quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic
Im going on what the court docs said... ONLY
not on a hunch...
but as you say, wait and see.
Is Papadopoulos a dupe, or a dope or yes to both?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic
I dont disagree mostly:)
BUT...
the emails were offered before the wikileaks emails and the DNC hack was known
Papad is my go to, typing it out fully every time is a PITA and im in sicky zone so im lazy

quote:

On March 16, 2016 WikiLeaks launched a searchable archive....

quote:

In truth and in fact, however, defendant PAPADOPOULOS learned he would be an advisor to the Campaign in early March, and met the professor on or about March 14, 2016; the professor only took interest in defendant PAPADOPOULOS because of his status with the Campaign; and the professor told defendant PAPADOPOULOS about the "thousands of emails" on or about April 26, 2016, when defendant PAPADOPOULOS had been a foreign policy adviser to the Campaign for over a month.


[Bold/italics mine]

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic
I dont disagree mostly:)
BUT...
the emails were offered before the wikileaks emails and the DNC hack was known
Papad is my go to, typing it out fully every time is a PITA and im in sicky zone so im lazy

Going by FBI documents, the dirt offer was after the WikiLeaks trove.

https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/

quote:

On March 16, 2016 WikiLeaks launched a searchable archive....

From the FBI Statement of Offense:

quote:

In truth and in fact, however, defendant PAPADOPOULOS learned he would be an advisor to the Campaign in early March, and met the professor on or about March 14, 2016; the professor only took interest in defendant PAPADOPOULOS because of his status with the Campaign; and the professor told defendant PAPADOPOULOS about the "thousands of emails" on or about April 26, 2016, when defendant PAPADOPOULOS had been a foreign policy adviser to the Campaign for over a month.


[Bold/italics mine]

Considering the email dump was a huge news item and especially so for conservatives, the GOP, and pro-Trumpers, it doesn't surprise me that they'd claim to have even more dirt on Hillary.

quote:

Robert Mueller, the fatally conflicted Special Counsel in charge of the Russian collusion snipe hunt, just came out with his indictments, and there has been a lot of confusion among the lunatics, weirdos, and 23-year-old internet pundits who make up his fan base. They’ve been leveraging their extensive federal court experience, which consists of having heard that federal courts are a thing, into remarkably silly insights about the charges against Mrrs. Manafort, Gates, and Puffleupagus (sic) and how they relate to Donald Trump.

Spoiler: They don’t relate to Donald Trump.

So, in the interest of helping the ignorant, via Twitter I offered to explain what’s going on to a particularly committed and colorful commentator. For lack of a better pseudonym, let’s call her “Louise.”

Kurt: Wow, the indictments came out Monday and you’re still wearing a party hat.

Louise: This is the greatest week ever! *Blows party horn awkwardly* I still haven’t stopped celebrating these treason indictments!

Kurt: I guess that explains why you only have one shoe and your purse is on fire. You do know that no one was indicted for treason, right?

Louise: Now who’s being naïve? Didn’t you see the document? Count One, “Conspiracy Against the United States.” That’s totally treason!

Kurt: Yeah, no. A federal indictment for conspiracy, which in this case is two or more people agreeing to a plan to violate laws of the United States, is styled as a “conspiracy against the United States” in the pleadings. It’s not treason.

Louise: It’s totally treason!

Kurt: Look, “treason” is defined by the Constitution, which I assume you have heard of, in Article III, section 3: “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.” You don’t see tax dodging and not registering as a foreign agent in there.

Louise: There’re in there, somewhere, maybe behind the penumbras and emanations and the right to make people bake you cakes!

Kurt: No, they aren’t.

Louise: But CNN said it’s treason –

Kurt: It’s not freaking treason!

Louise: Well, the indictment still shows how awful Trump is for hiring Manafort!

Kurt: Manafort and Gates had no criminal record, but I agree there was one thing that should have made the president think twice – Manafort worked on Ukraine stuff with Tony Podesta and he’s super scuzzy.

Louise: I don’t know who Tony Podesta is.

Kurt: Democrat bigwig Tony Podesta? Pal of Hillary Clinton?

Louise: I don’t know who Hillary Clinton is either.

Kurt: Whatev. Basically Mueller’s big score is nailing Manafort for long ago crimes that pre-date his three months working for the Trump campaign. And Andrew McCarthy explains very clearly why some of the charges themselves are flawed. This is not just a nothingburger. It’s a vegan nothingburger.

Louise: It figures you’re racist against vegans. What about the guy who plead guilty? George Papa…Papaoomploompa?

Kurt: I think it’s Papadoofolopolis.

Louise: Anyway, he was a central key advisor involved in every aspect of the entire Russian conspiracy. This proves collusion! This is the first crack in the dam! The tsunami is coming! I can feel it! The voices in my head agree!

Kurt: George was a goofy 29-year old unpaid fringie who got honey-trapped by some Svetlana pretending to be Putin’s niece – which a Google search would have quickly found was baloney. He’d have had to work his way up the ranks to even be a nobody. He kept trying to get the campaign to have some sort of meeting with the Russians and the campaign kept not having one.

Louise: But the Russians promised him dirt on Hillary…whoever that is. That’s collusion!

Kurt: Wait, is getting oppo from foreigners bad again? I’m confused. Last week getting the nonsense in the Steele dossier from the Russians was awesome.

Louise: Steele dossier? Never heard of it.

Kurt: And isn’t not meeting with the Russians sort of the opposite of collusion?

Louise: Oh, that’s what they want you to think. This is all part of the giant, all-encompassing conspiracy those incompetent idiots in the Trump campaign managed to conceive and execute right under our noses! And George Papadosoupulous’s guilty plea to treason is proof!

Kurt: It’s not treason! What is your weird treason thing, anyway? Look, he plead guilty to lying to the FBI. What he allegedly did – talk to some foreigner who was obviously playing up to his ego – wasn’t even illegal. You can tell it wasn’t illegal because he didn’t get charged for it. Like a dummy, he got charged with covering up something that he didn’t need to cover up. That’s the thing – they always get you for lying to them, which is why you never talk to the FBI without your lawyer, and you never lie to them.

Louise: It’s kind of like treason…

Kurt: Stop it!

Louise: It’s treasonish…

Kurt: It’s not treason! Look, they got Manafort for all sorts of shenanigans from before he started up with Trump. And they got Papajohnalopolous for lying about doing something that was totally legal to do. But you know what they didn’t indict anyone for? Actually colluding with the Russians to rig the election for Trump.

Louise: Well, it’s collusion anyway!

Kurt: How?

Louise: Under HIPAA, probably, or the Monroe Doctrine. My contacts on the web tell me that in the next few days the FISA Court’s Grand Marshall will be frog marching everyone out of the White House to Gitmo! One of my best inside sources, Zorgon of Alpha Centauri, informs me that Trump’s already got the death sentence on 12 systems!

Kurt: Hmmm. Well, I will concede that I have found someone who agrees with your assessment of the charges.

Louise: Which are for treason!

Kurt: It’s not treason!

Chet: Well, I agree with you, Louise!

Kurt: Louise, meet my friend Chet.

Louise: Wait. Is Chet a…unicorn?

Kurt: Yes, Chet identifies as a unicorn.

Louise: Where did you get a unicorn?

Kurt: Oh, I deal with Democrats and Never Trumpers all the time. I just borrowed one from them.

quote:

Earlier this week, the government revealed that a grand jury sitting in Washington, D.C., indicted a former Trump presidential campaign chairman and his former deputy and business partner for numerous felonies.

Both were accused of working as foreign agents and failing to report that status to the federal government, using shell corporations to launder income and obstruction of justice by lying to the federal government.

The financial crimes are alleged to have occurred from 2008 to 2014, and the obstruction charges from 2014 to 2017. At the same time it announced the above, the government revealed that a low-level former foreign policy adviser to the Trump campaign, George Papadopoulos, had pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI and become a government witness.

Does any of this relate to President Donald Trump? Here is the back story.

At the same time that Paul Manafort and his business partner Rick Gates were guiding the Trump campaign in the summer of 2016, Russian agents were manipulating American social media sites so as to arouse chaos in general and animosity toward Hillary Clinton in particular. The Department of Justice appointed former FBI Director Robert Mueller as independent counsel to determine whether any Americans had criminally helped the Russians.

The alleged crimes of Manafort and Gates appear to have nothing to do with Trump, nor have they any facial relationship to the Russians. So why were these two indicted by a grand jury hearing evidence about alleged American assistance to Russian interference with the 2016 presidential campaign?

When prosecutors confront a complex series of potentially criminal events, they often do not know at the outset of their investigation where the evidence will lead them. Sometimes they come upon a person who they believe has knowledge of facts they seek and that person declines to speak with them. Such a refusal to speak to the government is perfectly lawful in America, yet it often triggers a prosecution of the potential witness so that prosecutors may squeeze him -- not literally, of course -- for evidence to which they believe he can lead them.

The ultimate target of Mueller's investigation is President Trump. It is standard operating procedure when prosecutors have a high-level target to charge those below the target with something just to get them to cooperate. Though the charges against Manafort and Gates need not be related to the Russians or to Trump, they must be real. It's clear they are, as each is facing more than 20 years in prison. Mueller believes that that prospect is enough to dispatch their lawyers to make deals with him.

The danger of such a deal is that Manafort and Gates may offer to tell Mueller what they think he wants to hear -- even if it is not truthful -- so that they can have their prison exposure lessened.

There is more danger in the seemingly smallest of this week's Mueller-generated events. Papadopoulos was interviewed voluntarily by the FBI on Jan. 27. He was arrested on July 27 for lying to FBI agents during that interview. In a secret federal court proceeding on Oct. 5, he pleaded guilty.

In a profound miscarriage of justice, federal law permits FBI agents to lie to us but makes it a crime for us to lie to them. Nevertheless, why was the Papadopoulos guilty plea kept secret? What was he doing between his arrest and his plea and between his plea and its revelation?

Judges are very reluctant to close their courtroom doors in any criminal proceeding, even if both the prosecutors and the defense counsel request it. The public has a right to know whom the government is prosecuting and what deals or punishments it may be obtaining. Yet if prosecutors can convince a judge that public knowledge of the existence of a guilty plea might harm an ongoing criminal investigation, the judge can keep the plea secret.

That is apparently what happened here. It appears that Papadopoulos was gathering evidence for Mueller, probably by talking to his former Trump campaign colleagues while wired -- a process that would have been fruitless if his guilty plea had become public.

Because Papadopoulos admitted under oath that he lied to FBI agents, the courts will treat his guilt as certain. That gives Mueller great leverage with him. It also gives Papadopoulos great incentive to help Mueller -- truthfully or not -- because he knows he is going to federal prison. He also knows that if Mueller likes what he hears, a five-year prison term could be reduced to six months.

Hence, Papadopoulos could be a treasure-trove for Mueller on the production of any evidence linking the Trump campaign and the Russians and any evidence of Trump's personal knowledge or acquiescence. Papadopoulos has already produced a wild tale about meetings with a Russian professor and a female Russian government agent in London that the FBI apparently believes.

Is this any way to conduct a prosecution?

I have argued for years that squeezing defendants and witnesses by threats and promises to get them to spill the beans is a form of extortion or bribery, not much different from the extortion and bribery that the government regularly prosecutes. "You tell us what we want to hear and we will ask a judge to go easy on you. If not, you will suffer great losses." It is bad enough that the feds can legally lie to us and get away with it, but can they also legally threaten and bribe witnesses to testify against us and get away with it? Can they do this to the president?

In a word, yes. My arguments have fallen on deaf ears. Squeezing witnesses and defendants is a way of life for federal prosecutors. For the president, it is the tip of a dangerous iceberg.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic
ok gotcha:) My bad, not sure how i missed that, so I see what you are saying. My apologies

quote:

The "deleted emails" were wanted by everyone more than the dump by wiki.
I wonder why he bit.[;)]

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic
Is Papadopoulos a dupe, or a dope or yes to both?

And, to answer your question, yes, to both. [:D]

quote:

The danger of such a deal is that Manafort and Gates may offer to tell Mueller what they think he wants to hear -- even if it is not truthful -- so that they can have their prison exposure lessened.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic
Is Papadopoulos a dupe, or a dope or yes to both?

And, to answer your question, yes, to both. [:D]

quote:

ORIGINAL: heavyblinker

LOL... an RWNJ website is desperately attacking Mueller-- nothing new there.

quote:

The danger of such a deal is that Manafort and Gates may offer to tell Mueller what they think he wants to hear -- even if it is not truthful -- so that they can have their prison exposure lessened.

Oh FFS exactly what kind of keystone cops do you think you're dealing with?
It's the former head of the FBI, not some small town sheriff.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

also meanwhile---the "tip of the iceberg" from what should be a troubling perspective:

im a big fan of judge nap. oh no comrades, fox news and townhall!

"The Tip of a Prosecutorial Iceberg?"

quote:

Earlier this week, the government revealed that a grand jury sitting in Washington, D.C., indicted a former Trump presidential campaign chairman and his former deputy and business partner for numerous felonies.

Both were accused of working as foreign agents and failing to report that status to the federal government, using shell corporations to launder income and obstruction of justice by lying to the federal government.

The financial crimes are alleged to have occurred from 2008 to 2014, and the obstruction charges from 2014 to 2017. At the same time it announced the above, the government revealed that a low-level former foreign policy adviser to the Trump campaign, George Papadopoulos, had pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI and become a government witness.

Does any of this relate to President Donald Trump? Here is the back story.

At the same time that Paul Manafort and his business partner Rick Gates were guiding the Trump campaign in the summer of 2016, Russian agents were manipulating American social media sites so as to arouse chaos in general and animosity toward Hillary Clinton in particular. The Department of Justice appointed former FBI Director Robert Mueller as independent counsel to determine whether any Americans had criminally helped the Russians.

The alleged crimes of Manafort and Gates appear to have nothing to do with Trump, nor have they any facial relationship to the Russians. So why were these two indicted by a grand jury hearing evidence about alleged American assistance to Russian interference with the 2016 presidential campaign?

When prosecutors confront a complex series of potentially criminal events, they often do not know at the outset of their investigation where the evidence will lead them. Sometimes they come upon a person who they believe has knowledge of facts they seek and that person declines to speak with them. Such a refusal to speak to the government is perfectly lawful in America, yet it often triggers a prosecution of the potential witness so that prosecutors may squeeze him -- not literally, of course -- for evidence to which they believe he can lead them.

The ultimate target of Mueller's investigation is President Trump. It is standard operating procedure when prosecutors have a high-level target to charge those below the target with something just to get them to cooperate. Though the charges against Manafort and Gates need not be related to the Russians or to Trump, they must be real. It's clear they are, as each is facing more than 20 years in prison. Mueller believes that that prospect is enough to dispatch their lawyers to make deals with him.

The danger of such a deal is that Manafort and Gates may offer to tell Mueller what they think he wants to hear -- even if it is not truthful -- so that they can have their prison exposure lessened.

There is more danger in the seemingly smallest of this week's Mueller-generated events. Papadopoulos was interviewed voluntarily by the FBI on Jan. 27. He was arrested on July 27 for lying to FBI agents during that interview. In a secret federal court proceeding on Oct. 5, he pleaded guilty.

In a profound miscarriage of justice, federal law permits FBI agents to lie to us but makes it a crime for us to lie to them. Nevertheless, why was the Papadopoulos guilty plea kept secret? What was he doing between his arrest and his plea and between his plea and its revelation?

Judges are very reluctant to close their courtroom doors in any criminal proceeding, even if both the prosecutors and the defense counsel request it. The public has a right to know whom the government is prosecuting and what deals or punishments it may be obtaining. Yet if prosecutors can convince a judge that public knowledge of the existence of a guilty plea might harm an ongoing criminal investigation, the judge can keep the plea secret.

That is apparently what happened here. It appears that Papadopoulos was gathering evidence for Mueller, probably by talking to his former Trump campaign colleagues while wired -- a process that would have been fruitless if his guilty plea had become public.

Because Papadopoulos admitted under oath that he lied to FBI agents, the courts will treat his guilt as certain. That gives Mueller great leverage with him. It also gives Papadopoulos great incentive to help Mueller -- truthfully or not -- because he knows he is going to federal prison. He also knows that if Mueller likes what he hears, a five-year prison term could be reduced to six months.

Hence, Papadopoulos could be a treasure-trove for Mueller on the production of any evidence linking the Trump campaign and the Russians and any evidence of Trump's personal knowledge or acquiescence. Papadopoulos has already produced a wild tale about meetings with a Russian professor and a female Russian government agent in London that the FBI apparently believes.

Is this any way to conduct a prosecution?

I have argued for years that squeezing defendants and witnesses by threats and promises to get them to spill the beans is a form of extortion or bribery, not much different from the extortion and bribery that the government regularly prosecutes. "You tell us what we want to hear and we will ask a judge to go easy on you. If not, you will suffer great losses." It is bad enough that the feds can legally lie to us and get away with it, but can they also legally threaten and bribe witnesses to testify against us and get away with it? Can they do this to the president?

In a word, yes. My arguments have fallen on deaf ears. Squeezing witnesses and defendants is a way of life for federal prosecutors. For the president, it is the tip of a dangerous iceberg.

https://townhall.com/columnists/judgeandrewnapolitano/2017/11/02/the-tip-of-a-prosecutorial-iceberg-n2403334

quote:

ORIGINAL: heavyblinker

LOL... an RWNJ website is desperately attacking Mueller-- nothing new there.

quote:

The danger of such a deal is that Manafort and Gates may offer to tell Mueller what they think he wants to hear -- even if it is not truthful -- so that they can have their prison exposure lessened.

Oh FFS exactly what kind of keystone cops do you think you're dealing with?
It's the former head of the FBI, not some small town sheriff.