Senate Committee refusing to hand over transcript of interview with Paul Manafort to Robert Mueller

[FIVR]

You may notice the title of the thread is different from the title of the article. That is because although the article claims Paul Manfort and his attorneys are blocking the release of the transcript, in reality the senate committee is under no obligation to refuse and could release it if they wanted to. They just aren't, because most of the senate are GOP stooges who will do anything to protect their Dear Leader.


This tells me a couple things. It tells me that Mueller does not have the kind of authority that people are ascribing to him. He is being stymied by a bunch of lawyers to a private citizen who aren't even making real legal arguments. They are just asking the senate to basically grant Manafort a kind of de-facto immunity. If his testimony cannot be viewed by the prosecutor, then this case is done for. And the senate appears to have agreed to grant him this immunity.

This is really appalling news, and underlines the extremely slow progress Mueller appears to be making (or not) on this case. If the senate can do this to protect a well-known underworld figure like Manafort, what do you think they'll do to protect the likes of Jared Kushner or worse yet, Trump? They will die for him, they'll put their careers in jeopardy and be glad of it.

I don't know what the solution is. Violent revolt?


http://www.businessinsider.com/manafort-fbi-mueller-trump-tower-meeting-congress-2017-9

Manafort is reportedly blocking the FBI from reviewing his interview with Congress about the Trump Tower meeting

Attorneys for President Donald Trump's campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, are reportedly blocking Robert Mueller, the special counsel leading the FBI's Russia investigation, from obtaining a transcript of his interview with the Senate Intelligence Committee in July.

CNN reported on Tuesday that a dispute had erupted between the FBI, which said it had obtained authorization from Manafort's attorneys to view the transcript, and the committee, which says it was instructed by the attorneys not to hand it over.

Mueller's team has apparently gotten permission to view the documents Manafort submitted to the committee about the meeting he attended last June at Trump Tower with two Russian lobbyists and Donald Trump Jr., the president's eldest son. Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, was also present.

But the committee hasn't turned over those documents yet, either, according to CNN. Manafort's spokesman did not return phone calls requesting comment.

Renato Mariotti, a federal prosecutor turned defense attorney, explained on Tuesday that Manafort's attorneys were most likely arguing that they agreed with Mueller before Manafort appeared before the committee — which does not have prosecution power — that his testimony would not be used against him by the FBI in its criminal investigation.

In that sense, they may be arguing a form of quasi-immunity. But unless Manafort got that in writing, it is unlikely to hold up in court, Mariotti said in an interview. And while Congress may be waiting for the Mueller-Manafort spat to blow over, it is ultimately not obligated to keep the transcript private.

Manafort's attorneys' reluctance to allow Mueller to view the transcript, moreover, is likely to raise red flags for the FBI and prompt it to take more aggressive measures to obtain it.

Manafort has emerged as a focal point of the FBI probe, which recently recruited New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman to help investigate the longtime political operative for possible financial crimes and money laundering. The IRS's criminal-investigations unit has been brought onto the investigation to examine similar issues, according to The Daily Beast, though it is unclear to what extent its work will focus on Manafort.

Mueller's team obtained a search warrant to raid Manafort's home in July. Sources told CNN that investigators might have taken documents protected by attorney-client privilege, but Mariotti said on Twitter that "incriminating" evidence "in plain view" and spotted by FBI agents during a raid was fair game.

Obtaining a warrant after the fact to put into evidence documents not covered under the scope of the initial warrant is also common, Mariotti said.

If any of those documents contradict what Manafort told the Senate Intelligence Committee, Mueller could use that as evidence of perjury. He could also use the congressional testimony as a point of comparison if he subpoenaed Manafort to appear before a grand jury — assuming, that is, that Manafort wouldn't invoke his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

Manafort's presence at the Trump Tower meeting came under intense scrutiny last week when NBC reported that he had been taking notes on his iPhone that referenced political contributions and the Republican National Committee.

Congressional investigators examining Russia's interference in the 2016 presidential election are now using Manafort's notes as a jumping-off point to examine whether the Trump campaign or the RNC received donations from Russian sources after the meeting, according to NBC.

Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell, a member of the House Intelligence Committee, told Business Insider on Tuesday that the committee "must" interview Manafort.

"Manafort is a critical witness," Swalwell said. "He was chairman at a time direct communications occurred between the Trump campaign and Russia."

Swalwell said last week that "a complete investigation will answer whether the Russians were working with the Trump campaign and whether that included financial assistance."

"There are enough accounts out there that we should probe further to see if that was the case," he added, pointing to the meeting and the recent revelations about the Trump Organization pursuing a real-estate deal in Moscow during the election.

"Clearly, we have to keep following the money."

 

[fskimospy]

If Manafort was given assurances by the Senate his testimony would not be turned over to the FBI in order to prosecute him then the Senate refusing to turn them over is entirely appropriate.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

If Manafort was given assurances by the Senate his testimony would not be turned over to the FBI in order to prosecute him then the Senate refusing to turn them over is entirely appropriate.

GTFO of here with rational thinking amongst liberals. You have no place here!

 

[FIVR]

If Manafort was given assurances by the Senate his testimony would not be turned over to the FBI in order to prosecute him then the Senate refusing to turn them over is entirely appropriate.

So now you think your favorite deplorable buddies get to re-write US law because they wanted to promise Manafort immunity? That is not their prerogative. They are senators, they don't get to decide what is or is not admissible testimony.

The article states very simply that legally they are under no obligation to withhold anything. So they are in fact impeding an investigation.

It is always perplexing that wherever I find you, you seem to be defending Trump. Do you just enjoy trolling that much?

Or are you really just a closet Trump shill?

 

[JSt0rm]

If Manafort was given assurances by the Senate his testimony would not be turned over to the FBI in order to prosecute him then the Senate refusing to turn them over is entirely appropriate.

Is that what happened?

 

[fskimospy]

Is that what happened?

That's what is claimed in the article. Is that accurate? I don't know.

 

[fskimospy]

So now you think your favorite deplorable buddies get to re-write US law because they wanted to promise Manafort immunity? That is not their prerogative. They are senators, they don't get to decide what is or is not admissible testimony.

The Senate is under no obligation to furnish US law enforcement with what people testify to it in closed session. That seems like a pretty egregious violation of the separation of powers.

The article states very simply that legally they are under no obligation to withhold anything. So they are in fact impeding an investigation.

Of course they are under no legal obligation, I don't even know what that would look like considering that internal Senate deliberations are basically exempt from all laws.

If they made a promise to someone who decided to testify though and then broke it I imagine that means no one would ever take their promises seriously ever again and hence no one would ever testify like that again. I sure don't blame the Senate for wanting to protect that.

It is always perplexing that wherever I find you, you seem to be defending Trump. Do you just enjoy trolling that much?

Or are you really just a closet Trump shill?

Haha now that's a new one.

 

[JSt0rm]

That's what is claimed in the article. Is that accurate? I don't know.

oh I didnt read it. I was wondering.

 

[FIVR]

The Senate is under no obligation to furnish US law enforcement with what people testify to it in closed session. That seems like a pretty egregious violation of the separation of powers.

The senate furnishing documents to a prosecutor is a common practice. It happens all the time. It is not a violation of the separation of powers at all, it is a normal function of the senate.

Of course they are under no legal obligation, I don't even know what that would look like considering that internal Senate deliberations are basically exempt from all laws.

If the senate is under no legal obligation, then they should refrain from impeding legal investigations. That's exactly what they are doing by refusing to hand over the testimony.

If they made a promise to someone who decided to testify though and then broke it I imagine that means no one would ever take their promises seriously ever again and hence no one would ever testify like that again. I sure don't blame the Senate for wanting to protect that.

Did they make a written promise? I didn't see that anywhere in the article. The article just states that they are refusing to hand over the documents.

Also, Manafort is harvard-trained lawyer of considerable repute. The idea that the senate committee would "trick" him into testifying about Trump is absurd. He knew exactly what he was getting into.

Your explanation is also pretty blatantly stupid. So if the senate doesn't tell the truth 100% of the time nobody will ever believe them again. LOL!

Haha now that's a new one.

I guess that is sort of a troll answer to my question then. Ok troll.

 

[FIVR]

That's what is claimed in the article. Is that accurate? I don't know.

Do you read the articles you comment on? Or only the ones when you're not trolling?

From the article:

CNN reported on Tuesday that a dispute had erupted between the FBI, which said it had obtained authorization from Manafort's attorneys to view the transcript, and the committee, which says it was instructed by the attorneys not to hand it over.

So these civilian attorneys "instructed" the senate to not hand the documents over. Nothing about a "promise" is even in the article. Amazing that you have such low integrity as to fabricate a narrative to support your trolling.

 

[Starbuck1975]

It is always perplexing that wherever I find you, you seem to be defending Trump. Do you just enjoy trolling that much?

Or are you really just a closet Trump shill?

He is hardly a Trump supporter, nor is he shilling. He is articulating, using a rational mind, why your assertions are incorrect. I rarely agree with @fskimospy on much of anything, but I admire his understanding of government and command of facts.

Now, you can either acknowledge that or you can continue to flail around like @agent00f.

Accusing him of being a troll is just lazy.

 

[Jhhnn]

Layers of speculation & innuendo, huh? If Manafort doesn't have a writ of immunity he has nothing. If he does then Mueller doesn't want his testimony before the Senate because it would poison his efforts at future prosecution should it be deemed appropriate. I'm sure Mueller recalls Ollie North rather well who weaseled his way out of a prison sentence with just such a thing.

Dunno that the Senate can withhold anything from a special counsel under the concept of separation of powers. The act creating the office may specify their cooperation.

 

[agent00f]

He is hardly a Trump supporter, nor is he shilling. He is articulating, using a rational mind, why your assertions are incorrect. I rarely agree with @fskimospy on much of anything, but I admire his understanding of government and command of facts.

Now, you can either acknowledge that or you can continue to flail around like @agent00f.

Accusing him of being a troll is just lazy.

Pretty apt illustration of the conservative mind, which only ever has good things to say about people with agreeable views and never much bad to say about allies like the nazis/klan. Same as dear leader.

 

[FIVR]

oh I didnt read it. I was wondering.

Don't trust @fskimospy


He is not an intellectually honest human being, amongst many other flaws known and unknown by me.

 

[FIVR]

Layers of speculation & innuendo, huh? If Manafort doesn't have a writ of immunity he has nothing. If he does then Mueller doesn't want his testimony before the Senate because it would poison his efforts at future prosecution should it be deemed appropriate. I'm sure Mueller recalls Ollie North rather well who weaseled his way out of a prison sentence with just such a thing.

Dunno that the Senate can withhold anything from a special counsel under the concept of separation of powers. The act creating the office may specify their cooperation.

More fanciful speculation. Why on earth would mueller request the documents if he "didn't want his testimony before the senate" or whatever? He is the one requesting they give him the testimony. Mueller and his investigation are the ones who are getting screwed by the Senate.

I don't even know wtf you are talking about wrt "innuendo". I didn't include any in my posts. Would you like some along with your stories about mueller requesting testimony he doesn't want?

 

[Starbuck1975]

Pretty apt illustration of the conservative mind, which only ever has good things to say about people with agreeable views and never much bad to say about allies like the nazis/klan. Same as dear leader.

An apt illustration of an enlightened mind is to show respect even towards those you disagree with. If you want to earn a gold star, you have to stop behaving like a deplorable. I would buy @fskimospy a beer. I imagine Trump would find reason to buy you one.

 

[fskimospy]

Do you read the articles you comment on? Or only the ones when you're not trolling?

From the article:

So these civilian attorneys "instructed" the senate to not hand the documents over. Nothing about a "promise" is even in the article. Amazing that you have such low integrity as to fabricate a narrative to support your trolling.

I do read the articles I comment on, do you read the ones you post?

From your own article:

Renato Mariotti, a federal prosecutor turned defense attorney, explained on Tuesday that Manafort's attorneys were most likely arguing that they agreed with Mueller before Manafort appeared before the committee — which does not have prosecution power — that his testimony would not be used against him by the FBI in its criminal investigation.

Lol.

 

[fskimospy]

An apt illustration of an enlightened mind is to show respect even towards those you disagree with. If you want to earn a gold star, you have to stop behaving like a deplorable. I would buy @fskimospy a beer. I imagine Trump would find reason to buy you one.

Look out, that sort of rational statement makes you some sort of shill.

 

[FIVR]

I do read the articles I comment on, do you read the ones you post?

From your own article:



Lol.

So you are taking the word of a defense attorney asked to comment on the issue over the directly quoted senate committee.



LOL indeed.

 

[FIVR]

Look out, that sort of rational statement makes you some sort of shill.

No, it makes him a butthurt retard that was made to look a fool yesterday and is now following me around from thread to thread trying to get me to respond to his supremely stupid posts.

 

[fskimospy]

So you are taking the word of a defense attorney asked to comment on the issue over the directly quoted senate committee.

LOL indeed.

I didn't take anyone's word for it, which is why I prefaced my first comment with the word 'if'.

Looks like you don't read the comments you rant about any more than you read the articles you post.

 

[fskimospy]

No, it makes him a butthurt retard that was made to look a fool yesterday and is now following me around from thread to thread trying to get me to respond to his supremely stupid posts.

You might want to consider how this comment could apply to you.

 

[FIVR]

You might want to consider how this comment could apply to you.

I was just about to say that you should watch before you become like him. You're obviously rattled. Take some time off, maybe come back with some better trolling ideas.


You didn't address even 1/2 of my points, FYI. Maybe come back to them later, when you aren't so upset?

 

[FIVR]

I didn't take anyone's word for it, which is why I prefaced my first comment with the word 'if'.

Looks like you don't read the comments you rant about any more than you read the articles you post.

Semantics is your savior, eh?


Guess what? Anybody reading this thread can see the many points I made and the one you responded too, and can see your pedantry here too. Nobody is fooled by this pathetic excuse for a cogent response.

 

[agent00f]

An apt illustration of an enlightened mind is to show respect even towards those you disagree with. If you want to earn a gold star, you have to stop behaving like a deplorable. I would buy @fskimospy a beer. I imagine Trump would find reason to buy you one.

Getting so easily played by degenerates is why democrats lose.