The Steele dossier, which was paid for by Hillary Clinton and the DNC was used by the FBI to obtain FOUR FISA warrants on Trump campaign advisor Carter Page, but there is another fake dossier known as the “black cash ledger” that was used to take down Paul Manafort.
According to John Solomon, the “black cash ledger” which emerged in the Ukraine in the summer of 2016, was used to remove Manafort from Trump’s campaign and eventually used by the US government to prosecute Manafort — in fact, FBI agents mentioned this ledger in an affidavit supporting the July 2017 raid on Manafort’s home.
“On August 19, 2016, after public reports regarding connections between Manafort, Ukraine and Russia — including an alleged ‘black ledger’ of off-the-book payments from the Party of Regions to Manafort — Manafort left his post as chairman of the Trump Campaign,” the July 25, 2017, FBI agent’s affidavit stated.
According to documents, the FBI used the “black cash ledger” as a reason to rehash a criminal case against Paul Manafort that was previously dropped in 2014 — the FBI needed search warrants in 2017 to look through his bank records to prove Manafort worked for a Russian-backed political party in the Ukraine.
The kicker? The FBI received several early warnings that the “black cash ledger” was likely a fake, yet they used it anyway. Mueller’s office was also warned that the document was a fraud, according to John Solomon.
Mueller’s corrupt lawyers knew that if they used the Manafort document, it would require FBI agents to discuss their assessment of the evidence against Manafort, so they sneakily skirted this issue by using media reports that cited the “black cash ledger” — even worse, the feds assisted on one of those media reports as a source, John Solomon said.
The FBI and Mueller’s team knew the ledger was a fraud because they never even introduced it to jurors during Manafort’s trial last summer — rather, they just used it to hunt Manafort down, indict him and drag his name through the mud.
Via John Solomon of The Hill:
For example, Ukraine’s top anticorruption prosecutor, Nazar Kholodnytsky, told me he warned the U.S. State Department’s law enforcement liaison and multiple FBI agents in late summer 2016 that Ukrainian authorities who recovered the ledger believed it likely was a fraud.
“It was not to be considered a document of Manafort. It was not authenticated. And at that time it should not be used in any way to bring accusations against anybody,” Kholodnytsky said, recalling what he told FBI agents.
Likewise, Manafort’s Ukrainian business partner Konstantin Kilimnik, a regular informer for the State Department, told the U.S. government almost immediately after The New York Times wrote about the ledger in August 2016 that the document probably was fake.
Manafort “could not have possibly taken large amounts of cash across three borders. It was always a different arrangement — payments were in wire transfers to his companies, which is not a violation,” Kilimnik wrote in an email to a senior U.S. official on Aug. 22, 2016.
He added: “I have some questions about this black cash stuff, because those published records do not make sense. The timeframe doesn’t match anything related to payments made to Manafort. … It does not match my records. All fees Manafort got were wires, not cash.”
Special counsel Robert Mueller’s team and the FBI were given copies of Kilimnik’s warning, according to three sources familiar with the documents.
Submitting knowingly false or suspect evidence — whether historical or to support probable cause — in a federal court proceeding violates FBI rules and can be a crime under certain circumstances. “To establish probable cause, the affiant must demonstrate a basis for knowledge and belief that the facts are true,” the FBI operating manual states.
Liberal law professor Alan Dershowitz slammed the FBI’s use of media reports and said FBI affidavits almost never cite news articles as evidence. “They are supposed to cite the primary evidence and not secondary evidence.”
“It sounds to me like a fraud on the court, possibly a willful and deliberate fraud that should have consequences for both the court and the attorneys’ bar,” Dershowitz added.
John Solomon points out two glaring problems with the FBI using the fake Manafort file and media reports to argue probable cause for a search warrant — and surprise, surprise Mueller’s “pit bull” Andrew Weissmann is involved:
First, the agent failed to disclose that both FBI officials and Department of Justice (DOJ) prosecutor Andrew Weissmann, who later became Mueller’s deputy, met with those AP reporters one day before the story was published and assisted their reporting.
An FBI record of the April 11, 2017, meeting declared that the AP reporters “were advised that they appeared to have a good understanding of Manafort’s business dealings” in Ukraine.
So, essentially, the FBI cited a leak that the government had facilitated and then used it to support the black ledger evidence, even though it had been clearly warned about the document.
Secondly, the FBI was told the ledger claimed to show cash payments to Manafort when, in fact, agents had been told since 2014 that Manafort received money only by bank wires, mostly routed through the island of Cyprus, memos show.
“There is now compelling evidence the two main documents the FBI used to justify investigating the Trump campaign, the Manafort ledger and the Steele dossier, were suspect and contained inaccurate information. And the FBI was warned,” John Solomon said.
Read John Solomon’s full report on the fake Manafort file and corrupt FBI tactics to prosecute him here.
FBI, warned early and often that Manafort black ledger might be fake, used it anyway in search warrant request. https://t.co/SEQkCYHQGB
— John Solomon (@jsolomonReports) June 19, 2019