While [Manafort’s lawyer’s] discussions with the president’s team violated no laws […]
While Manafort’s lawyer’s discussions with the president’s team did not necessarily violate any laws as far as we know …
FIFY
1 Like
Ok. Well, excuse me, would have investigated and then done nothing? Please. Giuliani would have announced at a Press conference that he was investigating, would have indicted the entire lot of attorneys and would have held daily press briefings prejudicing any potential jury pool with the allegations in the indictment stated and trumpeted as established facts. I am assuming you lived through the Alphonse DAmato created reign of Rudy in the SDNY as I did, with use of literacy and a television set.
and when you have a minute shoot me the citation(s) of where this was held legal. I am having a slow day.
4 Likes
From Josh’s editorial
"When I first heard that Manafort may have kept his arrangement up I first needed to check with some lawyers to see whether that was even legal. When you agree to cooperate you are getting some lenience on sentencing in exchange for helping the investigation. By definition you can only help the investigation against the remaining targets. If you’re briefing those targets on the information you’re getting in the course of your cooperation as well as the information you’re sharing, you are directly helping them defend themselves against the investigation you have pledged to assist. It’s almost the definition of non-cooperation.
From what I’ve been able to tell there’s no rule against doing this. Normally, it would be crazy to do this because when you cooperate you are trying to gain credit with the prosecution to limit your punishment. Blowing up their case is probably the best possible way to get them to throw the book at you. It makes no sense. As someone pointed out to me this evening, your lawyer would be hard pressed to do that ethically since it can’t be in your interest. Unless of course you’re getting a pardon or securing a pardon by continuing to share information."
6 Likes
I alone will decide his fate…
The correct quote is. “His fate is up to him: he might get a pardon (if it’s worth enough to me) or he might rot in prison for eternity. Nobody knows. We shall see.”
1 Like
From everything we know - that Manafort is already convicted on multiple crimes, that there is no way he is not doing major jail time after apparently lying and betraying his own cooperation agreement with Mueller, the only conclusion I can draw is that he has decided to put all of his chips on 45 orange and spin the wheel.
6 Likes
This may have worked in Mueller’s favor in the end. Think about it. We’ve been opining that maybe what happened was Manafort communicated with Trump and they coordinated their false cover stories based on the information obtained by cooperating with Mueller, trying to tailor-make their lies to thwart the investigation. Mueller waits to get Trump’s answers, which predictably coincide with Manafort’s, and voila…they’re both full of shit and he knows it. Now Mueller files a pleading detailing the lying in the context of Manafort having lied and thereby shows Trump he has him boxed in like a chump. If all this lines up in this way, at that point, well, it’s anyone’s guess how truly berserk Trump and his team of imbeciles are willing to go. Mueller will have essentially achieved the penultimate move prior to checkmate, slapped the clock and said “your move, stable genius” and I think what we’ll witness is Trump throwing the board off the table and kicking the table over.
I’ll leave it to the criminal experts whether these communications were legal or ethical or whatever for a person (or his lawyers) to pretend they’re cooperating under a plea deal while simultaneously acting in concert with another potential defendant under the auspices of a “joint defense agreement.” Personally though, I rather think it’s simply a breach of the plea deal to cooperate. Manafort had the right to continue his defense and his actions under a joint defense agreement, but that’s not full cooperation and breaches the plea agreement, voiding it. He made his choice, BUT, having made that choice, I think he AND HIS LAWYERS would have a legal and ethical duty to disclose that choice and his continued actions in furtherance of a joint defense agreement to the Mueller team. In other words, if he lied to Mueller’s team about doing so (even by omission) in order to string them along and continue obtaining information that would not otherwise be disclosed to a defendant taking a non-cooperative adversarial posture, THAT act…the lying and concealment itself…may indeed be obstruction of justice, not to mention lying to a special prosecutor, which is also a crime.
14 Likes
BLOTUS [great term] won’t go down for lying because the crime of perjury requires a demonstration that the defendant knew the difference between speaking truth and speaking false or made-up statements.
BLOTUS will go down when the extent of his craven greed and treachery is revealed. He will be so toxic, his own mother would spit on him.
4 Likes
the only way I can reconcile Manafort’s and his legal counsel’s actions is that they are operating under a promised pardon. Nothing else makes sense for all the reasons Josh has described here.
I assume Manafort went to trial on the first charges out of hubris. He believed he could beat the charges and emerge an heroic figure. I’m sure many people encouraged him in this belief for selfish reasons. Failing to do so and bleeding a small fortune (that he no longer has) paying his lawyers, he finally agreed to plea and ‘cooperate’ to stop the bleeding. Except that he never actually intended to cooperate and was only biding time for the pardon to come through. This explains his actions post plea. He could not tell Mueller the truth because this would implicate the POTUS in very significant crimes and maybe even espionage? There is only one way to explain Manafort’s continued lies to Mueller.
What I find most interesting is his legal counsel’s’ role in all this. A pardon doesn’t save their law license and they seem to be playing with fire. And whatever we think of them, they don’t strike me as fools.
We’re living through the most extraordinary presidential scandal in American history and it’s hard to imagine it will ever be topped no matter how long the Republic survives.
10 Likes
It takes your breath away.
1 Like
Does anyone here practice criminal law? I know @tena did at one point in her career.
I would like to know whether this double dealing violated the ethical rules applicable to the attorneys of the parties and whether they can be disciplined if they knew about it and condoned it.
ETA: @jakebarnes and @sniffit — I see we have the same thoughts
4 Likes
Whether he expected to become a hero is largely irrelevant. If indeed he’s been operating under a promised pardon, then the entirety of his actions, from refusing to plead out on the first trial to pleading out and cooperating on the charges more closely related to the Russia investigation, has been nothing but a ruse so he could be the canary in Mueller’s coal mine, a mole, an informant…and everything from the promised pardon in exchange for that behavior to the behavior itself is obstruction of justice.
6 Likes
There is some conjecture as to whether what the attorneys did violates law. I have little doubt that it merits an ethics and disbarment inquiry.
What Kevin Downing did here is to expose his client to more jeopardy by enabling Manafort to breach his plea agreement. There was no other way for Manafort to meaningfully communicate directly to Trump’s attorneys because he is in jail. Downing was the guy who did it. Downing may have thought he was passing information innocuously, but Trump has used whatever he passed on to determine his answers to his open book test, his decision (+ timing) on illegally firing the AG and illegally replacing him with Whitaker, his constant obstruction in the middle of 5th avenue via twitter, and the coordination of a defense strategy that involves a form of bribery, dangling pardons for false testimony.
The impact on Manafort is severe. By breaching the plea agreement he will do more time and lose all of his assets. That is a risk that an attorney is not supposed to take. If what Downing was playing for was a pardon, such a pardon is very likely illegal if it involves witness tampering, inducement of false testimony or false statements, as appears to be the case here. I don’t see how, ethically speaking, Downing safeguarded his client’s interests. He damaged his client. Also, was Downing promised some sort of inducement for doing all of this highly questionable activity? Did he get more than his standard fees? Was he promised a job or some other inducement?
20 Likes
I volunteer in her place!
1 Like
I expect one thing Manafort lied about is assets being held for him overseas. Why would he give up his retirement money, if he thought the Feds wouldn’t know or care enough about it? I also believe Manafort knows too much about a gaggle of corrupt and powerful people to enjoy life outside of prison very long.
Absolutely, but only if they lied and/or concealed it by omission. What I’m having trouble with is statements like this: “the briefings strained relations between Manafort’s team and the special counsel’s office.” That’s no doubt true as far as it goes. The real issue though is when did Mueller’s team find out and how did they find out. Statements like those in the quote make it sound like it could go either way.
I suppose it begs the other question: what is Mueller saying Manafort lied about? Is it substantive lying about investigatory matters…the substance of the case? We have been sort of assuming that to be what we’ll find out. However, if all Mueller is claiming is that the lying was outright denial or concealment of their continuing to brief Trump under a joint defense agreement, then yeah, this voids the agreement, is likely obstruction, certainly violates professional ethics (for the ruse, for jeopardizing the client, for assisting in a criminal endeavor, etc.)…BUT…it’ll be a little disappointing that the “coordinated lying” theory hasn’t played out.
Edit: Also, as far as jeopardizing the client goes, that’s a little softer than we make it out to seem. I think that, so long as Downing fully informed his client as to the ramifications and potential consequences of his actions, the choice he was making by adopting that strategy, he may have satisfied that particular duty to the client. That being said, I think he still breached ethical duties in terms of candor to the tribunal, assisting in a criminal endeavor and maybe others.
5 Likes
Get in line… 
This would be the only reason for me to come anywhere near Spankee!
[quote=“jacksonhts, post:22, topic:81240, full:true”]
Ok. Well, excuse me, would have investigated and then done nothing? Please. Giuliani would have announced at a Press conference that he was investigating, would have indicted the entire lot of attorneys and would have held daily press briefings prejudicing any potential jury pool with the allegations in the indictment stated and trumpeted as established facts.[/quote]
Don’t really want to get into a debate about what conditionally “would have” happened but for some reason apparently never did.
On the larger point: Did Giuliani often abuse the power of his office? Of course, he did. This is not a convincing argument that others should follow suit.
Don’t remind me!
If I understand your question, you’re asking what courts have said about “a defense lawyer representing a cooperating witness [who] continued to participate in a joint defense agreement.” Did I not already provide a relevant citation?
Whereas if you think it’s illegal, then where is the rule, statute, or decision that says that?
1 Like
Just a clarification, there’s no such thing as an “illegal” pardon. Regardless of the motivation, if granted the pardon is valid and goes into effect and is irreversible. There may be legal consequences for the person who granted the pardon and any person(s) who, um, negotiated for the pardon, but the pardon remains.
1 Like
No reason it couldn’t be both right? That should be the default assumption with these fucks.
1 Like
Includes that, yes.
1 Like