![]() You're here for reporting like that, not fundraising, but one cannot exist without the other, and it's vitally important that we hit our intimidating $390,000 number in online donations by June 30.Īnd we hope you might consider pitching in before moving on to whatever it is you're about to do next. We also touch on our history and how our nonprofit model makes Mother Jones different than most of the news out there: Letting us go deep, focus on underreported beats, and bring unique perspectives to the day's news. It's The New Normal," we explain, as matter-of-factly as we can, what exactly our finances look like, why this moment is particularly urgent, and how we can best communicate that without screaming OMG PLEASE HELP over and over. That's the Next New Thing.Īnd it's what MoJo and our community of readers have been doing for 47 years now. Bottom line: Journalism that serves the people needs the support of the people. In " News Never Pays," our fearless CEO, Monika Bauerlein, connects the dots on several concerning media trends that, taken together, expose the fallacy behind the tragic state of journalism right now: That the marketplace will take care of providing the free and independent press citizens in a democracy need, and the Next New Thing to invest millions in will fix the problem. We'll also be quite transparent and level-headed with you about this. There is no wiggle room, we've already cut everything we can, and we urgently need more readers to pitch in-especially from this specific blurb you're reading right now. We have a considerable $390,000 gap in our online fundraising budget that we have to close by June 30. Manafort’s statements about this payment are inconsistent with those of others, but the defense has not received any witness statements to support this contention.īy signing up, you agree to our privacy policy and terms of use, and to receive messages from Mother Jones and our partners. The second example identified by the Special Counsel is hearsay purportedly offered by an undisclosed third party and the defense has not been provided with the statement (or any witness statements that form the basis for alleging intentional falsehoods). Manafort’s name as an introduction in the event the third-party met the President. The first alleged misstatement identified in the Special Counsel’s submission (regarding a text exchange on May 26, 2018) related to a text message from a third-party asking permission to use Mr.Kilimnik related to the 2016 presidential campaign. ![]() Manafort lied about sharing polling data with Mr. The same is true with regard to the Government’s allegation that Mr. Manafort was unable to recall specific details prior to having his recollection refreshed. Manafort’s mind during the period at issue and it is not surprising at all that Mr. Issues and communications related to Ukrainian political events simply were not at the forefront of Mr. Manafort explained to the Government attorneys and investigators that he would have given the Ukrainian peace plan more thought, had the issue not been raised during the period he was engaged with work related to the presidential Case 1:17-cr-00201-ABJ Document 471 Filed 01/08/19 of 10 6 campaign. In fact, during a proffer meeting held with the Special Counsel on September 11, 2018, Mr.Kilimnik met while they were both in Madrid)). Kilimnik had traveled to Madrid on the same day that Mr. Manafort “conceded” that he discussed or may have discussed a Ukraine peace plan with Mr. 460 at 5 (After being shown documents, Mr. *facepalm* īelow are the paragraphs that were intended for redaction: You can copy the text right from underneath the black boxes. When Paul Manafort's lawyers submitted their latest pleading in federal court, they *tried* to redact some portions. Manafort’s name as an introduction” to Trump. Among other details, they revealed that Mueller has accused Manafort of lying about sharing polling data with Konstantin Kilimnik, a former employee of Manafort’s in Ukraine with alleged ties to Russian intelligence, as well as efforts by a “third-party asking permission to use Mr. When lawyers for Paul Manafort filed documents on Monday responding to special counsel Robert Mueller’s allegations that President Donald Trump’s former campaign chairman had repeatedly lied to federal investigators, they did so under seal, with Manafort’s defense team signaling that redacted versions would soon be made available to the public.īut that first public offering-which, as promised, included several blacked-out paragraphs-appears to have been extraordinarily botched, as keen media observers quickly noticed that Manafort’s defense team had failed to properly redact sensitive paragraphs they had intended to remain out of the public eye. Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |