sophistry.

      “He was dishonestly using his work for the campaign in ways that did not benefit the candidate, unless it was done in concert with the candidate.”
      I’ll bet you thought that meant something.

      1. He committed crimes. He violated terms of his bail. Therefore, he’s now going to be confined.

        1. Don’t underestimate the magnitude of the conspiracy theories these people are willing to believe in.

          1. Like Trump/Russia collusion?

            1. No I was referring to the conspiracy theory that Robert Mueller is some kind of Democratic party operative doing a totally fake investigation.

              1. His mandate* is to bring down the democratically elected administration by any means possible. Politically appointed spotlight prosecutors don’t like to lose.

                *a command he must act upon, not what you do on a Saturday night, Tony

                1. Not true. He has a history of being impartial. I just wish the Trumpkins could accept that just because someone isn’t brown-nosing trump doesn’t mean they can’t be honest or Americans.

              2. What does any of this have to do with Collusion (which still needs to be defined as a crime).

                Manafort is a scumbag, but as a lawyer, that is a per-requisite. Please reference Avienatti and Stormy Daniels….

                Lady paid to have sex on film, has sex with old man and gets paid…now declares #metoo moment..and wants more money.

                Sounds like a prostitute attempting extortion through a bad lawyer.

            2. When the report comes out you’ll see how much of a conspiracy it was. No that they got Cohen and his attempts to shred evidence as well as his compliance, Trump is fucked.

        2. Or they have scant evidence of any crime which was already examined years ago and prosecutors took a pass… but they really, really need someone to roll over on Trump so they are putting the screws to him by calling any communication with anyone he ever worked with “witness tampering” and getting him tossed in jail.

          Look for continued ratchetting up of the pressure in the form of additional charges, bank account freezes, maybe asset seizures… He’s done for. They’ve got their missing link, and they are going to squeeze until he agrees to say that Putin personally directed him on how Trump was to run his campaign, and continues to direct Trump’s moves in the White House. The only question is if he can last until Trump is about to leave office and get his pardon.

          I’m surprised they haven’t gone for the assets yet. That’s the way to squeeze him. You can’t pardon your way out of getting all of your assets seized by the feds…. at least I don’t think so. I’d guess that you can only pardon a person, not “$37.4 million in stock and bond funds”.

          1. It should be noted that rarely do people serve jail time for not disclosing lobbying activity. A fine is usually the extent of the punishment

            1. But they often do for money laundering and tax evasion.

              1. For which he has not been convicted. But it’s that “by any means necessary” mantra of the far left and TDS that would gleefully cast aside due process in any attempt to destroy the false prophet!

                1. But he violated the terms of his bail. That will typically get you put in a jail cell.
                  One of the rules of witness tampering is making sure that your co-conspirators won’t tell the prosecutor. The people he contacted, violating his bail, took screenshots and showed the prosecutor.

                  1. That’s not what you said, though, is it?

                    Happy Chandler|6.15.18 @ 4:43PM|#

                    But they often do for money laundering and tax evasion.

                    For which he has not (yet?) been convicted. Way to bait and switch. You’ll actually find me in another comment actually arguing in defense of the judge’s decision.

          2. I’m an attorney but not a Trump guy; nonetheless I am eagerly awaiting the day when all this goes up in a puff of smoke. So far, all I keep hearing is “wait ’til you see what we have next”, which always comes up a big nothingburger.

            1. Manafort was working for a Putin henchman and sought to use his position with the Trump campaign to pay off a debt to the henchman. Trump’s campaign manager changed the Republican party platform to favor Russia. Do you think for one second the control freak CEO Trump wasn’t aware of Manafort’s outreach and associations with Putin?

              1. Z565|6.15.18 @ 6:06PM|#
                “Manafort was working for a Putin henchman and sought to use his position with the Trump campaign to pay off a debt to the henchman. Trump’s campaign manager changed the Republican party platform to favor Russia. Do you think for one second the control freak CEO Trump wasn’t aware of Manafort’s outreach and associations with Putin?”

                So what?

                1. Our nation’s government is being run for the benefit of a foreign dictator. Not a problem?

                  1. “Our nation’s government is being run for the benefit of a foreign dictator. Not a problem?”

                    Re-trace your steps; your brain has fallen out somewhere on your way here.

  4. Of course, coaching witnesses is only allowed if the prosecution is doing it. 🙂

    1. And this is how Mueller does it:


      Civil rights lawyer Harvey Silverglate: How Robert Mueller Tried To Entrap Me

      Quotes:
      I have known Mueller during his career as a federal prosecutor. My experience has taught me to approach whatever he does in the Trump investigation with extreme caution.

      When Mueller was the acting United States Attorney in Boston, I was defense counsel in a federal criminal case in which a rather odd fellow contacted me to tell me that he had information that could assist my client. He walked into my office and sat down across from me at the conference table. He was prepared, he said, to give me an affidavit to the effect that certain real estate owned by my client was purchased with lawful currency rather than, as Mueller’s office was claiming, the proceeds of illegal drug activities.

      My secretary typed up the affidavit that the witness was going to sign. Just as he picked up the pen, he looked at me and said something like: “You know, all of this is actually false, but your client is an old friend of mine and I want to help him.” As I threw the putative witness out of my office, I noticed, under the flowing white shirt, a lump on his back ? he was obviously wired and recording every word between us.

        1. He lost me when he said that the position was alternately known as “Independent Counsel” and “Special Prosecutor”. They are different positions, with different reporting structures and different legal backings.

          The independent prosecutor (ie Ken Starr) was not appointed by the executive branch, answered to a judicial panel, and was the subject of the Supreme Court case in question.
          A special counsel (ie Mueller) answers through the normal DOJ chain of command and there is no legal difference between the special counsel and a normal prosecutor, only department policy difference.

          1. Are you a paid shill?

            That’s the most oddly nonsensical non-sequitur response you’ll ever see. I mean, there’s pedantic, and then there’s just “I gotta fill my quota of posts” silliness.

  5. I thought that by now these guys were all supposed to have “flipped” on Trump. Every time one of them was so much as mentioned on TV there were shrieks of “we’ve got Trump now!” I wonder what happened to the big flip-out.

    1. Manafort is being punished for having supported Trump. This is a lesson to everyone that working for,Trump or being lart of his administration will get you the same treatment. Just endless legal fees and bullshit process crimes. Even if Manafort is eventually exonerated they will likely have destroyed his life and those if his family. Which is a feature, not a bug.

      1. Exactly.

      2. Funny, last time I read the laws, money laundering, tax evasion, and witness tampering were all illegal.

        1. Yeah. Fuck due process! Pitchforks at the ready! Accused = guilty by default! Fuck a verdict!

        2. Funny, how exactly would you tell the difference between “money laundering” and getting paid via your LLC. under the definitions being used here?

          1. Is the subject connected to a political rival? If so, it’s a vicious crime. If not, it’s just BAU.

    2. Flynn
      Gates
      Papadopoulos
      You don’t know who else is currently working with him. Papadopoulos was working with him for months before it was public.

    3. Just shoot a quick e-mail to Mueller asking him to keep you in the loop.

  6. The world is a better place with Paul Manafort in a cell tonight, preparing for his upcoming performances with the Manafort-Flynn-Gates-Nunberg -Papadapoulos-Cohen-Kilimnik Choir.

    I’ve always like seven-part harmony.

    1. I remember when liberals supported an impartial criminal justice system.

      Civil rights lawyer Harvey Silverglate: How Robert Mueller Tried To Entrap Me

      Quotes:
      I have known Mueller during his career as a federal prosecutor. My experience has taught me to approach whatever he does in the Trump investigation with extreme caution.

      When Mueller was the acting United States Attorney in Boston, I was defense counsel in a federal criminal case in which a rather odd fellow contacted me to tell me that he had information that could assist my client. He walked into my office wearing a striking, flowing white gauze-like shirt and sat down across from me at the conference table. He was prepared, he said, to give me an affidavit to the effect that certain real estate owned by my client was purchased with lawful currency rather than, as Mueller’s office was claiming, the proceeds of illegal drug activities.

      My secretary typed up the affidavit that the witness was going to sign. Just as he picked up the pen, he looked at me and said something like: “You know, all of this is actually false, but your client is an old friend of mine and I want to help him.” As I threw the putative witness out of my office, I noticed, under the flowing white shirt, a lump on his back ? he was obviously wired and recording every word between us.

      1. Not everyone can be as objective and stone-cold fair as the “Lock her up!” crowd.

        1. Whataboutwhataboutwhatabout

        2. Tony, Hillary could murder a baby on live television and you would never admit it. It’s the progressives way.

  7. Manafort is a scumbag, but the judge’s statement is pure Societ/Nazi show-trial level BS.

    1. I don’t think so. It’s pretty standard. Things have to be as by-the-book as possible and the presiding judge is ultimately responsible for that. If Manafort is a loose cannon who is playing Russian roulette (no pun intended!) with potential witness tampering to potentially score some PR or flirt with a mistrial, then she should take the necessary steps to make sure due process is fulfilled absolutely correctly. Jail might seem harsh, but he wasn’t exactly careful.

      1. Maybe so, but her wording – and the lack of context, as in Manafort’s actions that led to the ruling – seem… less than upright.

        [“This is not middle school. I can’t take away his cellphone,” [the judge] said. “If I tell him not to call 56 witnesses, will he call the 57th?” She said she should not have to draft a court order spelling out the entire criminal code for him to avoid violations.]

        So the judge expects the accused to infer her intent? 56 prohibitions automatically means 57/infinite prohibitions? The accused is expected to know the entire criminal code (something literally nobody, including the federal government, knows) absent a court order specifying expected behavior? Sounds like a prohibition on everything not specifically allowed in writing, at the judge’s whim.

        [“This hearing is not about politics. It is not about the conduct of the office of special counsel. It is about the defendant’s conduct,” Jackson said. “I’m concerned you seem to treat these proceedings as another marketing exercise.”]

        Good to know the special counsel has free reign in the judge’s courtroom. I’m concerned that the judge treats these proceedings as a kangaroo court.

        1. He was told not to contact witnesses. He did. That is a violation of his bail. That’s how it works.

          Manafort’s lawyers had a weak hand to play. The witnesses he attempted to corrupt reported these actions to the prosecutors. He was dead to rights, after already having been caught ghostwriting an editorial after being told not to try the case in the press. The judge really didn’t have a choice, and if she didn’t sanction him, she would have lost control of the case.

          You can’t try to make the judge look like a fool.

          1. No, her words did that.
            I haven’t seen the details of this witness he allegedly contacted.
            Again, manafort is a scumbag – but so is Mueller, Weissman, and the judge

  8. So the feds are piecing together Cohen’s shredded documents to make a legal case against him, and meanwhile the National Archives is Scotch taping Trump’s torn up documents in order to save him from (yet another?) criminal liability. What a fun metaphor for something.

    1. And the director of The National Archives says thousands of Obama Administration are missing. Also, Obama’s Presidential Library is the first to have no affiliation with the National Archives.

      1. Obama Administration documents

      2. Obama’s library isn’t using federal money! THEY SHOULD SPEND FEDERAL MONEY, that’s libertarian, right?

  9. Does anyone here not understand that Manafort used his position in the Trump campaign to pay off a debt to a Putin oligarch?

    1. Uh huh. Cool story bro.

  10. Some “quiet time” will be useful to Manafort to contemplate his future, and past.
    It’s unfortunate that he isn’t sharing a cell with his lawyer who should have absolutely kept him from violating the court’s orders while on bail. Perhaps Manafort can sue him for malpractice.

    1. What, specifically, did he do?
      Prosecutors say he contacted 2 potential witnesses…
      Who? When? In what context?
      Prosecutors say a lot of things.
      Mueller and Weissman, in particular, often say false things.
      But I guess we should always assume Mueller, Weissman, and all federal prosecutors- nay, all federal officials – say the truth at all times.

      1. It’s in the indictment, with screenshots provided by the witnesses.
        It’s a pattern, starting with the ghost written op-ed he already got caught for.
        It’s all backed by documented evidence. Manafort’s lawyers didn’t even deny he did it, they pretended that he didn’t know he wasn’t supposed to suborn THOSE witnesses. He proved he didn’t think it was wrong by using encrypted apps and “foldering” to disguise his actions.

  11. Earlier this month, prosecutors said Manafort broke these conditions by contacting two witnesses and trying to get them to say that Manafort’s work lobbying for Ukraine did not include work in the United States

    I expected some evidence in the Post story. Not.

    Scott, did Reason pay you to copy the Post’s story?

  12. Prosecutors say he contacted two potential witnesses.

    We’ve got another word for ‘potential witnesses’.

    People.

    They’re just people until they’re witnesses. And there’s no law against talking to people–even people the prosecution might call up BEFORE the prosecution calls them.

    This whole thing is looking like more and more bullshit.

    #FreePaulManafort

    1. It’s not a law to contact people.
      It’s against the law to corruptly persuade people (why do you think they brought it to the prosecutors?).
      It was against the conditions of his bail to contact them. When you’re on bail, you agree to conditions. You break those conditions, bail is revoked.

      1. Still not buying it.

        Can’t see any logical way a condition of bail could possibly be ‘don’t talk to anyone we may, at some point in the future, decide to call as a witness’ That pool is far too large and vague.

        Don’t talk to or intimidate witnesses, sure. Witnesses. The court simply has no jurisdiction over people who haven’t been called in this manner and that’s really all there is to it.

  13. Maybe Manafort’s relationship with Trump gets him two scoops of ice cream . . . er, two baloney-and-American-on-white sandwiches tonight.

    A cell should do wonders for focusing a 70-year-old guy with Manafort’s tastes who must decide whether to rat or, instead, to spend the rest of his life in prison.

    Maybe, if the prosecutors decide it is time to charge Roger Stone, those two could get adjoining cells.

    I wonder if Pres. Trump is having fun yet.

  14. Such heat applied to anyone associated with Trump, ever. Robert Mueller and his pit bull Andrew Weisman have surpassed J. Edgar Hoover and even Sen. Joe McCarthy in the art of vicious, malicious, intensely partisan “investigations” that are in actuality nothing but brutal, cold-blooded political theater.

    However it is a truism that to the powerhouse Democrat media moguls and the Establishment DOJ and FBI, Hillary and the Clinton Foundation, or John Kerry, or Joe Biden, never had anything to do with Ukrainian oligarchs, or Russians that IN ANY WAY conflicted with American interests or put our security at risk. It’s not like money from anyone remotely associated with Russians ever found its way into Democrat hands.

    Google Hunter Biden. Google Burisma. Try to figure out how a lawyer booted from the US Navy becomes the chief legal counsel for Burisma and sits on its board of directors. Also appointed to that board one Devon Archer, who hangs out with Hunter at Rosemont Seneca Partners LLC. That group also dabbles in China currency deals and stuff. They get busier after daddy Joe B. the Veep goes to China.

    But Burisma is the interesting google search, because it isn’t so clear who really controls it. You see, “Western” Ukraine does not produce enough natural gas for its own needs, much less to support the large and lucrative export of gas by Burisma to Europe.

    Eastern Ukraine, now controlled by Russian allies, has all the productive new gas fields. Gas flows, so does cash.

    1. Badly mangled that first sentence. Meant to impute that the Dems in the Deep State and the Mainstream Media would never allow such heat to be applied to anyone on their side in any investigation for any crime whatsoever. They never have, and they never will.

      I nurse a tiny flicker of hope that constantly accumulating evidence of how bogus and contrived the whole justification for appointing Robert Mueller as special counsel and allowing him to staff up exclusively with wired-in leftist partisans will result in appointment of a new special counsel. A hero. A team of heroes, Yes, empower them with every tool in the kit that Mueller has used.

  15. It’s like the sun rising in th east. The predictable dumb as fuck Reason article of the day.
    Yeah sure revoking Manaforts bail is totally proportional treatment

  16. The objective to place a defendant into custody if he is not a flight risk, or danger to the community is to wear him down and plead guilty. Federal law does not have a bail schedule, nor do bail bonds work. The majority of people accused of federal offenses stay in jail. What Manafort did was improper, criminal, and the judge no doubt properly revoked his freedom. The end result of this case will be the president pardoning him and people associated with him. It’s just a guess. Best to all, Darren Chaker

  17. A tidbit of legal (?) wisdom from the original Perry Mason TV series, as seen recently on a nostalgia channel:

    “The primary duty of a lawyer engaged in public prosecution is not to convict, but to see that justice is done. . .”

    These words are supposedly from the “canon of legal ethics.” Wherever they are from, Robert Mueller and his pit bull Andrew Weisman, are the living, breathing, farting antithesis of that high ideal. Mueller and Weisman represent the lowest evolution of the law as a tool of political gangsterism. Their career promotions flowed from their cold-eyed adherence to the idea that truth, justice, and fair play are immaterial–a prosecutor advances his career by winning whatever flawed case and smelly evidence that some partisan lynch mob has dragged into court.

    Winning, victory, and only victory matter to such monsters, who rival the worst behaviors of J. Edgar Hoover, Sen. Joe McCarthy, Torquemada, and the Russian “lawyers” who forced so many under Stalin to confess and implicate others before being loaded into boxcars for a one-way trip to Siberia and early deaths at hard labor in the snow.

  18. if the witnesses are still alive you can bet they were not testifying against the clinton garbage.
    BTW F*CK DENIRO

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.