Mueller Requests 70 Blank Subpoenas in Case Against Paul Manafort
As the world turns so does the Russia probe headed up by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, who filed a request Thursday for 70 blank subpoenas. Mueller requested subpoenas for appearances in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (EDVA) in the case against former Donald Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort.
Details at this point are sparse, but Courthouse News reported that in Virginia, where Manafort is accused of concealing foreign bank accounts, income taxes fraud and failure to report foreign bank accounts, that those subpoenaed would have to appear in Alexandria at 10 a.m. on July 10.
Here’s what the filing said:It is respectfully requested that the Clerk of the Court issue subpoenas as indicated below for appearance before said Court at Alexandria, Virginia, in the United States District Court at 10 o’clock a.m., on the 10th day of July, 2018, then and there to testify on behalf of the United States.
What is a blank subpoena, you ask?
Under Title IV, Rule 17 of Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the clerk “must issue a blank subpoena—signed and sealed—to the party requesting it,” in this case Mueller, “and that party must fill in the blanks before the subpoena is served.”
Signed, sealed, filled in blanks, then delivered.
Former federal prosecutor Mimi Rocah explained that it is common to issue trial subpoenas for witnesses to make sure they show up, but they are blank because Mueller doesn’t want all of the witnesses revealed at this time.
Tags
Who is online
43 visitors
Before you say this is wrong, he can't do this, yes he can.
This sure sounds like something that will get under the President*s skin. I like it.
It's kind of like getting a Secret Santa present except instead of not knowing who the Santa is, you don't know who's going to get the subpoena until it's served.
I imagine that one of those will have the president's name on it.
Yo, JR, how you been brother?
Is that you? Can it be? Lawdy Lawdy Lawdy.
We await your further words of wisdom brother.
Only Seventy?
It's for the case in Virginia, he's still working on the federal case in Washington.
Seventy amounts to 35 witnesses.
"As the world turns so does the Russia probe headed up by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, who filed a request Thursday for 70 blank subpoenas. Mueller requested subpoenas for appearances in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (EDVA) in the case against former Donald Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort."
I like the way Paul Manafort is always described as "former Donald Trump campaign chairman". He joined Trump's presidential campaign team in March 2016 and was campaign manager from June to August 2016. 3 months all told. He is charged with, lest we forget, engaging in conspiracy, engaging in a conspiracy to launder money , failing to file reports of foreign bank and financial accounts, acting as an unregistered agent of a foreign principle, making false and misleading statements in documents filed and submitted under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), and making false statements. The charges are related to his consulting work for a pro-Russian government in the Ukraine long before he met Donald Trump and do not cover any activities related to the 2016 Trump campaign.
Former federal prosecutor Mimi Rocah explained that it is common to issue trial subpoenas for witnesses to make sure they show up, but they are blank because Mueller doesn’t want all of the witnesses revealed at this time.
Question: And why would that be?
Probably to scare people, which has been a main tactic of the Mueller investigation. Raiding Manafort's home at 4AM was really over the top and something usually done with drug lords or many decades ago done to Mafia leaders. As Rudy Giuliani said a few days ago when considering an interview between the President and Mueller, "“Namely, do they have an open mind to the fact he could be telling the truth and Comey may be lying?” he said. “If they have an open mind to that, this is something we'd consider. If they don't, then given all the irregularities of this investigation, we would be foolish to have him be interviewed."
And there is reason to question the objectivity of this investigation. Mueller has an extremely broad mandate to investigate "collusion" or any crime that should arise in the course of the investigation, thus he went after Manafort. Oddly enough, Mueller didn't look at things much more related to Russian interference in the 2016 election or his own investigation. For instance, he inherited an FBI investigation that began with the use of opposition research, dressed up as "intelligence" to get a FISA warrant. Mueller never looked at it or the improper activities going on at the FBI & DOJ. Then there is the question of Mueller's team, which seem to be all hard core Trump haters including the notorious Andrew Weissmann. You may remember him from the Enron case and how the SCOTUS had to step in and reverse a ruling made in Weissmann's behalf. ( Arthur Andersen LLP v. United States ,). A 9-0 ruling!
Bob, take your 70 blank subpoenas and "shove em"
Seems like you get the Trumper's Stumpers Talking Points Memo in your email. How do you know what Mueller looked at or did not look at?
The first step in de-legitimizing something you don't like. Step two is to repeat it as often as possible.
I'll tell you how I know. There was collusion with the Russians, but it was via the Clinton campaign, which used proxies to pay for the "dossier" and to spread it through the government & the media. That is something Mueller should have looked at, yet no charges were filed. Fair enough?
The first step in de-legitimizing something you don't like. Step two is to repeat it as often as possible.
And ignoring pertinent facts props up an investigation you love. Step two is to go blind & deaf
Sounds like what you and, others were doing in all the Clinton investigations, how did that work out for ya?
Collusion with the Russians? Have you forgotten that it was the Russians that Trump asked to release the stolen Clinton emails and, that it was the Russians who stole the emails in the first place and, that they gave those same emails to WikiLeaks to release?
And, then it seems that you have forgotten one other fact, the company that hired Steele hired him when Republicans were looking for something on Trump.
I think you are making my point. You are really going to stand by the "investigation" of Hillary's e-mails as a real investigation? How do you justify the difference between the way Clinton was handled by Comey & Lynch and the rabid methods used by Mueller to bring down Trump?
Collusion with the Russians? Have you forgotten that it was the Russians that Trump asked to release the stolen Clinton emails and, that it was the Russians who stole the emails in the first place and, that they gave those same emails to WikiLeaks to release?
That is an incorrect quote. Trump said " “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,”. You are even twisting the very quote you are posting!!! 1) He didn't ask Russia to steal or leak her e-mails. 2) The Wikileaks documents WERE NOT the e-mails that Hillary Clinton destroyed (and btw they were destroyed after they were subpoenaed! and the guy who destroyed them was granted immunity!!!)
Nothing was proven here, this can be shown by the fact that Hillary never went to jail for any crime.
I was thinking more about the Benghazi investigations, all eight or, nine of them that went no where and, cost the American people millions of tax payer dollars, those were done by Republicans in Congress. Remember them? If you want to go the route of talking about Comey and, Lynch I can go there too. Comey released this just a few days before the election, many people feel this is what really cost Hillary the election, if Comey and, Lynch were "conspiring" with the Clinton campaign or, Obama and, Clinton this letter wouldn't have been released.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/mr-comeys-dangerous-october-surprise/2016/10/29/ee60d4c0-9e08-11e6-b3c9-f662adaa0048_story.html?utm_term=.a6f035cdd00c
Oh, for crying out oud.
Comey didn't cost your precious Abuela a damn thing.
He FUCKING EXONERATED her.
He HELPED her more than hurt her.
That right there is on par with her latest excuse for losing--that she was a capitalist!!
How did this exonerate her?
This was written on October 28, 2016, days before the election and, was reported on every news channel in the U.S. right up until the night before the election.
Now, we have derailed my seed long enough, get back on topic, which is the 70 subpoenas Mueller has asked for. If you wish to continue with the discussion of Hillary and, Comey then start a seed about it and, I'll be happy to continue that debate there.
Deleted
Author called off topic. {SP}
The author defines the topic and has the right to ask members to stay on topic (as defined) and not disrupt the article. If a member is violating the CoC with the apparent intent of disrupting or being arbitrarily argumentative, the author has the right to politely warn the member that they are violating the CoC and to stop or leave the article. Furthermore, the author may contact administration to remove all off topic / meta comments. Off topic or meta comments or CoC violations may be removed by moderators.
Maybe you should seed your own topic rather than trying to derail this one?
No, I could care less about your responses but, when they are nothing but, distractions like all the responses about Hillary and, Comey, and, the seed is about Mueller and, the Manafort case then I have the right as the seeder of the article to call you on it and, tell you to stop. As I said, if you want to continue to debate Comey start a seed and, I will come there and, debate you on it.
Thank you Skrekk.
Are you kidding?
Author called off topic {SP}
Get on topic or, leave this seed.
Deleted CoC [sp]
Refer to comment 6.2.10
Off topic.
I neither approve, nor disapprove of the investigation. I do disapprove of the massive amount of alt-right propaganda pissed out to distract from it though.
6.2.4 Galen Marvin Ross replied to Vic Eldred @6.2.3 11 hours ago
WERE NOT the e-mails that Hillary Clinton destroyed (and btw they were destroyed after they were subpoenaed! and the guy who destroyed them was granted immunity!!!)
Nothing was proven here, this can be shown by the fact that Hillary never went to jail for any crime.
I think you are making my point. You are really going to stand by the "investigation" of Hillary's e-mails as a real investigation? How do you justify the difference between the way Clinton was handled by Comey & Lynch and the rabid methods used by Mueller to bring down Trump?
I was thinking more about the Benghazi investigations, all eight or, nine of them that went no where and, cost the American people millions of tax payer dollars, those were done by Republicans in Congress. Remember them? If you want to go the route of talking about Comey and, Lynch I can go there too. Comey released this just a few days before the election, many people feel this is what really cost Hillary the election, if Comey and, Lynch were "conspiring" with the Clinton campaign or, Obama and, Clinton this letter wouldn't have been released.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/mr-comeys-dangerous-october-surprise/2016/10/29/ee60d4c0-9e08-11e6-b3c9-f662adaa0048_story.html?utm_term=.a6f035cdd00c
Please don't invite comments on topics you say you are willing to discuss and then chastise someone for responding to YOU.
very poor form and quite disingenuous.
Texan, refer to comment 6.2.10. If you or, anyone else try's to derail this seed again, I will have your comments removed.
No problem.'
In the future, can you tell me what posts of yours are off-topic so I don't run into this problem again?
How about you read the article and, the title of the article, that should tell you what the topic is.
I did that, sir.
I responded to YOUR post.
Are you saying you were off topic, and that is perfectly acceptable just because you are you? And no one can respond to your off topic posts?
Because if you are saying that, it would perfectly explain WHY I asked for a heads up next time you post something you have deemed to be off topic so I don't respond to your post and get flagged for it.
isn't that rather sensible?
Texan, I'm going to say this and, I'm not going to mention it any more. I admit and, admitted I was off topic, I said that we needed to get back on topic but, you continued to try to derail the topic and, the seed, just as you are trying to do now. So, either get on topic, if you have something to say about the seed that is relevant to the seed or, get off of the seed.
Off topic.
I'm going to lock this for now, I'll open it in the am.
Unlocked now.
unlocked now.