September 15, 2018: If Manafort Breaks Trump Is Toast

 

9/15/18: The president wakes to grim reality Saturday. Hurricane Paul is bearing down on Washington D.C. 

 

As innocent as O.J. Simpson in a cutlery factory. 

Friday, with Hurricane Florence lashing the Carolinas, and Trump angrily tweeting about Barack Obama’s twenty-four second slip of the tongue in 2008, Cat 3 winds battered the White House. 

Paul Manafort, a man the president insisted would never “break,” a “brave man,” with a “wonderful family,” finally succumbed. 

For over a year, Manafort insisted that he was as innocent as O.J. Simpson in a cutlery factory. Then a Virginia jury convicted him on eight felony counts. Having been lodged in jail since June 16 (after a judge ruled him a serious flight risk), Manafort, 69, was staring harsh reality between the eyes. If he went to trial again, on a fresh battery of charges, and lost again, he was never going to live in a penthouse bought with laundered Russian money again. 

For three long months, Manafort pined for a pardon from the president. President Twitter Thumbs was busy. Besides, if the president awarded him a pardon before the midterms it would look, even to many Trump fans, as if Donald had something to hide. 

So, the “good man” broke.

Manafort would be one slice, Cohen another.

 

Manafort, who ran the Trump 2016 campaign for several critical months, copped to another pair of felonies, catapulting himself into the lead among Trump campaign operatives with a total of ten. Under a general charge of “conspiracy,” he admitted in court on Friday that ten more felony counts with which he had previously been charged – yeah – he also committed those. 

A jury in his first trial had deadlocked 11-1 for conviction on those charges. But that had been enough of a hook for the president to hang his hat upon. “A large number of counts, ten, could not even be decided in the Paul Manafort case,” Trump noted on August 22. That could mean only one thing: “Witch Hunt!” he added. 

Now even that consolation was gone. 

 

Trump knows Manafort knows. 

Hurricane Paul began gaining strength. What might have been a Category 1 storm a month ago is now a Cat 3. Manafort agreed to a plea deal which requires him to cooperate “fully, truthfully, completely and forthrightly…in any and all matters” with the Russia investigation. 

So, what would bother the totally innocent, orange-colored man in the White House on a fine September morn? What kept the president tossing and turning and tangling his sheets last night? First, Trump understands that Manafort attended a June 2016 meeting when agents of the Russian government offered campaign dirt on Hillary Clinton. Second, Trump knows Manafort knows if he approved the meeting beforehand or received a briefing after it was over. 

Don Jr. and Dad for sure, and former White House Babe Hicks, have already lied about what went on behind Trump Tower’s closed doors. Immediately after the meeting ended, Don Jr. made an 11-minute call to a blocked number. He forgets who he called. But Don Jr. and Dad must know by now, how thorough the Mueller investigators have been. They have to think that Mueller has Don Jr.’s phone records. 

Now the witch hunters have a witch from that meeting who is willing to reveal a few of the spells.

 

Trump knows plenty for once because this is a subject he cares about – namely himself. He knows the door to a useful pardon, one that shuts Manafort up, is closing. Several charges to which Manafort has pled could, if he were pardoned on federal charges, be revived in state courts. Trump knows Manafort knows he’s going to spend a long time in jail. The question is how long. Three years? Ten? Or the rest of his life? Trump knows Manafort agreed to work for his campaign for free. He can only hope his fans don’t realize how bizarre this was, since Manafort was dealing with spiraling debts at the time. Trump knows that Manafort offered to provide “private briefings” to a Russian oligarch, Oleg Deripaska, during the 2016 campaign.

____________________ 

“I don’t separate myself from the state. I have no other interests.” 

Oleg Deripaska

____________________ 

 

For purposes of discussion let’s point out that Deripaska is a bosom buddy of Vladimir Putin and himself under sanction by the U.S. government. Why? Deripaska is a money-laundering outlaw. He has ties to the Russian mob and may be complicit in at least one murder. Deripaska once told a reporter that he understood he controlled the aluminum business in Russia only so long as Putin allowed it. “If the state says we need to give it up, we’ll give it up,” the billionaire said. “I don’t separate myself from the state. I have no other interests.” 

How close was Manafort to Deripaska? Close enough to do the oligarch’s bidding for years, to get a $10 million annual contract, and to put in place a secret plan “to greatly benefit the Putin government.” Close enough – and shady enough – to fall millions of dollars into debt to Deripaska. Close enough, once he took over the Trump campaign, to see a way forward, to get out of that debt and maybe cash in big. 

We already know Manafort was cooking up some get-rich-quick scheme with a Russian friend, Konstantin Kilimnik. “I assume you have shown our friends my media coverage, right?” Manafort emailed him that summer. 

“Absolutely,” replied Kilimnik. “Every article.” So, the Russians knew they had an ally inside the Trump camp.

 

Trump now knows that the courts can seize assets if those assets were obtained through illegal means. Manafort has, agreed to forfeit three houses and two apartments, one in Trump Tower. He must also cough up funds he had hidden in several secret bank accounts, investment funds, and even a life insurance policy. His five properties alone are worth an estimated $22 million. 

So, if nothing else, Old Twitter Thumbs can stop tweeting about how much money the Mueller investigation is costing taxpayers. As recently as June 18, Trump said the “scam investigation” had cost $17 million. Now, Mueller’s team has paid all its bills and they’re in the black. 

 

Was the pardon offer an attempt to obstruct justice? 

Finally, due to climate change in Washington, conditions are ripe, and Hurricane Paul may strengthen to a Category 5. This past March, The New York Times reported that John Dowd, then the president’s lawyer, had floated the idea of presidential pardons in front of lawyers for Manafort and another confessed witch, former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn. 

Trump and Trump fans might call it “Fake News,” but Manafort and Flynn are in perfect position to tell the truth. 

Was this offer really an attempt to obstruct justice? 

The president tossed and turned Friday night, into Saturday morning, because he heard Manafort’s legal team had already made two “proffers” to Special Counsel Mueller. That means they have twice approached investigators with proposed offers: “Here is what our client knows and what he is willing to say.” 

So, Trump knows Manafort has something of value he’d like to share, and Mueller wants him to share it.

 

* 

MICHAEL COHEN, Trump’s former personal lawyer, has also reportedly been in talks with the Special Counsel. According to one reporter, Cohen has expressed a desire to “be on the right side of history.” 

More bad news for Trump.

BLOGGER’S NOTE (5/30/22): If you would liked to see how seriously Trump took the threat of Manafort talking, consider text messages sent from Sean Hannity to Manafort over the course of several months, when it seemed he might break in the face of a long prison sentence. 

If you don’t think Hannity is almost promising a pardon – without saying so, which would be a felony – you probably need reading glasses. (See: 6/22/19.)

November 14-15, 2019: President Trump Tries to Scare a Witness - Doesn't Remember Anything Else

 

11/14-15/19: Thursday, Americans were left to digest the public testimony of the first two witnesses in the impeachment inquiry hearings on Wednesday. But all day Thursday, and again Friday, important developments continued to spill out. On Friday, a third witness testified for several hours, this time, Marie Yovanovitch, former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine. 

As they say, you can’t change a leopard’s spots. Nor can you keep President Trump’s itchy fingers off the Twitter button. Friday morning, at 10:01 a.m. with Ms. Yovanovitch just beginning testimony in front of cameras and under oath, the President of the United States could not resist insulting her, as he has done several times before.

 

Let us pause a moment, to remember famous public testimonies in years past. You had, of course, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton answering questions for eight hours as part of the Benghazi hearings. That testimony came on October 22, 2015, in an era before Republicans started screaming about “perjury traps.” 

There was, of course President Trum….…No. Wait. President Trump refused to testify publicly as part of the Russia investigation. 

His lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, made it clear the president would have to jump over his lifeless corpse, before Rudy would allow him to stick either foot, or both feet, in any “perjury trap.” 

(Your humble blogger would note that a “perjury trap” seems to exist any time President Trump moves his lips.) 

 

____________________ 

“Well, I want to let you know, Ambassador, that some of us here take witness intimidation very, very seriously.” 

Chairman Schiff

____________________

 

 

Now, we had Trump insulting a witness, via Twitter – at a moment when that witness was set to testify. Chairman Schiff halted proceedings immediately when alerted to that fact. He read the following tweet out loud.

 

Then he asked, 

Ambassador you’ve shown the courage to come forward today and testify notwithstanding the fact you are urged by the White House or State Department not to, notwithstanding the fact that as you testified earlier the president implicitly threatened you in that call record [of July 25]. And now the president in real time is attacking you. What effect do you think that has on other witnesses’ willingness to come forward and expose wrongdoing?

 

There were gasps in the hearing room and Yovanovitch let out a loud puff before she could respond. 

“Well, it’s very intimidating,” she said. 

“It’s designed to intimidate, is it not?” Schiff continued. 

The ambassador pondered her answer. She had an air of dignity and long training as a diplomat (33 years in the field) had taught her to choose words with care. “I mean, I can’t speak to what the president is trying to do,” she responded, with a slight roll of the eyes, “but I think the effect is to me intimidating.” 

“Well, I want to let you know, Ambassador,” Schiff said, “that some of us here take witness intimidation very, very seriously.”

 

Republicans on the panel spend most of their morning time, ignoring what Yovanovitch has to say, instead, blasting Schiff and Democrats for how the hearings are being conducted. But they are careful not to attack Ambassador Yovanovitch, and almost effusive in praise after lunch. Apparently, they have been tipped to the fact that the president’s attacks on an active witness are not playing well with the general public. 

Rep. Brad Wenstrup of Ohio gently asks Yovanovitch if it were not true: a president could remove any ambassador he might want. 

“I obviously don’t dispute that the president has the right to withdraw an ambassador at any time for any reason,” she agreed, before adding, “but I do wonder is why it was necessary to smear my reputation also.” 

Clearly caught off guard, Wenstrup had no idea how to respond, saying lamely, that that was not the question he asked. 

It was, however, the question, Ambassador Yovanovitch answered. The president could have removed her at any time. Why, then, had it been necessary for Rudy Giuliani and his team (four members of which are now under arrest), and the president and his media allies, to tear her reputation down? 

All Americans – not counting the 122,600 fools who “liked” Trump’s tweet – should demand an answer to that question. 

 

Trump was once again threatening the rule of law. 

Asked later about that Twitter post, even Rep. Jordan, didn’t defend it. When a reporter wondered if it was appropriate for Trump to smear Ambassador Yovanovitch, Jordan reverted to GOP Talking Point #1. “Where’s the whistleblower?” he demanded to know. We have to hear from the whistleblower in public. We have to expose him or her. A whole pack of cowardly Republican lawmakers stood behind him when the reporter asked again: Should a president ever smear a witness? 

Rep. Elise Stefanik spoke up, as if a random thought had popped into her head, “We’re not here to talk about tweets.” 

It was not a proud moment for Stefanik. It was another repulsive performance by Jim Jordan, a man without decency or shame. The lawmakers gathered behind them looked like a class photo for cowards. And anyone with a  passing understanding of the Constitution should have realized that the President of the United States was once again threatening the rule of law. 

When the hearing ended, and Chairman Schiff announced that the witness was free to go, Yovanovitch rose slowly from her seat. As she headed for the exits, the audience in the hearing room, and the Democrats on the panel rose and gave her a resounding round of applause.

Rep. Stefanik, right. Rep. Jordan is at left.

 

* 

MEANWHILE, the American people learned that Rudy Giuliani was under investigation himself. 

And at the very moment when Ambassador Yovanovitch was testifying, a sixth member of Team Trump 2016, Roger Stone, was found guilty of a series of crimes in federal court. In his case, a jury of his peers convicted him on seven felony counts. 

Let that sink in a moment. 

Stone had been charged with seven felonies. The jury judged him guilty of all seven, and did so with relative ease. One count, carrying the stiffest penalty, was a charge of witness intimidation. Other felonies involved lying to Congress and lying to Mueller’s investigators. The prosecutor in the case pointed out that all of Stone’s lies had served to protect the President of the United States.

Now, Mr. Stone was looking at up to half a century behind bars. Or praying for a pardon from a president with a soft spot for felons.

 

In judging Team Trump 2020, it would seem logical to remember that Stone wasn’t even the member of Team Trump 2016 to rack up the most felonies. That dishonor would go to Paul Manafort, convicted by a jury on eight counts, avoiding ten more convictions only because a single juror held out. That would be Paul Manafort, campaign chair in 2016. That would be Paul Manafort, campaign chair – later admitting that he was guilty of those ten counts, but not being charged, as part of a plea deal – then being convicted of two more felony counts – including witness tampering – after he started screwing around in secret again. So: ten felonies for Manafort! And when did most of this felonious activity occur? During a time when Manafort was working for corrupt politicians and sleazy oligarchs in Ukraine! 

(Listen carefully to the hearings next week: It’s a safe bet, no GOP questioner is going to bring Manafort up.)

 

In second place – with eight felonies – we have President Trump’s old personal lawyer, Michael Cohen. Two of his felony counts involved lying to protect then-candidate Donald J. Trump. In those instances, Cohen was helping Trump cover up $280,000 in combined payoffs to a porn star and Playboy Bunny he had banged, both while married to the current First Lady of the United States. Meaning: Citizen Trump had cheated on all three of his wives. Meaning, also: You had to be blind, deaf, dumb, unable to write or speak English, with your head in a large, brown paper sack – or a Republican on the House panel hearing testimony – to miss the obvious. Team Trump 2016 was a band of crooks, led by a habitual liar.  

Team Trump 2020 was shaping up to be the same, only with different players filling the roster. 

Its leader was the same habitual liar.

 

* 

SO: THE BAD NEWS for Team Trump 2020 kept piling up as the week drew to an end. A new witness, an official at the Office of Management and Budget had agreed to testify next week, despite efforts by the White House to block the testimony. A second witness came forward to say that she had also heard Ambassador Gordon Sondland’s July 26 call with the president, during a meal at a restaurant in Kiev. Before Friday ended, we learned that a third person heard at least part of that call. In fact, one witness testified in a closed door hearing late that afternoon; and that witness’s opening statement quickly leaked to the press. It’s a safe bet to say the leaker was a Democrat, or at least no fan of Trump. It’s an equally safe bet that if the statement had bolstered the president’s defense, Rep. Nunes would have been running down the streets of D.C., desperately looking for a friendly reporter he could hand it to. 

Ambassador Bill Taylor had first explained, under oath Wednesday, that he had been told that Sondland said, after the July 26 call, that Trump cared more about the investigation of the Biden family than he did about Ukraine. Nunes and his GOP colleagues were at great pains to note that all Taylor had was “second- and third-hand information.” Jordan got angry again and tried to make the case that all Taylor had were a few words, heard sixth-hand, from his wife’s brother-in-law’s second cousin, thrice removed. Something like that. Let’s just say it can be difficult to follow Jordan’s logic.

 

Trump, of course, had already told reporters he didn’t remember that call. That could be added to a mountain of material about which President Twitter Thumbs seemed clueless and uninformed. Trump was now forced to play Whack-a-Mole with a series of witnesses. He said he barely knew Ambassador Sondland. So: add Sondland to a list of people Trump couldn’t pick out of a police lineup, that list already including Taylor, George Kent, Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman (Trump: “Why are people that I never even heard of testifying”) and Yovanovitch (I “really don’t know” her, Trump had said, even though he threatened her in the July 25 phone call). 

Also unknown to the President of the United States were Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman (both under indictment at this time, both having been photographed more than once with Donald J. Trump and even Don Jr., his son).

 

At any rate, by Friday evening, the opening statement of David Holmes was in the hands of the people who do the “Fake News.” 

Only Holmes’s opening statement was real. In it, he alleged that he was at the table on July 26, when Ambassador Sondland called President Trump from a restaurant in Kiev. This was one day after the infamous July 25 phone call, during which our president asked the Ukrainian leader to do him a “favor,” and also threatened Ambassador Yovanovitch, who he said was “going to go through some things.” Sondland apparently had to hold the phone away from his ear because Trump was loud. Holmes could hear part of what the president said and recognized his voice. 

We’ll save most of what Holmes says until transcripts of his testimony are released. But if what he says is true, another main prop supporting the president’s defense has been kicked aside. Holmes explained that in his job as a top aide at the U.S. embassy in Kyiv [or “Kiev”], he took notes during two important meetings on July 26. In the second, he said that President Zelenskyy 

“stated that during the July 25 call, President Trump had ‘three times’ raised ‘some very sensitive issues,’ and that he would have to follow up on those issues when they met ‘in person.’ Not having received a readout of the July 25 call, I did not know what those sensitive issues were.”

 

Not long after, Ambassador Sondland and Mr. Holmes went to lunch. Two other embassy staffers joined them. “Ambassador Sondland selected a bottle of wine that he shared among the four of us,” Holmes explained, “and we discussed topics such as marketing strategies for his hotel business.” 

 

“Big stuff” that benefits the President. 

When the wine was finished, Sondland said he was going to call the president and brief him on a recent, one-on-one meeting he had just held with a top Ukrainian aide to Mr. Zelenskyy. 

Holmes continued: 

I heard President Trump then clarify that Ambassador Sondland was in Ukraine. Ambassador Sondland replied, yes, he was in Ukraine, and went on to state that President Zelenskyy “loves your ass.” I then heard President Trump ask, “So, he’s gonna do the investigation?” Ambassador Sondland replied that “he’s gonna do it,” adding that President Zelenskyy will do “anything you ask him to.” Even though I did not take notes of these statements, I have a clear recollection that these statements were made. I believe that my colleagues who were sitting at the table also knew that Ambassador Sondland was speaking with the President.

 

An unrelated topic was introduced and discussed. When the call ended, Holmes followed up with a question. 

Ambassador Sondland remarked that the President was in a bad mood, as Ambassador Sondland stated was often the case early in the morning. I then took the opportunity to ask Ambassador Sondland for his candid impression of the President’s views on Ukraine. In particular, I asked Ambassador Sondland if it was true that the President did not “give a s—t about Ukraine.” Ambassador Sondland agreed that the President did not “give a s—t about Ukraine.” I asked why not, and Ambassador Sondland stated that the President only cares about “big stuff.” I noted that there was “big stuff” going on in Ukraine, like a war with Russia, and Ambassador Sondland replied that he meant “big stuff” that benefits the President, like the “Biden investigation” that Mr. Giuliani was pushing.

 

So, was there any evidence that Trump wanted to clean up corruption in Ukraine before granting military aid? 

There appeared to be none.

 

* 

IN RELATED NEWS, Bloomberg reported that Rudy Giuliani might soon become the second consecutive personal lawyer of President Trump to be indicted. Possible charges included campaign finance law violations and failure to register as a lobbyist for a foreign government. Rudy’s “work alongside the president” had also “raised counterintelligence concerns.” 

Or: 2016, déjà vu.