Posted on 02/01/2018 8:01:17 PM PST by bitt
It was announced this afternoon the lawyers representing, Rick Gates, the business partner of Paul Manafort, have withdrawn from the case. The judicial notification is HERE, and details of withdrawal were filed under seal.
Amid the news cycle of the HPSCI memo release, and considering there could be ripple effects therein, lots of media speculations follows:
WASHINGTON DC – Three attorneys representing Rick Gates told a federal court Thursday they are immediately withdrawing as counsel for the former Donald Trump campaign aide, who is fighting special counsel Robert Mueller’s indictment of him on money laundering and other charges.
Lawyers Shanlon Wu, Walter Mack and Annemarie McAvoy said in a two-page motion that they would explain the reasons for their abrupt move in documents filed under seal with the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. (read more)
There is possibility the three lawyers could be withdrawing after discovery of the length of time the DOJ was investigating Manafort and Gates; and that might just dovetail into the FISA702 abuse story and the 2016 counterintelligence investigation of Donald Trump. I’ll try to explain. ..
(Excerpt) Read more at theconservativetreehouse.com ...
Better yet is to use a percentage instead of a pixel width.
Example:
<img src="http://i63.tinypic.com/15czqxy.jpg" width="75%">
renders the image as 75% of the width of your browser window, and will resize automatically no matter how big or small you make your browser window:
That’s my top guess.
Since when does a lawyer walk away from big money?
I've spent a lot of time in courtrooms over the past few years covering cases for my newsblog. Defense lawyers are handling dozens and dozens of cases simultaneously. There's no way they can't be conflicted. It ain't pretty.
iwasthere says:
February 1, 2018 at 11:48 pm
I think his attorneys were former DOJ types, So maybe if the FISA warrant dates back to a time where these attorneys were at DOJ, this would be a conflict – and require withdraw. In other words, a former client or former boss being a material witness in the case would present a conflict and might require withdraw – The creditability of Struk, Macabe and Comey might be an important factor.
Reply
Patrick Blasz says:
February 2, 2018 at 12:02 am
It’s a conflict. Withdrawal is mandatory under this circumstance and the court must allow it.
WSB says:
February 2, 2018 at 12:22 am
Whoa, that would fit. Wow! If this memo exposes even one of them, would all three be compromised?
OSP says:
February 2, 2018 at 12:27 am
I think the DOJ connection is key here:
Shan Wu is a former federal prosecutor
Walter Mack was an Assistant United States Attorney
Annemarie McAvoy is a former Federal prosecutor
Hmm...
Smack says:
February 2, 2018 at 12:34 am
Manafort is the link between the prior FISA surveillance and the latter extension disclosed by Clapper. My guess is that Manafort was “planted” into the Trump administration to justify the FISA surveillance prior to FISA approval. Now the attorneys have found out and are bailing.
I call it the mueller probe.
I have same thoughts - the memo seems to have caused quite a far reaching stir.....and it’s only a unclassified synopsis of a much bigger document....
Gowdy wants to be in the ground floor when the DOJ gets restructured after the house of cards comes falling down. Sessions won’t last for 8 years.
Super idea. Thanks!
Was Manafort made a deal: Spy on Trump for us and we won’t prosecute...?
I think you may be on to something.
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.