PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: Lucifer on July 09, 2018, 05:26:52 AM
-
This gets dirtier and dirtier by the minute.
http://dailycaller.com/2018/07/08/mueller-manafort-journalist-leak/
Justice Department documents released on Friday confirm that the DOJ attorney known as Robert Mueller’s “pit bull” arranged a meeting with journalists in April 2017 to discuss an investigation into Paul Manafort.
The documents show that Andrew Weissmann arranged a meeting with DOJ and FBI officials and four Associated Press reporters on April 11, 2017, just over a month before Mueller was appointed special counsel.
Manafort’s lawyers obtained the documents on June 29 and revealed them in a briefing filed in federal court in Virginia. The attorneys are pushing for a hearing into what they say are possible leaks of secret grand jury information, false information and potentially classified materials from the meeting.
“The meeting raises serious concerns about whether a violation of grand jury secrecy occurred,” a lawyer for Manafort, Kevin Downing, wrote in a motion requesting a hearing. “Based on the FBI’s own notes of the meeting, it is beyond question that a hearing is warranted.”
-
...just over a month before Mueller was appointed special counsel.
“The meeting raises serious concerns about whether a violation of grand jury secrecy occurred,”
Help me out - if Mueller wasn't appointed yet, then there was no grand jury and therefore no grand jury secrecy. What assumption is not being stated?
-
This article actually goes deeper and explains better: https://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2018/07/08/manafort-justice-department-reporters-701906
-
The moronic press needed someone to give them their orders.
-
Yeah, still not seeing it. This strikes me as much the same as Jr meeting with the Russian lawyer.
I can see that perhaps publicity tainted later proceedings. For example, it's possible evidence later sourced from the AP in order to investigate Manafort was actually originally supplied by the FBI or derived from information supplied by the FBI. I think there's a really good case to argue that the FBI is attempting to avoid the poison tree by having the AP do the poisoning.
But that isn't what this article is saying, it's trying to gin up indignation where something little happened. Policy said X, but normalization of deviancy means that agents were doing NOT X all the time.