Let’s Wrap This FReepathon Up Early, Folks…Donate Today!
Posted on 10/25/2019 3:23:36 PM PDT by jazusamo
AP Reporters Pushed FBI to prosecute Manafort
New Benghazi Documents Confirm Clinton Email Cover-Up
The State Department Monitored People It Didn’t Like
AP Reporters Pushed FBI to prosecute Manafort
The Associated Press, founded in 1846 as a cooperative association of newspapers, has enjoyed a reputation for independence and fairness over the years. Lately, however, it has come under criticism for what some see as a left/liberal bias.
Certainly, what we have just learned about its dealings with anti-Trump partisans in the Justice Department does nothing to improve our perception of the news service.
We have released two sets of heavily redacted FBI documents – 28 pages and 38 pages –about an April 11, 2017, “off-the-record” meeting set up by then-Chief of the Justice Department’s Criminal Fraud Section Andrew Weissmann.
The meeting included representatives of the DOJ, the FBI and the Associated Press in which AP reporters provided information on former Trump Campaign Director Paul Manafort, including the numeric code to Manafort’s storage locker.
Two months later, in early June , Weissmann was hired to work on Robert Mueller’s special counsel operation against President Trump. Weissman then reportedly spearheaded the subsequent investigation and prosecution of Manafort.
Included among the new documents are two typed write-ups of the meeting’s proceedings and handwritten notes taken during the meeting by two FBI special agents.
According to a June 11, 2017, FBI write-up :
The purpose of the meeting, as it was explained to SSA [supervisory special agent, redacted] was to obtain documents from the AP reporters that were related to their investigative reports on Paul Manafort.
No such documents were included in the documents released to us.
During the meeting, the AP reporters provided the FBI information about a storage locker of Manafort (the Mueller special counsel operation raided the locker on May 26, 2017 ):
The AP reporters advised that they had located a storage facility in Virginia that belonged to Manafort…The code to the lock on the locker is 40944859. The reporters were aware of the Unit number and address, but they declined to share that information.
The reporters shared the information that “payments for the locker were made from the DM Partners account that received money from the [Ukraine] Party of Regions.”
The notes suggest the AP pushed for criminal prosecution of Manafort:
AP believes Manafort is in violation of the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), in that Manafort send [sic] internal U. S. documents to officials in Ukraine AP has documentation proving this, as well as Manafort noting his understanding doing so would get him into trouble.
AP asked about the U.S. government charging Manafort with violating Title 18, section 1001 for lying to government officials, and have asked if the FBI has interviewed Manafort. FBI and DOJ had no comment on this question.
Also, according to the FBI write-up, “The AP reporters asked about FARA [Foreign Agents Registration Act] violations and they were generally told that they are enforceable.”
Although, according to the FBI write-up, “no commitments were made [by DOJ] to assist the reporters,” Andrew Weissmann asked the AP to contact foreign authorities to follow up:
[A]fter the meeting was started and it was explained to the reporters that there was nothing that the FBI could provide to them, the reporters opted to ask a series of questions to see if the FBI would provide clarification. No commitments were made to assist the reporters in their further investigation into the life and activities of Paul Manafort and the AP reporters understood that the meeting would be off the record.
They [AP reporters] reiterated what they had written in their article, which was a response from the Cypriot Anti-Money Laundering Authority (MOKAS) that they [MOKAS] had fully responded to Department of Treasury agents in response to [Treasury’s] request. The AP reporters were interested in how this arrangement worked and if the U.S. had made a formal request. FBI/DOJ did not respond, but Andrew Weissman [sic] suggested that they ask the Cypriots if they had provided everything to which they had access or if they only provided what they were legally required to provide.
The AP reporters asked if we [DOJ/FBI] would be willing to tell them if they were off based [sic] or on the wrong traack [sic] and they were advised that they appeared to have a good understanding of Manafort’s business dealings.
The reporters asked about any DOJ request for the assistance of foreign governments in the U.S. Government’s investigation of Manafort:
The AP reporters asked if there had been any official requests to other countries. FBI/DOJ declined to discuss specifics, except to state that the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty requests are negotiated by diplomats, so they should remain at that level.
AP reporters told the FBI about payments in the “ black ledger ,” a Ukrainian record of allegedly illegal off-the-books payments:
The reporters advised that their next report , which was scheduled to come out in the next day or so after the meeting, would focus on confirming, to the extent that they could payments in the so called “black ledger” that were allegedly made to Manafort.
The impression that their sources give is that Manafort was not precise about his finances, specifically as it related to the “black ledger.” The AP reporters calculated that he received $60 to $80 million from his work in Ukraine, during the time period the ledger was kept. According to their review of the ledger, it appears that there is a slightly lesser amount documented based on all of the entries. The AP reporters accessed a copy of the ledger online, describing it as “public” document (Agent’s note – the ledger has been published in its entirety by the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine, after it was given to them by Sergei Leshenko, Ukrainian RADA member [Ukrainian parliament] and investigative reporter.)
The AP reporters discussed an extensive list of issues, companies, and individuals that they felt should be investigated for possible criminal activity, including a $50,000 payment to a men’s clothing store; a 2007 meeting with Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska; Loav Ltd., which was possibly incorporated by Manafort; NeoCom, which the AP reporters implied was incorporated solely to cover up money laundering; and other matters.
The reporters described an “internal U.S. work product that had been sent to Ukraine.” The reporters described it as an “internal White House document.” The FBI report stated that it “was not clear if the document was classified.”
Evidently referring to these documents, Manafort’s lawyers alleged that Weissmann provided guidance and leaked grand jury testimony to the AP reporters investigating Manafort.
This document production comes in our April, 2019 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Justice ( Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:19-cv-00879)) filed after the FBI failed to respond to a July 5, 2018, FOIA request for:
Under Mueller, Weissmann became known as “the architect of the case against former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort,” which produced no evidence of collusion between Manafort, the Trump campaign and Russian operatives. It indicted Manafort on unrelated charges.
In an October 2017 article describing Weissmann as Mueller’s “ Pit Bull ,” The New York Times wrote, “He is a top lieutenant to Robert S. Mueller III on the special counsel investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election and possible links to the Trump campaign. Significantly, Mr. Weissmann is an expert in converting defendants into collaborators — with either tactical brilliance or overzealousness, depending on one’s perspective.” Weissman oversaw the pre-dawn home raid of Manafort in what one former federal prosecutor described as “textbook Weissmann terrorism.” Weissmann reportedly also attended Hillary Clinton’s Election Night party in New York.
In May 2019, we uncovered 73 pages of records from the DOJ containing text messages and calendar entries of Weissmann showing he led the hiring effort for the investigation that targeted President Trump.
In December 2017, we made public two productions of DOJ documents showing strong support by top DOJ officials for former Acting Attorney General Sally Yates’ refusal to enforce President Trump’s Middle East travel ban executive order. In one email, Weissmann applauds Yates, writing : “I am so proud. And in awe. Thank you so much. All my deepest respects.”
These latest shocking FBI reports evidence a corrupt collusion between the DOJ and the media, specifically The Associated Press, to target Paul Manafort. These reports are further reason for President Trump to pardon Manafort and others caught up in Mueller’s abusive web.
This new evidence strengthens the widespread belief that the media are in league with the anti-Trumpers in the administration and in the Congress.
New Benghazi Documents Confirm Clinton Email Cover-Up
Lately? So this author just recently arrived on the planet?
Off the Wall Ping!
Contact to be added.
Indeed. I respect Judicial Watch a great deal but, Tom’s comment that you bring attention to makes him seem somewhat naive. The MSM for the most part has been a collection of Leftists for many decades now.
Perhaps he’s thinking that in their TDS they have just recently dropped all pretense.
Indeed. I respect Judicial Watch a great deal but, Tom’s comment that you bring attention to makes him seem somewhat naive. The MSM for the most part has been a collection of Leftists for many decades now.
Perhaps he’s thinking that in their TDS they have just recently dropped all pretense.
HOORAY JW, Fitton and all who work there.
(ping)
Bump!
People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. - Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations (1776)
Well said, the press is out of control. They’re especially villainous with anyone that doesn’t go along with their leftist agenda.
Let’s Wrap This FReepathon Up Early, Folks…Donate Today!
IOW, a mechanism whereby newspapers colludehas enjoyed a reputation for independence and fairness over the years
which its propaganda power has enabled it to co-opt by claiming that “journalists are objective.”Since objectivity is a laudable goal but not a state of being, and is a difficult discipline and not something that can be readily validated, “journalists are objective” functions not only as a marketing tool for journalism but also as an incentive towards herd behavior by journalists. Its effect on journalists is to incentivize them to “go along and get along” with each other. If they all agree, who is going to be able to effectively challenge the objectivity of any one of them?
The freedom of the press assures that anyone who wants to be a journalist has the legal right to do so. But if anyone claiming to be a journalist challenges the objectivity of a member of the journalism cartel, all other members of the cartel feel duty bound to declare that the challenger is “not a journalist, not objective.” Thus, the cartel has transformed the meaning of “objective” from the dictionary definition to, “going along as a member of the journalism cartel herd.”
By that same mechanism, the journalism cartel has systematically transformed the meanings of all virtues in the same way. “Liberal” is a political virtue in the sense that a century ago it was the accepted label for people who are now called, in America at least, “conservative.” But by 1930 the meaning of “liberal” was essentially inverted (source: Safire’s New Political Dictionary). Not only did socialists begin flying under a false flag in that way, but the real liberals - again, those known as “conservative” today - were deprived of their virtuous label.
And much the same can be said of the terms “moderate,” “centrist,” “progressive,” etc. In real life there are no conservatives in America. In America, “conservatives” favor progress - progress of, by, and for the American people. Whereas “progressives” favor progress of, by, and for the government.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.