Curiouser and Curiouser: Rick Gates Attorneys Withdraw from Case Initiated by Robert Mueller…

It was announced this afternoon the lawyers representing, Rick Gates, the business partner of Paul Manafort, have withdrawn from the case.  The judicial notification is HERE, and details of withdrawal were filed under seal.

Amid the news cycle of the HPSCI memo release, and considering there could be ripple effects therein, lots of media speculations follows:

WASHINGTON DC – Three attorneys representing Rick Gates told a federal court Thursday they are immediately withdrawing as counsel for the former Donald Trump campaign aide, who is fighting special counsel Robert Mueller’s indictment of him on money laundering and other charges.

Lawyers Shanlon Wu, Walter Mack and Annemarie McAvoy said in a two-page motion that they would explain the reasons for their abrupt move in documents filed under seal with the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. (read more)

There is possibility the three lawyers could be withdrawing after discovery of the length of time the DOJ was investigating Manafort and Gates; and that might just dovetail into the FISA702 abuse story and the 2016 counterintelligence investigation of Donald Trump. I’ll try to explain.

If you go back to the original indictment (pdf below); you will note the charging document states: “In order to hide Ukraine payments from United States authorities, from approximately 2006 through at least 2016, Manafort and Gates laundered the money through scores of United States and foreign corporations, partnerships and bank accounts.”

The indictment is purely focused on alleged financial crimes involving Paul Manafort and Rick Gates and does not include any charges related to the broader question that formed the basis of Mueller’s investigation – whether Donald Trump’s presidential campaign colluded with Russia.  In fact the indictment describes criminal allegations that predated the Trump campaign and President Trump’s name is not mentioned at all in the 31-page document.  This has nothing to do with candidate Trump or President Trump.

However, one of the key issues is the dates, and that might explain something else entirely.  Notice the indictment recognizes action from 2006 through 2016.

One of the key questions we have been unable to solve over the past eighteen months is what initiated the 2016 FISA surveillance of candidate Trump.  Others have asked the question: what was the predicate crime that initiated the FISA ‘warrant’? etc.

Last night, in a generally overlooked media interview, former DNI James Clapper stated the “Clinton-Steele Dossier” was used by the DOJ-FBI in gaining an “extension” of an original FISA-702 warrant.

Consider the word ‘extension’ would also likely mean ‘expansion’, and that might explain why there was never an originating FISA application directed specifically toward Donald Trump.

What if, there was an existing FISA-702 surveillance ‘warrant’ granted to the FBI, at some considerably earlier time-frame, based on the targeting of Paul Manafort and Rick Gates and their engagements with foreign actors, Russia, Ukraine, and foreign money laundering.

What if, the hiring of Manafort by candidate Trump, simply to manage the delegation process in advance of the convention, opened a back-door to expanding an existing FISA warrant of Paul Manafort.  The extended and expanded FISA surveillance now includes the Trump campaign and all associated officials.

In this scenario, there would never be an initiating FISA-702 surveillance request because the originating FISA authority was attached to Paul Manafort and pre-dated the Trump/Manafort relationship.

See where this is going?

In this scenario, all subsequent FISA filings would need to show a reason to continue the expanded FISA-702 surveillance authority to include candidate Trump and/or any other campaign officials.   That’s where the ‘Clinton/Steele’ dossier comes into play.

Look at the BIG PICTURE.

When you consider the FISA Court already admonished the FBI for allowing contractors unlawful use, access and removal of raw NSA and FBI intelligence database information….  and you consider that Fusion GPS (Bean LLC) was likely one of the contractors…. and when you overlay Glenn Simpson and his wife had already spent a great deal of time investigating Russian entities, Paul Manafort and Donald Trump…

Well, a pattern of convenient association and timing appears.

After months of prior opposition research, including what appears to be their access to FISA-702(17) “Search Queries“as a sub-contractor for the FBI, the wife of Glenn Simpson (Fusion GPS), Mary B. Jacoby, with years of Russia-angled reporting –including Donald Trump– visits the White House.

This is April 19th 2016, the day after the FBI, stopped allowing Fusion-GPS access the NSA FISA-702 database.  Immediately following this White House visit the Clinton campaign hire Fusion GPS to conduct opposition research on Donald Trump, surrounding Russia.  Fusion GPS then hires Nellie Ohr.

[The Tablet] … Simpson and Jacoby had ID’d Manafort as a world-class sleazeball and they were right. A slick Georgetown Law grad running in GOP circles since the Reagan campaign, Manafort used his talents and connections to get paid by some very bad people.

I would only add here that, in my personal experience, journalists are not in the habit of forgetting major stories they’ve written, especially stories with a character like Manafort at the center.

So when the Trump campaign named Paul Manafort as its campaign convention manager on March 28, 2016, you can bet that Simpson and Jacoby’s eyes lit up.

And as it happened, at the exact same time that Trump hired Manafort, Fusion GPS was in negotiations with Perkins Coie, the law firm representing the Clinton campaign and the DNC, to see if there was interest in the firm continuing the opposition research on the Trump campaign they had started for the Washington Free Beacon. (more)

D. Manny picked up on this connective tissue last night:

-Court found illegal surveillance was conducted on American citizens over a five year period.

-Judge chastised NSA’s inspector general and Office of Compliance for Operations for an “institutional ‘lack of candor’” for failing to inform the court.

-The judge called the breach “a very serious Fourth Amendment issue.”

-Redacted part of ruling is the extent of the illegal surveillance and number of analysts who made the searches and the number of queries.

-NSA blamed it on human error and system design issues.

-The court document also criticized the FBI’s distribution of intelligence data, saying it had “disclosed raw surveillance data to sectors of its bureaucracy” … “largely staffed by private contractors.”  Contractors had access to raw FISA information that went well beyond what was necessary to respond to the FBI’s requests.

.

The FBI was already conducting FISA Court authorized surveillance on Paul Manafort and Rick Gates, likely going back long before Manafort became engaged with the Trump campaign.   “Long before.”

And specifically because the DOJ and FBI Manafort/Gates investigation involved potential money laundering and financial schemes related to “organized crime” and Russian figures, who from the DOJ-NSD would have been intimately familiar?….

[…] Bruce G. Ohr held two titles at DOJ: associate deputy attorney general, a post that placed him four doors down from his boss, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein; and director of the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces (OCDETF), a program described by the department as “the centerpiece of the attorney general’s drug strategy.” (link)

Perhaps, through sealed discovery, Rick Gates’ attorneys discovered their client was under FISA surveillance going back multiple years:

(pdf link)

This entry was posted in Clinton(s), Conspiracy ?, Decepticons, Deep State, Dem Hypocrisy, Dept Of Justice, Desperately Seeking Hillary, FBI, media bias, Notorious Liars, President Trump, Professional Idiots, propaganda, Russia, THE BIG UGLY, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

569 Responses to Curiouser and Curiouser: Rick Gates Attorneys Withdraw from Case Initiated by Robert Mueller…

  1. covfefe999 says:

    Check out JimWVa’s comment above. He posted the info and I found a media reference to it. This could just be a conflict of interest matter. Also I have seen speculation elsewhere that it could be a sign that Gates is going to enter into a plea deal.

    I’m glad Sundance pointed out that none of the Gates and Manafort charges have anything to do with Trump or Russia collusion. It’s all about money laundering during a period of time prior to Manafort hooking up with Trump to assist with the GOP convention.

    Liked by 1 person

    • covfefe999 says:

      I refuse to post a link to HuffPo but I came across an article when I was doing a search to see what the propaganda media had to say about “Manafort Russia collusion”. HuffPo was quite bold, claiming “Manafort Indictment Reveals Trump Russia Collusion”. Apparently nobody at HuffPo has read the indictment document. There are 3 mentions of Russia and they are only incidental material and have nothing to do with the charges. Sadly, HuffPo wasn’t the only propaganda media outlet to seize upon the Manafort indictment as proof or evidence of Russia collusion.

      Like

      • covfefe999 says:

        Sorry, didn’t realize that link was going to cause a page to display like that! I should have attached it to the end of my paragraph, not placed it on a line by itself. WordPress does all sorts of fancy formatting and other stuff that I don’t always intend.

        Like

    • D. Manny says:

      Law firms of that size do exhaustive conflict-of-interest searches BEFORE they ever sign the contract to rep a client. There’s no way they’d only discover that just now.

      Like

  2. I’ve always felt Manafort was a plant. Now I’m 100% convinced. This would require someone from Team Trump to coordinate with someone from Team Scoundrel.
    Who on Team Trump at that time pushed for Manafort?

    Like

    • Patsy says:

      Prebius.

      Like

    • D. Manny says:

      Two reasons:

      1)He’s a past partner to Roger Stone, who is a close friend of Trump’s. Stone would have given his blessing.
      2)The GOP itself was refusing to work with Trump at the time, which is why Trump had to give the list of names he did for his “advisers,” people new and unproven in the field, because the usual cabal was refusing to work with him.

      Liked by 6 people

    • De Oppresso Libre says:

      I read somewhere, quite a while ago as well, that Manafort was recommended to the Trump campaign by no other than Sen. Songbird McCain. I also couldn’t understand why President-elect Trump would ever trust little sissy midget Reince (what kind of name is that?) Preibus (or however the hell you spell the little schittbird’s name). I honestly believe President-elect Trump, as well as newly-inaugurated President Trump, did not fully recognize the level of “animosity” that would be unleashed against him, his family, and his friends and business associates. He had a very steep learning curve to negotiate, and it began by changing out “advisors” who performed very poorly in the beginning, as well as his reliance upon family members who were / are the polar opposites of his loyal base. He also thought he could make friends with McConnell and Ryan if he supported their establishment candidates in special elections. But, I believe he realizes that the Unipaty wants him destroyed, not only politically, but also publicly and personally. Perhaps now he will unleash hell upon those who want to destroy both him AND the Republic.

      Like

  3. Rooster says:

    Wow, man this is way over my head to understand. To many players doing to many dealings for to many reasons. I guess it’s all about money and power and who can and cannot get enough of it.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. Chris says:

    Very convincing. One last thought; the “insurance policy” Strzok and Page discussed; I feel; was to cover up the years of spying conducted; beforehand.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. brenrod says:

    I thought that attorneys usually quit when they find their client misled them or withheld info. I dont see why they should quit if they discovered fisa spying on gates.. all the more reason to stay in and defend.

    Like

  6. thedoc00 says:

    So, after reading all the above, the primary premise for the three pronged investigation of the FBI and DoJ appears to be still intact. That is, the FBI and DoJ corrupted the all things Clinton Investigation to save Hillary, plus they used false information to justify expansion of their FISA based surveillance of Mannford and Gates to include the Trump campaign (using FBI and DoJ assets for political purposes to aid Clinton and later remove Trump after he won).

    Liked by 1 person

  7. youme says:

    DOJ Accused of Hiding Policy on Spying Notice

    SAN FRANCISCO (CN) – The federal government is concealing a policy on when it must notify criminal defendants that evidence used against them was obtained through a secret government spying program, the American Civil Liberties Union claimed in court Wednesday.

    The ACLU lawsuit seeks records on the Department of Justice’s policy regarding when it must tell individuals that their emails, phone calls and other data were seized and searched without a warrant.

    “DOJ has a track record of failing to inform individuals about the surveillance of their communications even when notice is expressly required by law,” the ACLU says in its 35-page complaint. “Accordingly, the public interest in the release of the DOJ policy documents at issue is substantial.”

    The ACLU says the Justice Department has withheld records it asked for in a Freedom of Information Act request filed on Feb. 6 this year. The request sought records on a DOJ policy memorandum titled, “Determining Whether Evidence Is ‘Derived From’ Surveillance Under Title III or FISA.”

    That memo reportedly outlines the department’s position on when it must inform surveillance targets about how information about them was collected under Title III of the Wiretap Act and Section 7 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA. Those statutes authorize “hundreds of thousands of secret wiretaps and other searches” each year, according to the ACLU.

    “The government’s searches under FISA and Title III are generally invisible to the individuals whose privacy they impact,” the ACLU says in its complaint. “Unlike traditional searches of a person’s home, electronic searches rarely leave any sign, and thus individuals whose privacy has been invaded are entirely dependent on the government’s provision of notice.”

    For five years, the Department of Justice had a policy of not notifying criminal defendants when evidence used against them was obtained through secret government surveillance, according to a New York Times report published in October 2013 and cited in the complaint.

    The Justice Department changed its policy after former Solicitor General Don Verrilli Jr. found in 2013 that there was no legal justification for refusing to disclose such information.

    However, the Justice Department’s new policy has remained shrouded in secrecy, making it impossible to determine if prosecutors actually adhere to that directive, the ACLU says.

    As few as 10 criminal defendants have received notice that they were the subject of surveillance under Section 702 of FISA, the ACLU says in its complaint. That means there is good reason to suspect “that DOJ is still failing to give individuals notice” as the law requires, especially since the government collects hundreds of millions of communications under Section 702 of FISA each year, the ACLU says.

    “FBI agents around the country routinely search these Section 702 databases for information about Americans in criminal investigations, as well as in virtually every national security-related investigation,” the complaint states.

    The ACLU says such disclosures are necessary to fully inform the public about when the government will notify them that their private information was seized without a warrant. The records are also critical to inform the ongoing public debate about the reauthorization of Section 702 of FISA, which is set to expire in December 2017.

    “This information bears on whether the government’s controversial surveillance powers should be reformed, whether individuals have an opportunity to seek judicial review of this surveillance in the public courts, and whether Congress should act to strengthen existing notice requirements,” the ACLU declares in its lawsuit.

    The civil liberties group seeks a court order directing the Justice Department to immediately disclose the requested records.

    https://www.courthousenews.com/doj-accused-hiding-policy-spying-notice/

    Like

  8. youme says:

    Up until 2013, no criminal defendant received notice of Section 702 surveillance, even though notice is required by statute. Then, after reports surfaced in the New York Times that the Justice Department had misled the Supreme Court and was evading its notice obligations, the government issued five such notices in criminal cases between October 2013 and April 2014. After that, the notices stopped — and for the last 20 months, crickets.

    https://www.justsecurity.org/28256/arent-criminal-defendants-notice-section-702-surveillance-again/

    Liked by 2 people

    • youme says:

      There’s a good chance the three attorneys representing Rick Gates have no knowledge of FISA derived evidence or maybe they are alleging that FISA evidence led to the indictment but the judge and Mueller refuse to acknowledge it.

      “United States v. Kashmiri, a recent decision by a district judge in Illinois, provides a nice illustration of the process by which defendants in criminal cases may object to the admission of evidence derived from Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrants”

      “…..the court joined a chorus of judges concluding that the Fourth Amendment is not violated by a system in which prosecutors later make use of FISA-derived evidence so long as foreign intelligence-collection was a “significant purpose” of the FISA application at the time. The court expressly disagreed with the vacated Mayfield decision (in which a district judge in Oregon had held that post-PATRIOT Act FISA violates the 4th Amendment), describing it as an outlier.

      “….the court agreed that a defendant in theory could obtain a Franks hearing to test, post hoc, the veracity of the statements in the affidavit(s) supporting a FISA application, but concluded that Rana had not made the case that such a hearing was warranted in this instance. More to the point, the court made clear that it will be the rare defendant who will get such a hearing:

      ” Nevertheless, to challenge the veracity of the FISA application, Defendant must offer substantial proof that the FISC relied on an intentional or reckless misrepresentation by the government to grant the FISA order. The quest to satisfy the Franks requirements might feel like a wild-goose chase, as Defendant lacks access to the materials that would provide this proof. This perceived practical impossibility to obtain a hearing, however, does not constitute a legal impossibility. If Defendant obtains substantial proof that the FISC relied upon an intentional or recklessly false statement to approve the FISA order, he could obtain a hearing. In addition, the Court has already undertaken a process akin to a Franks hearing through its ex parte, in camera review of the FISA materials. 50 U.S.C. § 1806(f). Through this review, the Court finds that Defendant is not entitled to a Franks hearing. Therefore, his request is denied.”

      https://www.lawfareblog.com/admissibility-fisa-derived-evidence-criminal-prosecutions

      Like

      • brh82 says:

        youme, blessings on you for all this information, though it makes me infinitely sad that the corruption in our government is so deep we don’t have a dredge capable of draining the swamp. My take-away from this ongoing debacle is that 30 Republicans are leaving the swamp voluntarily because POTUS is ending the “perks” of the job; the fortunes derived from corrupt practices. The 30 we know about now are probably only the beginning, as more awaken to the fact that there are no mansions in their futures, “serving the public”. Leave your family behind and go to Washington to fight the personalities of the likes of Schumer, Pelosi, Waters and Cummings, and sit in oh-so-boring-meetings, and bow and scrape to people you would have ZERO use for in your private life! Who would voluntarily do that? Would you? No wonder it seems to common folk like us that the government is peopled by a whole lot of crazies we would never want for our friends.

        Liked by 1 person

  9. Mickturn says:

    Its obvious that all this is just mumbo jumbo BS…based on a lies and false filings with the FISA court to get anyone close to Trump. It is way past time to end this charade and put those responsible in PRISON!

    Liked by 1 person

  10. Michele Ralston says:

    Are you saying that Trump was targeted by the DOJ and FBI through the Title I FISA of Carter Page and through the Title VII FISA of Paul Manafort and Rick Gates?

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s