Paul Manafort is being prosecuted because of who he knows. I hope he walks.
The jury has the power to stop this abuse. And so does Donald Trump.
The jury ended its first day of deliberations in the prosecution of Paul Manafort in the Eastern District of Virginia. When this trial is over, Manafort faces a second trial on other charges in federal court in D.C.
The jury asked the judge for help understanding “reasonable doubt.” As is usual in these situations, the judge didn’t give much help, explaining that reasonable doubt was “doubt based on reason” but did not require “guilt beyond all possible doubt.”
That the jury would ask such a question probably heartened Manafort’s team, but I wouldn’t read too much into it.
Paul Manafort is a shady character. He may even be a criminal character.
But he undoubtedly is someone who is being prosecuted because of who he knew. That would be one Donald Trump.
Had Manafort not made the decision to join the Trump campaign, tasked with managing the delegate floor fight at the Republican National Convention, Manafort would be leading his prior life of flim flam and influence peddling.
Had Manafort not been associated with the Trump campaign, he would not have been prosecuted. The feds had looked him over and then looked away years earlier.
Manafort’s team made that argument in closing argument coming close to if not exceeding the judge’s prior order barring a defense of selective prosecution:
It was “not until the special counsel showed up and started asking questions” that anyone seemed concerned about Manafort’s dealings with banks, Westling said, noting that none of the banks involved reported the alleged frauds to the authorities.
As a legal defense, selective prosecution may not hold much water. But in reality, this case is all about selective prosecution, and then some.
The prosecution of Manafort is one cog in a big wheel seeking to nullify the 2016 election.
The case against Manafort was resurrected by Special Counsel Robert Muller and his team to put pressure on Manafort, in the words of presiding Judge Ellis earlier in the case, to sing or to compose against Trump.
“You don’t really care about Mr. Manafort’s bank fraud,” Judge T.S. Ellis III said during a morning hearing. “You really care about getting information Mr. Manafort can give you that would reflect on Mr. Trump and lead to his prosecution or impeachment.”
* * *
Even though the investigation was really done by the Justice Department, handed to you, and then you’re now using it, as I indicated before, as a means of persuading Mr. Manafort to provide information.
It’s vernacular by the way. I’ve been here a long time. The vernacular is to sing. That’s what prosecutors use, but what you’ve got to be careful of is they may not just sing. They may also compose. I can see a few veteran defense counsel here, and they have spent a good deal of time in this courtroom trying to persuade a jury that there wasn’t singing, there was composing going on.
Manafort hasn’t sung. Maybe he doesn’t have anything to sing about when it comes to Trump. Or maybe he figures he’ll be pardoned.
I hope he walks. I hope he walks and then dances on the courthouse steps.
And if, as is likely, he gets convicted of something, I hope Trump pardons him.
The prosecution of Manafort is everything that is wrong with the Mueller investigation and team. They found a man, and then they set out to find the crime, in order to get to another man they found and as to whom they are seeking a crime.
That’s not how it’s supposed to happen in a civil society.
The jury has the power to stop this abuse. And so does Donald Trump.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Trump can’t really pardon anyone until th Mueller investigation is over.
What are they…. anyone gonna do if he did? Impeach him? Seriously? That ship sailed.. He’ll like hold though, no rush to pardon Manafort until next year or so. Let Manafort spend some money on attorneys appealing any conviction, if that comes. He can afford it. I think they can find a judge to allow him bail during appeal. That other judge is out of control for sure ordering confinement, but I gotta believe if Manafort can hold on, that will hurt the prosecutions’ case with that jury. They are clearly playing super-hard ball with him… it’s obvious what’s going on.
If I were in his shoes, I’d pardon Martha Stewart right now.
Case against her was rigged in much the same way as what’s currently being done to Manafort.
I agree, this is a case that was brought to a courtroom only because of his connection to Trump. They thought he would give it up, whatever it is, before this point and when he didn’t they felt they had no choice but to continue forward so as to not have the threat lose credibility with others.
I’m a reader, not a lawyer so my question is this; why would they decline to prosecute this guy years ago, well before Trump?, Democrats were in control. He looks like a poster boy for a proper prosecution back then.
These allegations are way above the level of the Martha Stewart case. He appears to have intentionally evaded taxes on tens of millions through a intentional and complex scheme. This isn’t a waiter failing to disclose some tips. This wasn’t a mere paperwork error. He came up on the radar back when a prosecution would have been appropriate. There appears to be a clear paperwork trail. Now it just looks vindictive.
I understand why they are doing this now. Why not then?
Given that the primary witness had to admit under oath that he stole from Manafort and (IIRC) he was the person responsible for accounting (and Income Tax issues), this did not look like an open and shut case to an AUSA with limited time and money. Admittedly the law is that if Manafort signed the return, he is the responsible party – but a jury will consider whether that is all Manafort did with a prepared return. With apparent testimony that the banks allegedly defrauded never reported any fraud (and presumably knew about it?), that didn’t help make a decision to prosecute. And we don’t know what other cases were being presented to AUSAs in the district, it may have been that there were far better cases needing attention. And finally whomever the Special Agent(s) was trying to “sell” the case to the AUSA may not have been a particularly good “salesman”, or had better cases with a higher priority.
Wanna bet?
I’m sure an expanded version of your comment would be that while Trump can technically pardon anyone for any Federal crime at any time. If Trump does pardon before trial sentencing or Mueller’s witch hunt is over, the MSM and its political arm (the Democrats) would savage him unceasingly – and would probably be joined by some of the GOP-e. All of which would slow his agenda even more than the Democrats and GOP-e have done so far.
would savage him unceasingly
In other words . . . no change. D’rats, Press, and GOPe will follow the same playbook whatever Trump does. Their knobs are turned to “11” and welded there.
Couple of things, Prof.
1. Monofart is a deep, dark scum-bag of long standing
2. The judge in this case has a severe case of “black-robe disease”; he’s had to apologize on the record for violating the rules himself as he attacked a set of pros in the prosecution
3. Bullshit; since when is it “bad” to prosecute a scuzbucket because it’s time to prosecute a scuzbucket?
4. You “hope he walks”…??? You’ve lost your compass. The evidence is Alllllllllllllll showing he lied, cheated, stole, and etc.
Dude…!!!
Here’s the thing, Rags, everyone knew what Manafort was, and even the feds looked into him and then looked away. That this is all going forward for purely political reasons is the issue here.
Too many people on the right shrugged when the Obama admin blamed some filmmaker for Benghazi. They locked him up on some other charge, but then spent taxpayer money on ads in the Middle East saying he’d been locked up for promoting anti-Islam beliefs. He was a political prisoner, no matter if he had some reason to be locked up. He wasn’t until it was politically expedient for Clinton and Obama.
Same thing here. If we celebrate this type of thing, we are doomed. Except in the most extreme tyrannical governments, political prisoners are convicted on other charges. Even that might sound good, but the fact is that there are none among us who don’t unknowingly break laws, including federal laws, on a daily basis. When and why are they prosecuted? Not for justice, not because they did wrong, and principles are being upheld; this is all political. That makes it wrong. If what Manafort did was so onerous, let’s round up every influence peddler and income tax evader. If that doesn’t happen, there is no justice, there’s just political persecution. Third-world style. I’m not okay with that.
Let us not miss one other thing. Manafort was never in the Trump inner circle he was brought on the campaign for one and only one reason.
That reason is that the George Wills, Bill Kristol, and other GOP neverTrumpers were determined to overturn a valid GOP primary and tried to prevent Trump from getting the nomination he had won so much so that that Trump had to turn to a sleazy insider to protect his victory .
Something no one in his position should never have had to do.
Having said that let me point out that it is not a crime to be a sleazy insider, and it’s not clear that anything Manafort did is a crime.
Well said. Simple and true.
Wow. Just wow.
Prosecuting Manafort is fine. There is certainly enough evidence to warrant such a prosecution [as there is in the case of 100 other lobbyists and influence brokers in DC]. But, in such cases, the DOJ would usually take a look at their case, judge its potential for conviction and act to insure a guilty plea in the case. That did not happen here.
In this case, documentary evidence exists that Manafort may have engaged in actions to avoid paying taxes in the US. The bank fraud charges are seriously lacking in substance as the prosecution has yet to show that any banking institution actually lost money. And, the only witness who actually ties Manafort to any conspiracy to evade taxes or defraud banking institutions is the ultimate toad witness. He has, essentially, zero credibility. So, normally, the prosecution would have offered Manafort a deal to pay back taxes and interest and to serve about 1.5 years of a 3-5 year minimum security prison sentence. Manafort might have gone for it.
As to the behavior of the judge, he is extremely frustrated with the prosecution. They bring a loser of a case before him to begin with. He warns them that it is a legal loser and is nothing more than a political prosecution. They continue with the case. They present a circumstantial case, which many judges would willingly grant a motion for directed verdict of acquittal for lack of evidence and he warns them about that when they tell him that they do not plan on presenting testimony from the only witness who can tie Manafort to the charges in any meaningful way. While the prosecution is trying to decide whether to present their toad witness or not, they engage in stall tactics by essentially rehashing their circumstantial evidence. The judge warns them about that. At this point, he is totally frustrated with the prosecution. In order to avoid a directed verdict of acquittal, they present their toad witness, who is wholly discredited by the defense. The prosecution’s case is SOOOO weak, that the defense rested without presenting any evidence. The judge instructed the jury to ignore his comments to the prosecution in order to head-off a possible appeal by the prosecution. I have seen attorneys, though usually defense attorneys, get reamed out in open court for willfully ignoring the suggestions of the presiding judge. This is not unusual. The only factor which should be considered in such cases, is was the judge justified. In this case, I believe that he was.
This was an obvious politically motivated prosecution which was designed to punish Manafort, not for his actions as charged, but for not “cooperating” with the Mueller investigation. The judge knows this. Anyone with two working blood cells knows this. And, if this prosecution involved any Democrat operative, or even any minority, there would be people marching in the streets to protest the lack of fairness in play here. And, as virulently as I oppose jury nullification in any case, this is very probably a genuine place for it. Using the criminal justice system to punish a person, for solely political purposes, is inherently wrong and should be abhorrent to all Americans.
But not to Rags. Any means to the end he wants is OK with him.
An obvious sufferer of terminal TDS. Let’s hope.
So is Nakoula Nakoula Nakoula. I don’t see how you can oppose his rearrest for brazenly violating the terms of his supervised release, and at the same time support Manafort’s prosecution.
It’s amazing how deep hatred and disgust for Trump is so overwhelming for some people that the only recourse to relieve the pressure is to let it spill over to everyone in his sphere. Even Jacobson admits Manafort is potentially guilty. But clearly only those who lost the ability of reasoning through emotional overload would revel in the abusive prosecution and potential 300+ year sentencing simply because it makes you feel like that too will spill over and somehow be bad for Trump.
Even more alarming is that people who have practiced law and theoretically honed logical thinking skills let politics and emotion rule. Yet still don’t see the hypocrisy in criticizing the judge.
I move that Rags be site-banned. He no longer contributes to elevating the discussion on this site.
Rude people discredit their ideas, even when they are valid. The sensible thing is not to respond.
Yep. Break out the LI pooper scoopers. Once again Rags has come in and turned a thread into a San Francisco sidewalk.
Now there is a comparison worth keeping in mind. 🙂
This is more complete bullshit.
I have no interest in seeing Monofart “over-prosecuted”. He should get everything he’s liable for.
Don’t you agree?
Or do you think that because of his connections he should “walk” as the Prof suggests?
I don’t pose as a legal practioner but I know malicious prosecution when I see It. Just because some one is skeevy and even a potential tax evader doesn’t mean the maximum possible sentence is the only acceptable outcome. Wishing that he walks is not my choosing, but if the prosecution wins in total – on all charges – it should send a chill to anyone but the most irrational and vindictive anti-Trumper.
Why? Because he’s associated in your mind with T-rump?
No, Rags, because the original investigators (including, IIRC, Strzok) didn’t see a case against him. OTOH, I’ve seen other legal opinion that even if he had committed any of the offenses alleged, the usual sentence is fines or penalties, not maximum jail time. It’s pretty clear to most of us that the case was revived merely as a means to get him to roll over on Trump. Sorry you can’t see that.
Sorry, no cigar.
Tax fraud is considered a VERY serious offense, especially, as here, when it’s blatant, pervasive, and stupid.
“Ragspierre | August 16, 2018 at 11:06 pm
Sorry, no cigar.
Tax fraud is considered a VERY serious offense, especially, as here, when it’s blatant, pervasive, and stupid.”
Yes so serious that politicians are allowed to amend their filings because of something that was “over looked” in the original tax document. Please stop the ridiculousness.
to answer the question you pose Ragspierre is to only answer why it took some 5 years for a “special council” to prosectue Manafort on these charges when the Feds under the Obama admin already knew about this and did nothing
is Manafort likely guilty (beyond a reasonable doubt) on all these charges levied – yes
but WHY is he only being prosecuted on this NOW?
I agree with the premise of this article in that I “hope” the jury lets Manafort off just so it throws egg in the face of Mueller and his special prosecution that has gone far beyond their original “mandate”
of which he really had none because the whole Russia collusion narrative was started by a bunch of unverified BS anyways
Act like an adult and don’t insult the people who contribute to this site.
Agreed. He needs to apply some insults to Rosenstein, who dropped the matter 6 years ago.
You are oblivious to equal justice under the law.
rags rote:
1. Monofart is a deep, dark scum-bag of long standing
Immaterial to his guilt in this case.
2. The judge in this case has a severe case of “black-robe disease”; he’s had to apologize on the record for violating the rules himself as he attacked a set of pros in the prosecution
The propriety of what he did doesn’t affect the accuracy of what he said. You haven’t made a case that his facts were wrong. Even if they are wrong, it doesn’t affect Manafort’s guilt inless you can prove collusion – you know, like your prog friends are trying / lying to prove.
3. Bullshit; since when is it “bad” to prosecute a scuzbucket because it’s time to prosecute a scuzbucket?
Prof’s point is that he is NOT being prosecuted because of what he did. The prosecution is a political one. Political prosecutions are always bad, n’est-ce pas? Or has TDS changed your mind on that subject, too?
4. You “hope he walks”…??? You’ve lost your compass. The evidence is Alllllllllllllll showing he lied, cheated, stole, and etc.
Really? Why should we value your opinion? Would you put someone as obviously biased as yourself on the jury? I don’t think your compass (which seems to deflect wildly in the presence of trumpium) is accurate enough to call out others on this issue.
Blackstone wrote:”It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.”
We have had too many of these political trials – Tom Delay, Ted Stevens, …; the list goes on. It’s better that a guilty Manafort go free than that a dirty prosecution succeed. They won’t stop until and unless they are denied success.
FWIW – calling people out and the cute little names you seem to think empower you just expose you as an asshole. Adults don’t do that stuff.
Amen – Thank you!!
Another point that to me proves this political – he is slated to face trial in another federal court NEXT DOOR – 8 miles/30 minutes from where he is being tried now. If such a thing were to happen to just about any other person, including cases across the country, the feds would at least try to have the cases consolidated to save court time and counsel’s time.
Scumbag or not, he is being subjected to slow torture.
Not to mention bail revocation for an allegation of witness tampering over what has been characterized as a 30 second phone call (I’m not sure how much one can sway a potential witness in thirty seconds, particularly when [IIRC] the government was supposedly only allowed to have a Pen Register, and what is said in a phone call can’t be known from a Pen Register recording numbers only) and being placed in solitary confinement “for his safety”.
Couple of things, RAGS,
1. Monofart is a deep, dark scum-bag of long standing
Q: Your evidence?
2. The judge in this case has a severe case of “black-robe disease”; he’s had to apologize on the record for violating the rules himself as he attacked a set of pros in the prosecution
Q: He was being professional and did not hide behind his “black robes” and acted above everyone else, IMO.
3. Bullshit; since when is it “bad” to prosecute a scuzbucket because it’s time to prosecute a scuzbucket?
Q: Evidence once again??
4. You “hope he walks”…??? You’ve lost your compass. The evidence is Alllllllllllllll showing he lied, cheated, stole, and etc.
I hope he walks as well. This whole debacle is undermining the foundation of the already weak foundation of this country. The rule of law is failing and that is a very dangerous thing to witness. What we are seeing here in real time is “Real PolitiK”, the American version. It is very dangerous as it could trigger a run-away reaction that does destroy this country for the gain of a few people.
PS: I have been reading on this site for a long time and the common theme with you is the tripe that you bandy about in these threads whilst hiding behind the shoddy facade of intelligence based on the “fact” you are a lawyer without any shread of proof. You pollute these discussions with your verbal fecal matter tainting any reasonable, civil debates that just drags this site down. You start petty attacks because someone might support our current president or offer a counter argument outside the scope of your ability to understand simple concepts. I do hope you are not like this in real life, because if you are you will reap what you sow.
Now, since I challenged you in the comments section, I await your pulitzer prize-winning reply laced with profanity, belittlement and name calling at a level consitant with an IQ of 45. Prove me wrong.
When will we see a special prosecutor giving Muller quality time?
You know better.
reasonable doubt was “doubt based on reason”
Oh, is that what it is. I thought it meant something else. Seriously.
From the excerpts of the closing argument I have read, the Manafort team essentially made this an issue of “excessive” prosecution. Stripped of its context, I understand why the response could be, or (glancing up…) already has been, what’s wrong with convicting him for the sole purpose of flipping him or making him die in a cell, if he’s guilty?
So. Is he? The context is, banks required by law to report any suspicion of fraud, didn’t. Regulators looking into the matter to find anything worthy of censure or prosecution, didn’t. The prosecution is based on reinterpreting everything Manafort did as a gigantic diabolical conspiracy. How did everyone miss this vast criminal enterprise until Mueller looked in his direction?
I was never going to shed a single tear over Manafort. All I asked, all I ever wanted, was that the government bother to actually prove its case, not drop a gargantuan mountain of allegations and say, “The accusations speak for themselves.” If the case has been proven, great. Too bad for Manafort. I don’t care. If not? Then the prosecutors lived down to their billing.
There is is a HUGE, VERY CLEAR document trail that convicts this thug beyond reasonable doubt. He’s a POS.
Well, we will soon learn whether the jury agrees with you.
If indeed there was a huge, very clear paper trail, the prosecution would not have needed to give Gates immunity and put him on the stand to watch him dissolve.
You haven’t been following the trial, have you?
You havent been checking in with the half-way house, have you?
@ Ragspierre
it wasn’t just Rick Gates that was granted immunity, it was 5 others as well
that’s atleast 6 other guilty parties privy to Manafort’s corruption charges
if the case against Manafort was THAT ironclad as you say – then why did the “special prosecution” give atleast 6 people criminal immunity to testify against a single person?
are you not appalled that 6 others will go scot-free just to nail 1 dirtbag?
where is the justice there?
Check your facts. You are posting “fake news”.
you sure about that?
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/23/five-witnesses-given-immunity-in-paul-manafort-case.html
I saved you the trouble a simple google search and picked the most likely candidate of a site you’d frequent
you’re welcome – ba dum tss!
BULL!!!! If they had the paper trail they would not have had to give immunity to all of these people, if they had the paper trail they could have gotten them all in a RICO case.
Except that that same so-called clear trail was evident when these charges were brought originally…. and dropped because Manofort was working for Podesta at the time.
Rags has a cogent thing to say from time – on rare occasions.
As a casual observer I suggest that his anti-Trump propensity has overwhelmed his intellect – whether that was a hard job is doubtful.
I write him off and compare him to those Juveniles who really have nothing to say but repeat nonsense lines – Pete and Repeat, stuff like that.
t-Rump, stuff like that.
A mind is a terrible thing to waste, Rags.
LOL
Let’s agree to isolate one rational question; is Monofart a crimial fraud, liar, thief and tax evader?
Yes or no, please.
This has NOTHING to do with T-rump unless YOU make it.
Is the government corrupt?
Is Mueller and his crowd corrupt?
Did the justice dept previously decline to prosecute Manafort?
Yes or no, please.
Wrong, r-r-rags.
Let’s agree to isolate one rational question; is HILLARY
Clinron a crimial fraud, liar, thief and tax evader?
Yes or no, Please!!
Let’s be clear…Hellary is a lot worse that the questions you pose. I don’t know about the specifics you assert, but I do know that she’s a criminal and should be tried and convicted.
I have my doubts he’s even a lawyer.
If he was he’s probably been disbarred for conduct unbecoming.
The Happy Leftists seem to be doing the “He’s going to be convicted” polka all over TV and radio today. I have doubts about their stated points:
Sure the jury may not be swayed by Gates’ testimony, but the paperwork is flawless — If the paperwork was flawless, there would have been no reason to offer Gate immunity where he plead guilty to something *other* than the main charge, and no reason in (censored) to put an admitted liar, perjurer, thief and cheating husband on the stand.
CNN says Mueller has three times the evidence for his next trial — Three times chaos is still chaos.
Everybody knows the IRS has a 99% conviction rate for tax fraud — The IRS isn’t trying this case. In fact, the IRS has avoided this case like the plague. Might mean something.
Manafort’s tax returns prove he intended to defraud the government — If you believe tax returns are a black and white issue, you believe in the Tooth Fairy too. The number of tax returns longer than a page which the IRS can find flaws inside = The number of tax returns longer than a page.
Your assertions are complete lies.
Making a mistake on a tax return is virtually NEVER prosecutable OR prosecuted.
Fraud IS. As here.
Is your response to everything “that’s BS”… “that’s a lie” …?
I deal with the IRS and DOJ as a practicing attorney. I know the truth from bullshit.
This is not a matter of errors.
What do you know of the matters?
Based on your comments here I pity your clients.
But then I’m not a “practicing attorney”!
Maybe you should practice a little more, Rags.
Surely whatever strip mall law school you went to told you being an obnoxious jerk is not a great way to a successful career!
As an aside – you didn’t happen to run into Avenatti during breaks, did you?
LOL
Do you have anything of substance, pissant? If not, STFU.
Based on your comments here I pity your clients.
But then I’m not a “practicing attorney”!
Maybe you should practice a little more, Rags.
Surely whatever strip mall law school you went to told you being an obnoxious jerk is not a great way to a successful career!
As an aside – you didn’t happen to run into Avenatti during breaks, did you?
LOL.
Sure, Rags – everybody knows you are a complete fraud!
BTW, you never answered me about Avenatti?
You guys hang out much?
Swap tips on who could be the stupidest attorney?
LOL
Again, anything of substance, or just more bullshit?
Keep practicing, Rags, looks like you
could use it.Hang in there!!
The conduct you have displayed in this comment thread would get you sanctions in a court, so I say it should get you them here. Ban.
Again, a prime example of why the law is an ass.
“The Happy Leftists seem to be doing the “He’s going to be convicted” polka all over TV and radio today.”
They did the same with Zimmerman. It was quite entertaining rubbing their noses in reality.
The jury asked for several things to be included in the exhibits, as well as an explanation of reasonable doubt.
One of the things they asked to be included in the exhibits is the indictment.
If the jury is deliberating and having to ask What are the charges?, which is the indictment, along with a definition of reasonable doubt, my guess is the prosecution is in for a bad day when the verdict is read.
Yep.
–Andrew
http://www.lawofselfdefense.com/patreon
care to comment on this new lawyers of Drejka’s and the charges of illegal solicitation? Seems to me to not be an objectionable thing, unless the lawyer has some nefarious ulterior motive, but if I were a defendant I would ask about that.
Anybody remember the Hillary Clinton cattle options that earned her a 100% revenue gain under dubious circumstances that looked remarkably like a political payoff, and yet managed to avoid a Federal prosecution?
Because I remember. 🙂
–Andrew
http://www.lawofselfdefense.com/patreon
Sorry, that should have read “1,000% ROI.”
My bad.
–Andrew
http://www.lawofselfdefense.com/patreon
Bad and corrupt as that was, “Andrew”, how is that comparable or an excuse in this case?
Your TDS is glaring.
You could write a book on the myriad crimes of the Clintons. As a matter of fact, quite a few people have. That has no bearing on this case, although the hypocrisy is blinding.
My brother worked in commodity trading at Refco. His comment was the broker who had that account was known as a dirty broker among the people in the commodity trading business even before he had The Hildabeast’s account.
Hillary explained that. She said she read a really good book on how to do the investment thing. She also said she couldn’t reveal the name of the book.
My great grandfather used to run the Grain Exchange in Milwaukee.
Cheers.
Trading parallel accounts, now known as preferential allocation.
That’s the way I see it. The request to see the indictment seems more significant than the request for definition of “reasonable doubt.”
For some perspective, here is a list of several celebrity tax cheats and their federal sentences, if any:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/02/28/famous-tax-cheats/5903143/
Help, posting diarrhea has infected this knowledge site, overwhelms all comments with mean narcissist nonsense to provoke and instigate.
Ruins the comment section, since many choose to try engage the child with adult reason and compromise, and the snotty snarky thread goes on and on.
The character rags is a blight on this site; admin needs to establish a consecutive posting rule for the impulsive petulant sour pussies.
Rags suffers from the Little Person Syndrome, small minded.
Bravo Professor Jacobson!
Manafort may be guilty, a crook, but harmless. The prosecution is corrupt to the core and dangerous. America will be better off if the dangerous are the losers in this case.
Crime is good. Lies are swell. Following the law is bad. Because T-rump.
You’re just a nut. You rant like a 2 year old, also known as the “terrible two’s”. Your thinking, if one can call it that, is on par with a 13 year old.
I’d explain it, but your not capable of understanding.
Tell us again, how a yearbook is published twice a year.
I wish people would just ignore him. Can’t you all see that he just wants attention?
He probably talks loudly in restaurants.
If the ends justifies the means for you, Rags, then you don’t believe in Miranda rights either. Are you a foreigner?
You are an idiot.
Stop looking the mirror when you post!
Going back to first principles…
Regardless of who he’s connected to, is Monofart a fraud, thief, tax cheat, illegal lobbyist, and general thug?
Just a yes or no, please.
“Ragspierre”,
Is the government corrupt?
Is Mueller and his crowd corrupt?
Did the justice dept previously decline to prosecute Manafort?
Just a yes or no, please.
You first, T-rump sucker.
OK, I have no clue.
The prosecution is corrupt to the core.
Do we always have special prosecutors for tax fraud cases?
Why should I believe the governments evidence? They have clearly manufactured evidence in other cases. Are they credible in this case?
You have no clue either. You just have your deranged BS.
Now, answer the questions, yes or no “Ragspierre”?
You poor idiot. There’s no “special prosecutor” here you moron.
There are Monofart emails and copious documents that are in evidence. IF they are bogus, Monofart has some REALLY crappy lawyers.
You are a T-rump sucking nutter. Always were, are now, will be tomorrow.
Oh, excuse me, special counsel. As though it makes any difference.
How many special counsels have been appointed to go after tax cheats?
You did not answer the questions, “Ragspierre”.
You are a Coward.
You are a Trump deranged nutter. Always were, are now, will be tomorrow.
You’re a lying POS.
We are all cut from crooked timber.
I don’t make the same tribal assumptions as you do. People who know Mueller consider him a good man.
Prosecutors decide to prosecute or not every day, and for reasons good, bad or indifferent.
You are a coward “Ragspierre”.
You demand people answer your questions, then cowardly refuse to answer yourself.
You’re a fraud.
At the time of the election Trump was clearly the lessor evil. Since the election Trump has earned my respect, while Dems have earned disrespect.
Manafort walked into Trumph’s shadow and as with the Indian caste system became “unclean”.
Mueller has been tasked to cleanse the country of the Trump stain. Trump supporters are the new lepers.
No. If and when a jury convicts Manafort, then and only then, he’ll be guilty of whatever it is they convict him of–subject to completion of any and all appeals.
When you call someone a “thug” then you are not in the realm of debating the merits of a legal case, you are totally in the realm of bias, emotion, and ad hominem attacks.
Exactly so. I’m guessing Rags is the person posting a downvote, based solely on the trend in these comments. Interesting that whomever did that seems opposed to the legal proposition that a person is innocent until found guilty. That is also compatible with the comments Rags has made several times in these comments.
“fraud, thief, tax cheat, illegal lobbyist, and general thug”
Rag is looking into a mirror 🙂
If it’s validation or status for your legal accum by the number of posts here at LI/Prof. J., this may warm your heart.
As of this point in time, the number of comment posts on the Manafort article Prof. J. is 144.
Of that you own 23% of all comments and have achieved 345 down votes. Which in of itself may be a record and even perhaps your all time P.B.
Have to ask though; What power drink do you use to sustain both your legal career/business and your participation at this website? I’m exhausted just reading you.
“you own 23% of all comments and have achieved 345 down
Votes. Which in of itself may be a record and even perhaps your
all time P.B.”
UPDATE:
You may be giving it a rest or meeting with your client(s) as the # of your posts seem to be holding steady, but you may have set a new P.B. as the dislikes of what you have to offer in opinion are now up to over 360 Down Votes. This may very well be the 15 minutes of fame your seeking. Way to Go!!
Was this a reply to a comment? It places as a comment on the article, and the “Prof J” would indicate that is exactly what it is.
So how did the Prof garner all those downvotes? I must be missing something as I am unaware of article authors being given up or down votes for the articles (other than comments). Might you have been replying to Rags??
Nesting position makes it a reply to one of Ragspierre’s many comments. Specifically, his post timestamped August 16, 2018 at 11:51 pm
Just noting that if that wheel succeeds in its goal, what basis is there for anyone to accept the validity and legitimacy of any election where they disagree with the results? If the Left can functionally stage a coup, anyone else can.
Things quite likely will get kinetic if that wheel wins.
I am just an unimportant person (as is Rags but his ego is probably too inflated to admit it).
But as a casual observer I would suggest that Rags is far beyond his Expire Date.
We need nice places where people exchange valid ideas.
Not Troll Farms for Anti-Trumpers.
But that is just my opinion.
LOL
Mostly I just make observations and ask hard questions.
You can’t deal with either.
Oh, right!
Mostly you call people who disagree with you names and blather on about your hatred for Trump.
Get a grip!
You seem to have a lot of time on your hands – maybe Used Car Sales would be a more appropriate racket for you to get into!
LOL
Going back to first principles…
Regardless of who he’s connected to, is Monofart a fraud, thief, tax cheat, illegal lobbyist, and general thug?
Just a yes or no, please.
Doesn’t every possible fraud, thief, tax cheat, illegal lobbyist deserve due process before judgement, you alleged lover of principles?
If what Manafort did was so wrong, he should have been charged years ago via regular, federal prosecutors.
Isn’t he getting due process?
Did you give Hellary a full-on jury trial before concluded she was a bad-un? Don’t be stupid, dude. We all “judge” every day and it is, in fact, necessary.
I think that all criminals should be prosecuted immediately. They aren’t. Ever. How long did Al Capone skate?
Would we want him to “walk”, too?
We need a special prosecutor rifling through Rag’s past twenty years. Then he might understand what is wrong with political prosecutions.
Not by you, dumbass. Remember your yes or no question? Hello, is this thing on?
Mostly I just make
observationsup nonsense and askhardstupid questions.FIFY
When are you going to answer the questions “Ragspierre”?
Is the government corrupt?
Is Mueller and his crowd corrupt?
Did the justice dept previously decline to prosecute Manafort?
Just a yes or no, please.
Come on coward, answer.
Excellent follow up article on this very subject: http://www.realclearlife.com/politics/corner-political-trials/
First off – second the motion to ban Rags. Turns the whole discussion into a troll-fest, which is the obvious intent. Block his entire IP block if need be.
The Manafort case, was passed over previously, by none other than ROD ROSENSTEIN, a decade ago.
This case, is OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE-BAIT for Potus – regardless of the guilt/innocence/selective prosecution aspects.
It is SOLELY DESIGNED to either get Manafort to “make something up” to get off the hook, or bait POTUS into a “premature pardon”. To pardon someone DURING an open case, especially in the contentious atmosphere setup by Team Mueller, would be to obstruct the process of judgment in a legitimately filed case (regardless of motivation).
Again – the reason WHY he was sanctioned for “witness tampering”, in a case where the defense was NOT PROVIDED A WITNESS LIST for them to know WHO could not be spoken too.
Again – no bail for a (supposed slam dunk) white collar crime, solitary? BAIT for POTUS to pardon.
Even if a CRIMINAL OBSTRUCTION CASE could not be construed from that move – between the MSM and Dems, it would be enough of a (semi)legitimate reason to demand an impeachment proceeding, and based on the fact of interfering in a case that was already in litigation (versus Fords blanket pardon of Nixon) – a case for impeachment could be made.
It wouldn’t SUCCEED to conviction and removal. But create an even more distracting and negative atmosphere.
Manaforts proceedings are going to have to play themselves to a logical conclusion, one way or another. There’s enough press on this, that, unless Team Mueller was able to stack the jury 100% lefty, the possibility of “jury nullification” certainly exists. That and the judge is so pissed at the obvious motives of the prosecution, that even with a conviction, the possibility exists that he could “set aside” the verdict. Absent that – sentencing guidelines would prevail.
One can only wonder what kind of deal Gates got – because he certainly didn’t have anything on POTUS to give them.
While RudyG certainly makes a show of things – and sometimes he makes himself out to be more of an IDIOT (and we know he isn’t) in the way he taunts Mueller.
Rosenstein is up to his eyeballs in spygate and false FISA applications – the game is for ALL THE MARBLES. Either Sessions is more brain damaged than McCain, or some really ugly sh!t is coming down the pike REAL SOON (and no, this isn’t Q-Related Blather, I prefer FACTS to hints & Vegas Psychic parlor tricks).
Rick
There used to be an internet “person” that went by the name “Razwell” that made nonsensical, rude and aggressive comments and haunted many fitness and nutrition blogs. Other than this being a different forum, I see a strikingly similar M.O. with this rags (small passive aggressive “r”)fellow. “Razwell” has been silent for years, much like the Zodiac killer. Just say’n.
There was recently a poster on the Starting Strength E&P forum called “Calvin”. This guy sounds a lot like Rags. Claimed to be a lawyer that deals with the IRS. Was adamantly anti-Trump to TDS levels. Used t-Rump incessantly. Was a virulent name caller to anyone who disagreed with him. Calvin and Robespierre were both influential Frenchmen during periods of upheaval. “Calvin” left in a huff form SS when Rippetoe called him out for his insanity.
If I were sitting on that jury I would probably exercise my right to nullify. (I say probably because, since I am not on the jury, I didn’t hear the whole case.)
If laws actually mattered, I’d say convict him if that’s where the evidence leads.
But laws don’t matter, or at least they don’t matter as much as politics. If prosecutors decide to make deals, or even to decline to prosecute altogether based on politics, then jury nullification is just applying Equal Protection under the laws.
I had to go downtown for jury duty this week. Thankfully, I didn’t get assigned to a case, because I really don’t want to have to decide if I’m watching an honest prosecution or one with an ulterior motive.
It’s not supposed to be this way, but it is.
I’m cynical enough to see jury trials as a form of tango competition. The persecutor does his dance. The defense does his. Evidence and testimony have little effect. When the jury raises their score cards, the totals are added up. Only one is the better dancer.
From what I have seen and read over the years, I draw the conclusion that justice is for those who can afford it.
When Hillary Clinton and her crew walk away from much worse crimes than Manafort and The prosecution is as selective as they get, i’ll root for Manafort.
William A. Jacobson: Had Manafort not made the decision to join the Trump campaign, tasked with managing the delegate floor fight at the Republican National Convention, Manafort would be leading his prior life of flim flam and influence peddling.
Funny how the law works. Someone engages in an elaborate plot to rob a bank and gets away with it, but the tail light on the getaway car goes out, and they get pulled over for a traffic violation.
From the evidence provided it seems the only person who actually did commit crimes was the guy given immunity as part of the prosecution team. Funny how that works.
mailman: From the evidence provided it seems the only person who actually did commit crimes was the guy given immunity as part of the prosecution team. Funny how that works.
Sure. Manafort just forgot about tens of millions of dollars in foreign accounts when submitting his taxes, but didn’t forget about the money when it came time to buy stuff.
Bad analogy. If the cop pulls you over for a broken tailight because he sees the passenger you’re with is Donald J. Trump, and he only pulled you over because he wanted an excuse to do a roadside search of Trump to try to arrest Trump for something because the cop is a political opponent of Trump, do you think your analogy still holds any water?
Marco100: If the cop pulls you over for a broken tailight because he sees the passenger you’re with is Donald J. Trump, and he only pulled you over because he wanted an excuse to do a roadside search of Trump to try to arrest Trump for something because the cop is a political opponent of Trump, do you think your analogy still holds any water?
Your restatement of the analogy doesn’t hold, because the Mueller investigation is engaged in a valid investigation, under supervision of the Department of Justice and the courts. During the course of that investigation, they found evidence of a tax cheat. If there is sufficient evidence — and the courts have found that there is — then the person should be held to account.
then the person should be held to account.
And that’s normally done with a trial.
But that’s not what we’re seeing here. Not a trial examining Manafort’s alleged crimes, but a circus orchestrated by Mueller for the purpose of pressuring Manafort into giving some information, true or false, which Mueller can use to attack the President. That’s what von Clausewitz might have called “politics by other means”; but it’s not a trial in any useful sense.
tom_swift: But that’s not what we’re seeing here. Not a trial examining Manafort’s alleged crimes, but a circus orchestrated by Mueller for the purpose of pressuring Manafort into giving some information, true or false, which Mueller can use to attack the President.
So a judge, appellate courts, laws, precedent, prosecutor, defense lawyer, witnesses, evidence, and a jury do not constitute a trial? Odd idea of the justice system you have there.
As for pressuring defendants to turn state’s evidence on possible co-conspirators, that runs deep in common law. If Manafort is the top of the pyramid of criminality, then he should bear the brunt of the legal ramifications. If there is someone above him in the pyramid of criminality, then the prosecutor may be willing to talk.
Folks. I am going to say just one thing about the loathsome Ragspierre.
Rags is the Jeff Sessions to Jacobson’s Donald Trump. Forget about him going anywhere. Ignore him. If you can’t ignore him, go to other blogs. Enough people go and maybe he will get kicked.
RodFC: Folks
We use the patented {not really} DeSnark® desnarkification field suppressor (remark desnider), which limits the amount of trolling emissions before sending or viewing.
Ragspierre: Couple of things, Prof.
alter-Rags: A few things, Professor:
Ragspierre: 1. Monofart is a deep, dark scum-bag of long standing
alter-Rags: 1. Manafort has a long history of corrupt behavior.
Ragspierre: 2. The judge in this case has a severe case of “black-robe disease”; he’s had to apologize on the record for violating the rules himself as he attacked a set of pros in the prosecution
alter-Rags: 2. The judge in this case has admitted to unfairly characterizing the prosecution.
Ragspierre: 3. Bullshit; since when is it “bad” to prosecute a scuzbucket because it’s time to prosecute a scuzbucket?
alter-Rags: 3. People should be held accountable, even if accountability is delayed.
Ragspierre: 4. You “hope he walks”…??? You’ve lost your compass. The evidence is Alllllllllllllll showing he lied, cheated, stole, and etc.
alter-Rags: 4. There is substantial evidence of Manafort’s guilt, so it would be wrong to allow him to avoid accountability.
Ragspierre: Dude…!!!
alter-Rags: Gentlepersons…!!!
—
alter-Rags makes several good points.
Is that you “Ragspierre”?
Can’t tell the difference.
I’ll just make one observation about the loathsome RodFO’s really stupid comment; look up-thread.
I made ONE comment regarding the Proffessor’s statements in his piece. Nothing “loathsome” in that. Friends disagree with friends every day, and a good friend will tell you when you’re wrong.
Then all hell broke lose.
“Friends disagree every day.”
But you’re not a friend. You’re an idiotic tourettes challeneged wannabe who puts his Trump Derangement Syndrome mania on display in every post.
…proving my point…
Rags never proves any points. I don’t think he should be banned, he serves as a good example of the mentality of those who are desperately afraid they are inferior:)
OK Rags, I am pulling your chain and grinning about your reaction. Prove me wrong.
Sigh ….. another comment thread hijacked by the nasty and absolutely boring “ragspierre” and most of us are wondering why the Professor continues to allow this to happen. Does the jerk self declared as”ragspierre” have photos, Prof?
Even the staff tries to jump in and reason with him, and what happens then? Insults and name hurling to the staff.
In the future, when reading the first comment of this dolt that consistently goes off the rails if our President has any involvement in the subject, I will stop reading. It’s that simple, and I’ll bet I’m not the only reader who is completely fed up with this warn out charade.
I rest my case.
Note to Rags: the validity of many of your points notwithstanding, they will be take more seriously if made intellectually, and not so much childishly. That is, if you care to be taken seriously, and not as a immature troll.
Selective prosecution is th devil in the law.
I would nullify for the simple reason that prosecution waited until Manafort became a political enemy.
I believe most of what Mueller is doing is bait. There is no underlying crime committed by Trump. There would be no crime even if he gave the Russians a sweetheart deal. Something like the deal Obama gave Iran.
So Mueller and Rosenstein are behaving outrageously in hopes that Trump will fire them or pardon someone.
Before everyone gets all excited about a request for reasonable doubt. I see it as basically just a indication of dead lock.
If i were on a jury and we were to ask what a reasonable doubt is then I would oppose such a question for three reasons.
1) It is a clear sign that there is a general consensus with a few hold outs and the majority is trying to use the judge into bullying the holdouts by arguing there doubts either are or are not reasonable.
2) In most jurisdictions, juries get copies of written instructions. The judge always tries to to “not provide” a definition of reasonable doubt with some weaseling wording in the instruction.
3) Any reply from the judge on the definition is going to be unmet, he is is going to come back with even more we3aselwording that just makes it worse.
So for the most part it’s a useless question. I think any reporter who doesn’t know this is or is trying to go beryond this is just showing their ignorance.
I do however think the judges reply is a bit telling though, since it seems to favor the defense. It suggests that any doubt you have is good enough as long as there isn’t a reason, even if that reason isn’t a good reason.
I have been following the trial closely, and my impression is that as far as the courtroom testimony went, the defense did a much better job than the prosecution did. However, the unknowable factor is how the jury will view the reams of documents that they have been given.
I read through the various charges, and what stood out is that every charge contained the word “Knowing”; meaning of course that the prosecution not only had to prove that Manafort committed the acts he was accused of, but also that he knew that what he was doing was against the law and that he did anyways. Again, the prosecution could not simply allege that, they had to PROVE that, and that is a very difficult and high bar to reach. (that’s why this case was originally dropped some years ago) I suspect that issue is why the jury asked about reasonable doubt, and if Manafort is found to be not guilty, this will be why.
Hi Tom
Thanks for the informed comment.
I have read elsewhere that the government was not successful in proving bank fraud from the loan applications–the banks were aware of Manafort’s financial status, that Manafort did have millions in assets, and that the loans were well-collateralized. Further, it was claimed that banking regulators reviewed the loans and found nothing amiss.
Is that your opinion too?
That’s my understanding too. I believe the Prosecution is attempting to make the case that the Regulators missed this and *should* have found something wrong – that’s a difficult argument to win.
I am hopeful that the special counsel figures out what crime is violated by accepting opposition research on a political opponent from a foreign national and then prosecutes the DNC, Hillary, Fusion, Christopher Steele, Bruce Ohr, his wife, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, and anyone else in that motley cast of characters, to the fullest extent of whatever law it is that Muller believes was violated.
The prosecution of Manafort is clearly a political prosecution and I agree with Prof. Jacobson he should walk. That does not mean however that the prosecution has not supplied the jury with evidence sufficient to show guilt beyond a reasonable doubt of some charged crime or other. The jury could decide to believe Gates and hold Manafort responsible as a co-conspirator with Gates, just like in a bank robbery, the prosecution can give immunity to the wheelman and use his testimony to convict the other robbers. It’s up to the jury.
What’s disturbing is that due to the political nature of what is happening, we have a special prosecutor or independent counsel who effectively, answers to no one, a Torquemada. That’s not appropriate, at all, in a democracy, and the common sense of justice of the Manafort jury, and others like it, would be the last vestige of democracy’s protection against the Muller abuses. Say what you want about Trump–but he was elected per the U.S. Constitution. Mueller was not; Brennan was not; the NY Times editorial page writers were not.
There are several things in the questions which indicate a strong possibility of not guilty of some of the charges.
First the indictment, why do they want the indictment if they have the jury instructions?
Second the question about reporting requirements if you own less then 50%. Why would they ask this if they believed Manafort held more then 50%? I think a lot depends on the judges answer to this question, which I haven’t seen reported.
Asking basically for a cross reference of the counts in the instructions to evidence is telling. It shows they are going into details. It sounds to me like there were some people who were arguing not guilty without going into the details. So I would guess they are leaning to acquit on some charges.
Manafort is not the only one on trial here. So is the government.
The jurors are deciding not only if Manafort engaged in unlawful conduct, but if the government’s conduct has been “fair”.
The jurors have to decide if it is “fair” that Manafort will die in prison if they vote to convict while his compatriot – who engaged in the exact same conduct – gets to walk free because he made a deal with the government. If I were a juror, I would have a hard time voting to convict on that basis alone. You’d have to live with that on your conscience the rest of your life. The government has put the jurors in a tight spot.
There’s also the issue you bring up that the government initially chose not to prosecute. It is only doing so now to “get Trump”. That also could weigh on some jurors minds.
But whatever the jury decides, Trump has no business nullifying their decision. The jury sat through the evidence for twelve days. Both sides selected and agreed those 12 people should decide the case. The jurors are aware of the heavy handed tactics and the unfairness issues the government has used.
The ONLY reason Manafort is a teeny, tiny bit sympathetic is because the government’s hardball actions make him look that way. He’s a sleezy, corrupt, political insider. If Trump nullifies the jury’s verdict it will make Trump look corrupt. It will look like a brazen abuse of presidential power. An insult to the jury and the whole system.
The political blowback will be immense. Rightly so in my view.
Is Mueller’s team abusing its power? Yes, I think so. Is it unfair that Gates walks despite being as guilty as Manafort? Yes, I think so. Is Manafort guilty? Yes, I think so.
Because the jurors have to weigh all of that, I think the odds favor a hung jury. AT least one juror will be a holdout.
But it’s up to them. They were seated to sort it all out and come to what they believe is a just decision. Trump has no business interfering.
Your reasoning could be applied to any pardon by any Chief Executive.
Re: M at Broad and Wall:
I don’t think the jury knows the potential sentence for each count. I don’t believe they are supposed to know that.
The jury is not sequestered, so I suspect they’ve found out.
No question that this is a politically motivated prosecution, which is why I too would like to see the hyper-partisan Mueller team go down in flames. We all know Manafort is no choir boy, and may very well have intentionally committed some of these crimes. But can the prosecution prove it beyond a shadow of doubt? Their witness were all shady characters themselves with long histories of being less than honest. My guess right now is we either get a hung jury or a conviction on the tax evasion counts.
Muller must be prosecuted following either Manafort exoneration or Trump’s pardon.
Muller’s conduct in the Russia probe is career-ending and actionable.
This case is not about Manafort, it is not about Mueller nor is it about fraud or tax evasion.
The prosecution in this case exhibits corruption, extortion, plea bargaining and politics, none of which should ever play any role in our justice system.
The government is seeking affirmation of it actions in this case from a sympathetic jury. If the jury fails to rebuff the government then that task falls to the judge and if not the judge, then the President.
The government’s actions in this case must not be allowed to stand.
If I were a juror in this case, I’d looking at reasonable doubt. Five people, not one, but five people received deals to testify against one. Five people walk free to nail one to the wall. Do they have motivation to lie?
Yes. They do. Especially when one has to admit he was stealing from the accused, but the accused never noticed. While simultaneously the prosecutor and the witness insist the accused knew everything that was going on with his money, keeping close track of everything.
You can’t be keeping close track of everything if someone is stealing a million dollars from you. That one small little detail creates reasonable doubt.
Witnesses with motivation to lie and self-contradictory testimony.
How come I do not see any discussion about Podesta? He was Manafort’s partner, correct? Was he tipped off about this trial and back-dated his paperwok showing he was working for Ukraine? I need to double check…..
CNN has filed a motion to identify the jurors in the Manafort case. CNN must believe that the public as the right to harass and intimidate the members of this jury.
Here’s a link: http://dailycaller.com/2018/08/17/cnn-nyt-manafort-jury-names-addresses/
This is a club-with-nails-in-it threat. If the jury convicts, CNN will happily hide whatever list they get. If the jury votes to acquit (improbable but possible), they will leak it so the Legions of Perpetual Outrage can dox them and scream their rage.
But… if the jury deadlocks, they’re going to visit each of the jurors and shove a microphone under their noses, demanding to know how they voted. Say the wrong thing and become a media target.
With Maxine Waters and Antifa still on the loose, these jurors will be very fortunate if it is only microphones stuck in their faces.
Judge Ellis denies motion requesting juror’s IDs. Good.
“More bullshit, Crazy Sloppers.”
“You are disgusting.”
“Do you have anything of substance, pissant? If not, STFU.”
“You’re a lying POS.”
“You poor idiot.”
“You first, T-rump sucker.”
Comments of this nature are inappropriate to a professional blog such as Legal Insurrection. If I were a moderator I would…..oh never mind. You know what I mean.
“That’s not how it’s supposed to happen in a civil society.”
There are “civil” societies in which their laws permit this sort of thing. It’s not supposed to happen in American society – this is unAmerican.
175 comments? Must be another Rag’s Therapy Thread. Lets take a looksee and… ah.. ewwww gross. Yup.
Saddest part? This is exactly what he wants, his words and behavior are designed specifically to result in him being treated with such contempt and scorn.
Every wonder why?
Don’t you feel a little dirty now?
Yeah, I get your point, Fen, and think I may have been sucked in with the rest.
He seems to be a Master Baiter.
I suggested that he got his Law License (if any) at a Strip Mall College.
Probably more likely a Strip Club but I agree the best way to exterminate this infestation is to ignore it.
LOL
Rags: Check yes or no
Hey Mr First Principles, while you are pretending to care so much about the Rule of Law (LOL) maybe any something about how it’s also important HOW Manafort is brought to justice?
Would it be okay to plant evidence on him? Bribe the judge? Doxx jurors like your pals at CNN and WaPo are attempting?
Rags: Yes! I’d cut down every law in England to do that!
https://youtu.be/PDBiLT3LASk
Go to the Bar, surrender your license to practice law. You are a disgrace.
Fen! He can’t surrender his license
until he has eaten all the cereal!
Cut him a little slack!!
. . . eaten all the cereal
Fruit Loops™, no doubt.
Just an idea: think back to your early childhood. Remember those toy telephones, the ones with dials that either made bell noises, or did nothing? The handset had a little cord made out of colorful rope?
Let’s build up a computer out of plastic, with a paper screen. It will show a web-authoring program. Give this thing to The Texas Loudmouth and let him play let’s-pretend. He can go beyond comments and have his vert own website.
Basically, he already does. It’s the “Forum” linked at the top of the page.
Gads… In all the time I have been here on LI, I’ve never clicked on the Forum link. From the looks of it, the link should reat Rags Rants.
My understanding of this case is that PM was at the least skirting tax law to avoid paying taxes. But that his actions were not so uncommon or brazen that prosecution was seen as worth the effort by the DOJ under Obama – despite the facts now being prosecuted for being known years ago.
Given that repeated tests have shown that the IRS’s own help line gives incorrect answers to callers 50% of the time, if everyone was prosecuted for filing their taxes incorrectly there would be trouble hiring enuf prison guards to handle the majority of us who were behind bars.
Among those in the hoosegow would be the Clinton’s themselves, they’ve “refiled” repeatedly, the most famous instance I think was after they had defended their role in The WhiteWater reality scam by claiming they never made any money on it – except oops they did.
PM may well have knowingly cheated on his taxes, but from what I’ve gathered in such a shadowy fashion that simular effort aimed at investigating tax returns among the “influence peddler” class would be coming up three cherries on almost every pull on the investigative slot machine arm.
Add on to this stench of a prosecution the factoid (from what I’ve read) the average case of this type results in at least an offer of a plea for a fine and no to minimal jail time vs’s PM’s choice of maximum statutory punishment or “give us something juicy on Trump” then it becomes as obvious to the the casual observer as it is to the trial judge that The crime PM is being prosecuted for is not his tax filings but instead his choice of who to support for President.
Manafort is Not Guilty. This does not mean he is innocent.
The jury will probably end up separating in to two camps. Republican and Democrat with the democrats in the majority. It may end up looking like Congress trying to pass ‘immigration reform’. That means whatever happens it will be a tragic travesty of justice.