First charges filed in Mueller investigation (merged)

[AUDub 11,131]

Just now, Auctoritas said:

Did you catch that the Manafort/Gates indictment was indictment (B)?

And indictment (A) isn't the Papadapolous one, that had a different case number. 

 

U.S. District Court for D.C. has four sealed cases in its docket with case numbers between Papadopoulos' (182) and Manafort's (201). Things that make you go hmm.

[Auctoritas 2,826]

16 minutes ago, Bigbens42 said:

U.S. District Court for D.C. has four sealed cases in its docket with case numbers between Papadopoulos' (182) and Manafort's (201). Things that make you go hmm.

Good gravy. 

[AUDub 11,131]

Ken White on Papadopoulos

Quote

This morning the United States District Court for the District of Columbia unsealed a criminal proceeding against George Papadopoulos, who acted as a foreign policy adviser to the President's 2016 campaign. We can tell some interesting things from these documents. You have questions, I have answers.

Wait! The case was sealed? How does that happen?

Federal courts can seal proceedings — that is, arrange so they are not public and do not appear on the public document. It is not uncommon to seal a proceeding against a defendant who is cooperating against other defendants or targets of the investigation. Here the record suggests that Papadopoulos cooperated immediately and the Special Counsel was anticipating his cooperation.

The now-unsealed docket shows that the Special Counsel filed a complaint and obtained an arrest warrant on July 28, 2017, and asked that the complaint be sealed from the beginning. The affidavit in support of the complaint describes the investigation. The FBI arrested Papadopoulos in Virginia on August 1, 2017. Under normal circumstances this would start the clock for multiple proceedings – a proceeding to send Papadopoulos from Virginia where he was arrested to DC where he was charged and a timeline to either hold a preliminary hearing (which almost never happens in federal court) or more likely indict him. None of that happened, because Papadopoulos immediately agreed to waive all his rights under the applicable rules and agreed that the proceedings would remain sealed. All of that shows that he cooperated immediately.

So what did he plead to?

Papadopoulos pled to an information charging him with lying to the FBI in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001. In federal court, you have a right to a grand jury indictment in a felony case, but Papadopoulos waived that right, allowing the more informal information as a charging instrument. Papadopoulos entered into a fairly straightforward and standard plea agreement, agreed to and accepted a statement of facts about what he did, and entered his plea before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia on October 5, 2017. By stipulation of the parties the court maintained the proceedings under seal until today.

What can we glean from the fact that the Court kept the case under seal?

Papadopoulos' cooperation is central to his plea. The plea agreement provides that the government will bring his cooperation to the Court's attention at sentencing and that sentencing will be delayed until his cooperation is complete. It is possible, though not certain, that the Special Counsel used Papadopoulos for "active" cooperation — for instance, by making recorded calls to targets of the investigation, engaging in monitored email exchanges with targets, or even wearing a wire during meetings with targets. Keeping the entire proceeding under seal for a month after his plea is consistent with such cooperation. However, that level of cooperation isn't certain: it could be that they considered using him for such activities but didn't, or that they wanted to keep the nature and direction of the investigation secret until now. But it's clear that they contemplate using him against other targets of the investigation one way or another.

So what did he do, anyway?

According to the affidavit in support of the complaint and the factual statement he accepted, Papadopoulos lied to FBI agents during a January 27, 2017 meeting (note that's before the appointment of the special prosecutor) about his interactions with Russian nationals in connection with his role in the Trump campaign. Specifically, he lied about the nature and extent of his contacts with Russians during the campaign. He told the FBI that Russians offered "dirt" on Hillary Clinton in the form of "thousands of emails" before he joined the Trump campaign, when it was actually after, and characterized conversations with Russians as minor in consequential when they were actually extensive. In addition, after a second interview with the FBI in February 2017, Papadopoulos deleted a Facebook account which contained some of his communications with the Russian nationals, and created a new one. The FBI was nonplussed.

So did he actually obstruct justice or interfere with the investigation through his lies?

Almost certainly not. The complaint shows that the FBI used a search warrant to get emails that contradicted Papadopoulos. The timeline isn't explicit, but it's possible — in fact, probable — that they had the emails or other evidence before they even interviewed him, and knew he was lying at the time. To convict on a Section 1001 charge for lying to the government, the government doesn't have to prove that you successfully lied or that the lie delayed or impeded them. They only have to prove that the lie was on a subject of the sort that could be relevant to the investigation. That's why interviewing subjects and targets hoping they will lie to you and thus make a case for you is a common tactic in federal investigations.

If Papadopoulos had shut up and refused to talk to the FBI — the smart thing to do — he almost certainly would not be charged with anything yet, and could have escaped any charges ever. He had to plead to a federal felony because he talked to the FBI and lied, and then foolishly tried to destroy evidence. That is a feature, not a bug, of federal investigations.

What happens to him from here?

He'll hang out in limbo — having entered a guilty plea but with no sentencing hearing yet — until the Special Counsel is finished with his cooperation. So long as his sentencing isn't scheduled you'll know that the Special Counsel thinks that they still might need his cooperation, probably in the form of testimony.

Is he going to jail?

I doubt it. Though the maximum statutory penalty for the crime he pled to is five years, the recommended sentence under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines is a few months, or probation — the government admits that in the plea agreement. This is, once again, why you should not pay attention to the maximum possible sentence on federal crimes when the media reports them. The very highly probable result is probation, even if he hadn't cooperated. That calls into question, a bit, what his motivation is to cooperate further. It suggests — but does not prove — that the government had other charges that it could have brought, and agreed not to bring them in exchange for his ongoing cooperation. Or he's so terrified of a few months in jail that he wants to buy nearer-to-certainty that he'll get probation.

What does this show about the nature and status of the Special Counsel's investigation into whether the Trump Campaign improperly communicated with Russians?

It shows that the FBI was investigating the Trump campaign's contact with the Russians not later than January 2017, that the Special Counsel continued that investigation, that they've obtained emails showing communications by at least some people with Russians, that Russians told campaign representatives that the Russians had "dirt" in the form of emails about Clinton, and that the Special Counsel is (for now) continuing the investigation.

 

[AUDub 11,131]

Ken White on Manafort/Gates

Quote

Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller has secured a substantial indictment against former Trump campaign chair Paul Manafort and his colleague Richard Gates. The indictment is many places online including here.

So the federal grand jury looked at all of the evidence against Manafort and selected these charges against him and Gates?

No. As I've explained in past lawsplainers, that's not how grand juries work. The prosecutor — here the Special Counsel — selects what evidence to present to the grand jury, selects the proposed charges, and drafts and presents the proposed indictment to the grand jury. The grand jury does nothing but vote to agree that there's probable cause to bring these charges. The grand jury is more accurately viewed as a tool rather than as a significant limit on prosecutorial power.

So what are they charged with?

The Manafort/Gates indictment is a fairly standard "kitchen sink" white collar indictment that illustrates the wide array of tools available to federal prosecutors, as well as the power prosecutors have to use an investigation to provoke further federal crimes as leverage against the foolish.

The lead charge is conspiracy (1) to defraud the United States and (2) to fail to file reports of foreign bank accounts, to act as an unregistered agent of a foreign principal, and to make false statements to the government, all in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 371 Section 371 is commonly used to describe a conspiracy to violate a particular federal statute — like a conspiracy to distribute drugs or rob a bank. This indictment does that — it says Manafort and Gates conspired to violate federal statutes — but also uses the less familiar "defraud the United States" language of the statute. To secure a conviction on this charge the government must prove (1) that there was an agreement between two or more people to pursue an unlawful objective (like a violation of a federal statute or fraud against the federal government), (2) that the particular defendant knew of the unlawful objective and voluntarily agreement to join the conspiracy, and (3) that someone committed an "overt act" — a step towards the conspiracy's objective. The government's theory is that Manafort and Gates conspired to hide their foreign agent status, hide their foreign agent income, and launder the proceeds.

The second charge is a conspiracy to launder money in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1956(h). To prove this charge, the government must prove that (1) there was an agreement to commit money laundering, and (2) the defendant joined the agreement knowing its purpose and intending to further it. But what's money laundering when it's at home, you ask? It can numerous types of transactions with money derived from a "Specified Unlawful Activity" or used to promote or hide such an activity — that is, an activity listed in Title 18, United States Code, Section 1956(c)(7), one of which is "any felony violation of the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938." The government has two theories of how Manafort and Gates conspired to launder money: (1) they conspired to move money into the United States to promote the carrying on of violations of the Foreign Agents Registration Act, and (2) they engaged in transactions with proceeds of violations of proceeds of the Foreign Agents Registration Act in order to hide those violations and evade taxes.

The third set of charges (counts Three through Six) asserts that Manafort failed to file mandatory reports of his ownership of foreign bank accounts as required by Title 31, United States Code, Section 5314, which is a felony. This requires the government to prove that Manafort knowingly and intentionally evaded the foreign bank account reporting requirements.

The fourth set of charges (counts Seven through Nine) charges Gates with failing to file mandatory reports of foreign bank accounts, also under Section 5322.

The fifth charge (Count Ten) accuses Manafort and Gates of failing to file a statement of registration as a foreign agent as required by Title 22, United States Code, Section 612, which is a felony. Once again the government must prove that Manafort and Gates knowingly and intentionally failed to file the registration (which requires showing they were required to register and they knew it.)

The sixth charge (Count Eleven) accuses Manafort and Gates of making false statements about foreign agent registration, again in violation of Title 22, United States Code, Section 612 and 618. Once again the government has to show that the defendants knowingly and intentionally made false statements to the government about agent registration. Based on the language of the indictment, it appears that the alleged false statements were made after the Department of Justice investigation of their agent status began in November 2016 — in other words, the false statements were allegedly made to cover up the crime. Why does nobody shut up?

The seventh charge (Count Twelve) accuses Manafort and Gates of lying to government investigators in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001, based on the same lies about agent status. Once again the government has to prove that the defendants knowingly and intentionally lied to the government. Section 1001 is one of the favorite weapons in the government arsenal, frequently employed to trip up people too foolish to shut up.

There's a lot of additional details — alleged lies to banks, alleged lies to accountants, alleged lies to the IRS — but that's the heart of the government's theory: they acted as foreign agents, didn't registrar as they were required to, lied about it when asked, and brought the proceeds into the country to hide the proceeds, hide the agent activity, and evade taxes. This is Serious Business, no consolation-prize indictment.

How much time to Manafort and Gates face?

You're going to see a lot of journalists answering this question by adding up the maximum possible sentence Manafort and Gates face under all of the things they are charged with. That's very misleading. If convicted, the heartland of the likely sentencing range — the point the judge will start out before deciding if the facts justify going higher or lower — will be calculated under the United States Sentencing Guidelines. Especially in a case like this, that calculation will be as complex and multi-factored as a medium-sized business tax return. If there is a sentence, it will almost certainly bear no relation to the maximum potential sentence.

So what happens next?

Manafort and Gates will be booked and will make their initial appearance before a United States Magistrate Judge, probably this afternoon. They'll be released based on some sort of bail under the Bail Reform Act, which will provoke uninformed outrage. The fact that they were allowed to surrender suggests that the Special Counsel won't seek high bail — they may even be released on their own recognizance without bail, or may only be required to sign a signature bond (a promise to pay money if they don't show up), but may be required to post money or property to secure their return. That could get interesting, as the Special Prosecutor can make them demonstrate that the money or property they post is not derived from ill-gotten gains. Eventually — possibly at their first appearance, more likely at a late appearance — they will be arraigned (formally informed of the charges against them) and enter their not guilty pleas. Then the schedule will be determined by the United States District Judge to whom the case is assigned. Under the Speedy Trial Act they have a right to trial within 70 days of their first appearance, absent application of a host of exceptions that are almost always applied. It's likely that everyone will agree to a much later trial.

The bail thing in the last paragraph has already been dashed. It's a huge number.

[alexava 6,973]

Conspiring against the US! Isn't that Treason?

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

Good timeline below on Papadopoulos

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/timeline-campaign-knew-russia-had-clinton-emails-months-before-trump-joke/ar-AAuf6Z5?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartanntp

Months before candidate Donald Trump asked Russia to "find" Hillary Clinton's missing private server emails - a statement the campaign later called a joke - a Russian operative told a campaign aide "the Russians had emails of Clinton," according to a plea agreement released Monday.

 

In the first guilty plea of special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation, George Papadopoulos admitted lying to the FBI about contact with Russian agents that offered the campaign "thousands" of damaging emails about Clinton. Papadopoulos claims he would eventually be told by a campaign supervisor to travel to Russia to meet with government officials "if feasible," a trip that never happened.

In the context of the timeline of events, Papadopoulos was told of Russian hacking before the rest of the country, and weeks before the Trump campaign made its first denial of Russian involvement in the election.

Here are some key dates in the events involving Clinton's emails and Russian hacking:

September, 2015: The FBI made its first ill-fated attempt to alert the Democratic National Committee (DNC) that its computer network had been compromised. But the initial contact was not made with high-level staff, leading the DNC to brush off the contact.

November: The FBI alerted the DNC information was being transmitted back to Russia.

Early March, 2016: According to court documents, Papadopoulos took a role as a foreign policy adviser in the Trump campaign. Papadopoulos was living in London at the time.

On or about March 14: Papadopoulos met a London-based professor that claimed to have "substantial connections with Russian government officials."

March 19: Russian hackers successfully hacked Clinton campaign head John Podesta's email account.

March 24: A professor introduced Papadopoulos to an alleged niece of Russian President Vladimir Putin. According to the court documents, Papadopoulos told his campaign supervisor the subject of the meeting was "to arrange a meeting between us and the Russian leadership to discuss U.S.-Russia ties under President Trump." "Great work," replied the supervisor, who said he would work the offer through the campaign. The supervisor is not named.

Papadopoulos would later find out the so-called niece was not, in fact, related to Putin.

April: Papadopoulos maintained contact with both the woman and professor to set up a meeting throughout April, keeping the campaign apprised of his contact.

April 29: The professor told Papadopoulos the Russians had "thousands" of Clinton's emails containing dirt. The next day, Papadopoulos thanked the professor for his help setting up a possible meeting between Russians and Trump.

"It's history making if it happens," said the campaign aide.

Also in April, the DNC acquired the services of CrowdStrike to investigate and mitigate the potential breach of its systems.

June 9: Donald Trump Jr., Paul Manafort and Jared Kushner meet with Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya and others with the promise of receiving dirt on Clinton. The meeting ultimately focuses on Russian sanctions that lead Moscow to ban Americans from adopting Russian children.

June 14: The Washington Post revealed that the DNC had been breached by those thought to be Russian hackers, something supported by the CrowdStrike report on the attack released June 15. 

July: Gawker and The Hill published stories based on leaks from the Guccifer 2.0 persona, which U.S. intelligence believes Russian intelligence used as a cover identity to leak documents.

July 22: WikiLeaks published the DNC emails.

July 29: Three months after the Trump campaign was first told that Russian operatives had Clinton emails, Trump said "Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing. I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press." Later that day, he tweeted "If Russia or any other country or person has Hillary Clinton's 33,000 illegally deleted emails, perhaps they should share them with the FBI!"

Between June and August, Papadopoulos continued to try to set up a meeting between Trump and the Russian government.

June 19: Papadopoulos suggested that, if Trump couldn't attend a meeting, Papadopoulos could travel in his place.

August 15: Papadapoulos said: "I would encourage you [and another foreign policy advisor to] make the trip[], if it is feasible."

The trip never occurred.

 

 

[AUDub 11,131]

 

[AUDub 11,131]

 

[SaltyTiger 7,764]

Appears that after all this time nothing more than Manafort who  was under investigation Pre- serious candidate Trump, plus a volunteer

Who is George Papadopoulos, the Trump adviser who pleaded guilty ...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/.../who-is-george-papadopoulos-the-trump-adviser-wh...

3 hours ago - George Papadopoulos pleaded guilty to making false statements about his ... [Trumpcampaign adviser admitted to lying about Russian contacts] ... But Papadopoulos, a campaignvolunteer with scant foreign policy ...

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

10 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

Appears that after all this time nothing more than Manafort who  was under investigation Pre- serious candidate Trump, plus a volunteer

Who is George Papadopoulos, the Trump adviser who pleaded guilty ...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/.../who-is-george-papadopoulos-the-trump-adviser-wh...

3 hours ago - George Papadopoulos pleaded guilty to making false statements about his ... [Trumpcampaign adviser admitted to lying about Russian contacts] ... But Papadopoulos, a campaignvolunteer with scant foreign policy ...

Being a volunteer isn't the important issue here.  It's the fact that Russia showed no interest in him until he was brought on as a foreign policy advisor to the Trump campaign.  From the guilty plea/indictment:

"In truth and in fact, however, and as set forth above, defendant PAPADOPOULOS met the Professor for the first time on or about March 14, 2016, after defendant PAPADOPOULOS had already learned he would be a foreign policy advisor for the Campaign; the Professor showed interest in defendant PAPADOPOULOS only after learning of his role on the Campaign; and the Professor told defendant PAPADOPOULOS about the Russians possessing" dirt" on then-candidate Clinton in late April 2016, more than a month after defendant PAPADOPOULOS had joined the Campaign."

Also, this is just the beginning.  You use these guys to roll on bigger fish.  Mueller isn't a rookie at this.

[AUDub 11,131]

7 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

Appears that after all this time nothing more than Manafort who  was under investigation Pre- serious candidate Trump, plus a volunteer

Who is George Papadopoulos, the Trump adviser who pleaded guilty ...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/.../who-is-george-papadopoulos-the-trump-adviser-wh...

3 hours ago - George Papadopoulos pleaded guilty to making false statements about his ... [Trumpcampaign adviser admitted to lying about Russian contacts] ... But Papadopoulos, a campaignvolunteer with scant foreign policy ...

[SaltyTiger 7,764]

1 minute ago, Brad_ATX said:

Being a volunteer isn't the important issue here.  It's the fact that Russia showed no interest in him until he was brought on as a foreign policy advisor to the Trump campaign.  From the guilty plea/indictment:

"In truth and in fact, however, and as set forth above, defendant PAPADOPOULOS met the Professor for the first time on or about March 14, 2016, after defendant PAPADOPOULOS had already learned he would be a foreign policy advisor for the Campaign; the Professor showed interest in defendant PAPADOPOULOS only after learning of his role on the Campaign; and the Professor told defendant PAPADOPOULOS about the Russians possessing" dirt" on then-candidate Clinton in late April 2016, more than a month after defendant PAPADOPOULOS had joined the Campaign."

Yes Brad, being the volunteer is extremely important.....30 years old. Come on.  

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

3 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

Yes Brad, being the volunteer is extremely important.....30 years old. Come on.  

This make no sense and completely disregards the crux of my point, which is that Russia had zero interest in contacting this guy until he had contacts/influence within the campaign.  Then, once he does, he has access to get "dirt" on the Clinton campaign via Russia, specifically emails.  You can bury your head in the sand all you want, but this isn't debatable as the guy has ALREADY plead guilty and has been working with the FBI since July.  These facts are coming from him.

Also not sure what 30 years old has to do with anything here.

[AUDub 11,131]

3 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

Yes Brad, being the volunteer is extremely important.....30 years old. Come on.

Have you even bothered to read the filing?

[AUDub 11,131]

 

[Auburnfan91 1,407]

Quote

Podesta Group one of the companies mentioned in Manafort indictment: report

BY OLIVIA BEAVERS AND MEGAN R. WILSON - 10/30/17 05:11 PM EDT

 

 

The Podesta Group, a prominent lobbying and public relations firm, is one of the two unidentified companies mentioned in the grand jury indictment of former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort and his deputy Richard Gates, NBC News reported Monday.

 

Manafort and Gates approached "Company A" and "Company B" in 2012 about lobbying on behalf of the Ukrainian government, according to the indictment that was unsealed Monday.

Company A refers to Mercury Public Affairs and Company B refers to the Podesta Group, three sources with knowledge of the investigation told the news outlet.

The Podesta Group and Mercury both did work to benefit a pro-Russia Ukrainian party through Brussels-based nonprofit European Centre for a Modern Ukraine. The Podesta Group earned more than $1.2 million from the client from 2012 through 2014, according to disclosures it filed with the Justice Department.

The companies were not paid by the nonprofit, the indictment says, but by offshore bank accounts run by Gates and Manafort that collectively paid them more than $2 million for their work.

The details about Podesta and Mercury are only one part of the Justice Department's 12-count indictment against Manafort and Gates. Prosecutors charge that the two men knowingly evaded foreign lobbying disclosure laws by doing work for the Centre and then lying about it. Other charges include conspiracy against the United States, conspiracy to launder money, tax evasion and lying to federal authorities.

While the Podesta Group had registered lobbyists for the group under domestic lobbying laws — which are less strict than ones governing foreign advocacy — they retroactively filed paperwork with the Justice Department earlier this year to report the foreign lobbying.

Since this pertains to the Manafort indictment, I feel this belongs in this thread

read the rest of the article at: http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/357884-podesta-group-is-one-of-the-companies-mentioned-in-manafort

[SaltyTiger 7,764]

1 minute ago, Bigbens42 said:

Have you even bothered to read the filing?

No Ben I have not read the file but will. Sure this kid heavy hitter said about whatever was needed. Still Papad...., Manafort  today about like going Marlin fishing and catching a mullet.

[AUDub 11,131]

4 minutes ago, Auburnfan91 said:

Since this pertains to the Manafort indictment, I feel this belongs in this thread

read the rest of the article at: http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/357884-podesta-group-is-one-of-the-companies-mentioned-in-manafort

It does.

Yes, string them up too if necessary.

[AUDub 11,131]

2 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

No Ben I have not read the file but will. Sure this kid heavy hitter said about whatever was needed. 

You're in no position to comment here if you're going to come in with no idea what's going on. That kind of nonsense belongs in the smack forum.

2 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

StillPapad...., Manafort  today about like going Marlin fishing and catching a mullet.

Laughable. 

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

3 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

No Ben I have not read the file but will. Sure this kid heavy hitter said about whatever was needed. Still Papad...., Manafort  today about like going Marlin fishing and catching a mullet.

Do you fully understand how these investigations typically work?  This is the equivalent of catching the bait fish so that they can hook the marlin.  This is not the end Salty; it's the beginning.  Mueller and team have info that we don't and will use that against Manafort and others to have them give up bigger fish.  It's an extremely common practice.

[SaltyTiger 7,764]

1 minute ago, Brad_ATX said:

Do you fully understand how these investigations typically work?  This is the equivalent of catching the bait fish so that they can hook the marlin.  This is not the end Salty; it's the beginning.  Mueller and team have info that we don't and will use that against Manafort and others to have them give up bigger fish.  It's an extremely common practice.

Got it Brad....was expecting that. Good stuff from you. 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

10 minutes ago, Bigbens42 said:

You're in no position to comment here if you're going to come in with no idea what's going on. That kind of nonsense belongs in the smack forum.

Laughable. 

Papad, a name no one knew before today, who is now a documented liar, who didn't even have access to Trump officials, and was rejected summarily = Nothingburger

Only Manafort charges that will stick are tax related. Was a major letdown to many, who wanted something juicier. All that's left are ancient crimes and misdemeanors.  

[SaltyTiger 7,764]

8 minutes ago, Bigbens42 said:

You're in no position to comment here if you're going to come in with no idea what's going on. That kind of nonsense belongs in the smack forum.

Laughable. 

I think Mueller is partisan in his investigation. I think it is a response to the DNC dossier exposure.

I think the entire response to the Trump election by the opposition is poisoning our country. Not Trump Ben as much as response and reaction.

  

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

14 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

Do you fully understand how these investigations typically work?  This is the equivalent of catching the bait fish so that they can hook the marlin.  This is not the end Salty; it's the beginning.  Mueller and team have info that we don't and will use that against Manafort and others to have them give up bigger fish.  It's an extremely common practice.

Feds used Papad to get to Manafort. Result has been disappointing considering the tailgate party Dems threw this weekend in anticipation of something "bigger"

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

3 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Papad, a name no one knew before today, who is now a documented liar, who didn't even have access to Trump officials, and was rejected summarily = Nothingburger

Only Manafort charges that will stick are tax related. Was a major letdown to many, who wanted something juicier. All that's left are ancient crimes and misdemeanors.  

It's not a "nothingburger" on Pap when he's already pleaded guilty to the crimes.  And in the documents, it's clear he did have access to upper levels of the campaign.

2 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Feds used Papad to get to Manafort. Result has been disappointing considering the tailgate party Dems threw this weekend in anticipation of something "bigger"

Not sure how you came to this conclusion.  If anything, Pap may have been used for other officials as well.  We simply don't know at this point as Mueller has proven that he can keep things under wraps.  None of us knew about the Pap thing until today and Manafort sure didn't know about the surprise raid that hit him a couple of months ago.