Manafort Trial

[Dahobbs 18391]

52 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

It is very difficult for the defense to secure a mistrial by its own actions, particularly for violation of a motion in limine made by, and ostensibly for the benefit of, the defense.

Not only that, but assuming in the motion in limine was made for the benefit of the defense, the more likely outcome is opening the door to whatever stuff the prosecution has involving Trump that the defense didn't want out there in the first place. 

[tantric superman 4668]

Hayden Head made me cry once.

[TwiceHorn 32104]

37 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Yeah, I had the same impression.  Here's how I've looked at it:

I'm a competitor.  A pretty dedicated one.  The judge is the ref.  Sometimes, you get an easy-going ref. Sometimes, you get an asshole ref who makes it personal.  In EITHER case, only losers bitch about the ref and make him the focus of their game.  Winners play the game, and adjust to whatever kind of ref they've got.

If it's a judge I can laugh and banter with, I do that.

If it's a judge who tolerates no fun and games, I play that way.

If it's a judge who expects everything presented in a 2-page brief or less, I do that.

I play my game within the confines of the rules the way the ref at that game interprets them.  That's how you win.  BUT....that doesn't mean that we the people should tolerate a pointlessly irascible judge.  I remember coming home years ago after a pretty big hearing in Fed ct. in another state.   I told a story of the judge blowing up and yelling at me for 10 minutes (it was fully expected, we all knew it was coming, HE knew it was coming, so we let him make his point to ALL the parties, then moved on).  I didn't enjoy it, but it was part of the game, I was ready for it, and I didn't let it bug me.  My wife said "yeah, that's why I'm not a lawyer.  I'd have cut him off and said 'listen, fucker -- you work for ME!  You got that?  You work for the people, we don't work for you!"  While, of course, I told her that's a good way to get a taste of a jail cell....she was also right.  

And I DO really appreciate the judges who are respectful of all the parties and lawyers in front of them.  There's a Fed judge I know who purposefully lets ALL attorneys make full arguments, and put on their full argument/case, even when he already KNOWS that it's a dog and they're gonna lose.  He explained to me one time, "I know these folks paid a lot of money for their attorney to prepare their argument and go to court.  I think I owe it to 'em to let them see that they got their money's worth.  That way, even when they lose, they can feel like they tried, had a good lawyer, and were given a fair shake."  That's the way it should be, and as public servants, more judges should remember that.  A lot of them do, by the way.  We tell the stories of the cranky ones.  We don't tell many stories about the mundane, boring judges who just let us try our cases and issue rulings as requested.

Yep, yep, good analysis.  And the tradeoff goes that a judge who will "let you try your case," also will probably set you for trial three different times (with varying advance notice of reset) and let a one-week trial devolve into three weeks, etc. and take three months to rule on post-trial motions.

[Brisketexan 107009]

15 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Yep, yep, good analysis.  And the tradeoff goes that a judge who will "let you try your case," also will probably set you for trial three different times (with varying advance notice of reset) and let a one-week trial devolve into three weeks, etc. and take three months to rule on post-trial motions.

Also a good point.  Soft-hand judges who let the other side have 5 continuances piss me off because it fucks up my calendar, inconveniences my client, etc.

Strike the balance.  Be firm, pay attention to the briefing and issues and genuinely try to understand them, issue rulings promptly, and allow people to try their case but not take advantage of your courtroom or your courteous demeanor.  And again, to be fair, there are quite a few judges who fall in that band of behavior.

Honestly, what I MOST want is predictability.  While I would LIKE you to have a proper strike zone, what's more important is that you have a consistent strike zone.  If your strike zone runs high, then call it consistently for everyone, all the time.

For ALL judges, though, the best way to get a judge acting the right way is to be a lawyer acting the right way: be prepared, know your shit inside and out, be efficient and effective, and act professionally (don't engage in petty sniping and bullshit).  That goes a long damned way.

[Biff Tannen 46200]

So is this shit over yet?  I think it's been well proven that he is a tax-evading piece of shit.  Let's move on to Russia-colluding piece of shit trial.

[Dahobbs 18391]

16 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Honestly, what I MOST want is predictability.  While I would LIKE you to have a proper strike zone, what's more important is that you have a consistent strike zone.  If your strike zone runs high, then call it consistently for everyone, all the time.

This. I want to know what game I'm playing. I don't want to find out in the 4th inning that the judge is going to start calling icing. 

[J.R. 150]

judge Folsom in Texarkana and judge Davis in Tyler were so good at this. I mean they’d go ape shit when they had to but did not insert themselves into the action otherwise. I am guessing they both wish they stayed on the bench at this point. 

[Horn Dog 10186]

Prosecutors have for the second time during Paul Manafort's criminal trial asked Judge T.S. Ellis to correct a statement he made to the jury, according to a filing they made Friday morning.

This time, they're asking Ellis to tell the jury to disregard his comment Thursday during a witness' testimony about alleged bank fraud conspiracy that the attorneys "might want to spend time on a loan that was granted."

Ellis made the comment near the end of the day Thursday, as witness Taryn Rodriguez of Citizens Bank testified about a $5.5 million loan Manafort applied for using false statements to the bank but did not receive.

What prosecutors want: Prosecutors said the comment misrepresents the law regarding bank fraud conspiracy and is likely to confuse and mislead the jury.

They want Ellis to explain in court Friday "that the jury is not to consider the Court’s comment and that loans that Manafort fraudulently applied for but did not receive are relevant to the charges in the indictment."

This will be the second time in as many days they've asked for a correction. Yesterday, prosecutors asked Ellis correct the record for the jury about his agreement to let an expert witness from the IRS sit in the courtroom before he testified. Ellis told the jury he was "probably wrong." Transcripts from earlier in the trial show he clearly discussed with prosecutors the IRS witness observing the trial.

 

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/manafort-trial/index.html

[Kyrie Eleison 9312]

1 hour ago, J.R. said:

judge Folsom in Texarkana and judge Davis in Tyler were so good at this. I mean they’d go ape shit when they had to but did not insert themselves into the action otherwise. I am guessing they both wish they stayed on the bench at this point. 

as was J. Ward.

that Tyler division was strong...

 

[J.R. 150]

Ward had a tendency to insert himself into the show a bit more. A good experienced judge no doubt but if he didn’t like you watch out

[The Royal We 3100]

Sorry if this has been covered elsewhere already, but what are your thoughts on Tony Podesta getting immunity from very similar charges as Manafort's for his testimony?  I've been arguing with a buddy who is a "deep stater" and agreed with him that it smelled bad that Tony would face no consequences for something similar.  I do know that this supposedly relates to the DC trial and not to the current trial in Virginia, so maybe it's still hearsay at this point.

[Dahobbs 18391]

19 minutes ago, The Royal We said:

Sorry if this has been covered elsewhere already, but what are your thoughts on Tony Podesta getting immunity from very similar charges as Manafort's for his testimony?  I've been arguing with a buddy who is a "deep stater" and agreed with him that it smelled bad that Tony would face no consequences for something similar.  I do know that this supposedly relates to the DC trial and not to the current trial in Virginia, so maybe it's still hearsay at this point.

The only person this is coming from appears to be Tucker Carlson. So, I'd say right now we have no credible evidence that any sort of immunity was offered. Even assuming immunity was offered, we don't know the contours of it. 

[Kyrie Eleison 9312]

44 minutes ago, J.R. said:

Ward had a tendency to insert himself into the show a bit more. A good experienced judge no doubt but if he didn’t like you watch out

 Hannah was the same way; woe be unto you if you ended up on his south side.  but i enjoyed both their courts as well as Cobb. 

[Kyrie Eleison 9312]

26 minutes ago, The Royal We said:

Sorry if this has been covered elsewhere already, but what are your thoughts on Tony Podesta getting immunity from very similar charges as Manafort's for his testimony?  I've been arguing with a buddy who is a "deep stater" and agreed with him that it smelled bad that Tony would face no consequences for something similar.  I do know that this supposedly relates to the DC trial and not to the current trial in Virginia, so maybe it's still hearsay at this point.

Mueller recently referred Podesta to the SDNY for his own Ukrainian shenanigans, so i doubt any immunity deal is to be had re: the lobbying charges.

[Pods 7637]

16 minutes ago, Kyrie Eleison said:

Mueller recently referred Podesta to the SDNY for his own Ukrainian shenanigans, so i doubt any immunity deal is to be had re: the lobbying charges.

Alternative facts. Elephant out front should have told you. 

Edited August 10, 2018 by Pods

[Anastasis 23717]

How many federal charges will Paul Manafort be convicted on by year-end 2018?

Market Type: Linked

End Date: 12/31/2018 11:59 PM (ET)

Status: Open

 

• Contracts
• Rules
• Chart

Trade shares from this page by clicking any price in bold. For more information on an individual prediction, click on the name or image.

GUILTY.MANA.2018	Latest	Buy Yes	Sell Yes	Buy No	Sell No
0 charges 0.GUILTY.MANA.2018	13¢  5¢	13¢	8¢	92¢	87¢
1 - 5 charges 1.GUILTY.MANA.2018	7¢  1¢	8¢	7¢	93¢	92¢
6 - 10 charges 6.GUILTY.MANA.2018	15¢ NC	9¢	4¢	96¢	91¢
11 - 20 charges 11.GUILTY.MANA.2018	34¢  1¢	35¢	20¢	80¢	65¢
21 - 30 charges 21.GUILTY.MANA.2018	30¢  20¢	30¢	26¢	74¢	70¢
31 - 40 charges 31.GUILTY.MANA.2018	8¢ NC	15¢	4¢	96¢	85¢
41 or more charges 41.GUILTY.MANA.2018	5¢  2¢	5¢	3¢	97¢	95¢

 

---

The Disqus comment section is for informational purposes only and should not be relied upon when making any decision to buy or sell shares. PredictIt does not monitor, evaluate, or assess the accuracy of comments. PredictIt participants should seek out independent, verifiable information before making any investment decision.

[triplehorn 2664]

3 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

It is very difficult for the defense to secure a mistrial by its own actions, particularly for violation of a motion in limine made by, and ostensibly for the benefit of, the defense.

Thanks for the response, but wrt the first part of the question, was the defense pursuing a line of questioning with Gates that was prohibited an example of absent mindedness, or done willfully with understanding ?  Or is this within a normal range of human attorney error in a court proceeding, essentially much ado about nothing ?  

And even if it's difficult for the defense to secure a mistrial by its own actions, can their action bait a response by the prosecution that could lead to a grievous error by prosecution ?

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

20 minutes ago, Pods said:

That does a pretty good job of explaining the facts, but you failed to account for the alternate fact that Podesta was given immunity.

lol the back story on this is:

It was reported by Tucker Carlson and every other right wing media outlet that Tony Podesta was pitched immunity to testify against Manafort.

Turns out that was fake news

https://www.google.com/search?q=Podesta+IMMUNITY&ei=H81tW9vTF8PUsAXouozgDg&start=10&sa=N&biw=1366&bih=586

Edited August 10, 2018 by Hugo Stiglitz

[The Royal We 3100]

Thank you for the info.  Discussing these issues with a Deep Stater is incredibly tedious.

[Dahobbs 18391]

22 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

Thanks for the response, but wrt the first part of the question, was the defense pursuing a line of questioning with Gates that was prohibited an example of absent mindedness, or done willfully with understanding ?  Or is this within a normal range of human attorney error in a court proceeding, essentially much ado about nothing ?  

And even if it's difficult for the defense to secure a mistrial by its own actions, can their action bait a response by the prosecution that could lead to a grievous error by prosecution ?

I guess the first part depends on if the defense thinks there is something of value to be gained by associating Manafort with the Trump campaign. Or perhaps he was fishing for what testimony may be used against Manafort in the DC trial? Actually, that last one makes a lot of sense, especially based on the questions asked. 

The second question is difficult to answer as it is so vague and broad. I suppose it is technically possible, but unlikely.

[GopherRock 1777]

So to translate the above charts into a more familiar tote board:

 

No convictions +770

1-5 +1430

6-10 +670

11-20 +300

21-30 +330

31-40 +1250

41+ +2000

 

[TwiceHorn 32104]

24 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

I guess the first part depends on if the defense thinks there is something of value to be gained by associating Manafort with the Trump campaign. Or perhaps he was fishing for what testimony may be used against Manafort in the DC trial? Actually, that last one makes a lot of sense, especially based on the questions asked. 

The second question is difficult to answer as it is so vague and broad. I suppose it is technically possible, but unlikely.

Best I can figure, the defense was delving into the degree of cooperation and lenience Gates secured, extending the inquiry beyond the case at bar, which inadvertently or otherwise got into Trumpy issues and issues relating to an ongoing investigation.  It isn't clear whether it was the questions or the answers or both that crossed into that territory.  Could have been a mistake, could have been a calculated risk.  The risk being, other than getting reamed by the judge, "opening the door" to further evidence from the prosecution about Trump connections.  They could have figured they'd open the door, but the judge wasn't going to let the government recall witnesses to go further into it, and the remaining witnesses have nothing to offer on that, being bank fraud witnesses.  Also, bringing forth a small amount of testimony tangentially related to Trumpy things doesn't necessarily open the door wide to all Trumpy things.

Edited August 10, 2018 by TwiceHorn

[Mojo Hand 4580]

53 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

lol the back story on this is:

It was reported by Tucker Carlson and every other right wing media outlet that Tony Podesta was pitched immunity to testify against Manafort.

Turns out that was fake news

https://www.google.com/search?q=Podesta+IMMUNITY&ei=H81tW9vTF8PUsAXouozgDg&start=10&sa=N&biw=1366&bih=586

Also, there's a good chance Manafort was offered a substantial break to testify against Trump.   That he seems to have rejected that and decided not to flip is his own choice.   It wouldn't necessarily be unfair to Manafort if Podesta got a deal and took it. 

[Gil Bang 26249]

 

[Mojo Hand 4580]

Manafort be flipping? 

[Brisketexan 107009]

19 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:

 

 

15 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

Manafort be flipping? 

Could well be.

Could also be any number of other things -- an issue with a juror, a personal issue for a lawyer, the judge, an important evidentiary point that needs to be resolved before going forward, etc., really, any number of things.

[Captainant 28596]

21 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:

 

man I can't imagine how pissed the prosecutors are that the judge is being that much of a dick

[Gil Bang 26249]

 

[Mojo Hand 4580]

That's not much of a delay. 

[RomaVicta 30624]

It will be a great turning point in the cable movie about this if Manafort did want to strike a deal, but he wasn't offered much of anything beyond two-ply toilet paper in minimum security prison.

Which, if I were going away forever, I might just take. But I don't know if turning means his family would be eaten by the Russians. I'd have to weigh that. Could go either way. 

Edited August 10, 2018 by RomaVicta

[TwiceHorn 32104]

From what I could determine, the delay this morning was for other matters and discussing the sealing of the testimony yesterday that went into the ongoing investigation.  Ellis warned the jury not to discuss things with other people and had the courtroom marshals in, I think to ascertain who may have heard the testimony and how far out of the bag was the cat.

[BurntOrange&White 42005]

It is very difficult for the defense to secure a mistrial by its own actions, particularly for violation of a motion in limine made by, and ostensibly for the benefit of, the defense.

Usually if they open it up ya fair game as long as it specifically relates to what the defense brought up?

[TwiceHorn 32104]

14 minutes ago, Bevo VIII said:

Usually if they open it up ya fair game as long as it specifically relates to what the defense brought up?

Yeah, looking back, they asked Gates if he was interviewed by the OSC in connection with the Trump Campaign.  Arguably, that doesn't have much to do with Manafort and the Trump Campaign, only Gates and the Trump Campaign, so I'm not sure the door is flung wide open, if it all.  Kind of depends on where it went.  I'm sure we'd have heard about it if it were considered a violation of the motion in limine.

[CoTex 1185]

1 hour ago, Kyrie Eleison said:

 Hannah was the same way; woe be unto you if you ended up on his south side.  but i enjoyed both their courts as well as Cobb. 

You better have your shit buttoned up and ready in Judge Gilstrap’s court.  Right - ok.  Wrong - ok.  Dumbass, cheating or unprepared?  Ho-Lee-fuk.

I recently had the privilege of appearing in front of Lee Rosenthal with Rusty Hardin in the courtroom.  I think she is a very cool judge and hope to go back.  

 

Isnt this part part of what makes the game special?  Strike zone may change, ump having a bad day, whatever, get up there and play ball.

[Brisketexan 107009]

You better have your shit buttoned up and ready in Judge Gilstrap’s court.  Right - ok.  Wrong - ok.  Dumbass, cheating or unprepared?  Ho-Lee-fuk.
I recently had the privilege of appearing in front of Lee Rosenthal with Rusty Hardin in the courtroom.  I think she is a very cool judge and hope to go back.  
 
Isnt this part part of what makes the game special?  Strike zone may change, ump having a bad day, whatever, get up there and play ball.

Man, I enjoy that, and it’s when I’m at my best - everyone chuck your plan out the window, and figure out how to hit a ball thrown over your head. You can bitch all you want...but the winner will be the guy who rolls with it, changes his swing, and hits the ball a country mile.

I love that shit.

But that still ain’t the way it should be.

[ChiTownDoc 21347]

1 hour ago, GopherRock said:

So to translate the above charts into a more familiar tote board:

 

No convictions +770

1-5 +1430

6-10 +670

11-20 +300

21-30 +330

31-40 +1250

41+ +2000

 

With the way the judge is inserting himself there’s a lot of value low and high.  Dropping 100$ across the board and hoping it doesn’t land 11-30 isn’t a bad idea.  

[CoTex 1185]

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

Man, I enjoy that, and it’s when I’m at my best - everyone chuck your plan out the window, and figure out how to hit a ball thrown over your head. You can bitch all you want...but the winner will be the guy who rolls with it, changes his swing, and hits the ball a country mile.

I love that shit.

But that still ain’t the way it should be.

My favorite is When you’re in state court on something contested and the judge says “do we need a record?”

“No sir/ma’am”

that’s code to me that we’re about to go no-holds-barred cage match and no appeal.  Do some lawyerin.

[jimmyjazz 47298]

You lawyers and your fancy talk.

[Brisketexan 107009]

My favorite is When you’re in state court on something contested and the judge says “do we need a record?” “No sir/ma’am”

that’s code to me that we’re about to go no-holds-barred cage match and no appeal.  Do some lawyerin.

 

Flip side...when someone asks for a record at a non-evidentiary hearing. WTF for? It ain’t gonna mean shit on appeal.

 

I do love what comes when you go off the record sometimes, though. Years ago, had a case in front of a Judge I dig. I was secondary counsel - and primary counsel on both sides HATED each other, and had been fighting over the issue in various courts for 10 years. Lotta bad history. I’d just told one of our co-counsel how I kinda had a Judge crush on our assigned Judge, when he lawyers started sniping. Again. For the 20th time in the case.

 

Judge turns to her ct reporter and just says “OFF!” and the reporter lifts her hands off the keys. She then proceeds to RIP into both lawyers in a solid, profane tirade: “I’ve had enough of your fucking bullshit! I have told you 10 times to cut this shit out, and you’re still doing it! I don’t know what in the hell it’s gonna take, but I’m not gonna have any more of this petty bullshit in my court. DO YOU UNDERSTAND?!?!”

 

Mid-rant, co counsel leans to me (we were sitting in the jury box) and whispers “damn...I’ve got a crush on her now, too.”

 

Her rant was timely, merited, and effective. I approved.

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Manafort flipping would be great but I don’t see it happening unless he’s sitting on the Crown Jewels of information.

[HOOK'EMHOOAH 1610]

26 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Manafort flipping would be great but I don’t see it happening unless he’s sitting on the Crown Jewels of information.

...like say what transpired in and around the trump tower meeting and has evidence to back it up?

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

15 minutes ago, HOOK'EMHOOAH said:

...like say what transpired in and around the trump tower meeting and has evidence to back it up?

IMO, It’s going to have to be a lot more than that.

People in that meeting have already testified before a grand jury, plus whatever Rick Gates has.

It will need to be information going back to Ukraine and Russia.  Possibly the identities of other Kremlin assets.

I’d speculate Manafort will have to betray Putin in some way to get a good deal at this point.

[HOOK'EMHOOAH 1610]

15 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

IMO, It’s going to have to be a lot more than that.

People in that meeting have already testified before a grand jury, plus whatever Rick Gates has.

It will need to be information going back to Ukraine and Russia.  Possibly the identities of other Kremlin assets.

I’d speculate Manafort will have to betray Putin in some way to get a good deal at this point.

True. But that info couldn't hurt...

[Tuco 5094]

Thank you for the info.  Discussing these issues with a Deep Stater is incredibly tedious.

While there is no evidence that Posesta received a plea bargain, it is obvious that he has not had the target on his back that Manafort has. (I imagine your friend’s concern would be along those lines.). But, not all crimes are equal. My understanding is that Manafort set up a dummy NGO, which then nominally engaged various lobbyists/pr folks, some Dems and some Reps. The NGO lied about its funding, so the lobbyists thought they were not working for a foreign entity, or at least they had plausible deniability. Folks speculate that at some point they probably realized who was ultimately paying the bills. But even at that, I don’t put their culpability at the same level as the guy who set up the scheme. And I imagine they fully cooperated from the start, which certainly helps. And none of them later joined the President ‘s campaign staff, while possibly being on the Russian payroll. It’s that last part that makes any of it relevant to the SCO’s mandate.

[TwiceHorn 32104]

18 minutes ago, Tuco said:

 

While there is no evidence that Posesta received a plea bargain, it is obvious that he has not had the target on his back that Manafort has. (I imagine your friend’s concern would be along those lines.). But, not all crimes are equal. My understanding is that Manafort set up a dummy NGO, which then nominally engaged various lobbyists/pr folks, some Dems and some Reps. The NGO lied about its funding, so the lobbyists thought they were not working for a foreign entity, or at least they had plausible deniability. Folks speculate that at some point they probably realized who was ultimately paying the bills. But even at that, I don’t put their culpability at the same level as the guy who set up the scheme. And I imagine they fully cooperated from the start, which certainly helps. And none of them later joined the President ‘s campaign staff, while possibly being on the Russian payroll. It’s that last part that makes any of it relevant to the SCO’s mandate.

Well, and SDNY or whomever may be going at Podesta hammer and tongs.  Most of that is below the radar most of the time:  it's going on daily without the scrutiny that Muellerco and his targets receive.

 

And, of course, there is the possibility that Podesta may be equally traitorous/treasonous, but he isn't associated with Trump, so  . . . .  Which is in no way a defense of Trump, but merely an acknowledgement that no one seems to want to hear anything that might be construed as both sides.

 

I fear that Manafort's dealings may be more typical of K Street than anyone wants to admit.

[RayDog 682]

2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

 

I fear that Manafort's dealings may be more typical of K Street than anyone wants to admit.

There must be thousands of people watching the trial who are thinking to themselves that they do exactly the same types of money laundering and bank fraud,  except they gave better taste in clothes.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

22 minutes ago, RayDog said:

There must be thousands of people watching the trial who are thinking to themselves that they do exactly the same types of money laundering and bank fraud,  except they gave better taste in clothes.

While there may be some truth to this, Manafort is on another level of career criminal.  He is a soulless piece of shit with a heart of darkness.  Really one of the worst people in this whole conspiracy along with Roger Stone. 

[SmokeyTheBear 5569]

28 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

While there may be some truth to this, Manafort is on another level of career criminal.  He is a soulless piece of shit with a heart of darkness.  Really one of the worst people in this whole conspiracy along with Roger Stone. 

When I first saw the Stone documentary on Netflix I thought, "How are pieces of shit like this allowed to flourish in our system? Where is karma in all this?". Well, I think karma is about to materialize in a big way in the coming years for these two. 

[TwiceHorn 32104]

1 hour ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

While there may be some truth to this, Manafort is on another level of career criminal.  He is a soulless piece of shit with a heart of darkness.  Really one of the worst people in this whole conspiracy along with Roger Stone. 

Yeah, I truly do believe Manafort is a real special case.  He has to be a psychological oddity.

 

When/if we get past all this, I hope Trump becomes an object lesson and we really start demanding better from our politicians and other public servants, to include really scrutinizing their sources of campaign funds.

Edited August 11, 2018 by TwiceHorn

[J.R. 150]

Manafort was a whore who stood tall amongst the other whores in a city filled with whores. Lobbying for brutal African dictators takes a special brand of whore.