Whatever becomes clear after Rick Gates finishes his direct and cross examination is that Gates and Paul Manafort truly deserved each other. On the stand on his first day of testimony, Gates admitted to embezzling hundreds of millions from Manafort as he helped Manafort hide millions and lie to the government and banks. It was highly damaging testimony, but the most damaging in my view came earlier from Manafort’s accountants that he was in financial collapse — struggling to maintain an opulent lifestyle after his Ukrainian money machine was cut off with the flight of his main client.
Gates admitted that he filed false expense reports to steal hundreds of thousands of dollars. He is now testifying under a plea agreement with the Special Counsel Robert Mueller. Gates described dozens of accounts where they moved around money without declaring income. It is the type of evidence that is difficult to square with a jury. Most jurors have one or two accounts and view the necessity of having dozens as more criminal and practical in character.
The defense is clearly going to pursue a strategy to portraying the financial irregularities and violations as part of Gates’ embezzlement. That is a very difficult defense to make work. It leaves Manafort as some type of helpless dupe who unwittingly allowed Gates to carry out a long-standing criminal scheme right under his nose. That contradicts the image Manafort cultivates of a sophisticated international mover and shaker. It also does not fit with the level of income that he accrued through complicated deals and contracts.
The most damaging testimony dealt with Manafort’s accountants and the description of a lifestyle collapsing under its own weight. As discussed earlier, his own accountant received immunity because she believed that she committed crimes in filing documents that she believed were untrue.
The testimony suggests that Manafort may have viewed the Trump campaign position as a type of “Hail Mary” play to get out of impending financial disaster. As shown by Michael Cohen, millions were to be made by selling access to Trump. What was not known was that Manafort was in a free fall financially.
I have previously stated that I would be highly surprised if Manafort could run the tables in two prosecutions in two jurisdictions and knock down every count. Mueller only have to convict him on one to put him away for as much as ten years. However, if he is playing for a pardon, knocking down most of the counts would help make such a presidential act more palpable politically.
So now America knows that Rosenstein, Mueller, Comey, McCabe, Strozk, Page, Kadzic, Yates, Baker, Bruce Ohr, Nellie Ohr, Steele, Simpson, Hillary, Huma, Lynch, Brennan, Clapper, Joseph Mifsud, Kerry, Stefan “The Walrus” Halper, Power, Farkas, Rice, Jarrett, Obama et al. conspired to falsely exonerate Hillary Clinton to protect Barack Obama, intimidate Attorney General Jeff Sessions and open a “malicious prosecution” against a duly elected, sitting President.
The Manafort “show trial” is the product of that insidious endeavor. Bravo!
When does America obtain, from the “dedicated” law enforcement authorities that “serve” this nation, the imperative and legitimate second special counsel to investigate the actual crime, the most prodigious scandal in American political history, the Obama Coup D’etat in America?
What will Senator Burr learn from Julian Assange?
Yes, George, you have been appointed Grand Inquisitor! Go for it! Or maybe you want to confess your evil doings! Tell it all, brother!
OT as usual – Senate calling for Assange to testify.
“Julian Assange has been asked to testify before the US Senate Intelligence Committee as part of their Russia investigation, according to a letter signed by Senators Richard Burr (R-NC) and Mark Warner (D-VA) posted by the official WikiLeaks Twitter account.”
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-08-08/us-senate-calls-julian-assange-testify-wikileaks
i like zerohedge and no matter how many times they are right they will be called conspiracy theorists
of course that is what makes you one: when you are right so often that you need to be discredited because otherwise people might find your reasoning compelling
another good article:
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-08-08/rand-paul-delivers-letter-trump-putin
If I’m ever tried for a crime, I hope the chief witness against me is an embezzling, philandering, admitted liar Judas with a plea deal.
one juror may just find enough reasonable doubt there to surprise the commentators
Mr. K:
I think he’ll get convicted on some counts by virtue of the accountant’s testimonies. I don’t believe Gates for a minute, however. A guy who, in order, lied to his wife, his employer and law enforcement need not be believed. He’s almost run out of folks to lie, too. Maybe the jury will figure out that they are next.
If you’re half right, you’re half wrong.
If you’re half wrong, you’re all wrong.
it certainly reflects badly on manafort that he employed this bad guy. that might be enough to sway a conviction just for that alone. i don’t see manafort “sweeping the table” as turley calls it. nor do i see a resounding victory for Meuller. then again any victory will be celebrated by the mass media as anything they want it to be. their commentary on cases is about as reliable as a stopped clock, correct at least two seconds a day
Wow. Yes, liars who lie about everything to everyone are certainly not to be trusted. Oh, wait…
LOL
Or not.
hollywood – you know if there is a hung jury you are going to be very annoyed. 😉 And if they find him not guilty on any of the counts you are going to open at least one vein. 😉
PC Schulte,…
The real danger to those with TDS will be if Trump is neither indicted by Mueller, nor inpeached and convicted.
That outcome would likely result in widespread catastrophic health issues.
If you think Natacha’s blood is boiling now, she will need to be placed in a cryro unit to save her if Trump walks.
That’s just silly, Tom. He can’t be indicted until after he is out of office. We just want him to get out of Dodge.
hollywood – if he serves two terms the statute of limitations will have run. 🙂 If not, he can pardon himself as his last act out the door.
I suspect the SOL is tolled while he’s in office.
If you have the support – impeach him.
Otherwise, your next shot is 2020.
Hollywood,
You and anyone else interested in this topic should google: ” CAN A SITTING PRESIDENT BE INDICTED”?
I willl be disappointed with a hung jury. You, of course, will be disappointed all during the re-trial. I don’t care if he escapes a few of the counts.
hollywood – actually I do not care one way or the other. I just like to see Mueller and his team squirm. 🙂
Thus far I have heard nothing except tax evasion that they have tried to prove.
Tax evasion and bank fraud.
If an actual bank has been defrauded – then it should be demanding repayment from Manafort.
They are not. Mueller manufactered bank fraud charges. Just as he manufactured money laundering and witness tampering.
And it looks like he manufactured Tax evasion.
Paul, think about it. Knowing what we know about this case and this judge, I seriously doubt he wants to preside over a re-trial. If it even starts to smell like a hung jury, Ellis will lean on the jurors so hard they will magically become unhung.
they often do lean on them. but a hung jury in a case like this might continue impasse until dismissed.
this is a show trial at the bottom of it. even if Manafort is a dirty guy, the charges are very tardy, politically motivated, and yeah just a show trial. one juror who understands this may stand up for the freedoms of us all.
No jury nullification please.
Why not ? Jury Nullification is a time honored american tradition – see Zenger.
it’s a ball in play when you bring a show trial.
and a well known tool in every case tinged with politics
hollywood – you can lean as much as you want, but a holdout juror can be very stubborn.
a juror can be just as stubborn as a long time democrat voter in the outskirts of detroit michigan let’s say who gets tired of watching jobs flee to foreign lands and local jobs taken by foreigners and decides to vote for DJT to the great surprise of complacent hillary and her rich allies in the NYT etc
OK, but this case is being tried in Virginia.
they have carefully picked a venue close to the district of criminals where a lot of people are on the federal teat and recognize the Deep State’s desired outcome when they see it
You’re supposed to save that comment for the DC trial coming up next.
yes alexandria virginia not your average old Dominion territory either
alexandria, home to federal offices, federal parasites, and one Deep State enterprise after another
exactly the place I would bring a trial if I were trying to go after Trump
not even NYC would supply such an adverse jury pool against him
I suppose LA would but no ties to this mess at all
Funny you mention that now that the Daniels case has been transferred to LA.
Mueller needs a big win. Anything less and he is toast.
It is not worth prosecuting further.
I am not sure Mueller is not toast anyway – nothing in this trial has touched anything Mueller was brought in for.
How many times does the left get to cry wolf before we quit listening. ]
We were promised years ago real proof of real collusion.
It is increasingly obvious that Mueller’s strategy is to pummel anyone vauguely related to trump on anything he can find until he can get one of them to
“compose” a tale that implicates Trump
I would raise the possibility that Mueller is convicted on a few tax evasion charges. And Ellis gives him a very light sentence.
It is also possible that Ellis will dismiss the entire case.
you mean manafort.
judge will have to follow the UFSG
meuller will keep on plodding along, that is what he is, a jarhead elevated to the level of a federal prosecutor, just plodding along following orders to get the bad guy
the US executive branch is a disgusting leviathan; the article iii judges are unelected tyrants; and the congress is an emasculated bunch of narcissists
the federal government is a mess
the only good news is, other countries are even more screwed up than us, in general
Nothing to disagree with.
X – X = 0
This equation is zeroed out.
If I’m a juror, I acquire a sense that Manafort was less than honest
but I am compelled to reject the non-evidence of lies, deceit and duplicity as unreliable.
At the end of the day, there is nothing in the prosecution pan of the scale of justice.
The documentary evidence remains after you substract Gates’ testimony. Whatever portions of Gates’ testimony are consistent with the documentary evidence need not be subtracted. The warrant returns for the searches of Manafort’s several properties effectively seized, or led to the seizure of, the bulk of Manafort’s communications with Gates and other members of the Trump campaign.
The jury will be free to do as they please with Gates testimony.
They will certainly receive a CRIM-IN-FALSI instruction regarding Gates.
I would strongly suggest that calling Gates was a huge mistake for Mueller.
An admitted embezeler is a useless witness. He does much more harm than good.
That Manafort’s guilty is pretty much a given. The question being answered is to what extent, how many times, how many different crimes, etc. That Gates is guilty, a rat, and a thief is also a given. What is front and center here more than anything else is how the tools of the law are wielded. The prosecution is hamstrung by the judge when it tries to include arguments regarding motive. One thing is a fact; Manafort was addicted to a lifestyle he could not maintain. One could argue the collecting of million dollar properties was business/real estate but a million dollars in suits and other baubles speaks to the ego of the mutt. The ego, need for money, and the crimes are all one. The defense is absurdly making the argument that Manafort wasn’t aware of the ‘nuances’ of his financial gymnastics and that it was everyone else’s doing: the tax preparer, tax accountant, secretary, Gates, etc. They all attest to Manafort being hands on and in control of all his financial stuff.
Right up there with the manipulation of the law by lawyers is the elephant in the room. There’s an orange elephant that if an investigation was to take place with all tax documents and all other documents; all documents, face up to be scrutinized, would provide for much more interesting entertainment. There aren’t enough investigators to unearth this sort of financial labelling/relabelling/fudging/etc. in the world of the Manaforts and Gates. Why Cyprus bank accounts? Why constant moving of funds? Why not a well defined American system of transparent banking for anyone doing business in the US as well as all Americans. It is not against the law to make money. However, it should be against the law to do what most of these well oiled slippery types do. Good revenue source, the fines and such. Provides jobs for decent lawyers. But the taxpayer has to pick up the tab for the prison terms. So, confiscate the wealth and use it to pay for the investigations. Bernie Madoff is going to have company, lots of it.
its not a given. we have jury trials here and all are presumed innocent as part of our system of due process and fundamental fairness.
im not sure how it works in canada.
Typically Canadian jurors understand that when it walks like a perp, talks like a perp, has all the evidence pointing to it being a perp, they call it a perp. Of course in the US if you have the money you can buy justice, sometimes, but not always. This is looking like a not always.
issac:
“Of course in the US if you have the money you can buy justice sometimes, but not always”
**********************************
Yeah, like Bernie Madoff or Martha Stewart or :
-Edwin Edwards
– Jack Abramoff
– Andrew Fastow
– Randy “Duke” Cunningham
– Richard Scrushy
– Joseph Nacchio
– John and Timothy Rigas
– Jeffrey Skilling
– Bernard Ebbers
All did.
Do you ever read American newspapers?
mespo…..remember the Edwards bumper stickers in the early 90’s when David Duke ran against him…..”Vote for the crook. It’s important.”
Classic.
I’d rather a crook than a klansman, any day of the week.
and in the guise of the late great Democrat Robert Byrd, the voters of West Virginia loved him for both and voted for him again and again
I didn’t like him either.
I do read America papers, but for the real unbiased news one has to read the BBC and papers from other countries. The US is, perhaps, the most polarized country in the free world. Most countries have four or more political parties, each with a newspaper that is slanted their way. One gets the news and a political opinion. The US has two parties, one more than a dictatorship; and the candidates for both parties are chosen by concentrated money/oligarchs and special interests and funded to play their parts in the circus, for the sake of entertainment and venting. Senators know that to respond to the overwhelming majority of the people but to go against the NRA, they would not be funded and indeed would see their opponents funded. So, they vote to support what the special interest wants, against the desires of the majority of the people. This happens blatantly and behind the scenes. When a story that supports the left breaks and finds itself on the front page of the Washington Post or The New York Times, it is left out of Fox News or given a small spot of small print. The Washington Times is notorious for simply not printing stories that don’t favor the right. Typically the BBC will print a story if it is important regardless of it being left or right favoring.
In order to get close to what is happening in the US one must read the BBC, The New York Times, Fox News, and the Washington Times.
For you, Mespo, you might try reading all of what I wrote. ‘not always’
You seem to be one of those cherry picking bushwhackers. Now read all of this, think awhile, and then respond, or not.
I quoted all of your drivel, Issac. It helps to show the laxity of your thought. Maybe you think “cherry picking” is an illegal alien jobs program.
Isaac forgot to mention “Canada Free Press” in his list of essential news sources.
Check it out to find out why that is😉
Too rational for Issac I suspect.
seasonal workers sir, generally not illegals, at least in the great state of Michigan
Issac, the Washington Times just Makes Stuff Up.
David Benson owes me nine citations (one from the OED) and the source of a quotation, after eleven weeks, and needs to cite all his work from now on. – Speaking of Making Things Up, when am I going to get my citations?
Paul C Schulte, you just Made Up that I owe you anything. Go visit a mental health professional.
David Benson owes me nine citations (one from the OED) and the source of a quotation, after eleven weeks, and needs to cite all his work from now on. – David, I do not have to Make Up anything, unlike you. I didn’t read Weart.
Paul C Schulte — and ignorant as well.
David Benson owes me nine citations (one from the OED) and the source of a quotation, after eleven weeks, and needs to cite all his work from now on. – I am gleefully ignorant of Weart and the gasoline engine. 🙂
BBC. tell me is that covertly controlled by the MI5/6 or do they just run it outright?
and btw if you think the overwhelming majority dislike the nra you may not be as familiar with america as you think
maybe you are familiar with detroit or NYC or LA but out here in the hinterlands people actually like the NRA. just in case you are wondering,. but i am sure you think you know it all. Canadianship gives you a sense of superiority of Americans perhaps
In the US we are suposed to require actual evidence.
I have heard no actual evidence.
We have a reasonable doubt standard to convict.
That pretty much rules out convicting people because you do not like them.
Isaac,…
– I think we went over this before, but here in the U.S. the prosecution makes its case, the defense presents its case, both sides get a chance to question witnesses, and the jury decides.
I don’t know how things are done in Canada or in other third-world countries that accounts for different results.
But that’s how things are done in the U.S. criminal justice system.
a good reason for you to stay in canada, and, the entire left coast of america to emigrate there. Hail Canada!
Who thinks based on what has been testified that Manafort would be convicted in TX ? OH ? …..
I’m wondering what Manafort’s defense is. Smearing Gates? But the FBI’s forensic accountant and the prosecution’s IRS witness showed that Manafort failed to declare at least $16 million in income, apparently claiming it was “loans.” And the loan docs are where? It appears a prima facie case has been presented.
They can’t put Manafort on. They can only get so much mileage out of silently applauding while Judge Ellis reams the prosecution (but they will have their time in the box). They can call an accountant but what would he do? Come up with some non-GAAP scheme whereby the $16 million was really loans? Shakey. Claim Gates took all the money? Call some ex-paramour of Gates’ to say his pillow talk was all about how he was robbing Manafort blind?
Or could they totally piss off the judge by doing something that would cause a mistrial? That would be daring and foolhardy. It looks to me like the defense is out of bullets. Depending on how all the evidence comes in they might be able to convince Ellis to grant a motion for judgment on one or more counts, but certainly not the entire case. Then it’s up to the jury.
hollywood – it appears the defense has not had time to draw its gun against Gates yet. He will be back on Tuesday.
Say what? Gates was on the stand for three days and was cross examined on two of those days. Gates is no longer on the stand. If you are saying the Judge is going to let the defense call Gates back during their case in chief, I think you are sorely mistaken. They’ve had their shots. That’s it. The only way I can see him coming back is if the prosecution first calls Gates for very limited rebuttal, then the defense gets another limited go at him. And I strongly doubt Ellis is the sort of judge who likes rebuttal and surrebuttal.
hollywood – coverage of the trial is not very good, however, I did hear that the judge told the prosecution that Gates would be back on Tuesday. Damned if I know where that puts him.
Where did you hear that?
hollywood – I was watching H.A, Goodman and he was reading an article from The Hill (I believe), not really sure. Goodman uses only reputable sources.
I think you misunderstood. Or he misinformed you.
Cross examination is limited to the testimony given on direct.
If the defense wishes to call gates they will be allowed to.
I suspect that you will find many of the areas the defense was precluded from exploring under cross will be asked on direct.
This is a judge who wants the case to move. I doubt he wants to get in a situation in which witnesses are being called back. He has the discretion to order all testimony of a witness in one sitting. I suspect he did that with Gates. Plus, what else does the defense have against Gates? He admitted he stole some money and he admitted he had an affair and he admitted he hopes to get the benefit of his plea deal. They are lucky they got all that.
“This is a judge who wants the case to move. I doubt he wants to get in a situation in which witnesses are being called back. He has the discretion to order all testimony of a witness in one sitting. I suspect he did that with Gates. Plus, what else does the defense have against Gates? He admitted he stole some money and he admitted he had an affair and he admitted he hopes to get the benefit of his plea deal. They are lucky they got all that.”
Typical left wing nut always certain you know how others think.
Manafort’s attorney’s have already attacked Gates – and deservedly so.
Based on evidence so far – Gates is actually guilty of several crimes.
While charges against Manafort have not been proven.
I do not recall the FBI testifying that manafort failed to declare 16M in income.
The “tax evasion” claim is far more complex than you make it.
Manafort is allowed to receive income from foreign sources.
That income is NOT taxable as income so long as it remains outside the US.
It was taxed in the country where the income occured.
Only the US taxes foreign income – as this is a very stupid policy that harms the economy.
As a matter of law loans are not income.
If you borrow from a bank – the money you receive is not income.
If you borrow from yourself – the money you receive is not income.
If one business you own borrows from another business you own – the money received is not income.
Because loans are not income it is possible to “cheat” on your taxes by loaning money to yourself or to family or friends and not repay the loan.
Therefore where loans are closely held the IRS requires that a loan really is a loan.
That you document it and repay it.
There are some claims that Manafort’s documentation is poor. That will be a question for the Jury.,
but ordinarily this type of tax issue is address with interest and penalties – not criminal charges.
One of many reasons for this is that Manafort can simply repay the loan in full at anytime, and the tax issue goes away.
You’re dreaming. A prima facie case has been made against Manafort.
“You’re dreaming. A prima facie case has been made against Manafort.”
Prima Fascia – probably.
The standard is reasonable doubt.
Regardless “prima Fascia” means by appearance.
That is about the lowest legal standard.
This is not about GAAP.
BTW GAAP does not apply to the IRS.
If you are familiar with tax law – the IRS will accept pretty much any accounting method – even roll your own, that meets a few criteria.
The vast majority of people do not use any accounting method for their taxes.
There is nothing “shakey” here at all.
Though the use of offshore accounts is uncommon for people who do not have foreign businesses – Manafort does.
Loaning money back and forth between business entities is extremely common for small and medium businesses.
For the most part this seems to be devolving into the high crime of poorly documented paperwork.
I noted early that Manafor could have made much of this go away by simply repaying the loans to himself – i.e. transfering assets from the US back to his foreign accounts.
Another more creative alternative would be to loan himself the money to make the required loan payments.
The fundimental issue with Gates is that theives are pretty much by law abysmal witnesses.
Embezzlement is considered to be a crime in falsification there will be an instruction to the jury that because he has admitted to embeziling the jury is free to completely disregard Gates testimony.
The bigger issue is the one that Ellis raised – the day to day handling of Manafort’s financies was NOT done by Manafort,
If Manafort was not aware that Gates was embezeling, then there he was not paying careful attention to his own financial affairs, and that means there is more than reasonable doubt that even if there is tax evasion, that Manafort was behind it.
Regardless, NOTHING that we were promised is materializing.
Even Ellis has noted that there is no purpose for Mueller to prosecute Manafort EXCEPT to leverage him to roll on Trump.
But the case against Manafort has nothing at all to do with Trump.
If Mueller had turned this case over too US attorney’s – as he did the Cohen case as well as several others, none of us would be paying any attention to this.
Had Mueller dumped this on a US Attorney Manafort would have been hit with fines and penalties and walked. No one would take this to court.
Coulda, woulda, shoulda.
Dear Ms. Late 4 Yoga: You are killing us with your compulsive cutting and pasting and links to to lefty articles that soothe you (and my guess nobody else reads). Please keep it to pithy comments with some semblance of logic. If you feel the need to vent, maybe try walk around the block, meditation, etc.
Tab Lockheed claims, above, that The United States Code and Turley’s opinion editorial in The Hill are lefty articles.
You just confirmed no original thought on your part but rather cherry-picking to soothe and reinforce what you want to believe.
The cherries she picks are SELF damning.
With Breitbart and Infowars dummies, you’d be surprised at what they call Leftist.
It’s like back in the day when the Bircher nutjobs claimed Ike was a commie.
i dont accept characterization of JBS Infowars or Breitbart as nutjob. that’s just a slander.
That’s just the truth. Doubly so for Infowars. You take Alex Jones crap seriously?
wildbill99 – I take Alex Jones as seriously as I do Rachel Maddow.
There’s a false equivalence for you.
hollywood – I hold them in the same high esteem.
Mediabiasfactcheck has Jones as tin foil hattery and Maddow as mean left hook. Not equivalent in my book. You may not agree with Maddow but she makes sense. Jones does not.
hollywood – it is clear from reading it that mediabias is very left-leaning. You have to make your own judgments on people and organizations.
Maddow is not funny, Jones is. people are just pissed that so many people LIKE jones. that’s all this is. a high tech lynching of Jones by Silicon valley. Plays well in Marin County i bet,.
Maddow makes no more sense than Jones.
Jones has something like 8 times the listeners of Maddow,
Think about that.
Maddow had a former prosecutor on tonight who is now a white collar criminal defense attorney. He had been in court the last three days and he thinks the prosecution could have rested already and Manafort would be down for 10 counts. No, that’s not all the counts that were alleged, but enough to take Paul off the street for a long long time.
hollywood – you know that Maddow would not have had anyone on who came to Manafort’s defense. 😉
And there are plenty of experts to say otherwise.
Do you think based on current evidence that a Jury in Texas would have convicted ?
No it is a true equivalence.
I don’t watch Rachel Maddow.
No doubt I would disagree with her often and find her objectionable in many regards.
But I doubt she’s putting out psychotic garbage like the Sandy Hook shootings were a hoax.
You’re too decent and intelligent to believe shite like that yourself Paul.
Just being arch?
wildbill99 – moi???
Maddow presents the political news in a clear and entertaining way. I seem to recall she used to do a cocktail on Fridays, but I haven’t seen that of late.
Wouldn’t bother me anyway. Hell, she could be vaping weed for all I care. That could be entertaining as Hell!
Jones smokes pot but that may not lift him much in your eyes, i don’t know
Nope. Hitler liked dogs, ya know?
Maddow is barely distinguishable from Jones.
You think she is clear because she tells you want you want to hear.
Jones listeners think the same.
They outnumber Maddow’s about 8:1
Yes, there a lot of stupid misinformed people in this world. I accept that.
“Yes, there a lot of stupid misinformed people in this world. I accept that.”
Careful your left wing nut elitism is showing.
Regardless, people who live in glass houses should not throw stones.
pincipled liberal who literally spit on alex jones once defends his access to youtube et al.
it’s a public square utilities issue if not a first amendment one
Both are equally free to express their views.
Normally individuals and businesses are free to restrict expression as they please within their domain.
But the DMCA provides a safe harbor against a variety of claims against service providers if the meet certain criteria.
One of those is that the provide a neutral platform
FB Twitter etc. have voluntarily agreed to free speech in return for other legal protections,.
They may not Censor Alex Jones.
They may not censor Der Stormer.
And in a different ERA the ACLU would be defending them.
But the modern left is about as ilibberal as you can get
it’s performance art and comedy and commentary. it is not news. it is about news
I enjoy it as entertainment
it should not have been censored by the digital public square keepers
I do not see many claiming that the few actually moderate democrats are “leftists”.
In fact I see very few accused of being leftists denying it.
Most of us might find the label leftist derogatory – but about 40% of the country thinks it is a badge of honor.
No one is being defamed by being called a leftist.
Most self admittedly are.
Maybe I was a little tough on Breitbarts, they probably ought not to be lumped in with those other two nutsacks.
But “to the left” of Infowars or the remnant kooks of the JBS is 98% of the nation, easily.
To the right of them might be the Aryan Nation but that’s about it.
wildbill99 – is your avatar a pic of Hoagy Carmichael? Been meaning to ask you for some time. 😉
Yes, Hoagy Charmichael Songwriter and Fly Fisherman, a particular favorite of mine.
Also a pretty good actor…
https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjY64f1tuDcAhVOTd8KHVwnB6gQjRx6BAgBEAU&url=http%3A%2F%2Fblog.bestamericanpoetry.com%2Fthe_best_american_poetry%2F2010%2F11%2Fhappy-birthday-hoagy-carmichael-nov-22-1899-dec-27-1981.html&psig=AOvVaw3HLNu4vBnYisAIs1ENsZT9&ust=1533919822759970
wildbill99 – good piano player, fair actor. 😉 BTW, just bought The Room which is supposed to be the best worst movie ever made. It is so bad, every scene is bad. The sex scenes are repeated, that is how bad it is. I am really looking forward to it. 🙂 Should be here tomorrow.
To each his own and God Bless America!
performance art, that’s alex jones. a comedy show, about news, not news itself
you don’t get it, but, then again, I don’t get Marina whastername’s “spirit cooking” either
Sure, it’s all giggles until one of his demented fans shoots up a pizzeria….
well then we can censor the SPLC since one of their donors and readers shot up a prolife place.
https://pjmedia.com/trending/2017/06/22/scalise-shooter-liked-the-terror-linked-splc-which-repeatedly-attacked-scalise/
Did the SPLC put forth a ridiculously phony conspiracy theory to egg their supporters on to violence?
yeah they actually spin out phony conspiracies every damned day
Bill Martin
If you have anything factual to bring to the discussion I think we will all enjoy reading it.
Dear Soggy Bacon: I posted concise/logical thoughts earlier this morning. Take a look and respond to that if you care to. Please feel free to challenge my logic.
Gee. Thanks, Mr. Bacon.
Exchange of the day:
Rick Gates: Mr. Manafort was very good at knowing where the money was and where it was going.
Judge T S Ellis [interjecting]: He didn’t know about the money you were stealing so he didn’t do it that closely.
Funny and important all at the same time.
Sounds like testimony from the bench, to me. How does Ellis know that Manafort didn’t know that Gates was stealing money from Manafort?
Federal judges can comment on evidence as every trial lawyer knows. It makes trials interesting.
Because that was Gates testimony.
Hear, hear!
Immutably impeached.
mespo, on redirect Gates testified that the falsified expenses he submitted were paid by the Ukranians, not Manafort.
hollywood – so, in the grand scheme of things what difference does it make who is out to kill him, Manafort or the Ukrainians?
I think the guy who has to worry about being killed is Big Pauly.
hollywood – I thought Big Pauly was already dead.
Big Pauly is on trial.
Nowhere near as pithy.
Does not matter – an embezeler is a near useless witness.
Ellis will instruct the jury they are free to disregard him entirely – and if he does not Manafort will win on appeal.
Maybe Manafort has a suit against Gates to pay any fines that Manafort may owe? I am not sure that Manafort is culpable or completely culpable.
PCS, did you just state that there is a “shadow of a doubt?”
George – if you are not following your money enough to know that Gates is embezzling hundreds of thousands from you, then maybe there is some reasonable doubt. 😉
PCS, Manafort is no more guilty than OJ Simpson, Casey Anthony and many multiple other parties on “K” street and in D.C. What would happen if America turned the “investigation” tables and started vetting Mueller’s “team” through the appointment of a second special counsel?
“Show me the man and I’ll show you the crime”
– Lavrentiy Beria, Director of Stalin’s Secret Police
__________________________________________________
“Mueller is now the Beria of America” – Michael Savage
george on this we are in perfect agreement
this is a big show trial worthy of the USSR
Lack of clarity as to whether Manafort directed the tax fraud scheme that Mueller has not actually proven is a reason this never should be a criminal charge.
PCS, you can flush that suit.
“Yes, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, my client Manafart was a helpless dupe. He was used and abused. He may think that his itShay don’t stink but he is not a criminal like these Mule er dupes want to portray. Please get on your own mules and ride out of here after finding my guy Not Guilty by reason of a doubt.” “Amen”
No it is much simpler.
Mr. Mueller has proven Manafort was duped by Gates.
He has proven that Manafort borrowed money from foreign entities under his control.
Being a dupe is not a crime.
Borrowing money – even from yourself is not a crime.
There might be lots of things going on here that are outside the experience of ordinary people who do not run multiple businesses or have money and revenue all over the world.
But the prosecution has not proven that any ot that is illegal.
You do no have to like Paul Manafort,
but absent evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that he has committed a crime – you must acquit him.
You do not even have evidence of a crime.
Tax evasion IS a crime. Thanks for playing.
What’s $30 million among friends? Apparently nothing for Ross.
All Crimes are specific.
Actively seeking to pay the lest possible taxes – is not a Crime.
“Anyone may arrange his affairs so that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which best pays the treasury. There is not even a patriotic duty to increase one’s taxes.
Over and over again the Courts have said that there is nothing sinister in so arranging affairs as to keep taxes as low as possible. Everyone does it, rich and poor alike and all do right, for nobody owes any
public duty to pay more than the law demands.”
-Judge Learned Hand, Helvering v. Gregory, 69 F.2d 809, 810 (2d Cir. 1934), aff’d, 293 U.S. 465 (1935)
It is legal to loan yourself money.
Loans are NOT taxable income.
But the Loan must be real.
Why didn’t the Trump campaign seek the advice of their own campaign counsel, Don McGahn, on the following “kompromat-trap” email:
3 June 2016
Rob Goldstone to Trump Jr
Emin [Agalarov, a Russian pop star represented by Goldstone] just called and asked me to contact you with something very interesting.
The Crown prosecutor of Russia met with his father Aras [a Moscow-based developer who tried to partner with Trump in a hotel project] this morning and in their meeting offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary [Clinton] and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father.
This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr Trump – helped along by Aras and Emin.
What do you think is the best way to handle this information and would you be able to speak to Emin about it directly?
I can also send this info to your father via Rhona [presumably Rhona Graff, Trump’s longtime executive assistant], but it is ultra sensitive so wanted to send to you first.
That “kompromat-trap” email establishes each and every last particular of 52 USC 30121 solicitation of an illegal foreign campaign contribution. Surely McGahn would have warded the Trump campaign off stepping into that trap had McGahn’s advice been sought. And why didn’t Manafort, of all people, see that trap being set for them? If Trump has reason to believe that Manafort really ought to have perceived the Trump Tower meeting as a “kompromat trap,” and if Trump eventually grants Manafort a pardon, anyway, that might bolster Bannon’s presumption that Trump, himself, knew about the Trump Tower meeting ahead of time and approved of it. If so, then Trump, himself, failed to perceive the “kompromat trap” that Trump sent his own son and son-in-law to step in. Why would Trump have done such a thing?
http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:52%20section:30104%20edition:prelim)
52 USC 30104 (f)(3) Electioneering communications
(A) In general
(i) The term “electioneering communication” means any broadcast, cable, or satellite communication which-
(I) refers to a clearly identified candidate for Federal office;
(II) is made within-
(aa) 60 days before a general, special, or runoff election for the office sought by the candidate; or
(bb) 30 days before a primary or preference election, or a convention or caucus of a political party that has authority to nominate a candidate, for the office sought by the candidate; and
(III) in the case of a communication which refers to a candidate for an office other than President or Vice President, is targeted to the relevant electorate.
(ii) If clause (i) is held to be constitutionally insufficient by final judicial decision to support the regulation provided herein, then the term “electioneering communication” means any broadcast, cable, or satellite communication which promotes or supports a candidate for that office, or attacks or opposes a candidate for that office (regardless of whether the communication expressly advocates a vote for or against a candidate) and which also is suggestive of no plausible meaning other than an exhortation to vote for or against a specific candidate. Nothing in this subparagraph shall be construed to affect the interpretation or application of section 100.22(b) of title 11, Code of Federal Regulations.
You have cited a definiton – not a crime.
There is a section of federal code that defines a knife too.
It does not make knives into crimes.
52 USC 30104 (f)(3)
(B) Exceptions
The term “electioneering communication” does not include-
(i) a communication appearing in a news story, commentary, or editorial distributed through the facilities of any broadcasting station, unless such facilities are owned or controlled by any political party, political committee, or candidate;
(ii) a communication which constitutes an expenditure or an independent expenditure under this Act;
(iii) a communication which constitutes a candidate debate or forum conducted pursuant to regulations adopted by the Commission, or which solely promotes such a debate or forum and is made by or on behalf of the person sponsoring the debate or forum; or
(iv) any other communication exempted under such regulations as the Commission may promulgate (consistent with the requirements of this paragraph) to ensure the appropriate implementation of this paragraph, except that under any such regulation a communication may not be exempted if it meets the requirements of this paragraph and is described in section 30101(20)(A)(iii) of this title.
Again – why do you think this is relevant.
Saying that spoons are not knives for the purpose of federal law does not make posession of a butter knife a crime.
http://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/400609-if-trump-meeting-is-illegal-then-clinton-dossier-is-criminal-too
Excerpted from Turley’s article in The HIll linked above:
The point is that only amateurs would take a meeting after a cryptic email from a music promoter about having Russian government evidence. They should have informed the FBI and used lawyers as surrogates. They should have done many things other than assemble the Trump triumvirate and walk blindly into that meeting. If stupidity were a crime, Trump Jr., Manafort and Kushner would serve life sentences for doing so. However, crimes are defined by acts and levels of intent. More importantly, courts narrowly construe such definitions to protect the public from ambiguous rules that prosecutors can twist to indict anyone at any time.
L4D still enables David Benson – If Mueller convicts any of the Trumps he will have to convict Hillary. So, it is not going to happen.
Turley is wrong, again. The supposed equivalency between the Steele dossier and the Trump Tower meeting is false on the face of it. What Trump, Trump Jr. and Kushner really need is for the Magnitsky-Browder-Ziff-brothers-nothing-happened cover story to hold up so that the solicitation of an illegal foreign campaign contribution can’t be tied into the Russian hack and leak of the DNC, DCCC and Podesta emails by way of conspiracy to defraud the United States.
Conversely, the Steele dossier was a campaign expenditure that was not used for any electioneering communications. And its use in electioneering communications would’ve been the only way that the Steele dossier could be shoe-horned into 52 USC 30121 (2) solicitation of an illegal foreign campaign contribution. There was no conspiracy to defraud the United States on the part of Clinton, The DNC, Marc Elias, Perkins Coie, Fusion GPS, nor Christopher Steele–who hid nothing from the FBI.
L4D still enables David Benson – the FEC is being sued over why they are not investigating Hillary’s sleight-of-hand for paying for the Steele dossier. And then we find out yesterday (thank you Judicial Watch) that the FBI/DoJ paid Steel 11 times for info from the Steele dossier, some of which was coming from the State Department. And we do not know if Steele got paid by the newspapers he flogged the story to. Steele is really adding to his retirement fund.
Nothing in the dossier was used in any electioneering communications, such campaign advertisements, attacking Trump. Turley is still wrong.
L4D still enables David Benson – the Steele dossier is the “insurance policy” you twit. Geez, get with the game. You haven’t even got your shoulder pads on yet.
PC. Schulte,…
At one point, it might have been possible to deprogram her.
But I think she’s probably too far gone for that now.
Tom Nash – six months of twice daily electro-shock therapy?
Strzok’s insurance policy was supposed to have been more aggressive investigative methods than the ones that Comey, McCabe and Yates et al. approved during the 2016 election. Comey, McCabe and Yates et al. refused to underwrite Strzok’s insurance policy in the first place.
L4D still enables David Benson – According to Strzok, his text msgs were just venting between co-workers. The rest he cannot talk about.
We do not know what Strzok’s “insurance” was.
We do know that FBI/CIA/DOJ/STATE violated procedures, guidelines and the law.
Everyone who signed the FISA warrant lied under oath.
Warrants require those signing them to SWEAR that the evidence they present is true and verified.
The Steele Dossier was tripple hearsay. It is not admissible anywhere, worse still even to use in a Warrant the FBI would have to assure the court of the reliability of the witnesses – not Steele, Not the FSB GRU agents that were his sources – but the actual sources who observed what was being used as evidence.
Warrants are not games of whisper down the lane. The source for a warrant is the person who directly observed the purported criminal conduct.
Even today we do not know who they are.
Everyone who signed off on one of these FISA warrants should be
fired and disbarred at a minimum.
Possibly criminally prosecuted.
These are not local cops with no clue about the 4th amendment, these were purportedly the top carreer criminal lawyers in the country.
Nothing Trump received from Natalia was used in any way at all.
Are you saying that trying to get DOJ/FBI/State/CIA to investigate your political opponent is not election related communications ?
There is a criminal referral on Steele from the Senate Inteligence Committed to the DOJ.
Steele was briefing media outlets on the contents of the dossier, and only got Mother Jones to publish material from the dossier before the election.
The criminal referral involves the question of Steele lying to the FBI about going to the media with the “dossier story”.
Steele is facing multiple lawsuits for defamation.
We’ve been over this and other matters again and again, and Ms. Propaganda Machine never winds down.
I won’t bother dealing with the other distortions the Nonstop Spin Machine keeps repeating, and I don’t have hour after hour to untangle the spin that she spents hour after hour on.
I am grateful, as I’ve said before, that she still allows some space for JT on her website here.
Once again, Krazy Kat Rambler has no idea what the argument is or even might be. Listen up, Krazy Kat: Turley wrote an opinion editorial in The Hill yesterday to which I provided a link upstream on this thread that you could click on and read if you were interested in finding out what the argument is now.
Suffice it to say that Turley claims that the Steele dossier is supposedly an illegal foreign campaign contribution if the Trump Tower meeting is the solicitation of an illegal foreign campaign contribution. Turley is wrong. And all of the information you need to arrive at that conclusion has already been posted right here on this thread.
L4D can and wil whitewash it any way she likes, and mention , The Mountain, the Forest where she wanders aimlessly, the Turley is Wrong Store, the L4D is Right Shack, etc.
A hyper-partisan propagandist with a loose screw is going to do what a hyper-partisan propagandist does.
I’ll pass on her “link upsteam” , and the ones downstream, and the ones clogging up the river.
Thanks to Trump the EPA no longer imposes any fines on anyone who clogs up any rivers anymore. And clogging up strictly metaphorical rivers is still protected by the First Amendment.
I meant to mention The Hill before The Mountain.
There was not ONE direct response to what I said in my comment; it was about “I’m right, Turley is wrong, read my link”, etc.
L4D needs to read Weart.
I am far less concerned about the conduct of Steele, Simpson, etc.
than the conduct of those in the DOJ/FBI/CIA.
It is increasingly clear that having gotten all this garbage on Trump from Steele,
they wanted to beleive, and they did beleive.
That they completely failed to understand that tripple hearsay allegations are not evidence.
It also appears increasingly probable that the Obama administration was running an operation against the Trump campaign – starting as early as late 2015.
It is also self evident that the entire law enforcement and intellegence aparatus of the federal government operated at a huge double standard.
That the left and the right were treated quite differently.
I used left and right deliberately – McCain as an example was purportedly one of the “good guys” – and yet he was heavily involved in F’ing over the Trump campaign.
Many of these FBI officers were atleast nominally republican, but it is still clear – they treat those on the left more favorably than those on the right.
well the bullschiessers at the FBI turned the triple hearsay into evidence by swearing to it.
presto! chango! nonsense becomes evidence
that’s how it happens day in day out
the big issue is the Fourth Amendment is getting gutted and that has now gone from the corner in a big city somehwhere to the oval office
What fourth ammendment ?
One of the other things that bothers me – is lets assume the worst about Trump.
At the time he was a private citizen at most running a political campaign.
The Obama Whitehouse, the DOJ/FBI CIA, IRS, State are all government.
The standard of conduct their is supposed to be HIGH.
There is no way in the world that Trump’s election related conduct can ever rise tot he level of watergate – because Trump was not president at the time, and he was not using the power of the federal government.
What went on durring the Obama administration was criminal political corruption.
And it was “worse that watergate”
Obama accomplished what Nixon dreamed of – using the federal government politically.
I do not grasp why people are not extremely bothered by that.
I am disturbed when Trump threatens to go after someone using the government.
But thus far he has not done so.
The Obama administration did.
kind of like Watergate but who’s counting huh
Obama did what Nixon WANTED to do.
yeah dhilii and so did LBJ do what nixon wanted to do LOL
You are correct – if Trump knifed HRC in Times square and then met with Natalia in Trump Tower.
Trump would be guilty of knifing HRC.
Given that we do not actually know that the Russians Hacked the DNC .. – do you really trust the people who got the Iraqi Yellow Cake, wrong (and did not actually investigate the DNC hack) to be accurate in what is nothing more than an oppinion ? Do you expect that the person who ruined Richard Jewel and Steven Hatfill’s lives and then drove Bruce Ivins to suicide and shelved the NSF report that concluded the Anthrax did not come from Fort Dietrick to get anything else right ?
There is no actual meaningful connection between Trump and Russia. The Natalia meeting in July makes it highly unlikely that Trump had prior russian contact or any fore knowledge of the DNC hacking – no matter who did it.
Your own evidence does not mean what you hope it does.
If you are going to claim that the Steele Dossier is exempt because it is not “electioneering communications”
Then niether was the worthless garbage Natalia brought.
You do not get it – the only differences between The Natialia meeting and the Steele dossier make Clinton’s actions worse and Trump’s better.
Clinton solitited dirt.
Trump rejected it when it fell into his hands.
Clinton paid for it – establishing that it HAS VALUE, Trump did not.
Clinton used it.
Trump did not.
Clinton went through myriads of cuttouts – that is called consciousness of guilt.
Trump did not.
Clinton KNEW she was dealing with Foreign agents. Steele is a foriegn agent, he GRU and FSB contacts are foreign agents.
Natalia is an OVERT political lobbiest – who also met with Clinton surrogates.
dhlii,… The DNC and the Hillary Campaign Fund went to great lengths to conceal their role in funding the Steele Russian Dossier.
It took a year, and subpeona pressure on Fusion GPS to finally confirm that they funded it.
The role that specific INDIVIDUALS played in authorizing this project is still unclear; e.g., Hillary, DW Schultz, and Donna Brazile all claim to know nothing about this.
Podesta doesn’t seem to be talking. “The DNC” isn’t a robotic orgsnization that relies on AI to authorize projects and cut checks; so in addition to concealing the organizations’ ( DNC and Clinton Campaign Fund) role in this for a year, the individuals within those organizations are all blind deaf and dumb when he comes to individual responsibility.
I’ve heard every lame excuse that there is for justifying the use of foreign resources in opposition research.
Most of those excuses were dutifully recited by our AM Propagandist, but now L4D is not even doing that.
She just states “the fact” that “Turley is wrong”, she is right, and believes that her beliefs should have the force of a papal ex cathedra proclamations.
I’ve come to see the humor in her loony posts, but I don’t think she’s doing a parody of an unglued True Believer.
Hiding things is generally evidence of consciousness of guilt (it is rebutable – there is a right to privacy).
Mueller is trying to claim that Manafort’s secrecy is evidence of criminality – and mens rea.
It is – only if there is an actual crime.
The very same is true with Clinton.
I am going to avoid commenting on the law – with respect to this.
I have no problem saying Clinton’s efforts to get dirt on Trump from Russia – SHOULD not be illegal – nor should Trumps.
As to what IS illegal – whateve that is, it applies equally to everyone – Clinton Trump.
There is no claim that Trump’s conduct is criminal that does not have clinton doing the same but worse.
I would further note – that just because something SHOULD be legal – does not make it moral.
I have enormous moral problems with Trump and Clinton and they were reflected in my vote.
And that is the limits of my power to impose my moral values on others.
There is BTW no crime of “conspiracy to defraud the united states. That is another “muellerism”.
If there were Clinton is clearly guilty of it.
She and cronies successfully seduced the DOJ/FBI into using sham and false OPO research to spy on a political opponent.
What would be more “conspiracy to defraud the united states than that ?
Actually Steele hid is contacts with the Media from the FBI and it got him fired.
Further for a very long time Steele tried to hide his role in this all.
As did everyone arround him.
dhlii,
Steele allegedly denied talking to the media when the FBI asked him about it.
That was the reason( lying the FBI) that Sen.Grassley and Sen, Graham of the Senate Intelligence Committe sent a criminal referral on Steele to the DOJ.
As a British citizen, he may be beyond the reach of the U.S. if he’s indicted.
There is a number of civil suits involving Steele ( libel and defamation) that Steele has not been able to duck, so his British citizenship doesn’t seem to insulate him from being sued.
Now if the pattern holds, the AM Propagandist will come back with some foolish remark like ” you don’t know what the argument is about”, or “let me explain this to you”.
This is her code for “you are not accepting my hyper-spin version of things.”
Paul C. Schulte,,,,.
– One game that I’ve seen the seers of all kinds play is the mass prediction game.
They make myriad predictions, and many if not most turn out to be wrong.
But then they pull out the one(s) that turned out to be correct; the most predictions that they make, the likelier that they can trumpet a correct one from the ruble of the ridiculously wrong ones.
Joe Granville understood this.
David Stockman has been so spectacularly wrong so many times that it’s odd that anybody pays any attention to him at all.
But I still see “David Stockman predicts” or “David Stockman says” headlining various publications.
Sometimes L4D has to even hammer established facts into acceptable “L4D facts” to make her present and future scenarios work; she may have been a blacksmith as well as a fraudulent Gypsy fortune teller in a previous life.
Tom Nash – she may be a fortune teller in her current life. 😉
I have very serious problems criminalizing lying to federal agents.
While doing so should get you in trouble – meaning attract their attention.
It should not be prosecutable.
Not for Steele, or Flynn or Papadoulis.
dhlii,…
I don’t think that this involvement in the 2016 campaign has done a lot of good for Simpson’s Fusion GPS business, or Steele’s Orbis business.
One article referred to an espensive estate that Steele resides in.
I don’t know if he is wealthy, living beyond his means, or had builit a very lucrative business.
But whatever money Fusion GPS and Orbis got from their work for the DNC and Hillary campaign has likely been offset by loss of business and legal fees for lawyers who are defending them in civil lawsuits.
Maybe a “go fund me account” or a book deal like “A Higher Royalty” will ultimately turn a profit for them.
The book deal is probably not in the near future, and ill-advised when plantiffs are suing you.
The question was raised earlier as to why Kushner, Trump Jr. and Manafort did not get legal advice before meeting with Veselnitskaya at the Trump Tower.
I don’t have a pipeline to the Trump Administration.
Or the Mueller investigation like L4D has.
So I don’t know if they got a legal opinion or not prior to the meeting.
But the same question could be asked of Simpson and Steele.
Marc Elias was a middleman for payment in this scheme, and not necessarily the best lawyer around to CYA fo r Simpson/Steele before getting into an area like foreign opposition research
Trump should have consulted a lawyer ?
Clinton gathered dirt on Trump from Russian intelligence THROUGH A LAWYER.
If Perkins Coi had no problems with this why should Trump ?
If one of the more prestigious firm in the country is willing to participate – why is there an issue with Trump ?
Trump should have contacted the FBI ?
The Clinton’s did contact the FBI – and the FBI actively participated
I do not see the FBI expressing reservations about Clinton collecting dirt on Trump from Russian Intelligence
“The DNC, Marc Elias, Perkins Coie, Fusion GPS, nor Christopher Steele–who hid nothing from the FBI.”
ROFL!!!!!
Dhlii,…
This is her version of a plenary inulgence.
I suspect that she is, or was, Catholic.
Her ex cathedra proclamations and these plenary indulgences from her are strong indications that she’s steeped in Catholic dogm.
Should be “dogma”.
I’m trying to start an online betting pool for those who wish to guess: How many links
How many cut and paste jobs.
How many
thousands of words by L4D will
be posted by L4D on a given day.
There are other betting possibilities from her posts that can be added, but we can start small to get this off the ground.
I don’t want to entangle JT or Darren in any possible illegal activity, so the betting may have to be outside of this site.
Tom Nash – I think she thinks we are closing in on another landmark and she wants to be cock of the walk again. It doesn’t come with a ribbon, or trophy, or even money, but I think she wants it. 😉 So, she has to crank out a bunch of comments each morning to get things started.
Lots of us is or was catholic.
Ex cathera pronouncements are made by the pope under very narrow constraints
Last I checked L3D was not pope.
dhlii…Tell HER.😀
dhlii – we have not had a female Pope since Pope Joan.
not sure who she is
but HRC is a methodist
Mr Kurtz – when is the last time Hillary has been in a Methodist church?
What Turley or you or anyone else thinks they “should” have done – is not a crime.
I should have had strawberries for breakfast – not a crime.
I should have put oil in my car – not a crime.
If you think that the Trump tower meeting was stupid – then what of HRC hiring Steele and paying Steele and FSB and GRU against for garbage and then forwarding it to the FBI.
It is only stupid to meet with a Russian when they knock on your door.
Not when you seek them out ?
You are aware that the FEC has reported that the Clinton campaign failed to report over 100M in donations from contributors that were over their limits.
How is something that the Trump campaign find to be worthless garbage “something of value”.
BTW the “something of value” claim was litigated by Preet Bahara and guess what he lost mutliple convictions on appeal because the NY 2nd federal appeals court said – “something of value” is unconstitutionally vague – you must establish REALVALUE of consequence or you may not prosecute.
Please keep up.
Finally -honestly I do not care – interpret the law broadly. so long as you do so for both parties alike.
You can lock Trump and Clinton in adjacent cells – and have President Cruz.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/52/30121
52 USC 30121
(a) Prohibition It shall be unlawful for—
(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make—
(A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;
(B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or
(C) an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 30104(f)(3) of this title); or
(2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.
(b) “Foreign national” defined As used in this section, the term “foreign national” means—
(1) a foreign principal, as such term is defined by section 611(b) of title 22, except that the term “foreign national” shall not include any individual who is a citizen of the United States; or
(2) an individual who is not a citizen of the United States or a national of the United States (as defined in section 1101(a)(22) of title 8) and who is not lawfully admitted for permanent residence, as defined by section 1101(a)(20) of title 8.
AGAIN – the courts have already decided what “something of value” means – and you are not even close.
Further Trump made no use of the information provided – BECAUSE IT WAS WORTHLESS.
FINALLY – interpert this broadly – and you have HRC in levenworth – but STILL probably not Trump.
you are really charmed by yourself but listen, it’s all very easy to circumvent
http://www.uky.edu/electionlaw/analysis/foreign-contributions-us-elections
and then there is Citizens United. Oh, Citizens United, who knows how far it could go
No one is questioning your First Amendment right to run off at the mouth endlessly.
Certainly no one is curtailing that daily “running ritual”.
kompromat, an overly used Russian word, some people like because it makes them feel important
nastrovyeh, a well used Russian word, i like to use when toasting my Russian friends
Smerst Spionam,
–Tovarish Koba
This offends you ?
How given the enormous efforts of HRC to get dirt from Russians on Trump from FSB and GRU agents, through former MI6 agents can you be the slightest offended that Trump Jr. was willing to talk to a Russian private lawyer – who was ALSO talking with FusionsGPS,
There is no means of defining anything Trump’s campaign has done as criminal – without locking up 2/3 of the Clinton campaign for worse.
If you want to put Trump and clinton in adjoing cells – fine by me – though I would really prefer finding a REAL crime.
Getting dirt on a political opponent is not a crime.
Clinton got a whole lot of garbage – which she peddled to the FBI/DOJ,
Trump got a little garbage which he wisely ignored.
Of the two the one excercising far better Judgement was Trump.
L4D – you have the logic BACKWARDS.
Clinton actually soliicited – i.e went out looking for.
Trump had fake dirt offered.
BTW something you discard is pretty much the defintion of “NOT something of value”.
If as you are claiming with this “Kompromat Trap” assertion – it was an effort by Russions to entrap Trump – fine IT FAILED.
Conversely are you saying that FSB and GRU agents provided HRC with info on Trump – and Putin did not know ?
Has she won the election the candidate who would have been in a Kompromat Trap was Clinton not Trump.
Should Trump Jr. have taken the meeting ? I do not know.
But if not then Clinton should not have conspired through PC and Fusion GPS and Steele (a foreign agent) to get dirt on Trump from Russian foreign agents.
Glenn Simpson had no problems meeting with Natalia many many times.
Acording to him though they did not talk about Trump – they did talk about the Magnitvinsky act – exactly the same thing she talked to Trump about.
Was a trap being set ? Who knows. But only the left seems to be able to see NOT taking and using non-dirt from Natalia as springing the Trap.
If Putin was trying to Trap Trump – he would have offered something far more enticing than meaningless drivel on a clinton contributor.
If trump himself knew of the Trump tower meeting – so what ?
I would note that the Natlia meeting might have been a Trap.
But it is more likely a Trap set by the Clinton campaign and Glenn Simpson than the Russians.
Just to be perfectly clear:
If DT had been actually present at the meeting.
If Natalia had brought Real Dirt on Clinton.
If Trump had accepted and used it.
That would have been perfectly legal and no different from HRC not merely doing – but actually solicited dirt on Trump from a wide variety of foreign nationals.
I still don’t get why special counsel did not refer this sleazy case to DOJ. Perhaps they wanted to teach Manafort a lesson for pushing back. Special counsel looks petty and vindictive for taking this case to trial instead of referral to DOJ. Rat Ron Rosenstein created a creepy crawling investigation when he set up special counsel and expanded its power instead of reigning it in. Rat Ron Rosenstein is ultimately responsible for this ugly Frankenstein monster of an investigation.
I still don’t get why special counsel did not refer this sleazy case to DOJ.
Because Rosenstein and Mueller wanted to blackmail the defendant for perjured testimony contra Trump. Very few of the wire transfers listed in the indictment occurred after 2013 and none after 2015. There might have been a bank loan obtained within the time period he worked for Trump, but that’s it.
TS to Dance,
– I think also they may have needed a “trophy” prosecution against someone from the Trump Campaign, even if the indictments have nothing to do why the campaign,
I keep wondering why Mueller is in charge of a tax evasion case from yesteryear. I thought he was supposed to devote all of his time, energy, and vast intellect to creating a crime to pin on our president.
Have you not been watching lefty loon cable television? “Bob Muler is beyond reproach”. They have repeated that so often that it must be true and we should not question his tactics or over-reaching authority.
right exactly what he’s doing. he’s on the case, boss!
WTF: I’m blind & I’m shutting this machine down. Oh it’s just the crazy German’s Rammstein.
du hast!
Sooo, if you have a shell company, an artificial being like a corporation, then the income from the Ukrainians, lets assume $1 million, or whatever goes into the shell as
Debit Cash $1,000,000
Credit Revenue from Operations $1,000,000
Then Manafort the presumed stockholder and officer of the shell, gets $500,000 of that money wired to him:
Credit Cash $500,000
Debit either:
Advances to Officers/Stockholders $500,000 (a loan)
or
Commissions to Officers $500,000
There is nothing wrong with this as far as I see. Closely held corporations are all the time either giving or receiving money from its Officers and Stockholders.
Unless there is a specific law that prohibits the classification as a loan when the entity is offshore, then the Gov’t has to prove some intent here. The IRS has the power to “collapse” transactions when deemed necessary to reflect reality. Assume Bob owns a painting corporation, and he never takes a salary whatsoever. Instead, the corporation just advances him money every week, and it is recorded on the books as “Advances to Officers”.
Clearly Bob is playing games, especially if he never pays the money back. BUT, the corporation is paying tax on that money, because rather than deducting it as a Salary Expense, it is debiting it to an Asset. Thus, Bob saves tax dollars, but the Corporation overpays its taxes. If the entity is a Sub S, where income is passed thru on a K1 to Bob, he still ends up paying the same income tax on the Sub S’s income. But, he will avoid the FICA tax on his own “salary”, if he takes the money out as a Dividend or Distribution of Earnings, rather than a salary.
Such things are usually a civil matter, not a criminal matter.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
it’s a different ball of wax where the money laundering statute is concerned. it’s so loose, you could drive a truck through it and follow it with a cruise ship
Squeeky,
If you want the definitive work on financial scams try this:
“Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich”
If you want some real criminal accounting, read the saga of what the mutual broker of Hillary Clinton and Tyson Chicken, one
“Red Bone,” did to post cattle futures loses to Tyson’s account and gains to Hillary’s, all while Hillary was home “baking cookies.”
A life of crime for 35 years. Hillary must be given credit where credit is due.
but what about Mena george. Slick Willy did the dirty deeds for the US too. let’s be fair. he’s a patriot for helping the contras move drugs in and out of Arkansas, ya see
And your point is? The contras were theoretically anti-communist which would make them pro-American and pro-Constitution. How about the boys on the train tracks? Did they make the Clinton Body Count? Do you believe that JFK did not know of the attempts on Castro? Which was more distasteful, the assassinations of Allende, Diem, JFK, MLK and RFK or Iran/Contra? American Intel has always been very “busy” no matter the election results.
direct support for Contras was illegal at the time most of the shenanigans occurred
https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/u-s-aid-to-contras-signed-into-law
ergo, the scheme to import drugs and trade arms for hostages and all that,
was explicitly illegal at many levels
but Slick Willy as governor provided lots of help
its funny how the Deep State has tons of volunteers coming from both parties at every turn
one is tempted to suspect that the Deep State controls the parties, too
I believe that…. until Donald Trump won
this is now the Deep State regaining control over the process.
the great part of this story is that our elections are actually more authentic than many believed. DJT is proof of the enduring vitality of American elections.
Never Trumpers in both parties are trying to invalidate the singularly most authentic and unexpected electoral result in American history
I have the Graphic Novel version of the book! Hillary should be in an orange jump suit!
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Squeeky, in your scenario of an offshore shell company making $1,000,000, then transferring $500,000 to Manafort, the loan from the offshore company, if still outstanding at the end of a calendar quarter, will be treated as income to the stockholder to the extent the company had income. IOW, when dealing with controlled foreign companies you can’t avoid US taxation by characterizing the transfer as a loan.
Do you have a cite for this? My current impression is that the transfer may or may not be taxable based on the specifics of each case. But it is not something I have spent any time researching.
Thanks!
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
It is from the Subpart F tax regime 26 U.S. code §956 – investment of earnings in United States property – defined as (c)(1)(C) Obligation of United States person. IOW, a debt owed by a US person to a CFC.
Subpart F income is one of the exceptions to deferral. Subpart F income only applies to Controlled Foreign Corporations (CFC’s). A CFC, very generally, is defined as a foreign corporation in which U.S. persons own more than 50 percent of the corporation’s stock (measured by vote or value).
And you’re correct, it is based on facts and circumstances. The §956 inclusion would be limited to the accumulated undistributed earnings and profits of the CFC.
There is a differents between assets and capital, and earnings and profits.
The courts never should have extended broad US jurisdiction outside of regions of US sovereignity.
It is ludicrously stupid.
If you do not want to be the policemen of the world – do not pass laws that make you policemen of the world.
Regardless, until recently there was $4T in corporate funds outside the US. Unless you beleive Apple has magical powers that Manafort does not.
Foreign earned profits are not taxable until they return to the US, and there is no obligation to return them.
BTW that would also be incredible stupid as a matter of policy.
It would essentially mean the foriegn subsidiaries of US corporation could not retain operating capital.
They would all die quickly.
All of that has changed under the Tax Reform Act passed last December. Companies with offshore profits had to pay a one-time “toll charge” on the balance, and can now bring the funds back as a non taxable dividend (since tax has already been paid). This has resulted in a large amount of that $4T coming back to the states.
That is correct – my comments are specifically directed towards Manafort’s situation.
Manafort would not even need to loan himself the money today – His foreign revenues would not be taxable
why do you think the US doesnt want to be the world policeman?
the policeman is in charge
that’s exactly what our strategy has been since ww1
If it is “Officer loan” – it is not taxable, but must be repaid – even if it is a closely transaction – which these clearly are.
It it is not repaid it becomes a gift – which is taxable.
If it is commisions then it is taxable – according to the tax law at the time.
Today it would still be taxable – but at a much lower rate.
The “intent” issue is usually resolved by the records – is their actual loan documents, and were payments made against the loan as required ?
But the most fundimental problem is that this is rarely if ever treated as a crime.
It is stupid to jail people for not documenting a loan as you would prefer.
It is stupid to jail people for doing something they can trivially undo without any harm at all.
It has been a while since I did business taxes – but officer advances are typically reported as income.
Further the incentives in small corporations is to pay shareholders as much as possible.
Otherwise the money gets taxed twice.
Further it is my understanding that Manafort resolved all of this with the IRS is 2014.
If so there is a serious double jeophary issues.
I would further note that it is being reported the trial may end this week.
If so, then tax evasion through loans seems to be the only issue.
There may not be substantive questions of fact – this may not go to a jury.
Judge Ellis can find that Manafort has not made his case – as a matter of law, not fact.
Juries do not get to decide questions of law.
The above article needs to be corrected to “Gates admitted to embezzling hundreds of
millionsTHOUSANDS from Manafort as he helped Manafort hide millions”Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
He’s a lawyer. They only do that math stuff when they’re adding up their billable hours, and Turley’s on salary.
some of us spend far too much on accounting garbage as parts of regular business and property cases. i mostly try and shuffle it off on my secretary but I can only get away with so much of that.
ps you can like math and be good at it and still loathe accounting
Accounting is like Zen. There are two forces, not technically opposites, but two forces – Debits and Credits. They can create “books” out of thin air. I have a minor in it, and actually do books and tax returns for my mother’s business, and a few close friends. Once, I even ran an economics blog.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
it’s like zen only in that your brain goes numb from doing it
Please, I need you to testify in an estate hearing.
I have a judge and executor and their lawyer who think “books” are piles of paper – receipts bank statements, ….
Books are what you make from those piles of paper – following rules created 500 years ago.
They are the concrete representation of the financial CHOICES of a person. Only that person can change those choices.
Despite the fact that My father died with detailed financial records including “books” dating back to 1980, with P&L’s charts of account, Balance sheets, ledgers and journals for each year. With the last several in QuickBooks – which the executor purportedly was familiar with.
The estate attorney essentially threw 6 bankers boxes of receipts and bank statements and checks on the floor, testified – these are disorganized, so we made up our own by picking and choosing what we wanted from the prior 5 years.
They even introduces some of the actual DOD legders and account balances from quickbooks – but claimed these were not “books” and therefore they could cherry pick them.
But then the fix was in from the start
you need a good lawyer and a team of expert witnesses. it will be a war of facts, details, and expert testimony. you may be a day late and a dollar short
you want to win a war you have to pay for it
http://www.icesi.edu.co/blogs/estrategialogistica122/files/2012/08/the-concept-of-logistic-derived-from-clausewitz.pdf
The comment was sarcastic. I am not litterally looking for help. Things went to hell a long time ago.
The point was quite often the law the facts, etc. do not matter.
I have had good lawyers – it does not matter.
1,- Does the plea bargain agreement with Gates cover his embezzlement from Manafort?
2.- If not, can Manafort, a victim of the embezzlement by Gates, press the issue against Gates?
1–No.
2–If, and only if, the jury returns not-guilty verdicts on all counts against Manafort AND if the banks that Manafort and Gates defrauded don’t sue the both of them for the money of which they defrauded the banks.
3–IANAL
wrong yeah it does for damn sure cover that sheesh
only the state or fed gov can bring criminal prosecutions
not private people
manafort could sue gates for conversion and civil conspiracy but what’s the point. i doubt gates has much money.
Manafort was victimized by his protege who not only stoles from his mentor, but conmitted multiple crimes that Manafort knew nothing about.
Manafort needs to shout out “I’m just a patsy” loud and clear before this trial ends.
Since this is a hyper-spin zone, I wanted to participate.
It’s easy, and I guess entertaining for some.
“stoled” not “stoles”.
I do not beleive Mueller can drop criminal charges against Gates for defrauding manafort.
No matter what Manafort will have a huge civil claim.
oh he damn sure can ignore that and so can the DOJ
Russia,Russia,Russia!
Money, money, money, muh–nee. [Ugh] Money.
Now that would be the perfect ending . Manafort gets convicted on on nolo contendre or even pleas guilty. Jury sentences him to time served and x number of days commuinity service only to find out the star is no more. Better yet the Judges tosses the whole thing on a number of constitutional violations.
Anhone ever asked the other guy where the missing money is located? The money he claims they embezzeled?
And Meuller is sent packing in disgrace while a real investigation is started to finish up what we asked for in the beginning.
Michael, my eyes are watery to much to read anymore tonight & your comment’s. Sorry.
I suggest checking the current SC rules: There has to be an Identifiable crime that the SC is charged with investigating.
What is the identifiable Crime Rosentein & Mueller /aka SC are investigating?
Show us the know pictures of Mueller taken with Manafort in the Ukraine that Mueller is now investigating in this case.
I forget, there’s at least one/two more big ones. maybe tomorrow. I think I/m about done for now.
nobody will allow or accept an alford plea in a case like this. the pros won’t allow it nor would the judge.
Turley is correct that Juries are unlikely to understand any basis for multiple accounts.
But presuming that the jury properly applied reasonable doubt (wishful thinking on my part) conduct that they do not understand is not proof beyond a reasonable doubt of criminality.
I have not been able to make sense of the distinct claims that Manafort had cashflow problems and Manafort was insolvent.
Those are different.
Though I would note that logically they HARM the prosecutions case. How is it that Manafort moving money arround is a tax problem if as they accountant is claiming he did not have any income ?
If Manafort’s income dried up – then so did his tax liability.
Even an actual cashflow problem – would still work similarly – as current revenues would be BELOW current expenses and no taxes would be due.
There are SOME possible scenarious where Manafort could have either negative cashflow or insolvency AND have engaged in tax fraud while covering his ass.
But those scenarious should have to be proven as they are NOT the norm.
The biggest potential for problems – and as best as I can tell what Mueller is claiming, is that Manafort kept money in foreign accounts to avoid paying taxes on it – which is legal.
But LATER transfered that money to the US – making is subject to taxes.
If I understand the accountant correctly – Manafort framed the transfers as loans to himself to avoid taxes – also legal. But may not have properly documented the loans or made required payments on them – which would cause them to be re-assessed as income on which taxes would be due.
Presuming the later is actually true – which I have not heard evidence beyond a reasonable doubt of,
That would under normal circumstances subject Manafort to taxes interest and penalties – not criminal charges.
Doing something you are allowed to do BADLY is generally not a crime.
The fact that Gates was embezeling Manafort – honestly is very damaging to Mueller.
Manaforts purported claim is that the evil Gates really did all this. The admission of embezelment strongly reinforces that.
FURTHER it strongly erodes the claim that Manafort was very aware of the details of his own finances.
Gates admiting to embezeling is strong evidence that Manafort was NOT fully aware of his own finances.
Gates and accountants can say otherwise. but the embezeling makes clear that Manafort’s knowledge of his own finances was limited AND that Gates was acting criminally.
You make some very good points there. It will be interesting to see how those play out in the coming defense.
No, as the accountant testified, it is NOT legal to misrepresent income as loans to avoid paying taxes on the money. That is because it is illegal to lie to the government, and it is considered tax fraud to lie about your income.
In fact, the accountant on Tuesday lost her license to practice accounting and was fired by her firm for admitting she did this for Manafort.
Rule #1 I learned as a young lad at my dad’s knee as a kid, hire the best accountant you can & then hire another to check on that 1st accountant to make sure they are not lying pieces of trash. as some of them are. It’s cheaper in the long run.
Questions of LAW are not determined by testimony.
Nor are they determined by the Jury.
As a matter of LAW – foreign earnings are not taxable as income until they return to the US.
As an aside this is unique to the US, in all other countries foreign earnings are not taxed AT ALL.
As a matter of policy it is ludicrously stupid to tax foreign income as it disincentivizes investing foreign profits back in the US.
Allowing people to make money in foreign countries and bring it to the US without taxes is actually a huge win for americans.
But the left is never capable of seeing more than the mythical direct effects of their policies.
Separately loaning money – from one entity that you own to another is perfectly legal.
AND it happens all the time. AND it is a LOAN, not INCOME as a matter of law.
But it does open the possibility of gaming the system by giving yourself loans that you never intend to pay back.
AND That is the ONLY place it becomes problematic.
The IRS has alot of requirements for loans between closely related entities – specifically to make it difficult to use loans as a means of sheltering
income from taxes. The tax code does not and can not bad such loans, and it can not automatically treat them as income.
But it can and does require that you properly document them, and that in operation you actually behave as if their are loans – making the required loan payments.
Nearly always failing to conform to those requirements will result in the IRS treating the loans as income and hitting you with taxes interest and penalties.
But RARELY does the IRS claim that failure to properly handle a loan is criminal.
In fact these charges should not even be prosecuted by Mueller in federal courts.
The IRS has its on tax courts, which is where Tax issues are addressed – with judges and lawyers that actually know tax law.
Just to be clear – this is NOT lying about his income. The income occured outside the US – and in Ukraine. There is no lying about it, and it was not taxable when earned.
If it is an issue, that issue is loaning money to yourself without the intention of repaying it.
I would further note that the government’s claims that Manafort was having financial or cashflow problems
Works AGAINST their theory.
But it is typical of the left and Mueller’s make the law up as you go strategy.
People who are having cashflow problems – borrow money. If they have the assets to do so, they borrow from themselves.
There is even great benefit to loaning yourself money:
A loan is NOT income.
Repaying the loan is Not income,.
The interest on the loan will be an expense at one place on your records and taxes, and you may be able to legally avoid taxes on it at the other end.
dhlii – and don’t forget, the IRS does not understand the tax code.
Please tell me you will NEVER sit on a jury !
IF Manafort sells all his assets int he US which will only generate capital gains taxes – which are low and only on any appreciated value,
Uses that to repay his loans to his foreign accounts, and spends the rest of his life living in the Seychelles – where is the crime ?
The money you claim is tax evasion is not taxable unless it enters the US to stay.
We may penalize people for fiscal conduct that we do not like that they have control over but is completely reversable.
But we do not criminalize it. Because that is stupid.
A crime requires an actual harm.
An action that is 100% reversable has ZERO actual harm.
If Manafort repaid his loans tomorow, the US should not reasonably have a claim to taxes – as the money would not be US taxable income.
Again we do not WANT manafort or anyone else to keep their money outside of the US. And therefore we should never tax money made outside the US.
But logic and reason are outside the domain of left wingnuts.
A few easily understood points:
1. Manafort greatly reduced his “Income” by showing the same money as loans so he wouldn’t have to pay taxes. His accountants testified to that.
2. Manafort wasn’t unaware of the money stolen by Gates. He paid it out based on false expense reports. He signed off on and was aware of every dollar.
3. He also tried to sell his banker the job of Secretary of the Army in return for fraudulent loans… after he was forced off the Trump campaign.
4. When the third thief steals from second thief, who’s the second thief going to call to file a complaint? The first thief? Who is the first thief?
The only theft in evidence is Gates from Manafort.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pardoner%27s_Tale
“A few easily understood points:
1. Manafort greatly reduced his “Income” by showing the same money as loans so he wouldn’t have to pay taxes. His accountants testified to that.”
NOPE. A loan from whatever source is not income. The money Manafort loaned himself was not taxable if he had not loaned it to himself.
So he was not “hiding income”.
As Justice learned Hand noted will over 100 years ago, arranging your affairs to reduce your taxes is not criminal – if anything it is a civic duty.
What Manafort MAY have done wrong is not properly recording his loans to himself.
The IRS commonly threatens to call that a crime. But it rarely if ever actually does.
It is very hard to call something a crime that is reversable and causes no actual harm.
Manafort was not ever obligated to pay taxes on funds he kept outside the US.
“2. Manafort wasn’t unaware of the money stolen by Gates. He paid it out based on false expense reports. He signed off on and was aware of every dollar.”
Enormous numbers of assumptions. You are making a very bizarre claim that Manafort participated with Gates in defrauding himself.
That is logical stupidity. There are perfectly legal ways to give Gates hundreds of thousands of dollars that would have benefited Manafort more.
“3. He also tried to sell his banker the job of Secretary of the Army in return for fraudulent loans… after he was forced off the Trump campaign.”
I keep hearing this. It is very hard to sell something that is not yours to give.
This term “fraudulent loan” keepts getting bandied about.
Did the bank loan money to manafort ? If so then it is a real loan, not a fraudulent one.
Did the bank not loan money to Manafort ? If not then it is no loan at all.
You have no clue what a “fraudulent loan” is – it is not one you do not like.
The people testifying about the loan got immunity to do so. I’d say fraudulent is the operative word. Manafort did get the money.
To my knowledge not a single witness has as of yet claimed Manafort made money illegally.
That is the end of the “money laundering” charges.
I do not know what “Manafort got money” means – it is important to communicate clearly and accurately – particularly about law and government and facts.
Most of us think in words if you muddle words you muddle your thought. If you use words with greater precision you will improve your thinking.
You will also not likely be able to remain on the left. The cognitive dissonance would be too great.
Manafort moved money that he made outside the US to inside the US.
Exactly HOW he did so matters, Because every means of doing so is NOT taxable.
And you can not commit tax fraud on non-taxable transfers.
Lets pretend YOU transfer money from your account in NYC to your account in NJ – is that income ? Nope. Is it taxable ? nope.
Generally moving money arround is not a taxable event.
There are exceptions. For the US only – every other nation in the world has sane laws and wants foreign profits to return to the US to be invested.
Income in a foreign country is not taxable in the US until it is moved to the US.
That is the core issue here.
First the money is taxable – because of several unusual exceptions in US tax law.
Then it is not taxable – because of exceptions to the exceptions.
Loans are not taxable – not even loans to yourself.
However closely held loans must be well documented and must be repaid or they become a taxable gift.
And exeception to the exception to the exception.
Or, in the case of a corporation, a deemed dividend.
his accountants; his accountants. they should have just told him no and quit
instead, they got paid, they helped, and now they testify against him
dogs, and a jury may find their yapping contains a lot of “reasonable doubt”
Mr Kurtz – Reasonable doubt of what? That Manafort knew he was committing tax fraud when he requested it? It wasn’t the accountant’s idea.
Given that it is debateable that he committed tax Fraud it would be even harder to demonstrate he knew he was doing something that he arguably was not doing.
As has been noted there is nothing illegal about loaning yourself money.
There is not even anything illegal about loaning yourself money to reduce taxes.
It is only improper if the loan is not an actual loan.
If the accountant did not recomend loaning himself money to reduce his taxes – then the accountant would be derelict.
I would be shocked if in the real world the accountant did not advise him to do so.
If there is a problem it is not that he loaned himself money – but that he gave himself money and called it a loan.
That was stupid – because aside from putting himself at risk, if was almost certainly financially wiser to loan himself the money than to give it.
Meuller could get him ten years? “IF Meuller can get by the poisoned tree, an open admission of the feds black mail strong arming the partner into what may well be a made up story… since it’s substantiated. and from a self confessed criminal.
A lot of ‘ifs’ and the special counsel stil has not tied any of it into anything he was supposed to be doing.
Is Meuller ever going to get any investigating into Russia, Collusion, and the real information pipeline? The NSA violations by the dozens and if so how do we know he won’t rig even a conviction.
Not the most trustworthy individual on the planet.
Wow Prof Turley, biased much? Commie/Fascist Authoritarian Scum bag piece of crap that now knows you will never get a major judicial appointment ?
Well I can understand your disappoint in your life’s failure that you’ve having sided with the Commie/Fascist Authoritarians & now know you’ve lost.
You see that’s what most of Trump supporters like about Trump, we know he is far from perfect but he has expose us all for whom we really are, including you. We still love you, please redeem your honor while you still can. I know I’m trying to repair a bit of crap.
Sorry Turley, this should have been 1st as it’s your 1st line comment.
“Whatever becomes clear after Rick Gates finishes his direct and cross examination is that Gates and Paul Manafort truly deserved each other. “
Say, you aren’t calling Turley names, are you ?
If Manafort is convicted, he can be put on a work detail cleaning up the damage to Trump’s Hollywood star.
I think there are efforts in Hollywood to de-star that particular piece of sidewalk. Maybe plant a tree there?
Jay S – “A Tree Grows in Hollywood”? 😉
Paul C. ………or O Henry’s The Last Leaf…….😊