Sen. Rand Paul Backs Supreme Court nominee Kavanaugh

Republican Sen. Rand Paul, who had publicly wavered as to whether he would support Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, endorsed him Monday.

Paul of Kentucky says he will back Kavanaugh despite misgivings about the judge’s views on surveillance and privacy issues. Few had expected Paul would oppose President Donald Trump’s choice in the end.

The endorsement gives Kavanaugh a boost as he prepares to sit down Monday afternoon with Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, one of a handful of Democratic senators seen as potential swing votes in the confirmation fight.

Manchin has said he’s interested in Kavanaugh’s views on the Affordable Care Act and its protections for people with pre-existing conditions. The senator has also asked West Virginia residents to send him questions for the meeting.

Manchin was one of three Democrats who voted to confirm Trump’s first Supreme Court nominee, Neil Gorsuch. Sens. Joe Donnelly of Indiana and Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota were the others. All three are up for re-election in states Trump easily won in 2016.

Republicans have a narrow 51-49 majority in the Senate. With the absence of Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., who is fighting brain cancer, they cannot afford to lose a single Republican vote if all Democrats vote “no.”

Paul had let Trump know he preferred other potential Supreme Court nominees he viewed as more conservative. He had expressed concern over Kavanaugh’s record on warrantless bulk collection of data and how that might apply to important privacy cases.

Paul said he hoped Kavanaugh “will be more open to a Fourth Amendment that protects digital records and property.”

Yet he also said his vote doesn’t hinge on any one issue. “I believe he will carefully adhere to the Constitution and will take his job to protect individual liberty seriously,” Paul said.

your ad here

Excitement, Optimism as Zimbabwe Holds Historic Election

Zimbabweans voted Monday in a pivotal election that could, many hope, turn around the nation’s shattered economy and tarnished reputation after 38 years of iron-fisted rule under former leader Robert Mugabe. VOA’s Anita Powell brings us this report from Harare.

your ad here

Lawyer: US Pastor Appeals for Release, Lifting of Travel Ban

A Christian American pastor standing trial in Turkey on terrorism charges has appealed to a Turkish court to release him from house arrest and lift his travel ban, his lawyer told Reuters on Monday.

Relations between Turkey and the United States have spiraled into a full-blown crisis over the trial of pastor Andrew Brunson, who was in custody for 21 months in a Turkish prison until he was transferred to house arrest last week.

President Donald Trump last week threatened to impose “large sanctions” on Turkey unless it frees Brunson, who is accused of helping the group Ankara says was behind a failed military coup in 2016. Brunson faces up to 35 years in jail if found guilty of the charges, which he denies.

The appeal document seen by Reuters said although Brunson was freed from jail, the pastor was still deprived of his freedom and was unable to return to his normal life and carry out his religious duties.

Brunson’s lawyer Ismail Cem Halavurt said it would take the Turkish court in Aegean province of Izmir, where Brunson stood trial, three to seven days to make a decision on the appeal request.

His next hearing as part of the trial is scheduled for October.

Brunson was accused of helping supporters of Fethullah Gulen, the U.S.-based cleric who Turkish authorities say masterminded the coup attempt against President Tayyip Erdogan in which 250 people were killed. He was also charged with supporting outlawed PKK Kurdish militants.

Gulen denies any involvement in the coup attempt. Speaking to reporters during his trip to South Africa, Erdogan said Turkey would stand its ground in the face of Trump’s sanctions threat.

It was not clear what would be the nature of sanctions threatened by Trump but Washington was already working on bills related to Turkey.

The U.S. Senate has demanded a block on sales of F-35 jets to Turkey unless Trump certifies that Turkey is not threatening NATO, purchasing defense equipment from Russia or detaining U.S. citizens.

your ad here

Lawyer: US Pastor Appeals for Release, Lifting of Travel Ban

A Christian American pastor standing trial in Turkey on terrorism charges has appealed to a Turkish court to release him from house arrest and lift his travel ban, his lawyer told Reuters on Monday.

Relations between Turkey and the United States have spiraled into a full-blown crisis over the trial of pastor Andrew Brunson, who was in custody for 21 months in a Turkish prison until he was transferred to house arrest last week.

President Donald Trump last week threatened to impose “large sanctions” on Turkey unless it frees Brunson, who is accused of helping the group Ankara says was behind a failed military coup in 2016. Brunson faces up to 35 years in jail if found guilty of the charges, which he denies.

The appeal document seen by Reuters said although Brunson was freed from jail, the pastor was still deprived of his freedom and was unable to return to his normal life and carry out his religious duties.

Brunson’s lawyer Ismail Cem Halavurt said it would take the Turkish court in Aegean province of Izmir, where Brunson stood trial, three to seven days to make a decision on the appeal request.

His next hearing as part of the trial is scheduled for October.

Brunson was accused of helping supporters of Fethullah Gulen, the U.S.-based cleric who Turkish authorities say masterminded the coup attempt against President Tayyip Erdogan in which 250 people were killed. He was also charged with supporting outlawed PKK Kurdish militants.

Gulen denies any involvement in the coup attempt. Speaking to reporters during his trip to South Africa, Erdogan said Turkey would stand its ground in the face of Trump’s sanctions threat.

It was not clear what would be the nature of sanctions threatened by Trump but Washington was already working on bills related to Turkey.

The U.S. Senate has demanded a block on sales of F-35 jets to Turkey unless Trump certifies that Turkey is not threatening NATO, purchasing defense equipment from Russia or detaining U.S. citizens.

your ad here

Pompeo Announces US Initiatives in Emerging Asia

U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on Monday announced $113 million in new technology, energy and infrastructure initiatives in emerging Asia at a time when China is pouring billions of dollars in investments into the region.

Amid increased U.S. trade frictions with China, Pompeo’s announcement sought to build on President Donald Trump’s “Indo Pacific” strategy that aims to cast the United States as a trustworthy partner in the region.

Pompeo said the United States was seeking a “free and open” Asia without domination by any one country, in what appeared to be a reference to China’s growing economic clout and heightened tensions in the disputed South China Sea.

“Like so many of our Asian allies and friends, our country fought for its own independence from an empire that expected deference,” Pompeo told the U.S. Chamber of Commerce business group. “We thus have never and will never seek domination in the

Indo-Pacific, and we will oppose any country that does.”

“These funds represent just a down payment on a new era in U.S. economic commitment to peace and prosperity in the Indo-Pacific region,” Pompeo said.

Pompeo said he would visit Malaysia, Singapore and Indonesia this week, where he planned to announce new security assistance.

A senior U.S. official said the American investments were not aimed at countering China’s Belt and Road Initiative, which involves dozens of countries in an estimated $1 trillion of mostly state-led infrastructure projects linking Asia, parts of Africa and Europe.

Eswar Prasad, a Cornell University trade professor and former head of the IMF’s China division, said the U.S. initiatives were small in comparison to Chinese investments.

“In both scale and scope, these initiatives pale in ambition relative to comparable initiatives by China,” Prasad said. “It also highlights the distinction between China’s approach of bold and grand government-led initiatives and the much more modest role of the U.S. government.

‘America First’

Countries in the region have been worried by Trump’s “America first” policy, withdrawal from the Trans Pacific Partnership trade deal and pursuit of a trade conflict with China that threatens to disrupt regional supply chains.

The United States first outlined its strategy to develop the Indo-Pacific economy at an Asia-Pacific summit last year.

“Indo-Pacific,” defined by Pompeo as a region stretching from the U.S. West Coast to India’s west coast, has become known in diplomatic circles as shorthand for a broader and democratic-led region in place of “Asia-Pacific,” which from some perspectives had authoritarian China too firmly at its center.

Among the new investments outlined by Pompeo, the United States will invest $25 million to expand U.S. technology exports to the region, add nearly $50 million this year to help countries produce and store their energy resources and create a new assistance network to boost infrastructure development.

Pompeo said the United States has signed a $350 million investment compact with Mongolia to develop new sources of water supply. The Millennium Challenge Corporation, a development agency of the U.S. government, was also finalizing an agreement to invest hundreds of millions of dollars in transportation and other reforms in Sri Lanka, Pompeo said.

Speaking at the same event, U.S. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross said the United States has eased export controls for high-technology product sales to India.

Ray Washburne, president of the U.S. government’s Overseas Private Investment Corporation, also said the agency has $4 billion invested in the region and hopes to double that figure “in the next few years.”

Speaking to reporters before Pompeo’s speech, Brian Hook, senior policy adviser to Pompeo, said the United States was not competing with China’s mostly state-led initiatives.

“It is a made-in-China, made-for-China initiative,” Hook told reporters on a conference call. “Our way of doing things is to keep the government’s role very modest, and it’s focused on helping businesses do what they do best.”

Critics of Beijing’s Belt and Road Initiative, which aims to recreate the ancient Silk Road trade route, have said it is more about spreading Chinese influence and hooking countries on massive debts. Beijing has said it is simply a development project that any country is welcome to join.

Hook said Washington welcomed Chinese contributions to regional development, but said it wanted China to adhere to international standards on transparency, the rule of law and sustainable financing.

“We know that America’s model of economic engagement is the healthiest for nations in the region. It’s high-quality, it’s transparent and it is financially sustainable,” Hook said.

your ad here

Pompeo Announces US Initiatives in Emerging Asia

U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on Monday announced $113 million in new technology, energy and infrastructure initiatives in emerging Asia at a time when China is pouring billions of dollars in investments into the region.

Amid increased U.S. trade frictions with China, Pompeo’s announcement sought to build on President Donald Trump’s “Indo Pacific” strategy that aims to cast the United States as a trustworthy partner in the region.

Pompeo said the United States was seeking a “free and open” Asia without domination by any one country, in what appeared to be a reference to China’s growing economic clout and heightened tensions in the disputed South China Sea.

“Like so many of our Asian allies and friends, our country fought for its own independence from an empire that expected deference,” Pompeo told the U.S. Chamber of Commerce business group. “We thus have never and will never seek domination in the

Indo-Pacific, and we will oppose any country that does.”

“These funds represent just a down payment on a new era in U.S. economic commitment to peace and prosperity in the Indo-Pacific region,” Pompeo said.

Pompeo said he would visit Malaysia, Singapore and Indonesia this week, where he planned to announce new security assistance.

A senior U.S. official said the American investments were not aimed at countering China’s Belt and Road Initiative, which involves dozens of countries in an estimated $1 trillion of mostly state-led infrastructure projects linking Asia, parts of Africa and Europe.

Eswar Prasad, a Cornell University trade professor and former head of the IMF’s China division, said the U.S. initiatives were small in comparison to Chinese investments.

“In both scale and scope, these initiatives pale in ambition relative to comparable initiatives by China,” Prasad said. “It also highlights the distinction between China’s approach of bold and grand government-led initiatives and the much more modest role of the U.S. government.

‘America First’

Countries in the region have been worried by Trump’s “America first” policy, withdrawal from the Trans Pacific Partnership trade deal and pursuit of a trade conflict with China that threatens to disrupt regional supply chains.

The United States first outlined its strategy to develop the Indo-Pacific economy at an Asia-Pacific summit last year.

“Indo-Pacific,” defined by Pompeo as a region stretching from the U.S. West Coast to India’s west coast, has become known in diplomatic circles as shorthand for a broader and democratic-led region in place of “Asia-Pacific,” which from some perspectives had authoritarian China too firmly at its center.

Among the new investments outlined by Pompeo, the United States will invest $25 million to expand U.S. technology exports to the region, add nearly $50 million this year to help countries produce and store their energy resources and create a new assistance network to boost infrastructure development.

Pompeo said the United States has signed a $350 million investment compact with Mongolia to develop new sources of water supply. The Millennium Challenge Corporation, a development agency of the U.S. government, was also finalizing an agreement to invest hundreds of millions of dollars in transportation and other reforms in Sri Lanka, Pompeo said.

Speaking at the same event, U.S. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross said the United States has eased export controls for high-technology product sales to India.

Ray Washburne, president of the U.S. government’s Overseas Private Investment Corporation, also said the agency has $4 billion invested in the region and hopes to double that figure “in the next few years.”

Speaking to reporters before Pompeo’s speech, Brian Hook, senior policy adviser to Pompeo, said the United States was not competing with China’s mostly state-led initiatives.

“It is a made-in-China, made-for-China initiative,” Hook told reporters on a conference call. “Our way of doing things is to keep the government’s role very modest, and it’s focused on helping businesses do what they do best.”

Critics of Beijing’s Belt and Road Initiative, which aims to recreate the ancient Silk Road trade route, have said it is more about spreading Chinese influence and hooking countries on massive debts. Beijing has said it is simply a development project that any country is welcome to join.

Hook said Washington welcomed Chinese contributions to regional development, but said it wanted China to adhere to international standards on transparency, the rule of law and sustainable financing.

“We know that America’s model of economic engagement is the healthiest for nations in the region. It’s high-quality, it’s transparent and it is financially sustainable,” Hook said.

your ad here

Myanmar Journalist Testifies He Didn’t Know about Documents

One of the two Reuters journalists charged with possessing official information has testified that he knew nothing about documents that police allegedly found on his phone and had no idea where they came from.

 

Kyaw Soe Oo and colleague Wa Lone have pleaded innocent to violating Myanmar’s Official Secrets Act, under which they could get up to 14 years in prison if convicted.

 

The two say they were framed by police, apparently because of their reporting on the brutal crackdown by security forces on minority Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar’s Rakhine state.

 

Their lawyer, Than Zaw Aung, told reporters after Monday’s court session that documents presented as prosecution evidence were neither secret nor sensitive, and that Kyaw Soe Oo’s phone was not in his possession during two weeks of interrogation.

your ad here

Myanmar Journalist Testifies He Didn’t Know about Documents

One of the two Reuters journalists charged with possessing official information has testified that he knew nothing about documents that police allegedly found on his phone and had no idea where they came from.

 

Kyaw Soe Oo and colleague Wa Lone have pleaded innocent to violating Myanmar’s Official Secrets Act, under which they could get up to 14 years in prison if convicted.

 

The two say they were framed by police, apparently because of their reporting on the brutal crackdown by security forces on minority Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar’s Rakhine state.

 

Their lawyer, Than Zaw Aung, told reporters after Monday’s court session that documents presented as prosecution evidence were neither secret nor sensitive, and that Kyaw Soe Oo’s phone was not in his possession during two weeks of interrogation.

your ad here

Cambodia Set to Become One Party State

In an election slammed by rights groups as a sham because the main opposition party was banned, the Cambodian People’s Party said it now controls all 125 seats in the National Assembly.

CPP figures show voters’ second most popular choice was to spoil their ballots despite the government’s threats against those considering using their constitutional right to boycott the election.

“I can’t confirm the official figure, but I can say that the CPP will get most of the seats at the National Assembly. The [National Election Commission’s] position is to give the figure of what party got however many seats, so I can’t give on behalf of the arbitrator,” CPP spokesman Sok Eysan said.

Asked if he felt the result was a bad look for the legitimacy of the election, Sok said the party didn’t “have any concern about criticisms.”

“So the result of the election shows that there is aprogression of democracy in Cambodia as people used their right to decide the future of the country,” he said.

Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen is now set to extend his already 33 year reign by another five, free of any real opposition party. Nineteen minor parties took part in the election, winning a small fraction of the vote among them.

Invalid ballots totalled 9.11 percent of votes with the royalist FUNCINPEC coming in third with 5.82 percent of the vote, according to the CPP figures.

The data though is somewhat inconsistent with National Election Committee (NEC) preliminary figures released Monday morning that also suggests the CPP will win every seat but show 8.57 percent of votes were invalid.

“NEC until now, my institution, do not issue any official results yet because we are still waiting for the results from 8 polling stations,” NEC spokesman Dim Sovannarom said.

Either way it looks clear that a substantial number of voters chose to spoil their votes as was widely expected.

Late last year the CPP’s only real opponent in the election, the Cambodia National Rescue Party (CNRP), was dissolved and its leader Kem Sokha jailed on widely derided allegations it was fomenting an internationally backed plot to overthrow the government.

The CNRP, which almost defeated the CPP at the last national election, launched a “clean finger” campaign in response, urging voters to boycott the election.

Hun Sen’s government retaliated, launching criminal action against those promoting the campaign while threatening voters of consequences should they abstain.

US reaction

The U.S. government called the elections neither “free nor fair” and said it would consider punitive measures including an expansion of visa restrictions on senior members of the regime.

“We are profoundly disappointed in the government’s choice to disenfranchise millions of voters, who are rightly proud of their country’s development over the past 25 years,” the White House office of the Press Secretary said in a statement.

“The campaign was marred by threats from national and local leaders to punish those choosing not to vote. These actions denied the Cambodian people a voice and choice in determining the future of the country.”

Last week, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a sanctions bill targeting members of Hun Sen’s inner circle, including his children and other family members, in response to the country’s authoritarian backslide.

The United States, the European Union, Japan, Canada and Australia all declined to send observers to the election.

Instead, the Cambodian government looked towards countries such as China, Iran and Russia to legitimize the result as well as private observers from across the world.

Of these 539 observers, those who addressed the media after the close of polls yesterday almost all gave the ballot a resounding tick of approval.

They avoided any discussion of the many alleged inconsistencies such as the banning of the opposition, the blocking of more than a dozen media outlets’ websites before the vote or threats made against those considering boycotting the ballot.

“I have no knowledge of any opposition party being banned from anything,” said observer and UK Independence Party member Richard Wood, before defending his right not to study the context of the election in his role.

“How can we on one side, accept to host the Thailand president in France and on the other side, criticize the elections in Cambodia,” asked observer Emmanuel Dupuy, president of the Institut Prospective et Sécurité en Europe.

One of the only observers to raise any concerns at all was Fund for Reconciliation and Development executive director John McAuliff, who said the context of the election was “imperfect”.

“It was also very notable during the count that the second largest party in Cambodia is the spoiled ballot party — that is every polling place there were at least 20 percent. In one of the polling places we looked at it was more like 35 percent spoiled ballots.” 

Opposition says democracy replaced by ‘Dictatorship’

At a press conference in Jakarta on Monday, CNRP vice president Mu Sochua, one of many opposition figures now living in exile, said democracy in Cambodia had been replaced with outright dictatorship.

“29 July, 2018 marked the death of democracy in Cambodia, a dark new day in recent history,” she said.

More than a dozen websites, mostly media organizations that scrutinize the Cambodian government, were blocked in the final days of the campaign including Voice of America Khmer.

Yon Sineat contributed to this report.

 

your ad here

Cambodia Set to Become One Party State

In an election slammed by rights groups as a sham because the main opposition party was banned, the Cambodian People’s Party said it now controls all 125 seats in the National Assembly.

CPP figures show voters’ second most popular choice was to spoil their ballots despite the government’s threats against those considering using their constitutional right to boycott the election.

“I can’t confirm the official figure, but I can say that the CPP will get most of the seats at the National Assembly. The [National Election Commission’s] position is to give the figure of what party got however many seats, so I can’t give on behalf of the arbitrator,” CPP spokesman Sok Eysan said.

Asked if he felt the result was a bad look for the legitimacy of the election, Sok said the party didn’t “have any concern about criticisms.”

“So the result of the election shows that there is aprogression of democracy in Cambodia as people used their right to decide the future of the country,” he said.

Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen is now set to extend his already 33 year reign by another five, free of any real opposition party. Nineteen minor parties took part in the election, winning a small fraction of the vote among them.

Invalid ballots totalled 9.11 percent of votes with the royalist FUNCINPEC coming in third with 5.82 percent of the vote, according to the CPP figures.

The data though is somewhat inconsistent with National Election Committee (NEC) preliminary figures released Monday morning that also suggests the CPP will win every seat but show 8.57 percent of votes were invalid.

“NEC until now, my institution, do not issue any official results yet because we are still waiting for the results from 8 polling stations,” NEC spokesman Dim Sovannarom said.

Either way it looks clear that a substantial number of voters chose to spoil their votes as was widely expected.

Late last year the CPP’s only real opponent in the election, the Cambodia National Rescue Party (CNRP), was dissolved and its leader Kem Sokha jailed on widely derided allegations it was fomenting an internationally backed plot to overthrow the government.

The CNRP, which almost defeated the CPP at the last national election, launched a “clean finger” campaign in response, urging voters to boycott the election.

Hun Sen’s government retaliated, launching criminal action against those promoting the campaign while threatening voters of consequences should they abstain.

US reaction

The U.S. government called the elections neither “free nor fair” and said it would consider punitive measures including an expansion of visa restrictions on senior members of the regime.

“We are profoundly disappointed in the government’s choice to disenfranchise millions of voters, who are rightly proud of their country’s development over the past 25 years,” the White House office of the Press Secretary said in a statement.

“The campaign was marred by threats from national and local leaders to punish those choosing not to vote. These actions denied the Cambodian people a voice and choice in determining the future of the country.”

Last week, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a sanctions bill targeting members of Hun Sen’s inner circle, including his children and other family members, in response to the country’s authoritarian backslide.

The United States, the European Union, Japan, Canada and Australia all declined to send observers to the election.

Instead, the Cambodian government looked towards countries such as China, Iran and Russia to legitimize the result as well as private observers from across the world.

Of these 539 observers, those who addressed the media after the close of polls yesterday almost all gave the ballot a resounding tick of approval.

They avoided any discussion of the many alleged inconsistencies such as the banning of the opposition, the blocking of more than a dozen media outlets’ websites before the vote or threats made against those considering boycotting the ballot.

“I have no knowledge of any opposition party being banned from anything,” said observer and UK Independence Party member Richard Wood, before defending his right not to study the context of the election in his role.

“How can we on one side, accept to host the Thailand president in France and on the other side, criticize the elections in Cambodia,” asked observer Emmanuel Dupuy, president of the Institut Prospective et Sécurité en Europe.

One of the only observers to raise any concerns at all was Fund for Reconciliation and Development executive director John McAuliff, who said the context of the election was “imperfect”.

“It was also very notable during the count that the second largest party in Cambodia is the spoiled ballot party — that is every polling place there were at least 20 percent. In one of the polling places we looked at it was more like 35 percent spoiled ballots.” 

Opposition says democracy replaced by ‘Dictatorship’

At a press conference in Jakarta on Monday, CNRP vice president Mu Sochua, one of many opposition figures now living in exile, said democracy in Cambodia had been replaced with outright dictatorship.

“29 July, 2018 marked the death of democracy in Cambodia, a dark new day in recent history,” she said.

More than a dozen websites, mostly media organizations that scrutinize the Cambodian government, were blocked in the final days of the campaign including Voice of America Khmer.

Yon Sineat contributed to this report.

 

your ad here

Manafort Trial to Focus on Lavish Lifestyle, Not Collusion

The trial of President Donald Trump’s onetime campaign chairman will open this week with tales of lavish spending, secret shell companies and millions of dollars of Ukrainian money flowing through offshore bank accounts and into the political consultant’s pocket.

What’s likely to be missing: answers about whether the Trump campaign coordinated with the Kremlin during the 2016 presidential election, or really any mention of Russia at all.

Paul Manafort’s financial crimes trial, the first arising from special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation, will center on his Ukrainian consulting work and only briefly touch on his involvement with the president’s campaign.

But the broader implications are unmistakable.

The trial, scheduled to begin Tuesday with jury selection in Alexandria, Virginia, will give the public its most detailed glimpse of evidence Mueller’s team has spent the year accumulating. It will feature testimony about the business dealings and foreign ties of a defendant Trump entrusted to run his campaign during a critical stretch in 2016, including during the Republican convention. And it will unfold at a delicate time for the president as Mueller’s team presses for an interview and as Trump escalates his attacks on an investigation he calls a “witch hunt.”

Adding to the intrigue is the expected spectacle of Manafort’s deputy, Rick Gates, testifying against him after cutting a plea deal with prosecutors, and the speculation that Manafort, who faces charges in two different courts and decades in prison if convicted, may be holding out for a pardon from Trump.

“Perhaps he believes that he’s done nothing wrong, and because he’s done nothing wrong, he’s unwilling to plead guilty to any crime whatsoever — even if it’s a lesser crime,” said Jimmy Gurule, a Notre Dame law professor and former federal prosecutor. “Obviously, that’s very risky for him.”

Manafort was indicted along with Gates in Mueller’s wide-ranging investigation, but he is the only American charged to opt for a trial instead of cooperating with the government. The remaining 31 individuals charged have either reached plea agreements, including ex-White House national security adviser Michael Flynn, or are Russians seen as unlikely to enter an American courtroom. Three Russian companies have also been charged.

Prosecutors in Manafort’s case have said they may call 35 witnesses, including five who have immunity agreements, as they try to prove that he laundered more than $30 million in Ukrainian political consulting proceeds and concealed the funds from the IRS.

Jurors are expected to see photographs of his Mercedes-Benz and of his Hampton property putting green and swimming pool. There’s likely to be testimony, too, about tailored Beverly Hills clothing, high-end antiques, rugs and art and New York Yankees seasons tickets.

The luxurious lifestyle was funded by Manafort’s political consulting for the pro-Russian Ukrainian political party of Viktor Yanukovych, who was deposed as Ukraine’s president in 2014.

Lawyers have tangled over how much jurors will hear of his overseas political work, particularly about his ties to Russia and other wealthy political figures.

At a recent hearing, U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis III, who will preside over the trial, warned prosecutors to restrain themselves, noting the current “antipathy” toward Russia and how “most people in this country don’t distinguish between Ukrainians and Russians.” He said he would not tolerate any pictures of Manafort and others “at a cocktail party with scantily clad women,” if they exist.

Prosecutor Greg Andres reassured the judge that “there will be no pictures of scantily clad women, period,” nor photographs of Russian flags.

“I don’t anticipate that a government witness will utter the word `Russia,”‘ Andres said.

While jurors will be hearing painstaking detail about Manafort’s finances, they won’t be told about Manafort’s other criminal case, in the nation’s capital, where he faces charges of acting as an unregistered foreign agent and lying to the government.

Nor will they hear about the reason he’s been jailed since last month after a judge revoked his house arrest over allegations that he and a longtime associate attempted to tamper with witnesses in the case. And they won’t learn that Manafort’s co-defendant in the Washington case is a business associate named Konstantin Kilimnik, who lives in Russia and who U.S. authorities assert has connections to Russian intelligence.

Trump and his lawyers have repeatedly sought to play down Manafort’s connection to the president, yet the trial won’t be entirely without references to the campaign.

Mueller’s team says Manafort’s position in the Trump campaign is relevant to some of the bank fraud charges. Prosecutors plan to present evidence that a chairman of one of the banks allowed Manafort to file inaccurate loan information in exchange for a job on the campaign and the promise of a job in the Trump administration. The administration job never materialized.

The trial will afford the public its first glimpse of a defense that so far has focused less on the substance of the allegations than on Mueller’s authority to bring the case in the first place. At one point, his defense lawyers sued Mueller and the Justice Department, saying they had overstepped their bounds by bringing a prosecution untethered to the core questions of Mueller’s investigation — whether Russia worked with the Trump campaign to tip the election.

Ellis rejected that argument despite having initially questioned the special counsel’s motives for bringing the case. He noted that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who appointed Mueller, had explicitly authorized Mueller to investigate Manafort’s business dealings. Mueller’s original mandate was to investigate not only potential collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, but also any other crimes arising from the probe.

“When a prosecutor looks into those dealings and uncovers evidence of criminal culpability,” said Stanford law professor David Alan Sklansky, “it doesn’t make sense to ask him to avert his eyes.”

your ad here

Manafort Trial to Focus on Lavish Lifestyle, Not Collusion

The trial of President Donald Trump’s onetime campaign chairman will open this week with tales of lavish spending, secret shell companies and millions of dollars of Ukrainian money flowing through offshore bank accounts and into the political consultant’s pocket.

What’s likely to be missing: answers about whether the Trump campaign coordinated with the Kremlin during the 2016 presidential election, or really any mention of Russia at all.

Paul Manafort’s financial crimes trial, the first arising from special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation, will center on his Ukrainian consulting work and only briefly touch on his involvement with the president’s campaign.

But the broader implications are unmistakable.

The trial, scheduled to begin Tuesday with jury selection in Alexandria, Virginia, will give the public its most detailed glimpse of evidence Mueller’s team has spent the year accumulating. It will feature testimony about the business dealings and foreign ties of a defendant Trump entrusted to run his campaign during a critical stretch in 2016, including during the Republican convention. And it will unfold at a delicate time for the president as Mueller’s team presses for an interview and as Trump escalates his attacks on an investigation he calls a “witch hunt.”

Adding to the intrigue is the expected spectacle of Manafort’s deputy, Rick Gates, testifying against him after cutting a plea deal with prosecutors, and the speculation that Manafort, who faces charges in two different courts and decades in prison if convicted, may be holding out for a pardon from Trump.

“Perhaps he believes that he’s done nothing wrong, and because he’s done nothing wrong, he’s unwilling to plead guilty to any crime whatsoever — even if it’s a lesser crime,” said Jimmy Gurule, a Notre Dame law professor and former federal prosecutor. “Obviously, that’s very risky for him.”

Manafort was indicted along with Gates in Mueller’s wide-ranging investigation, but he is the only American charged to opt for a trial instead of cooperating with the government. The remaining 31 individuals charged have either reached plea agreements, including ex-White House national security adviser Michael Flynn, or are Russians seen as unlikely to enter an American courtroom. Three Russian companies have also been charged.

Prosecutors in Manafort’s case have said they may call 35 witnesses, including five who have immunity agreements, as they try to prove that he laundered more than $30 million in Ukrainian political consulting proceeds and concealed the funds from the IRS.

Jurors are expected to see photographs of his Mercedes-Benz and of his Hampton property putting green and swimming pool. There’s likely to be testimony, too, about tailored Beverly Hills clothing, high-end antiques, rugs and art and New York Yankees seasons tickets.

The luxurious lifestyle was funded by Manafort’s political consulting for the pro-Russian Ukrainian political party of Viktor Yanukovych, who was deposed as Ukraine’s president in 2014.

Lawyers have tangled over how much jurors will hear of his overseas political work, particularly about his ties to Russia and other wealthy political figures.

At a recent hearing, U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis III, who will preside over the trial, warned prosecutors to restrain themselves, noting the current “antipathy” toward Russia and how “most people in this country don’t distinguish between Ukrainians and Russians.” He said he would not tolerate any pictures of Manafort and others “at a cocktail party with scantily clad women,” if they exist.

Prosecutor Greg Andres reassured the judge that “there will be no pictures of scantily clad women, period,” nor photographs of Russian flags.

“I don’t anticipate that a government witness will utter the word `Russia,”‘ Andres said.

While jurors will be hearing painstaking detail about Manafort’s finances, they won’t be told about Manafort’s other criminal case, in the nation’s capital, where he faces charges of acting as an unregistered foreign agent and lying to the government.

Nor will they hear about the reason he’s been jailed since last month after a judge revoked his house arrest over allegations that he and a longtime associate attempted to tamper with witnesses in the case. And they won’t learn that Manafort’s co-defendant in the Washington case is a business associate named Konstantin Kilimnik, who lives in Russia and who U.S. authorities assert has connections to Russian intelligence.

Trump and his lawyers have repeatedly sought to play down Manafort’s connection to the president, yet the trial won’t be entirely without references to the campaign.

Mueller’s team says Manafort’s position in the Trump campaign is relevant to some of the bank fraud charges. Prosecutors plan to present evidence that a chairman of one of the banks allowed Manafort to file inaccurate loan information in exchange for a job on the campaign and the promise of a job in the Trump administration. The administration job never materialized.

The trial will afford the public its first glimpse of a defense that so far has focused less on the substance of the allegations than on Mueller’s authority to bring the case in the first place. At one point, his defense lawyers sued Mueller and the Justice Department, saying they had overstepped their bounds by bringing a prosecution untethered to the core questions of Mueller’s investigation — whether Russia worked with the Trump campaign to tip the election.

Ellis rejected that argument despite having initially questioned the special counsel’s motives for bringing the case. He noted that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who appointed Mueller, had explicitly authorized Mueller to investigate Manafort’s business dealings. Mueller’s original mandate was to investigate not only potential collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, but also any other crimes arising from the probe.

“When a prosecutor looks into those dealings and uncovers evidence of criminal culpability,” said Stanford law professor David Alan Sklansky, “it doesn’t make sense to ask him to avert his eyes.”

your ad here

Manafort Trial to Focus on Lavish Lifestyle, Not Collusion

The trial of President Donald Trump’s onetime campaign chairman will open this week with tales of lavish spending, secret shell companies and millions of dollars of Ukrainian money flowing through offshore bank accounts and into the political consultant’s pocket.

What’s likely to be missing: answers about whether the Trump campaign coordinated with the Kremlin during the 2016 presidential election, or really any mention of Russia at all.

Paul Manafort’s financial crimes trial, the first arising from special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation, will center on his Ukrainian consulting work and only briefly touch on his involvement with the president’s campaign.

But the broader implications are unmistakable.

The trial, scheduled to begin Tuesday with jury selection in Alexandria, Virginia, will give the public its most detailed glimpse of evidence Mueller’s team has spent the year accumulating. It will feature testimony about the business dealings and foreign ties of a defendant Trump entrusted to run his campaign during a critical stretch in 2016, including during the Republican convention. And it will unfold at a delicate time for the president as Mueller’s team presses for an interview and as Trump escalates his attacks on an investigation he calls a “witch hunt.”

Adding to the intrigue is the expected spectacle of Manafort’s deputy, Rick Gates, testifying against him after cutting a plea deal with prosecutors, and the speculation that Manafort, who faces charges in two different courts and decades in prison if convicted, may be holding out for a pardon from Trump.

“Perhaps he believes that he’s done nothing wrong, and because he’s done nothing wrong, he’s unwilling to plead guilty to any crime whatsoever — even if it’s a lesser crime,” said Jimmy Gurule, a Notre Dame law professor and former federal prosecutor. “Obviously, that’s very risky for him.”

Manafort was indicted along with Gates in Mueller’s wide-ranging investigation, but he is the only American charged to opt for a trial instead of cooperating with the government. The remaining 31 individuals charged have either reached plea agreements, including ex-White House national security adviser Michael Flynn, or are Russians seen as unlikely to enter an American courtroom. Three Russian companies have also been charged.

Prosecutors in Manafort’s case have said they may call 35 witnesses, including five who have immunity agreements, as they try to prove that he laundered more than $30 million in Ukrainian political consulting proceeds and concealed the funds from the IRS.

Jurors are expected to see photographs of his Mercedes-Benz and of his Hampton property putting green and swimming pool. There’s likely to be testimony, too, about tailored Beverly Hills clothing, high-end antiques, rugs and art and New York Yankees seasons tickets.

The luxurious lifestyle was funded by Manafort’s political consulting for the pro-Russian Ukrainian political party of Viktor Yanukovych, who was deposed as Ukraine’s president in 2014.

Lawyers have tangled over how much jurors will hear of his overseas political work, particularly about his ties to Russia and other wealthy political figures.

At a recent hearing, U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis III, who will preside over the trial, warned prosecutors to restrain themselves, noting the current “antipathy” toward Russia and how “most people in this country don’t distinguish between Ukrainians and Russians.” He said he would not tolerate any pictures of Manafort and others “at a cocktail party with scantily clad women,” if they exist.

Prosecutor Greg Andres reassured the judge that “there will be no pictures of scantily clad women, period,” nor photographs of Russian flags.

“I don’t anticipate that a government witness will utter the word `Russia,”‘ Andres said.

While jurors will be hearing painstaking detail about Manafort’s finances, they won’t be told about Manafort’s other criminal case, in the nation’s capital, where he faces charges of acting as an unregistered foreign agent and lying to the government.

Nor will they hear about the reason he’s been jailed since last month after a judge revoked his house arrest over allegations that he and a longtime associate attempted to tamper with witnesses in the case. And they won’t learn that Manafort’s co-defendant in the Washington case is a business associate named Konstantin Kilimnik, who lives in Russia and who U.S. authorities assert has connections to Russian intelligence.

Trump and his lawyers have repeatedly sought to play down Manafort’s connection to the president, yet the trial won’t be entirely without references to the campaign.

Mueller’s team says Manafort’s position in the Trump campaign is relevant to some of the bank fraud charges. Prosecutors plan to present evidence that a chairman of one of the banks allowed Manafort to file inaccurate loan information in exchange for a job on the campaign and the promise of a job in the Trump administration. The administration job never materialized.

The trial will afford the public its first glimpse of a defense that so far has focused less on the substance of the allegations than on Mueller’s authority to bring the case in the first place. At one point, his defense lawyers sued Mueller and the Justice Department, saying they had overstepped their bounds by bringing a prosecution untethered to the core questions of Mueller’s investigation — whether Russia worked with the Trump campaign to tip the election.

Ellis rejected that argument despite having initially questioned the special counsel’s motives for bringing the case. He noted that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who appointed Mueller, had explicitly authorized Mueller to investigate Manafort’s business dealings. Mueller’s original mandate was to investigate not only potential collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, but also any other crimes arising from the probe.

“When a prosecutor looks into those dealings and uncovers evidence of criminal culpability,” said Stanford law professor David Alan Sklansky, “it doesn’t make sense to ask him to avert his eyes.”

your ad here

Manafort Trial to Focus on Lavish Lifestyle, Not Collusion

The trial of President Donald Trump’s onetime campaign chairman will open this week with tales of lavish spending, secret shell companies and millions of dollars of Ukrainian money flowing through offshore bank accounts and into the political consultant’s pocket.

What’s likely to be missing: answers about whether the Trump campaign coordinated with the Kremlin during the 2016 presidential election, or really any mention of Russia at all.

Paul Manafort’s financial crimes trial, the first arising from special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation, will center on his Ukrainian consulting work and only briefly touch on his involvement with the president’s campaign.

But the broader implications are unmistakable.

The trial, scheduled to begin Tuesday with jury selection in Alexandria, Virginia, will give the public its most detailed glimpse of evidence Mueller’s team has spent the year accumulating. It will feature testimony about the business dealings and foreign ties of a defendant Trump entrusted to run his campaign during a critical stretch in 2016, including during the Republican convention. And it will unfold at a delicate time for the president as Mueller’s team presses for an interview and as Trump escalates his attacks on an investigation he calls a “witch hunt.”

Adding to the intrigue is the expected spectacle of Manafort’s deputy, Rick Gates, testifying against him after cutting a plea deal with prosecutors, and the speculation that Manafort, who faces charges in two different courts and decades in prison if convicted, may be holding out for a pardon from Trump.

“Perhaps he believes that he’s done nothing wrong, and because he’s done nothing wrong, he’s unwilling to plead guilty to any crime whatsoever — even if it’s a lesser crime,” said Jimmy Gurule, a Notre Dame law professor and former federal prosecutor. “Obviously, that’s very risky for him.”

Manafort was indicted along with Gates in Mueller’s wide-ranging investigation, but he is the only American charged to opt for a trial instead of cooperating with the government. The remaining 31 individuals charged have either reached plea agreements, including ex-White House national security adviser Michael Flynn, or are Russians seen as unlikely to enter an American courtroom. Three Russian companies have also been charged.

Prosecutors in Manafort’s case have said they may call 35 witnesses, including five who have immunity agreements, as they try to prove that he laundered more than $30 million in Ukrainian political consulting proceeds and concealed the funds from the IRS.

Jurors are expected to see photographs of his Mercedes-Benz and of his Hampton property putting green and swimming pool. There’s likely to be testimony, too, about tailored Beverly Hills clothing, high-end antiques, rugs and art and New York Yankees seasons tickets.

The luxurious lifestyle was funded by Manafort’s political consulting for the pro-Russian Ukrainian political party of Viktor Yanukovych, who was deposed as Ukraine’s president in 2014.

Lawyers have tangled over how much jurors will hear of his overseas political work, particularly about his ties to Russia and other wealthy political figures.

At a recent hearing, U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis III, who will preside over the trial, warned prosecutors to restrain themselves, noting the current “antipathy” toward Russia and how “most people in this country don’t distinguish between Ukrainians and Russians.” He said he would not tolerate any pictures of Manafort and others “at a cocktail party with scantily clad women,” if they exist.

Prosecutor Greg Andres reassured the judge that “there will be no pictures of scantily clad women, period,” nor photographs of Russian flags.

“I don’t anticipate that a government witness will utter the word `Russia,”‘ Andres said.

While jurors will be hearing painstaking detail about Manafort’s finances, they won’t be told about Manafort’s other criminal case, in the nation’s capital, where he faces charges of acting as an unregistered foreign agent and lying to the government.

Nor will they hear about the reason he’s been jailed since last month after a judge revoked his house arrest over allegations that he and a longtime associate attempted to tamper with witnesses in the case. And they won’t learn that Manafort’s co-defendant in the Washington case is a business associate named Konstantin Kilimnik, who lives in Russia and who U.S. authorities assert has connections to Russian intelligence.

Trump and his lawyers have repeatedly sought to play down Manafort’s connection to the president, yet the trial won’t be entirely without references to the campaign.

Mueller’s team says Manafort’s position in the Trump campaign is relevant to some of the bank fraud charges. Prosecutors plan to present evidence that a chairman of one of the banks allowed Manafort to file inaccurate loan information in exchange for a job on the campaign and the promise of a job in the Trump administration. The administration job never materialized.

The trial will afford the public its first glimpse of a defense that so far has focused less on the substance of the allegations than on Mueller’s authority to bring the case in the first place. At one point, his defense lawyers sued Mueller and the Justice Department, saying they had overstepped their bounds by bringing a prosecution untethered to the core questions of Mueller’s investigation — whether Russia worked with the Trump campaign to tip the election.

Ellis rejected that argument despite having initially questioned the special counsel’s motives for bringing the case. He noted that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who appointed Mueller, had explicitly authorized Mueller to investigate Manafort’s business dealings. Mueller’s original mandate was to investigate not only potential collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, but also any other crimes arising from the probe.

“When a prosecutor looks into those dealings and uncovers evidence of criminal culpability,” said Stanford law professor David Alan Sklansky, “it doesn’t make sense to ask him to avert his eyes.”

your ad here