• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Judge gets impatient at Paul Manafort trial

Xiaoki

Member
Sep 11, 2005
2,766
242
1,165
Starting right off with a whataboutism on the Clintons.

I can see this is going to be another unbiased political thread here on NewGAF.
 

Sub_Level

wants to fuck an Asian grill.
Apr 9, 2009
28,010
3,000
1,210
He is on trial for bank and tax fraud.

Being rich is fine. Lord knows its the American dream. Its how he got there which is being brought into question.
 

PkunkFury

Member
Jun 17, 2004
3,986
480
1,345
USA
https://www.citizen-times.com/story/news/politics/2018/08/01/paul-manafort-judge-impatient/882434002/

What is he on trial for anyway? For being a rich person who got his money from foreign interests?

If that's the case why aren't the Clintons on trial?
The indictment is public: https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.vaed.383106/gov.uscourts.vaed.383106.14.0_4.pdf

You can find this information if you are actually interested in it beyond twisting it in an attempt to throw shade at the Clintons

The gist of the charges is tax evasion and bank fraud, and the cataloging of how much he's spent on his "lavish" lifestyle is part of the evidence that he isn't reporting income. This is explained in the article you posted
 
Last edited:

Dude Abides

Member
Apr 8, 2009
20,198
855
505
The prosecution was attempting to demonstrate Manafort's income, to show how much of it was ill-gotten, and Ellis thought they were laying it on a bit thick and wanted to move on.

This happens multiple times per day in every trial, to both sides. Judges want things to move along. I know Trump fans are desperate for anything to undermine the Russia investigation but turning every molehill into a mountain makes you look silly.
 
Last edited:

TheMikado

Banned
Jan 3, 2018
1,436
593
225
He is on trial for bank and tax fraud.

Being rich is fine. Lord knows its the American dream. Its how he got there which is being brought into question.
Exactly, the prosecutor is trying to setup Manafort as grossly flaunting his ill-gotten wealth in order to turn the jury against Manafort. Focus on this may backfire, but it looks like the judge is actually handling it and not letting the prosecutors try to characterize Manafort as criminally eccentric. I think the prosecutors are just playing it up and the judge really is sick of the media circus its designed to generate.
 
Last edited:

danielberg

Member
Jun 20, 2018
2,162
2,371
375
Starting right off with a whataboutism on the Clintons.

I can see this is going to be another unbiased political thread here on NewGAF.
Its a legitimate questions if you dont think it is explain why the difference considering everyone should be treated the same by the law.
 

danielberg

Member
Jun 20, 2018
2,162
2,371
375
Exactly, the prosecutor is trying to setup Manafort as grossly flaunting his ill-gotten wealth in order to turn the jury against Manafort. Focus on this may backfire, but it looks like the judge is actually handling it and not letting the prosecutors try to characterize Manafort as criminally eccentric. I think the prosecutors are just playing it up and the judge really is sick of the media circus its designed to generate.
I guess they got into trouble with their argumentation of "no one buys these kinda expensive clothes" considering the judge shops at the same clothing line
 

PkunkFury

Member
Jun 17, 2004
3,986
480
1,345
USA
Its a legitimate questions if you dont think it is explain why the difference considering everyone should be treated the same by the law.
In what way is it a "legitimate questions"? It's a logical fallacy. No one is on trial for being rich or getting money from foreigners. The OP answers his own question with the wrong answer so he can ask another question and pretend it de-legitimizes his true target
 

Xiaoki

Member
Sep 11, 2005
2,766
242
1,165
Its a legitimate questions if you dont think it is explain why the difference considering everyone should be treated the same by the law.
Manafort is on trial for tax fraud.

I dont remember the Clinton's committing tax fraud.

Do you have anything on the Clinton's other than conspiracy theories?
 

DasPenguin

Member
Jul 31, 2014
1,283
141
295
Finland
Its a legitimate questions if you dont think it is explain why the difference considering everyone should be treated the same by the law.
Is anyone accusing the Clintons of tax fraud? I don’t think so. When they actually do that, I expect the same treatment.

But a legitimate question? The question itself is as stupid as this thread. Maybe reading the articles you link before posting something that Alex Jones might say would be a great start.
 
Last edited:

Death Dealer

Member
Sep 11, 2007
5,147
394
920
If that's the case why aren't the Clintons on trial?

Good question. The average prison sentence for tax fraud is about 1.5 years. Mannaofrt is being threatened with over 300 years in prison. The judge in the case has already said they're trying to crucify Mannafort to get him to "talk" about Trump. Mannafort is getting a pardon for ridiculous prosecutorial overreach. He's been treated unfairly.
 

Dude Abides

Member
Apr 8, 2009
20,198
855
505
TFW you love Trump so much that you cape for a scumbag mercenary lobbyist.

Drain the swamp!*

*Unless the swamp has ties to Trump, then the swamp is being treated very unfairly.
 

TheMikado

Banned
Jan 3, 2018
1,436
593
225
I think Pramod's inclusion and comparison to the Clinton's is misguided, but that doesn't detract from the fact that such an emphasis is exposing his extravagance isn't related to the trial.

Now with all that said, the news report is attempting to frame this as something out of the ordinary as if the prosecution has nothing real on Manafort.
Manafort may have committed legitimate crimes.
Prosecutors are attempting to swing jury opinion against Manafort which is standard procedure.
Judge has to bring overzealous attorneys back down to Earth.

Nothing out of the ordinary in general other than the fact that they are attempting to make it a public spectacle.
 

bucyou

Gold Member
Feb 3, 2018
1,181
1,483
550
I think Pramod's inclusion and comparison to the Clinton's is misguided, but that doesn't detract from the fact that such an emphasis is exposing his extravagance isn't related to the trial.

Now with all that said, the news report is attempting to frame this as something out of the ordinary as if the prosecution has nothing real on Manafort.
Manafort may have committed legitimate crimes.
Prosecutors are attempting to swing jury opinion against Manafort which is standard procedure.
Judge has to bring overzealous attorneys back down to Earth.

Nothing out of the ordinary in general other than the fact that they are attempting to make it a public spectacle.

Composing themselves again, the prosecution moved slowly forward before asking Ayliff to define the term “financial interest.” Ayliff began to answer the question but was immediately cut off by Ellis who noted that Ayliff was not a noticed expert. The defense then belatedly objected, prompting a quick and sarcastic dressing-down from the judge–but it was again the prosecution’s turn for scorn.


Static filled the courtroom as the longest bench conference of the day ensued. Upon returning to Ayliff’s testimony, the jury learned that the issue had been deferred until Friday–if ever. Then, Assistant U.S. Attorney Uzo Asonye asked about another term of art contained on federal tax forms.

Judge Ellis, who was already standing by this point, advised Ayliff to wait and announced the court would recess early.


After the jury left, Ellis took a few minutes to tell the press and public all about the bench conference. As it turns out, not only was Ayliff a non-noticed witness being asked to give the equivalent of expert testimony, but the prosecution and defense had already agreed on what the term “financial interest” meant. Moreover, this agreement was provided on a proposed–and approved–jury instruction.

That is, not only was Ayliff not an expert and not a noticed expert as necessitated by the Federal Rules of Evidence–but his testimony had the potential to derail an already-agreed-upon definition of the term(s) in question. This, Ellis said, could have “confused or clouded” things for the jury.

https://lawandcrime.com/awkward/judge-ellis-loses-all-patience-with-prosecutors-and-ends-court-early-over-major-screw-up/
I wouldn't exactly call that "nothing out of the ordinary".
 

Straight Edge

Member
Jan 21, 2015
2,287
225
415
Can someone start a “Whattabout Hilary delusion syndrome” thread so these people can get some help?
 

cryptoadam

... and he cannot lie
Feb 21, 2018
5,272
5,112
860
Any truth that Podesta, Tad Devine and Greg Craig were also part of the ECMFU?

And that this was investigated 8 years ago and Manafort was "exonorated" by Rosenstein?
 

infinitys_7th

Member
Oct 1, 2006
4,218
3,965
1,265
The indictment is public: https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.vaed.383106/gov.uscourts.vaed.383106.14.0_4.pdf

You can find this information if you are actually interested in it beyond twisting it in an attempt to throw shade at the Clintons

The gist of the charges is tax evasion and bank fraud, and the cataloging of how much he's spent on his "lavish" lifestyle is part of the evidence that he isn't reporting income. This is explained in the article you posted
You mean that he didn't report income. The international wire transfers make it look like he got money under the table while he worked for the Podesta Group and stored it overseas.
 

12Goblins

Member
Mar 1, 2017
885
674
355
1. Why not use a reliable source?

2. What does Hillary have to do with this case?

3. The right has become completely delusional. I don't know how you keep buying these braindead conspiracy theories after they keep being debunked and humiliated time and time again. People want to believe so badly..
 
Last edited:

phisheep

NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
Jun 1, 2009
7,199
86
930
It's a bit of a game. Criminal trials always are.

The prosecution is pushing hard on his wealth and extravagant spending only partly to show that he had income, but that's hardly probative of how much income he had. What they're really establishing at this stage, though it is not apparent from the court reports, is that Manafort himself was in sole control of the accounts and entities from which these wire-transferred payments to tailors were made - and which were not made known to his accountants. That, along with bank records, will be enough to demonstrate at least a minimum level of income to match against his tax returns.

The judge, who is a wily old so-and-so, knows this full well - and is giving the prosecution enough play to let them establish what they need to, while not letting them over-egg it and waste the courts's time.
 

guggnichso

Member
May 16, 2005
1,309
394
1,295
germany
Exactly, the prosecutor is trying to setup Manafort as grossly flaunting his ill-gotten wealth in order to turn the jury against Manafort. Focus on this may backfire, but it looks like the judge is actually handling it and not letting the prosecutors try to characterize Manafort as criminally eccentric. I think the prosecutors are just playing it up and the judge really is sick of the media circus its designed to generate.
It’s even in the article. They use his wardrobe to show that he spent MUCH more money on clothes alone than he stated in his tax reports to have. This is not a „setup“, this is an attempt on simple math. Had he spent that money on wine or signed Wu Tang Clan records, they would have gone through the invoices of his wine and Wu Tang Clan Record purchases.
 

danielberg

Member
Jun 20, 2018
2,162
2,371
375
TFW you love Trump so much that you cape for a scumbag mercenary lobbyist.

Drain the swamp!*

*Unless the swamp has ties to Trump, then the swamp is being treated very unfairly.
You kinda have to prove the lies spread not being lies. I know its difficult for stupid people but itsn not "guilty until proven innocent" you know? Burden of prove is a thing.
 
Jun 11, 2004
9,312
250
1,400
Their accountant(s) who were given immunity are basically like "uh yea we asked them (gates/manafort) about all the foreign and shady stuff, and they were like 'dont worry about it' "

:ROFLMAO:

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/08/03/paul-manafort-trial-2018-761300



On Tad Devine (Bernie's strategist during 16) working with Gates/Manafort/Ukraine:


As Sanders likes to say, let me be clear: Manafort is the one on trial for money laundering and other crimes. Devine is a witness for the prosecution; as prosecutors pointed out when he testified Tuesday, he wasn't the one with a bank account in Cyprus. There is no hint Devine did anything illegal — only cynical.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-bernie-sanders-ad-man-who-played-paul-manaforts-game/2018/08/01/0df78c18-95c7-11e8-a679-b09212fb69c2_story.html?utm_term=.a6d35d9f33d2
 
Last edited:

Gander

Banned
May 17, 2018
2,373
1,143
280
Not that I want these knuckle heads to get away but why would you do all this and not have a exit strategy? You betrayed your country and made millions, might as well go all the way and defect.
 

Woo-Fu

incest on the subway
Jan 2, 2007
13,866
835
1,345
Not that I want these knuckle heads to get away but why would you do all this and not have a exit strategy? You betrayed your country and made millions, might as well go all the way and defect.
There's no point in defecting, particularly when you're more scared of the countries you'd defect to. Somebody like Manafort would already have been erased by one of his eastern european business partners if he weren't under house arrest in the US.

He either cuts a deal with Mueller or gets pardoned by Trump. Both of those beat a nice cup of polonium tea.
 
Last edited:
Nov 23, 2010
4,368
286
715
Being rich is fine. Lord knows its the American dream. Its how he got there which is being brought into question.
Why is it being brought into question?

The world saw before, during, and after the 08 financial crisis that the US doesn't take white collar crime seriously. The number of Americans above the law is probably in the tens of thousands.

So, why should the US make an example out of a small time white collar criminal like Paul Manafort assuming the allegations stand up in court?

Prosecutors looked the other way as he did as he pleased for decades if the allegations are accurate. Now for some reason he's being harrassed in 2018.
 

Dude Abides

Member
Apr 8, 2009
20,198
855
505
You kinda have to prove the lies spread not being lies. I know its difficult for stupid people but itsn not "guilty until proven innocent" you know? Burden of prove is a thing.
Ah, the burden of prove. Difficult for stupid people indeed. Now excuse me while I do a shot of this 40-prove whiskey.
 
Nov 23, 2010
4,368
286
715
I used to think like that too. But its not that cut and dry.

Five Myths About White Collar Crime

Short article should you be interested in a new take. It cites government data.
I think if you thought like that you should continue to.

A couple points.

Under the leadership of Republicans in the 1980s and 90s, the US secured major convictions against roughly 1000 individuals in a much smaller crisis.

Were Bankers Jailed In Past Financial Crises?

The author in your link touted "more than 50 people" of presumably varying significance following the notable 2008 financial crisis.

Second, whistleblowers provided the govt cases on a silver platter for incidents related to the 2008 financial crisis.

Criminal as well as civil. Employee names. Employee titles. Company emails. The works. The record civil fines the US secured and the total amount of criminal convictions secured doesn't make sense after such widespread crime.

The $9 Billion Witness: Meet JPMorgan Chase’s Worst Nightmare

In any event, this brings us back to why Paul Manafort has all these govt resources/talent being used against him.

If 1000s of people can walk away from the 2008 financial crisis, why is the govt making an example out of Paul for small time white collar crime (again if it holds in court)?

Because he won't flip on Trump? And that could be because he expects a pardon or doesn't have the goods prosecutors are looking for. I guess if folks in charge want to be selectively punitive it's fine. But harassing Manafort after decades of him doing what he does looks all kinds of wrong.
 

cryptoadam

... and he cannot lie
Feb 21, 2018
5,272
5,112
860
I think if you thought like that you should continue to.

A couple points.

Under the leadership of Republicans in the 1980s and 90s, the US secured major convictions against roughly 1000 individuals in a much smaller crisis.

Were Bankers Jailed In Past Financial Crises?

The author in your link touted "more than 50 people" of presumably varying significance following the notable 2008 financial crisis.

Second, whistleblowers provided the govt cases on a silver platter for incidents related to the 2008 financial crisis.

Criminal as well as civil. Employee names. Employee titles. Company emails. The works. The record civil fines the US secured and the total amount of criminal convictions secured doesn't make sense after such widespread crime.

The $9 Billion Witness: Meet JPMorgan Chase’s Worst Nightmare

In any event, this brings us back to why Paul Manafort has all these govt resources/talent being used against him.

If 1000s of people can walk away from the 2008 financial crisis, why is the govt making an example out of Paul for small time white collar crime (again if it holds in court)?

Because he won't flip on Trump? And that could be because he expects a pardon or doesn't have the goods prosecutors are looking for. I guess if folks in charge want to be selectively punitive it's fine. But harassing Manafort after decades of him doing what he does looks all kinds of wrong.
Thats where I am at with it. If they want to put Manafort on trial why is it special counsel Mueller who is supposed to be finding russian links/collusion? It seems like its going to be a real stretch to take his work with the Ukraine and tack it onto Trump and his campaign and for now showing how lavish a life he lived is not proving any links to Trump/collusion. If Mueller had anything then he would be presenting it in court instead of parading around Manaforts lavish lifestyle.

When Mueller is threatning 300 years in prison its clear what he wants if for Manafort to flip. You wan't to get the guy on white collar crimes then separate that into another investigation/trial. If not show the goods linking Manafort to Russian collusion with Trump.
 
Nov 23, 2010
4,368
286
715
Definitely. Leave the small fry to the state officials. Paul is nearly 70 years old and has been playing the game for years without anyone hassling him.

If the US at the federal level is serious about Russian money laundering and fraud, then direct all those resources to the American offices of Deutsche Bank.
 
Last edited:

eclipze

Member
Mar 30, 2007
282
34
970
Crime is crime. I believe in law and order, so if Manafort is found guilty of breaking laws in the US code, then he should be penalized by whatever the relevant statutes require.
 

cryptoadam

... and he cannot lie
Feb 21, 2018
5,272
5,112
860
Definitely. Leave the small fry to the state officials. Paul is nearly 70 years old and has been playing the game for years without anyone hassling him.

If the US at the federal level is serious about Russian money laundering and fraud, then direct all those resources to the American offices of Deutsche Bank.
What about this. Ya the source isn't great, but you can check out the interviews on (I know LOL) FOX news. Maybe its all a lie and Manafort wasn't exonorated. Would like some more follow up on this story that doesn't seem to be gaining any traction.

http://www.bizzyblog.com/2018/07/31/appalling-media-negligence-manafort-was-exonerated-8-years-ago-federal-prosecutors-led-by-rosenstein-declined-to-charge-him/

ANDREW NAPOLITANO: Here’s Manafort’s defense: I was investigated for all this by the government eight years ago, and I was exonerated. And I’m going to put on the stand as my first witness the young lawyer who exonerated me.

You know who that young lawyer is? Rod Rosenstein.

STEVE DOOCY: What?

NAPOLITANO: Yes! So this is going to be quite a show if they succeed in getting Rosenstein, who now runs the Justice Department —

DOOCY: So why was I innocent then and guilty now?

NAPOLITANO: There you go.
NAPOLITANO: Paul Manafort’s lawyers are former federal prosecutors who are every bit as talented and experienced as the people on the other side of the courtroom.

One of their arguments is this: Paul Manafort was investigated by the federal government, by a team of federal prosecutors and FBI agents for all this stuff eight years ago, and they exonerated him.

And who was the young prosecutor that led that exoneration? Rod Rosenstein, who now runs the Justice Department.

And they have threatened to call Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein as their first witness and have him give to the jury all the reasons why he declined the prosecution of these charges eight years ago.
I have no love for tax evaders and fraudsters. Let him pay back taxes and if needed go to prison. But Mueller shouldn't be about tax evasion or bank fraud I thought it was for collusion with the Trump campaign.
 

Bryank75

Member
Jan 12, 2018
1,590
1,693
555
Ireland
It wasn't simply that they were spending too long on Manaforts spending habits. The prosecution were supposed to provide a key witness, on which most of their case lies. They spent forever going through pictures of clothes, shoes and decorations etc and then when it came time to nail down the important part.... The criminal part, they didn't have the witnesses.

I've heard others say that Mueller's team looked incompetent and badly prepared.
 
Last edited:
May 22, 2018
4,939
4,091
565
It wasn't simply that they were spending too long on Manaforts spending habits. The prosecution were supposed to provide a key witness, on which most of their case lies. They spent forever going through pictures of clothes, shoes and decorations etc and then when it came time to nail down the important part.... The criminal part, they didn't have the witnesses.

I've heard others say that Mueller's team looked incompetent and badly prepared.
Well thats one way to look at it all I guess.
 

Dude Abides

Member
Apr 8, 2009
20,198
855
505
It wasn't simply that they were spending too long on Manaforts spending habits. The prosecution were supposed to provide a key witness, on which most of their case lies. They spent forever going through pictures of clothes, shoes and decorations etc and then when it came time to nail down the important part.... The criminal part, they didn't have the witnesses.

I've heard others say that Mueller's team looked incompetent and badly prepared.
Uh, they’ve presented, among other things, a witness who testified she and Manafort falsified loan documents and sent them to a bank, which is bank fraud. Trials arent like law and order where one “key witness” gets on the stand, says something dramatic, and there’s gasps in the gallery.

Maybe don’t really on “others say” for your news.
 
Jun 11, 2004
9,312
250
1,400
It wasn't simply that they were spending too long on Manaforts spending habits. The prosecution were supposed to provide a key witness, on which most of their case lies. They spent forever going through pictures of clothes, shoes and decorations etc and then when it came time to nail down the important part.... The criminal part, they didn't have the witnesses.

I've heard others say that Mueller's team looked incompetent and badly prepared.
On thursday they had the accountants testify that gates and manafort knowingly misrepresented their income.
 

Bryank75

Member
Jan 12, 2018
1,590
1,693
555
Ireland
On thursday they had the accountants testify that gates and manafort knowingly misrepresented their income.
Probably 90% of small business people do this, it’s why cash transactions are preferred. There are still fast food places that only accept cash. Taxi drivers often turn off the meter and do fixed rate work that is undeclared. Also the Mueller case is supposed to be about Russian collusion and there is nothing, not even a sniff of anything....
The judge knows what’s up and what this is all about... even if he is guilty of something by the end. I would expect nothing more than a slap on the wrist.

From WaPo;

When prosecutors addressed Manafort’s relationship with Ukrainian “oligarchs,” he told them to knock it off. Prosecutors are inferring that Manafort associates himself with “despicable people and therefore he’s despicable,” he said. “That’s not the American way.”
Descriptions of Manafort’s $15,000 ostrich-leather jacket, the $6 million in cash he put toward real estate and his $900,000 in purchases at a New York boutique also left the judge unimpressed.
He may not like fancy-pants lawyers, but fancy pants in America are not against the law.
“The government doesn’t want to prosecute somebody because they wear nice clothes, do they?” Ellis asked. “Let’s move on.”
 

eclipze

Member
Mar 30, 2007
282
34
970
It feels like we’re in an episode of Black Mirror where we now defend those that cheat and steal from our banking system and celebrate overt sexual harrasement. Such an odd time to be alive to witness this dumpster fire.