FWIW I imagine Manafort’s cooperation agreement involved Mueller asking questions and Manafort providing answers. That’s it. I seriously doubt Mueller said to Manafort, “Hey you’re on our team now! Here’s everything we know…”
3 Likes
And I will bring snacks and alcohol to pass the time while we stand in line and wait our turns!!
2 Likes
I love the smell of political snark first thing in the morning. Makes my day.
4 Likes
Oh, I agree, and no, there’s no reason it couldn’t be both. What I was talking about is if the lying about these communications was the ONLY lying Mueller is referring to: “if all Mueller is claiming…”
1 Like
True to an extent, but a couple things bear keeping in mind: (a) what questions are being asked is, in and of itself, extremely valuable information, not least because (b) the questions themselves may contain or be highly indicative of what information Mueller’s team possesses.
2 Likes
First time I’ve seen “penultimate” used correctly in a long, long time.
2 Likes
I think people make too much of the threat to Manafort’s life. For instance, and correct me if I’m wrong, but so far, the Russians have only eliminated other Russians and not non-Russian citizens.
Of course, if I’m wrong, see ya Paul!
2 Likes
Took a look at that, but didn’t realize I was replying in another thread…
"Interesting. What was the legal standard? Is it simply within the judge’s discretion or is there some articulation of a clearer standard to be applied?
Also, what makes you sure the lying Mueller is referring to was about substantive matters, not just the continued briefing under the JDA? Did I miss something?"
Thank you thank you, I 'll be here all week…
3 Likes
They may have had a JDA, but it was voided the minute he pled out and no longer had a common interest. He was no longer a defendant, he was a convict. Nothing his lawyers discussed with Trump’s lawyers after that was privileged.
That doesn’t mean they won’t try to claim it, but odds are strong they lose.
Very belatedly ETA: the JDA May not have been voided, but its major purpose — to allow communications between the potential defendants to fall within the joint defense privilege from discovery — should have no longer existed the moment he flipped. That privilege requires, in addition to all the usual elements of attorney-client privilege, that the participants in the JDA have a common legal interest in defending against the claims or potential claims asserted or threatened against them. That common legal interest (very probably) disappeared as soon as Manafort flipped.
3 Likes
No one in the MSM seems to have picked up on it yet: the Trump tweets from a few days ago claiming Mueller’s people were in total disarray, angry and flailing, doing enormous damage to the law, etc. were very clearly based on Trump’s interpretation of Giuliani’s interpretation of what Manafort and Corsi were telling Giuliani, not anything he got from the Acting Sycophant General.
13 Likes
Huh—Maggie and Mike—decidedly not lawyers, and who’ve both endured criticism for acting as Rudy stenographers—have here come under withering criticism, from actual lawyers, for including that line, which Ms. LaFond responsibly cut. And yet you criticize Ms. LaFond? Interesting.
1 Like
You don’t have to be a defendant to be in a JDA. And if there remained a threat of future prosecution, the common interest arguably persisted.
1 Like
The point was not to criticize her; it was to observe that what Downing did was not illegal.
Who are the “actual lawyers” you’re talking about and where is their “withering criticism”?
And by the way, here are two former federal prosecutors who agree with me:
Renato Mariotti:
The mere threat of taking this action would usually dissuade any lawyer from continuing to engage in this activity. But it’s already happened. So what can be done now? While the attorneys did something highly unusual and likely unethical, it’s generally not a crime.
and Elie Honig:
Manafort’s lawyers merely talking to Trump’s lawyers is unusual but not in itself improper. I’d never allow it as pros. and would probably end his cooperation if they did it over my wishes. Whether it is obstruction of course turns on what was said and the intent (I know, punt)
That isn’t settled though it is open to debate. A pardon issued for a corrupt purpose does trigger potential violations of law, like bribery and obstruction. Jed Shugerman has written extensively on this. If the issuance of a pardon resulted in the violation of another law, the pardon itself could be declared invalid by a judge as a type of ill-gotten gain. We just don’t have any real test cases for that kind of abuse of power type claim, but if one analogizes to other situations, such remedies are not uncommon. The pardon clause itself has the ‘except in cases of impeachment’ qualifier, which many would interpret to mean that the pardon can’t be used for self-interested means. How broadly or narrowly that is construed has not been addressed.
5 Likes
Yeah, pretty sure this is illegal. Paulie blew his chance of staying out of jail for the rest of his life
I don’t think Manafort’s lawyer is the only one who has been briefing Trump’s legal team - how else do we explain Corsi’s sudden (and timely) declaration that he has a joint defense agreement with Trump?
Downing is an officer of the court, so if he knowingly or intentionally undermined a court approved plea agreement there might be an issue there. I’m not certain about the degree of latitude an attorney would have to enable a Client to violate a plea agreement. I think it’s a little different than you advise the client that a certain course of action carries potential consequences and then the client uses another intermediary to do it any way. Here, the attorney was the person who enabled Manafort to breach the agreement. It’s that line between advisor and active participant in a defendant’s scheme that I think has been crossed here. There was another attorney, Michelle Laurenza, who crossed this line in relation to Manafort/Gates. It was far less controversial than this and she had to cede attorney client privilege and get questioned under oath before the grand jury under the crime/fraud exception. I would think Downing’s actions fall into that exception as well. If you’ve crossed that line, an ethics inquiry seems like a reasonable step.
6 Likes
Yep. This all broke open as soon as Muellers team had 12 hours to read Trumps answers.
They have absolutely bagged Trump. Laughably, the press is reading this as “Mueller’s investigation hangs by a thread “.
4 Likes
I don’t think many Courts have allowed folks to play both sides of the field. Nor do I think the legality issue means much. This pisses people off and those people hold Manafort’s future in their hands. If it results in a harder sentence for Manafort his attorneys should all be disbarred.