Nebbermind. 
However, he likely has some vulnerability if these assets are not entirely his, free and clear. His pledge to bail depends on the value of these properties, if his alleged value is false, then so is his bond.
I understand that.
I was not clear with my question Assuming they were obtained as “ill-gotten gains”, does that have any bearing on their suitability for bail?
If he would forfeit them upon conviction, why not skip bail and run? If they were assets he owned and could keep for the family regardless of conviction, then skipping bail is a harder decision.
I think the 9 million figure for the Water Mill property is very low. Because, according to the indictment, he spent about 5.5 million on renovation, almost 1.5 million on home automation and entertainment and $800,000 on landscaping for that property.
He’s wearing an ankle bracelet. They’re not that easy to defeat. All his 3 passports with various identities have been confiscated. Plus Mueller’s team is watching/listening to him very closely. Remember, Mueller knew immediately when Manafort started communicating with one of his Ukrainian cohorts to publish an opinion piece in a publication and notified the court that Manafort had violated its gag order.
I thought I read that Mueller has already asked for a bail revocation, but I think it’s been postponed until the next status hearing. Not entirely sure on this point.
The Democratic rebuttal memo was released. It was released during Nunes’ speech at CPAC, and Foxnews actually cut away from Nunes to discuss it and were remarking on how it rebuts the GOP memo. I felt like I was in another universe.
It will be interesting to see whats ‘read into’ the redacted portions - but that was a helluva rebuttal.
Give them a few minutes to recover themselves…they’ll have Hannity trying to float some new and patently false propaganda which the base will eat up, as usual.
Not too much that’s interesting in the rebuttal. The things I spot are:
- It looks like there are about five names in the redacted portion, where it is saying who all is under investigation by the FBI for having worrying contact with Russia (one of whom is Page). So, six total. The number is stated but then redacted, but looks to be a three letter word and the length of the list of the names looks appropriate for that.
- It looks like the FBI was able to independently confirm at least some of the Steele Dossier’s details on where Page went when he was in Russia and who he met with.
Again, these are both redacted, so the specifics are unknown, but I think we can safely believe that both of those two things are true.
In terms of names, we could have:
- Manafort
- Gates
- Flynn
- Kushner
- Papadopoulos
- Page
Though, Papadop seems like he would be mentioned openly (similarly to Page), since his indictment is open knowledge and he is referenced elsewhere in the rebuttal openly. Gates, Manafort, and Flynn are also all openly indicted, though not otherwise mentioned in the document. Page is clearly in the list, since his name is left unredacted. And the six doesn’t seem to afford room for Sessions, so that’s also a reason to doubt that the above six names are the correct names.
So potentially the list is:
- Kushner
- Sessions?
- ?
- ?
- ?
- Page
One further note, which could just be an artifact of Schiff being careless with his language and knowledge of future events, but there seems to be some implications made that Papadopoulos may have been directly helpful to the FBI in 2016, not just after his January interview that he got slapped for.
“[In October 2016,] DOJ accurately informed the Court that the FBI initiated its counterintelligence investigation on July 31, 2016, after receiving information <redacted>. George Papadopoulos revealed <redacted> that individuals linked to Russia, who took interest in Papadopoulos as a Trump foreign policy adviser, informated in him late April 2016 that Russia <redacted>. Papadopoulos’s disclosure…”
Now this could just be saying that we received word from Australia and the Papadopoulos “disclosed” that information to them, but the length of the redaction boxes doesn’t nicely fit anything to do with Australia.
after receiving information [from the ambassador of Australia]. :: Too long
after receiving information [from the Australian government]. :: Still too long, though it does have the two pixels on the right that are faintly showing.
And calling this a “disclosure” seems strange.
The key takeaway is that Nunes’ fantasy that the DOJ/FBI handled the FISA application improperly is bullshit, as if we didn’t already know.
I particularly liked the fact that all four FISC judges were Republican appointees.
Someone showed on Twitter that the redaction was done poorly. You can clearly see the number is four.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Also, it appears that footnote 7 should have been redacted. It calls out Flynn, Papadopoulos, Manafort and Gates.
Interestingly, the timeline for starting investigations of those 4 seems to be prior to mid-September 2016. All but Manafort were still part of the campaign.
I don’t mean this in a confrontational way, but why would you post this and not post a link?
…I suspect the “Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk” has a lot to do with it. I have an older iPhone and copying and pasting links is a bugger of a thing to do.
Yup. It’s Matt Tait who goes under pwnallthethings. Despite the handle, he is pretty well credentialed.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
x.com is the post, I think.
This piece in The Atlantic is a long read but a fascinating (and discouraging) look at Manafort’s career. From his twenties running the Young Republicans to his sixties and Russian oligarchs.
Yet another indicator of how feckless the Congressional investigations are, especially when controlled by the Pubbies:
Trump-Russia: Communication director Hope Hicks testifies to Congress
I’ve said it before, and I’m sure I’ll say it again. Mueller’s investigation is the only one with any teeth. The rest are bread and circuses.
White bread, circus peanuts.
Multiple countries discussing how to blackmail a senior policy adviser to the president. You know, whatever.