Indigenous Matriarch Warrior Gets 6 Months In Jail

Mirabile dictu, a bureaucratic leaker at the Treasury Department was forced to plead to a felony charge and received actual jail time. This is connected to the leaks of bank transaction reports in the Paul Manafort case. American Greatness has the story:

Former Treasury Official Sentenced to Prison for Leaking Russia, Manafort Docs

You can also read about it at the Wikipedia Natalie Edwards page. Edwards was a "senior official" at Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN).  She expressed no remorse--far from it--and got close to the max, according to the sentencing guidelines. 

It turns out that her journalist handler, Jason Leopold, engaged in journalistic malpractice. I haven't heard what the consequences were for him. It seems clear enough that he thought this story would be his ticket to super stardom, so some license would slip past the watchdogs. Prosecutors, investigators, national security officials, journalists, scientists--the list goes on and on. The Trump era has been one long series of revelations of corruption not only in high official positions but in entire professions or categories of government employment.

[Edwards] was arrested on October 16, 2018, for disclosing over 2000 suspicious activity reports (SARs) and other confidential information from October 2017 to October 2018 detailing Russia's involvement in the 2016 presidential election to a reporter with BuzzFeed News, which published the series "The Money Trail". The SARs included money transfers and information about Maria Butina, Rick Gates, Paul Manafort, the Russian Embassy in the United States, and a Russian firm, Prevezon Alexander, LLC., involved with money laundering.

The Wall Street Journal identified the BuzzFeed News reporter as Jason Leopold. Edwards allegedly sent Leopold internal FinCEN emails, investigative memos and intelligence assessments, and the two were in regular contact. The New York Times characterized Edwards' case as procedurally different from that of James Wolfe, even though both cases involved leaking to reporters. Leopold sent story drafts to Edwards; this is prohibited by BuzzFeed News. The Columbia Journalism Review remarked that "it’s important to remember that sources are not editors."

As noted, Edwards remained defiant to the last:

Edwards, in an eight-minute statement to the court, said she “could not stand by aimlessly” in the face of misconduct she saw at Treasury. Edwards also disclosed her Native American roots. “I am an indigenous, matriarch warrior whose spirit cannot be broken,” she said.

 

Manafort, Flynn--And A Dog That Hasn't Barked Yet

John Solomon continues to plow through the FBI spreadsheet that purports to fact check the Carter Page FISA application. He's come across an interesting detail:

Memo suggests FBI opened Manafort probe before Trump hired lobbyist but gave no warning

Some question why bureau didn't give Trump a defensive briefing in spring 2016.

A footnote (#332) appears to indicate (it's redacted) that the FBI opened an investigation on Manafort on January 13, 2016, but never provided the Trump campaign with a defensive briefing about Manafort. 

Solomon consulted Kevin Brock, a former assistant director of intelligence for the FBI. Brock laid out the general principles behind providing defensive briefings:

Super Thread By @JohnWHuber Re Manafort Case--And More!

Undercover Huber has done a deep dive and dug up some remarkable information regarding Team Mueller's tactics in the Paul Manafort case--but with ramifications (which he goes into, as well) for the Flynn and Cohen cases. The thread is quite long, but here's a link to it unrolled.

Why am I dwelling on this past history, when the Russia Hoax is unraveling before our eyes--so it certainly seems--with the revelation of the absurd opening EC for the Crossfire Hurricane case? I think it's worthwhile to take another look at the appalling "legal" tactics that the Left leveled at innocent people in order to take out the President the country had elected. The cynicism and corruption is beyond what most of us could imagine.

Here's the short version regarding Manafort--follow the link for the rest.

Team Mueller decided that if they were ever going to force Manafort to lie about President Trump (NB: he never did) they would need to somehow drag Manafort's attorney in front of their grand jury and force the attorney to testify against his client, Manafort. You read that right. That's exactly what they did, and they used similar tactics in the other cases, as well.

That's a tough trick to pull off, and so they decided that they needed to create a media buzz to play up the idea of Russian "collusion" and what a threat to National Security Paul Manafort was--right before the secret hearing before Judge Beryl Howell. How to do it?

The way Team Mueller seized upon was to leak a fake news story to CNN the day before the first hearing before Judge Howell. How fake was the story? Totally fake. They had CNN publish a story stating that the FBI had obtained a FISA warrant--no, wait, it was actually TWO FISA warrants, because Manafort was that bad of a dude. Here's the bombshell part of the article:

US government wiretapped former Trump campaign chairman

Some of the intelligence collected includes communications that sparked concerns among investigators that Manafort had encouraged the Russians to help with the campaign, according to three sources familiar with the investigation. Two of these sources, however, cautioned that the evidence is not conclusive.

Special counsel Robert Mueller's team, which is leading the investigation into Russia's involvement in the election, has been provided details of these communications.

See how well sourced the story was? Not just one source--three sources! And since it came from a FISA that would mean that the FBI had recorded conversations (or perhaps other communications) of Trump's former campaign manager encourage the Russians--God help us, THE RUSSIANS!--take down our democracy and destroy our way of life, inflicting the Orange Man on an unsuspecting nation.

But it was all BS. Totally BS. But that's the great thing about FISA warrants--they're secret. So how was Judge Howell to know whether any of this was true? But it sure sounded like Team Mueller was hot on the trail of the second most dangerous man in the world. Second only to Numero Uno, the Orange Man, Donald J. Trump, now ensconced in the White House thanks only to that Evil Genius, Vlad "The Impaler of Democracies" Putin. And, of course, the inbred idiots in Flyover Country.

But, to repeat: It was all BS.

UPDATED: Big Victory For Paul Manafort

I'll simply quote TGP on this one:

A judge on Wednesday tossed out New York State charges of mortgage fraud against Paul Manafort because of ‘double jeopardy’ laws.

This is a huge victory for Paul Manafort, who remains in custody on federal charges, because this opens a way for Trump to issue him a presidential pardon.

Follow this link for more details: BREAKING: Manafort Has New York State Fraud Case DISMISSED Because of ‘Double Jeopardy’ – Opening Way For Trump Pardon.

Yes, Manafort was/is as Swampy a critter as any out there, but we still want fundamental fairness for all.

UPDATE: Jonathan Turley is worth quoting at some length:

I previously wrote about what I viewed as a dangerous trend among New York Democratic politicians pledging to charge former Trump campaign chair Paul Manafort under state law to negate any benefit from a federal pardon by President Donald Trump. Democrats rallied supporters to the dubious cause of watering down the state protections against double jeopardy. It was the ultimate example of the mania surrounding Trump where citizens would take an axe to their own constitutional protections to get at Trump and his associates. The highly dubious effort was led by New York state attorney general Letitia James and, thankfully, it has failed. The New York courts are not nearly as dismissive of individual rights. The state charges were thrown out today on the basis of double jeopardy. The question is now whether this will be a prelude to a presidential pardon. 

...

I have been highly critical of Manafort and I still have little sympathy for him. I do not view him as a worthy subject of a pardon. However, I am relieved that the courts showed more judgment and respect for individual rights than James and others who wanted to lower protections to score political points in prosecuting a Trump associate.

MAJOR UPDATE: Was Manafort A Plant, Willing Or Otherwise?

I've long been suspicious of the insertion of Paul Manafort into the Trump campaign. I haven't seen any solid evidence that he was a plant, but the circumstances have always seemed fishy to me. After all, his mere presence on the campaign gave at least superficial credibility to the fledgling Russia Hoax narrative.

Long ago a trusted source told me that the Clinton campaign had very early on come to the conclusion that Trump would be the most dangerous GOP candidate, from a Clinton perspective. That would have meant that the Clinton organization would have mobilized to take Trump down, and the Russia narrative seems to have been decided on at an early date. Thus we see the persistent attempt by Felix Sater to somehow link Trump to the moribund Trump Moscow project, the Trump Tower meeting with Veselnitskaya, etc.

The usual story is that Manafort was introduced into the Trump campaign through the efforts of Tom Barrack, a Syrian born real estate magnate who was friends with both Trump and Manafort. Barrack had been a major help to Ivanka and Jared Kushner in a difficult real estate situation and used that connection to urge the Kushners to get Barrack onto the campaign. Sound familiar? Sound possible? Of course. The question is: Was there an ulterior motive to all this?

I just came across an article by Diana West at Epoch Times which first appeared in February, 2019: Paul Manafort: A Time Bomb? While the article doesn't pretend to offer proof that Manafort was maneuvered onto the Trump campaign by anti-Trump forces, what it does is paint a portrait of Manafort as a troubled and even desperate figure who would be susceptible to pressure. For what it's worth, here is that picture of Manafort, gleaned for articles in The Atlantic and the WaPo:

Andrew McCabe Is An Idiot

Chuck Ross at the Daily Caller has a nice article that summarizes public remarks recently made by disgraced former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe. The remarks were made at an event hosted by journalist Carl Bernstein. McCabe, according to Ross, defends "the FBI’s handling of the Steele dossier" and also describes "in the most detail to date how the FBI decided who to initially investigate as part of Crossfire Hurricane, the counterintelligence investigation of the Trump campaign." You can read Ross' full account here: Andrew McCabe Opens Up About Steele Dossier, Origins Of Trump-Russia Probe.

I personally was amazed at the indiscretion of McCabe's remarks, especially given that he is undoubtedly a target of the Barr/Durham investigation. His remarks reveal him to be an idiot who seems to have thought that FBI regulations and guidelines didn't apply when he was targeting people based on his personal political biases. That's about the most charitable way to describe his "defense" of what he actually did, because his remarks reveal that there really was no justification for his actions.

To start with, McCabe is continuing to put forward what we all know is a lie:

McCabe said the FBI opened its case in late July 2016 based on information about Trump adviser George Papadopoulos.

The Crossfire Hurricane is now established to have been an "enterprise counterintelligence investigation." While it's possible that "information" about Papadopoulos--really, inventions based on OCONUS targeting of Papadopoulos that had no rational basis (which is why the targeting was done in the UK, not the US)--could have formed part of the predication for Crossfire Hurricane, multiple witnesses have made it abundantly clear that Crossfire Hurricane was primarily, overwhelmingly, predicated on Brit ex-MI6 operative Christopher Steele's "dossier." That dossier, of course, was produced at the direction of the Hillary Clinton campaign and was paid for by the Clinton campaign. Steele was a foreign operative in the pay of the Clinton campaign (his continuing close ties to MI6 were never a secret).

From that point we can proceed in two directions. The direction that Crossfire Hurricane took and the further use that was made of the Steele dossier in obtaining a FISA on Carter Page.

Regarding the investigation itself, McCabe makes the following remarkable statement:

Deripaska Could Spell Big Trouble For The FBI--And Team Mueller

John Solomon apparently decided to come out with his latest bombshell before the 4th of July holiday. It's in the Hill tonight, based on Solomon's interview of Oleg Deripaska: Russian oligarch's story could spell trouble for Team Mueller.

Deripaska, of course, is the Russian former aluminum magnate and close associate of Vladimir Putin. Deripaska's past connections to the FBI, Christopher Steele, and Bruce Ohr are fairly well known. Basically, during the years 2008-2009 the FBI under then Director Robert Mueller approached Deripaska for assistance in trying to obtain the release of retired FBI agent Robert Levinson, who was being detained in Iran. Deripaska spent upwards of $20 million of his own money in the attempt, which was ultimately unsuccessful. Deripaska also had business dealings with Paul Manafort, but had fallen out with him.

Deripaska's business and legal affairs are too complicated to go into in detail at this time. Briefly, however, in the period leading up to the 2016 election Deripaska was seeking to regularize his visa situation to allow him to travel more freely to the US. He was employing Chris Steele and a lawyer named Adam Waldman in that effort, and Waldman was also representing Julian Assange as well as serving as a go between among these players for Dem senator Mark Warner. Bruce Ohr was handling the Deripaska matter at DoJ. Complicated yet? You can get the details in this article by Jeff Carlson: Manafort’s Deripaska Connections and Waldman’s Role in the Assange Negotiations.

For our purposes, what's important is that the FBI attempted to use Deripaska's visa situation to obtain information from him, and to that end the FBI contacted Deripaska twice during the period 2015-2016. The 2016 contact took place in September, which means that it took place a month or so after Crossfire Hurrican was opened (July 31, 2016) and a month or so before the FBI obtained its FISA on Carter Page--late October, 2016. Here's Solomon's account of what Deripaska told him about that interview:

In a wide-ranging interview with me, Deripaska confirmed a story told to me more than a year ago by law enforcement sources: He was indeed interviewed by FBI agents in September 2016 during the early Russia probe, and he told them he strongly doubted the bureau’s theory that the Trump campaign, through Manafort, was colluding with Moscow to hijack the 2016 election.

UPDATED: The War Party, The Russia Hoax, And The Deep State War On Trump

Trump never ceases to amaze. With the War Party almost openly gloating that Iran (at who's prodding?) had boxed Trump into a foolish war, with his supporters near despair ... Trump proceeds to pull the plug (for now) and schools the post-Christian world on classical Just War Theory, invoking "proportionality." As if to say, Here's for you voters out there who want a balanced, grounded, America First president. This guy is simply deeper than most people will grant.

Look, I can't tell you what's really behind this. Was the tanker attack a false flag, or was Iran responsible? Did Iran down the drone in international airspace in an attempt to box Trump into war with the long term in view? On balance, I suspect that's what it's about. Perhaps just as important is the big picture, extending back many decades. There definitely appears to be a deja vu element to this and, as it happens, I have at hand some materials to offer a bit of perspective on the War Party's total war against Trump--in the overall context of the Russia Hoax.

One feature of the Russia Hoax struggle, drawn out over the past three years or so, has been that prominent liberals have found themselves, seemingly against all odds, defending Trump. Think of the likes of Alan Dershowitz, Stephen Cohen, Jonathan Turley, Mark Penn, and others. I've cited their views on a semi-regular basis, because they happen to be authorities in their fields with informed opinions to offer. In common with one another, these public intellectuals share a commitment to constitutional order and the distressing perception that this commitment--once common to liberals as well as conservatives--has been abandoned by the ascendant "progressive" movement within the Democrat party and its low information followers.

Another common feature is that, while these intellectuals have been associated with liberalism and even leftism, they usually have niche concerns that have been central to their public and academic lives. For example, Dershowitz is known first and foremost as a "civil libertarian". Stephen Cohen, who has for decades been associated with the far left The Nation magazine, is a Russia expert who is particularly known for his lifelong advocacy of detente with Russia. Both men see these core concerns being trampled underfoot by "progressives."

UPDATED: John Solomon Blockbuster: Ukraine Ledger As Bad As Steele Dossier?

This morning I was bemoaning the fact that we've had little true news for some weeks, now. The heady days of document and testimony revelations appeared to be over. However, this afternoon John Solomon has come out with another blockbuster report. Right up front I want to make two quick points:

1. Solomon's report reflects and supports Rudy Giuliani's advice back in mid April of this year--going forward, we need to Pay Attention To Ukraine.

2. At the same time Solomon's report explains why patience is required, as I explained in Barr And Durham Are Focused On The CIA. The need to secure cooperation from foreign governments and their intelligence services means that Barr and Durham will need the active assistance of other persons and agencies within the US government, beginning with the POTUS himself. And their efforts will be resisted by the FBI and the CIA--the two agencies with the most to lose by the truth coming out.

That said, the opening paragraphs of Solomon's article, FBI, warned early and often that Manafort file might be fake, used it anyway, contains some of the most trenchant reporting I've seen in many months. Bear in mind, the "black cash ledger" is supposed to have been a record of payments to Paul Manafort:

When the final chapter of the Russia collusion caper is written, it is likely two seminal documents the FBI used to justify investigating Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign will turn out to be bunk. 

And the behavior of FBI agents and federal prosecutors who promoted that faulty evidence may disturb us more than we now know.

Barr: No Rikers Island For Manafort

This is a signal that Barr is on top of every aspect of the Russia Hoax, including Team Mueller's actions and those of allied locals. 

The NYT is reporting that DoJ has stepped in and nixed the Manhanttan District Attorney's sadistic plans for Paul Manafort:

Paul Manafort Seemed Headed to Rikers. Then the Justice Department Intervened.

The decision came after Attorney General William Barr’s top deputy sent a letter to state prosecutors. Mr. Manafort will now be held in a federal lockup while he faces state charges.

Manhattan prosecutors were surprised to receive a letter from the second-highest law enforcement official in the country inquiring about Mr. Manafort’s case. The letter, from Jeffrey A. Rosen, Attorney General William P. Barr’s new top deputy, indicated that he was monitoring where Mr. Manafort would be held in New York. 

And then, on Monday, federal prison officials weighed in, telling the Manhattan district attorney’s office that Mr. Manafort, 70, would not be going to Rikers. 

UPDATED: Mueller Caught In More Deception?

Deception--that would be the polite way to say: lies.

John Solomon's latest Thursday night bombshell is a biggie.

Do you remember Konstantin Kilimnik? He was a key Ukrainian associate of Paul Manafort, and he ended up being charged by Mueller with obstruction and conspiracy. He's said to have coached witnesses, preventing Mueller from getting to the real truth. Kilimnik is so important to the whole narrative that Mueller flags him right up front--on page 6 of his Dossier:

“The FBI assesses [Kilimnik] to have ties to Russian intelligence.”

That's so that each time you see Kilimnik's name mentioned throughout the rest of the Mueller Dossier you'll say to yourself: "Ha, that guy with Russian intelligence ties again--talking to the Trump campaign!" And you'll draw the conclusion Mueller wants you to draw: there was no way to prove collusion, but there was still something fishy going on. It also helps to keep alive the myth of "all out" Russian "meddling" in the election. How convenient that Kilimnik is another of those elusive Russians (Ukrainians?) who Mueller indicted but will never see the inside of a US courtroom.

And, wouldn't you know, the NYT picked up on that angle, too, when they learned that Paul Manafort had shared polling data from the Trump campaign with Kilimnik and even--the horror--discussed a peace plan for Ukraine! It must be collusion!

... during the campaign, Mr. Manafort and his Russian associate, Konstantin V. Kilimnik, discussed a plan for peace in Ukraine. Throughout the campaign and the early days of the Trump administration, Russia and its allies were pushing various plans for Ukraine in the hope of gaining relief from American-led sanctions imposed after it annexed Crimea from Ukraine. 

Prosecutors and the news media have already documented a string of encounters between Russian operatives and Trump campaign associates dating from the early months of Mr. Trump’s bid for the presidency, including the now-famous meeting at Trump Tower in Manhattan with a Russian lawyer promising damaging information on Hillary Clinton. [This] disclosure appeared to some experts to be perhaps most damning of all. 

But, we're told, this information is the worst of all:

“This is the closest thing we have seen to collusion,” Clint Watts, a senior fellow with the Foreign Policy Research Institute, said of the data-sharing. “The question now is, did the president know about it?”

What did Trump know and when did he know it?

AOC: Free Paul Manafort From Solitary

Even a broken clock is right twice a day. Hopefully Manafort's appeal succeeds and it doesn't come to this:

UPDATED: Manafort To Be Sent Back To Solitary--At Rikers Island

Fox News is reporting that sources close to Manafort say he will be sent from a minimum security prison in Pennsylvania--where he's serving a 7-1/2 year sentence for bank fraud and tax evasion--to New York's Riker's Island prison comples. There he'll be held in solitary confinement "for his own protection". Riker's island has become notorious for violence and corruption. According to Fox:

Paul Manafort, the former Trump campaign chairman who was sentenced earlier this year to nearly seven years in prison in connection with two federal cases, will be transferred later this week from a minimum security facility in Pennsylvania to New York City’s Rikers Island, a source close to Manafort told Fox News. 

Rikers Island is the famous jail in the shadow of LaGuardia Airport. It has been the temporary home of some of the most high-profile violent criminals in the city, including  David Berkowitz, the Son of Sam; and Mark David Chapman, the man who killed John Lennon. 

"He’s not a mob boss," the source close to Manafort said. 

RIKERS ISLAND HAS BEEN CRITICIZED FOR VIOLENCE 

A New York State judge ordered the transfer at the request of New York City District Attorney Cy Vance, Jr. He will be held in solitary confinement for his own protection, the source said. The move is expected to happen as early as Thursday. 

Vance, a Democrat, said in March that a New York grand jury charged Manafort with 16 counts including residential mortgage fraud, falsifying business records and other charges. He said at the time that “no one is beyond the law in New York.” Manafort cannot be pardoned by President Trump for state crimes. 

Vance’s office did not immediately respond to an email from Fox News late Monday. Manafort’s defense team is planning an appeal, according to the source.

Is this pure sadism, or does Vance think that he can break Manafort and get him to lie about Trump?

UPDATE 1: Commenter Brad Crawford asks whether the US Government has a say in Manafort's transfer to state custody. The answer is: Yes. I'll paste in below some information that I gleaned from the US Marshal's Service (USMS) site. Basically, the state has to file a writ for habeas corpus ad prosequendum. However, compliance with the writ is not automatic; rather, it's discretionary with the USMS. One ground that Manafort's appeal will likely cite is his medical condition, which cannot but be adversely affected by solitary confinement:

Writs of Habeas Corpus & Special Requests for Production
   
WRITS FOR FEDERAL PRISONERS IN U.S. MARSHALS CUSTODY:  

In 1981, the Office of General Counsel for the Department of Justice issued a ruling on the transfer of federal prisoners to the physical custody of a state or local agency for production in a state or local court pursuant to a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum or ad testificandum. ... 

TRANSFER OF CUSTODY OR REFUSAL OF WRIT 

Federal prisoners in USMS custody may lawfully be transferred to the custody of a state or local government pursuant to a state writ of ad prosequendum (see 28 USC 2241).  The transfer of federal prisoners under the provisions of this section are intended to expedite local prosecutions at reduced costs to local, state and federal agencies. ...

...

Discretion in Honoring Writs:  The U.S. Marshal is not required to honor a request for a federal prisoner in his or her custody pursuant to a state or local writ. Generally, the writ is not honored until the completion of the prisoner’s sentencing. In honoring a state or local writ, the USM will exercise discretion when a prisoner is a protected witness, has medical problems, or is a high security risk.

UPDATE 2: Via Zerohedge--I briefly examined the law in question, and it is the one referenced (without citation) by the USMS, including the exercise of discretion re medicals problems:

Federal officials agreed to honor the writ for Manafort under something called the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act, a federal law that governs transfers of prisoners between states when they are facing unrelated charges in different jurisdictions.

Remember, Manafort was confined to a wheelchair during part of his trial in Virginia, and his lawyers have claimed that he is in consistently poor health.

FBI Unredacts Most of Kathleen Kavalec's Notes Re Steele

That was quick!

Two and a half years unclassified, then 11 days as Classified, and now back to being almost totally unclassified. It appears that Bill Barr was not amused by the Chris Wray FBI's adventures in retroactive classification and redaction of Kathleen Kavalec's notes and write up regarding her discussions with Chris Steele, the Brit ex spook and fabulist. Kavalec originally left her notes and an email based on them Unclassified--that was two and a half years ago. The FBI did their retroactive number on the material just over a week ago, but after a furor in the media has ... rethought things.

CTH, in a longer blog tonight, includes the fact that the FBI has apparently reconsidered its redactions of Kathleen Kavalec's typed up notes regarding her meeting on October 11, 2016, with Chris Steele Tatyana Duran. The handwritten notes are clearly for the most part a precis of material in Steele's famous "dossier." However, there are differences, as can be seen from the typed up--and now mostly unredacted--material. Notably, in Kavalec's notes we find Paul Manafort presented as playing the role of courier between Trump and "the Russians," rather than Carter Page being the courier between Manafort and the Russians on Trump's behalf. Another unique feature is that Manafort is also said to communicate secretly with the Kremlin via the Alfa Bank using Tor software and a "hidden server" managed by Alfa Bank. Page is also said to be involved, but in some unspecified way, although he is said to have met twice (rather than just once) with Igor Sechin of Rosneft--and with no apparent reference to his commencement address in Moscow.

These discrepancies in the various versions of Steele's "dossier" material raise the interesting question of how the FBI decided which version of Steele's stories to use in its FISA application. The most readily available version of the Steele dossier features Manafort as the principal behind the Trump outreach to the Russians, but Carter Page serves as the courier between Manafort and the Russians. The appeal of this version--as opposed to Manafort doing the communications on his own, is that it supports the narrative that the FBI used to open an "enterprise counterintelligence investigation"--Crossfire Hurricane.

January 2016: Obama WH Sought Russia Hoax Help From Ukraine

John Solomon has a new revelation regarding the Ukrainian Connection to the Russia Hoax. We know that the Ukrainian anti-corruption bureau (NABU) was set up by the FBI, with continued close ties. Operatives from NABU released two pages from Paul Manafort's "black book" to smear him while he was campaign manager for Trump. Now, in How the Obama White House engaged Ukraine to give Russia collusion narrative an early boost, Solomon provides some of the backstory.

Claiming confirmation from "multiple participants and contemporaneous memos," Solomon describes a WH meeting in January, 2016, that

brought some of Ukraine’s top corruption prosecutors and investigators face to face with members of former President Obama’s National Security Council (NSC), the FBI, State Department and Department of Justice (DOJ).

The ostensible purpose for the meeting  was "training and coordination." However, the Ukrainian participants soon realized that the meeting was about a number of sensitive political topics. One had to do with Hunter Biden's involvement in a corrupt Ukrainian venture, but the second had to do with the possibility of reviving a two year old investigation into Paul Manafort involvement with the party of ousted Ukrainian President Yanukovych. The original investigation had been dropped without any charges being brought against Manafort.

Kulyk said Ukrainian authorities had evidence that other Western figures, such as former Obama White House counsel Gregory Craig, also received money from Yanukovych’s party. But the Americans weren’t interested: “They just discussed Manafort. This was all and only what they wanted. Nobody else.”

Manafort joined Trump’s campaign on March 29, 2016, and then was promoted to campaign chairman on May 19, 2016. 

Here's what interests me. There is talk of targeting Manafort's lobbying firm: "a lobbying firm linked closely to then-candidate Trump." But this meeting was in January, 2016--two to three months before Manafort was associated with the Trump campaign. By all accounts Trump didn't reach out for Manafort--Manafort was pushed on Trump. A White House meeting seems rather over the top for what sounds like simple opposition research. Could there be more to this? Is it possible that Dem operatives were somehow behind maneuvering an unwitting Manafort into joining the Trump campaign? After all, an actual member of the Trump campaign ensnared in supposedly pro-Russian lobbying activities would have a lot more punch than "a lobbying firm linked closely to Trump."

One way or another, Solomon appears to be on to something big. The Russia Hoax narrative was a developed thing already in January, 2016, but to make it really take off there had to be a attention grabbing hook. That hook was Manafort. Coincidence?

Later, of course, Carter Page and Michael Flynn fit right into the Russia Hoax narrative. George Papadopoulos, on the other hand, had to be worked into the setup. But it all seems to lead back to the Obama White House.

Interesting times.

The Soros, Ukraine, FBI Connection

John Solomon has a detailed and important article out regarding the ways in which the Obama administration exerted influence on its post-coup client regime in Ukraine: US Embassy pressed Ukraine to drop probe of George Soros group during 2016 election. The influence was exerted on behalf of George Soros and Soros supported groups, and the FBI's pursuit of Paul Manafort was part of this activity. The groups supported by Soros fronted as "anti-corruption" organizations--a strange characterization for groups that appear to be proxies for the world's largest Superpower and the world's most politically active Moneyman. And those Soros supported groups even petitioned the US Government to lean on Ukraine to provide them with funds derived from asset forfeitures. That's how "anti-corruption" works.

Here's how far that US influence extended:

Lutsenko [Ukraine's prosecutor general] told me he was stunned when the [US] ambassador “gave me a list of people whom we should not prosecute.” The list included a founder of the AntAC group and two members of Parliament who vocally supported the group’s anti-corruption reform agenda, according to a source directly familiar with the meeting. 

It turns out the group that Ukrainian law enforcement was probing was co-funded by the Obama administration and liberal mega-donor George Soros. And it was collaborating with the FBI agents investigating then-Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort’s business activities with pro-Russian figures in Ukraine.

The result was a symbiotic relationship between Soros and the US Government, in which Soros was able to call upon Democratic forces within the US--all the way up to President Obama--to assist in his plans for shaping the New World Order. In return, of course, Democrats received large cash infusions for their US projects. And Ukraine is only one country where Soros is active.

Do All Roads In The Russia Hoax Lead To Ukraine?

I've been mentioning the Ukraine angle to the Russia Hoax in comments and asides for several weeks. Yesterday evening, with a Zerohedge post (Real Collusion: Ukraine Launches Criminal Investigation Into Pro-Hillary Election Meddling) and several articles there the story may have achieved liftoff.

As with all aspects of the Russia Hoax this is complicated, so we'll need to work our way into it one step at a time.

Paul Manafort

A good place to start is with Paul Manafort. Recall that Manafort joined the Trump campaign in March, 2016--coincidentally or not, at the same time that Carter Page and George Papadopoulos were brought on board. Manafort was campaign manager for almost exactly two months (June 20 to August 19) before being abruptly fired. But the real point is that from 2003 right up to 2016 Manafort had been a "political consultant" in Ukraine.

How did Manafort's involvement in the Trump campaign actually come to pass? It turns out that that remains a bit of a mystery. As explained by Time magazine (How Donald Trump Hired and Fired Paul Manafort), the standard, Wikipedia endorsed theory, is that Manafort was recommended to Trump by a close Trump friend, Thomas Barrack, Jr. But, as Time notes,

... probe a little deeper and none of the sources familiar with the details can quite agree anymore how Trump came to decide hiring Manafort was a good idea. At least three differing and at-times-contradictory versions are offered by sources in Trump’s orbit.

There's the Barrack story, of course, but another account has it that Jared Kushner and his wife, Ivanka Trump, recommended Manafort to Papa Trump as someone who knew the ropes of political conventions and would be more "professional" than the upstart Corey Lewandowski, who had helped propel Trump through the primaries. And some claim that Roger Stone was the connection to Manafort.

All of these accounts--or a mix of them--are possible, of course. Nevertheless, they tend to leave one asking, Is it possible that some clever person or organization worked through these Trump associates to get Manafort a spot near the top of the Trump campaign. Consider--as Time suggests, that hiring Manafort was "a good idea" wasn't exactly self evident, in the circumstances, so how was persuading Papa Trump managed? And then that coincidence--or non-coincidence--that Manafort came on board at basically the same time that Carter Page and George Papadopoulos did seems a bit like lightening striking the same place three times. (For the view that Page and Papadopoulos may have been "lured" into the Trump campaign for the purpose of setting them up, cf. The Spy In The Trump Campaign.)

Brief Sentencing Updates

First: General Flynn's sentencing was put off for another 90 days. Flynn requested the delay so he could testify in the trial of "Bijan Rafiekian, who faces charges of conspiracy and acting as an unregistered foreign government agent for Turkey." Team Mueller did not oppose the request and specifically noted (paragraph #3) that, in their view, Flynn's cooperation with Team Mueller is complete. In other words: Ain't no collusion.

Second: Paul Manafort was sentenced by Judge Amy Berman Jackson. Again, there was no hint that any of this related to Russia or "collusion." Based on the Zerohedge account it appears that, while she gave Manafort a tongue lashing, she also gave him a relatively lenient sentence that was in sharp contrast to what Team Mueller was asking for:

During the hearing, Manafort asked Judge Amy Berman Jackson for leniency during Wednesday's hearing, ... 

Jackson agreed with Manafort that the original 19-24 year sentencing guideline "overstates the seriousness of this offense."  

... 

In response, prosecutor Andrew Weissmann suggested that Manafort should be given no quarter.  

"I believe that is not reflective of someone who has learned a harsh lesson. It is not a reflection of remorse," said Weissmann.

Of more interest: Tomorrow the depositions of Christopher Steele are set to be made public. It has been reported that in the depositions Steele attempts to distance himself from the dossier.

The First Manafort Sentence

Short story: Mueller recommended what was probably the max: 19 - 24 years. Judge Ellis gave Manafort just under 4 years (minus time served of 9 months, so ~ 3 years), probably about the minimum possible. Along with a pointed statement about how none of this had anything to do with "collusion."

This is unquestionably Judge Ellis' way of showing his utter disrespect for Team Mueller, everyone behind Team Mueller, and everything they stand for--especially their degradation of the criminal justice system. He had no choice but to sentence Manafort but he did it in a way that would be a rebuke to the prosecution. And in a way that will reflect as poorly as possible on Judge Amy Jackson Berman. I hope Judge Sullivan (who will be sentencing General Flynn shortly) pays attention to this.

There's a lot swirling around this and I may well be updating this initial post. For example, Undercover Huber is reminding us that, in response to Manafort's Brady request (Brady disclosure rules require the prosecution to produce exculpatory or impeaching evidence to the defense), Team Mueller admitted that it had NO "surveillance intercepts" of Manafort--"surveillance intercepts" means electronic surveillance or, if you prefer, FISA intercepts. IOW, the US counterintelligence efforts--read: the FBI--never picked Manafort up talking to Russians. This despite "leaks" to the media, like this one to the NYT: Trump Campaign Aides Had Repeated Contacts With Russian Intelligence. Here's how it begins:

WASHINGTON — Phone records and intercepted calls show that members of Donald J. Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign and other Trump associates had repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials in the year before the election, according to four current and former American officials.

American law enforcement and intelligence agencies intercepted the communications around the same time they were discovering evidence that Russia was trying to disrupt the presidential election by hacking into the Democratic National Committee, three of the officials said. The intelligence agencies then sought to learn whether the Trump campaign was colluding with the Russians on the hacking or other efforts to influence the election.

This was a lie, a total fabrication.

You Want Collusion? I'll Give You Collusion!

Yesterday in a comment I linked to the excellent Michael Smerconish interview with law prof Jonathan Turley. Now, Smerconish and Turley are both liberals, but they did chapter and verse on "collusion" and they both came to the same end point: Ain't no collusion. Turley said the obligatory nice things about what a straight arrow Mueller is, but he also went down the line on IG Michael Horowitz and AG Bill Barr. He couldn't praise those two guys highly enough. And then he pointed out something interesting: If you want to find collusion, look no further than Ukrainian involvement in the 2016 election. As Turley says, what Mueller has done a great job on has been exposing collusion with Ukrainians, but we're not hearing much about that. Watch the whole interview here--it's not long.

Of course, if you really want to find out about Ukrainian collusion, just read The Mechanics of Deception and you'll get enough detail on that to choke a horse. It's all out there--it's been out there for a long time--but some people don't want you to hear about that.

So, this morning at Powerline, Scott Johnson had a nice blog on A redaction mystery solved. It seems that Mueller's sentencing memorandum on Paul Manafort has redacted publicly available information. Why would he do that? Aren't redactions for, like, secret stuff? Ah, well, there's a bit of a story to that, but it's not long and it's not terribly complicated.