Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
  On 8/1/2018 at 10:36 PM, 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.

Expand  

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.

Posted
  On 8/1/2018 at 10:36 PM, Biff Tannen said:

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

Expand  

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.

Posted
  On 8/1/2018 at 11:00 PM, 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.

Expand  

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.

Posted
  On 8/1/2018 at 11:02 PM, 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.

Expand  

Yes, agreed.

Posted
  On 8/1/2018 at 10:45 PM, 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

Expand  

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.

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?

Posted
  On 8/1/2018 at 11:26 PM, 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.

Expand  

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

Posted
  On 8/1/2018 at 11:37 PM, 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?

Expand  

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

Posted
  On 8/1/2018 at 11:40 PM, 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. 

Expand  

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.

Posted
  On 8/1/2018 at 11:43 PM, 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

Expand  

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

Posted
  On 8/1/2018 at 11:37 PM, 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?

Expand  

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. 

Posted
  On 8/1/2018 at 11:44 PM, 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.

Expand  

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.

Posted (edited)

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.

Edited by yaqdum
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
Posted
  On 8/2/2018 at 12:23 AM, DDD Dad said:

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.


  On 8/2/2018 at 12:49 AM, yaqdum said:
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
Posted
  On 8/1/2018 at 11:37 PM, 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?

Expand  

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. 

Posted (edited)
  On 8/2/2018 at 4:01 AM, 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. 

Expand  

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
Posted (edited)
  On 8/2/2018 at 1:47 PM, 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?

Expand  

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
Posted
  On 8/2/2018 at 1:47 PM, 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?

Expand  

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.

Posted
  On 8/2/2018 at 1:50 PM, TwiceHorn said:

There's no summary judgment in criminal cases.

Expand  

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

  On 8/2/2018 at 1:51 PM, 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.

Expand  

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. 

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
Posted (edited)
  On 8/2/2018 at 2:00 PM, 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. 

Expand  

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
Posted
  On 8/2/2018 at 2:08 PM, 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. 

Expand  

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.

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
Posted

All that's really missing is his kids having to drive around in a fucking staircar and trying to avoid hop-ons... although, its doubtful this reality imitating art will result in the patriarch being a patsy who was set up.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
  On 8/2/2018 at 2:36 PM, 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.  

Expand  

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
Posted
  On 8/2/2018 at 12:18 AM, 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.

Expand  

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.

Posted
  On 8/2/2018 at 3:05 PM, PappyVanVinceYoung said:

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

Expand  

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.

Posted
  On 8/2/2018 at 3:05 PM, PappyVanVinceYoung said:

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

Expand  

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


×
×
  • Create New...