Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Wednesday, December 05, 2018

Spinning off from the special counsel's Russia probe, prosecutors are ramping up their investigation into foreign lobbying by two major Washington firms that did work for former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, according to people familiar with the matter. The investigation had been quiet for months since special counsel Robert Mueller referred it to authorities in Manhattan because it fell outside his mandate of determining whether the Trump campaign coordinated with Russia. But in a flurry of new activity, Justice Department prosecutors in the last several weeks have begun interviewing witnesses and contacting lawyers to schedule additional questioning related to the Podesta Group and Mercury Public Affairs, the people familiar with the inquiry said. They spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the ongoing work.

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Podesta/Mercury/Craig (couldn't fit the last name in the title):

Mueller's referral also involved Greg Craig, a former White House counsel for President Barack Obama. Craig supervised a report authored on behalf of the Ukrainian government, and Mueller's team has said Manafort helped Ukraine hide that it paid more than $4 million for the work. CNN reported in September that prosecutors were weighing charges against Craig.

#1 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-12-05 03:28 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

One of my partners is a former AUSA here in LA and he told me that former colleagues gave him the heads up that this was coming this week and that in part it was related to Manafort's breach of the plea deal.

We shall see how it shakes out, but it doesn't look good for Greg Craig or Skadden.

#2 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-12-05 03:57 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Maybe our stupid supreme court should have considered that other nations might use campaign donations to control US foreign policy when they declared that money is speech.

Russia used the NRA for this purpose in 2016.

#3 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-12-05 08:22 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

'Maybe our stupid supreme court should have considered that other nations might use campaign donations to control US foreign policy when they declared that money is speech."

Duh! Your post is on point. Perfectly. The SC is the enabler of election theft, corporate power over employees, several other misdeeds, does anyone here honestly believe it is due to their diligence in application of the law? Or, are they just another political arm of the Republican Party.

I know, too many of you are Republicans and can't think for yourselves. You'll get your opinions tomorrow morning on Fox News.

#4 | Posted by danni at 2018-12-05 10:03 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

You'll get your opinions tomorrow morning on Fox News.

#4 | POSTED BY DANNI AT 2018-12-05 10:03 PM

Is that what that nice boy Rachel Maddow told you to think today?

#5 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-12-05 10:10 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Maybe our stupid supreme court should have considered that other nations might use campaign donations to control US foreign policy when they declared that money is speech.

Or maybe scuzbuckets like Manafort, Podesta and Craig should have thought twice about taking Ukrainian or Russian money and then try to hide it from the US Government.

In many countries they would be summarily shot for doing just that. Good for them we don't do that.

#6 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-12-05 10:20 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"In many countries they would be summarily shot for doing just that. Good for them we don't do that."

But is it good for us?
I'm pretty sure it's "No."

#7 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-12-05 10:22 PM | Reply

"Is that what that nice boy Rachel Maddow told you to think today?"

First, when you start out with an insult to a beautiful woman by calling her a boy...you are obviously unhinged.
Second, though I wish I did, I don't get MSNBC on my Comcast streaming system, haven't seen Rachel for about a year, who I do admit I love, but whom I understand I am far too old to consider myself a potential partner for her, for a very long time. She is certainly not a boy. She is a proud lesbian as am I and F you..! What a nasty post. Really worse than most here, almost to our unmoderated era but now quite and I know you only wish you were there with us when there was no moderation....you'll never read the nasty posts from that era which did frighten, open minds, revealed the inner evil of so many posters. You'll never be privvy to that craziness. Too bad for you. So insult Rachel Maddow, a person who you will never have the pleasure to meet but whom I would be so proud to have the opportunity to.

#8 | Posted by danni at 2018-12-05 10:40 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Know one thing about Rachel Maddow, I was a big fan before she was on TV. Whe was on radio here in Miami for several years before she became a big TV Star on MSNBC, which she had demonstrated the worthiness for her current position, but I enjoyed her on the radio for years. Rachel is perhaps, the most genuine person on TV, radio, etc. I love her, not sexually, but as the human being she is and I am so happy about her success because she is still the truth teller she was before she was making big bucks. Accolades RAchel. We are so proud of you! And I am part of many who feel this way.

#9 | Posted by danni at 2018-12-05 10:50 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Not sexually??? The age difference. I wish I were young, there wouldn't be any conflict about me an her, trust me on that. At least from my perspective. She's absolutely gorgeous. I reveal my true feelings. Dare any of you to do the same.

#10 | Posted by danni at 2018-12-05 10:52 PM | Reply

I know you only wish you were there with us when there was no moderation....you'll never read the nasty posts from that era which did frighten, open minds, revealed the inner evil of so many posters. You'll never be privvy to that craziness. Too bad for you.

Oh but I was Danni, I registered the same day you did (you are 21 and I am 22), but posted for at least 6 months before registration was required. You are obviously growing forgetful in your declining years or suck at numerical sequencing.

This might pour gasoline on the fire, but I did get a chance to meet her at the NAB convention in 2017. Nice enough but honestly she seemed way too impressed with herself and expected everyone to be similarly impressed. Unfortunately for Rachel, most of the people in the room that night were way too jaded to really care that much and mostly left her to herself.

And lighten up, my post about her being "a nice boy" was a joke. Sorry I dissed your unrequited crush.

#11 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-12-05 11:45 PM | Reply

Maybe our stupid supreme court should have considered that other nations might use campaign donations to control US foreign policy when they declared that money is speech.

Was it that the SC declared money as speech or was it that there was no requirement that all contribution source be revealed?

I don't have a problem with money being speech in-part because it tends to negate the influence of political parties. In fact, money as speech may be a necessary ingredient for the start of new political parties (ala Ross Perot). The big problem with money as speech is dark money; money whose source doesn't have to be revealed. Without anonymity, potential donors may think long and hard before making that contribution if their names were revealed.

#12 | Posted by FedUpWithPols at 2018-12-06 06:04 AM | Reply

Maybe our stupid supreme court should have considered that other nations might use campaign donations to control US foreign policy when they declared that money is speech.
Russia used the NRA for this purpose in 2016.

#3 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY AT 2018-12-05 08:22 PM | FLAG:

So long as they get rich off of it, they don't care.

Such patriots.

#13 | Posted by 726 at 2018-12-06 07:10 AM | Reply

"Maybe our stupid supreme court should have considered that other nations might use campaign donations to control US foreign policy when they declared that money is speech."

We should all recall President Obama basically saying that in his SOU Speech while Alito sat there shaking his head denying anything like this would ever happen. Sold out hacks should not sit on our SC.

#14 | Posted by danni at 2018-12-06 11:02 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"I don't have a problem with money being speech in-part because it tends to negate the influence of political parties."

I have a big problem with it. Money being speech is just plain nonsense. It is not a fact. We are asked to believe that citizenship is not something money can't buy. That our politics are for sale. I can deal with political parties but without big money corrupting the process.

#15 | Posted by danni at 2018-12-06 11:04 AM | Reply

I don't have a problem with money being speech in-part because it tends to negate the influence of political parties.
#12 | Posted by FedUpWithPols

No it negates the influence of VOTERS and empowers DONORS.

It's the root cause of most of america's problems today.

#16 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-12-06 01:10 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"I don't have a problem with money being speech in-part because it tends to negate the influence of political parties."

You mean like when a PAC runs attack ads?

That only negates the influence of the party being attacked.

The reason to keep all money out is money is fungible. There's no real way to keep foreign money out. Public finance of elections is the only way to keep dark money out.

#17 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-12-06 01:19 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

No it negates the influence of VOTERS and empowers DONORS.

^
This.

Allowing money in politics gives rich people more say than poor people.

Almost everybody in the GOP thinks that's the way things ought to be.

Just ask them, they'll tell you.

#18 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-12-06 01:21 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Just ask them, they'll tell you.

#18 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

What they'll always tell you is "we're not a democracy". They don't believe in democracy (here or anywhere else) and their actions prove it over and over. Because in a democracy they would lose every time.

#19 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2018-12-06 03:23 PM | Reply

"Is that what that nice boy Rachel Maddow told you to think today?"

I don't even get MSNBC on my streaming system dumbass, very pathetic reply to my comment. It's as if Fox News has programmed you to use Rachel Maddow as a weapon to, somehow, undermine the truth of other posters comments. In reality, where you rarely visit, I love Rachel Maddow, but I cut costs and cable TV was a major cost so we dropped it. I would get more information about what Rachel talks about from you than you ever would from me.

#20 | Posted by danni at 2018-12-07 09:34 AM | Reply

"During the address, Obama condemned the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling, stating, "Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests – including foreign corporations – to spend without limit in our elections." Justice Samuel Alito was seen frowning and mouthing the words "not true" when Obama criticized the Supreme Court.[9][10][11][12][13][14]

Chief Justice John Roberts later commented on the subject at the University of Alabama, saying, "The image of having the members of one branch of government standing up, literally surrounding the Supreme Court, cheering and hollering while the court – according to the requirements of protocol – has to sit there expressionless, I think is very troubling."

I'm sure it is Justice Roberts, almost as troubling as voter suppression, gerrymandering, etc. The Republicans on the SC have willingly allowed the corruption of democracy for their power. These pompous, dishonest politicians are ruining the American democracy on purpose because, at the real bottom of this situation, is the fact that they don't actually believe in democracy. The believe in an aristocratic governance of us rabble. They believe it leads to a more stable nation but events of the past half century prove that, in truth, they are completely wrong. It has led to economic catastrophe for the nation, unnecessary wars, police murdering citizens at will, families losing homes, jobs, and lives. Those corporate representatives posing as Justices should hear cheering and hollering everywhere they go, at every restaurant table they sit at. There should be no peace for those crooks.

#21 | Posted by danni at 2018-12-07 09:45 AM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2018 World Readable

Drudge Retort