Not a very good criminal if he had stuff like that hidden in his house. That’s the first place anyone is gonna look.
1 Like
Wouldn’t be surprised if he comes down with a mysterious debilitating illness in the near future.
2 Likes
This investigation is much more than “white collar” crime and I hope you can realize that. All the targets of this affair have been using the shredders overtime and this was a way to prevent Manafort from getting rid of any (more) evidence. Our democracy should not be for sale or be undermined by foreign interests so let’s just see how this plays out. Then criticize your government if found to be in the wrong.
3 Likes
Mueller’s job covers the election and anything that arises from the initial investigations, or that may arise from the initial investigation.
So your comment shows only that you are ignorant of what is going on.
18 Likes
I keep wondering about how Manafort was going to destroy evidence between his bed and his front door. Did he have a push button that erased all his computers? A burn box that just needed a flipped switch? I’m intrigued.
1 Like
If you know that someone’s sworn congressional testimony is at odds with your investigativive evidence you get over to the perps place real skippy and lock the place down. What “benefit of the doubt” do we owe a dirtbag doing business with Russian criminals?
13 Likes
Oh yes he will. The only people who do not flip are lovelorn idiots and would be martyrs. He’s neither.
10 Likes
Wasn’t Manafort somebody’s campaign manager?
19 Likes
Yeah, I think that’s the source of the right wing outrage. Paul and Kathleen Manafort were treated like LaRon and LaKeisha Jones.
22 Likes
So your comment shows only that you are ignorant of what is going on.
I think it’s more a case of its consistent attempt to push and spin the same narrative it’s been pushing and spinning since the election: there was no Trump/GOP collusion with Putin and Russia.
Why it thinks it’s achieving anything with its ridiculous concern trolling here is a mystery.
14 Likes
Posted this on another thread, but reposting here:
CBS is confirming that USIC has Manafort on tape talking to Russians about the Trump campaign and election. The article also strongly suggests that conversations between Manafort and Trump were taped.
The question I have is how far back into 2016 does the wiretap go? The day that Manafort joined the Trump campaign in late March 2016? or later? What is the date proximity of these intercepts to the Mayflower Hotel meeting (April 27, 2016) or the meeting at Trump Tower on 6/9/16 w/Akhmetshin, Veselnitskaya, Jr, Kushner, Manafort and others (also the same day that Trump’s finance team met)?
How does the Cohen/Sater deal for TT Moscow fit in? Steele Dossier speculates that some portion of the Rosneft oil co sale was offered to Trump as an inducement for the conspiracy. If true, the Rosneft sale replaced the TT Moscow as a primary incentive bargaining chip. When did that happen? My guess is that it happened some time between February and the GOP Convention in July 2016.
Another question I have: We know USIC has a transcript from its own Kremlin based spies of Putin’s direct order to RU Intel to intervene in the US election. What is the date of that order and how does that fit into the Manafort timeline?
Since CBS and CNN seem to be reporting a very extensive and long wiretap period of Manafort, are there any transcripts of Manafort calling up his old war buddy Tad Devine to reminisce about the glory days of promoting a corrupt Russian puppet in Viktor Yanukovych? Did Manafort get a view from Devine about the state of the Bernie campaign and the views of the far left towards Hillary Clinton? Did Manafort leverage the trusted judgment of his old friend to persuade Putin that Trump could really make a run at HRC and possibly win because of divisions in the Democratic coalition? Did Devine give Manafort a sense of how effective anti-HRC activity in social media, through bots & fake news, was in the Democratic primary? Did Manafort give that same information to Trump and RU? Now, I’m not calling Devine or the Bernie campaign out as aiding and abetting the Russian conspiracy. There would be nothing illegal about Devine talking to Manafort about the state of the Democratic primary. Such conversations would, however, be evidence to show that Manafort had an active role in promoting the RU-Trump campaign conspiracy.
14 Likes
OK, but in almost all white-collar cases there is no real worry about imminent destruction of evidence. The evidence is on paper or, more frequently, computers, with back ups and copies and it’s very, very hard to wipe all the evidence. Were they afraid that if they’d knocked on Manafort’s door at 7:30 or 8:00 a.m. he’d have set off a bomb to destroy his computer (or a remote-controlled one at his office) before answering the door? Maybe, but I doubt it.
1 Like
Get wind? At the time of the raid Manafort and everyone who follows the news had known for MONTHS that he’s likely getting indicted for running a Russian Laundromat over a period of years. Were he inclined to destroy documents, those documents were gone months ago.
The fact that this raid comes so late in time is why many of us believe this raid was indeed highly unusual and likely much more about intimidation and frustration for lack of cooperation, as opposed to real fear of document destruction and weapons in nightgowns.
5 Likes
According to the article, it’s not “highly unusual”…
“They could pick his lock to go into his house which meant that they must’ve had strong evidence that he was going to destroy documents… That would have to be laid out in the search warrant application.”
So, this appears to be standard procedure. If the FBI thinks there is a danger of evidence being destroyed, they may request a no-knock entry in the search warrant application. The judge who signed the warrant apparently agreed that the FBI’s concern was justified and legal and, thus, signed the warrant.
3 Likes
I see that the agents burst in “guns blazing” didn’t make it into this article.
4 Likes
I’m not criticizing anyone. My comment about the jackboots was meant to be ironic. Or snarky. Shredders don’t do much for computers, with back-ups and copies. And if Manafort was trying to obscure his trail–and I’d certainly expect that–he’s had months do to it. So why do it when they did and how they did it? To strike fear? Probably. And in this case, I’m OK with that.
3 Likes
First - BRISSY is a troll. Do not respond to any posts. It will waste your time.
Second, it is not hard to follow Manfort’s dealings throughout the Trump mob real estate dealings, Michael Cohen, Felix Sater, and the Ukraine/Putin connections. It is about corrupt practices with foreign governments and money laundering in the U.S.
FBI SA’s are always armed and will always first reduce potential threats from others and other weapons.
Lastly, picking a residential lock is relatively easy, and easier for someone who is trained.
Having a no-knock warrant. That is the story.
13 Likes
I got it. No one (usually) forgets an evergreen G. Gordon Liddy (felon) comment.
Thanks for the tip, hunny.
1 Like
The article doesn’t say highly unusual. I did. What the article does say is that " the use of a “no-knock” raid was notable." I think notable implies unusual. And the article quotes one of those former prosecutors who seem to be in inexhaustible supply as noting that–as you point out–they would have had to have laid out the need for a “no-knock” warrant in the application. No-knock warrants are not usual in this kind of situation, which is essentially a white-collar criminal probe (hence the number of Mueller’s lawyers who have financial, tax and other kinds of criminal investigatory backgrounds).
You can’t be too careful when dealing with members of the Russian Mafia.
10 Likes