Never forget – Manafort and Fat Nixon were responsible for changing the GOP’s platform at the convention from supporting the Ukraine in its fight against the Russian takeover to essentially bending over for Putin instead.
Fat Nixon = doing Putin’s bidding = TRAITOR.
Manafort screwed up.
The problem with hiring a really good, well-respected, Big Law firm like Skadden to prepare an “independent” report assessing a situation is that sometimes — not always, but sometimes — that firm is invested in maintaining its reputation and doing the actual job for which it was hired, rather than the whitewash for which the client hopes. They may moderate the tone or put in some weasel words, but the facts are the facts and the law is the law. (Been there, done that.)
It’s not a good sign that the GOP lawyers are subjects of criminal investigations.
And it’s not surprising.
He asked for a Russian version. Not a Ukrainian version, but a Russian version.
No one in the Party of Regions leadership needed a Russian version. No doubt many of them could read it, but none of them would need it. Who did? Actual Russians.
Just in case anyone is wondering who he really reported to.
‘The well regarded law firm Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom’
What a fantastic name for a law firm. They sound like an Old English meal deal. For one shilling you get a main course of Skadden, Arps, Slate, you wash it down with some tasty Meagher and Flom for desert.
Former Skadden peon here! This whole deal strikes me as very odd from the law firm’s perspective; it was certainly lucrative, but not all that big compared to the general book of business. I’m very surprised they got caught with their pants down this way, and it certainly wasn’t just Van der Zwaan. Like so many facets of this story, there’s still a lot to this tangent that I think is obscured…
So just putting Russian dressing on the Ukrainian version just wouldn’t do?
Sorry I’ll see myself out…
It’s not clear if the “lead law firm lawyer” noted in the court filing refers to former Skadden attorney Greg Craig, who has been described in reporting as having overseen the report’s production and left the firm without explanation this spring, as the Mueller-related scrutiny of the report was heating up. CNN reported last month that Craig, a former Obama White House counsel, is part of a FARA inquiry referred by Mueller last spring to federal prosecutors in Manhattan.
If my photographic memory for trivia serves, Craig was the Clinton Administration’s point man on the Elian Gonzalez affair.
But if you eat too much Skadden you might Arps all over the Slate…
Mueller isn’t waiting for any plea, he is letting the evidence speak for itself. Manafort is dirty and whatever “deal” Paulie comes to should not whitewash just how much of a dirty dealer Manafort is. Mueller holds all the cards, either Manafort spills his guts on everything OSC wants or he can take his chances in prison.
The thing is, though, that this report was a whitewash. The report justified the prosecution and imprisonment of Yulia Tymoshenko by her political rival Yanukovych. This trial was so clearly politically motivated that providing any justification for it is juridical malpractice. To the extent that Manafort was involved in this on behalf of Yanukovych, he deserves whatever he gets.
His [Craig’s] response bordered on the surreal: “We leave to others the question of whether this prosecution was politically motivated. Our assignment was to look at the evidence in the record and determine whether the trial was fair.”
…
By giving even a qualified stamp of approval to the courtroom technicalities of a case whose overarching objective smells strongly of political revenge, Skadden Arps has made a regrettable departure from this praiseworthy tradition.
https://freedomhouse.org/blog/misguided-report-tymoshenko-case
Are there some missing documents? Did the firm change the report according to PM’s specifications, in the end?
I think that’s key. I’ve come to the view that Mueller wants Manafort not primarily for his #trumprussia connections but for his overall connections to the Russian spy and mobster ring that has infiltrated the US. Evidence like this points to Manafort being a Russian agent which is something I hope Mueller can establish at this trial or in a plea.
This is what happens when you move to exclude evidence that is in fact directly relevant to the charges.
Who knows? But that’s not the issue here. The point of the filing is that Manafort was instrumental in hiring the law firm and tried to influence the report on behalf of the Yanukovych government, and that amounts to being a foreign lobbyist.
With respect to the work of the U.S. law firm, in 2012, on behalf of President Yanukovych
and the Government of Ukraine’s Ministry of Justice, Manafort solicited that firm to write a report evaluating the trial of Yanukovych’s political opponent, Yulia Tymoshenko. Manafort caused Ukraine to hire the law firm so that its report could be used in the United States and elsewhere to defend the Tymoshenko trial and argue that President Yanukovych had not engaged in selective prosecution. Manafort retained Company C, a public relations firm, to prepare an extensive media roll-out plan for the law firm report. As with the other aspects of the U.S. lobbying scheme, Manafort regularly reported to President Yanukovych and other representatives of the Government of Ukraine on the law firm’s work and Company C’s lobbying plan. For example, in a July 27, 2012, memorandum to President Yanukovych’s Chief of Staff Sergei Lyovochkin, Manafort reported on “the global rollout strategy for the [law firm’s] legal report, and provide[d] a detailed plan of action” which included a step-by-step lobbying outreach in the United States.
Manafort also directed the law firm’s efforts. As reflected in an internal law firm memorandum, dated May 2, 2012, Manafort rejected the Ukrainian Law Expert proposed by the law firm. Government Exhibit 2025. And prior to the release of the law firm’s report, the lead lawyer requested that a copy of a “Russian version” of the report be sent to Manafort before it was released to their client (the Ukraine Ministry of Justice). Government Exhibit 2086. Finally, before the law firm report was finalized, Manafort emailed the lead law firm lawyer, noting his concern that the report is too critical of Ukraine and soliciting his ideas on how to deal with this “potential catastrophe.”
mueller response to manafort exhibit objections.pdf - Google Drive
Hang 'em all from the nearest tree!
Not that you’re actually wrong about anything here, but don’t read too much into the Russian vs. Ukrainian thing. There’s a sizeable (ca. 30%) Russian-speaking minority in Ukraine, mainly in the east (Donbass) and of course the Crimea, which is indeed the focus of (most of) the conflict.
In fact, the “Party of Regions” might as well be named the Party of Russian-speaking Regions.
Again, this doesn’t change the essence, just adds an extra layer of redirection.
Time to dredge up another favorite old Cold War joke.
(Please mentally add the heavy fake-Russian accent to the appropriate parts of dialog, it matters.)
Kennedy is hosting Khrushchev during his visit to the U.S. The two leaders sit down to lunch. Kennedy says “I’ll have a western sandwich, please.” Khrushchev glowers at the menu, and then says “I vant eastern sandvich.”
“I’m sorry, Sir,” says the waiter, “we have no such thing as an ‘eastern sandwich’ here.”
Khrushchev says “then I vant eastern portion of his vestern sandvich.”