621

UPDATE: If the Manafort trial has ‘nothing to do with Trump’ why is he now lashing out at it and-for the first time-publicly calling for the end of the investigation?

There really are no coincidences in law enforcement. These were the blunt, striking words of Joyce Vance, a former U.S. attorney from the northern district of Alabama last night on Rachel Maddow-Nicole Wallace was subbing for Rachel. It reminds you of what Malcom Nance says regarding coincidences; his Nance’s Law states that coincidences take a lot of planning.

Nance, of course, comes not from a law enforcement but an intelligence background but clearly law enforcement and intel have a similar attitude regarding coincidences-they are highly skeptical of them. For me personally, with no background in either-but with a real interest in both, intelligence in particular I’ve always found fascinating-while it’s not quite true that there are no coincidences you have to be suspicious of coincidences that are too convenient. 

It was after the DNC email dump just prior to the Democratic convention-literally breaking on the morning of the first day, forcing Debbie Wasserman-Schultz to step down that I became convinced that something was going on with Russia-clearly they didn’t want Hillary Clinton to win and were doing whatever it took to sabotage her. Sorry, the timing here was too perfect, the emails were leaked at exactly the worst possible moment for a Democratic party trying to unify the Bernie and Hillary voters after a very  polarizing and divisive primary.

Note that I got to this theory-that Russia was deliberately sabotaging Clinton and the Democrats -hrough deductive logic, I obviously had no firsthand empirical evidence to prove it, just the highly suspicious circumstantial evidence that this was just too convenient. Again, like Nance’s Law says coincidences take a lot of planning. 

As for clear, direct empirical evidence that this was not merely a coincidence-that only surfaced a few weeks ago when Mueller’s indictments against Russian military intel agents had been directed by Wikileaks to release the emails as close to the convention as possible to maximize the damage.

https://lastmenandovermen.com/2018/07/14/the-day-trump-said-russia-if-youre-listening-was-the-day-the-hacking-of-clinton-associates-began/

This is why as important as empirical evidence may be in a criminal trial, much of how crimes are solved begin with what might be dismisses as ‘hunches’ and ‘intuition’-absence of evidence doesn’t prove this evidence doesn’t exist. It may just be that the criminal offender is very smart and scrupulous in not leaving any obvious fingerprints.

It’s why like Vance says there really aren’t any coincidences in law enforcement and Nance says-just noticed that Nance’s law  and Vance rhymes…-states there coincidences take a lot of planning.

On the other hand notice that the only way to defend Trump is to take each and every new bombshell as a one off that in no way refers to the 100 bombshells that preceded it. Only that way can you make it sound innocent and banal-‘The President of the United States has to be able to sit down with foreign leaders, even from our adversaries-or ‘The President of the United States has the right to fire the FBI Director.’

Everything is treated as a one off. But in this case clearly Occam’s Razor points to a much larger conspiracy than a bunch of highly suspicious behavior totally unconnected to all the other suspicious behavior.

Ok, now let’s consider the Manafort trial. Paul Manafort-aka, Trump’s G. Gordon Liddy, who also chose not to cooperate and went to prison the longest-is the first person in the Mueller probe to actually go to trial. The Trump defense is obvious-it’s all got nothing to do with Trump as it’s all regarding conduct that preceded his time as Trump’s campaign manager. Trump further embellishes this counter narrative by saying that he was only with him a short time-no, actually Manafort was his campaign manager for 5 months which is a long period of time in a general election campaign and Manafort’s time coincided with gathering up the needed delegates to make sure Trump was nominated at the convention. This is not ‘coffee boy’ stuff.

But it is true that the trial began yesterday and there was no mention of Trump, Russia-or Mueller for that matter. 

“No one mentioned Donald Trump. Robert S. Mueller III, either. The word “Russia” was not uttered.”

“On the first day of the first trial to result from the special counsel’s investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential campaign, President Trump did not tweet about any “rigged witch hunt.” He said nothing about “13 Angry Democrats,” his biting shorthand for the prosecutors who are examining any potential ties between his campaign and Russian operatives.”

“Instead, on the ninth floor of the federal courthouse in Alexandria, Va., the first defendant to face a jury in the year-and-a-half-old investigation — Trump’s former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort — looked pale as he tried to make eye contact with the just-seated, racially mixed jury of six men and six women.”

He smiled wanly. The jurors did not smile back.

In the run up to the trial-where Manafort tried many different tactics, he leaned hard on the idea that this is all part of the ‘witch hunt’ to get Trump. In other words, this is not a case the government would have pursued if not for its political agenda of getting Trump on collusion. Manafort’s attorneys used that narrative a lot in trying to get the entire case dropped and it didn’t work.

In the actual trial, the Manafort defense strategy is clear enough-blame it all on Rich Gates-who Manafort his pretty mad at anyway as Gates is cooperating with Mueller and no doubt gave him the goods on Manafort.

“By the time defense attorney Thomas Zehnle got his chance to present Manafort’s side, some jurors were visibly deflated. Four jurors who had taken notes during the government’s argument did not do so once the defense started talking.”

“No one in the jury box had nodded off during Asonye’s opening; two jurors seemed to take occasional rests while Zehnle spoke.”

Zehnle argued that “this case is about taxes and trust.” Manafort had basically “failed to check a box” on some government forms, and he had placed “his trust in the wrong person,” his longtime business partner, Rick Gates.

“Zehnle also spoke for about half an hour, but where Asonye had rattled off a list of witnesses who he said would spell out Manafort’s misdeeds, Zehnle focused largely on how it was Gates, not his client, who had done bad things. Gates, who is expected to testify, avoided trial himself by pleading guilty to conspiracy and lying to the FBI. Manafort’s lawyers will seek to drive a truck through Gates’s credibility, arguing that he, not Manafort, is the real liar.”

So basically, Manafort is trying to scapegoathis underling.. For some reason, Gates did all this shady stuff on his own, dragging poor Manafort into the legal quagmire-though clearly Manafort and not Gates is who benefitted by failure to report his income from the Ukraine year after year and giving false information to obtain a $6 million dollar loan. 

Interestingly, Tad Devine, Bernie Sanders’ former communication director testified for the government against Manafort yesterday-Devine also worked with him in the Ukraine. They don’t call the court the rocket docket for nothing, it looks like the trial will last all of two weeks.

“While working on the campaign, Devine met other Manafort associates who have since come under investigation, including Gates and Konstantin Kilimnik, a Russian citizen. At the time, Devine said, Kilimnik worked as a translator. Prosecutors have said Kilimnik has ties to Russian intelligence, and they accused him and Manafort of trying to tamper with witnesses earlier this year.”

“Devine said Manafort was clearly the boss in his relationship with Gates, though they were partners.”

“Paul was in charge,” Devine said. “Rick worked for Paul.”

Paul was in charge. And the lies and misstatements to the IRS and the bank enriched Manafort not Gates. As for the prosecution they are keeping it simple. It’s a straight forward case of greed, avarice and lying-Manafort lied to satisfy his greed and avarice. The prosecution is also clearly playing the ‘populist card’ by documenting Manafort’s lavish lifestyle in great detail. Juries hate extravagant living based on fraud.

Natasha Bertrand:

“The prosecution’s opening statement began Tuesday afternoon after a surprisingly quick jury-selection process that lasted mere hours. Assistant U.S. Attorney Uzo Asonye outlined the government’s case, before Manafort’s lawyers made their own. “Paul Manafort lied,” Asonye said. “The evidence will show that Paul Manafort placed himself and his money over the law.”

“The Manafort case is a convoluted one, involving a web of foreign bank accounts and a presidential election tainted by Russian interference. But the prosecution, as I reported yesterday, is keeping the focus on Manafort’s cut-and-dry financial record, while deploying an argument that seems designed to make their case more digestible.”

Characterizing Manafort “as a liar who doesn’t pay his taxes is good trial work,” the former federal prosecutor Renato Mariotti told me in an interview. “You have to make the issue simple for jurors to understand. Fraud is a complex concept. So prosecutors explain it as lying to get money.”

So, this all seems pretty remote from Trump, Russia, hacking. collusion, Mueller, etc. But, of course, this case is of great consequence because of Trump-Russia. Mueller needs a win here to demonstrate the credibility of the investigation. And he’s very likely to get his man as there are so many charges against Manafort any one of those that would mean years in prison.

And this is where we have to recall Vance-there really are no coincidences in law enforcement-and Nance’s law-coincidences require a lot of planning. 

Because this is the same Manafort who was Trump’s campaign manager during some of the most important parts of Trump’s general election campaign. With all the furor over the revelation Michael Cohen says Don Jr told Trump about the Trump Tower meeting, remember that Manafort was at the meeting. As a bonus, you now have Giuliani talking about a pre meeting at Trump Tower about the Trump Tower meeting-it’s become a Seinfeld episode-and mentioning Rich Gates as someone who was at that meeting Giuliani is now saying never happened-though he’s the one who raised it.

Then you have the ongoing mystery of how did Manafort end up as Trump’s campaign manager in the first place?

Remember how hard Manafort campaigned to be his manager-‘I have to talk to Trump.’

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/08/us/to-charm-trump-paul-manafort-sold-himself-as-an-affordable-outsider.html?ref=oembed

Then he sought to use his position with Trump to impress Oleg Deripaska-the Russian oligarch he was indebted to and asks how do we get whole?

But who he directed that question to is itself very interesting-the very same Konstantin Kilimnik, Ted Devine testified about yesterday-‘he worked as a translator.’

Then in early July, Manafort from a Trump campaign email again emails Kilimnik proposing a personal campaign briefing for Deripaska. 

“Reportedly using a Trump campaign account, Paul Manafort continues to send emails to his Kiev-based associate Konstantin Kilimnik. Referring to the possibility of briefings about the presidential campaign for Oleg Deripaska, a Russian billionaire oligarch close to Putin with whom Manafort had prior business dealings, Manafort states in a July 7 email, “If he needs private briefings we can accommodate.”

“The existence of the emails doesn’t surface until the media reports it more than a year later. Asked on Sept. 21, 2017, about special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation of Manafort, Kilimnik tells Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, “On the political side there is no case that can be made about my involvement in the US elections.” Then he adds, “They are tough investigators and probably will get Manafort for some financial crap. With that many years of international clients no one can be 100 percent clean.”

LOL-no one can be 100 percent clean. I’m sure Manafort was very grateful for Kilimnik vouching for him that way.

By the way, if you haven’t see it, that InvestigateRussia website I linked to directly above is a goldmine for getting all the relevant facts in one place on this huge octopus of a scandal.

Then in early August, Manafort met with Kilimnik in Manhattan. 

They both insist they talked about nothing very deep-you know, the weather, and oh, year, the election. But this was a ‘general discussion’-right they talked about innocent things like the hacked emails of the DNC.

Again: coincidences take a lot of planning.

 

License

October 28, 2016: a Day That Will Live in Infamy Copyright © by . All Rights Reserved.

Share This Book