Jump to content

Manafort Trial

Grandioso

By Grandioso
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23367

Posted
Posted
23 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

I think it is important.  The judge says we aren't here to prosecute him because he led a lavish lifestyle.  Aren't we though?  How did he afford said lavish lifestyle?  By defrauding the United States of America.  Fuck you Manafort and a-fucka you judge.

I think the focus on the lifestyle should speak to the fact that Manafort wasn’t committing tax and bank fraud to save his dying mother from cancer. Oh no, he was doing it to buy $15,000 ostrich suits and live like a king.

But once that point is made clear, move the fuck on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

retread
retread
Hugo Stiglitz
Hugo Stiglitz
Chooky
Chooky

If Mueller completes this investigation leaving no doubt of criminal activity from this administration while at the same time paying for %80 of it with seized cash from Russian money laundering scheme

yaqdum

yaqdum 182

Posted
Posted
26 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

The judge says we aren't here to prosecute him because he led a lavish lifestyle.

let me remind, too, that this is a skirmish in a war.  the whole country is watching this trial, and issues like lifestyle resonate with people.  there's probably nothing said or done in this trial that isn't attuned to the overall impact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Biff Tannen

Biff Tannen 45727

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I think the focus on the lifestyle should speak to the fact that Manafort wasn’t committing tax and bank fraud to save his dying mother from cancer. Oh no, he was doing it to buy $15,000 ostrich suits and live like a king.

But once that point is made clear, move the fuck on.

Yes.  Live like a king with blood on his hands.  I just hate white collar crime.  I hate it.  I would forgive murder in most cases before deep scale white collar crime.  It's just so much more galling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Biff Tannen

Biff Tannen 45727

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, yaqdum said:

let me remind, too, that this is a skirmish in a war.  the whole country is watching this trial, and issues like lifestyle resonate with people.  there's probably nothing said or done in this trial that isn't attuned to the overall impact.

Yes, agreed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sheeeit

sheeeit 129

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

It astounds me how easy it is for you to start with a very basic yet flawed premise and then run with it to conclusions that just happen to fit your narrative.

 

 

 

Pay your taxes

You realize that what you posted has nothing to do with what I actually typed right?  I have no narrative.  I said I thought Manafort was guilty already.  I am working a hypothetical.

Businesses set up corps in foreign countries all of the time.  US citizens are required to pay taxes on all income that they earn PERSONALLY wherever they reside.  Foreign corps that do business in foreign countries are not subject to US income tax even if owned by US citizens.  A US citizen could set up a business in Cypress and start selling stuff to Germany for millions of dollars and there is not tax due on anything in the US that is not paid to the US citizen personally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jhawk

Jhawk 1075

Posted
Posted

Why are they showing wire transfers from cyprus?  Is it a crime to have a bank account in cyprus (serious question)?  I understand that it is a crime to not pay taxes on the account in cyprus, but it seems like they could speed this up by saying "we have records of wire transfers for the amount of $12mm.  During the time he spent that money he only paid taxes on $3mm of income."

Would seem to be pretty open and shut.  Or are they trying to bring theatre for a potentially bigger case later on and to show a wider conspiracy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gil Bang

Gil Bang 26005

Posted
Posted
15 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

You realize that what you posted has nothing to do with what I actually typed right?  I have no narrative.  I said I thought Manafort was guilty already.  I am working a hypothetical.

Businesses set up corps in foreign countries all of the time.  US citizens are required to pay taxes on all income that they earn PERSONALLY wherever they reside.  Foreign corps that do business in foreign countries are not subject to US income tax even if owned by US citizens.  A US citizen could set up a business in Cypress and start selling stuff to Germany for millions of dollars and there is not tax due on anything in the US that is not paid to the US citizen personally.

Cypress is in Orange County, so I'm pretty sure you have to pay US taxes on a business there. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23367

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, Jhawk said:

Why are they showing wire transfers from cyprus?  Is it a crime to have a bank account in cyprus (serious question)?  I understand that it is a crime to not pay taxes on the account in cyprus, but it seems like they could speed this up by saying "we have records of wire transfers for the amount of $12mm.  During the time he spent that money he only paid taxes on $3mm of income."

Would seem to be pretty open and shut.  Or are they trying to bring theatre for a potentially bigger case later on and to show a wider conspiracy?

I’m not a lawyer but I’d speculate the focus on Cyprus has to do with the crimes he’s charged with.

905F7E76-CCF2-4662-B6D1-944373F7B24C_zps

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jhawk

Jhawk 1075

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

There's probably a legal reason they need to trace Manafort's use of specific funds from a specific foreign account for personal use. 

I'm not sure what the tax implications are though.  If you buy a suit because you do business in suits you could say that the clothing was provided by the business.  That could be expensed by the business.

Obviously that isn't the case trying to be made and the fact that the defense is going to "pin" something on gates means they probably aren't expecting to get out of anything, just lessen the blow to a point that he can have very little sentence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jhawk

Jhawk 1075

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I’m not a lawyer but I’d speculate the focus on Cyprus has to do with the crimes he’s charged with.

905F7E76-CCF2-4662-B6D1-944373F7B24C_zps

Thanks for this.  I couldn't find an actual complaint in my 30 seconds of searching.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dahobbs

Dahobbs 17679

Posted
Posted
16 minutes ago, Jhawk said:

Why are they showing wire transfers from cyprus?  Is it a crime to have a bank account in cyprus (serious question)?  I understand that it is a crime to not pay taxes on the account in cyprus, but it seems like they could speed this up by saying "we have records of wire transfers for the amount of $12mm.  During the time he spent that money he only paid taxes on $3mm of income."

Would seem to be pretty open and shut.  Or are they trying to bring theatre for a potentially bigger case later on and to show a wider conspiracy?

Something to remember about trials: you have to build your case piece by piece. And those pieces are generated by your witnesses and your other evidence. You generally can't get everything through a single witness or a single document. The closing is really where you get to summarize it all for a jury and put the pieces together for them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31534

Posted
Posted
24 minutes ago, Jhawk said:

I'm not sure what the tax implications are though.  If you buy a suit because you do business in suits you could say that the clothing was provided by the business.  That could be expensed by the business.

Obviously that isn't the case trying to be made and the fact that the defense is going to "pin" something on gates means they probably aren't expecting to get out of anything, just lessen the blow to a point that he can have very little sentence.

It would still be income to Manafort, though, and thus reportable on his taxes.  They're having to show that all these various foreign LLCs that he conducted business through were either paying him a salary (doubtful) or making distributions to him at his whim, beck and call, so that, effectively, every dollar they earned was income to him, or at least all the distributions.

And I think the Gates defense is that Manafort relied on Gates to tally the various and sundry distributions and "took his word" for their accuracy.  They don't really need him to take the stand for that, and, if he does, he will surely deny that that was the case, at which point they get to point out that he's a snitch for the government and ought not be believed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23367

Posted
Posted

I tested out a theory today:

I went to my local Dillard’s and picked out some great suits and ties.  Upon checkout I told the salesperson I needed to wire the payment for the clothes from my bank in Cyprus.  The clerk looked at me like I was out of my mind. 

My theory proved true.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 105312

Posted
Posted

Idontbelieve you.gif


I couldn’t make that up. Cruelest thing anyone ever said to me was her, YEARS later, when we were out drinking before a football game. I confessed that I was desperately trying to get her in the sack freshman year. She said “I know...and you have no idea how close you came to succeeding.” I’d rather she told me I never had a chance.


one important aspect that hasn't been mentioned on this thread is that we now know the source of the bitterness that is tearing brisket apart.


If reminiscing about the opportunities you blew doesn’t make you bitter, you’re not the kinda person I wanna know.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RayDog

RayDog 682

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, Jhawk said:

Why are they showing wire transfers from cyprus?  Is it a crime to have a bank account in cyprus (serious question)?  I understand that it is a crime to not pay taxes on the account in cyprus, but it seems like they could speed this up by saying "we have records of wire transfers for the amount of $12mm.  During the time he spent that money he only paid taxes on $3mm of income."

Would seem to be pretty open and shut.  Or are they trying to bring theatre for a potentially bigger case later on and to show a wider conspiracy?

We are talking about the bank partly owned by Wilbur Ross, Oleg Daripaska, and Viktor Vekselberg. It will show up many times in Mueller's final report. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jhawk

Jhawk 1075

Posted
Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, RayDog said:

We are talking about the bank partly owned by Wilbur Ross, Oleg Daripaska, and Viktor Vekselberg. It will show up many times in Mueller's final report. 

So everyone who has ever transferred money via wire from that bank is guilty of something? The owners of the bank are completely irrelevant to the case unless there is direct communication between them and manafart. 

I think he’s a scumbag but guilt by association and being rich isn’t a crime. Lay out the taxes and the income/distributions of the company and get this done. Could almost be a summary judgement if the documents are there and you could ask for one. No reason to sling as much mud as possible. Is this about the dickhead’s character or about his crime? Either he paid taxes or he didn’t. Either he directed funds straight to himself or others or he ran it through the company first. This isn’t a 3 week trial. There could probably be about 20 exhibits and they only need to consist of his tax returns and his financials. 

Edited by Jhawk
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31534

Posted
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, Jhawk said:

So everyone who has ever transferred money via wire from that bank is guilty of something? The owners of the bank are completely irrelevant to the case unless there is direct communication between them and manafart. 

I think he’s a scumbag but guilt by association and being rich isn’t a crime. Lay out the taxes and the income/distributions of the company and get this done. Could almost be a summary judgement if the documents are there and you could ask for one. No reason to sling as much mud as possible. Is this about the dickhead’s character or about his crime?

There's no summary judgment in criminal cases.  There can be a directed verdict or judgment as a matter of law in favor of the defendant, either after the prosecution closes its case in chief, or after the jury returns a verdict.  It's a similar standard to summary judgment.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kyrie Eleison

Kyrie Eleison 9312

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Jhawk said:

So everyone who has ever transferred money via wire from that bank is guilty of something? The owners of the bank are completely irrelevant to the case unless there is direct communication between them and manafart. 

I think he’s a scumbag but guilt by association and being rich isn’t a crime. Lay out the taxes and the income/distributions of the company and get this done. Could almost be a summary judgement if the documents are there and you could ask for one. No reason to sling as much mud as possible. Is this about the dickhead’s character or about his crime?

sometimes the two are inseparable and go hand in hand, and there are specific rules of evidence that allow the for introduction of character evidence to prove the crime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jhawk

Jhawk 1075

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

There's no summary judgment in criminal cases.

That’s why I said “if you could ask for one”

5 minutes ago, Kyrie Eleison said:

sometimes the two are inseparable and go hand in hand, and there are specific rules of evidence that allow the for introduction of character evidence to prove the crime.

I didn’t see Wilbur Ross on the witness sheet. If you’re going to slander a man then you better bring him in and lead the jury to know who he is. You can’t just have prosecution say “Paul manafart uses a bank Wilbur Ross is involved in and Wilbur Ross is a bad dude. Trust us. That can only mean that manafart is guilty of all crimes he could ever be accused of.”

what im getting at us something the judge has already made clear. Paul manafart won’t be found guilty of crimes because he isn’t likeable or because he has expensive habits or because the prosecution wants to make it a 1% vs. 99% game. It’s a giant waste of time and resources and the judge clearly isn’t having that. If that is what mueller has built his case around (just like he built his case against a Russian he thought would never show up to court) then he doesn’t have a great case. 

The better route to go has been handed to the prosecution by the defense. At the end of the day manafort is responsible for the pass through income of his company. If they are trying to paint it on gates then prosecution should paint gates as guilty and then show that he acted at the direction of manafort and that manafort got the benefits of his actions. At the end of the day, gates doesn’t cut the checks for manafort taxes. Manafort signs those. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mojo Hand

Mojo Hand 4580

Posted
Posted (edited)

Among the evidence yesterday, apparently Manafort used forged invoices to make it appear that his personal purchases at these stores were actually payments to generic businesses with nondescript names that do not reflect retail stores.   The implication being that he was falsely claiming these personal purchases as business expenses on his taxes, which will presumably be proven with other evidence in the coming days.  That explains the need for proving up all of these extravagant personal purchases... that money claimed as business expenses was actually spent by him on ostrich jackets. 

Edited by Mojo Hand
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kyrie Eleison

Kyrie Eleison 9312

Posted
Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, Jhawk said:

That’s why I said “if you could ask for one”

I didn’t see Wilbur Ross on the witness sheet. If you’re going to slander a man then you better bring him in and lead the jury to know who he is. You can’t just have prosecution say “Paul manafart uses a bank Wilbur Ross is involved in and Wilbur Ross is a bad dude. Trust us. That can only mean that manafart is guilty of all crimes he could ever be accused of.”

what im getting at us something the judge has already made clear. Paul manafart won’t be found guilty of crimes because he isn’t likeable or because he has expensive habits or because the prosecution wants to make it a 1% vs. 99% game. It’s a giant waste of time and resources and the judge clearly isn’t having that. If that is what mueller has built his case around (just like he built his case against a Russian he thought would never show up to court) then he doesn’t have a great case. 

The better route to go has been handed to the prosecution by the defense. At the end of the day manafort is responsible for the pass through income of his company. If they are trying to paint it on gates then prosecution should paint gates as guilty and then show that he acted at the direction of manafort and that manafort got the benefits of his actions. At the end of the day, gates doesn’t cut the checks for manafort taxes. Manafort signs those. 

oh...okay, counselor.

your reference to "this dickhead's character" wasn't to Ross, as you so deftly tried to move the goalpost; you meant that about Manafort.  that, too, was specifically who i was referencing.

your fear is that this character will bled over into changing public opinion of your beloved team, the GOP.  as well you should be afraid of that...they're fucking scum.

Edited by Kyrie Eleison
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lemonlime

lemonlime 5503

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

Among the evidence yesterday, apparently Manafort used forged invoices to make it appear that his personal purchases at these stores were actually payments to generic businesses with nondescript names that do not reflect retail stores.   The implication being that he was falsely claiming these personal purchases as business expenses on his taxes, which will presumably be proven with other evidence in the coming days.  That explains the need for proving up all of these extravagant personal purchases... that money claimed as business expenses was actually spent by him on ostrich jackets. 

It also may go to the tax fraud, i.e. he claimed to have earned x amount of money on his taxes, but then spent way more than that on ostrich coats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tuco

Tuco 5077

Posted
Posted

I think the prosecutors are trying to get irrelevant information about Manafort in front of the jury.  I think the defense will likely try to get irrelevant information about Manafort in front of the jury.  And I think the judge is working to keep irrelevant information from going in front of the jury.  In other words, all actors are playing their parts.

But, I do think the extravagance of the purchases has some relevance, assuming Manafort tries to claim them as business related and merely an oversight that he didn't report them.  It's one thing to accidentally charge your wife's lunch to your company.  When you are consistently racking up 10s of thousands of dollars in high end clothing purchases, which you retain after the business is closed down, it's obviously an intentional, conscious act to transfer wealth to you personal assets-aka, income.  To me, there is a link between the extravagance of the purchase to both its relationship to the business and to the likelihood it would be overlooked.  Up to a point. I have no idea how much the prosecutors are harping on it.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31534

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, Tuco said:

I think the prosecutors are trying to get irrelevant information about Manafort in front of the jury.  I think the defense will likely try to get irrelevant information about Manafort in front of the jury.  And I think the judge is working to keep irrelevant information from going in front of the jury.  In other words, all actors are playing their parts.

But, I do think the extravagance of the purchases has some relevance, assuming Manafort tries to claim them as business related and merely an oversight that he didn't report them.  It's one thing to accidentally charge your wife's lunch to your company.  When you are consistently racking up 10s of thousands of dollars in high end clothing purchases, which you retain after the business is closed down, it's obviously an intentional, conscious act to transfer wealth to you personal assets-aka, income.  To me, there is a link between the extravagance of the purchase to both its relationship to the business and to the likelihood it would be overlooked.  Up to a point. I have no idea how much the prosecutors are harping on it.  

Pretty accurate.  If you look at pp. 8-15 of the indictment, you can see the various payments he allegedly directed from various LLCs for personal expenditures.  Only the clothing represents a tangible item that can be brought into court to exemplify the personal nature of the payments he was calling business expenses.  I can see that the prosecution ought to have a little leeway on that kind of thing.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
PappyVanVinceYoung

PappyVanVinceYoung 85

Posted
Posted
14 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

It would still be income to Manafort, though, and thus reportable on his taxes.  They're having to show that all these various foreign LLCs that he conducted business through were either paying him a salary (doubtful) or making distributions to him at his whim, beck and call, so that, effectively, every dollar they earned was income to him, or at least all the distributions.

And I think the Gates defense is that Manafort relied on Gates to tally the various and sundry distributions and "took his word" for their accuracy.  They don't really need him to take the stand for that, and, if he does, he will surely deny that that was the case, at which point they get to point out that he's a snitch for the government and ought not be believed.

I think he is talking about a hypothetical situation where the entity was not an LLC or similar pass through entity but instead a corporation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
lemonlime

lemonlime 5503

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, PappyVanVinceYoung said:

There's got to be a shit load of ostrich coats. Aren't we talking about something like $60 million in income?

Do we know what he claimed on his taxes, though?  There's 60 million I think in laundered money (allegedly). But the allegation is he didn't claim millions in income on his taxes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31534

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, PappyVanVinceYoung said:

There's got to be a shit load of ostrich coats. Aren't we talking about something like $60 million in income?

Look at the indictment.  $849K of payments directed to clothing retailers.  A shitload of others for real estate purchases, cars, landscaping, remodeling, etc.  That's why I say that the clothing items are the only tangible product of his expenditure that can be brought into court to demo to the jury that these expenditures were highly personal in nature and not justifiable business expenses.  So yeah, I can see a bit of this.  It can certainly be overdone and I think the government may be making a mistake to call it evidence of his lavish lifestyle rather than, "look judge, these are frivolous items of clothing that he's trying to claim are legitimate business expenses, we can't show them the landscaping services and only photos of the real estate and cars, so the prejudicial effect here is outweighed by the probative value."

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...