Some Issues of Timing Revealed by Manafort’s Filings

New disclosure statement: As you all know, I provided information to the FBI on issues related to the Mueller investigation, so I’m going to include disclosure statements on Mueller investigation posts from here on out. I will include the disclosure whether or not the stuff I shared with the FBI pertains to the subject of the post. 

On Tuesday, Mueller’s team gave Paul Manafort the contents of Rick Gates’ electronic devices for the first time. Yesterday, after receiving another large dump of evidence, Manafort moved to delay his July 25 trial, a motion the Mueller team objected to.

Those are just a few of the details revealed by a slew of filings submitted in Manafort’s EDVA case yesterday. Those filings include:

  1. The government’s opposition to a motion Manafort submitted in June trying to keep all mention of the Trump campaign, the DC case against him, and the fact he got thrown in jail in the DC case from being introduced in his EDVA trial
  2. A motion to move his trial from Alexandria to Roanoke based on some crazy claims but ultimately boiling down to Manafort’s belief that if he is tried by a jury of his sleazy political influence peddling peers, he’s more likely to go to prison
  3. A supplement to Manafort’s bid to get a hearing on leaks, which includes January and February discovery request letters and two electronic communications describing a meeting between the FBI and the AP from April 2017; all of those exhibits are worth reading but I won’t deal with them here
  4. A motion to delay his trial until sometime after the DC one

It’s the first and the fourth items that I’m interested in here.

emptywheel’s Continuing Obsession with Paul Manafort’s 404(b) Notice

Folks seem to pretty much understand my continuing obsession with Paul Manafort’s iPod habit (or rather, his efforts to deem the seizure of his eight iPods improper). Perhaps less obviously interesting is my continuing obsession with the 404(b) notices in his two cases, which are the way lawyers fight over whether evidence of related crimes can be admitted in trial. In Manafort’s case, I think this fight may reveal something about how Mueller sees the various pieces of the puzzle fitting together.

As I previously noted, the government fought to delay disclosure of 404(b) in the DC case until June 15. When they did submit the 404(b) notice in that case, the government said they want to include evidence of three other crimes, two of which happen to be New York State crimes (the apartment in question is a Trump Tower one) that might be charged in the state.

Here’s the 404(b) motion. Mueller wants to introduce three things:

  • Evidence that one reason that Manafort and others arranged for [Skadden Arps] to be retained for the de minimis sum of approximately $12,000—even though they knew at the time that Law Firm A proposed a budget of at least $4 million—was to avoid certain limitations imposed by Ukrainian public procurement law.
  • Evidence that Manafort was treating a NYC apartment as a business property with the IRS but as a personal dwelling with a lender.
  • Evidence that Manafort structured intra-Cypriot funds to hide income.

The first of those two, of course, involve crimes in NY state.

In the EDVA case, I had suspected that the government asked TS Ellis to issue a discovery order to make it clear they wouldn’t provide 404(b) notice in this case until a week before trial — I got the date wrong but I think it’d be July 18 — but can move to avoid any pretrial notice.

So maybe that’s what Mueller’s trying to get Manafort to agree to. The EDVA standard order he’s trying to get him to use would require 404(b) notice by July 17, but permits the government to request avoiding such pretrial notice.

It is further ORDERED that, no later than seven calendar days before trial, the government shall provide notice to the defendant, in accordance with FED. R. EVID. 404(b), of the general nature of any evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts of defendant which it intends to introduce at trial, except that, upon motion of the government and for good cause shown, the court may excuse such pretrial notice.

Yesterday’s opposition to Manafort’s bid to limit what it can say about the Trump campaign and the DC case confirms I was (at least partly) correct — the government wanted a discovery order so they can avoid telling Manafort what they want to raise at trial.

The defendant’s request to preclude evidence relating to the District of Columbia case is a premature effort to preclude evidence under Rule 404(b). See Doc. 93 at 5 n.1 (“[T]his motion is being filed in the event that the Special Counsel seeks at trial to introduce evidence or advance arguments concerning ‘other act’ evidence.”). The standard practice in the Eastern District of Virginia, as referenced in the Government’s proposed discovery order (Doc. 83 at 7), is that the government provide notice of Rule 404(b) evidence it intends to introduce at trial seven days before trial. Although the defendant has not responded to the Government’s Motion for Entry of Discovery Order, the government intends to follow the District’s standard practice with respect to Rule 404(b) notice. It nevertheless bears noting that contrary to the defendant’s characterization, there is substantial overlap between the evidence in District of Columbia case and the one before this Court. The Superseding Indictment in the District of Columbia alleges tax fraud that overlaps with the substantive tax charges in the Eastern District of Virginia.

In other words, in a filing arguing that the government should be able to bring in details about both the Trump campaign (because some of the loans he’s being tried for he only obtained by getting the banker a position on the Trump campaign) and about Gates’ guilty plea in DC (but not about the crimes that Manafort allegedly committed while on bail that got him thrown in prison), Mueller’s team makes it clear they intend to wait to tell Manafort what other crimes they might mention at the EDVA trial until July 18.

In any case, this opposition motion would seem to limit how much Mueller can mention about the collusion case in chief to a description of that loan. So it’s probably just that Mueller has some other activity, akin to the NY based crime they plan to introduce in the DC case, perhaps some criminal activity that can be charged in VA, that they plan to introduce at trial. In any case, they’re not going to release it for another 10 days or so.

The big discovery dump

Sometime after 6:28 yesterday, Manafort submitted his motion to delay his trial to sometime after his other one. Now, as Josh Gerstein noted in response to my pestering him to review Manafort’s “rocket docket” strategy of splitting this trial from his DC one, Manafort lawyer Kevin Downing always wanted to do the DC one first.

Manafort attorney Kevin Downing requested the Virginia case be set for sometime in November, after the Washington trial. Downing told Ellis the defense needs time to assemble legal motions in both cases and to prepare for the back-to-back trials.

“This is a massive indictment,” the defense attorney said. “We were envisioning a trial in this case in November, following the case in D.C.”

So effectively, what Manafort did was wait until the very last minute, and then ask for what they wanted in the first place, this trial to go second. To justify the delay, his lawyers are citing the difficulties posed by him being in jail (which is a fair reason, but one most similarly situated defendants don’t get concessions for).

But I’m interested in the depiction of the latest discovery received that they also use to make the request.

Indeed, in terms of discovery, defense counsel has continued to receive voluminous amounts from the Special Counsel up-to-the-moment. Thus far, there have been twenty-three (23) discovery productions, the most recent of which was produced to the defense at 6:28 p.m. today, July 6, 2018 (i.e., the same date that this motion for a continuance is being filed)—a mere 19 days before the scheduled trial in this case. The Special Counsel’s production today appears to contain approximately 50,000 pages of new documents. Indeed, this is despite the Special Counsel’s representations earlier this year that discovery was complete, or nearly complete.4 In fact, since May the defense has received seven discovery productions which include at least 140,000 pages of material. The Special Counsel’s next most-recent disclosure—coming on July 3, 2018 (a mere 22 days prior to the scheduled trial)—includes data obtained from the primary cooperating witness’s personal electronic devices and will require extensive review and analysis. (This is the same witness who resolved his case in the District of Columbia in February of this year.) Moreover, defense counsel’s review of the discovery produced to date has been unusually timeconsuming because discovery relevant to this case has often been co-mingled with discovery that appears relevant solely to the D.C. Case. As the Court observed at the recent motions hearing, this is primarily a documents case, and defense counsel require additional time to thoroughly review and analyze with their client the voluminous documents produced by the Special Counsel. It is critically important for the defense to have sufficient time to review the discovery with Mr. Manafort because he understands many of the relevant documents (and their context) better than anyone else.

4 See, e.g., Doc. 20 (filed Feb. 28, 2018) at 7 (“[W]e believe that almost all of the relevant discovery in this matter in our possession has already been produced in the course of the District of Columbia prosecution.”); see also D.C. Case, Doc. 146 (filed Jan. 12, 2018) at 1 (“As of the date of this filing, the government has completed a substantial portion of the discovery in this case.”).

Now, I await Mueller’s response to this, as I suspect Manafort is obscuring that, to the extent it pertains to this trial, this recent discovery has more to do with Mueller’s obligations to give Manafort discovery on incriminating evidence against people who will be witnesses at the trial. He’s also obscuring how discovery happened in this case, which started coming 20 days after he was indicted in DC in October and for which the most pertinent materials were identified as “hot.” The full context of the document he cites in that footnote reads,

In addition, we believe that almost all of the relevant discovery in this matter in our possession has already been produced in the course of the District of Columbia prosecution. The government made its first production on November 17, 2017, which included: (1) foreign bank account records for the accounts in Cyprus and Saint Vincent & the Grenadines; (2) domestic financial records; and (3) documents from Manafort’s tax preparer that were identified by the government as particularly relevant. In ensuing ten productions, the government has produced a range of emails, financial documents and other records, as well as materials obtained from a number of different devices and media. 4 As of February 28, 2018, the government had made eleven separate discovery productions to the defendant. In addition, the government also has produced for the defendant documents that it identified as “hot.”

So Manafort had 7 months to review the most important discovery in this case working from home confinement. Manafort is also, surely, obscuring how much of this discovery pertains to the DC case (which is still two months away), not this EDVA one.

These motions were due on Friday in any case, and as Gerstein pointed out, Downing always wanted to do this trial after the DC one, so it’s unlikely this request for a continuance is a response to the discovery he got last week. And the late filing might be best explained by a late edit to incorporate yesterday’s production in the motion. The motion for a continuance is far, far better drafted than the goofy venue change one.

But I do find it interesting that Mueller is just now showing Manafort what he found in Rick Gates’ electronic devices. I wonder if, in doing so, he expected Manafort to rethink his willingness to run interference for Donald Trump? If so, then the request for a continuance would be rather interesting.

image_print
68 replies
  1. Bob Conyers says:

    “I wonder if, in doing so, he expected Manafort to rethink his willingness to run interference for Donald Trump? If so, then the request for a continuance would be rather interesting.”

    Is the implication here that the request for continuance is a *possible* indication that that Manafort is rethinking his options?

    • emptywheel says:

      It’s probably not here, for the detail Gerstein noted: they’ve always wanted to do this.

      But usually, when people are discussing with the government about a plea deal, their cases get continued.

    • emptywheel says:

      When Gates flipped it was emphasized to me that for a key period of the campaign, he was carrying Trump’s phone.

      So … sort of?

        • Burt Berman says:

          Hmm.  Interesting.  So, the unlisted number that Jr. called before/after meeting, June 9; wonder who had possession of THAT device at the time…

        • SpaceLifeForm says:

          Possession being nine tenths of the law…

          What Mueller knows is the location of the phone, and the conversations involved.

          But what could be missing is the possibility that there was someone there that was just listening to the conversations without speaking. Phone in speaker mode.

          Now, consider a listener there (not speaking), but has an iPod.

          Possessor of phone could have been silent.

          Possessor of phone may also have possessed an iPod.

          Another person (not possessor) may also been a non-speaker with an iPod.

          Of course the entire convo was probably caught via Stingray, but will not id non-speakers with certainty.

        • earlofhuntingdon says:

          It would be poor tradecraft, but it’s the Don we’re talking about.  So, yes, it could be.

          Normally, a chief of staff would ride herd on comms protocols for WH staff, the president included.  That didn’t happen here, because the Don is as disciplined as a drunken high schooler on a hot date.  He’s also paranoid, and doesn’t want his official WH to know everything he does.  (A lesson he would have learned from Roy Cohn: compartmentalize everything.)

          Mostly, though, it’s because the Don is unique and no rule applies to him, even ones meant to keep him out of jail.

        • SpaceLifeForm says:

          Do not believe number ever changed.

          Think ‘back-channel’.

          Phone only used for ‘special occasions’.
          No calls or texts normally.

          Scenario:

          Manafort gets the ‘back-channel’ phone.
          Hands off to Cohen to keep the signal in NY.
          Cohen never answers/calls or texts.

          But when a ‘special occasion’ comes up, he gets over to TT.

  2. Peterr says:

    So Manafort had 7 months to review the most important discovery in this case working from home confinement. Manafort is also, surely, obscuring how much of this discovery pertains to the DC case (which is still two months away), not this EDVA one.

    Two questions:

    (1) How likely is this judge to slap Team Manafort on the wrist for “obscuring” their representation of when they received this material, and how much applies solely to this case? It seems to me that this is a prime way for a lawyer to piss a judge off.

    (2) As a matter of procedure, do the two judges ever talk to coordinate schedules when defendants are simultaneously charged in two jurisdictions, or do they leave that to the opposing sides to bring to each court’s attention?

    • emptywheel says:

      They won’t get slapped. It’s just that as soon as Mueller’s people point out what I just have, Ellis will rule for Mueller (the continuation was unlikely in any case).

      As for the scheduling, in this case the two sides submitted a joint request for a one day delay on the trial bc of a hearing in the DC case.

      • bmaz says:

        Right. It is fine to file it to protect the record for appeal, but it ain’t happening.

        • Avattoir says:

          Right. Any court jurisdiction that prides itself on being known as a ‘rocket docket’ has confronted a myriad of ploys aimed at overcoming that rep and derived from those an array of responses to bat them away.

          If any such an effort is blatant at this remove from the battlefield, you can take as a given that the court itself is all over it.

        • emptywheel says:

          Not to mention that, as I mentioned, that particular venue is critical to many NatSec trials. I think the court likes it that way (Ellis certainly likes presiding over spy trials) so they’re not going to create a means to frivolously challenge the venue). And that filing is nothing but frivolous, as I unpacked on twitter.

  3. x174 says:

    mt–
    appreciate the details regarding the continuing machinations that both sides are pursuing in camera. the persistent delays sought by team manafort often seemed politically motivated (trying to push these trials past november). the latest requests for delays seem more substantive–based on newly discovered evidence, such as what was on gates/trump’s phones. if that is the case, then i am not sure why mueller would object to request for more time since on its face it seems so reasonable. maybe it’s just become a habit due to manafort’s persistent delaying tactics.

    thanks for staying so on top of these intriguing and seemingly continuously complexifying cases against those well known malefactors of Trump World

  4. Burt Berman says:

    So is the thinking that June 9th meeting taped by Manafort on iPod, or transferred to or from ipod(s)?

      • pseudonymous in nc says:

        FWIW, you can record with the iOS Voice Memos app while taking notes in another app (like, um, Notes).

      • Rusharuse says:

        . . assume there’s a copy sitting in a Fedex box addressed to the IAIJ. In case of fire(d)!

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      Pretty cocky thing to record, evidence of a crime involving a presidential wannabe and/or his son, son-in-law, and campaign manager.  Juggling balls of fire, unless they were all talking about Little Orphan Anya and the Yankees’ pennant chances.

      • Burt Berman says:

        Perhaps if meeting was recorded on Manafort device, he may not have known it—ie, the device he normally carried would have been turned into a mobile recording studio (one Track) by _______.

      • Avattoir says:

        A cardinal rule of the bidnitz Manafort entered when he first joined Stone Atwater Black et al is that information is power that loses force unless recorded.

        Telling someone you think is considering going rogue ‘ that’s not how I remember it ‘ isn’t nearly as effective as ‘ that’s not what my records show ‘.

        • earlofhuntingdon says:

          Indeed.  I should have remembered my Eisler, Suarez and le Carre.

          One would think, though, that Paulie would be a tad better at hiding and encrypting such things.  Perhaps there is a trove of things as yet undiscovered.  Or is Paulie stuck in the culture of snail mail and print media?

        • Bob Conyers says:

          Remember the incident where Manafort got caught emailing a PDF to Gates because Manafort was unable to figure out how to alter it himself when he was trying to fool his bank?

          I suspect that one of Gates’s main responsibilities was IT assistance for Manafort, so that one of the big reasons Gates got a big break from Mueller would be that Gates knows almost everything — passwords, where files were hidden, what devices were used during meetings, where backups were kept, and so on. He may well have kept a lot of backups himself for fear that Manafort would lose or destroy them.

          If Manafort was recording meetings, I suspect Gates would be the one to make sure recordings got off the device, that backups were made, and so on.

          If this is true, it would go a long way toward explaining why Mueller is acting like he is OK with not cutting a deal with Manafort — it would mean that Gates is able to unlock so much documentation that Manafort’s value as a witness isn’t that high.

        • Valley girl says:

          Sorta off topic, but not.  Belated thanks for posting this interview on EW, way back when– August 2017.

          https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/25/books/review/john-le-carre-ben-macintyre-british-spy-thrillers.html

          A lot of water under the bridge since then.  But I just reread it, and still find it interesting.

          Minor point, but I spent 1975-1986 as an academic in Cambridge, England.  So I heard about the spy culture.

          At the same time, I read a lot of thrillers and mysteries.

          Including “The spy who came in from the Cold”.

          FWIW

           

        • earlofhuntingdon says:

          Pre- and post-Thatcher.  A lot of changes in England and Cambridge in those years.  Fun to hear about them.  An unusually good interview from the Times, by Sarah Lyall.  A few highlights from le Carre:

          Hypocrisy is the British national sport.

          President Trump’s view of the truth parallels Robert Maxwell’s. [Maxwell was a disgraced former press lord, who looted corporate treasuries and who is thought to have committed suicide on his yacht, while trying to escape, c. 1991.]

          Trump isn’t a half, a tenth as rich as he pretends to be.

          Russian kompromat on Trump?  Yes.

        • Valley girl says:

          Oh, I have plenty of stories.  But, this not the place to share them.  Except one, I’ll indulge in.  Arrived in Cambridge and went to the lab of my post-doc advisor.  Another man was there- head of the ARC part of the dept (I’ll call him John).  I unwittingly interrupted their conversation about the news that the (former) head of the department had just committed suicide.  So, I walk into the lab, and introduce myself.  John looks me up and down, shakes his head, and says “well, my, my, with a name like yours, I was expecting a Black Jew”.  This, of course, was his idea of humour.

          Yeah, Cambridge was a laugh a minute.  /s

        • earlofhuntingdon says:

          Oxford is cosmopolitan compared to Cambridge, larger city, more diverse economy.  The university dominates the city slightly less than does Cambridge.

          Sexism and racism in the seventies, especially during the annual rag week, would have been of Kingsley Amis proportions.  The levels of complexity in the social scale are legendary, long pre-dating Kissinger’s restatement of the truism, “Academic politics are so fierce because the stakes are so low.”

        • Valley girl says:

          oh, and I didn’t need to read that interview to learn that there was Russian kompromat on Trump.  I had long known that.  I mean in the “educated guess” way of knowing.

        • bmaz says:

          Heh, nothing but respect from us here. Also, hell of a race at Silverstone today. Fantastic racing.

        • Valley girl says:

          Well, rest assured that I was not speaking about Brits in general.  I was talking about Cambridge, specifically.

          On occasion I did have the opportunity to travel outside Cambridge.  I almost fell off my bus seat in Oxford, when someone voluntarily spoke to me.  That is not done in Cambridge.

          And, with opportunities to travel more widely in England and Scotland and Wales, I discovered that people in Cambridge (tho I haven’t been back since) really are/were minus zero something on the friendliness scale.

          I’m leaving next Monday to visit some old, dear friends in Sevington St. Stephens.  Staying 3 weeks.

          I’m sure we’ll have a lot to discuss.  Husband, Bob, asked me long ago in an email “why hasn’t someone already shot Trump to death?”

      • emptywheel says:

        Except you’re not working for the presidential wannabe. You’re working for a bunch of ruthless RU oligarchs who are intent on obtaining receipts for election year assistance ahead of time.

        • earlofhuntingdon says:

          Then there’s the kompromat.  It can have all sorts of uses over time, like persuading the Don to issue a pardon to Paulie.  Or, persuading Vlad that you delivered the mouse to the trap and that he took the bait. 

          The topic might come up in that one-on-one pre-meeting Vlad is holding with his minion. So, Paulie was not really working for free when he was the Don’s campaign manager.

        • SteveB says:

          I surprises me how few people are prepared to look at Manafort that way ie to view him not as the Trump man being reached out to by Russians, but the oligarch’s man inside team Trump.

        • earlofhuntingdon says:

          The analogous observation is that this whole affair is less about the useful idiot Donald Trump, and more about the dangerous interference of Putin’s Russia.

          The interference is not just in our election system – as frail and important as that is.  It is with our foreign and trade policies and the system of alliances we have depended on for two generations.  It is about how those policies and alliances are being changed, by whom, in whose interest.

          That that should make us rethink our own long history of foreign interference is an important, but separate issue.

        • SteveB says:

          Yep. I realise that some progressive blogs, websites etc pooh pooh the Russia collusion investigation, and dismiss progressive voices focussing on it as being prey to a sort of delusion wherein a mythical omnipotence and ability to manipulate is attributed to Putin.

          But I see it more as the people who work towards Putin chancing their arm with little schemes here and there to gain agents of influence high and low, and lucking out bigly with Trump.

          And Putin was not the only one to have this influence operation pulled off for him.

  5. Burt Berman says:

    … Unless you want a little more kompromat. + not so daring if you’re practiced at it. Or, have an A/V advisor on constant call.

  6. J R in WV says:

    Marcy,

    I notice that you use the term collusion; so many people are using the collusion word publicly. I’ve thought Trump team is using it because collusion isn’t really a term defined as a crime, as conspiracy is. Of course conspiracy to defraud the federal government is part of many of the indictments. Collusion doesn’t appear in any indictments that I’m aware of.

    IANAL… but I’m very curious as to why you would use the word collusion rather than the more common legal tern conspiracy?

    • bmaz says:

      For convenience to a larger audience. Trust me, if there is anybody that has understood that the correct term is conspiracy and not collusion, it is the people here. In fact, I’d say we were among the very first to stridently point that out.

    • SteveB says:

      Have you actually like you know read one of the most pertinent documents in the Manafort case, viz Rosenstien scope memo to Mueller 2 August 2017 ?

      See documentcloud.org/documents/4429989-Rod-Rosenstein-memo-outlining-scope-of-Mueller-

       

      May I refer you to page 1 -2 where Rosenstein identifies

      “The following allegations were within the scope of the investigation at the time of your appointment

      ….

      ●Allegations that Paul Manafort :

      ○Committed a crime or crimes by COLLUDING (my emphasis) with Russian government officials …”

       

      Collusion = a set of concealed acts and contacts between a number of parties for nefarious purposes which may constitute crimes or conspiracies to commit crime or may constitute merely barely legal arsehole-ery of the usual GOP sort.

    • emptywheel says:

      I try to scare quote it every time I use it. We’re talking conspiracy, not collusion. BUt sometimes I use the latter bc that’s how Trump has framed the split in the investigation into himself.

  7. Oldoilfieldhand says:

    Marcy,
    We appreciate your thought process, attention to detail and indefatiguable quest for knowledge. Do you think there is any chance that Manafort simply broke out a new iPad from his storage shed electronic stash for each new client he was representing or perhaps for each of his large-scale real estate transactions? He could of course copy any pertinent information from one to another while maintaining his own bread crumb trail through his electronic forest which only he could RICOnoiter.

  8. Frank Probst says:

    I don’t think the “Our Client Is in Jail” excuse really works here. Yes, Manafort’s in jail two hours away (by car, each direction) from his lawyers, but the WaPo has said (in one of the first articles it published on the conditions at the jail where Manafort is cooling his heels) that he has access to video conferencing equipment so that he can meet with his attorneys remotely. I’m assuming that there is also some mechanism to send Manafort documents that are protected by attorney-client privilege. Given that, I don’t see how the fact that he’s in jail is making it harder to prepare his defense.

    • BSChief says:

      The “Client in jail” excuse loses any minuscule luster it might possess when you consider why the client happens to be in jail.

  9. Frank Probst says:

    RE:  “Evidence that Manafort structured intra-Cypriot funds to hide income.”

    Are there any tax lawyers that work in New York State here?  I think that this might also translate into a New York State crime.  If he’s doing this to cheat on his federal income taxes, then he’s almost certainly cheating on his New York State income taxes, too.  And I’d guess that federal income tax fraud and state income tax fraud are distinct crimes.

    • emptywheel says:

      Not sure why his residency would be calculated as NY for those charges. For the rest it is VA, which is why this trial is in EDVA.

      I think it quite possible there’s a way to get venue there. It’s just not as obvious as the Trump Tower real estate.

  10. bie phiephus says:

    Defendants have the option of venue in their state of residency for federal tax crimes. For state taxes, it would turn on where the income was earned. Foreign income would be attributable to the state of residence, so that would circle back to VA as well. But if there was any NY-source income, or if any of Manafort’s various entities were formed or did business in NY, then the state of NY may a case as well.

  11. greengiant says:

    OT On small chance you don’t know this web page is FUBAR under both chrome and firefox browsers, One effect is comments can not be read. Kind of odd after the mention of attacks on ew..
    2018/07/08/the-state-of-trumps-anti-mueller-strategy page info Monday, July 9, 2018, 12:10:10 AM page source, differences should be obvious to the support team. reference to wordpress missing in FUBAR page. First attempt at reply here got a 403 error.
    Delete this at will. Thanks.

    • greengiant says:

      The latest post, the state of Trump’s anti-Miller strategy, was the one damaged. None of 13 comments in page source, not to mention all sorts of other formatting stuff missing.

      • TheraP says:

        Problems also affecting Safari.  For the latest post, unable to see comments or post a comment there.  And can’t navigate from there to within the rest of the website.

        My great sympathy for what you IT experts are going through simply trying to publish and maintain this site.

        Thankfully the children are gradually being rescued in Thailand.  (We may need a worldwide rescue ourselves one of these days.  As cave-dwellers  in a nation gone mad from the top!)

      • SteveB says:

        @ greengiant et al

        I checked in to this thread to see whether entire site affected or just latest page : seems to be continuing problem with latter.

        Hope just a glitch. Best wishes to site authors and all well intentioned visitors

        • Trip says:

          I’m having the same issue, and the page appears bright white (not beige-ish, like others), and with different fonts than the rest of the site. The article has 13 comments listed (as of 9:33 AM), but I can’t access them.

    • bmaz says:

      Folks, I saw this when posted. I am sorry  you guys are having problems, but I have looked at both the front end and back end, and cannot find an issue, nor see one on my computer. Admittedly I am not a tech genius, but have been around the blog long enough to see obvious problems. I’ll make sure Marcy knows.

    • readerOfTeaLeaves says:

      Yes, colossal stupidity of Trump.  I was just in a red state, and I always find it intriguing that some politically conservative people that I know are also extremely pro-family, and fairly libertarian.  Trump has (or had) a lot of support in that region, and I have to really watch what I say when I visit.

      If Trump wanted to rub his supporters faces in filth and mire, screwing with nursing mothers was the ultimate insult.

      It will be interesting to see how he f*cks with Apple Pie.  Or, perhaps, to see how he follows Putin’s orders on how to f*ck with Apple Pie.

  12. SteveB says:

    @ All
    While the “State of Trump’s Anti-Mueller etc” thread is disabled I will take the lìberty of posting remarks about it here.

    Re Kasowitz and Dowd letters.
    It is odd that they should leak now rather than earlier.
    However given how crap Kasowitz seems to be it is a sign of desparation to rely on him to argue anything: the first line of his letter must have elicited guffaws from the accomplished and literate member of Mueller team assigned to read it to the room:

    “This letter outlines various facts disabling Mr. James Comey’s credibility and his testimony and complaints about the President”

    The conspiracist-on-my-shoulder wonders whether Kasowitz shared a sub-editor with Louise Mensch?

    • Trip says:

      The letters sounded as though written by petulant children who thought name calling, use of derogatory adjectives as well as pejoratives made for proper substitutes of evidence and facts.

      These letters aren’t for Mueller, but the lunactic fringe of the cult along with the Republicans giving the worst president in history high marks.

      Frankly, I can’t take their shit anymore, and the cries of “Wolf!”. I have gotten to where I discount them outright.

Comments are closed.