Details emerge on Justice Department meeting with reporters on Manafort


#1

And the corruption continues in the DOJ:

Lawyers for former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort are crying foul over a meeting Justice Department prosecutors held with four Associated Press reporters last year as news organizations and the FBI bore down on the longtime lobbyist and political consultant.

Manafort’s defense has argued for months that the off-the-record session on April 11, 2017, was a potential conduit for improper leaks to the press about the probe that led to two criminal cases against the former Trump campaign chief.

Now, Manafort’s attorneys have fresh evidence they say bolsters their claims: two memos written by FBI agents who attended the meeting and documented their version of what transpired.

Manafort’s legal team paints the evidence as confirmation that journalists were given inside information about the investigation in violation of Justice Department policies and, perhaps, legal prohibitions on disclosure of grand jury secrets.

“The meeting raises serious concerns about whether a violation of grand jury secrecy occurred,” Manafort’s lawyers wrote in a filing Friday with U.S. District Court Judge T.S. Ellis, who’s set to oversee an upcoming trial of Manafort on bank and tax fraud charges brought by special counsel Robert Mueller. “Now, based on the FBI’s own notes of the meeting, it is beyond question that a hearing is warranted.”
Paul Manafort is pictured. | AP Photo

Associated Press may have led FBI to Manafort storage locker

One of the FBI memos indicates that the AP did get some information at the meeting. At the conclusion of the session, reporters got a vague assurance that they “appeared to have a good understanding of Manafort’s business dealings,” one memo says. The same memo says the meeting was “arranged” by Andrew Weissmann, then the chief of the fraud section of Justice’s Criminal Division and now the top prosecutor on the Manafort case.

Weissmann responded to an AP query about Cyprus’ cooperation in the probe by urging the reporters to ask Cypriot officials whether they had given the U.S. all the information it sought about Manafort’s bank dealings there or just a portion of it, one of the memos says.

However, the memos indicate that the bulk of the information flow at the meeting went the other way, with the AP journalists providing the FBI with a bevy of facts the news organization uncovered during its inquiries into Manafort’s work and finances. The meeting took place a day before the AP published a story saying that Manafort received at least some payments ascribed to him or his companies in a so-called black ledger of off-the-books spending by former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych.

Reporters do sometimes give government agencies a heads-up on forthcoming stories that could significantly affect an investigation, but the details in the FBI memos show that the AP provided numerous details to the officials about the news outlet’s investigation. Many appear to have already been public, but some seem unreported, like a claim that Manafort sent an internal White House document to people he was working with in Ukraine.

One of memos also says the purpose of the meeting was for the FBI to “obtain documents from the AP reporters,” although it’s unclear any documents were shown or changed hands.

The memos also show that one of the AP journalists gave the FBI an unusual detail about a storage unit in Alexandria, Virginia, that Manafort used to keep records of his worldwide business dealings. Both memos say the AP revealed a code number to access the unit, although one memo says the reporters declined to share the number or location of the locker. (The memos give two slightly different versions of the code, with one suggesting it was to access a locked parking lot at the storage facility.)
Paul Manafort is pictured. | Getty Images


#2

Why in the hell would the DOJ meet with reporters ? Wasn’t the DOJ supposed to NOT talk about on going investigations ? Why didn’t the DOJ provide the documents requested by the committee looking into the FBI wrong doings , FISA applications , the names of the other FBI agents mentioned in the text messages . Since when is the DOJ allowed to talk about on going cases with reporters ?


#3

Well that’s a great question that they certainly not answer.


#4

Perhaps the committee should have posed as reporters and requests a meeting.


#5

Because the deep state does whatever it wants without any kind of repercussions. They want to keep putting the pressure on until someone flips because they can’t take it anymore…not because they are telling the truth.


#6

Whose president of the “deep state”?? Where’s the agenda and platform, who are it’s members. Names and faces with citations.


#7

You know better or should.

Beneath the politics of convenience is the reality that a large segment of the U.S. government really does operate without much transparency or public scrutiny, and has abused its awesome powers in myriad ways.
Sometimes the government bureaucracy really does exercise power over the commander in chief, for example Obama felt that the military pressured him into sending more troops to Afghanistan than he had wanted, George W. Bush was arguably led to war by a bipartisan cadre of national security insiders who had long wanted to take out Saddam Hussein.
Does this means there is a deep state in America depends on your definition. Powerful bureaucrats with access to government secrets and trusted media friends certainly do try to influence presidents from the shadows.
Do unelected bureaucrats generate law? Do unelected bureaucrats influence presidents, congress people?

If your looking for a president, your a little naive.


#8

So, there is no “deep state”. Just more Alex Jones, tin foil hat conspiracy…


#9

You know better or should. Perhaps your tin foil hat is to tight.

Beneath the politics of convenience is the reality that a large segment of the U.S. government really does operate without much transparency or public scrutiny, and has abused its awesome powers in myriad ways.
Sometimes the government bureaucracy really does exercise power over the commander in chief, for example Obama felt that the military pressured him into sending more troops to Afghanistan than he had wanted, George W. Bush was arguably led to war by a bipartisan cadre of national security insiders who had long wanted to take out Saddam Hussein.
Does this means there is a deep state in America depends on your definition. Powerful bureaucrats with access to government secrets and trusted media friends certainly do try to influence presidents from the shadows.
Do unelected bureaucrats generate law? Do unelected bureaucrats influence presidents, congress people?

If your looking for a president, your a little naive.