Keven Hofeling Posted April 3 Share Posted April 3 1 minute ago, W. Niederhut said: It's ironic that poorly informed conservatives like Kevin Hofeling are confusing reality-based concerns about Putin's 21st century neo-Stalinist police state-- and Russian military psy ops in the U.S. and Western Europe-- with McCarthyism and Red Scare era HUAC paranoia. Why? Because Republicans in the 1950s were in the Cold War vanguard when it came to paranoia about the Kremlin. Nowadays, Republicans are either directly funded (or compromised) by Russia-- like Donald Trump and Ron Johnson-- or they are turning a blind eye to Putin's domestic and international crimes. Trump and his MAGA GOP cult have been shockingly silent about Putin's horrific war crimes in Ukraine, and his persecution and murders of journalists and political opposition leaders at home. Do Kevin Hofeling and Glenn Greenwald even know that Putin has been openly contemptuous of Western democracy, while funding and promoting right wing, fascist politicians, including Donald Trump, in the U.S. and Europe? Neiderhut, if you had any confidence in your Russiagate hoax rant you wouldn't feel it necessary to attempt to smear me as a "conservative." I've made it abundantly clear that I have as much disdain for Donald Trump and his followers as I do for all neocons and neocon followers like yourself. Your knowing and deliberate use of such smear tactics -- while knowing that they are falsehoods -- discredits you and all of your claims, and reveals that it is futile and a total waste of time to attempt to reason with you, or to present you with actual evidence. Clearly you are in it for no other reason than to disseminate propaganda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Niederhut Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 (edited) 46 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said: It's ironic that poorly informed conservatives like Kevin Hofeling are confusing reality-based concerns about Putin's 21st century neo-Stalinist police state-- and Russian military psy ops in the U.S. and Europe-- with McCarthyism and Red Scare era HUAC paranoia. Why? Because Republicans in the 1950s were in the Cold War vanguard when it came to paranoia about the Kremlin. Nowadays, Republicans are either directly funded (or compromised) by Russia-- like Donald Trump and Ron Johnson-- or they are turning a blind eye to Putin's domestic and international crimes. Trump and his MAGA GOP cult have been shockingly silent about Putin's horrific war crimes in Ukraine, and his persecution and murders of journalists and political opposition leaders at home. Trump even declared that Putin was "a genius" after he began launching missiles into residential communities in Ukraine! Do Kevin Hofeling and Glenn Greenwald even know that Putin has been openly contemptuous of Western democracy, while funding and promoting right wing, fascist politicians, including Donald Trump, in the U.S. and Europe? Addendum: Incidentally, aside from FSB recruitment of Republicans in the Trump era, how do we account for the GOP 180 -- from the 1950s to the 2020s-- on countering Russian totalitarianism? I have an hypothesis. The Cold War Republicans-- including the Dulles brothers and the CIA apparatchiks who murdered John F. Kennedy-- were more concerned about protecting corporate capitalists from communism than about protecting democracy from totalitarianism. That's why the CIA subverted democracy around the globe. But Putin's totalitarian police state is not communist. So, many Republicans today aren't really concerned about Putin's totalitarian threats to Western democracy. Edited April 4 by W. Niederhut Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keven Hofeling Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 5 minutes ago, Matt Allison said: W- upon seeing Paul Manafort's mugshot and the FBI Wanted poster for KVK, he responded with "McCarthyism!", which, to be honest, is just embarrassingly clownish. What is truly embarrassing and clownish is that you are still confined to making puerile quips despite the fact that I have previously made an in-depth presentation of the actual facts and evidence concerning Paul Manafort, demonstrating conclusively that all of the hoopla regarding him in the Mueller Report and the Senate Report on Collusion were outright distortions of the fact that the allegations and crimes that he was charged with and convicted of ALL concerned his pre-Russiagate lobbying activities in Ukraine (and the one offense Konstantin Kilimnik was indicted for also related to the same lobbying activities in Ukraine, and was never pursued). You've responded to this factual information with the fourth-grade level retorts of an elementary school child, as you are evidently unable to navigate in the domain of actual evidence and facts, preferring instead to throw about conclusory allegations laced with insults. The following is the factual information that you have ignored, because you have no choice but to ignore it while engaged in the dissemination of Russiagate hoax propaganda. And you will continue to ignore it, without a doubt, because you simply are not a serious researcher when it comes to such complex matters in which sensationalism and fear mongering has been used to stir the ancestral tribalism of undiscriminating men and women, such as yourself. _________ The scope of the inquiry regarding Paul Manafort should include all of the Manafort charges and convictions, not only in the Court proceedings adjudicated by Judge Amy Berman Jackson's U.S. District Court for the District of Colombia, but also those adjudicated by Judge T. S. Ellis III's U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. Manafort's trial in the Eastern District of Virginia began on July 31, 2018. Manafort was charged with various financial crimes including tax evasion, bank fraud, and money laundering. There were 18 criminal charges including 5 falsifications of income tax returns, 4 failures to file foreign bank account reports, 4 counts of bank fraud, and 5 counts of bank fraud conspiracy. On August 21, 2018, the jury found Manafort guilty on 8 of the 18 felony counts, including five counts of filing false tax returns, two counts of bank fraud, and one count of failing to disclose a foreign bank account. Judge Ellis declared a mistrial on the remaining 10 charges. None of the Virginia charges or convictions had anything to do with Russiagate. To provide you with certainty about that I am providing you with Office of Special Counsel ("OSC") Robert Mueller's summary of the Virginia proceedings from page 5 and 6 of the "GOVERNMENT’S SENTENCING MEMORANDUM" in the District of Colombia case, as follows: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.190597/gov.uscourts.dcd.190597.525.0_4.pdf Likewise, none of the District of Colombia charges or convictions had anything to do with Russiagate. To provide you with certainty about that I am providing you with OSC Robert Mueller's summary of the D.C. proceedings from page 6-8 of the "GOVERNMENT’S SENTENCING MEMORANDUM" in the District of Colombia case, as follows: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.190597/gov.uscourts.dcd.190597.525.0_4.pdf Note that so far, Manafort has not been charged with or convicted of any offenses that have anything to do with Russiagate or Russian collusion, which brings us to the charges and convictions related to Paul Manafort's breach of his Cooperation Agreement with the OSC. The OSC charged Paul Manafort with 5 charges related to his breach of the Cooperation Agreement. The most concise recitation of those 5 charges and proceedings associated therewith is found in Judge Amy Berman Jackson's February 13, 2019 Order, which follows. As you can see, none of these 5 offenses have anything to do with Russiagate or Russian collusion, and I have included links to the pleadings of the OSC and Defendant Manafort upon which the Court based its judgment so that you can inquire further about the nature of each charge (but note that there are redactions which I believe were intended to make it difficult for the media to report that there was no Russia collusion involved, so you may need to review all of them to piece it together as I have): https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.190597/gov.uscourts.dcd.190597.509.0_5.pdf "...On November 26, 2018, the parties informed the Court in a joint status report [Dkt. # 455] that it was the government’s position that the defendant had breached the plea agreement by making false statements to the FBI and Office of Special Counsel (“OSC”) and that it was time to set a sentencing date. The defendant disputed the government’s characterization of the information he had provided and denied that he had breached the agreement, but he agreed that in light of the dispute, it was time to proceed to sentencing. Thereafter, the government was ordered to provide the Court with information concerning the alleged breach, a schedule was established for the defense to respond, and the following submissions were made a part of the record in the case: December 7, 2018 Government’s Submission in Support of its Breach Determination [Dkt. # 461] (Sealed); [Dkt. # 460] (Public) https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.190597/gov.uscourts.dcd.190597.460.0_3.pdf January 8, 2019 Defendant’s Response to the Government’s Submission in Support of its Breach Determination [Dkt. # 470] (Sealed); [Dkt. # 472] (Public) https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.190597/gov.uscourts.dcd.190597.471.0_6.pdf January 15, 2019 FBI Declaration in Support of the Government’s Breach Determination with accompanying exhibits [Dkt # 477] (Sealed); [Dkt. # 476] (Public) https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.190597/gov.uscourts.dcd.190597.476.0_4.pdf January 23, 2019 Defendant’s Reply to the Declaration [Dkt. # 481] (Sealed); [Dkt. # 482] (Public) https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.190597/gov.uscourts.dcd.190597.482.0_7.pdf The Court held a sealed hearing on February 4, 2019, and the parties each filed post-hearing submissions. See Def.’s Post-Hearing Mem. [Dkt. # 502] (Sealed), [Dkt. # 505] (Public); Government’s Suppl. [Dkt. # 507] (Sealed). https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.190597/gov.uscourts.dcd.190597.505.0.pdf It is a matter of public record that the Office of Special Counsel has alleged that the defendant made intentionally false statements to the FBI, the OSC, and/or the grand jury in connection with five matters: (i) a payment made by Firm A to a law firm to pay a debt owed to the law firm by defendant Manafort; (ii) co-defendant Konstantin Kilimnik’s role in the obstruction of justice conspiracy; (iii) the defendant’s interactions and communications with Kilimnik; (iv) another Department of Justice investigation; (iv) and the defendant’s contacts with the current administration after the election. The parties are agreed that it is the government’s burden to show that there has been a breach of the plea agreement, but to be relieved of its obligations under the agreement, it must simply demonstrate that its determination was made in good faith. Plea Agreement ¶ 13. With regard to the 5 charges brought against Manafort by the OSC, Judge Amy Berman Jackson's February 13, 2019 Order provided as follows: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.190597/gov.uscourts.dcd.190597.509.0_5.pdf Thus, concerning Mueller's Office of Special Counsel allegations that Manafort had breached the terms of his plea agreement by lying to the FBI and the OSC, of the 5 allegations, the Court found in favor of the government on 3, all of which were predicated upon Manafort's consulting work for the government of Viktor Yanukovych in Ukraine before Yanukovych's overthrow in 2014. The Court specifically found that Manafort had not intentionally made false statements concerning Kilimnick's role in the obstruction of justice conspiracy, and that Manafort had not intentionally made a false statement concerning his contacts with the Trump administration. This means that the central claim of your Russiagate hoax hoopla -- that "Former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort lied to prosecutors with special counsel Robert S. Mueller III about matters close to the heart of their investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election -- is absolutely and categorically false. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Niederhut Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 P.S. If Kevin Hofeling mistakenly believes that I'm an apologist for the Neocons, he needs to study our forum discussions about 9/11, Paul Wolfowitz, and the Neocon "War on Terror." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keven Hofeling Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 14 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said: Addendum: Incidentally, aside from FSB recruitment of Republicans in the Trump era, how do we account for the GOP 180 -- from the 1950s to the 2020s-- on countering Russian totalitarianism? I have an hypothesis. The Cold War Republicans-- including the Dulles brothers and the CIA apparatchiks who murdered John F. Kennedy-- were more concerned about protecting corporate capitalists from communism than about protecting democracy from totalitarianism. That's why the CIA subverted democracy around the globe. But Putin's totalitarian police state is not communist. So, many Republicans today aren't really concerned about Putin's totalitarian threats to Western democracy. You are here making distinctions without a difference. You've been hoodwinked by sensationalist partisan appeals to your ancestral tribalism and are helpless to navigate through the propagandistic fog using the knowledge you profess to have acquired from your JFKA research. A pity... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Niederhut Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 Geez, folks... Now I'm "helpless to navigate the propagandistic fog..." Perhaps I need to join Kevin Hofeling and Benjamin Cole in the MAGA-verse. Perhaps January 6th really was a Deep State "Patriot Purge," and perhaps Putin didn't interfere in our 2016 election to help his compromised Orange Asset become POTUS. Perhaps Stormy Daniels is Antifa and Konstantin Kilimnik works for the CIA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keven Hofeling Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 (edited) 16 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said: Geez, folks... Now I'm "helpless to navigate the propagandistic fog..." Perhaps I need to join Kevin Hofeling and Benjamin Cole in the MAGA-verse. Perhaps January 6th really was a Deep State "Patriot Purge," and perhaps Putin didn't interfere in our 2016 election to help his compromised Orange Asset become POTUS. Perhaps Stormy Daniels is Antifa and Konstantin Kilimnik works for the CIA. Mr. Neiderhut, like several other participants of this thread who have brought to my attention that they don't waste their time responding to your juvenile antics anymore, I am not wasting any more of my valuable time responding to your polemics and distortions. If you want to further test the veracity of the Russiagate hoax with me, you are going to have to do so on the level of the actual bona fide true and tested evidence. You can start by explaining why we should not trust the integrity of the actual Court pleadings and Orders of Judge Amy Berman Jackson's U.S. District Court for the District of Colombia and Judge T. S. Ellis III's U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, as set forth below, serving as evidence that Pul Manafort was never charged, tried or convicted of anything other than crimes related to his lobbying activities in Ukrain, all of which predated the Russiagate hoax. ___________ The scope of the inquiry regarding Paul Manafort should include all of the Manafort charges and convictions, not only in the Court proceedings adjudicated by Judge Amy Berman Jackson's U.S. District Court for the District of Colombia, but also those adjudicated by Judge T. S. Ellis III's U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. Manafort's trial in the Eastern District of Virginia began on July 31, 2018. Manafort was charged with various financial crimes including tax evasion, bank fraud, and money laundering. There were 18 criminal charges including 5 falsifications of income tax returns, 4 failures to file foreign bank account reports, 4 counts of bank fraud, and 5 counts of bank fraud conspiracy. On August 21, 2018, the jury found Manafort guilty on 8 of the 18 felony counts, including five counts of filing false tax returns, two counts of bank fraud, and one count of failing to disclose a foreign bank account. Judge Ellis declared a mistrial on the remaining 10 charges. None of the Virginia charges or convictions had anything to do with Russiagate. To provide you with certainty about that I am providing you with Office of Special Counsel ("OSC") Robert Mueller's summary of the Virginia proceedings from page 5 and 6 of the "GOVERNMENT’S SENTENCING MEMORANDUM" in the District of Colombia case, as follows: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.190597/gov.uscourts.dcd.190597.525.0_4.pdf Likewise, none of the District of Colombia charges or convictions had anything to do with Russiagate. To provide you with certainty about that I am providing you with OSC Robert Mueller's summary of the D.C. proceedings from page 6-8 of the "GOVERNMENT’S SENTENCING MEMORANDUM" in the District of Colombia case, as follows: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.190597/gov.uscourts.dcd.190597.525.0_4.pdf Note that so far, Manafort has not been charged with or convicted of any offenses that have anything to do with Russiagate or Russian collusion, which brings us to the charges and convictions related to Paul Manafort's breach of his Cooperation Agreement with the OSC. The OSC charged Paul Manafort with 5 charges related to his breach of the Cooperation Agreement. The most concise recitation of those 5 charges and proceedings associated therewith is found in Judge Amy Berman Jackson's February 13, 2019 Order, which follows. As you can see, none of these 5 offenses have anything to do with Russiagate or Russian collusion, and I have included links to the pleadings of the OSC and Defendant Manafort upon which the Court based its judgment so that you can inquire further about the nature of each charge (but note that there are redactions which I believe were intended to make it difficult for the media to report that there was no Russia collusion involved, so you may need to review all of them to piece it together as I have): https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.190597/gov.uscourts.dcd.190597.509.0_5.pdf "...On November 26, 2018, the parties informed the Court in a joint status report [Dkt. # 455] that it was the government’s position that the defendant had breached the plea agreement by making false statements to the FBI and Office of Special Counsel (“OSC”) and that it was time to set a sentencing date. The defendant disputed the government’s characterization of the information he had provided and denied that he had breached the agreement, but he agreed that in light of the dispute, it was time to proceed to sentencing. Thereafter, the government was ordered to provide the Court with information concerning the alleged breach, a schedule was established for the defense to respond, and the following submissions were made a part of the record in the case: December 7, 2018 Government’s Submission in Support of its Breach Determination [Dkt. # 461] (Sealed); [Dkt. # 460] (Public) https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.190597/gov.uscourts.dcd.190597.460.0_3.pdf January 8, 2019 Defendant’s Response to the Government’s Submission in Support of its Breach Determination [Dkt. # 470] (Sealed); [Dkt. # 472] (Public) https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.190597/gov.uscourts.dcd.190597.471.0_6.pdf January 15, 2019 FBI Declaration in Support of the Government’s Breach Determination with accompanying exhibits [Dkt # 477] (Sealed); [Dkt. # 476] (Public) https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.190597/gov.uscourts.dcd.190597.476.0_4.pdf January 23, 2019 Defendant’s Reply to the Declaration [Dkt. # 481] (Sealed); [Dkt. # 482] (Public) https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.190597/gov.uscourts.dcd.190597.482.0_7.pdf The Court held a sealed hearing on February 4, 2019, and the parties each filed post-hearing submissions. See Def.’s Post-Hearing Mem. [Dkt. # 502] (Sealed), [Dkt. # 505] (Public); Government’s Suppl. [Dkt. # 507] (Sealed). https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.190597/gov.uscourts.dcd.190597.505.0.pdf It is a matter of public record that the Office of Special Counsel has alleged that the defendant made intentionally false statements to the FBI, the OSC, and/or the grand jury in connection with five matters: (i) a payment made by Firm A to a law firm to pay a debt owed to the law firm by defendant Manafort; (ii) co-defendant Konstantin Kilimnik’s role in the obstruction of justice conspiracy; (iii) the defendant’s interactions and communications with Kilimnik; (iv) another Department of Justice investigation; (iv) and the defendant’s contacts with the current administration after the election. The parties are agreed that it is the government’s burden to show that there has been a breach of the plea agreement, but to be relieved of its obligations under the agreement, it must simply demonstrate that its determination was made in good faith. Plea Agreement ¶ 13. With regard to the 5 charges brought against Manafort by the OSC, Judge Amy Berman Jackson's February 13, 2019 Order provided as follows: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.190597/gov.uscourts.dcd.190597.509.0_5.pdf Thus, concerning Mueller's Office of Special Counsel allegations that Manafort had breached the terms of his plea agreement by lying to the FBI and the OSC, of the 5 allegations, the Court found in favor of the government on 3, all of which were predicated upon Manafort's consulting work for the government of Viktor Yanukovych in Ukraine before Yanukovych's overthrow in 2014. The Court specifically found that Manafort had not intentionally made false statements concerning Kilimnick's role in the obstruction of justice conspiracy, and that Manafort had not intentionally made a false statement concerning his contacts with the Trump administration. This means that the central claim of your Russiagate hoax hoopla -- that "Former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort lied to prosecutors with special counsel Robert S. Mueller III about matters close to the heart of their investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election -- is absolutely and categorically false. Edited April 4 by Keven Hofeling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keven Hofeling Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 (edited) Joe Rogan and Judge Napolitano on Napolitano's conversation with President Trump about 2 weeks prior to President Trump leaving office about not releasing the final JFK files which, according to Rogan and Napolitano, points directly to exposing that the CIA was involved in the assassination. #JoeRogan references #judgenapolitano about #CIA and #JFK Judge Napolitano - Judging Freedom | Mar 28, 2024 | https://youtu.be/B0ggOJJlmQM?si=fI38ekyp5kCPbHJH Edited April 4 by Keven Hofeling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Niederhut Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 (edited) 1 hour ago, Keven Hofeling said: Mr. Neiderhut, like several other participants of this thread who have brought to my attention that they don't waste their time responding to your juvenile antics anymore, I am not wasting any more of my valuable time responding to your polemics and distortions. If you want to further test the veracity of the Russiagate hoax with me, you are going to have to do so on the level of the actual bona fide true and tested evidence. You can start by explaining why we should not trust the integrity of the actual Court pleadings and Orders of Judge Amy Berman Jackson's U.S. District Court for the District of Colombia and Judge T. S. Ellis III's U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, as set forth below, serving as evidence that Pul Manafort was never charged, tried or convicted of anything other than crimes related to his lobbying activities in Ukrain, all of which predated the Russiagate hoax. I'm Dr. Niederhut, Kevin, a graduate of Harvard Medical School. Mr. Niederhut was my father. Now, listen carefully, young man. You have poor reading comprehension skills, and I need you to pay careful attention to what I'm telling you this final time. No response necessary. And no more MAGA spam, please. You, obviously, remain ignorant of the fact that Russiagate was NOT a hoax, as Trump and his MAGA media propagandists have repeatedly claimed during the past seven years. Even the GOP Whitewater clown at CJR repeated that lie for Trump. We debunked it long ago on the 56 Years thread. Trump's "Russiagate hoax" trope is a classic example of the propaganda technique of "repeating the lie" until poorly informed people mistake it for truth. You got played. Did you read the U.S. Senate Intel Report on Russiagate that I posted for you, (above) or were you too busy Googling and posting MAGA Russiagate denial spam to read it? Fact #1: Putin actively interfered in the 2016 U.S. election on Trump's behalf. Fact #2: Trump's campaign staff had multiple meetings with Kremlin assets, before and after the November election. Fact #3: Paul Manafort met with GRU asset Konstantin Kilimnik in 2016, to share polling data, while Manafort was serving as Trump's Campaign Manager. As for the Manafort court document you posted, (above) you are, apparently, unaware that it was a preliminary court ruling by Judge Berman, from 2018. It details preliminary charges against Manafort. Fact #4: Manafort subsequently committed perjury in an effort to conceal his secret 2016 Trump campaign contacts with his GRU associate Konstantin Kilimnik. Fact #5: Manafort also had to be put in solitary confinement during Mueller's investigation, to prevent further witness tampering. He told Trump's Assistant Campaign Manager, Rick Gates, "We'll be taken care of," while Gates was facing interrogation by Mueller's team. Finally, you need to go back and carefully study the excellent February 2019 Washington Post article by Spencer Hsu about Manafort's trial and final judgment. I took the trouble of posting it for you on this thread, and you never even read, or understood, it. If you had read it, you wouldn't have posted more inaccurate MAGA spam about the case. The details of Mueller's case against Manafort can't be summarized more accurately than Spencer Hsu has done. There's a reason Hsu has been a candidate for two Pulitzer Prizes. Edited April 4 by W. Niederhut Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keven Hofeling Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 (edited) 45 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said: I'm Dr. Niederhut, Kevin, a graduate of Harvard Medical School. Mr. Niederhut was my father. Now, listen carefully, young man. You have poor reading comprehension skills, and I need you to pay careful attention to what I'm telling you this final time. No response necessary. And no more MAGA spam, please. You, obviously, remain ignorant of the fact that Russiagate was NOT a hoax, as Trump and his MAGA media propagandists have repeatedly claimed during the past seven years. Even the GOP Whitewater clown at CJR repeated that lie for Trump. We debunked it long ago on the 56 Years thread. Trump's "Russiagate hoax" trope is a classic example of the propaganda technique of "repeating the lie" until poorly informed people mistake it for truth. You got played. Did you read the U.S. Senate Intel Report on Russiagate that I posted for you, (above) or were you too busy Googling and posting MAGA Russiagate denial spam to read it? Fact #1: Putin actively interfered in the 2016 U.S. election on Trump's behalf. Fact #2: Trump's campaign staff had multiple meetings with Kremlin assets, before and after the November election. Fact #3: Paul Manafort met with GRU asset Konstantin Kilimnik in 2016, to share polling data, while Manafort was serving as Trump's Campaign Manager. As for the Manafort court document you posted, (above) you are, apparently, unaware that it was a preliminary court ruling by Judge Berman, from 2018. It details preliminary charges against Manafort. Fact #4: Manafort subsequently committed perjury in an effort to conceal his secret 2016 Trump campaign contacts with his GRU associate Konstantin Kilimnik. Fact #5: Manafort also had to be put in solitary confinement during Mueller's investigation, to prevent further witness tampering. He told Trump's Assistant Campaign Manager, Rick Gates, "We'll be taken care of," while Gates was facing interrogation by Mueller's team. Finally, you need to go back and carefully study the excellent February 2019 Washington Post article by Spencer Hsu about Manafort's trial and final judgment. I took the trouble of posting it for you on this thread, and you never even read, or understood, it. If you had read it, you wouldn't have posted more inaccurate MAGA spam about the case. The details of Mueller's case against Manafort can't be summarized more accurately than Spencer Hsu has done. There's a reason Hsu has been a candidate for two Pulitzer Prizes. Mr. Neiderhut, don't give me the doctor trip nonsense, I'm a Doctor too, a Doctor of Jurisprudence, not a mere head shrinker, but unlike you I am not hung up on myself and my credentials. I'm likely older than you too, and that definitely shows in our respective posting behavior. As I put you on notice before, I'm not wasting any more of my time on your propaganda narratives. If you want to further test the veracity of the Russiagate hoax with me, you are going to have to do so on the level of the actual bona fide true and tested evidence. You can start by explaining why we should not trust the integrity of the actual Court pleadings and Orders of Judge Amy Berman Jackson's U.S. District Court for the District of Colombia and Judge T. S. Ellis III's U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, as set forth below, serving as evidence that Paul Manafort was never charged, tried or convicted of anything other than crimes related to his lobbying activities in Ukraine, all of which predated the Russiagate hoax. ___________ The scope of the inquiry regarding Paul Manafort should include all of the Manafort charges and convictions, not only in the Court proceedings adjudicated by Judge Amy Berman Jackson's U.S. District Court for the District of Colombia, but also those adjudicated by Judge T. S. Ellis III's U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. Manafort's trial in the Eastern District of Virginia began on July 31, 2018. Manafort was charged with various financial crimes including tax evasion, bank fraud, and money laundering. There were 18 criminal charges including 5 falsifications of income tax returns, 4 failures to file foreign bank account reports, 4 counts of bank fraud, and 5 counts of bank fraud conspiracy. On August 21, 2018, the jury found Manafort guilty on 8 of the 18 felony counts, including five counts of filing false tax returns, two counts of bank fraud, and one count of failing to disclose a foreign bank account. Judge Ellis declared a mistrial on the remaining 10 charges. None of the Virginia charges or convictions had anything to do with Russiagate. To provide you with certainty about that I am providing you with Office of Special Counsel ("OSC") Robert Mueller's summary of the Virginia proceedings from page 5 and 6 of the "GOVERNMENT’S SENTENCING MEMORANDUM" in the District of Colombia case, as follows: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.190597/gov.uscourts.dcd.190597.525.0_4.pdf Likewise, none of the District of Colombia charges or convictions had anything to do with Russiagate. To provide you with certainty about that I am providing you with OSC Robert Mueller's summary of the D.C. proceedings from page 6-8 of the "GOVERNMENT’S SENTENCING MEMORANDUM" in the District of Colombia case, as follows: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.190597/gov.uscourts.dcd.190597.525.0_4.pdf Note that so far, Manafort has not been charged with or convicted of any offenses that have anything to do with Russiagate or Russian collusion, which brings us to the charges and convictions related to Paul Manafort's breach of his Cooperation Agreement with the OSC. The OSC charged Paul Manafort with 5 charges related to his breach of the Cooperation Agreement. The most concise recitation of those 5 charges and proceedings associated therewith is found in Judge Amy Berman Jackson's February 13, 2019 Order, which follows. As you can see, none of these 5 offenses have anything to do with Russiagate or Russian collusion, and I have included links to the pleadings of the OSC and Defendant Manafort upon which the Court based its judgment so that you can inquire further about the nature of each charge (but note that there are redactions which I believe were intended to make it difficult for the media to report that there was no Russia collusion involved, so you may need to review all of them to piece it together as I have): https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.190597/gov.uscourts.dcd.190597.509.0_5.pdf "...On November 26, 2018, the parties informed the Court in a joint status report [Dkt. # 455] that it was the government’s position that the defendant had breached the plea agreement by making false statements to the FBI and Office of Special Counsel (“OSC”) and that it was time to set a sentencing date. The defendant disputed the government’s characterization of the information he had provided and denied that he had breached the agreement, but he agreed that in light of the dispute, it was time to proceed to sentencing. Thereafter, the government was ordered to provide the Court with information concerning the alleged breach, a schedule was established for the defense to respond, and the following submissions were made a part of the record in the case: December 7, 2018 Government’s Submission in Support of its Breach Determination [Dkt. # 461] (Sealed); [Dkt. # 460] (Public) https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.190597/gov.uscourts.dcd.190597.460.0_3.pdf January 8, 2019 Defendant’s Response to the Government’s Submission in Support of its Breach Determination [Dkt. # 470] (Sealed); [Dkt. # 472] (Public) https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.190597/gov.uscourts.dcd.190597.471.0_6.pdf January 15, 2019 FBI Declaration in Support of the Government’s Breach Determination with accompanying exhibits [Dkt # 477] (Sealed); [Dkt. # 476] (Public) https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.190597/gov.uscourts.dcd.190597.476.0_4.pdf January 23, 2019 Defendant’s Reply to the Declaration [Dkt. # 481] (Sealed); [Dkt. # 482] (Public) https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.190597/gov.uscourts.dcd.190597.482.0_7.pdf The Court held a sealed hearing on February 4, 2019, and the parties each filed post-hearing submissions. See Def.’s Post-Hearing Mem. [Dkt. # 502] (Sealed), [Dkt. # 505] (Public); Government’s Suppl. [Dkt. # 507] (Sealed). https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.190597/gov.uscourts.dcd.190597.505.0.pdf It is a matter of public record that the Office of Special Counsel has alleged that the defendant made intentionally false statements to the FBI, the OSC, and/or the grand jury in connection with five matters: (i) a payment made by Firm A to a law firm to pay a debt owed to the law firm by defendant Manafort; (ii) co-defendant Konstantin Kilimnik’s role in the obstruction of justice conspiracy; (iii) the defendant’s interactions and communications with Kilimnik; (iv) another Department of Justice investigation; (iv) and the defendant’s contacts with the current administration after the election. The parties are agreed that it is the government’s burden to show that there has been a breach of the plea agreement, but to be relieved of its obligations under the agreement, it must simply demonstrate that its determination was made in good faith. Plea Agreement ¶ 13. With regard to the 5 charges brought against Manafort by the OSC, Judge Amy Berman Jackson's February 13, 2019 Order provided as follows: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.190597/gov.uscourts.dcd.190597.509.0_5.pdf Thus, concerning Mueller's Office of Special Counsel allegations that Manafort had breached the terms of his plea agreement by lying to the FBI and the OSC, of the 5 allegations, the Court found in favor of the government on 3, all of which were predicated upon Manafort's consulting work for the government of Viktor Yanukovych in Ukraine before Yanukovych's overthrow in 2014. The Court specifically found that Manafort had not intentionally made false statements concerning Kilimnick's role in the obstruction of justice conspiracy, and that Manafort had not intentionally made a false statement concerning his contacts with the Trump administration. This means that the central claim of your Russiagate hoax hoopla -- that "Former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort lied to prosecutors with special counsel Robert S. Mueller III about matters close to the heart of their investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election -- is absolutely and categorically false. Edited April 4 by Keven Hofeling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Bulman Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 1 hour ago, Keven Hofeling said: Joe Rogan and Judge Napolitano on Napolitano's conversation with President Trump about 2 weeks prior to President Trump leaving office about not releasing the final JFK files which, according to Rogan and Napolitano, points directly to exposing that the CIA was involved in the assassination. #JoeRogan references #judgenapolitano about #CIA and #JFK Judge Napolitano - Judging Freedom | Mar 28, 2024 | https://youtu.be/B0ggOJJlmQM?si=fI38ekyp5kCPbHJH This is a rather vain attempt to give the illusion this thread is still on topic. Most of the posts are about Russiagate and Manafort. Posted March 17 · IP On 3/17/2024 at 11:20 PM, Ron Bulman said: This is not a current politics post? No, the topic of this thread is Donald Trump and his failure to release the JFK records. The information presented about his Syria policies concerns the potential context of his decision not to do so, and also notes the parallels between the establishment reactions to Trump's Syria policy and JFK's Vietnam policy. Quote Posted March 17 · IP On 3/17/2024 at 11:20 PM, Ron Bulman said: This is not a current politics post? No, focuses on 1963 and 2017, and the policies of JFK and Trump to end the CIA wars in Vietnam and Syria. W Niederhut advocated for the need for this thread to contest disinformation for the public benefit. It seems it's become a Trump, less the JFK files thread. In an election year especially I'm not sure the Education Forum JFK Assassination Debate should go there either way, at all. I have my own opinions, as we all do, but is this the place to do so at this time? If the 56 Years thread because of similar circumstances had to go to Political Discussions, it may be time for this one to as well. I'll discuss it with Mark and Sandy, meanwhile public comments are welcome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Posted March 17 · IP On 3/17/2024 at 11:20 PM, Ron Bulman said: This is not a current politics post? No, the topic of this thread is Donald Trump and his failure to release the JFK records. The information presented about his Syria policies concerns the potential context of his decision not to do so, and also notes the parallels between the establishment reactions to Trump's Syria policy and JFK's Vietnam policy. Quote
Posted March 17 · IP On 3/17/2024 at 11:20 PM, Ron Bulman said: This is not a current politics post? No, focuses on 1963 and 2017, and the policies of JFK and Trump to end the CIA wars in Vietnam and Syria. W Niederhut advocated for the need for this thread to contest disinformation for the public benefit. It seems it's become a Trump, less the JFK files thread. In an election year especially I'm not sure the Education Forum JFK Assassination Debate should go there either way, at all. I have my own opinions, as we all do, but is this the place to do so at this time? If the 56 Years thread because of similar circumstances had to go to Political Discussions, it may be time for this one to as well. I'll discuss it with Mark and Sandy, meanwhile public comments are welcome.
Keven Hofeling Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 (edited) 12 hours ago, W. Niederhut said: As for the Manafort court document you posted, (above) you are, apparently, unaware that it was a preliminary court ruling by Judge Berman, from 2018. It details preliminary charges against Manafort. Fact #4: Manafort subsequently committed perjury in an effort to conceal his secret 2016 Trump campaign contacts with his GRU associate Konstantin Kilimnik. Fact #5: Manafort also had to be put in solitary confinement during Mueller's investigation, to prevent further witness tampering. He told Trump's Assistant Campaign Manager, Rick Gates, "We'll be taken care of," while Gates was facing interrogation by Mueller's team. Finally, you need to go back and carefully study the excellent February 2019 Washington Post article by Spencer Hsu about Manafort's trial and final judgment. I took the trouble of posting it for you on this thread, and you never even read, or understood, it. If you had read it, you wouldn't have posted more inaccurate MAGA spam about the case. The details of Mueller's case against Manafort can't be summarized more accurately than Spencer Hsu has done. There's a reason Hsu has been a candidate for two Pulitzer Prizes. Well folks, here we have an example of what happens when a presumptuous head shrinker moonlighting as a lay armchair lawyer makes a fool out of himself attempting to school bona fide lawyers... Neiderhut: "As for the Manafort court document you posted, (above) you are, apparently, unaware that it was a preliminary court ruling by Judge Berman, from 2018. It details preliminary charges against Manafort." Not even a third grader would have missed that there are multiple Court pleadings linked (See below) culminating in Judge Amy Berman Jackson's February 13, 2019 final Order, as follows: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.190597/gov.uscourts.dcd.190597.509.0_5.pdf Even the February 2019 yellow journalism Washington Post article by Spencer Hsu didn't get that wrong. Is this starting to ring a bell in your head, Mr. Neiderhut? The February 2019 Washington Post article you are heralding is in its entirety about Judge Amy Berman Jackson's February 13, 2019 final Order which you claimed above were just "preliminary charges against Manafort." Helloooooooo? Don't you even read the articles that you post as evidence?? And the idea that this piece of yellow journalism garbage of Spencer Hsu's in any way constitutes "evidence" is something my detailed analysis of it should have dispossessed you of when I wrote it last Saturday, but noooo, Dr. head shrinker's head itself needs to be shrunk so desperately that he doesn't even read, much less understand, posts teeming with actual evidence and factual data. So here is that post from last Saturday again so we can see if you can improve upon your dismal performance as a lay armchair lawyer exhibited tonight.... __________ W. Neirdehut wrote: Quote "Be careful what you ask for. You're about to get a well-deserved trip to the Education Forum wood shed." Do you have the slightest idea how ridiculous it appears for you to present this pitiful Washington Post article which makes completely unsubstantiated claims just so you can beat your silly Russophobic war drum? Especially when you allege doing so to be the equivalent of taking me to the "wood shed"? Don't you have any "evidence" that I cannot so easily demonstrate to be completely without foundation as I have below with your piece of Washington Post yellow journalism? I have insisted that you provide evidentiary support for your Russiagate hoax claims, to which you have provided this Washington Post nothing burger, which I suspect is about the best I am ever going to be able to get out of you. The Ron Wyden letter you have been clamoring about for the last few days illustrates the problem with your article (which I am going to demonstrate below): https://www.wyden.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/final_signed_wyden_letter_to_dni_on_2016_election_report_declassification.pdf Senator Wyden, unlike you, has the good sense to have done his preliminary research, and has become aware that the Paul Manafort case suffers from a severe shortcoming, that being, a total absence of solid substantiating evidence. Thus, he has written to the Director of National Intelligence requesting declassification of redacted portions of the Senate Intelligence Report on Collusion. Senator Wyden knows, of course, what the redacted sections amount to, and therefore knows that they won't be redacted, because -- it is my prediction -- the redactions are exculpatory in nature and were redacted to save the Committee from further embarrassment. In any event, for your purposes, the redacted portions of the Senate Committee report do not constitute "evidence," and your allusions to the contrary are mere speculation. The headline of your Washington Post article is "Federal judge finds Paul Manafort lied to Mueller probe about contacts with Russian aide," so we shall see if it delivers the content it promises. Your Washington Post article begins with the following paragraph: "Former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort lied to prosecutors with special counsel Robert S. Mueller III about matters close to the heart of their investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election, a federal judge ruled Wednesday." It certainly sounds damning, but is it true? In determining this, I want to expand the scope of the inquiry to include all of the Manafort charges and convictions, not only in the Court proceedings addressed in your article (Judge Amy Berman Jackson's U.S. District Court for the District of Colombia), but also for Judge T. S. Ellis III's U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. Manafort's trial in the Eastern District of Virginia began on July 31, 2018. Manafort was charged with various financial crimes including tax evasion, bank fraud, and money laundering. There were 18 criminal charges including 5 falsifications of income tax returns, 4 failures to file foreign bank account reports, 4 counts of bank fraud, and 5 counts of bank fraud conspiracy. On August 21, 2018, the jury found Manafort guilty on 8 of the 18 felony counts, including five counts of filing false tax returns, two counts of bank fraud, and one count of failing to disclose a foreign bank account. Judge Ellis declared a mistrial on the remaining 10 charges. None of the Virginia charges or convictions had anything to do with Russiagate. To provide you with certainty about that I am providing you with Office of Special Counsel ("OSC") Robert Mueller's summary of the Virginia proceedings from page 5 and 6 of the "GOVERNMENT’S SENTENCING MEMORANDUM" in the District of Colombia case, as follows: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.190597/gov.uscourts.dcd.190597.525.0_4.pdf Likewise, none of the District of Colombia charges or convictions had anything to do with Russiagate. To provide you with certainty about that I am providing you with OSC Robert Mueller's summary of the D.C. proceedings from page 6-8 of the "GOVERNMENT’S SENTENCING MEMORANDUM" in the District of Colombia case, as follows: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.190597/gov.uscourts.dcd.190597.525.0_4.pdf Note that so far, Manafort has not been charged with or convicted of any offenses that have anything to do with Russiagate or Russian collusion, which brings us to the subject matter of your Washington Post article, the charges and convictions related to Paul Manafort's breach of his Cooperation Agreement with the OSC. The OSC charged Paul Manafort with 5 charges related to his breach of the Cooperation Agreement. The most concise recitation of those 5 charges and proceedings associated therewith is found in Judge Amy Berman Jackson's February 13, 2019 Order, which follows. As you can see, none of these 5 offenses have anything to do with Russiagate or Russian collusion, and I have included links to the pleadings of the OSC and Defendant Manafort upon which the Court based its judgment so that you can inquire further about the nature of each charge (but note that there are redactions which I believe were intended to make it difficult for the media to report that there was no Russia collusion involved, so you may need to review all of them to piece it together as I have): https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.190597/gov.uscourts.dcd.190597.509.0_5.pdf "...On November 26, 2018, the parties informed the Court in a joint status report [Dkt. # 455] that it was the government’s position that the defendant had breached the plea agreement by making false statements to the FBI and Office of Special Counsel (“OSC”) and that it was time to set a sentencing date. The defendant disputed the government’s characterization of the information he had provided and denied that he had breached the agreement, but he agreed that in light of the dispute, it was time to proceed to sentencing. Thereafter, the government was ordered to provide the Court with information concerning the alleged breach, a schedule was established for the defense to respond, and the following submissions were made a part of the record in the case: December 7, 2018 Government’s Submission in Support of its Breach Determination [Dkt. # 461] (Sealed); [Dkt. # 460] (Public) https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.190597/gov.uscourts.dcd.190597.460.0_3.pdf January 8, 2019 Defendant’s Response to the Government’s Submission in Support of its Breach Determination [Dkt. # 470] (Sealed); [Dkt. # 472] (Public) https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.190597/gov.uscourts.dcd.190597.471.0_6.pdf January 15, 2019 FBI Declaration in Support of the Government’s Breach Determination with accompanying exhibits [Dkt # 477] (Sealed); [Dkt. # 476] (Public) https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.190597/gov.uscourts.dcd.190597.476.0_4.pdf January 23, 2019 Defendant’s Reply to the Declaration [Dkt. # 481] (Sealed); [Dkt. # 482] (Public) https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.190597/gov.uscourts.dcd.190597.482.0_7.pdf The Court held a sealed hearing on February 4, 2019, and the parties each filed post-hearing submissions. See Def.’s Post-Hearing Mem. [Dkt. # 502] (Sealed), [Dkt. # 505] (Public); Government’s Suppl. [Dkt. # 507] (Sealed). https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.190597/gov.uscourts.dcd.190597.505.0.pdf It is a matter of public record that the Office of Special Counsel has alleged that the defendant made intentionally false statements to the FBI, the OSC, and/or the grand jury in connection with five matters: (i) a payment made by Firm A to a law firm to pay a debt owed to the law firm by defendant Manafort; (ii) co-defendant Konstantin Kilimnik’s role in the obstruction of justice conspiracy; (iii) the defendant’s interactions and communications with Kilimnik; (iv) another Department of Justice investigation; (iv) and the defendant’s contacts with the current administration after the election. The parties are agreed that it is the government’s burden to show that there has been a breach of the plea agreement, but to be relieved of its obligations under the agreement, it must simply demonstrate that its determination was made in good faith. Plea Agreement ¶ 13. With regard to the 5 charges brought against Manafort by the OSC, Judge Amy Berman Jackson's February 13, 2019 final Order provided as follows: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.190597/gov.uscourts.dcd.190597.509.0_5.pdf Thus, concerning Mueller's Office of Special Counsel allegations that Manafort had breached the terms of his plea agreement by lying to the FBI and the OSC, of the 5 allegations, the Court found in favor of the government on 3, all of which were predicated upon Manafort's consulting work for the government of Viktor Yanukovych in Ukraine before Yanukovych's overthrow in 2014. The Court specifically found that Manafort had not intentionally made false statements concerning Kilimnick's role in the obstruction of justice conspiracy, and that Manafort had not intentionally made a false statement concerning his contacts with the Trump administration. This means that the central claim of your Washington Post article -- that "Former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort lied to prosecutors with special counsel Robert S. Mueller III about matters close to the heart of their investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election, a federal judge ruled Wednesday." -- is absolutely and categorically false. Your Washington Post article goes on to state the following: "Manafort’s lies, the judge found, included “his interactions and communications with [Konstantin] Kilimnik,” a longtime aide whom the FBI assessed to have ties to Russian intelligence. U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson of the District said Manafort also lied to the special counsel, the FBI and the grand jury about a payment from a company to a law firm — which he previously characterized as a loan repayment — and made false statements that were material to another Justice Department investigation whose focus has not been described in public filings in Manafort’s case." Note how the author of the article inserted that Konstantin Kiliminak was "a longtime aide whom the FBI assessed to have ties to Russian intelligence" to imply that Manafort's non-Russiagate related convictions were in fact related to Russiagate. Then, again, the article falsely insinuates that the OSC's prosecution of Mantafort involved Russiagate, when it in fact did not: "In the deal with prosecutors, Manafort agreed to cooperate “fully and truthfully” with the government, seemingly giving investigators access to a witness who was at key events relevant to the Russia investigation — a Trump Tower meeting attended by a Russian lawyer, the Republican National Convention and a host of other behind-the-scenes discussions in the spring and summer of 2016." And throughout the article are allegations that imply Russian involvement in the past associations between Kilimnik and Manafort which were not substantiated in the Virginia or D.C. cases, nor by the Mueller Report or the Senate Committee Report on Collusion: "Mueller prosecutors have said Manafort’s lies about the frequency and substance of his contacts with Kilimnik go “very much to the heart of what the special counsel’s office is investigating.” They highlighted Manafort’s shifting account of an August 2016 meeting in New York City with Kilimnik — a longtime aide who also has been indicted in the Mueller investigation — in which the pair discussed a peace plan for Ukraine, while Manafort served as Trump’s campaign chairman. A resolution of hostilities in Ukraine that leads to the lifting of sanctions against Russia is a top Kremlin foreign policy goal. Mueller’s office also claims Manafort “intentionally provided false information” in debriefing sessions on several topics, including the extent and substance of his interactions with Kilimnik. The pair met in December 2016, in January 2017 when Kilimnik was in Washington and again in February 2017, and as recently as the winter of 2018, according to previously released court documents. Prosecutors also said that Manafort passed polling data related to the U.S. presidential campaign to Kilimnik during the campaign and that the two worked on a poll in Ukraine in 2018.... ...Jackson’s brief order did not add to what was previously known about the Aug. 2, 2016, meeting at the Grand Havana Room, an upscale cigar bar in Manhattan, between Manafort and Kilimnik. Prosecutor Andrew Weissmann said in a previous court hearing that the meeting included Rick Gates, who was Manafort’s top deputy on the Trump campaign and in Ukraine and has also pleaded guilty in the Mueller investigation, and that Gates said the men left separately using different exits than Kilimnik." Mr. Neiderhut, your Washington Post article is yellow journalism in its purest form, and that you think it is solid evidence of Russiagate makes you and Russiagate appear all the more ridiculous. Edited April 4 by Keven Hofeling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Cole Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 9 minutes ago, Keven Hofeling said: Well folks, here we have an example of what happens when a presumptuous head shrinker moonlighting as a lay armchair lawyer makes a fool out of himself attempting to school bona fide lawyers... Neiderhut: "As for the Manafort court document you posted, (above) you are, apparently, unaware that it was a preliminary court ruling by Judge Berman, from 2018. It details preliminary charges against Manafort." Not even a third grader would have missed that there are multiple Court pleadings linked (See below) culminating in Judge Amy Berman Jackson's February 13, 2019 final Order, as follows: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.190597/gov.uscourts.dcd.190597.509.0_5.pdf Even the February 2019 yellow journalism Washington Post article by Spencer Hsu didn't get that wrong. Is this starting to ring a bell in your head, Mr. Neiderhut? The February 2019 Washington Post article you are heralding is in its entirety about Judge Amy Berman Jackson's February 13, 2019 final Order which you claimed above were just "preliminary charges against Manafort." Helloooooooo? Don't you even read the articles that you post as evidence?? And the idea that this piece of yellow journalism garbage of Spencer Hsu's in any way constitutes "evidence" is something my detailed review of it should have disposssed you of when I wrote it last Saturday, but noooo, Dr. head shrinker's head itself needs to be shrunk so desperately that he doesn't even read, much less understand, posts teeming with actual evidence and factual representations. So here is that post from last Saturday again so we can see if you can improve upon your dismal performance as a lay armchair lawyer that you exhibited tonight.... __________ W. Neirdehut wrote: Quote "Be careful what you ask for. You're about to get a well-deserved trip to the Education Forum wood shed." Do you have the slightest idea how ridiculous it appears for you to present this pitiful Washington Post article which makes completely unsubstantiated claims just so you can beat your silly Russophobic war drum? Especially when you allege doing so to be the equivalent of taking me to the "wood shed"? Don't you have any "evidence" that I cannot so easily demonstrate to be completely without foundation as I have below with your piece of Washington Post yellow journalism? I have insisted that you provide evidentiary support for your Russiagate hoax claims, to which you have provided this Washington Post nothing burger, which I suspect is about the best I am ever going to be able to get out of you. The Ron Wyden letter you have been clamoring about for the last few days illustrates the problem with your article (which I am going to demonstrate below): https://www.wyden.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/final_signed_wyden_letter_to_dni_on_2016_election_report_declassification.pdf Senator Wyden, unlike you, has the good sense to have done his preliminary research. and has become aware that the Paul Manafort case suffers from a severe shortcoming, that being, a total absence of solid substantiating evidence. Thus, he has written to the Director of National Intelligence requesting declassification of redacted portions of the Senate Intelligence Report on Collusion. Senator Wyden knows, of course, what the redacted sections amount to, and therefore knows that they won't be redacted, because -- it is my prediction -- the redactions are exculpatory in nature and were redacted to save the Committee from further embarrassment. In any event, for your purposes, the redacted portions of the Senate Committee report do not constitute "evidence," and your allusions to the contrary are mere speculation. The headline of your Washington Post article is "Federal judge finds Paul Manafort lied to Mueller probe about contacts with Russian aide," so we shall see if it delivers the content it promises. Your Washington Post article begins with the following paragraph: "Former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort lied to prosecutors with special counsel Robert S. Mueller III about matters close to the heart of their investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election, a federal judge ruled Wednesday." It certainly sounds damning, but is it true? In determining this, I want to expand the scope of the inquiry to include all of the Manafort charges and convictions, not only in the Court proceedings addressed in your article (Judge Amy Berman Jackson's U.S. District Court for the District of Colombia), but also for Judge T. S. Ellis III's U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. Manafort's trial in the Eastern District of Virginia began on July 31, 2018. Manafort was charged with various financial crimes including tax evasion, bank fraud, and money laundering. There were 18 criminal charges including 5 falsifications of income tax returns, 4 failures to file foreign bank account reports, 4 counts of bank fraud, and 5 counts of bank fraud conspiracy. On August 21, 2018, the jury found Manafort guilty on 8 of the 18 felony counts, including five counts of filing false tax returns, two counts of bank fraud, and one count of failing to disclose a foreign bank account. Judge Ellis declared a mistrial on the remaining 10 charges. None of the Virginia charges or convictions had anything to do with Russiagate. To provide you with certainty about that I am providing you with Office of Special Counsel ("OSC") Robert Mueller's summary of the Virginia proceedings from page 5 and 6 of the "GOVERNMENT’S SENTENCING MEMORANDUM" in the District of Colombia case, as follows: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.190597/gov.uscourts.dcd.190597.525.0_4.pdf Likewise, none of the District of Colombia charges or convictions had anything to do with Russiagate. To provide you with certainty about that I am providing you with OSC Robert Mueller's summary of the D.C. proceedings from page 6-8 of the "GOVERNMENT’S SENTENCING MEMORANDUM" in the District of Colombia case, as follows: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.190597/gov.uscourts.dcd.190597.525.0_4.pdf Note that so far, Manafort has not been charged with or convicted of any offenses that have anything to do with Russiagate or Russian collusion, which brings us to the subject matter of your Washington Post article, the charges and convictions related to Paul Manafort's breach of his Cooperation Agreement with the OSC. The OSC charged Paul Manafort with 5 charges related to his breach of the Cooperation Agreement. The most concise recitation of those 5 charges and proceedings associated therewith is found in Judge Amy Berman Jackson's February 13, 2019 Order, which follows. As you can see, none of these 5 offenses have anything to do with Russiagate or Russian collusion, and I have included links to the pleadings of the OSC and Defendant Manafort upon which the Court based its judgment so that you can inquire further about the nature of each charge (but note that there are redactions which I believe were intended to make it difficult for the media to report that there was no Russia collusion involved, so you may need to review all of them to piece it together as I have): https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.190597/gov.uscourts.dcd.190597.509.0_5.pdf "...On November 26, 2018, the parties informed the Court in a joint status report [Dkt. # 455] that it was the government’s position that the defendant had breached the plea agreement by making false statements to the FBI and Office of Special Counsel (“OSC”) and that it was time to set a sentencing date. The defendant disputed the government’s characterization of the information he had provided and denied that he had breached the agreement, but he agreed that in light of the dispute, it was time to proceed to sentencing. Thereafter, the government was ordered to provide the Court with information concerning the alleged breach, a schedule was established for the defense to respond, and the following submissions were made a part of the record in the case: December 7, 2018 Government’s Submission in Support of its Breach Determination [Dkt. # 461] (Sealed); [Dkt. # 460] (Public) https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.190597/gov.uscourts.dcd.190597.460.0_3.pdf January 8, 2019 Defendant’s Response to the Government’s Submission in Support of its Breach Determination [Dkt. # 470] (Sealed); [Dkt. # 472] (Public) https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.190597/gov.uscourts.dcd.190597.471.0_6.pdf January 15, 2019 FBI Declaration in Support of the Government’s Breach Determination with accompanying exhibits [Dkt # 477] (Sealed); [Dkt. # 476] (Public) https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.190597/gov.uscourts.dcd.190597.476.0_4.pdf January 23, 2019 Defendant’s Reply to the Declaration [Dkt. # 481] (Sealed); [Dkt. # 482] (Public) https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.190597/gov.uscourts.dcd.190597.482.0_7.pdf The Court held a sealed hearing on February 4, 2019, and the parties each filed post-hearing submissions. See Def.’s Post-Hearing Mem. [Dkt. # 502] (Sealed), [Dkt. # 505] (Public); Government’s Suppl. [Dkt. # 507] (Sealed). https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.190597/gov.uscourts.dcd.190597.505.0.pdf It is a matter of public record that the Office of Special Counsel has alleged that the defendant made intentionally false statements to the FBI, the OSC, and/or the grand jury in connection with five matters: (i) a payment made by Firm A to a law firm to pay a debt owed to the law firm by defendant Manafort; (ii) co-defendant Konstantin Kilimnik’s role in the obstruction of justice conspiracy; (iii) the defendant’s interactions and communications with Kilimnik; (iv) another Department of Justice investigation; (iv) and the defendant’s contacts with the current administration after the election. The parties are agreed that it is the government’s burden to show that there has been a breach of the plea agreement, but to be relieved of its obligations under the agreement, it must simply demonstrate that its determination was made in good faith. Plea Agreement ¶ 13. With regard to the 5 charges brought against Manafort by the OSC, Judge Amy Berman Jackson's February 13, 2019 final Order provided as follows: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.190597/gov.uscourts.dcd.190597.509.0_5.pdf Thus, concerning Mueller's Office of Special Counsel allegations that Manafort had breached the terms of his plea agreement by lying to the FBI and the OSC, of the 5 allegations, the Court found in favor of the government on 3, all of which were predicated upon Manafort's consulting work for the government of Viktor Yanukovych in Ukraine before Yanukovych's overthrow in 2014. The Court specifically found that Manafort had not intentionally made false statements concerning Kilimnick's role in the obstruction of justice conspiracy, and that Manafort had not intentionally made a false statement concerning his contacts with the Trump administration. This means that the central claim of your Washington Post article -- that "Former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort lied to prosecutors with special counsel Robert S. Mueller III about matters close to the heart of their investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election, a federal judge ruled Wednesday." -- is absolutely and categorically false. Your Washington Post article goes on to state the following: "Manafort’s lies, the judge found, included “his interactions and communications with [Konstantin] Kilimnik,” a longtime aide whom the FBI assessed to have ties to Russian intelligence. U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson of the District said Manafort also lied to the special counsel, the FBI and the grand jury about a payment from a company to a law firm — which he previously characterized as a loan repayment — and made false statements that were material to another Justice Department investigation whose focus has not been described in public filings in Manafort’s case." Note how the author of the article inserted that Konstantin Kiliminak was "a longtime aide whom the FBI assessed to have ties to Russian intelligence" to imply that Manafort's non-Russiagate related convictions were in fact related to Russiagate. Then, again, the article falsely insinuates that the OSC's prosecution of Mantafort involved Russiagate, when it in fact did not: "In the deal with prosecutors, Manafort agreed to cooperate “fully and truthfully” with the government, seemingly giving investigators access to a witness who was at key events relevant to the Russia investigation — a Trump Tower meeting attended by a Russian lawyer, the Republican National Convention and a host of other behind-the-scenes discussions in the spring and summer of 2016." And throughout the article are allegations that imply Russian involvement in the past associations between Kilimnik and Manafort which were not substantiated in the Virginia or D.C. cases, nor by the Mueller Report or the Senate Committee Report on Collusion: "Mueller prosecutors have said Manafort’s lies about the frequency and substance of his contacts with Kilimnik go “very much to the heart of what the special counsel’s office is investigating.” They highlighted Manafort’s shifting account of an August 2016 meeting in New York City with Kilimnik — a longtime aide who also has been indicted in the Mueller investigation — in which the pair discussed a peace plan for Ukraine, while Manafort served as Trump’s campaign chairman. A resolution of hostilities in Ukraine that leads to the lifting of sanctions against Russia is a top Kremlin foreign policy goal. Mueller’s office also claims Manafort “intentionally provided false information” in debriefing sessions on several topics, including the extent and substance of his interactions with Kilimnik. The pair met in December 2016, in January 2017 when Kilimnik was in Washington and again in February 2017, and as recently as the winter of 2018, according to previously released court documents. Prosecutors also said that Manafort passed polling data related to the U.S. presidential campaign to Kilimnik during the campaign and that the two worked on a poll in Ukraine in 2018.... ...Jackson’s brief order did not add to what was previously known about the Aug. 2, 2016, meeting at the Grand Havana Room, an upscale cigar bar in Manhattan, between Manafort and Kilimnik. Prosecutor Andrew Weissmann said in a previous court hearing that the meeting included Rick Gates, who was Manafort’s top deputy on the Trump campaign and in Ukraine and has also pleaded guilty in the Mueller investigation, and that Gates said the men left separately using different exits than Kilimnik." Mr. Neiderhut, your Washington Post article is yellow journalism in its purest form, and that you think it is solid evidence of Russiagate makes you and Russiagate appear all the more ridiculous. KE-- As old guys say, "Keep on truckin.'" I concur that Russiagate was "an elaborate hoax" to quote Bret Stephens, of the NYT. IMHO, Jan. 6 was likely just a spontaneous scrum, although the possibility of state provocateurs is interesting, along with the inexplicable stories of Ray Epps, Mr Buffalo Horns and many others. The important thing is to do what you do: bring a gimlet eye to official or partisan narratives. People who present dissenting narratives from official or partisan propaganda are immensely valuable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keven Hofeling Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 13 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said: This is a rather vain attempt to give the illusion this thread is still on topic. Most of the posts are about Russiagate and Manafort. Keven Hofeling Members 303 Gender:Male Location:Salt Lake City, Utah. United States. Interests:Political Science, including the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy. Posted March 17 · IP On 3/17/2024 at 11:20 PM, Ron Bulman said: This is not a current politics post? No, the topic of this thread is Donald Trump and his failure to release the JFK records. The information presented about his Syria policies concerns the potential context of his decision not to do so, and also notes the parallels between the establishment reactions to Trump's Syria policy and JFK's Vietnam policy. Quote Keven Hofeling Members 303 Gender:Male Location:Salt Lake City, Utah. United States. Interests:Political Science, including the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy. Posted March 17 · IP On 3/17/2024 at 11:20 PM, Ron Bulman said: This is not a current politics post? No, focuses on 1963 and 2017, and the policies of JFK and Trump to end the CIA wars in Vietnam and Syria. W Niederhut advocated for the need for this thread to contest disinformation for the public benefit. It seems it's become a Trump, less the JFK files thread. In an election year especially I'm not sure the Education Forum JFK Assassination Debate should go there either way, at all. I have my own opinions, as we all do, but is this the place to do so at this time? If the 56 Years thread because of similar circumstances had to go to Political Discussions, it may be time for this one to as well. I'll discuss it with Mark and Sandy, meanwhile public comments are welcome. Between the possibility that I posted the video you are alluding to because I just saw this new material about Joe Rogan and Judge Napolitano today (the Joe Rogan episode it comes from was released only yesterday) and the possibility that it is "a rather vain attempt to give the illusion this thread is still on topic," thereby impugning my integrity and veracity, may I ask why you opted for the latter rather than the former? As for the Russiagate posts, W. Neiderhut maintains that due to "Russian collusion," the disruption of the Trump Presidency is qualitatively different than that involved with the Carter and Nixon presidencies, and other posters and myself have called for evidence supporting this claim to be presented, which has so far yielded no actual evidence. The reason that the deep state ties into the topic of Trump's failure to release the JFK records as he had promised is the question of what motivated Trump to fail to do so, which others and myself propose was the influence of the deep state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Niederhut Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 (edited) delete Edited April 4 by W. Niederhut Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now