Con man gets snared in
his own con
By
David Cay Johnston, DCReport Editor-in-Chief
Pay close attention to
the front page story in Wednesday’s New
York Times about Paul
Manafort’s lawyer cooperating with Trump’s lawyers.
It may well prove to be very important news just a short way down the road.
It may well prove to be very important news just a short way down the road.
Bob Somerby at The
Daily Howler, among others, has poked fun at the piece since it basically has one key new fact,
not the torrent of them we find in so many other important stories about Trump
White House intrigues.
Its sole named source
is Rudy Giuliani, Trump’s television lawyer.
Giuliani acknowledged that information gleaned from Manafort’s meetings with FBI agents and prosecutors as a cooperating witness was being passed to Team Trump by Manafort lawyer Kevin Downing.
Giuliani acknowledged that information gleaned from Manafort’s meetings with FBI agents and prosecutors as a cooperating witness was being passed to Team Trump by Manafort lawyer Kevin Downing.
That one fact could
well doom Trump’s presidency and perhaps land Trump and others behind bars.
As The Times notes, there is nothing illegal about what Downing did. That said, this double-agentish conduct would make excellent fodder for law school lectures on ethics, law enforcement and risky criminal defense strategies.
After Manafort
was convicted of
eight federal felonies last August and was about to endure the costs of a second federal
trial, the former Trump campaign manager agreed in
September to cooperate with Muller’s prosecution team.
We call that
“flipping” because you switch sides, from criminal to law enforcement. Flipping
requires criminals to be completely truthful in every detail with prosecutors
about known crimes as well as disclosing still hidden criminal activity.
In breaking its
plea agreement with Manafort, the special prosecutor’s office said that after flipping
sides, Manafort lied to FBI agents and prosecutors again and
again. They promised a detailed recitation of these additional
crimes in their pre-sentencing report on Manafort.
That Mueller’s team
knew enough to say it can prove Manafort lied repeatedly and committed new
crimes in doing so had to vex Trump.
Now jump forward to
the days after this fall’s congressional elections, when the White House
revealed that Trump was working with his own lawyers to answer written
questions submitted by Mueller’s team.
The day after the
election, Trump forced the resignation of Jeff Sessions as attorney general and
installed Matt Whitaker, an Iowa lawyer deeply involved in an investment scam
who had repeatedly said he favored shutting down the Russia investigation and
disbanding the Mueller team.
Two days after Sessions’ removal, multiple news reports appeared about “Manafort’s apparent lack of cooperation” resulting in “increasingly tense” talks with Mueller’s team.
ABC News, citing one source familiar with the talks, reported that Mueller’s team is “not getting what they want” from Manafort. Leaks of this kind never come from prosecutors, indicating a new shift in strategy by lawyers for Trump and his potential co-defendants.
Two days after Sessions’ removal, multiple news reports appeared about “Manafort’s apparent lack of cooperation” resulting in “increasingly tense” talks with Mueller’s team.
ABC News, citing one source familiar with the talks, reported that Mueller’s team is “not getting what they want” from Manafort. Leaks of this kind never come from prosecutors, indicating a new shift in strategy by lawyers for Trump and his potential co-defendants.
Two days after the
election, Trump told a Rupert Murdoch-owned newspaper, the New York Post, that
he would not “rule out” a pardon for Manafort, a signal to the jailed
felon that he was still in good stead with Trump.
Trump reiterated that position, which could be seen as obstruction of justice by dangling a pardon to cover up Trumpian crimes.
Trump reiterated that position, which could be seen as obstruction of justice by dangling a pardon to cover up Trumpian crimes.
If Trump and his lawyer relied on what
Manafort’s lawyer passed on from meetings with Team Mueller, this double-agent
legal game may blow up in Trump’s face.
Significantly, Whitaker
has not been confirmed by the Senate, making his appointment contrary to our
Constitution.
At a testy White House press conference on Nov. 9, Trump said “I don’t know Matt Whitaker” and was unaware of Whitaker’s strong views on Mueller’s Russia investigation, a surprisingly blatant lie even by Trumpian standards since in October Trump spoke of his regard for Whitaker.
At a testy White House press conference on Nov. 9, Trump said “I don’t know Matt Whitaker” and was unaware of Whitaker’s strong views on Mueller’s Russia investigation, a surprisingly blatant lie even by Trumpian standards since in October Trump spoke of his regard for Whitaker.
On Nov. 15, Trump
wrote this tweet: “The inner workings of the Mueller investigation are a total
mess. They have found no collusion and have gone absolutely nuts. They are
screaming and shouting at people, horribly threatening them to come up with the
answers they want. They are a disgrace to our Nation…”
On the very next day,
Friday, Nov. 16, he said that he had finished preparing written answers to
questions posed by Mueller. He also insisted that he wrote his own answers, not
relying on his lawyers except for legal form, and they were easy questions to
answer.
The idea that
Mueller’s extraordinary team was clueless about the sincerity of Manafort’s
conduct after he claimed to have flipped to the prosecution’s side seems
preposterous.
More likely the
prosecutors quickly figured out that Manafort was insincere and exploited the
hubris of two con artists, Manafort and Trump, letting them walk down their own
primrose path [See Hamlet, Act I, Scene 3].
If Trump and his
lawyer relied on what Downing passed on from meetings with Team Mueller, using
it to shape the written answers to Mueller’s questions, this double-agent legal
game may blow up in Trump’s face.
Police and prosecutors
are allowed to lie to suspects. They do it all the time, planting fake facts to
draw out criminal conduct and establish conspiracies.
If they had indeed figured out that Manafort was not being straight with them they could easily frame questions to mislead, offer fake facts, withhold real facts and imply ignorance to flush out Trump.
If they had indeed figured out that Manafort was not being straight with them they could easily frame questions to mislead, offer fake facts, withhold real facts and imply ignorance to flush out Trump.
Keep in mind that
Trump is a terrible witness. That’s why he fought testifying before a grand
jury and answering only written questions.
As I showed in my 2016
biography, The Making of
Donald Trump, he has a long and
well-documented history of just making stuff up even when he is under oath,
trying to bluff his way out of situations and, especially, counting on
prosecutors and plaintiff’s lawyers not being fully prepared and determined to pin
down facts.
A federal judge, after a trial over his failure to pay several hundred illegal immigrants working on the Trump Tower project, found Trump’s testimony not credible.
A federal judge, after a trial over his failure to pay several hundred illegal immigrants working on the Trump Tower project, found Trump’s testimony not credible.
Trump is highly
susceptible to hearing what he wants to hear. And he can be frighteningly
gullible, as we have seen in his loving embrace of North Korean dictator Kim
Jong Un, modern tsar Vladimir Putin and other totalitarians.
Fed the misinformation
by Team Mueller—which it has every right and duty to if it will flush out
crimes—Trump would be inclined to embrace fake facts and use them in an effort
to escape responsibility for his conduct.
If I’m right about
this, it may become crucial for state-level prosecutors in New York, Virginia,
and the District of Columbia to indict Manafort sooner rather than later for
felonies that he admitted under oath in his now broken cooperation agreement
with Mueller.
That way, if Trump
pardons Manafort, or grants him clemency, state authorities can arrest him
before he is released from federal custody, closing any window of opportunity
he might use to flee the country.
If you missed The
Times report by Michael S. Schmidt, Sharon LaFraniere and Maggie Haberman, I
recommend you read it—and maybe save a copy for future reference.