Trial Games: Prosecutor Asonye Tells Judge Ellis Key Witness May Not Testify in Manafort Case…

Corrupt Robert Mueller’s ‘Clinton alliance team‘ of corrupt federal prosecutors begin playing corrupt trial and jury games they are famous for.

Corrupt federal prosecutor Uso Asonye was using corrupt FBI agent Mathew Mikuska (a member of the federal no-knock-team who raided Manafort’s condo), as a witness to introduce financial records against Manafort when Judge Ellis interjected about the purpose of the FBI agent as a witness on the issue given the pending testimony of key government witness Rick Gates, Manafort’s business partner.

Corrupt Mr. Asonye then informed the court Rick Gates might not be testifying.

Judge Ellis was not amused.

(Via Washington Times) In a shocking admission Wednesday morning, federal prosecutors said Rick Gates may not testify in the trial of his former business partner Paul Manafort.

Mr. Gates, who oversaw some of the financial dealings of Mr. Manafort’s consulting business, was expected to be a key witness for the government.

But prosecutor Uso Asonye said jurors may not hear from Mr. Gates after all.

“He may testify, he may not,” Mr. Asonye told Judge T.S. Ellis III.

The revelation sent journalists and others out of the courtroom to report the disclosure.

“That’s news to me and about 25 others who scurried out of here like rats on a sinking ship,” Judge Ellis shot back.

Mr. Asonye attempted to backtrack, telling Judge Ellis that the evidence presented will determine if Mr. Gates‘ testifies.

That drew a sharp rebuke from Judge Ellis.

“You know who you are going to call,” He said. “If you are going to call him then this is a waste of time.” (more)

Advertisements
This entry was posted in 1st Amendment, 4th Amendment, 6th Amendment, Abusive Cops, Big Stupid Government, Conspiracy ?, Deep State, Dept Of Justice, Desperately Seeking Hillary, Donald Trump, FBI, media bias, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

466 Responses to Trial Games: Prosecutor Asonye Tells Judge Ellis Key Witness May Not Testify in Manafort Case…

  1. Brant says:

    9th Circus seems to have gotten a bit more circumspect recently. The defunding of sanctuary cities. Perhaps a combination of factors. The Supreme Court and also perhaps more wide spread availability of news and information, like this very website. I imagine this would never be heard of with uncle Walter Cronkite and 3 “approved” news channels the only game in town.

    Maybe some judges are starting to understand how totally ridiculous they are. Especially with the FISA fiascos.

    Liked by 6 people

    • davidb says:

      What defunding of sanctuary cities??? Its just a threat, as the Judge/policy makers have ruled it illegal to stop fed funding for illegals(sanctuary cities)

      Liked by 2 people

      • Brant says:

        It was just a snip I saw and maybe didn’t get it clear. The SF 3 judge panel ruled 2-1 in Trumps favor on one of his suggestions of withhold funding from sanctuary cities. I think that was it.

        Like

        • Alonzo says:

          I believe you are talking about a recent 2A issue decided by the 9th.

          Liked by 1 person

        • LBB says:

          Ruling was against PDJT that he could not withhold funds from sanctuary cities.

          https://www.politico.com/story/2018/08/01/trump-sanctuary-cities-appeal-ruling-756925

          Liked by 1 person

          • vladdy says:

            Which was pretty damn insane, considering lots of O and Holder’s instructions to schools, like the framework of the Promise (give criminals leeway to buy guns if they’re students) program also included the holding back of funds if not followed. And the ACA insisted that, to participate and get funding, med schools and research facilities (and hospitals) had to have a certain percentage of “minorities and women”…and then there were the Section 8 and other housing funds requiring “diversity” before the money was distributed.

            When I worked in special ed, we were constantly reminded that, in order to continue funding, all our paperwork had to be in order when inspected, although I don’t know how they thought they were going to get away with denying sped kids proper schooling and funding had we not been in compliance.

            Anyway, this is the first I’ve ever heard of a threat of withholding federal funds being met with a lawsuit AND a decision against the executive branch of the federal government. Perhaps O and those before him were taken to court, too, and I am just remembering it incorrectly.

            Liked by 1 person

          • Deplorable_Vespucciland says:

            That ruling was regarding federal monies already promised which must be doled out to sanctuary cities in the current fiscal year. Next year will be different if Congress acts properly.

            Liked by 2 people

    • Mercenary says:

      This kind of celebrating at the first faint whiff of a liberal looking at you is why so many conservatives always fail. The Ninth is an abomination on this land, they’re not changing one iota.

      Liked by 9 people

  2. BobR says:

    Rosie/Mueller mission accomplished. No U1 investigation. FISA problem, but no judges squawking. Only one investigating is Tom Fitton. Atkisson on Hannity says no one wants to touch whistleblowers from FBI. Rosie/Mueller still looking good.

    Liked by 2 people

  3. Angry Dumbo says:

    “Asonye was using corrupt FBI agent Mathew Mikuska (a member of the federal no-knock-team who raided Manafort’s condo), as a witness to introduce financial records against Manafort when Judge Ellis interjected about the purpose of the FBI agent as a witness on the issue given the pending testimony of key government witness Rick Gates, Manafort’s business partner.”

    IMHO – substituting Mikuska’s testimony for that of Gates (Manafort’s partner/boss) is a risky move born of necessity because they don’t want to put Gates on the stand.

    Liked by 7 people

    • L4grasshopper says:

      Not an expert, but Mikuska’s testimony would be hearsay as he was not party to creation or verification of any financial records.

      Liked by 7 people

      • Angry Dumbo says:

        If Gates doesn’t testify then I agree Mikuska can say no more than these are the records I found. Without Gates testimony – the prosecutors appear to have an even weaker case than the one RR refused to prosecute nearly 10 years ago. With a properly functioning judiciary and media, Gates is going to get a lot of scrutiny here. I don’t think this is what the prosecution wants.

        Okay legal eagles, without Gates, can the prosecution proceed?

        Liked by 2 people

        • J.Ballz says:

          It doesn’t matter now. There’s no time outs in a criminal trial. It doesn’t end until the jury makes a decision. At least that’s 100% true in this case because Judge Ellis seems to want to get the trial from point A to point B as expeditiously as possible. I don’t see a case without Gates because of the rules of evidence. I’m surprised the defense didn’t object to the FBI testifying to what the document said, or perhaps they did and that’s what led the judge to order counsel to save those questions for a witness who is an expert. The FBI agent is not. His testimony is helpful, but he isn’t some super witness. If they flipped Gates, then he must testify because he is the one who actually compiled the documents. They are his work product, he knows exactly what they say and mean.

          And remember, it’s not illegal to have money outside the US. Every, and I mean every, wealthy person with a lot of money keeps some outside the US, mostly so they don’t have to pay taxes on it and there is anonymity. But if you bring it in, say to purchase a car, then it must be reported as income. That is the heart of the case in front of you. The Federal government is claiming this man lives like a king, but he pays taxes like his occupation is an auto mechanic. The reason for that, the prosecution will be trying to show, is because he intentionally misled the government. And Gates is the only person who can testify that Manafort KNOWINGLY misled the government.

          Which is why Manafort defense is what it is. He is trying to show that Gates did all of this misleading, all Manafort did was trust Gates, thus showing that it wasn’t intentional, and that element of the crime won’t be met, and all must be met for the jury to convict.

          I tried to shoot this out quickly so sorry for the absense of editing. Cheers.

          Liked by 21 people

        • Jan says:

          The other point about Gates is he has plead guilty to “lying to the FBI.” Easier to slam by the defense with questions like “when did you stop lying to the FBI”, “when did you stop beating your wife”, “were you lying then or are you lying now”, etc. Depending on Gates’ composure on the stand, what Manafort tells his lawyers about Gates’ weaknesses, etc., a good defense lawyer can have a good time which, after listening to the government’s case go on & on, can also reinvigorate the jury.

          Liked by 2 people

      • pnj01 says:

        This is right. Ellis was not letting the Government get in hearsay records (don’t know why the Defense wasn’t all over it…or maybe they were?). At a minimum, Mikuska would have to lay out a foundation for the admissibility of the records and the mere fact that the Government has named Gates as Manafort’s “co-conspirator” would not necessarily make the document admissible.
        First, hearsay would have to be overcome for Gates and admission against Manafort might still be improper unless/until there was sufficient evidence of the conspiracy. It is up to the judge to allow (or not allow) in evidence against an alleged co-conspirator “subject to connection” (the connection being sufficient evidence of a conspiracy and that the document was made in the course and furtherance of the conspiracy (or some other hurdle over the Hearsay rule)). BTW: Asonye may have been laying down a false flag to get the Defense to pull its punches on Gates.

        Liked by 1 person

    • De Oppresso Libre says:

      I am not an attorney – why would they not want Gates to testify? I thought he was their “star” witness…..?

      Like

    • Bulldog84 says:

      The trial was already delayed in order to allow Manafort’s counsel to review > 120,000 pages of documents and images taken from electronic devices belonging to Manafort’s former business partner Rick Gates. Apparently the sandbagging approach didn’t go over very well with Judge Ellis.

      Five witnesses were granted immunity to testify. Gates wasn’t one of them. How would you feel if you were him? It’s looking like the prosecution needs him pretty badly for something.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Cathy M. says:

      Mikuska testified that he was the seizing Agent.
      A seizing Agent would be required to testify that he/she was the seizing agent of said documents & to the chain of custody (COC).

      However, Asonye may have started veering in another direction of questioning of Mikuska after the COC was established.
      Sounds to me like the press didn’t understand the real reason for the Judge’s question.

      Liked by 1 person

  4. Brant says:

    So, some dude who broke into a place in the middle of the night has more witness cred than the guy who was his partner for years? Okie dokie.

    Liked by 9 people

  5. Publius2016 says:

    this CASE is a FARCE…Gates was proferred in opening statement by Prosecution…Defense said, ok, Gates is the one who handled the money…Prosecution says, who’s Gates? we’re not using him anymore??? seriously???

    Liked by 13 people

    • mr.piddles says:

      REDO!!! REDO!!! REDO!!!

      It reminds me of that scene in in Robin Williams 1983 movie Survivors. Williams (playing Donald) was in a gun fight with Jerry Reed (Jack). It went something like this:

      Donald : Jaaaack?
      Jack : Yeah?
      Donald : Time out, OK?
      Jack : Time out?
      Donald : Time out.
      Jack : What do you mean, ‘time out?’
      Donald : You’re not gonna believe this. I was in a hurry when I left the cabin this morning, and, well, silly me, I got the wrong bullets.

      Like

  6. Publius2016 says:

    Man is accused of tax evasion…Feds violate his WIFE!

    Liked by 6 people

    • Johnny says:

      If Manafort had fought back he would be dead. They tried to incite him by violating his wife. Then they could have called him a Russian Spy and no one would have been able to refute it.

      Liked by 10 people

    • Maryaha says:

      I know a Christian pastor down in Florida that had the same thing happen to him years ago. The IRS accused him of “structuring” deposits to his church bank account. It was a sham from start to finish. They didn’t like what he was preaching, it’s that simple. He spent nine years in federal prison. I kid you not!

      Liked by 5 people

      • andrew1979 says:

        funny, i searched “florida pastor tax evasion” and i counted 6 different florida pastors just on the first page of search results who were convicted / accussed. something going on down there! are tgere any large russian communities nearby any of them? 🙂

        Like

      • Steven says:

        Sounds like a next person for Trump to pardon!

        Liked by 1 person

  7. blind no longer says:

    Okay Treepers I need some guidance. I really want to watch the documentary on Whitey Bulger that everyone talks about. I researched a little, but there are many. I want to watch the one that includes Mueller in it.

    Does anyone know which is the best? This whole trial thing, has me reved up to watch now. Appreciate your input in advance!

    Like

  8. Brant says:

    If prosecutors don’t want Gates for interesting reasons, could Manafort/defense call him to see what they have in mind/force their hand?

    Like

    • Bulldog84 says:

      The defense can pretty much call whomever they wish. However, the age-old unwritten rule is that you don’t call anyone unless you already have a pretty good idea of what they are going to say. Real life trials are not like the Perry Mason variety; surprises generally aren’t favored.

      Liked by 2 people

      • CountryClassVulgarian says:

        Drat!!!!! You mean they don’t happen like they do on TV? I was so looking forward to that Elle Woods hair color moment….

        Like

    • Bluto Ruffian says:

      I hope so!!!

      Like

  9. Mercenary says:

    Can someone explain what this means in English?

    Liked by 2 people

    • ezpz2 says:

      It means mueller doesn’t have a case. He’s got bubkis. Oops, not exactly the requested English. Close enough.☺️

      Liked by 3 people

      • Mercenary says:

        But what is the significance of not having Gates testify? Or having this agent testify?

        Liked by 1 person

        • ezpz2 says:

          🤷🏼‍♀️ Sorry, that I don’t know exactly. Hannity usually has Greg Jarrett on. Maybe they’ll talk about it?

          Liked by 1 person

        • Cathy M. says:

          It could be that Gates does not have useful information that would indicate Manafort committed any of the crimes alleged (so useless as a witness);
          or
          Gates has information that would go towards proving that Manafort did not, in fact, commit any of the crimes alleged. In that case- it would destroy Mueller’s case;
          or,
          considering that Andrew Weissmann is the atty running the SC investigation, Weissmann might have attempted to coerce Gates into committing perjury (suborning perjury), Asonye found out & nixed Gates as a witness;
          or
          It could also be something that’s quite common. At least 15 days before trial the Prosecutor & Defefense Attys. must exchange witness lists. Quite often, the attys list every possible witness that they might call upon but haven’t decided yet.

          Liked by 3 people

        • CountryClassVulgarian says:

          They don’t want to open him up to cross examination. He plead guilty to lying. He has a credibility problem.

          Liked by 7 people

      • mr.piddles says:

        “Squat”, I think it’s called.

        Liked by 2 people

  10. jmclever says:

    Russia collusion illusion

    Liked by 8 people

  11. Johnny says:

    Some one help me with the laws of citizen arrest. Or does my oath as a veteran of the military give me any leeway in protecting this country from a domestic enemy.
    If DOJ will not arrest them, then we Citizens should and impanel a Grand Jury. Sedition should be number 1 charge

    Liked by 2 people

  12. MaineCoon says:

    Muleheads political hacks disguised as prosecutors don’t have their fake-lead witness testifying? Discussing cost of Manafort’s clothes? Where did these fake attorneys go to law school? Serious question. Have they ever even been to trial?

    I read an article this week that the legal professional was on the decline. Firms closing. (Sorry didn’t save the article).

    Mueller and his disgusting terrorists, bully methods are on full display as to why lawyers are disliked. DoJ & FIB have hit rock bottom. Mueller will take the legal profession to its final low.

    I feel sorry for any honest, hard working attorney.

    Liked by 7 people

    • Johnny says:

      Seems like a vendetta. Ole Rosie could not stand having to let Manafort go the first time because he could not get the evidence he needed to put him away.

      Looks like Rosie figured out a way to break the law himself. Call his ass to testify and see how fast Mueller drops this case.

      Liked by 2 people

      • thedoc00 says:

        Problem is Rosie, Lorretta and Holder ALL had the exact same evidence. Mueller’s team is using rewarmed evidence and Manafort has called his bluff by going to trial.

        It has already been exposed in the media that Mueller resurrected the exact same cases passes on during Obama and Bush administrations.

        Liked by 3 people

        • Amy2 says:

          I guess because this is federal there is no statute of limitations? I mean, ten years? Sexual assault cases have five or seven.

          Like

        • Foxy says:

          this is the point. Clearly Mueller’s tactic is to threaten prosecution to coerce information from those he thinks can link DJT to misdeeds. But it backfired. Its becoming increasingly clear that the prosecution never wanted or intended to prosecute this case against Manafort. Ellis is not stupid or in Mueller’s pocket.

          Liked by 2 people

  13. apfelcobbler says:

    Looks like Judge Ellis isn’t accustomed to accommodating political show trials. Wonder if it’ll ever come out what kind of tactics the feds pulled on Gates.

    Liked by 7 people

  14. Another Scott says:

    The Mueller team will wring Manafort, Gates, Cohen and anyone else they need dry and leave them ruined. They are from the same goon squad that ruined Nakoula Basseley Nakoula for political reasons. Google him. The sooner the whole Mueller team is dismantled the better.

    Liked by 3 people

    • jack says:

      I hope you all remember, we place all the pain and suffering that Trump and his family and the team he assembled during the campaign at the feet of Jeff Sessions! He is the modern day Benadict Arnold!

      There would be NO Mueller Probe if Jeff Sessions stated he would have to recuse himself and ask the President to get someone else for A.G. spot who was NOT connected to his campaign!

      For shame, many of us should have backed the President when he told us repeatedly , that Jeff Sessions is a disgrace.

      I know some thought Trump and Sessions were tight and get along! Wake up, they don’t get along. Jeff Sessions is friends with Rosenstein! not Trump!

      Liked by 1 person

      • boogywstew says:

        Speak for yourself. Many people here don’t share your opinion. That Jeff Sessions feller must be one tough hombre to stab our beloved Lion in the back and keep his job! Impatience is a sign of immaturity.

        Liked by 2 people

      • NC PATRIOT says:

        Please stop with that , JACK. Don’t forget Sessions let Rosie go initially. It was POTUS who called him back. This whole Russia thing was not Sessions fault. He was also caught up in it also,

        Liked by 2 people

    • Tl Howard says:

      And where are we? Sitting home in the comfort of our homes, listening to reports of the trial. We are the “right.” We never cause trouble for any of the goons. We aren’t out there in front of the fed. building with signs; we aren’t causing the prosecutors to walk a gauntlet.

      We are…lazy, I guess.

      Liked by 3 people

    • vladdy says:

      Or use DuckDuckGo (I know; annoying as Hell. It’s a personal vendetta)

      Like

  15. PotP says:

    It’s the first of a SERIES of bogus cases to be brought against anyone associated with Trump.

    That they have no merit is irrelevant. The media will lead with each case until it falters, and *magically* another case or crisis will emerge.

    The entire strategy is a constant stream of negative press up to the November elections and beyond.

    Liked by 1 person

    • PotP says:

      ETA: don’t think China is not one of the players in the never-ending crises du jour.

      They paid a lot of yuan for US politicians to get their way. Undermining Trump is on their list.

      Liked by 2 people

    • mr.piddles says:

      Major setback(s) for 13 (now 17) Angry Democrats and their Fearless Leader will only embolden Trump more. Tweetnado. It’s like Sharknado, but with a Twitter account. Public is already dubious about the political nature of the Mueller fiasco.

      Like

  16. NJF says:

    This judge really is great.

    Liked by 1 person

  17. Concerned says:

    The conflict of interest coming from Mueller, the FBI and the DOJ, is dripping all over the place, while we watch Sessions, do nothing detectable.

    Perhaps, the worse of this comes from the lack of self correcting, from within the FBI/DOJ. I see nothing, coming from the subordinates of these corrupt officials other than a concern for themselves over the whistle blower law, and the protection it would offer them.

    I believe, that any good manager would say that it is time for these organizations to be dismantled.

    Liked by 1 person

    • vladdy says:

      I strongly second that. If there was ever a case of “doing more harm than good” or even “more trouble than they’re worth,” this is it. Isn’t it pleasant to think of US paying their salaries while they do all they can to undermine our president and overturn our election?

      Liked by 1 person

  18. When a judge is hostile to the Prosecution it’s a big deal. A judge can make life hell for either plaintiff’s or defendant’s counsel if he wants to. If the jury is not made up of escapees from the funny farm the judge’s actions will impress and can move a jury.

    Let’s hope the Giverment bungles this one and humiliates itself. I for one want Manafort to not only walk but have a win on a counterclaim.

    Liked by 1 person

  19. Texian says:

    Manafort is Italian descent.. He’s a good fella.. He ain’t ever gonna sing for nobody.. And especially not to the deep state mobsters..

    Liked by 2 people

  20. Concerned says:

    It’s time to take positive action to clear up this mess.

    It would surely be hard initially for the US Marshals Service to take over the responsibility of the FBI/DOJ. But, then again we would not be faced with the massive levels of unaddressed corruption coming from the them. Forced on the American Citizens by its leadership.

    These organizations (aka., FBI/DOJ) were created by Congress it’s their job to fix them/remove them.

    Liked by 1 person

    • MelH says:

      Concerned, Congress fixing something seems hilarious. When is the last time you heard about Congress fixing ANYTHING? Five hundreds some odd folks like Al Franken Chuck Schumer and Mad Max people the Congress. That’s a ton of ignorant obstructionists holding seats they never would have been qualified to hold if a smart HR office had interviewed them before they were allowed to run for office. Just a minimum IQ would have been a good start for qualification.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Nunya Bidness says:

        “No man or his property is safe when the legislature is in session.”

        This used to be the sentiment in many States where the legislatures met only briefly during the year. I believe at least one State’s met only every other year.

        Liked by 1 person

  21. beach lover says:

    Anyone catch Tucker Carlson pressing Nunes tonight to release the 20 redacted pages of the FISA? He was serious! You could tell Nunes was taken aback by the request and didn’t want to press it, and again asked POTUS to order it to be done.

    After the break someone texted that he could read it on the floor of the house without breaking any rules. That may be true, but boy oh boy, would heads explode or what?

    The President should just do it, and relieve the pressure on these few good men that are trying to fight this battle on his behalf.

    Liked by 4 people

    • Publius2016 says:

      obstruction

      Like

    • Concerned says:

      This is worth repeating “The President should just do it, and relieve the pressure on these few good men that are trying to fight this battle on his behalf.”

      Like

      • MelH says:

        Questioning The Trump strategy seems like closing the barn door after the horse has escaped. We can cheer him negotiating with Rocket man, without telling him what to say. He’s wanting us to await the IG report on FISA abuse. That seems reasonable, doesn’t it?

        Like

      • C. L Roemke says:

        From my perspective the President is giving deep state swamp creatures a lesson on leading from behind. Congress created this mess, Congress must correct this mess.
        Congress has oversight responsibility. When things go bad in the government they get to blame the President for failures.
        If the President forces Congress – through public outcry – to address shortcomings of leadership he will restore common sense government.
        Why should the President assume the sins of the swamp? He can force action with public support.

        Liked by 1 person

  22. zephyrbreeze says:

    I can’t wait for the “where-were-you-when” event when we all find out what is really going on here.

    Liked by 2 people

  23. Bill says:

    #WalkAway

    Liked by 1 person

  24. deplorable says:

    So why do we need a Mueller special counsel for an old alleged tax evasion case? Couldn’t just a plain old DOJ investigation have handled this?

    Liked by 4 people

  25. jack says:

    If Nunes does read the 20 pages on the floor of the house, this would be a magic moment of the year! It would be a true event that someone can make a movie about. “Mr Nunes goes to Washington” , and shines the LIGHT on the corruption of the DOJ/FBI/FISA court! And blast the MSM and Dems for covering up Obama/Clinton Crimes and creating FAKE Russia HOAX!

    Or the president can declassify it , too.

    This would make great Moment , when Mr Nunes exposed these corrupt people!

    Like

    • Publius2016 says:

      1 courageous House member to challenge Ryan or 1 courageous Senator to allow recess appt

      Like

    • Concerned says:

      Nunes is VP Material! But, he has to take that one last step.

      Like

    • pacnwbel says:

      Nunes on Fox this evening, my take is that Nunes knows the damaging score, but is scared of reprisals, even death threats, hence the reluctance to comply with the invitation to put them on display for all ro see.

      Like

  26. Gonads………..it requires gonads…………….not speeches.

    Like

    • MelH says:

      Nunes has the smarts, and the camaraderie with the President, to not do anything the President hasn’t sanctioned. Releasing the unredacted FISA warrant is the MOAB. That event won’t happen serrendipitously just because Nunes has the balls to do it. He is a very smart man! It would have a ton more impact if President Trump released it with a detailed public address, written by Stephen Miller, from the same podium from which Bush declared war on prime time TV, with preceding fliers about it upcoming for about a week before it happens.

      Like

  27. agentcommonsense says:

    Doesn’t all this negotiation going on between Mueller and Rudy seem a little I don’t know HINKY. Hinky in a good way. Maybe just maybe Muller is not on the wrong side of history

    Like

    • Tseg says:

      It sure makes great cover to enable behind-the-scenes rehearsing of how all will “go down”.

      Like

    • Deplorable_Vespucciland says:

      Mueller IS on the wrong side of history. He’s been on an expensive high stakes fishing expedition and they just aren’t biting. Someone needs to tell him that there ain’t no dam trout in that lake, so may as well give it up.

      Liked by 1 person

  28. Cathy M. says:

    Just an FYI: Reportedly back in April & according to FBI trial testimony today-

    The Search Warrant on Manafort’s home was Not a “no-knock” search warrant.

    FBI S/A “Mikuska told the jury agents knocked three times on Manafort’s door, but used a key to gain access after receiving no answer. Once inside, agents saw Manafort.”

    “Their warrant to search the apartment, Mikuska said, was not a “no-knock” warrant.”

    (Three knocks are deemed sufficient & not uncommon but less common for a white collar crime.)

    https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/08/fbi-describes-mueller-deep-state-raid-on-manaforts-home-in-pre-dawn-raid-for-documents-he-already-turned-over/

    https://www.businessinsider.com/mueller-manafort-court-documents-takeaways-2018-4

    Like

    • Dr.Jay says:

      How about just using the doorbell. Three knocks? Jeez.

      Like

      • Cathy M. says:

        What’s the difference between ringing a doorbell or knocking? I can count on one hand how many times a person used my doorbell. Virtually all knock.
        I’ve always wondered why people prefer to knock rather than ring the bell

        Like

        • Dr.Jay says:

          Difference is that you cant hear a knock on the door of a 1 million dollar home or even appartment, but you hear the bell. If they were to pull such a stunt with me my dogs would attack them. Etc.

          Like

  29. mr.piddles says:

    Mueller setting up 13 (now 17) Angry Democrats for judicial rebuke and possible disbarment in some cases. 237D chess, my friend. 2-3-7-D.

    Like

  30. BobR says:

    Digenova just said no Hilary prosecution. Sessions,Wray,Huber placeholders. Playing to come in second like McCain/Pahlin. Pahlin wanted to go to Michigan near the election, McCain was against it. For the good of the country no one wants to expose the truth

    Liked by 1 person

    • mr.piddles says:

      “For the good of the country no one wants to expose the truth”

      Irony. If that’s the case, then they just sealed the fate of this country. There’s no time machine to undo The Interwebs.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Tseg says:

      Unfortunately, this is how it looks like it will play out. All this trial stuff will end in humiliation of Mueller and team, Trump will do a victory lap, and all the criminals this whole debacle was organized to cover up will quietly walk into the sunset. And, as a little birdie suggested last year, precautions will be set in place so it never happens again. Disappointing, but maybe the optimal solution (game theory) when a country is so divided.

      Like

    • D says:

      Sessions.. What a heartbreaker. People still try to defend him on here. But bash RR. You can’t have it both ways. Sessions right hand man is RR. So if RR is crooked then so is sessions. Now that we have that figured oit, what does it mean for Huber and Horowitz? Just a bunch of theater and a prosecution or two for lying to the FBI., meanwhile they got away with divining in every bit of trumps privacy and history illegally. If Trump let’s this go then he is just another phony taking the easy route out instead of doing the right thing. And that’s the honest truth. I love DJT so I hope not.

      Liked by 1 person

  31. Cankles Clinton says:

    Sharyl Attkisson was on Hannity’s radio show today. Hannity brought up the topic that his sources say there are numerous whistle blowers in the IC that want to come forward but need a subpoena from congress. Attkisson indicated that there are both Dems and Repubs that don’t want this to happen and that even the names of some of the whistle blowers have been handed over to the DOJ.

    Liked by 1 person

  32. Hillyard says:

    This sounds like the perfect judge to slap Mueller’s weak scam case back in his face. The jurors have to be wondering why they’re there. This could be a quick acquittal and the road to the end of Mueller’s $ 20 million fraud

    Like

  33. mr.piddles says:

    Ingraham. 10:21 commercial break. Tease: “Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama’s connection to the Mueller probe.”

    Like

  34. Mike diamond says:

    Hillary charity pay for play!!! Yet they go after manafort and not Tony podesta,they let Hillary go Scot free! Where is the justice??????

    Liked by 1 person

  35. Concerned says:

    Start Listening At 35:00
    Dinesh D’Souza Interview about the “Death of a Nation”

    The Ingraham Angle 8/1/18 | Breaking Fox News | August 1, 2018

    Like

  36. LibertyONE says:

    Judge Nap on Fox News said Manaforts atty may call RATenstein as a defense witness , as according to Nap “8 yrs ago , as a Fed prosecutor, the Rat led an investigation” that he refused to lodge charges against Manafort. My take was it was on the same charges he is now facing in court.

    Like

    • Concerned says:

      Judge Napolitano Doubles Down: Says Paul Manafort was Exonerated 8 Years Ago — May Call Rosenstein as First Witness (VIDEO)

      Like

  37. Robert Smith says:

    Like

    • Robert Smith says:

      Flip through Techno_Fog’s Twitter. It’s the go to to see what is happening. He does a dry run of how he thinks things will play out.

      Like

    • Dr.Jay says:

      I think Techno Fog does not understand that the government must make it’s case. Mere allegations are not enough in court.
      As to: “How will they refute the govt’s bank fraud accusations? ” the defense does not really need to prove anything, the prosecutor does. So fraud accusations are nice, but have to be clearly proven.

      From high level most of the bank fraud accusations make little sense. The accusations seem to be that Manafort was misrepresenting his possibility to pay back to the banks whatever he loaned from them. Yet at the same time the prosecution alleges that he swims in money, so clearly he can pay back… That does not really align.

      Like

  38. Yancey Ward says:

    I suspect the prosecutor was lying about not knowing Gates was going to testify. Finding the records is meaningless- they have to validated by someone capable of doing so, and as far as I can tell, Gates is the only witness who can do so. Without that validation, I don’t see how the evidence isn’t tossed at some point by the judge. Maybe Gates was always a bluff, but I don’t believe that is possible.

    Like

  39. Dr.Jay says:

    OK people, please read the details. Remember that only thing likely to be of any point is tax evasion. Now Manafort declared some 30+ million (37?) USD in taxable income over the relevant years. Prosecutors allege he earned more from a.o. Ukraine business (up to 60), but that is irrelevant even if true. The issue is whether that is declarable income as salary or dividends paid by foreign companies of Manfort to US held companies of Manafort. If not it is not taxable in USA (yet).

    Of interest is declaring salary received from abroad, dividends paid and any costs directly paid by his foreign entities, which if not really business costs (by US law) can be seen as taxable income.
    And the total sum of that must be larger than the sum declared to the IRS.
    Otherwise there is no case.

    https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/aug/1/prosecutor-rick-gates-may-not-testify-manafort-tri/
    The Gates disclosure largely overshadowed the second day of Mr. Manafort’s trial in Alexandria, Virginia. Prosecutors spent most of the afternoon detailing the former political operative’s opulent lifestyle, spending millions on luxury clothes and automobiles with much of it paid with wire transfers from offshore bank accounts.

    Maximillian Katzman described Mr. Manafort as one of his “top five clients” at the Midtown Manhattan upscale menswear shop where he used to work. Between 2010 and 2014, Mr. Manafort spent more than $900,000 on suits and other luxury items at the store, including $444,160 in 2013 alone. He said most customers paid by check, but Mr. Manafort was the only client who paid using wire transfers from foreign bank accounts.

    Prosecutors have said those accounts, set up in Cyprus and other countries, were used by Mr. Manafort to avoid paying taxes on the millions of dollars he earned from his lobbying work in Ukraine.
    [ incorrect, Manafort simply worked for his foreign companies, and not all monies paid to them are taxable in the US, only salary paid to him and dividends paid to US holding companies; the above is just relevant because several purchases were made directly from Cyprus accounts, hence can be seen (and are) taxable income IF AND ONLY IF those payments are not business related.
    Suits maybe business costs (I kid you not). Cars (registered in US) and real estate (in US) are usually not business costs, so are income. Real estate can be investment, but not houses that are actually lived in by directors/owners and/or their spouses/family. ]


    Daniel Opsut, who works at an Alexandria Mercedes-Benz dealership, said Mr. Manafort’s wife, Kathleen Manafort, bought a new 2013 Mercedes-Benz SL550 for about $123,000. The car was paid, in part, from a bank account in Cyprus.

    Mr. Opsut said paying from offshore accounts is uncommon, but “not unheard of.”

    Other witnesses, including an accountant for another high-end clothing retailer, construction contractor and realtor, shared similar stories about millions of dollars in purchases paid for with overseas bank accounts.

    Wayne Holland, a longtime neighbor of Mr. Manafort and realtor, said Mr. Manafort bought his daughter Andrea a house in Arlington, Virginia, for $1.9 million. Mr. Holland said the house was paid for through a company called Lucicle Consultants Limited, a shell company in Cyprus.

    Judge Ellis quickly became frustrated with the repetitive testimony. On more than one occasion, he scolded prosecutors for spending too much time on Mr. Manfort’s lifestyle.

    “I understand this effort to show that he lived lavishly, but at some point it’s not relevant,” he told prosecutor Greg Andres.

    Now these later examples are examples of taxable income. As there can be no business reason for an EU company to pay for cars or houses in US.

    Like

    • Dr.Jay says:

      And then we have the fireworks in part II.
      Please read carefully:

      https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/aug/1/prosecutor-rick-gates-may-not-testify-manafort-tri/

      Two witnesses testified that invoices linked to them were inaccurate, sparking an odd mystery prosecutors did not explain.

      Mr. Katzman was shown a bill purportedly sent from his store, Alan Couture, that he identified as fake. He said the store’s name was incorrectly spelled as Alan Corture and had the wrong Zip code.
      The bill was sent to a company called Global Endeavor, but Mr. Katzman was unaware of the company.
      “We have never billed to Global Endeavor, nor had a client named Global Endeavor,” he said.
      Defense attorney Jay Nanavati appeared to indicate that Gates was responsible for the fake invoices. He asked Mr. Katzman if he knew of Gates‘ “level of education and spelling abilities.”
      Mr. Katzman said he didn’t and had never met Gates, although he did email him when he was unable to reach Mr. Manafort.

      Construction contractor Stephen Jacobsen later said a bill sent to Global Endeavor had the imprint of his company’s logo. But said the $130,000 bill did not include an address and was for architecture and design work, which he did not do.

      And there you have it people. That seems to me pretty clear evidence that several of the invoices found are in fact fakes. They record purchases never made. And it seems that mr. Gates is responsible for those. Evidence for embezzlement.
      And that explains why Mueller et.al. seem to have issues with their star witness Gates, and why they can’t put him on the stand.

      As to Global Endeavour Inc, (Grenadines):
      https://www.iwnsvg.com/2017/10/30/fsa-to-issue-statement-as-svg-is-implicated-in-fbi-probe/


      [1] The amount includes US$409,660 sent in six tranches from August 2013 to August 2014 from Global Endeavours Inc. to a home improvement company in New York.
      [2] Manafort is also alleged to have sent a total of US$232,815 in five transactions from Global Endeavours to men`s clothing store in New York.
      [3] US$500,000 was sent from Global Endeavours to an investment Company on Sept. 3, 2013, while [4] US$10 for housekeeping in New York was sent from Global Endeavours on Oct. 9, 2013.the indictment said.

      He did not pay taxes on this income.

      [1] and [2] are mentioned above as well. And these are fake invoices. So arguably fraud (by Gates) not income (to Manafort) for which Manafort needs to pay taxes.
      [3] can be seen as a business investment
      whereas [4[ probably relates to [2].

      Liked by 1 person

      • Dr.Jay says:

        Also note that from Grenadines FSA it seems that the actual company name is Global Endeavours Inc. and not Global Endeavour Inc.

        Perhaps mr. Gates is a bit dyslexic? It seems that the defense attorneys are pointing that out as well (above “spelling abilities”), so I guess the answer is yes.

        That is just circumstantial evidence of course, but quite telling. Also this discrepancy has yet to be mentioned by the defense.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Howie says:

          Gates might provide the defense with a ‘reasonable alternative hypothesis’ to work with. Jury instructions include ‘the exclusion of any other reasonable hypothesis’ as an element to convict.

          Liked by 1 person

          • Dr.Jay says:

            It certainly does.

            See that the vendors in question clearly state that some of these invoices are fake, i.e. they were not sent by them (V) to the offshore Manafort/Gates companies (MG). Ergo also no monies paid to them.

            So someone else must have send them to the offshore MG companies for some reason. What was the purpose? I can only think of a fraudulent way to get money from M.
            That’s not taxable income and if this was really done by G it means his use as star witness is becoming really problematic.

            And did MG pay any money? And if so to what bank account?
            Clearly those bank accounts will not have been those of V. It would be silly to forge an invoice from V yet still pay money to V (who then do not understand why they get that money). Hence it makes sense that the bank account on those forged invoices did not belong to any of the V’s.They probably belong to the forger of the invoices.

            Like

        • Dr.Jay says:

          This is part of the indictment (https://www.justice.gov/file/1007271/download) that probably will stick: Hiding access to foreign bank accounts, or (if payments from those were declared as taxable income to IRS), at least a FBAR violations.
          They failed to report them, as they should, and also (falsely) stated in writing that they did not have such access when asked.
          See 27 to 32 of the indictment.

          https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2012/06/04/fbar-penalties-when-will-irs-let-you-off-with-a-warning/
          “Failing to file an FBAR can carry a civil penalty of $10,000 for each non-willful violation. But if your violation is found to be willful, the penalty is the greater of $100,000 or 50 percent of the amount in the account for each violation—and each year you didn’t file is a separate violation.”

          So this can lead to some pretty hefty fines, as it should because this is an easy way to do tax evasion. But no jail time.
          Given how the accounts were (allegedly) used, one may expect that the prosecution goes for the highest of each case that they can prove, i.e. 50% of the account balance… for every year that a violation occurred. That excludes any years already covered by the previous case (the RR one, which was dropped apparently, or settled?). So perhaps 2008-2016 but can also be (say) 2012-2016, depending on what years were covered by that previous case…

          Liked by 1 person

          • Dr.Jay says:

            More on FBAR here:
            https://www.goldinglawyers.com/a-summary-of-fbar-penalties-faq-common-questions-answers/
            The above link notes that nowadays the total penalty (over multiple years) is maxed to 100% of the account balance (used to be 6 years or 300%). That is in case the violation is found to be ‘willful’ but the bar for that seems very low.

            The FBAR related charges can become a real issue for Manafort. Especially because the IRS does not really have to prove it’s case when they allege willfulness…
            So here the defense must prove that M did not really have access. Or that he already did report each account, in some shape or fashion.

            Like

  40. Just pay some one for it.

    It’s out there

    In fact put out standing offers for many things we need.

    It’s a swamp full of greed and low life’s just do bussines the way they understand.

    Only results count now !

    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