View allAll Photos Tagged Manafort,
Paul Manafort and his lawyer Kevin Downing arrive at court today for a hearing objecting to the scope of Mueller's investigation.
Haben Sie in den Medien je eine Diskussion über die Konsequenzen eines Atomkriegs der USA gegen Russland gehört?
Erschreckend an der Medienberichterstattung ist, dass in der derzeitigen geopolitischen Krise niemand auf die Folgen eines atomaren Schlagabtauschs eingeht. Diese Unterlassung wirft sofort weitere Fragen auf: Wie brenzlig ist die Situation zurzeit? Wird ein Zusammenstoß zwischen den USA und Russland zu einer weiteren militärischen Eskalation und schließlich zu einem Atomkrieg führen? Wie viele Menschen werden in einem solchen Konflikt sterben?
Grob geschätzt kann man davon ausgehen, dass in einem Atomkrieg zwischen den USA und Russland die gesamte Weltbevölkerung sterben würde. Ein paar Menschen in der südlichen Hemisphäre überleben vielleicht, aber wahrscheinlich nicht einmal sie.
Schon wenige Atombomben könnten die USA als Staat und als Volkswirtschaft auslöschen. Es würde nicht viel brauchen, um die „just in time“-Lieferketten, die Finanzmärkte und das Internet zu zerstören. Das ganze System ist sehr anfällig, besonders, wenn man Atomwaffen in Betracht zieht.
Es gibt rund 300 Städte in den USA und rund 200 in Russland mit mehr als 100 000 Einwohnern. Angesichts der Zahl der Atomwaffen - 3500 sind sofort einsatzbereit - ist die Chance groß, dass alle diese großen Städte ausgelöscht würden. (Weitere 4600 Atomwaffen sind in Reserve und nach kurzer zusätzlicher Vorbereitungszeit ebenfalls bereit zum Abschuss.) Wahrscheinlich würden dreißig Prozent der amerikanischen und russischen Bevölkerung innerhalb der ersten Stunde getötet. Ein paar Wochen nach dem Angriff würde der radioaktive Fallout mindestens weitere fünfzig Prozent hinwegraffen.
Der nukleare Winter, eine Langzeitfolge des Atomkrieges, würde innerhalb weniger Jahre nach einem amerikanisch-russischen Atomkrieg wahrscheinlich alle Menschen auf dem Planeten durch Hunger auslöschen. Die globale Rauchschicht des atomaren Feuersturms in der Stratosphäre schirmt den größten Teil des Sonnenlichts von der Erde ab und verursacht so eine neue Eiszeit, die mindestens zehn Jahre anhält.
Eine andere kaum diskutierte Folge des Atomkriegs ist der elektromagnetische Impuls in großer Höhe, kurz EMP. Wenn eine große Atombombe in großer Höhe (150 bis 300 km) detoniert, dann löst sie einen enormen Impuls elektrischer Energie aus, der elektronische Schaltkreise auf einer Fläche von zehntausenden Quadratkilometern unterhalb der Explosion zerstört. Eine einzige Detonation über der Ostküste der USA würde das gesamte Stromnetz zerstören, und jedes AKW, das vom EMP betroffen wäre, würde schmelzen. Stellen Sie sich 60 Fukushimas vor, die alle zur gleichen Zeit in den USA auftreten.
Auch in einem begrenzten Atomkrieg, sagen wir in einem Krieg, in dem nur die Atomraketensilos und die Fliegerhorste angegriffen werden, würde so viel radioaktiver Niederschlag entstehen, dass fast der ganze Mittlere Westen der USA ausgelöscht würde, Chicago eingeschlossen.
Dann gibt es das Problem der AKWs, die in ihren Reaktoren und ihren Abklingbecken und Lagerflächen hohe Mengen an Radioaktivität haben. Wenn ihre Stromversorgung unterbrochen wird, sind diese Anlagen verwundbar durch Feuer und Kernschmelzen, wie wir in Fukushima gesehen haben.
Machen Sie sich klar: Ein Atomkrieg bedeutet nicht nur eine oder zwei Hiroshimabomben. Unsere Vorstellungskraft reicht für einen Atomkrieg nicht wirklich aus. Atomkrieg bedeutet nuklearen Winter. Es bedeutet den Kollaps der sehr anfälligen Elektronik der Finanzmärkte, der Regierung und der Verwaltung, von der alle abhängig sind. Wenn wir Glück haben, dann fangen wir danach im frühen 19. Jahrhundert wieder an. Wenn genug Waffen eingesetzt werden, dann kollabiert die Ozonschicht. Das bedeutet, dass jedes Lebewesen, das Augen hat, erblindet. Der kombinierte Effekt eines amerikanisch-russischen Atomkrieges würde bedeuten, dass so ziemlich jedes terrestrische Säugetier und viele Pflanzen aussterben. Das biologische Leben würde dramatisch ausgedünnt.
Offenbar haben große Teile des US-Militärs das einfach nicht begriffen. Ich habe mit Vertretern des Nationalen Sicherheitsrates gesprochen, und sie klammern sich an die Vorstellung, dass Russland nachgeben werde. Ich bat sie schon vor achtzehn Monaten, ein paar alte Diplomaten der realistischen Schule aus dem Kalten Krieg zurückzuholen. Menschen wie den früheren Botschafter in Russland, Jack Matlock, der von Ronald Reagan berufen wurde. Er und seinesgleichen könnten versuchen, sie zu überzeugen, dass Russland nicht einfach tut, was wir wollen, dass es seine eigenen legitimen Interessen hat, und dass es gut wäre, diese zu verstehen und in Betracht zu ziehen.
WSWS: Was denken Sie, wie man an das Problem des Atomkriegs herangehen muss?
Greg Mello: Ich würde sagen, wenn man einen Atomkrieg vermeiden will, dann muss man unbedingt die Ungleichheit in der Welt verringern. Wir müssen den militärisch-industriellen-Finanzkomplex beseitigen. Wenn so viel Macht in so wenigen Händen konzentriert ist und ein so hohes Maß an Ungleichheit herrscht, dann werden die Menschen, die an der Macht sind, durch ihre Position geblendet. Sie sind von den Problemen der Gesellschaft isoliert. Die große Ungleichheit, ökonomisch wie politisch, führt zu einer Art politischer Verblödung. Sie kann in den Untergang führen. Das Problem ist nicht die Unwissenheit der Massen, sondern die Dummheit und der Größenwahn an der Spitze der Gesellschaft.
(Quelle: www.wsws.org/de/articles/2017/05/15/star-m15.html)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Weshalb hetzen die US-"Demokraten" gegen Russland?
(aus www.wsws.org/de/)
Die US-"Demokraten" und große Teile der Medien reagieren mit verstärkter antirussischer Hysterie auf die Entlassung von FBI-Direktor James Comey. Sie beschuldigen Trump der Zusammenarbeit mit dem Kreml, sagen aber kein Wort über seine Angriffe auf die Bevölkerung in den USA.
Trumps Hetzjagd auf Einwanderer und seine Pläne, lebenswichtige Gesundheitsleistungen abzuschaffen, Arbeits- und Umweltschutzauflagen zu streichen und die Reichen mit Steuergeschenken zu überhäufen, sind den Demokraten kaum der Erwähnung wert. Dafür ereifern sie sich in einer Weise über Russland, die – auch in der Wortwahl – an die antikommunistische Propaganda der McCarthy-Ära erinnert.
Unter dem Titel „Der Trump-Russland-Nexus“ behauptete die New York Times in einem Leitartikel vom vergangenen Freitag, Trump unterhalte ein „ungewöhnlich weit verzweigtes Beziehungsnetzwerk mit einer großen ausländischen Macht“, d. h. mit Russland. Die Zeitung fordert eine „gründliche Untersuchung, ob und wie Russland Einfluss auf die Wahl ausgeübt hat, und durch wen“.
Bei genauerem Hinsehen erweist sich das „Beziehungsnetzwerk“ als eine Reihe von Geschäftsbeziehungen und Kontakten zwischen Mitgliedern und Partnern der Trump-Familie und Vertretern der herrschenden Kreise Russlands, wie sie in der amerikanischen Wirtschafts- und Finanzoligarchie durchaus üblich sind. Als bedrohlich kann man sie nur bezeichnen, wenn man davon ausgeht, dass alles, was mit Russland zu tun hat, von vornherein böse ist.
Als Bestandteile des „Netzwerks“ aufgezählt werden Trumps Geschäftsbeziehungen zu russischen Staatsbürgern, eine Rede des ehemaligen nationalen Sicherheitsberaters Michael Flynn in Moskau, ein Treffen zwischen Justizminister Jeff Sessions und dem russischen Botschafter in den USA, die Geschäfte von Trumps früherem Wahlkampfleiter Paul Manafort mit einem russischen Oligarchen und prorussischen Politikern in der Ukraine sowie Geschäftsbeziehungen von Trumps Beratern Roger Stone und Carter Page.
Der Bush-Clan pflegt ganz ähnliche Beziehungen mit fremden Ländern, ganz zu schweigen von den Clintons und den weitläufigen Machenschaften der Clinton Foundation.
In der gleichen Ausgabe der Times erschien auch eine Kolumne von Paul Krugman, der noch einen draufsetzt. Krugman wirft Trump vor, er würde seine „Befugnisse als Präsident benutzen, um eine mögliche Unterwanderung der US-Regierung durch das Ausland zu vertuschen“. Weiter erklärt er nicht nur Trump, sondern die ganze Republikanische Partei zu Verrätern, die nicht davor zurückschrecken, sich mit dem Feind zu verschwören, um Steuersenkungen für die Reichen durchzusetzen.
Krugman schreibt: „Die Republikaner sind nicht bereit, mit den Demokraten zusammenzuarbeiten. Sie arbeiten lieber mit Wladimir Putin zusammen ...Wie konnte die ganze Partei nur so, ja, unamerikanisch werden?“
Bei Anhörungen vor dem Kongress über angebliche Hackerangriffe und eine mögliche Zusammenarbeit Russlands mit Trumps Wahlkampfteam wird das Land immer wieder als „feindliche Regierung“ oder „feindliche Macht“ bezeichnet – hauptsächlich, aber nicht nur, von den Demokraten.
Die Darstellung Russlands als allmächtiges Monster, das die amerikanische Demokratie bedrohe und die Unterjochung der ganzen Welt plane, ist absurd. Die Putin-Regierung vertritt die russische Oligarchie. Wie jede kapitalistische Macht versucht sie die Weltereignisse zu ihren Gunsten beeinflussen. Doch ihre Machenschaften verblassen im Vergleich zu denen des amerikanischen Imperialismus.
Es ist eine historische Tatsache, dass Russland seit der Auflösung der Sowjetunion 1991 große Gebiete und Einflusssphären in Osteuropa und Zentralasien preisgegeben hat. In den letzten Jahrzehnten verschob die Nato ihre Grenzen hunderte Kilometer Richtung Osten bis vor die Tore Russlands. Außerdem unterstützten die USA die Balkanisierung Jugoslawiens und den von Faschisten angeführten antirussischen Putsch in der Ukraine.
Was die Unterwanderung ausländischer Staaten und die Einmischung in deren Wahlen angeht, so gibt es kaum ein Land auf der Welt, in dem die CIA und das Pentagon nicht daran arbeiten würden, proamerikanische Regimes an die Macht zu bringen. Zu diesem Zweck finanzieren sie „demokratische“ NGOs und führen blutige Kriege. Washingtons Verbündete in Europa, Nordamerika und Asien bilden dabei keine Ausnahme.
Ebenso absurd ist die Behauptung, die russische Propaganda sei schuld an Hillary Clintons Wahlniederlage 2016. Clinton hatte die Anliegen der Arbeiterklasse ignoriert und war als Wunschkandidatin der Wall Street und des Militär- und Geheimdienstapparats angetreten. Deshalb konnte sich Trump als Gegner der bestehenden Verhältnisse inszenieren, und die traditionellen Wähler der Demokraten blieben der Wahl in Massen fern.
Was also ist die eigentliche Ursache für die antirussische Hysterie, die sich in der amerikanischen herrschenden Elite ausbreitet?
Zum einen geht es um wichtige außenpolitische Fragen. Trotz der Auflösung der UdSSR, die im Kalten Krieg eine unangefochtene globale Vormachtstellung des US-Imperialismus verhindert hatte, stellt Russland mittlerweile ein Hindernis für das Weltmachtstreben Washingtons dar. Am deutlichsten zeigt sich dies in Syrien, wo Russland die USA durch eine militärische Intervention daran hinderte, Präsident Baschar al-Assad zu stürzen.
Nicht weniger bedeutsam sind innenpolitische Erwägungen. Die Herrschenden sind sich völlig im Klaren darüber, dass die Beziehungen zwischen den Klassen zum Zerreißen gespannt sind. Gegensätze, die Jahrzehnte lang künstlich unterdrückt wurden, drohen aufzubrechen.
Die soziale Ungleichheit ist in den USA größer als in jeder anderen Industrienation der Welt. Zwanzig Milliardäre besitzen zusammen mehr Vermögen als die untere Hälfte der Bevölkerung. Im Vorfeld der Wahlen 2016 wurde deutlich, dass sich antikapitalistische Stimmungen ausbreiten und die beiden großen Parteien weithin verhasst sind. So haben im Vorwahlkampf Millionen Menschen für Hillary Clintons Gegner Bernie Sanders gestimmt, der sich fälschlich als „unabhängigen Kandidaten“ und „Sozialisten“ bezeichnete.
Angesichts des drohenden sozialen Widerstands sucht die amerikanische herrschende Klasse eine neue Grundlage für Kriege im Ausland und Unterdrückung im Inneren. Der „Krieg gegen den Terror“, der diesen Zweck fünfzehn Jahre lang erfüllt hat, ist nicht mehr glaubwürdig – nicht zuletzt, weil die USA in Syrien und anderen Staaten mit Al-Qaida-nahen islamistischen Kräften verbündet sind. Und so muss ein neues Narrativ her, um die gesellschaftlichen Spannungen abzulenken, die Nation ideologisch zu einen, die Arbeiterklasse niederzuhalten und Widerstand nötigenfalls zu unterdrücken.
Bezeichnenderweise lässt sich gerade die „Linke“ am bereitwilligsten für die Hetzkampagne gegen Russland einspannen. So hat Krugman Trump als „sibirischen Kandidaten“ bezeichnet, und Michael Moore, der den Irakkrieg noch abgelehnt hatte, bezeichnet Trump mittlerweile als „russischen Verräter“ und ruft das Militär auf, gegen ihn vorzugehen. Die Organisationen aus dem Umfeld der Demokratischen Partei (die International Socialist Organization, Socialist Alternative, oder Publikationen wie Jacobin und andere) schweigen seit Comeys Entlassung entweder über die Konflikte in der herrschenden Klasse oder unterstützen die Kampagne gegen Russland offen.
Die Demokraten versuchen ganz gezielt, die antirussische Hysterie mit Identitätspolitik zu verbinden. Zu diesem Zweck haben sie verschiedene undemokratische Maßnahmen der Putin-Regierung ausgeschlachtet. Ihr Ziel ist es, privilegierte Schichten des Kleinbürgertums hinter die Politik imperialistischer Kriege und sozialer Reaktion zu bringen.
Diese Kampagne stößt bei der Einkommensgruppe der oberen fünf bis zehn Prozent auf fruchtbaren Boden Diese Schicht, die durch den Börsenboom zu beträchtlichem Reichtum gelangte, hat völlig andere Interessen als die Arbeiterklasse. Zwar würde sie es begrüßen, wenn das Vermögen an der Spitze der Gesellschaft etwas ausgewogener verteilt wäre, doch in erster Linie geht es ihr darum, sozialen Widerstand in der Arbeiterklasse zu unterbinden.
Vor diesem Hintergrund wird deutlich, dass in der Kampagne gegen Russland zum Ausdruck kommt, was das Wesen der Demokratischen Partei ausmacht: die Verschmelzung von Wall Street, Militär- und Geheimdienstapparat und dem gut situierten Kleinbürgertum, das sich um die Identitätspolitik schart.
Es ist der Demokratischen Partei nicht möglich, mit fortschrittlichen Forderungen gegen Trump zu kämpfen. Dafür hat sie viel zu viel Angst vor einer Massenbewegung der Arbeiterklasse. Sollte Trump zurücktreten oder infolge dieser rechten Kampagne abgesetzt werden, würde die nächste Regierung seine Politik von Krieg, Sozialkürzungen und Reaktion einfach fortsetzen.
All dies zeigt mit großer Klarheit, dass die Arbeiterklasse ein eigenes, sozialistisches und internationalistisches Programm braucht, um ihre Interessen geltend zu machen.
Andre Damon
DSC_2532
Chief of Staff Priebus: “Ok people listen up. With all of the indictments coming down, we are in crisis mode. We have got to get people on the air to push back and defend this administration. Who do we have that isn’t compromised?”
Intern: “Well, sir, let me check. Uh, Sessions, no, Collusion with Russia. Ivanka? Money laundering. Don Jr or Eric? same. Chaffetz? Money laundering, foreign donations, obstructing congressional investigation, affair. Gorka? Nazi, money laundering. Page? Russian collusion, hacking, money laundering. Ephsteyn? Russian spy, money laundering. Manafort? Holy mother of god money laundering. And Russian collusion. Cohen? Russian collusion. Bannon? No he looks like the inside of a Greyhound bus smells. Giuliani? Leaking classified data, money laundering, Russian collusion. Flynn? Ha I know sir just trying to be thorough. Russian collusion, foreign agent, affair with Russian spy. Sorry sir, I can keep going but really there is absolutely no one else.”
Priebus: “Sigh. Fine, ok. Well Spicer, you’re.. all we got.”
Kevin Downing, lead counsel for Paul Manafort, speaking outside the courtroom right after Manafort's guilty plea.
Save the world. Vote for Joe Biden. Since Trump took office his lawyer (Michael Cohen), campaign chairman (Paul Manafort), campaign advisor (George Papadopoulos), and advisor (Roger Stone) have all been charged and found guilty of crimes. Just to name a few.
Unrelated, this is the cairn on the south summit of South Kinsman Mountain.
Reporters run out of the courthouse with the news that the verdict is ready in the Manafort trial, although they do not know the verdict at this time, other than that the jury has only agreed on 8 out of the 18 counts.
W. Fulton Market and N. Elizabeth St.
Little did I know two years ago when I first photographed this building that the bank would play a part in the conviction of fixer Paul Manafort, who received a loan amounting to 25% of the bank's equity capital. The bank's president unsuccessfully lobbied for the Secretary of the Army position in the new administration. NOTE: The bank's former CEO is under indictment; his brother is now running the company. It was announced last month the bank is moving its headquarters to a former Marshall Field & Co. warehouse at 4000 W. Diversey Ave. NOTE 2: Stephen Calk, the former CEO of The Federal Savings Bank, was found guilty of financial institution bribery and conspiracy to commit financial institution bribery after a three-week trial in Manhattan in July 2021.
James Mattis, Secretary of Defense, resigned on December 20, 2018 Ryan Zinke, Secretary of the Interior, resigned on December 15, 2018 Nick Ayers, Chief of Staff to Vice-president, resigned on December 9, 2018 John F. Kelly, Chief of Staff, resigned on December 8, 2018 Jeff Sessions, Attorney General, was fired/forced out on November 7, 2018 Nikki Haley, UN Ambassador, resigned on October 9, 2018 Donald F. McGahn, White House Counsel, resigned on August 29, 2018 Scott Pruitt, EPA Administrator, resigned on July 5, 2018 Joseph W. Hagin, White House Deputy Chief of Staff, resigned on June 19, 2018 Maj. Gen. Ricky Waddell, Deputy National Security Advisor, resigned on April 12, 2018 Nadia Schadlow, Deputy National Security Advidor for Strategy, resigned on April 11, 2018 Thomas P. Bossert, Homeland Security Advisor, was fired/forced out on April 10, 2018 Michael Anton, National Security Council spokesman, was fired/forced out on April 8, 2018 Andrew McCabe, FBI Deputy Director, was fired/forced out on March 31, 2018 Josh Raffel, Deputy Communications Director, resigned on March 31, 2018 H. R. McMaster, National Security Advisor, resigned on March 22, 2018 Rex Tillerson, Secretary of State, was fired/forced out on March 13, 2018 John McEntee, Special Assistant and Personal Aide to the President, was fired/forced out on March 12, 2018 David J. Shulkin, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, was fired/forced out on 43167 2018, Gary Cohn, Director of National Economic Council, resigned on March 6, 2018 Hope Hicks, Director of Communications, resigned on February 28, 2018 Rachel Brand, Associate Attorney General, resigned on February 20, 2018 Reed Cordish, Assistant to the President, resigned on February 16, 2018 David Sorensen, White House Speechwriter, was fired/forced out on February 9, 2018 Rob Porter, White House Staff Secretary, was fired/forced out on February 7, 2018 Dr. Brenda Fitzgerald, Director of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, was fired/forced out on January 31, 2018 Taylor Wyeneth, Deputy Chief of Staff, Office of Drug Control Policy, was fired/forced out on January 24, 2018 Carl Higbie, Chief of External Affairs for Corporation for National and Community Service, was fired/forced out on January 18, 2018 John Feeley, Ambassador to Panama, resigned on January 12, 2018 Rick Dearborn, Deputy Chief of Staff, resigned on January 1, 2018 Paul Winfree, Deputy Director of Domestic Policy Council, resigned on December 15, 2017 Omarosa Manigault Newman, Director of Communications for Office of Public Liaison, was fired/forced out on December 13, 2017 Dina Powell, Deputy National Security Advisor, resigned on December 8, 2017 Tom Price, Secretary of Health & Human Services, resigned on September 29, 2017 Keith Schiller, Director of Oval Office Operations, resigned on September 5, 2017 Sebastian Gorka, Deputy Assistant to the President, was fired/forced out on August 25, 2017 Stephen K. Bannon, White House Advisor, Chief Strategist, resigned on August 18, 2017 George Sifakis, Director of Office of Public Liaison, resigned on August 18, 2017 Carl Icahn, Special Advisor to the President, was fired/forced out on August 17, 2017 Ezra Cohen-Watnick, Director for Intelligence Programs, NSC, was fired/forced out on August 2, 2017 Anthony Scaramucci, Director of Communications, was fired/forced out on July 31, 2017 Elizabeth Southerland, Director of Environmental Protection Agency, was fired/forced out on July 31, 2017 Derek Harvey, Middle-East Advisor, was fired/forced out on July 27, 2017 Reince Priebus, White House Chief of Staff, was fired/forced out on July 27, 2017 Michael Short, Assistant Press Secretary, resigned on July 25, 2017 Sean Spicer, White House Press Secretary, resigned on July 21, 2017 Mark Corallo, Spokesman for Trump Legal Team, resigned on July 20, 2017 Walter Shaub, Director of Office of Government Ethics, resigned on July 6, 2017 Thomas Shannon, Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs, resigned on June 13, 2017 Mike Dubke, Director of Communications, resigned on May 18, 2017 James B. Comey, FBI Director, was fired/forced out on May 9, 2017 Angella Reid, White House Chief Usher, was fired/forced out on May 5, 2017 Vivek Murthy, Surgeon General, resigned on April 22, 2017 K. T. McFarland, Deputy National Security Advisor, was fired/forced out on April 9, 2017 Katie Walsh, Deputy White House Chief of Staff, was fired/forced out on March 30, 2017 Preet Bharara, U.S. Attorney, Southern District of New York, was fired/forced out on March 11, 2017 Michael Flynn, National Security Adviser, resigned on February 13, 2017 Sally Yates, Acting Attorney General, was fired/forced out on January 30, 2017 Paul Manafort, Trump Campaign Chairman, resigned on November 8, 2016
Donald Trump’s High Crimes and Misdemeanors
The principled case for impeachment is clear. What’s missing is the courage.
Brett Stephens
The New York Times
August 23, 2018
Brett Stephens makes a compelling case for Trump's impeachment. This is how he concludes his column:
To conservatives reading this column, ask yourselves the following questions:
If breaking the law (by lying under oath) to conceal an affair was impeachable [Clinton], why is breaking the law (by violating campaign-finance laws) to conceal an affair not impeachable?
If “cheating the electoral system” (by means of a burglary) was impeachable [Nixon], why is cheating the electoral system (by means of illicit hush money) not impeachable?
If cheating “our institutions” (by means of an “assault” in “every way” on the legal system) [Clinton] is impeachable, why is cheating those institutions (by means of nonstop presidential mendacity and relentless attacks on the Justice Department and the F.B.I.) not impeachable?
Here's my realpolitik answer to Brett Stephens' questions: Trump is unimpeachable because Trump has created a cult of personality within his base, and he is now using his base to exercise autocratic power over executive and legislative branches of the federal government and much of the nation's political life.
========================================================
"Trump’s real problem is that he obstructed justice, and Mueller can prove it. Here’s how."
By Barry H. Berke, White-collar criminal defense lawyer
Noah Bookbinder, Executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington
Norman Eisen, Chairman of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington
The Washington Post 22 August, 2018
President Trump’s former lawyer, Michael Cohen, says the president ordered him to violate federal campaign finance laws during the 2016 election. As bad as that news is for Trump, the president’s real legal peril is even more dire.
We’ve studied the investigation that special counsel Robert S. Mueller III is pursuing, and the publicly available information offers substantial evidence that Trump has obstructed justice. Mueller and his team are surely reaching the same conclusion as their obstruction investigation reportedly approaches its conclusion, which means it is highly likely that Mueller will refer an obstruction case to Congress for further action. He could also seek to indict co-conspirators — and he could name the president himself in an indictment. No wonder that the president has resisted an interview with the special counsel. That’s even less likely to happen after the Cohen plea — not to mention the virtually simultaneous conviction of Paul Manafort won by Mueller and his team Tuesday afternoon.
There is, of course, a difference between what is in the public record about obstruction and what Mueller and his colleagues have uncovered in their investigation. They surely have much more information, and Cohen’s lawyer has suggested that he also has things to say about the alleged involvement by Trump and his campaign in collusion with Russia. But even without subpoena power, it’s easy to discern significant evidence supporting the elements of obstruction of justice — an obstructive act undertaken with corrupt intent and having a connection to a grand jury or congressional proceeding. Public reports, open court testimony and our near-century of collective criminal law experience allows us to forecast what the Mueller report will likely contain. We analyze the president’s pattern of obstructive conduct, potential liability and likely consequences in our updated Brookings Report released Wednesday, “Presidential Obstruction of Justice: The Case of Donald J. Trump.”
Read the rest of this column here: www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2018/08/22/trumps-real-pro...
from ift.tt/2awYDI9
Only four posts in and I’ve already touched a nerve.
@janersm which literally most people do on a regular basis. And the fact you’re writing a 2500 essay on the wrongs of trump is biast
— StopRaven (@stop_raven) July 26, 2016
It’s “biast” for me to express my own opinion. Oh my goodness. How dare someone have an actual opinion!
So, if you didn’t read my first, second, or third set of 21 reasons to oppose Trump, consider reading those before you read the next 21 reasons. After today’s post, there will be 95 more posts. If they were bottles of beer, this could be a song.
64. Donald Trump lied about witnessing Muslims celebrating 9/11 on a rooftop in Jersey City, New Jersey. I’ve mentioned Trump’s mocking of Serge Kovaleski, but not how he earned the ire of Trump. Kovaleski had covered a story in 2001 that suggested that there were people in Jersey City partying on rooftops. Donald claimed to see thousands of Muslims in New Jersey celebrating on rooftops after the World Trade Centers collapsed. He claimed there was video of it on television all the time. When he was asked about it by George Stephanopolous, Trump said:
“It was well covered at the time, George. Now, I know they don’t like to talk about it, but it was well covered at the time. There were people over in New Jersey that were watching it, a heavy Arab population, that were cheering as the buildings came down. Not good.”
Except it wasn’t, because it didn’t happen. The story was never about thousands of Muslims. There was no video. It’s all in Trump’s head.
65. Trump insulted Seventh-Day Adventists. While speaking to supporters at a campaign rally in Jacksonville, Florida in October 2015, Trump, after talking about how he’s a Presbyterian, said, “Boy, that’s down the middle of the road folks, in all fairness. I mean, Seventh-day Adventist, I don’t know about. I just don’t know about.” While Trump’s dig may not sound that vicious, it was meant to be very vicious. You seem, some Christians don’t believe that Seventh-day Adventists are even Christian. This is a group that also refuses to vote for non-Christians. This was a time when Trump was behind Ben Carson by 9 percentage points; Carson is a Seventh-day Adventist. It was personal.
66. Trump hired Manafort. When Donald Trump dumped Corey Lewandowski and replaced him with Paul Manafort, very few people in America knew of the background of Manafort. Most stories touted him as having ties to the Republican Party. A few brought up some recent jobs of of his. Manafort has ties to Viktor Yanukovych, who was the the prime minister of the Ukraine at the time, as well as an ally of Vladimir Putin. In 2010, Yanukovych became the president of Ukraine, but had to flee to Russia during the 2014 revolution. Manafort was also a consultant of Yanukovych, helping Yanukovych’s first run for the Ukrainian presidency in 2004. When Yanukovych hired him after the first results were invalidated, Manafort was meant to improve his images. He was unable to in the time given, but Manafort continued to work within Yanukovych’s Party of Regions. Manafort was still working with the administration when Yanukovych fled and continued working within Ukrainian politics after he’d fled, including his reported involvement in the 2015 election campaign of Vitali Klitschko, who ran for mayor in Kiev. Now, Manafort is working with Donald Trump and was even used on July 27th on CBS This Morning to argue that Donald Trump had no ties to Vladimir Putin’s regime, which may have ties to the hacking of the DNC by Russians and subsequent Wikileaks email release.
67. Trump called Hillary Clinton “shrill” at a rally. A lot of people don’t like Hillary Clinton, but most don’t call her “shrill” at campaign events. Actually, he didn’t just say it once, he said it twice–over-pronouncing it the second time. I guess he wanted to make sure that everyone at his half-empty rally heard him correctly. He tried to suggest he calls men shrill, but if he has, it hasn’t been on Twitter. And he should know that the term “shrill” is meant to shut women up. My guess is: that’s why he said it. Luckily, it didn’t work.
68. Trump mocked Fiorina’s physical appearance. No, really. He did and managed to do it while being interviewed by Rolling Stone.
When the anchor throws to Carly Fiorina for her reaction to Trump’s momentum, Trump’s expression sours in schoolboy disgust as the camera bores in on Fiorina. “Look at that face!” he cries. “Would anyone vote for that? Can you imagine that, the face of our next president?!” The laughter grows halting and faint behind him. “I mean, she’s a woman, and I’m not s’posedta say bad things, but really, folks, come on. Are we serious?”
When asked on Fox News if he really said something like that, he confirmed, saying, “Probably I did say something like that about Carly.” But he tried to walk it back with, “I’m talking about persona. I’m not talking about look.” Donald always has an excuse.
69. Donald Trump believes that John McCain shouldn’t be considered a war hero. While speaking at the Family Leadership Summit in Ames, Iowa, Trump said of McCain, “He’s not a war hero. He was a war hero because he was captured.”
70. Donald Trump also stated that he doesn’t believe that people who are captured are war heroes. In his words, “I like people who weren’t captured.” He’s walked those comments back, because they didn’t go over very well, but they were still said. And his reframing of his comments (“If somebody’s a prisoner, I consider them a war hero.” and “If a person is captured, they’re a hero as far as I’m concerned. … But you have to do other things also.”) didn’t really explain the difference between McCain’s capture and the POWs who he actually sees as a war hero.
71. Trump comes up with childish and offensive nicknames for opponents. Little Marco. Lyin’ Ted. Crooked Hillary. Crazy Bernie. Goofy Elizabeth Warren. Pocahontas. Donald Trump is less witty and original than a third grade bully.
72. Trump wants to end Freedom of Press as we know it. Conservatives love to talk about how they have First Amendment rights and how they love using them to offend; they “don’t care about your feels” and want to “trigger” people with the words. Well, Donald Trump doesn’t feel the same. He wants to open libel laws up to sue the press for things that upset him.
73. Trump mocked Ruth Bader Ginsburg. When Ruth Bader Ginsburg expressed her distaste for Trump, he responded with “her mind is shot.” Classy to the end, RBG didn’t fire back challenging his mental state.
Justice Ginsburg of the U.S. Supreme Court has embarrassed all by making very dumb political statements about me. Her mind is shot – resign!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 13, 2016
Is Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg going to apologize to me for her misconduct? Big mistake by an incompetent judge!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 13, 2016
If I win the Presidency, we will swamp Justice Ginsburg with real judges and real legal opinions!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 13, 2016
74. Donald Trump not only wants a wall, he wants Mexico to pay for it. For some very odd reason, Donald Trump believes that his sacred wall should be paid for by another country. I’m fairly certain that the Constitution requires the United States to provide for its common defense, but apparently Trump has gotten a new copy of the Constitution that is missing the Preamble and the First Amendment. His planned wall is one of the best ways to tell that Donald Trump doesn’t know how to be the President of the United States.
75. Trump called for a ban on Muslims entering the United States. If ever there was a way to show that Mr. Trump is a bigot, it’s his proposed ban on Muslims. Trump has stated he wants to ban Muslims from traveling and immigrating to the country until we get terrorism under control. Terrorism isn’t something that can be controlled and denying people the ability to get to this country based on their religion or, as he’s also suggested, their country of origin will not stop it. If you look at the most recent “acts of terror” that have been “linked” to people who were born in America decades ago. You cannot define a terrorist based on the country they come from or the religion that they believe in.
76. Donald Trump gave Robert Pattinson dating advice. After Kristen Stewart cheated on Robert Pattinson, and ended the sacred, beloved ship known as Robsten, Donald Trump, a serial cheater, gave Rob some advice. For almost a month, he gave him unsolicited advice.
Robert Pattinson should not take back Kristen Stewart. She cheated on him like a dog & will do it again–just watch. He can do much better!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 17, 2012
Lots of response to my Pattinson/Kristen Stewart reunion. She will cheat again–100 certain–am I ever wrong?
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 18, 2012
Robert I’m getting a lot of heat for saying you should dump Kristen- but I’m right. If you saw the Miss Universe girls you would reconsider.
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 18, 2012
Everyone knows I am right that Robert Pattinson should dump Kristen Stewart. In a couple of years, he will thank me. Be smart, Robert.
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 22, 2012
Everyone is asking me to speak more on Robert & Kristen.I don’t have time except to say “Robert, drop her, she cheated on you & will again!”
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 23, 2012
Miss Universe 2012 Pageant will be airing live on @nbc & @Telemundo december 19th. Open invite stands for Robert Pattinson.
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 25, 2012
Robert Pattinson is putting on a good face for the release of Twilight. He took my advice on Kristen Stewart…I hope!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 9, 2012
Everybody wants me to talk about Robert Pattinson and not Brian Williams—I guess people just don’t care about Brian!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 9, 2012
After Friday’s Twilight release, I hope Robert Pattinson will not be seen in public with Kristen–she will cheat on him again!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 13, 2012
77. Donald Trump is a cheater. He holds himself to be a moral man. He considers his beliefs on marriage and its sanctity to be a representation of traditional values. And, like it or not, he is the now standard bearer for a party that obsessed over his opponent’s husband’s adultery to an extreme. His own running mate wanted to make adultery illegal before joining Trump on the ticket. So how do the Republicans justify nominating a man who has never respected marriage vows or women.
78. Trump’s campaign lied about the plagiarism by Melania Trump. When Melania spoke at the Republican National Convention, people were amazed that this brilliant, beautiful woman gave a touching speech. People on the left and right had joked over her brains for months, and had suggested that her modeling career made her unworthy of being the First Lady. Their misogyny towards this woman was grotesque, but, for a moment, it was forgotten, until people realized that they’d heard the speech before. The campaign denied it. They suggested that the words could have come from My Little Pony or John Legend. Eventually, after days of denial, they said it was just a mistake. Why couldn’t they have admitted that earlier? Mistakes are forgivable. Covering them up is less so. The Trump campaign and members of the Republican Party knowingly attempted to deceived the public. Their little, lyin’,crooked, crazy, goofy cover-up was pathetic and deceitful and shows the character, or lack thereof, of the campaign and the Party.
I would very much like to be excluded from this narrative t.co/I46VtY2CXI
— John Legend (@johnlegend) July 19, 2016
79. Trump said that the Charlie Hebdo victims should have been armed. Donald Trump believed that the victims of the Charlie Hebdo slayings would be alive if France didn’t have strict gun laws. Like with several other mass murders, there was a cop who tried to stop the attack, but couldn’t. Donald Trump didn’t know what he was talking about then and he doesn’t know what he is talking about now.
80. Donald Trump claimed that every woman on The Apprentice flirted with him. Donald Trump wrote in his 2004 book Trump: How to Get Rich, “All the women on The Apprentice flirted with me — consciously or unconsciously. That’s to be expected. A sexual dynamic is always present between people, unless you are asexual.” No, Mr. Trump, it isn’t to be expected and it isn’t always present.
81. Trump repeatedly suggested that vaccines cause autism. He’s wrong.
A study says @Autism is out of control–a 78% increase in 10 years. Stop giving monstrous combined vaccinations (cont) t.co/jthy8mww
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 30, 2012
My @foxandfriends interview discussing @BarackObama attacks on capitalism, Autism & vaccinations and #CelebApprentice t.co/A6PORNFj
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 2, 2012
Now they say obese women may cause Autism in children- nonsense, they use any excuse. The FDA should immediately (cont) t.co/ZtaDb6dh
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 9, 2012
He thinks scientists are lying to you about the causes of autism. Maybe he should have picked Jill Stein as a running mate.
I’ve gotten many letters from people fighting autism thanking me for stating how dangerous 38 vaccines on a (cont) t.co/Qkn0rHBY
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 12, 2012
Many many people are thanking me for what I said about @autism & vaccinations. Something must be done immediately.
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 13, 2012
I have received many notes of thanks from people regarding my comments on vaccines and autism. The autism and (cont) t.co/v5bzFN92
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 18, 2012
Massive combined inoculations to small children is the cause for big increase in autism….
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 23, 2012
Look what happened to the autism rate from 1983-2008 since one-time massive shots were given to children-http://t.co/lpq2SveJ
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 27, 2012
Lots of autism and vaccine response. Stop these massive doses immediately. Go back to single, spread out shots! What do we have to lose.
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 22, 2012
We should march on Washington re:autism–with leadership & common sense the numbers would drop precipitously!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 22, 2012
Blaming Obama for autism sounds like something that Trump would say, but that’s because it is something he said.
Autism rates through the roof–why doesn’t the Obama administration do something about doctor-inflicted autism. We lose nothing to try.
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 22, 2012
To all haters and losers: I am NOT anti-vaccine, but I am against shooting massive doses into tiny children. Spread shots out over time.
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 29, 2014
No more massive injections. Tiny children are not horses—one vaccine at a time, over time.
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 3, 2014
Trump doesn’t understand autism. He doesn’t understand medicine. He doesn’t understand science.
82. Donald Trump praised Saddam Hussein. Trump said of Hussein, “He killed terrorists. He did that so good. They didn’t read them the rights — they didn’t talk, they were a terrorist, it was over.” It wasn’t the first time that Trump appreciated Hussein’s tactics. While he admitted that Hussein was a bad man, it isn’t enough to say that Hussein, a brutal dictator who terrorized his own people, was just a bad guy.
83. Trump said that an airplane above a rally was a Mexican attack. It may have been a joke, but it was a pathetic one meant to scare and incite people to be more xenophobic and angry.
84. After the shooting at the Pulse nightclub, Trump took credit for talking about terrorism. When 49 people died in Orlando, Donald Trump thought that the responsible and respectful reaction to the event was to take credit for having talked about terrorism. Donald Trump claimed credit for the actions of Mateen before Daesh ever had a chance to.
What has happened in Orlando is just the beginning. Our leadership is weak and ineffective. I called it and asked for the ban. Must be tough
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 12, 2016
I thought people weren’t celebrating? They were cheering all over, even this savage from Orlando. I was right. t.co/DrVa65X9rI
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 13, 2016
Pathetic, Mr. Trump. Really pathetic.
Photo credit: DonkeyHotey via Visualhunt.com / CC BY-SA
Photo credit: WFULawSchool via Visual hunt / CC BY-NC-ND
Related Posts:
Definitely More Stable Than Donald Trump January 25, 2016
April 26, 2011
If Donald Trump runs for President, can I please build a… February 14, 2011
Resting Bitch Face: Internet-Style March 12, 2016
October 24, 2011
😬😬🇷🇺 !!! Paul Manafort !!! What further Kompromat are you beholden to? #Kompromat 🇷🇺😬😬 #alternativefacts
What are this madman's latest outrages? Well, apart from wishing that Americans would sit up and pay attention to him the way Kim's unfortunate subjects pay attention to him in his slave state:
www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2018/jun/15/trump-i-wan...
1. Crazy, Lyin' Donnie Trump has responded to the New York Attorney General's lawsuit to shut down the fraudulent Trump Foundation by hurling partisan insults at the office of the New York Attorney General. www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-trump-foundation-rep...
This undermines the Republic two ways. First, since Trump is a Federal official who does not (yet) have any direct role in the government of the State of New York, he is undermining the principles of federalism by inserting himself in the affairs of that state. Secondly, Trump's comments undermine the separation of powers, since the matter is now in the hands of the judiciary.
Furthermore, since the lawsuit involves Trump as a citizen and not in his capacity as the Toddler King of Fox News's Red State America, he has no business commenting about the case publicly at all. But then, toddlers aren't known for their restraint or for understanding how the grown-up world works.
Finally, this is a classic move to deflect attention away from the source of the problem. When things get hot, Trump tends to blame someone else for the problem. Trump, a man with a vast store of ignorance, never knows enough about any situation to respond to charges on their merits, so he does what tyrants and losers tend to do, which is deliver ad hominem attacks.
2. Next, Trump has assaulted the separation of powers within the federal government by declaring the judge's decision to jail Paul Manafort "very unfair." www.vox.com/2018/6/15/17468684/trump-manafort-jail-mueller
We should know by now that when Trump calls something "very unfair" (or "very, very unfair"), fairness is the furthest thing from his mind. If Trump believed in fairness, he would not mouth off about matters pending in federal court. After all, the prosecution is brought in the name of The People of the United States of America, whose interests Trump has pledged to represent and defend. Instead, in a spirit of utter unfairness, Trump is putting his tiny thumb on the scales of justice and pressing down hard. This is a disgrace.
A strange little bank in Fulton Market, tied in closely to Donald Trump, Paul Manafort, and maybe Russian money laundering.
New York prosecutors have demanded records relating to up to $16 million in loans that a bank run by a former campaign adviser for President Donald Trump made to former campaign chairman Paul Manafort, according to a person familiar with the matter.
The subpoena by the Manhattan district attorney’s office to the Federal Savings Bank, a small Chicago bank run by Steve Calk, sought information on loans the bank issued in November and January to Mr. Manafort and his wife, the person said. The loans were secured by two properties in New York and a condominium in Virginia, real-estate records show.
More at my blog:
www.b12partners.net/wp/2017/07/21/federal-savings-bank-an...
Sentencing of Paul Manafort in Virginia, by Judge Ellis. Kevin Downing, Manafort's lawyer, speaks briefly after the sentence.
Sentencing of Paul Manafort in Virginia, by Judge Ellis. Reporters run out with news of the sentence imposed.
Actually, entrance to the building where The Federal Savings Bank is located. A strange kind of bank, only on the third floor, with a building security employee that won’t let you go up unless you are a member of the bank, plus won’t allow photography in the lobby.
The FSB has been in the news lately for its Trump ties, and allegedly Russian money laundering schemes with Paul Manafort.
For instance:
Chicago-based Federal Savings Bank wouldn’t comment Tuesday on a report that New York prosecutors have subpoenaed records related to $16 million in loans the institution made to former Donald Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort.
…
chief executive, Steve Calk, was an economic adviser to Trump's presidential campaign. Manafort is under scrutiny from a special prosecutor and members of Congress for his dealings with Russian interests, part of the wider investigation into ties between Russia and members of Trump's campaign and administration.
…
Federal Savings Bank made about $6.5 million in loans in January to Manafort and his wife for a Brooklyn property, documents show. That came about a month after Federal Savings lent $9.5 million to Summerbreeze, a limited liability company connected to Manafort, according to 377 Union, a website run by two New York lawyers that is named for the address of the Manafort property in Brooklyn.
The combined $16 million in loans to one borrower represents nearly a quarter of the small bank’s loan portfolio and approaches the level at which regulators would start to think about imposing limits on lending to one customer.
more:
www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-federal-savings-trump-...
Paul Manafort and his lawyer Kevin Downing arriving at the Federal courthouse for a motion hearing, 5/23/18
via
By Roger Stone (Part 1)
I once tweeted that “John Podesta’s time in the barrel will come.”
Well, friends, at the risk of having my barrel comments absurdly interpreted as some of sort of obscure racist slur as General John Kelly’s comment about Congressional cowgirl Frederica Wilson was this past week, put on your polka shoes because it may be time to roll out the barrel…or roll out the barrels, I should say: one for John Podesta and another for his brother and business partner, Tony Podesta.
The two Podestas – the “Podestae”, if you will — have run a highly-lucrative influence peddling shop since the first days of Bill Clinton’s presidency, and continued their nefarious self-enrichment orgy at public expense well through the Obama reign.
Just yesterday it was revealed that special counsel Robert Mueller is now investigating Tony Podesta, brother of Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta.
Of course, it was this inevitable scrutiny of the Podestas’ underhanded business dealings that my “time in the barrel” referred to and not, as some have quite falsely claimed, to the hacking and publication almost two months later of John Podesta’s emails.
Factcheck.org reported the plain truth that there is absolutely no evidence anywhere in the substantial public record of campaign 2016 to substantiate the cynical partisan allegation by, among others, California Democrat and ranking member of the House Intelligence committee, that I predicted the Podesta email hack.
In a House hearing on March 20, 2017, Schiff stated:
“[I]n August, Stone does something truly remarkable when he predicts that John Podesta’s personal emails will soon be published. “Trust me,” he says, “it will soon be Podesta’s time in the barrel, hashtag #CrookedHillary.” In the weeks that follow, Stone shows a remarkable prescience. “I have total confidence that WikiLeaks and my hero, Julian Assange, will educate the American people soon,” he says, hashtag, “#LockHerUp.” “Payload coming,” he predicts. And two days later, it does. WikiLeaks releases its first batch of Podesta emails. The release of John Podesta’s emails would then continue on a daily basis up until the election.” [Emphasis added.]
Schiff continued his allegation by asking, “Is it a coincidence that Roger Stone predicted that [Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman] John Podesta would be a victim of a Russian hack and have his private emails published, and did so even before Mr. Podesta himself was fully aware that his private emails would be exposed?”
Schiff’s defamatory claim is a conclusory leap that simply does not hold to any honest, logical or factual scrutiny. He simply assumes for his own purposes that my August 21 Tweet about “Podesta’s time in the barrel” had to have been a reference to the release of Podesta’s emails by WikiLeaks two months later.
On ABC’s “This Week” on March 26, I flatly denied that I predicted Podesta’s emails would be hacked, adding — correctly — that nothing in the Tweet, “made any reference to John Podesta’s email.” Nothing in the context of my Twitter feed in which the Tweet was posted would support Schiff’s claim either. I told ABC’s This Week that my Tweet referred to Podesta’s business dealings with Russia, and the expectation that it would become a news story, before too long.
But inexplicably Factcheck.org, rather negating the whole purpose of having an organization by that name, posted a note saying “just because there is no proof whatsoever that something happened doesn’t mean it didn’t.” Thankfully we haven’t sunk quite to the point in which this passes for an evidentiary standard.
It is important to understand the context of that Tweet. Paul Manafort, who is one of my oldest friends in politics and usher in my wedding to Nydia Bertran de Espinosa (Stone), was being hounded in a media frenzy based on financial records of the political party Manafort was then legally working for being splashed all over page one of the New York Times.
We now know that a ledger reportedly showing payments to Manafort of $12 million were a forgery. The Ukrainian prosecutor handling the Manafort investigation debunked the purported ledger entirely, saying that Manafort is not a target of any impending indictment. You will not, however, read this fact in the New York Times.
Nonetheless, if Manafort’s business activities in the region were going to get scrutiny it was only fair that the Podesta Brothers’ adventures also be exposed to the public.
The Clintons were obsessed with Manafort’s reputation as a hyper-organized hard-driving political operative with extensive national experience. Those of us in the Trump Camp new that the Clinton political operation was scouring Russia and Ukraine to find negative dirt on my fellow Connecticut native, Manafort.
In Ukraine, these matters were handled by Ukrainian intelligence at the direction of Ukrainian billionaire Victor Pinchuk, who essentially paid the Clinton Foundation so much money that he was able to overturn the democratically-elected and U.S.-recognized government of Ukraine in a coup.
The Podesta brothers’ extensive business dealings were first revealed in the “Panama Papers”, published in January 2016, as reported by the Observer in “Panama Papers Reveal Clinton’s Kremlin Connection”, published on April 7, 2016.
Around August 1, 2016, Dr. Jerome Corsi briefed me in a conversation in which he detailed the extent and breadth of the Podesta’s business dealings. I asked Corsi to memorialize his outline in a memo. I must again stress that all of this had been reported and was public information, available to anyone who knew where to look.
Both Manafort and the Podesta’s retroactively-filed reports pursuant to the Foreign Agent Registration Act, though I think it can be fairly argued that neither was actively engaged in any lobbying. There are some lawyers who argue that attempting to effectuate public opinion in the United States while being paid by foreign entity requires registration. Presumably out of an abundance of caution both Manafort and the Podestas filed.
Back in August 2016, CNN reported that the FBI was investigating Paul Manafort’s ties to Russia and the Podesta Group to the Ukrainian government and the alleged corruption by the party of former Ukranian president Victor Yanukovych.
On August 19, CNN further reported that the Podesta Group issued a statement affirming that the Group had retained the Washington-based boutique law firm of Caplin & Drysdale “to determine if we were misled by the Center for a Modern Ukraine or any other individuals with potential ties to foreign governments or political parties.”
The Podesta Group statement to CNN continued: “When the Center became a client, it certified in writing that ‘none of the activities of the Center are directly or indirectly supervised, directed, controlled, financed or subsidized in whole or in part by a government of a foreign country or a foreign political party.’ We relied on that certification and advice from counsel in registering and reporting under the Lobbying Disclosure Act rather than the Foreign Agents Registration Act.”
“We will take whatever measures are necessary to address this situation based on Caplin & Drysdale’s review, including possible legal action against the Center,” concluded the Podesta Group’s statement.
That same August 19, Buzz Feed reported that the Podesta Group and Manafort’s D.C. political firm were working under contract with the same group advising Yanukovych and his Ukrainian Party of Regions – namely the non-profit European Center for a Modern Ukraine based in Brussels.
Way back in 2013, Reuters reported the European Center for a Modern Ukraine paid $900,000 to the Podesta Group for a two-year contract aimed at improving the image of the Yanukovych government in the United States and that the Podesta Group told Reuters that they were implementing the contract via their contacts with key congressional Democrats.
Mainstream media attention has focused on the contract Manafort’s K-Street firm of Davis, Manafort & Freedman had from all the way back in 2007 with Yanukovych’s political party, Ukraine’s Party of Regions to perform an “extreme makeover,” re-positioning the party from being perceived as a “haven for Donetsk-based mobsters and oligarchs” into that of a legitimate political party.
On February 21, 2014, Russian leader Vladimir Putin helped then-President Yanukovych to flee violent protests seeking to oust him from office, flying him out of Ukraine and then traveling through Crimea, to arrive in Russia, where he has remained, trying desperately to restore himself to power back home in Kiev.
Just as the Trump/Russia collusion propaganda continued making headlines, the Manafort/Russia investigation was churning away, despite its lack of any evidence and documentation. In Manafort’s case, opponents have failed to demonstrate that Manafort ever received $12.7 million in some 22 previously-undisclosed cash payments from Yanukovych’s pro-Russian party, as purportedly documented by entries in a “black ledger” revealed by Ukraine’s National Anti-Corruption Bureau.
Yet, this dubious, unverified “evidence” was sufficient for New York Times reporters to conclude that Manafort had hidden back-channel ties to Putin, financed by under-the-table payments arranged via Ukraine.
Ironically Putin has little use for Manafort because Manafort strongly urged Yanukovych to take Ukraine into the European Union, a move obviously opposed bitterly the Russians. Manafort did evidently briefly represent Russian oligarch and Putin crony, Oleg Vladimirovich Deripaska, but it was none other than U.S. Senator John McCain who met privately with Deripaska during McCain’s 2008 presidential campaign, despite being warned twice by the FBI that Deripaska was a Russian asset. A source has informed me that McCain solicited money from Deripaska for the Republican Institute McCain controlled and which was legally able to accept foreign funds.
This is how the Democrat Party builds a “case” against President Trump, layering one unproven accusation on top of another, forming a chain of “evidence” that, at least to them, looks like an open-and-shut case, but in truth is nothing but a string of unsubstantiated innuendo that wouldn’t make it past the desk of any honest prosecutor or court of law.
Mainstream media, led by the drain-swirling New York Times serially reports every loose allegation and partisan leap to convenient, albeit false, conclusions and suddenly, BAM, it is news! This is what they do. This is why the term “fake news” has become a truer description than President Trump ever thought when he first coined it in the national lexicon.
Following the initial “charge”, the Democratic Party narrative charges alleges that Manafort never registered as a foreign agent with the U.S. Justice Department, which that would only have been required if he was contracted with the Ukrainian government, not with a political party in the Ukraine, and further that Manafort transferred his close relationship with Putin (via Yanukovych) to the Trump campaign.
From there, the Democrat narrative keeps going, suggesting that Manafort’s close relationship to the Kremlin allowed him to position the Trump campaign to receive a dump of embarrassing Clinton campaign hacked exposing the efforts Debbie Wasserman Schultz, as chairman of the DNC, took to rig the primaries for Hillary, and distinctly disadvantage her challenger, U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders.
But this entire Democrat Party narrative is thrown into disarray if it turns out the Podesta brothers, via the Podesta Group, have tighter and better-documented financial ties to Russia, involving far more numerous and tangled contacts than have ever been suggested to tie Manafort to Russia via Ukraine.
Among the revelations made public through the 11.5 million documents leaked by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists detailing the legal and financial arrangements behind secretive off-shore banking transactions dating back to the 1970’s was the disclosure that Russia’s largest bank, the state-owned Sberbank, uses the Podesta Group as its registered lobbyist in Washington.
“Sberbank (Savings Bank in Russian) engaged the Podesta Group to help its public image—leading Moscow financial institutions not exactly being known for their propriety and wholesomeness—and specifically to help lift some of the pain of sanctions placed on Russia in the aftermath of the Kremlin’s aggression against Ukraine, which has caused real pain to the country’s hard-hit financial sector,” wrote former National Security Agency analyst and counterintelligence officer John R. Schindler in an article entitled “Panama Papers Reveal Clinton’s Kremlin Connection” published by the Observer on April 7, 2016.
On April 17, 2014, the Moscow Times reported Ukraine opened criminal proceedings against Sberbank and 13 other banks on suspicion of “financing terrorism.” Schindler noted the Ukrainian criminal investigation concluded Sberbank had distributed millions of dollars in illegal aid to Russian-backed separatists fighting in eastern Ukraine, with the bank serving as “a witting supporter of Russian aggression against Ukraine.”
On April 5, 2016, Lachlan Markay, reporting in the Washington Free Beacon, published the lobbying registration form the Podesta Group filed with the U.S. government proving Sberbank had contracted with the Podesta Group to advance their interests with banking, trade, and foreign relations. It doesn’t end there.
On Aug. 20, 2016, Breitbart reporter Jerome Hudson documented that the Podesta Group was paid a total of $180,000, according to public records, for the consulting work done under contract with the Russia-controlled firm Uranium One in 2012, 2014, and 2015.
As first documented in Peter Schweizer’s bestselling book “Clinton Cash,” and confirmed in Jerome Corsi’s bestselling book “Partners in Crime: The Clinton’s Scheme to Monetize the White House,” Uranium One directed millions to the Clinton Foundation as the Russian government gained ownership of the company.
Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons; despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.”
The Daily Caller reported on April 29, 2015, that the Podesta group was to lobby the State Department while Hillary was secretary of state, with $40,000 of the total paid to lobby the State Department, the Senate, and the National Security Council on “international mining projects.”
According to a New York Times report published August 13, 2013, in 2011 a wave of mid-level program staff members departed the Clinton Foundation, “reflecting the frustration of much of the foundation’s policy personnel with the old political hands running the organization.”
Around that time, in 2011, Bruce Lindsey, then the Clinton Foundation’s CEO, suffered a stroke, underscoring concerns about the foundation’s line of succession. Who stepped in to replace Lindsey for several months as temporary chief executive? None other than John D. Podesta, a chief of staff in William Jefferson Clinton’s White House, stepped in.
It’s not hard to realize that the links between Podesta and Russia are well documented and go back many years.
fromhttps://stonecoldtruth.com/is-it-the-podestas-time-in-the-barrel-yet/ rogerstone1.blogspot.com/2017/10/is-it-podestas-time-in-b...
NEVER LET A CRISIS GO TO WASTE
Donald Trump whips up storm with pardon for toughest sheriff Joe Arpaio
As Hurricane Harvey lashes Texas, the president has sparked a justice row by saving the scourge of immigrants from jail
Josh Glancy in New York
August 27 2017 The Sunday Times
Donald Trump with Arpaio at a campaign rally after the sheriff endorsed Trump’s candidacy
BRIAN SNYDER
As Hurricane Harvey slammed into the Texas coastline this weekend Donald Trump stirred a tempest of his own with a series of controversial announcements issued at the height of the fiercest storm to hit America for more than a decade.
While torrential downpours lashed the southern Gulf coast — reportedly propelling alligators down suburban streets — the president used his executive power to pardon a former Arizona sheriff who had become one of Trump’s most loyal political allies.
Joe Arpaio, former sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona, was convicted in July of criminal contempt of court after defying an order to stop detaining suspected illegal immigrants. Arpaio, 85, had built a national reputation as “America’s toughest sheriff”.
Seen as the scourge of undocumented immigrants, he had forced inmates in his jails to wear pink underwear. He was awaiting sentencing and faced jail himself until Trump started hinting that he was considering a pardon.
The president obliged late on Friday as America’s attention was focused on the weather mayhem unfolding in Texas.
In a tweet Trump said Arpaio was an “American patriot” who “kept Arizona safe”. The pair have long had a friendly association going back to their mutual involvement in the so-called BIRTHER MOVEMENT, which had claimed that former President Barack Obama had lied about being born on American soil.
The former sheriff thanked Trump for his intervention and referred to his conviction as a “political witch-hunt by holdovers in the Obama justice department”.
Pardons are traditionally issued after consultation between the White House and the justice department and usually at the end of a presidency.
Trump’s apparent decision to act unilaterally after only a few months in office generated a furious reaction from liberals and some Republicans in Washington.
John McCain, the Republican senator from Arizona, said the president’s decision to pardon Arpaio “undermines his claim for the RESPECT OF THE RULE OF LAW”.
Former acting attorney-general Sally Yates, an Obama appointee who was sacked by Trump, tweeted: “With his pardon pen, Potus [the president] reveals his own contempt for our constitution, our courts and our founding principles of equality and justice.”
The response among Trump supporters was closer to delight. As Roger Stone, the veteran Republican strategist and one of his earliest and most prominent backers, put it: “Eat it, liberals!”
The White House also confirmed last night that Trump’s much-criticised ban on transgender people serving in the military would go ahead, although those who are currently serving might be able to continue to do so.
As if that were not enough White House drama for one night, it emerged that Sebastian Gorka, Trump’s senior British-born aide, had left the White House, apparently after being ousted by General John Kelly, Trump’s chief of staff.
Gorka, 46, had turned into one of the most outspoken members of the Trump White House. An American citizen who was born in Britain to Hungarian parents, he had worked as an editor at Breitbart News run by Stephen Bannon, the multimillionaire right-wing media baron who until recently had been Trump’s chief strategist.
Gorka has been accused of links to far-right groups in Hungary and was repeatedly condemned for hardline views that his critics characterised as Islamophobic.
He was a prime cheerleader for Trump’s abortive efforts to ban travel from several predominantly Muslim countries and earlier this year dismissed an interview question from Emily Maitlis, the Newsnight presenter, as “an argument from an extremist I wouldn’t expect from the BBC”. Maitlis responded archly: “I’m sorry you find me extremist.”
Bannon’s departure had put Gorka’s future in doubt. Although he was reported by some media to have resigned, a White House spokesman later made clear he had been asked to leave.
In yet another potentially ominous development, special counsel Robert Mueller, who is investigating ties between the Trump campaign and Russia, has issued subpoenas to several business executives who had worked with the former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort.
The move casts Trump’s pardon of Arpaio in a slightly different light. Some viewed it as part of a more sinister power play: a signal from the president that any friend of his might also benefit from a pardon — provided they stick by him, regardless of any media storms.
Intelligence captured Putin’s specific instructions on the operation’s audacious objectives — defeat or at least damage the Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton, and help elect her opponent, Donald Trump. The White House debated various options to punish Russia, but facing obstacles and potential risks, it ultimately failed to exact a heavy toll on the Kremlin for its election interference.
www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/world/national-secur...
Obama’s secret struggle to punish Russia for Putin’s election assault
By Greg Miller, Ellen Nakashima and Adam Entous
June 23, 2017
30 OCT 2017 George Papadopoulos has pleaded guilty which means Mueller appears to have successfully "flipped" Papadopoulos in an effort to get him to inform about the alleged activities of his superiors. Trump campaign and administration member Paapadopous may have been unable to arrange a meeting to discuss the "thousands of emails" between senior Trump officials and Russian representatives but it was not for lack of trying after Russian officials reached out to him as a foreign policy advisor to the Trump campaign. However, Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner and Paul Manafort did attend a meeting with the Putin connected attorney known as the "Crown prosecutor of Russia." Natalia Veselnitskaya, on the promise that she would provide him with documents that would "incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia."
The initial Trump administration reaction of a description of Papadopoulos, as a campaign nobody, doesn't jibe with the picture painted by the court documents unsealed on Monday or with Trump's own words.
In a Spring 2016 interview with the Washington Post editorial board, then-candidate Trump was asked about who was advising him on foreign policy. He began listing names, and listed Papadopoulos second, referring to him as an "energy and oil consultant, excellent guy."
www.salon.com/2017/10/30/a-trump-aide-pleaded-guilty-and-...
www.nytimes.com/2017/10/30/opinion/george-papadopoulos-ma...
www.npr.org/2017/10/31/560835237/first-guilty-plea-in-rus...
ABC NEWS - 7/20/16 - Coverage of the 2016 Republican National Convention from the Quicken Loans Arena in Cleveland, Ohio, which airs on all ABC News programs and platforms. GOOD MORNING AMERCIA broadcasts live from the convention floor. (ABC/ Ida Mae Astute) PAUL MANAFORT (TRUMP CAMPAIGN CHAIRMAN)
Mikhail Khodorkovsky, a Yukos oil executive who was Russia's richest man before he was imprisoned and exiled by the Kremlin. Speculated that his former head of human resources, Sergey Gorkov, who runs the Kremlin bank when he met with Kushner, Trump Jr. and Manafort in December of 2016 saying "I have no doubt that he wouldn’t do anything on his own behalf," Khodorkovsky says Gorkov was a "fine employee" who "carries out orders," suggesting the banker would not have been acting alone in meeting with a senior figure of the incoming Trump administration
www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/putin-rival-ties-kus...
Ex- Chief of Staff Rene Priebus has knowledge of Jared Kushner’s proximity to the controversial decision to fire Comey during a weekend at Trump’s golf club in Bedminster, New Jersey, in early May, which, hypothetically, is the lynchpin of an obstruction case against the president and his advisers.
www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/10/jared-kushner-adds-charle...
Don Trump Jr. statement to Congress about his Russian meeting stretches credulity at times.
For example, it asks Americans to believe that at one of the busiest times of a presidential campaign, Trump Jr. would ask campaign manager Paul Manafort and jack-of-all-trades Jared Kushner to attend a meeting with a Russian lawyer even though Trump Jr. had no idea who else would attend and felt skeptical about its value.
www.nytimes.com/2017/09/07/us/politics/trump-russia-inves...
Who is behind Kushner's Manhatton Real Estate Empire?
A public appearance of big stakes, often at odds with a more modest reality, turns out to be typical of the Kushner portfolio, according to a Bloomberg analysis
The Boy President fired David Shulkin, his Secretary of Veterans Affairs today, and will replace him with his personal physician...
Mr. Shulkin is the 64th (the 63 is a typo) high-level staffer who has left the White House or whom the Boy President has fired. That's one for every week the moron has been in office...
64. David Shulkin, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, was fired on 3/28/2018
63. John Dowd, Lead Lawyer on Trump Defense Team, resigned on 3/22/2018
62. Andrew McCabe, FBI Deputy Director, was fired on 3/16/2018
61. Rex Tillerson, Secretary of State, was fired on 3/13/2018
60. John McEntee, Special Assistant and Personal Aide to the President, was fired on 3/12/2018
59. Gary Cohn, Director of National Economic Council, resigned on 3/6/2018
58. Hope Hicks, Director of Communications, resigned on 2/28/2018
57. Christine Bauserman, Special Assistant to Asst Secretary of the Interior for Lands and Minerals, resigned on 2/28/2018
56. Jared Kushner, Senior Advisor to the President, had his security clearance reduced to 'Secret' on 2/27/2018
55. Rachel Brand, Associate Attorney General, resigned on 2/20/2018
54. Daniel Pollack, Political appointee who worked for Carl Higbie (q.v.), was fired on 2/16/2018
53. Reed Cordish, Assistant to the President, resigned on 2/16/2018
52. David Sorensen, White House Speechwriter, resigned on 2/9/2018
51. Rob Porter, White House Staff Secretary, resigned on 2/7/2018
50. Dr. Brenda Fitzgerald, Director of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, resigned on 1/31/2018
49. Taylor Wyeneth, Deputy Chief of Staff, Office of Drug Control Policy, was fired on 1/24/2018
48. Carl Higbee, Chief of External Affairs at CNCS, resigned on 1/18/18
47. John Feeley, Ambassador to Panama, resigned on 1/12/2018
46. Rick Dearborn, Deputy Chief of Staff, resigned on 1/1/2018
45. Paul Winfree, Deputy Director of Domestic Policy Council, resigned on 12/15/2017
44. Omarosa Manigault Newman, Director of Communications for Office of Public Liaison, resigned on 12/13/2017
43. Dina Powell, Deputy National Security Advisor, resigned on 12/8/2017
42. Sam Clovis, nominated Under Secretary of Agriculture for Research, Education, and Economics, withdrew name on11/2/2017
41. Tom Price, Secretary of Health & Human Services, resigned on 9/29/2017
40. Keith Schiller, Director of Oval Office Operations, resigned on 9/5/2017
39. Sebastian Gorka, Deputy Assistant to the President, was fired on 8/25/2017
38. George Sifakis, Director of Office of Public Liaison, resigned on 8/18/2017
37. Stephen K. Bannon, White House Advisor and Chief Strategist, resigned on 8/18/2017
36. Carl Icahn, Special Advisor to the President, was fired on 8/17/2017
35. John Lloyd Young, actor and President's Committee on the Arts and Humanities member, resigned on 8/16/2017
34. Stephen Schwarzmann, Blackstone Group CEO and Strategic and Policy Forum member, resigned on 8/16/2017
33. Kevin Plank, UnderArmour CEO and Strategic and Policy Forum member, resigned on 8/16/2017
32. Kal Penn, actor and President's Committee on the Arts and Humanities member, resigned on 8/16/2017
31. Elon Musk, Tesla CEO and Strategic and Policy Forum member, resigned on 8/16/2017
30. Thomas Mayne, architect and President's Committee on the Arts and Humanities member, resigned on 8/16/2017
29. Jhumpa Lahiri, author and President's Committee on the Arts and Humanities member, resigned on 8/16/2017
28. Brian Krzanich, Intel CEO and Strategic and Policy Forum member, resigned on 8/16/2017
27. Bob Iger, Walt Disney Co. CEO and Strategic and Policy Forum member, resigned on 8/16/2017
26. Kenneth Frazier, Merck CEO and Strategic and Policy Forum member, resigned on 8/16/2017
25. Jamie Dimon, JPMorgan Chase CEO and Strategic and Policy Forum member, resigned on 8/16/2017
24. Chuck Close, photographer and President's Committee on the Arts and Humanities member, resigned on 8/16/2017
23. Ezra Cohen-Watnick, Director for Intelligence Programs, NSC, was fired on 8/2/2017
22. Elizabeth Southerland, Director of Environmental Protection Agency, was fired on 7/31/2017
21. Anthony Scaramucci, Director of Communications, was fired on 7/31/2017
20. Reince Priebus, White House Chief of Staff, resigned on 7/27/2017
19. Derek Harvey, Middle-East Advisor, was fired on 7/27/2017
18. Michael Short, Assistant Press Secretary, resigned on 7/25/2017
17. Sean Spicer, White House Press Secretary, resigned on 7/21/2017
16. Mark Corallo, Spokesman for Trump Legal Team, resigned on 7/20/2017
15. Walter Shaub, Director of Office of Government Ethics, resigned on 7/6/2017
14. Thomas Shannon, Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs, resigned on 6/13/2017
13. Mike Dubke, Director of Communications, resigned on 5/18/2017
12. James B. Comey, FBI Director, was fired on 5/9/2017
11. Angella Reid, White House Chief Usher, was fired on 5/5/2017
10. Vivek Murthy, Surgeon General, resigned on 4/22/2017
9. K. T. McFarland, Deputy National Security Advisor, was fired on 4/9/2017
8. Katie Walsh, Deputy White House Chief of Staff, was fired on 3/30/2017
7. Preet Bharara, US Attorney, Southern District of New York, was fired on 3/11/2017
6. Craig Deare, NSC Senior Director for Western Hemisphere Affairs, was fired on 2/17/2017
5. Michael Flynn, National Security Adviser, resigned on 2/13/2017
4. Gerrit Lansing, White House Chief Digital Advisor, resigned on 2/9/2017
3. Travis Kalanick, Über CEO and Strategic and Policy Forum member, resigned on 2/2/2017
2. Sally Yates, Acting Attorney General, was fired on 1/30/2017
1. Paul Manafort, Trump Campaign Chairman, resigned on 11/8/2016
Manafort was getting that sweet cheddar for the GOP/RNC races. #MuellerTime #PayTheSwamp #FollowTheBorscht #TrumpRussia #PutinsPuppet #Trump #GOP #RNC #MAGA #BoneSpurs #iWikeTwucks #PPOTUS #GOPEEPEE #StormyDaniels
via
Roger Stone releases his testimony that will be delivered to the House Intelligence Committee, setting the record straight and debunking the lies concerning Russia.
Good morning Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member, Committee members of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and staff. My name is Roger J. Stone, Jr., and with me today are my counsel, Grant Smith and Robert Buschel.
I am most interested in correcting a number of falsehoods, misstatements, and misimpressions regarding allegations of collusion between Donald Trump, Trump associates, The Trump Campaign and the Russian state. I view this as a political proceeding because a number of members of this Committee have made irresponsible, indisputably, and provably false statements in order to create the impression of collusion with the Russian state
Stone Opening Statement without any evidence that would hold up in a US court of law or the court of public opinion.
I am no stranger to the slash and burn aspect of American politics today. I recognize that because of my long reputation and experience as a partisan warrior, I am a suitable scapegoat for those who would seek to persuade the public that there were wicked, international transgressions in the 2016 presidential election. I have a long history in this business: I strategize, I proselytize, I consult, I electioneer, I write, I advocate, and I prognosticate. I’m a New York Times bestselling author, I have a syndicated radio show and a weekly column, and I report for Infowars.com at 5 o’clock eastern every day.
While some may label me a dirty trickster, the members of this Committee could not point to any tactic that is outside the accepted norms of what political strategists and consultants do today. I do not engage in any illegal activities on behalf of my clients or the causes in which I support.
There is one “trick” that is not in my bag and that is treason. As someone whose political activism was born from the anti-communism of Senator Barry Goldwater and President Ronald Reagan; and whose freedom seeking family members were mowed-down by Russian tanks on the streets of Budapest in 1956, I deeply resent any allegation that I would collude with the oppressive Russian state to affect the outcome of the 2016 presidential election.
My colleague, Michael Caputo, voluntarily sat in this seat a couple of months ago, gave what I believe were candid and truthful answers to those who cared to sit in on the interview; and yet, when he was done, he was accused of perjury by a member who did not even have the pretention to show up for his interview. He was eviscerated by some Committee members and consequently, the press.
The most unfair aspect of this turn of events, and behavior by some Committee members, is that this Committee refuses, to this day, to release the transcripts of his testimony for the world to read and judge for themselves.
Roger Stone
Multiple members of this Committee have made false allegations against me in public session in order to ensure that these bogus charges received maximum media coverage. Now however, you deny me the opportunity to respond to these charges in the same open forum. This is cowardice. Fortunately, we will have the opportunity today to take the exact words of some members of this Committee and examine them in order to uncover the lies.
Members of this Committee as well as some members of the Senate Intelligence Committee aren’t alone in their irresponsibility. On January 20, 2017, the New York Times reported that the intelligence services were in possession of emails, records of financial transactions and transcripts of telephone intercepts, which proved that Roger Stone, Paul Manafort, and Carter Page colluded with the Russians for the benefit of Donald Trump. So, where are these records? Can this Committee or our intelligence agencies produce them? I didn’t think so.
Nor, is this irresponsibility entirely partisan. Sen. John McCain told CNN that I “…should be compelled to appear before the Senate to explain my ties to Yanukovych and the Russians.” This is very simple, Senator the answer is: “None” and “None.” In fact, I worked against Yanukovych’s party in the 2006 parliamentary elections in Ukraine, and have no ties to any Russians.
Given this Committee’s consistent refusal to allow me to testify in a public session, in the interest of compromise, I have repeatedly requested that the transcript of mytestimony here today, be released immediately upon conclusion of today’s session. Even this constructive suggestion has been rejected. What is it you fear? Why do you oppose transparency? What is it you don’t want the public to know?
I can assure each of you, I will not let myself be a punching bag for people with ill intentions or political motives. Understand, I will expose the truth in every forum and on every platform available to me.
As a 40- year friend and advisor of Donald Trump, I had continually urged him to run for the presidency, beginning in 1988. When he decided in 2015 to become a serious candidate against a weak slate of opponents, I became one of the Trump campaign’s first consultants, reprising a role I played in 2012 when Donald Trump briefly considered a candidacy in that election. I performed consulting work for the campaign for five months and the consulting relationship ended in August 2015. I, however, didn’t go quietly into the night, I continued to work, write, and advocate on behalf of his candidacy because to this day, I believe he has the potential to be a truly transformative president and to make our nation great again.
These hearings are largely based on a yet unproven allegation that the Russian state is responsible for the hacking of the DNC and John Podesta and the transfer of that information to WikiLeaks. No member of this Committee or intelligence agency can prove this assertion.
Because the DNC steadfastly refused to allow the FBI to examine their computer servers, this entire claim is based on a self-serving report by CloudStrike, a forensic IT company retained by, directed, and paid for by the DNC.
The Nation magazine recently reported on a study issued by Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), which is comprised of numerous former high-level US intelligence officials. Based upon the VIPS study, The Nation concluded that, “There was no hack of the Democratic National Committee’s system on July 5, 2016… not by the Russians and not by anyone else. Hard science now demonstrates it was a leak- a download executed
locally with a memory key or a similarly portable datastorage device. In short, they reported it was an inside job by someone with access to the DNC’s system. This casts serious doubt on the alleged initial “hack,” that led to the very consequential publication of a large store of documents on WikiLeaks last summer.” Additionally, these unproven allegations have led to a frivolous lawsuit filed by former Obama administration lawyers against me and the Trump campaign. In my motion to dismiss, I submitted a sworn declaration of Dr. Virgil Griffith, a cognitive computer graduate from the California Institute of Technology, who questioned the unproven assumptions that Russian hackers are responsible for theft of DNC emails and other data.
I recognize that those who believe that there was collusion between the Trump camp and the Russian state, now say Stone, “MUST HAVE” been involved, but that is not based on one shred of evidence. This is nothing more than conjecture, supposition, projection, allegation, and coincidence, none of it proven by evidence or fact. I understand the Committee’s interest in me, I use all clauses of the 1st Amendment to achieve my goals, I am out there, I am provocative and partisan, but let’s be clear, I have no involvement in the alleged activities that are within the publicly stated scope of this Committee’s investigation – collusion with the Russian state to affect the outcome of the 2016 election. I have every right to express my views in the public square. I actively participate in matters of great public concern. I also believe, and you should too, my friend, Tucker Carlson, who said last week, ‘You should never accept, uncritically, the imprecise conclusions of ….the “intel community.’’
The mantra-like repetition of the claim by our vaunted 17 intelligence agencies that the “Russians” colluded with the Trump campaign to affect the 2016 election, does not make it so. These are, after all, the same entities who insisted the North Koreans would not be able to launch a viable rocket for 3-5 years, that insisted Saddam Hussein was in possession of WMD, that there was no torture at Abu Ghraib prison, and that the government had no bulk data collection program, until Edward Snowden revealed otherwise. Our intelligence agencies have been politicized. I realize they are deeply unhappy over President Trump’s refusal to expand the proxy war in Syria and their failure to obtain the no-fly zone promised to them by Hillary Clinton, which would be an open invitation for World War III. That the intelligence agencies have continued to leak, to the detriment of President Trump, in violation of the law, is proof positive of their politicization. Members of this Committee have made three basic assertions against me which must be rebutted here today.
Roger Stone and Donald Trump
The charge that I knew in advance about, and predicted, the hacking of Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta’s email,that I had advanced knowledge of the source or actual content of the WikiLeaks disclosures regarding Hillary Clinton or that, my now public exchange with a persona that our intelligence agencies claim, but cannot prove, is a Russian asset, is anything but innocuous and are entirely false. Again, such assertions are conjecture, supposition,
projection, and allegations but none of them are facts.
For example, Mr. Schiff, the ranking member of this Committee asked, “Is it a coincidence that Roger Stone predicted that John Podesta would be a victim of a Russian hack and have his private emails published, and did so even before Mr. Podesta himself was fully aware that is private emails would be exposed?” I want to know where I predicted this. Can Mr. Schiff read us the exact quote and source from where I predicted the hacking or Mr. Podesta’s email? Can Mr. Schiff even come up with a documented quote where I use Podesta and email in the same sentence — before it happened?
My Tweet of August 21, 2016, in which I said, “Trust me, it will soon be the Podesta’s time in the barrel. #CrookedHillary” Must be examined in context. I posted this at a time that my boyhood friend and colleague, Paul Manafort, had just resigned from the Trump campaign over allegations regarding his business activities in Ukraine. I thought it manifestly unfair that John Podesta not be held to the same standard. Note, that my Tweet of August 21,2016, makes no mention, whatsoever, of Mr. Podesta’s email, but does accurately predict that the Podesta
brothers’ business activities in Russia with the oligarchs around Putin, their uranium deal, their bank deal, and their Gazprom deal, would come under public scrutiny.
Podesta’s activities were later reported by media outlets as diverse as the Wall Street Journal and Bloomberg. My extensive knowledge of the Podesta brothers’ business dealings in Russia was based on The Panama Papers, which were released in early 2016, which revealed that the Podesta brothers had extensive business dealings in Russia. The Tweet is also based on a comprehensive, early August opposition research briefing provided to me by investigative journalist, Dr. Jerome Corsi, which I then asked him to memorialize in a memo that he sent me on August 31st, all of which was culled from public records. There was no need to have John Podesta’s email to learn that he and his presidential candidate were in bed with the clique around
Putin.
In fact, FactCheck.org, a news organization funded by the Annenberg Foundation, reported, “There is nothing in the public record so far that proves Stone, a political operative and longtime Trump associate, predicted thePodesta email hack.”
Now, let me address the charge that I had advance knowledge of the timing, content and source of theWikiLeaks disclosures from the DNC. On June 12, 2016,WikiLeaks’ publisher Julian Assange, announced that he was in possession of Clinton DNC emails. I learned this by reading it on Twitter. I asked a journalist who I knew had interviewed Assange to independently confirm this report, and he subsequently did.
This journalist assured me that WikiLeaks would release this information in October and continued to assure me of this throughout the balance of August and all of September. This information proved to be correct. I have referred publicly to this journalist as an, “intermediary”, “go-between” and “mutual friend.” All of these monikers are equally true.
In the March 20th public session of this Committee, Mr. Schiff asked former FBI Director Comey, “Are you aware that Mr. Stone also stated publicly that he was in direct communication with Julian Assange and WikiLeaks?” The way the question was asked was clearly designed to cast me in a bad light. I have never said or written that I had any direct communication with Julian Assange and have always clarified in numerous interviews and speeches that my
communication with WikiLeaks was through the aforementioned journalist. Again, Mr. Schiff is guilty of a false assertion.
The fact is that during the March 20th Comey hearing and many times subsequent, members of this Committee, and even Democratic nominee for president, felt that theycould go into the public square and make similar charges without any substantiation or basis in fact. Congressman Heck of Washington, stated, for example, “… we’ve heard about quite a few individuals in the Trump orbit who fell somewhere on that spectrum from mere naïveté, disturbing enough if this naïveté is a feature of those (who) were supposed to be running our country and foreign policy, to unwitting Russian dupes, to willing blindness, to active coordination. This rogues gallery includes those already fired- Roger Stone, adviser to Donald Trump…” This is the worst sort of neo-McCarthyism. To be clear, I have never represented any Russian clients, have never been to Russia, and never had any communication with any Russians or individuals fronting for Russians, in connection with the 2016 presidential election.
To pile on, in an interview on MSNBC on May 19, 2017, Congresswoman Speier felt compelled to say: “I believe that Michael Caputo is part of this cabal including Roger Stone and Paul Manafort, and others who had business relationships with Russia.” No, I do not have and I’ve never had any relationship with Russia or any Russian entity.
You have falsely accused me without any evidence – you should apologize today. One more apology I would demand in public, if she were here today, is from presidential runner-up, Hillary Clinton. Following the lead of the minority members of this Committee, in her new fiction book, she repeats the same false narratives about me as if they were the truth…they could not be further from the truth.1
And then there is Congressmen Eric Swalwell who, as reported in Newsmax, said, “From Roger Stone, we hope to learn the same things we learned from Paul Manafort, Carter Page, Don [Trump] Jr., and others who were particularly active in their dealings with Russians during the summer of 2016.” Has Mr. Swalwell read my exchange with the Twitter persona which he alleges constitutes collusion?
The exchange is innocuous at best. Since I had no other contact with Russians, what could he be referring to?
Finally, let me address this limited, benign, and now entirely public exchange with a persona on Twitter calling themselves Guccifer 2.0. While some in the intelligence community have claimed that Guccifer 2.0 is a Russian cutoutand that it is responsible for the hacking of the DNC servers, neither of these assertions can be proven by this Committee or the aforementioned intelligence community.
I wrote an article for Breitbart on August 5, 2016, in which I express my view that Guccifer 2.0 was not a Russian asset, at the same time reporting their claim taking credit for hacking the DNC. My only exchange with Guccifer 2.0 would begin on August 14, 2016, after my article appeared, and ran through September 9, 2016. Imagine my deep disappointment when Mr. Schiff purposefully conflated these dates before this Committee, reversing them to create the false impression that I had communicated with Guccifer 2.0 on Twitter prior to publication of the article questioning whether Guccifer 2.0 is a Russian cut-out. Shame on you Mr. Schiff.
Now that more information is in the public domain, the very question of whether Guccifer 2.0 hacked the DNC must be revisited in light of the VIPS report cited by The Nation.
As they concluded, “Forensic investigations of documents made public two weeks prior to the July 5 leak by the person or entity known as Guccifer 2.0 show that they were fraudulent: Before Guccifer posted them they were adulterated by cutting and pasting them into a blank template that had Russian as its default language. Guccifer took responsibility on June 15 for an intrusion the DNC reported on June 14 and professed to be a WikiLeaks source – claims essential to the official narrative implicating Russia in what was soon cast as an extensive hacking operation. To put the point simply, forensic science now devastates this narrative.” I am left to conclude that the President is right when he calls this Congressional investigation a, “witchhunt.”
Based on what we know now, it is clear that there was a foreign nation which was colluding with a presidential campaign in an attempt to influence the outcome of the . Therefore, I strongly urge this Committee to investigate the numerous, publicly documented contacts between Ukraine and the Clinton campaign, particularly in light of recent public reports that Ukraine is now providing sophisticated missile technology to North Korea.
Please do not continue to perpetuate falsehoods here today.
View this document on Scribd
from Roger Stone – Stone Cold Truth stonecoldtruth.com/roger-stone-official-statement-to-cong...
rogerstone1.wordpress.com/2017/09/26/roger-stone-official...
"An overseas enemy struck at the core of the republic—and it succeeded. Trump and his minions helped and encouraged this attack by engaging in secret contacts with Moscow and publicly insisting no such assault was happening. This is far bigger than a bribe, a break-in, or a blow job. And, worse, the United States remains vulnerable to such a strike."
— David Corn
Donald Trump is Getting Away with the Biggest Scandal in American History
5 June 2018.
*****************
▶ "In 2016, Vladimir Putin’s regime mounted information warfare against the United States, in part to help Trump become president. While this attack was underway, the Trump crew tried to collude covertly with Moscow, sought to set up a secret communications channel with Putin’s office, and repeatedly denied in public that this assault was happening, providing cover to the Russian operation. Trump and his lieutenants aligned themselves with and assisted a foreign adversary, as it was attacking the United States. The evidence is rock-solid: They committed a profound act of betrayal. That is the scandal.
But how often do you hear or see this fundamental point being made?
The media coverage of the Trump-Russia scandal—which has merged with Cohen’s pay-to-play scandal, the Stormy Daniels scandal, and a wider foreign-intervention-in-the-2016-campaign scandal—has yielded a flood of revelations. Yet the news reporting tends to focus on specific components of an unwieldy and ever-expanding story: a Trump Tower meeting between Trump aides and a Kremlin emissary; what special counsel Robert Mueller may or may not be doing; the alleged money-laundering and tax-evasion skullduggery of Paul Manafort; a secret get-together in the Seychelles between former Blackwater owner Erik Prince and a Russian financier; the Kremlin’s clandestine exploitation of social media; Russian hackers penetrating state election systems; Michael Flynn’s shady lobbying activities; Trump’s attempted interference in the investigation; and so much more.
It is hard to hold on to all these pieces and place them into one big picture.
[...]
In previous scandals, it was not necessary to remind the public repeatedly of the essential elements of the story. Once the scandalous activity was revealed, there was no argument over whether it had actually happened. No one disputed the Watergate burglary had transpired—the issue was White House involvement and the cover-up. Ronald Reagan and his aides conceded the administration had sold arms to Iran and sent the profits to the contras fighting the leftist government of Nicaragua. The issue, again, was what the president knew—and whether this had been illegal.
But this time, Trump and his amen chorus have been claiming there is no Russia scandal—and insisting the real scandal is the existence of a secret FBI plot against him. They have promoted a perverted version of reality at a volume of 11. By merely forcing a debate over whether the Russia scandal truly exists, Trump clouds a tremendously important matter and scores at least a partial win. He has succeeded in diverting attention from his campaign actions that benefited Putin.
[...]
An overseas enemy struck at the core of the republic—and it succeeded. Trump and his minions helped and encouraged this attack by engaging in secret contacts with Moscow and publicly insisting no such assault was happening. This is far bigger than a bribe, a break-in, or a blow job. And, worse, the United States remains vulnerable to such a strike.
Yet the full impact of this scandal does not resonate in the daily coverage and discourse. In many ways, the media presents the Russia scandal mostly as a political threat to Trump, not as a serious threat to the nation. And many Americans, thanks to Trump and his allies, view it as a charade. All this shows how easy it is for disinformation and demagoguery to distort reality. That is a tragedy for the United States. For Trump—and Putin—that is victory."
***************
▶ Image uploaded by Yours For Good Fermentables.com.
▶ For a larger image, type 'L' (without the quotation marks).
— Follow on web: YoursForGoodFermentables.com.
— Follow on Facebook: YoursForGoodFermentables.
— Follow on Instagram: @tcizauskas.
Paul Manafort and his lawyer Kevin Downing arriving at the Federal courthouse for a motion hearing, 5/23/18
Sentencing of Paul Manafort in Virginia, by Judge Ellis. Reporters run out with news, but it isn't yet news of the sentencing term.
Paul Manafort, his wife, and his lawyer Kevin Downing arriving at court for a status update hearing on February 14th.
Paul John Manafort Jr, aka Paul Manafort, is a long time Republican campaign operative and lobbyist. He was Donald Trump's campaign manager for a time.
This caricature of Paul Manafort is an original Photoshop painting. The body was adapted from a Creative Commons licensed photo from U.S. Department of State's Flickr photostream.
1/26/2013 Mike Orazzi | Staff
The funeral service for Paul Manafort held at St. Ann Church with a burial service at St. Mary Cemetery in New Britain on Saturday morning.
*** for a Diane story ***
ABC NEWS - 7/20/16 - Coverage of the 2016 Republican National Convention from the Quicken Loans Arena in Cleveland, Ohio, which airs on all ABC News programs and platforms. GOOD MORNING AMERCIA broadcasts live from the convention floor. (ABC/ Ida Mae Astute) GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS, PAUL MANAFORT (TRUMP CAMPAIGN CHAIRMAN)
W. Fulton Market and N. Elizabeth St.
Little did I know two years ago when I first photographed this building that the bank would play a part in the conviction of fixer Paul Manafort, who received a loan amounting to 25% of the bank's equity capital. The bank's president unsuccessfully lobbied for the Secretary of the Army position in the new administration. NOTE: The bank's former CEO is under indictment; his brother is now running the company. It was announced last month the bank is moving its headquarters to a former Marshall Field & Co. warehouse at 4000 W. Diversey Ave. NOTE: Stephen Calk, the former CEO of The Federal Savings Bank, was found guilty of financial institution bribery and conspiracy to commit financial institution bribery after a three-week trial in Manhattan in July 2021.