I’ve reported on this earlier but I think it deserves another mention. From Jan 22 to the present, there are 17 documents missing from #Manafort DC docket. @Maddow @lawrence

Here is the relevant docket excerpt. Docket

Based on my experience, the court’s minutes entries and orders don’t get a document number because they are not a “document.”  So starting with January 22 entry I count 17 missing documents as follows:

522, 523, 525, 526, 529, 530, 531, 532, 534, 537, 539, 540, 542, 546, 547, 548 and 550.

I’ve seen the SDNY use an entry for documents placed in the “vault” that does not give a document number. Based on a review I did in the SDNY Zarrab case (that has a lot of these pending) the “vault” entries turned out to be either related to a secret plea or a superseding indictment before it was unsealed.

For all the folks who are docket watching and in particular those who are concerned Manafort got off too light, I think the one conclusion I can draw for sure about this is that we have not seen the last of Paul Manafort in the DC court.



Yang Enterprises founded in 1986 claims to be a defense firm. I’m going to dump my quick background. They are recruiting at Offut AFB? #CindyYang @maddow @lawrence @FBIWFO

I think Cindy is Yang Li-Woan and her spouse is Yan Tyng-Lin. NB I could have it backwards.

I’m going to post the corporate materials. This company looks like the stuff Flynn was up to with Bijan Rafiekian aka Bijan Kian and Kamil Ekim Alpekin.

I pulled some of the Yang Enterprises Corporate documents.  There doing business at Offut AFB?


Also here is the website. Looks to me like perfect honey pot recruitment op. They pick her up or she’s gonna scoot.


Yang Enterpris Who


Yang Enterprise Who

Yang Enterprise Web page what we do

1995 Annual report

1996 Annual Report

2005 Annual Report

2007 Annual Report

2009 Annual Report

2018 Annual Report

They are operating the Arecibo Observatory.




More later.


2000 DOJ memo doesn’t say DOJ can’t charge a sitting president. It actually says it can. @Maddow @lawrence

Here’s a link to a pdf copy of the oft-mentioned DOJ memo:

A Sitting President’s Amenability to Indictment and Criminal Prosecution

The 2000 Memo proceeds from he analysis begun in a 1973 DOJ memo written during the early days of the Watergate investigation and addresses it along with the text of the  Impeachment Clause:

The OLC memorandum began by considering whether the plain terms of the
Impeachment Judgment Clause prohibit the institution of criminal proceedings
against any officer subject to that Clause prior to that officer’s conviction upon
impeachment. OLC Memo at 2. The memorandum concluded that the plain terms
of the Clause do not impose such a general bar to indictment or criminal trial
prior to impeachment and therefore do not, by themselves, preclude the criminal prosecution of a sitting President.

This is where the “originalist” conservatives justices, who I personally think are peddling snake oil, have to either admit their “intent of the framers” as the sole basis for Constitutional interpretation is invalid or be willing to allow a President to be indicted and tried. If ever the intent of the framers mattered it would be with how to deal with a tyrant because, when they drafted the Impeachment Clause, they had just rid themselves of a tyrant.

The 2000 memo also concedes both it and the 1973  memo did not address whether a state could indict a sitting president:

The Department’s previous analysis also focused exclusively on federal rather than state prosecution of a sitting President. We proceed on this assumption as well, and thus we do not consider any additional constitutional concerns that may be implicated by state criminal prosecution of a sitting President. See Clinton v Jones, 520 U S 681, 691 (1997) (noting that a state criminal prosecution of a sitting President would raise “ federalism and comity” concerns rather than separation of powers concerns)

Clinton v Jones was a civil claim that was allowed to proceed.  The logical extension from Jones is that if a sitting President has to deal with a pre-inauguration claim for sexual harassment a President has to deal with a pre-inauguration crime prosecution because a crime is more important than any law suit.

But I always say,  the arrest for a state crime is the tricky part.

Okay, so now we all accept #MichaelCohen was truthful and not in #Prague? Cool. I think I’m still in the money on who was. @Maddow @lawrence @FBIWFO

Here is my first inkling of who I thought it was when I read the Steele Dossier. That report was raw intel. Getting one of two Russia connected Trump lawyers confused would be the kind of thing a matured piece of intelligence work product could clear up. So I went through both Cohen and Boris Epshteyn’s Twitter activity for August 2016 and found two periods in August that Epshteyn went dark. Later, a rather authoritative Twitter account showed me how one of the periods was not possible. But I think it would be possible if your rich Russian uncle wanted to fix it for you.

I wonder if I brought the heat down on Boris?


Two weeks after that Boris was gone from the Whitehouse.

With all the “Resistance” so certain that it was Michael Cohen,I signed off:

I understand that Epshteyn is a native Russian speaker. With what was being negotiated I would expect the Russians would want to have someone like Epshteyn as their cutout for the final assault. By August the emails were mostly out. Just Podesta to come in October. They held that for an emergency and dropped them 30 minutes after the Access Holywood tape was released.

What was coming was the micro-targeting. The big propaganda hydrogen bomb. And the Trump team, likely headed by Brad Parsale’s San Antonio crew, would need Russian speakers to work the attack. Who better than Boris. Who now coincidentally runs the political shop of the massive right wing propaganda network Sinclair Broadcasting.

It’s all going according to plan. Because the background noise is so high, the press overlooks the obvious.