What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

The Russia Investigation: Trump Pardons Flynn (3 Viewers)

:lmao:

longer excerpt about Manafort's complaints of his jail conditions:


This isn't the first time that the defense made a strong public declaration about his conditions of confinement. I think it may be useful to review how he got to the Alexandria city jail, where he is now.

I revoked his bond on June 15th based on a finding that there was probable cause to believe that he had attempted to obstruct justice and interfere with witnesses. The D.C. Circuit upheld that ruling. And he has specifically admitted to doing just that under oath when he pled guilty. So he was, unquestionably, lawfully detained. And I noticed in a minute order at the time that the defendant must be afforded a reasonable opportunity for private consultation with counsel.

It was the U.S. marshal and not the Court who then made the decision regarding his placement. He was awaiting trial at the Eastern District of Virginia at that time and the marshal there selected Northern Neck Regional jail. It would have been one of the options for our marshal as well, the other would have been D.C. jail; it wouldn't have been up to the defendant or to me, but I'm not sure the defendant would have found that to be preferable.

Northern Neck, though, in my view, presented real concerns about his ability to confer with counsel for the two upcoming trials. But before anyone presented that issue to me for action, the defendant presented it to the Court in the Eastern District of Virginia in early July. He complained that given the distance from the District, restrictions on his electronic and phone communications, there was a severe impact on his ability to prepare for trial and review documents, etcetera. And that was docket 110 in 18 criminal docket 83 in the Eastern District.

He also attached a brief from July 5th in which he told the D.C. Circuit that he was in solitary confinement, locked in his cell 23 hours a day. The Court in the Eastern District of Virginia made the decision to promptly alleviate those concerns by ordering, and not just recommending, that he be housed in the Alexandria jail. The defendant then immediately turned around and said, Oh, never mind, we respectfully ask the Court to permit him to remain at Northern Neck Regional jail.

It became clear why in the government's pleading, docket 117. There he was housed by himself, it's true, but housed within a private, self-contained living unit, including his own bathroom, shower, phone, laptop, and access to a separate work room for review of trial materials. And in his reply, docket 125, the defense conceded that the government had not misrepresented the conditions, other than there was a dispute about whether he could or couldn't send emails.

I'm not going to split hairs over whether that did or didn't technically qualify as solitary confinement, and I'm not placing any reliance on what the warden tended to call it, but the facts about what it was are not in dispute. And so that all leaves the distinct impression that some disingenuousness on the part of the defense played a role in how he got to Alexandria.

Indeed, the Court in the Eastern District of Virginia did not reverse the decision it had just made and the transfer was effectuated. And that made sense to me because I was concerned about his ability to meet with counsel with the two cases coming up, and with his family's ability to visit him.
It won't be long before manafort longs for his days in jail, rather than a medium security prison where he is likely headed.  (at least until the pardon arrives)



 
  • Laughing
Reactions: Ned
On the issue of the $125,000 payment to his law firm from an un-named source (after going through the various versions of the story behind the payment that Manafort made over a series of interviews with the FBI and Grand jury testimony):

He had plenty of time to think, so the, I-can't-beexpected-to-remember-everything-off-the-top-of-my-head excuse doesn't work here. And it wasn't just a denial or an omitted detail, he advanced a series of new false narratives, including trying to get the accountant involved, and that can't be explained by the suggestion that he was confused or misremembering.

So I find this was a matter about which he provided intentionally false information to the Office of Special Counsel, the FBI, and the grand jury.

I also note, without deciding whether I have to make this finding or not, that the record supports a finding that the Office of Special Counsel's interest in tracings the flow of funds to Manafort, particularly from and vendors associated with the campaign, was material to its investigation.

 
It's also a bit of a stretch because Mr. Manafort doesn't just say to the agents, Kilimnik doesn't believe he was pressuring the witness, or Kilimnik didn't think he was suborning perjury, he didn't intend to violate U.S. law, he makes the affirmative assertion that Kilimnik believed the project was a European project, when Manafort plainly knew that Kilimnik knew it wasn't and the documents plainly reflect that it wasn't, and that was the basis for the conspiracy count to which he pled guilty in the first place.

To me, this is definitely an example of a situation in which the Office of Special Counsel legitimately concluded he's lying to minimize things here, he's not being forthcoming, this isn't what cooperation is supposed to be. This is a problematic attempt to shield his Russian conspirator from liability and it gives rise to legitimate questions about where his loyalties lie.

 
Are any of these guys going to a real prison? Not the type where you get to play tennis and have cappuccinos, but some real ####.

 
On that note, I also want to say we've now spent considerable time talking about multiple clusters of false or misleading or incomplete or needed-to-be-prodded-by-counsel statements, all of which center around the defendant's relationship or communications with Mr. Kilimnik. This is a topic at the undisputed core of the Office of Special Counsel's investigation into, as paragraph (b) of the appointment order put it, Any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign.

Mr. Kilimnik doesn't have to be in the government or even be an active spy to be a link. The fact that all of this is the case, that we have now been over Kilimnik, Kilimnik, and Kilimnik makes the defense argument that I should find the inaccurate statements to be unintentional because they're all so random and disconnected, which was an argument that was made in the hearing, is very unpersuasive.

 
Are any of these guys going to a real prison? Not the type where you get to play tennis and have cappuccinos, but some real ####.
They won’t be going to what laypeople think of as “real prison”, but there won’t be tennis or cappuccino. 

Within the federal system, “Real prison” as in violent dangerous gangs roaming the yard, sex assault, etc only exists in maximum security penitentiaries 

 
Are any of these guys going to a real prison? Not the type where you get to play tennis and have cappuccinos, but some real ####.
I have shared this before - but my parents were friends with someone who was sent to prison for spying for Russia - this person spent a good bit of time at Butner Correctional Facility in NC - which is a campus of prisons - minimum, medium and a hospital ward (I don't think there is a maximum unit there).  Now this guy was not a big time spy at all - his brother was a ring-leader who sold information to the Russians, and my parents friend provided some low level stuff - but this was cold war era, and we didn't take kindly to people conspiring with Russians back then...

Anyway - my parents would visit Art at Butner, where he was in the minimum security unit - and, lets just say, it was no picnic there.  Art died in prison - about a month before his release.  Absent a pardon, I expect Manafort will spend some time in Butner - and probably the Medium security unit, given his likely length of sentence.

 
They won’t be going to what laypeople think of as “real prison”, but there won’t be tennis or cappuccino. 

Within the federal system, “Real prison” as in violent dangerous gangs roaming the yard, sex assault, etc only exists in maximum security penitentiaries 
Seems like these guys should go to maximum security to me.

 
Seems like these guys should go to maximum security to me.
@Zow or some of the other lawyers here who have done criminal work might know this better - but I think where you are sent is based on the nature of the crime, and the length of the incarceration.

But, i think most white-collar criminals will end up in Medium or Minimum security - I am reasonably sure that Bernie Madoff is at Butner's medium security - and his sentence is 150 years

 
Your security level depends mostly on your crime, criminal history, and length of sentence. None of these guys are going to Max, nor should they. 

It’s not a matter of how bad we think the crime is - it’s a matter of how much resources the prison needs to put into keeping the prisoners and staff safe. These guys aren’t violent and present no danger to staff or inmates

 
Defendant suggested it's not really that important because it wasn't about his own wrongdoing and all the statements were corrected in the same interview. I'm not sure I buy that because the point of seeking cooperation from a person at the highest level of the campaign was to obtain accurate information about the acts of others, in particular [stupid redaction], what transpired . So it's very troubling to me.

Also, you don't have a situation where he reverted to the original version after consultation with counsel, but he cycled through a series of different inaccurate versions.

:oldunsure:

This is still in the section about Kilimnik, but I wish I knew what was redacted...(its not Kilimnik that is redacted)

 
THE COURT: All right. Appreciate everybody's patience as we move through all this. And I guess the next time I see everybody is at the sentencing. I think that's correct. All right. Thank you.

 
Your security level depends mostly on your crime, criminal history, and length of sentence. None of these guys are going to Max, nor should they. 

It’s not a matter of how bad we think the crime is - it’s a matter of how much resources the prison needs to put into keeping the prisoners and staff safe. These guys aren’t violent and present no danger to staff or inmates
They present a significant danger to staff and inmates because they present a danger to the entire country of which the staff and inmates reside. I know you are thinking "damn, this Dedfin guy should have gone to law school", and you are probably right :bowtie:

 
On the issue of the $125,000 payment to his law firm from an un-named source (after going through the various versions of the story behind the payment that Manafort made over a series of interviews with the FBI and Grand jury testimony):

He had plenty of time to think, so the, I-can't-beexpected-to-remember-everything-off-the-top-of-my-head excuse doesn't work here. And it wasn't just a denial or an omitted detail, he advanced a series of new false narratives, including trying to get the accountant involved, and that can't be explained by the suggestion that he was confused or misremembering.

So I find this was a matter about which he provided intentionally false information to the Office of Special Counsel, the FBI, and the grand jury.

I also note, without deciding whether I have to make this finding or not, that the record supports a finding that the Office of Special Counsel's interest in tracings the flow of funds to Manafort, particularly from and vendors associated with the campaign, was material to its investigation.
That bolded seems to me to be saying Mueller looking at stuff like this is totally within the scope of the Russian investigation and any witch hunt talk is pretty much bunk.  Also that a claim by someone like Sarah Sanders that this has nothing to do with the white hiuse or campaign is also crap.

 
They present a significant danger to staff and inmates because they present a danger to the entire country of which the staff and inmates reside. I know you are thinking "damn, this Dedfin guy should have gone to law school", and you are probably right :bowtie:
One thing in your favor - Manafort has proven he can’t be trusted even when confined. I wouldn’t be surprised if he gets himself into long term solitary without phone or email or visits. 

Slimy white collar guys never stop scheming

 
One thing in your favor - Manafort has proven he can’t be trusted even when confined. I wouldn’t be surprised if he gets himself into long term solitary without phone or email or visits. 

Slimy white collar guys never stop scheming
I was about to say that too 😛

 
This strikes me as potentially the biggest news so far in the history of this thread. Am I overreacting? 
We've known about this for like a year.  Here's everything that they said:

RS: Since I was all over national TV, cable and print defending wikileaks and assange against the claim that you are Russian agents and debunking the false charges of sexual assault as trumped up bs you may want to rexamine the strategy of attacking me- cordially R.
WL: We appreciate that.  However, the false claims of association are being used by the democrats to undermine the impact of our publications.  Don't go there if you don't want us to correct you.
RS: Ha!  The more you "correct" me the more people think you're lying.  Your operation leaks like a sieve.  You need to figure out who your friends are.
WL: Happy?
WL: We are now more free to communicate.
WL: FYI, while we continue to be unhappy about false "back channel" claims, today CNN deliberately broke our off the record comments, 
Stone tells lies about having advance knowledge of the publications, and Wikileaks tells Stone to get bent.  They even chastise him in private communications for his false claims of association. 

News cycle has brought this story back from the dead because it's the first time prosecutors have acknowledged the chats.  The usual histrionics.  

 
We've known about this for like a year.  Here's everything that they said:

Stone tells lies about having advance knowledge of the publications, and Wikileaks tells Stone to get bent.  They even chastise him in private communications for his false claims of association. 

News cycle has brought this story back from the dead because it's the first time prosecutors have acknowledged the chats.  The usual histrionics.  
Can anyone tell me if ren is at all accurate here? The news I read certainly didn’t treat this as an old story. 

 
Can anyone tell me if ren is at all accurate here? The news I read certainly didn’t treat this as an old story. 
Special counsel prosecutors say they have communications of Stone with WikiLeaks

Updated 2:10 PM ET, Sat February 16, 2019

Washington (CNN) - Prosecutors said for the first time that they have evidence of Roger Stone communicating with WikiLeaks, according to a new court filing from special counsel prosecutors.

During its investigation of the Russian hack of the Democrats, "the government obtained and executed dozens of search warrants on various accounts used to facilitate the transfer of stolen documents for release, as well as to discuss the timing and promotion of their release," the prosecutors wrote Friday to a federal judge.

"Several of those search warrants were executed on accounts that contained Stone's communications with Guccifer 2.0 and with Organization 1," which is WikiLeaks.

Previously, the prosecutors had only outlined how Stone attempted to get in touch with WikiLeaks' Julian Assange through intermediaries. Stone sought to learn about what the hackers had stolen from the Democratic Party and how he hoped for its release so it could help Donald Trump's campaign, prosecutors have said.

The new filing provided no further details on what was contained in the communications.

There is one known exchange of messages between WikiLeaks and Stone. In February 2018, the Atlantic reported Stone exchanged direct messages via Twitter with the WikiLeaks account in which Stone was asked to stop associating himself with the site. Both denied they were in contact about the release of Clinton emails. //

The "new" part is that prosecutors talked about it.  That's it.  If there is something new on this front that wasn't already covered a year ago, they haven't provided any details on it.  

 
The "new" part is that prosecutors talked about it.  That's it.  If there is something new on this front that wasn't already covered a year ago, they haven't provided any details on it.  
The article you linked is what I read; it doesn’t seem to reach your conclusion; neither did I. But I’d like to see if anyone else agrees with you. 

 
Can anyone tell me if ren is at all accurate here? The news I read certainly didn’t treat this as an old story. 
I would rate Ren as mostly correct here with a couple of caveats.  

First, we don't know all of the communications between Stone and Wikileaks.  We know what Natasha Bertrand reported late year - and this seems to confirm that report, so its new in that regard.  But, we don't know if that is the extent of those conversations.

Second, we now also have confirmed reports of Stone communicating with Guccifer 2.0 - I don't think we know what were in those conversations.

I do find it interesting - most reports by the media are devalued as coming from "unnamed sources" - but now that we have more definitive information, then its simply "old news."  The other practical import here is that Stone lied repeatedly about his contacts with WikiLeaks and Guccifer 2.0 - and that begs the question:  why lie - to federal investigators - unless you wanted to hide something or go to jail.

 
The article you linked is what I read; it doesn’t seem to reach your conclusion; neither did I. But I’d like to see if anyone else agrees with you. 
The first article Ren posted may not have been the best to make the point. It’s about WL (via an anon account) disputing Stone’s claims that he communicated with them and then devolves into a weird spat with CNN where they claimed they had an off the record discussion when apparently they didn’t. Somewhere in there it’s alluded to that Stone had been claiming credit for WL’s efforts and apparently they didn’t like that.

- The main point that is new: The GRU indictment indicated GRU transferred hacked data to WL. This indictment indicates Stone communicated with WL, and it’s part of the GRU case. So the Tinkers to Evers to Chance here is new.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Are any of these guys going to a real prison? Not the type where you get to play tennis and have cappuccinos, but some real ####.
There’s no such thing. Prison is ####### prison. You have no privacy and don’t control your day. What you intimate is a foolish myth. 

 
@Zow or some of the other lawyers here who have done criminal work might know this better - but I think where you are sent is based on the nature of the crime, and the length of the incarceration.

But, i think most white-collar criminals will end up in Medium or Minimum security - I am reasonably sure that Bernie Madoff is at Butner's medium security - and his sentence is 150 years
Eh it depends. Surprisingly it can have little to do with the crime itself. Things like gang affiliation, prior disciplinary issues, medical issues, prior documented assaults, etc are major factors. 

 
He also attached a brief from July 5th in which he told the D.C. Circuit that he was in solitary confinement, locked in his cell 23 hours a day. The Court in the Eastern District of Virginia made the decision to promptly alleviate those concerns by ordering, and not just recommending, that he be housed in the Alexandria jail. The defendant then immediately turned around and said, Oh, never mind, we respectfully ask the Court to permit him to remain at Northern Neck Regional jail.

It became clear why in the government's pleading, docket 117. There he was housed by himself, it's true, but housed within a private, self-contained living unit, including his own bathroom, shower, phone, laptop, and access to a separate work room for review of trial materials. And in his reply, docket 125, the defense conceded that the government had not misrepresented the conditions, other than there was a dispute about whether he could or couldn't send emails.

I'm not going to split hairs over whether that did or didn't technically qualify as solitary confinement, and I'm not placing any reliance on what the warden tended to call it, but the facts about what it was are not in dispute.
Prison life.

 
On that note, I also want to say we've now spent considerable time talking about multiple clusters of false or misleading or incomplete or needed-to-be-prodded-by-counsel statements, all of which center around the defendant's relationship or communications with Mr. Kilimnik. This is a topic at the undisputed core of the Office of Special Counsel's investigation into, as paragraph (b) of the appointment order put it, Any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign. 

Mr. Kilimnik doesn't have to be in the government or even be an active spy to be a link. The fact that all of this is the case, that we have now been over Kilimnik, Kilimnik, and Kilimnik makes the defense argument that I should find the inaccurate statements to be unintentional because they're all so random and disconnected, which was an argument that was made in the hearing, is very unpersuasive.
The judge was speaking at the time so maybe this seems inartful, but in short the judge found that the president's campaign manager intentionally lied about links and/or coordination between the Russian government and the campaign. That's a finding, it's linked to the OSC's mission, and it's in the books.

 
Was Rosenstein was actively seeking out cabinet members for the coup?
>>But when the New York Times broke the story in September, it reported that Rosenstein told McCabe he might be able to persuade then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions and then-Secretary of Homeland Security and later White House chief of staff John Kelly to invoke the 25th Amendment.<<

- You Seriously think, personally, that Jeff Sessions and Jack Kelly could have been ready to act against the President, is that right?

- eta - Conservative career Feds who have spent their lives devoted to fighting Russian spies and transnational crime including Russian mafia just saw the President betray a top secret program to the Russians in the Oval Office and that right after he fired the FBI Director investigating Russian active measures in the American election. And he joked with a notorious Russian spy hunter about how great it was he did that. - Yeah I guess laying out what are the assets and avenues available to them might have been a thing to do. And I guess if 'maybe he's crazy' is a possibility then the 25th is one solution, but nobody anywhere at any time would ever think going to Sessions and Kelly as sympathetic ears would be a reasonable option.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Users who are viewing this thread

Top