Deal with an intimidating emmett cullen dating an older woman hot
Buell, a Duke University law professor and former Enron prosecutor, said federal prosecutors can sometimes hold back testimony because “maybe you don’t want to lock in [the story] too tight for fear if it even changes slightly you’re creating cross examination material.” Interviews with cooperating witnesses are not normally recorded in federal cases, Buell said, so there is no verbatim record for defense attorneys to point to if inconsistencies between trial testimony and an original account emerge.There are FBI reports—known as 302s—but not transcripts of interviews.Those emails would later be leaked as part of an overall Russian attempt to interfere with the election, according to U. (In emails that were not sent to Papadopoulos, Trump’s staff blew off his request.) But Papadopoulos then shifted to trying to set up a meeting between a member of the campaign and a Russian emissary.Mysteriously, the statement of offenses at this point It did, though, mention additional exchanges—which occurred a little more than one week after the offer for “dirt” on Clinton—between the professor and Papadopoulos that were then passed along to Trump campaign staff. But given what we already know about Donald Trump Jr.’s eagerness for potentially incriminating information from the Russians, it seems just as likely that there was further discussion of the potential “cooperation” as well as the “dirt” and the “thousands of emails.” “It would be very odd of Papadopoulos [not to bring it up with campaign officials] given how hard he was trying to cultivate the people on the campaign,” Georgetown Law professor and former federal prosecutor Julie O’Sullivan told me.
The email and phone record listed in the statement of facts shows that is demonstrably false—Trump campaign officials were clearly involved with Papadopoulos on these issues.
In one email, a “Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs Connection” told Papadopoulos that the ministry was “open for cooperation.” That email was then forwarded to a person listed only as “High-Ranking Campaign Official,” as well as someone listed as a “Campaign Supervisor.” The day after receiving the “May 4 MFA Email” about potential “cooperation,” Papadopoulos had a call with the “Campaign Supervisor.” Notably, the details of that phone call are omitted from the statement, along with any further details of possible conversations about the “dirt” that was on offer. O’Sullivan interpreted that conversation about cooperation as being about the meeting itself and not the possible “dirt.” But she noted that both possible readings were plausible.
“It does seem odd to me that that would be the end of it,” she said.
Former foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos pleaded guilty to lying to investigators about his contacts with apparent intermediaries for Russia after being arrested in July—a development that had not been previously reported, despite the intense interest in Mueller’s probe.
Papadopoulos is described in court documents as a “proactive cooperator,” which could be an indication that he went so far as to wear a wire in the months since he was charged.
“It’s odd that he gets that [offer] and there’s nothing in this [statement] about him following up at all.” If that May 5 phone call between Papadopoulos and the “Campaign Supervisor”—or some other yet to be disclosed conversation—included a discussion of “dirt” and potential “cooperation”—e.g., collusion—why wouldn’t Mueller’s team have put it in the statement?