Paul Manafort has filed a motion to dismiss Mueller's indictment in Virginia. Two weeks ago, a nearly identical motion was filed for charges in D.C.
Good luck Paul!
Does not hurt to try. He has money to burn especially since he's going to lose it all when he goes down.
Actually, it does. Making frivolous motions that everyone knows are just going to give the judge busy work in denying them is a good way to piss said judge off.
Yeah but if the judge is allowing that to compromise their judgment, they should be recusing themselves.
Nah. That's not a reason for recusal and judges absolutely should be slapping this shit down.
Denying the motion is fine, and should happen if the motion has no credible basis. A judges' impartiality being impacted because they're 'pissed off' due to how many motions have previously been filed is not fine.
A trial judge has some discretion in their court and how they conduct a case, oversee the trial, etc. A good way to ensure that judge doesn't use his or her discretion in your favor (give you a little leeway on a deadline, allow a line of questioning to continue, reconsider a motion) is to piss them off with frivolous shenanigans. Judges also rely on the lawyers in the case to be credible officers of the court, filing a bunch of questionable motions undermines that.
Yeah, even in something as simple as a divorce case, your lawyer filing a bunch of nonsense to waste everyone’s time unless they give you a favorable ruling would impact the result. A case as serious as the allegations against Manafort is no different.
And that’s a feature, not a bug. Otherwise every jackass who was obviously guilty or knew they didn’t have a case could functionally halt any consequences for their client by being a nuisance in general or being cute with where they are on the line between “annoying but proper defending” and “annoying everybody so nobody wants to deal with this case”.
And we desperately need some consequences for the crimes being committed.
So a couple groups (Coons, Tillis and Senate Dems in general) of Senators are releasing press releases about letting Mueller finish his investigation. Something is up.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Paul Manafort has filed a motion to dismiss Mueller's indictment in Virginia. Two weeks ago, a nearly identical motion was filed for charges in D.C.
Good luck Paul!
Does not hurt to try. He has money to burn especially since he's going to lose it all when he goes down.
Actually, it does. Making frivolous motions that everyone knows are just going to give the judge busy work in denying them is a good way to piss said judge off.
Yeah but if the judge is allowing that to compromise their judgment, they should be recusing themselves.
Nah. That's not a reason for recusal and judges absolutely should be slapping this shit down.
Denying the motion is fine, and should happen if the motion has no credible basis. A judges' impartiality being impacted because they're 'pissed off' due to how many motions have previously been filed is not fine.
A trial judge has some discretion in their court and how they conduct a case, oversee the trial, etc. A good way to ensure that judge doesn't use his or her discretion in your favor (give you a little leeway on a deadline, allow a line of questioning to continue, reconsider a motion) is to piss them off with frivolous shenanigans. Judges also rely on the lawyers in the case to be credible officers of the court, filing a bunch of questionable motions undermines that.
Yeah, even in something as simple as a divorce case, your lawyer filing a bunch of nonsense to waste everyone’s time unless they give you a favorable ruling would impact the result. A case as serious as the allegations against Manafort is no different.
And that’s a feature, not a bug. Otherwise every jackass who was obviously guilty or knew they didn’t have a case could functionally halt any consequences for their client by being a nuisance in general or being cute with where they are on the line between “annoying but proper defending” and “annoying everybody so nobody wants to deal with this case”.
And we desperately need some consequences for the crimes being committed.
Welllll, delays still work pretty well depending on the court and the case. The Kochs and the Kennedy's successfully managed to halt the Cape Wind project by filing frivolous motions. The judge was annoyed and came down on them hard, but they still outlasted their opponents who ran out of money to continue pursuing the case.
"Simple, real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time." -Mustrum Ridcully in Terry Pratchett's Hogfather p. 142 (HarperPrism 1996)
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
Do motions to dismiss have to include legal arguments / evidence to support it? Or is it essentially a "pretty please?" in writing?
So a couple groups (Coons, Tillis and Senate Dems in general) of Senators are releasing press releases about letting Mueller finish his investigation. Something is up.
Can't get a lawyer to defend you? Fire the prosecution...
Man it takes a lot of balls to say "you can't hold me accountable for these crimes because you weren't supposed to be looking at them!!"
That is kind of what the 4th amendment says. Shouldn't apply in this case since I'm assuming it's safe to assume Mueller followed proper procedures to collect his evidence, but it's not a crazy legal argument.
No, he's not arguing about evidence collection. He's arguing he can't be charged with the crimes behind Mueller wasn't supposed to look for those crimes.
The 4th comes up during trial with motions to supress evidence, which can be followed by motions to dismiss if all the key evidence is excluded. This is different and has no legal basis.
He's basically saying that a prosecutor who's been told to look for financial crimes can't bring murder charges if they find evidence of them.
Ok, yeah, that is just Hold My Beer levels of stupid.
Especially since Muellers appointment specifically says "any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation"
I feel like when you're pretty clearly guilty, like Paul Manafort is, while also being an rich white dude who can afford good lawyers; probing and finding technicalities in the law is your bread and butter. It muddies the waters, puts the process in question, and opens the door to walking out of the court room with a not guilty verdict.
So a couple groups (Coons, Tillis and Senate Dems in general) of Senators are releasing press releases about letting Mueller finish his investigation. Something is up.
Coons and Tillis co-wrote the bill to protect the Mueller investigation. That doesn’t mean something is up.
Yeah it seems more likely that given the Presidents behavior recently that they're just Believing the Strongman and want to do their best to prevent something bad happening.
There's no plan, there's no race to be run
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
(CNN)The special counsel investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election revealed Tuesday night that prosecutors say they have connected former Trump deputy campaign chairman Rick Gates to a person with ties to a Russian intelligence service while Gates worked on the campaign.
That Gates and the unnamed person, who had lived in Kiev and Moscow and worked for one of Paul Manafort's companies, were in touch in September and October 2016 was "pertinent to the investigation," a court filing from prosecutors said Tuesday night.
The acknowledgment that Gates knew the person had Russian intelligence ties is alleged in a report prosecutors filed about the coming sentencing of a Dutch attorney. That attorney, Alex van der Zwaan, who worked with Gates and Manafort previously, pleaded guilty last month to lying to special counsel Robert Mueller's investigators about his interactions with Gates and the unnamed person.
[...]
The prosecutors, in their own memo to federal Judge Amy Berman Jackson Tuesday night, do not ask for any particular sentence, but note how van der Zwaan was an experienced lawyer and lied to them after Manafort and Gates were indicted.
When Trump campaign aide George Papadopoulos pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI, attention fell on his meetings with a mysterious Maltese professor named Joseph Mifsud, who, according to court documents, told Papadopoulos that the Russians had thousands of Hillary Clinton emails — nearly two months before the Democrats themselves knew that their computers had been hacked.
But European security officials say another set of meetings Papadopoulos held in Europe in the months before and after the 2016 election should alarm US investigators. That’s because the person with whom he met, Greek Defense Minister Panos Kammenos, is known to be close to Russian President Vladimir Putin — a relationship that goes beyond Greece’s traditional ties to Russia through the Eastern Orthodox Church and a growing relationship brought on by Greece’s economic collapse.
...
Papadopoulos also was not the only Trump-connected figure who met Kammenos. Over the weekend of Trump’s inauguration, Kammenos was photographed at social events talking with incoming chief of staff Reince Priebus and Trump political adviser Steve Bannon. That was in contrast to Kammenos’s visit to Washington in 2015, when President Barack Obama’s secretary of defense, Ash Carter, canceled an already scheduled meeting with him. Photographs showing Priebus and Bannon with Kammenos were distributed by the Greek Defense Ministry.
Do motions to dismiss have to include legal arguments / evidence to support it? Or is it essentially a "pretty please?" in writing?
yes, you have to have a legal basis to ask for dismissal
So it's arguments that would be heard in court anyway regarding arguing the client's innocence? That's going to annoy the shit out of the judge to hear over and over. Which you already addressed so WHEEE what a shitshow these people are.
0
Options
WACriminalDying Is Easy, Young ManLiving Is HarderRegistered Userregular
Wait.
That attorney, Alex van der Zwaan [...] pleaded guilty last month to lying to special counsel Robert Mueller's investigators about his interactions with Gates and the unnamed person.
Did we know this? Or is this ANOTHER case of indictments/confessions being made, and then us not finding out about it for weeks?
WACriminalDying Is Easy, Young ManLiving Is HarderRegistered Userregular
After a quick google, looks like there were some articles about it in February.
This whole investigation is bananas. As closely as I'm following it, and there's still huge stuff just flying completely under my radar.
+24
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Yup, van der Zwann was a Friday Event a couple of weeks ago. People at Skadden are pissed they have connections to Manafort. They are really lucky they can prove van der Zwann lied to them as well.
By the way, word of advice to lawyers: do not lie to the FBI. More importantly, do not lie to your firm.
At this point, I wouldn't be surprised if the illegal things that Trump is asking his lawyers to do is less "Hey, why don't we trigger a constitutional crisis?" and more, "Hey, why don't we send over some goons to threaten his family if he doesn't drop this?"
I find it absolutely fascinating the number of foreign governments tied to this and the Russians. Former chancellor of Germany, the Greek defense minister, who else?
Like, this is turning over A LOT of rocks
+33
Options
Drake ChambersLay out my formal shorts.Registered Userregular
Do motions to dismiss have to include legal arguments / evidence to support it? Or is it essentially a "pretty please?" in writing?
yes, you have to have a legal basis to ask for dismissal
So it's arguments that would be heard in court anyway regarding arguing the client's innocence? That's going to annoy the shit out of the judge to hear over and over. Which you already addressed so WHEEE what a shitshow these people are.
An argument for dismissal would be an entirely separate thing. Arguing your client’s innocence is what the trial is for. Moving for dismissal is basically saying there shouldn’t even be a trial for some reason.
"You had no right to catch my client committing crimes while you were investigating other crimes that may or may not be related."
Nobody remembers the singer. The song remains.
+6
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
CNN has a fairly exhaustive list of lawyers and firms who have not only refused Trump’s case, but some have even gone on record saying that Trump himself is the reason, citing him being erratic, self-destructive, frequently ignoring of counsel, and guilty of trying to coerce his legal team into illegal activity.
Among those to turn down offers from the White House is Robert Bennett, who advised President Clinton during the Paula Jones suit; Bennet went so far to encourage one of the two remaining lawyers in Trump’s coterie, Ty Cobb, to quit as well, citing concerns for Cobb’s professional reputation.
The National Rifle Association is acknowledging that it accepts donations from foreign entities, and that it moves money between its various accounts “as permitted by law.”
The gun group insists it has never received foreign money in connection with an election. But campaign finance experts say that, since money is fungible, that assurance doesn’t mean much.
...
The admissions came in a recent letter to Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR), who has sought answers about the group’s foreign funding, following reports that the FBI is probing whether a Russian banker funneled money to the NRA to benefit the Trump campaign.
“While we do receive some contributions from foreign individuals and entities, those contributions are made directly to the NRA for lawful purposes,” NRA General Counsel John Frazer wrote to Wyden. “Our review of our records has found no foreign donations in connection with a United States election, either directly or through a conduit.”
I think the fact that they never come out and say "We accept foreign funds but we've never knowingly taken Russian funds" means that yeah, they've definitely taken Russian funds.
+36
Options
VanguardBut now the dream is over. And the insect is awake.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Mueller just drew his most direct line to date between the Trump campaign and Russia
Special counsel Robert S. Mueller III's investigation just drew what appears to be its most direct line to date between President Trump's 2016 campaign and Russia.
That line is drawn in a new court filing related to the upcoming sentencing of London attorney Alex van der Zwaan. Van der Zwaan has pleaded guilty to lying about his contacts with deputy Trump campaign manager Rick Gates and a person not named in the document, Person A. Person A appears to be a former Ukraine-based aide to Gates and Paul Manafort named Konstantin Kilimnik.
Here's the paragraph:
Fourth, the lies and withholding of documents were material to the Special Counsel’s Office’s investigation. That Gates and Person A were directly communicating in September and October 2016 was pertinent to the investigation. Federal Bureau of Investigation Special Agents assisting the Special Counsel’s Office assess that Person A has ties to Russian intelligence service and had such ties in 2016. During his first interview with the Special Counsel’s Office, van der Zwaan admitted that he knew of that connection, stating that Gates told him Person A was a former Russian Intelligence Officer with GRU.
At this point, I wouldn't be surprised if the illegal things that Trump is asking his lawyers to do is less "Hey, why don't we trigger a constitutional crisis?" and more, "Hey, why don't we send over some goons to threaten his family if he doesn't drop this?"
Possibly but I think it's more "I want to go on record that I never did anything wrong ever and this guy and that guy are liars!" and lawyers are telling him they can't do that shit even if they weren't already facing multiple lawsuits for defamation.
I find it absolutely fascinating the number of foreign governments tied to this and the Russians. Former chancellor of Germany, the Greek defense minister, who else?
Like, this is turning over A LOT of rocks
It seems to me that this is a case of the mueller's investigation having hit an upper tier cell and the consequence is that they're now chasing it all the way down the line, eating away at every intelligence asset that russia had tied to it.
Which might actually be an acceptable loss for russia if they still get to have trump go unchallenged on this.
Trump’s Lawyer Raised Prospect of Pardons for Flynn and Manafort as Special Counsel Closed In
WASHINGTON — A lawyer for President Trump broached the idea of Mr. Trump pardoning two of his former top advisers, Michael T. Flynn and Paul Manafort, with their lawyers last year, according to three people with knowledge of the discussions.
The discussions came as the special counsel was building cases against both men, and they raise questions about whether the lawyer, John Dowd, was offering pardons to influence their decisions about whether to plead guilty and cooperate in the investigation.
The talks suggest that Mr. Trump’s lawyers were concerned about what Mr. Flynn and Mr. Manafort might reveal were they to cut a deal with the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, in exchange for leniency. Mr. Mueller’s team could investigate the prospect that Mr. Dowd made pardon offers to thwart the inquiry, although legal experts are divided about whether such offers might constitute obstruction of justice.
[...]
Mr. Dowd has said privately that he did not know why Mr. Flynn had accepted a plea, according to one of the people. He said he had told Mr. Kelner that the president had long believed that the case against Mr. Flynn was flimsy and was prepared to pardon him, the person said.
The pardon discussion with Mr. Manafort’s attorney, Reginald J. Brown, came before his client was indicted in October on charges of money laundering and other financial crimes. Mr. Manafort, the former chairman of Mr. Trump’s presidential campaign, has pleaded not guilty and has told others he is not interested in a pardon because he believes he has done nothing wrong and the government overstepped its authority. Mr. Brown is no longer his lawyer.
It is unclear whether Mr. Dowd, who resigned last week as the head of the president’s legal team, discussed the pardons with Mr. Trump before bringing them up with the other lawyers.
[...]
During interviews with Mr. Mueller’s investigators in recent months, current and former administration officials have recounted conversations they had with the president about potential pardons for former aides under investigation by the special counsel, according to two people briefed on the interviews.
[...]
Legal experts are divided about whether a pardon offer, even if given in exchange for continued loyalty, can be considered obstruction of justice. Presidents have constitutional authority to pardon people who face or were convicted of federal charges.
[...]
There is no way that wasn't done to obstruct the investigation.
Can he pardon them before all the charges are brought against them? Isn't that something you should wait for?
No precedent for preemptive pardons
Offering pardons before a case is over, in order to encourage someone to plead guilty, seems pretty unethical and obstructiony
There is no way "promising pardons preemptively to indicted accomplices to help yourself get out of crimes" does not constitute an abuse of the pardon power
3DS: 2165 - 6538 - 3417
NNID: Hakkekage
+20
Options
No-QuarterNothing To FearBut Fear ItselfRegistered Userregular
I'm surprised there isn't more discussion of the court filing and the implications from that. Like... van der Swaan has tapes of Manafort conversing with his man from the GRU. That's... pretty astounding.
Can he pardon them before all the charges are brought against them? Isn't that something you should wait for?
No precedent for preemptive pardons
Offering pardons before a case is over, in order to encourage someone to plead guilty, seems pretty unethical and obstructiony
I thought Ford's pardon of Nixon was considered preemptive?
Oops I'm thinking of it differently since here we have charges actually filed on a few people, but I guess the question was before charges, so yeah that's been done (but was also after impeachment and resignation which was sort of Nixon being shown to be guilty...idk)
Pardoning Nixon wasn’t done as a way to prevent Nixon from talking. It was done so the nation could “get on with it”. Ford was never in any legal danger over the issue and so he couldn’t rightly be “obstructing justice” given that the Pardon power is essentially the President determining justice in cases that do not pertain to himself
Trump’s Lawyer Raised Prospect of Pardons for Flynn and Manafort as Special Counsel Closed In
WASHINGTON — A lawyer for President Trump broached the idea of Mr. Trump pardoning two of his former top advisers, Michael T. Flynn and Paul Manafort, with their lawyers last year, according to three people with knowledge of the discussions.
The discussions came as the special counsel was building cases against both men, and they raise questions about whether the lawyer, John Dowd, was offering pardons to influence their decisions about whether to plead guilty and cooperate in the investigation.
The talks suggest that Mr. Trump’s lawyers were concerned about what Mr. Flynn and Mr. Manafort might reveal were they to cut a deal with the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, in exchange for leniency. Mr. Mueller’s team could investigate the prospect that Mr. Dowd made pardon offers to thwart the inquiry, although legal experts are divided about whether such offers might constitute obstruction of justice.
[...]
Mr. Dowd has said privately that he did not know why Mr. Flynn had accepted a plea, according to one of the people. He said he had told Mr. Kelner that the president had long believed that the case against Mr. Flynn was flimsy and was prepared to pardon him, the person said.
The pardon discussion with Mr. Manafort’s attorney, Reginald J. Brown, came before his client was indicted in October on charges of money laundering and other financial crimes. Mr. Manafort, the former chairman of Mr. Trump’s presidential campaign, has pleaded not guilty and has told others he is not interested in a pardon because he believes he has done nothing wrong and the government overstepped its authority. Mr. Brown is no longer his lawyer.
It is unclear whether Mr. Dowd, who resigned last week as the head of the president’s legal team, discussed the pardons with Mr. Trump before bringing them up with the other lawyers.
[...]
During interviews with Mr. Mueller’s investigators in recent months, current and former administration officials have recounted conversations they had with the president about potential pardons for former aides under investigation by the special counsel, according to two people briefed on the interviews.
[...]
Legal experts are divided about whether a pardon offer, even if given in exchange for continued loyalty, can be considered obstruction of justice. Presidents have constitutional authority to pardon people who face or were convicted of federal charges.
[...]
There is no way that wasn't done to obstruct the investigation.
Right? They were pretty much telling their lawyers "Don't worry about cooperating, we'll just pardon you later."
Posts
Yeah, even in something as simple as a divorce case, your lawyer filing a bunch of nonsense to waste everyone’s time unless they give you a favorable ruling would impact the result. A case as serious as the allegations against Manafort is no different.
And that’s a feature, not a bug. Otherwise every jackass who was obviously guilty or knew they didn’t have a case could functionally halt any consequences for their client by being a nuisance in general or being cute with where they are on the line between “annoying but proper defending” and “annoying everybody so nobody wants to deal with this case”.
And we desperately need some consequences for the crimes being committed.
Welllll, delays still work pretty well depending on the court and the case. The Kochs and the Kennedy's successfully managed to halt the Cape Wind project by filing frivolous motions. The judge was annoyed and came down on them hard, but they still outlasted their opponents who ran out of money to continue pursuing the case.
Can't get a lawyer to defend you? Fire the prosecution...
yes, you have to have a legal basis to ask for dismissal
I feel like when you're pretty clearly guilty, like Paul Manafort is, while also being an rich white dude who can afford good lawyers; probing and finding technicalities in the law is your bread and butter. It muddies the waters, puts the process in question, and opens the door to walking out of the court room with a not guilty verdict.
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
This is a host on MSNBC.
Intriguing.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/27/politics/alex-van-der-zwaan-memorandum/index.html These are not brilliant geniuses.
Bunch more at the link.
Did we know this? Or is this ANOTHER case of indictments/confessions being made, and then us not finding out about it for weeks?
This whole investigation is bananas. As closely as I'm following it, and there's still huge stuff just flying completely under my radar.
By the way, word of advice to lawyers: do not lie to the FBI. More importantly, do not lie to your firm.
Well, so is lying to the FBI and also colluding with foreign governments.
Like, this is turning over A LOT of rocks
An argument for dismissal would be an entirely separate thing. Arguing your client’s innocence is what the trial is for. Moving for dismissal is basically saying there shouldn’t even be a trial for some reason.
Among those to turn down offers from the White House is Robert Bennett, who advised President Clinton during the Paula Jones suit; Bennet went so far to encourage one of the two remaining lawyers in Trump’s coterie, Ty Cobb, to quit as well, citing concerns for Cobb’s professional reputation.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/28/politics/donald-trump-lawyer/index.html
We’ve gone from lawyers saying “Sorry, we’re busy,” to “You kidding me? No. Hell no. Fuck off,” in very short order.
"Even though your orders are to do exactly that"
And Infrastructure Week never fails to disappoint.
It's going to be along Infrastructure Week Year.
I think the fact that they never come out and say "We accept foreign funds but we've never knowingly taken Russian funds" means that yeah, they've definitely taken Russian funds.
This seems very intentionally timed for both Manafort and Trump
Possibly but I think it's more "I want to go on record that I never did anything wrong ever and this guy and that guy are liars!" and lawyers are telling him they can't do that shit even if they weren't already facing multiple lawsuits for defamation.
It seems to me that this is a case of the mueller's investigation having hit an upper tier cell and the consequence is that they're now chasing it all the way down the line, eating away at every intelligence asset that russia had tied to it.
Which might actually be an acceptable loss for russia if they still get to have trump go unchallenged on this.
3DS: 1521-4165-5907
PS3: KayleSolo
Live: Kayle Solo
WiiU: KayleSolo
No precedent for preemptive pardons
Offering pardons before a case is over, in order to encourage someone to plead guilty, seems pretty unethical and obstructiony
I thought Ford's pardon of Nixon was considered preemptive?
There is no way "promising pardons preemptively to indicted accomplices to help yourself get out of crimes" does not constitute an abuse of the pardon power
NNID: Hakkekage
Don't make me go to Reddit, [thread]!
Oops I'm thinking of it differently since here we have charges actually filed on a few people, but I guess the question was before charges, so yeah that's been done (but was also after impeachment and resignation which was sort of Nixon being shown to be guilty...idk)
Right? They were pretty much telling their lawyers "Don't worry about cooperating, we'll just pardon you later."