Jump to content

Manafort Trial

Grandioso

By Grandioso
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • 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

Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23367

Posted
Posted

Did y'all know Trump planted an unwanted kiss on Katy Tur during the campaign trail?

 

Then there’s the kiss, which happened prior to a Morning Joe appearance. “Before I know what’s happening, his hands are on my shoulders and his lips are on my cheek,” she wrote. “My eyes widen. My body freezes. My heart stops.”

This will sound familiar to any woman who has endured inappropriate closeness from a superior or colleague, but receiving unwanted attention from the potential president of the United States, an accused sexual predator, and your own personal cyberbully is another whole level of horror. Also familiar: her initial thought was, “Fuck. I hope the cameras didn’t see that. My bosses are never going to take me seriously.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 105309

Posted
Posted

Katy Tur looks a lot like a good friend of mine from college and law school (cept my friend was taller).

No, no pics.

And no, I never closed the deal -- although I tried really hard freshman year, but I had lousy game.  Which, she told me -- years later -- I still could have closed the deal if I'd have just made a bold move.  18 year old men/boys are idiots.

Katy Tur is awesome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
zork

zork 629

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Tuco said:

Jesus, do you people not know how to find porn on the internet.  We get it; there is a woman in a different state who has pretty nice tits. 

lighten up a bit.  tits are to be viewed as art, if artful.  pretty much no matter the context, especially on the internet.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChiTownDoc

ChiTownDoc 21154

Posted
Posted
35 minutes ago, Tuco said:

Jesus, do you people not know how to find porn on the internet.  We get it; there is a woman in a different state who has pretty nice tits. 

You people?  The ones who love nice titties?  We definitely know how to procure and enjoy porn...we just don't think it should be off limits here at Surly, specifically the CR which tends to have little in the way of redeeming qualititties. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kyrie Eleison

Kyrie Eleison 9312

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

Yeah, that series of tweets is bizarre and stupid. "Opening the door" has no relevance here.  The government is free to call Gates if they want to.  I think the strategy is, if the defense blames Gates, and he takes the stand and gets cut up both as a general witness and as an informant, that only hurts the governement's case and plays into the defense's hand.  If they can make their case without putting a snitch on the stand, they're probably better off doing so.

There is a notion, valid, that if you advertise to the jury in your opening, that they will hear something from a witness, or evidence on a topic will be presented, and you fail to produce that evidence, that creates juror dissonance and hurts credibility.  However, the defense didn't advertise that Gates would confess on the stand.  There's no issue there with the defense calling him.

Spicey sounds like a third year law student with too much time on her hands.

yep...that series of tweets is nonsensical.  even if the prosecution doesn't call Gates, the defense can in their case in chief and treat him as a hostile witness. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kyrie Eleison

Kyrie Eleison 9312

Posted
Posted
Just now, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Spoiler alert: They are 100% calling Gates

damn straight they are...and the prosecution could very well be baiting them to call Gates hostile because of the risk involved in taking someone on cross without having their direct on the table prior to the examination.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goredho

Goredho 17419

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

Katy Tur looks a lot like a good friend of mine from college and law school (cept my friend was taller).

No, no pics.

And no, I never closed the deal -- although I tried really hard freshman year, but I had lousy game.  Which, she told me -- years later -- I still could have closed the deal if I'd have just made a bold move.  18 year old men/boys are idiots.

Katy Tur is awesome.

Trying to imagine your game...

”We are all dying, slowly, a minute at a time.  In a few scant decades we’re both dead.  I’m fucked.  You’re fucked.  America’s fucked.... so... uh... do you wanna hold hands?”

Edited by Goredho
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 105309

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Goredho said:

Trying to imagine your game...

”We are all dying, slowly, a minute at a time.  In a few scant decades we’re both dead.  I’m fucked.  You’re fucked.  America’s fucked.... so... uh... do you wanna fuck?”

I was too much of a wuss to get to the last phrase.  And the rest of it wasn't much smoother.  And it STILL almost worked.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TexArcher

TexArcher 38048

Posted
Posted
14 minutes ago, lemonlime said:

A defense of blaming your subordinate seems like Manafort's lawyers think his case is fucked and they have no other possible defense.

Exactly.

Like when a president guilty of collusion has no other recourse but to point out that collusion isn't technically a crime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tuco

Tuco 5077

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Spoiler alert: They are 100% calling Gates

 

1 hour ago, triplehorn said:

better get your Turns in quick

 

 

 Given the tweet, I think it's entirely possible they don't plan on having Gates testify.  If they don't feel they need him, and the judge is keeping them from pushing much of the narrative, there may be little point to show their cards with him.  He will testify eventually. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tuco

Tuco 5077

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Oh they’re calling Gates.

They aren’t fucking around.

Get that conviction. 

Was Gates handling the money for Manafort?  If not, I'm not sure how his testimony would have a bearing on the conviction.  Maybe he had a similar set-up he could testify to. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23367

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Tuco said:

Was Gates handling the money for Manafort?  If not, I'm not sure how his testimony would have a bearing on the conviction.  Maybe he had a similar set-up he could testify to. 

The defense asked some of the merchant witnesses today if they knew Rick Gates.

None of them ever heard of the guy. 

Manafort’s defense is essentially “But Rick Gates!”

The prosecution could basically say to the jury, “Even if you buy this blame Rick Gates defense, it doesn’t absolve Manafort of all these crimes we just proved he committed.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sheeeit

sheeeit 129

Posted
Posted

Been interesting so far.  It is obviously early, but the prosecutors haven't actually pointed out any crimes yet.  I am assuming they are setting up the lavish lifestyle so that they can then show how much income was reported on tax returns and there wont be enough.  

Got me to thinking about something that may not have anything to do with this particular case but is tangential.  If a person sets up a corp in a foreign country and then does work under that company and the money is paid to the corp in the foreign country, I do not think that money would be subject to US taxation.  Now any amounts that were transferred to the US would certainly be subject to taxation.  What I do not know is what happens to purchases made from that foreign account for the benefit of that corp.  For instance, if the corp had $5M in income then it should pay taxes on that income in the foreign country.  But if that corp then buys real estate in the US, and the real estate is owned by the corp that is based in a foreign country, I am not sure there is any kind of tax due other than property tax.  It would be complicated, but in theory, a person that earned significant income from outside of the US, could have their foreign corp own all of their assets (houses, cars, jewelry, furniture, art etc) and then "pay"themselves a nominal amount from the corp and then pay taxes on that amount only and be perfectly legal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Loco

Loco 3754

Posted
Posted
15 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

Been interesting so far.  It is obviously early, but the prosecutors haven't actually pointed out any crimes yet.  I am assuming they are setting up the lavish lifestyle so that they can then show how much income was reported on tax returns and there wont be enough.  

Got me to thinking about something that may not have anything to do with this particular case but is tangential.  If a person sets up a corp in a foreign country and then does work under that company and the money is paid to the corp in the foreign country, I do not think that money would be subject to US taxation.  Now any amounts that were transferred to the US would certainly be subject to taxation.  What I do not know is what happens to purchases made from that foreign account for the benefit of that corp.  For instance, if the corp had $5M in income then it should pay taxes on that income in the foreign country.  But if that corp then buys real estate in the US, and the real estate is owned by the corp that is based in a foreign country, I am not sure there is any kind of tax due other than property tax.  It would be complicated, but in theory, a person that earned significant income from outside of the US, could have their foreign corp own all of their assets (houses, cars, jewelry, furniture, art etc) and then "pay"themselves a nominal amount from the corp and then pay taxes on that amount only and be perfectly legal.

This will answer your questions.... assuming you want answers  https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2017/11/24/565982823/episode-807-anatomy-of-a-hustle

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Biff Tannen

Biff Tannen 45724

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, PappyVanVinceYoung said:

I'm agreeing with the judge here. Is the prosecution seriously going to spend 2-3 days calling witnesses just to prove that Manafort had an expensive lifestyle?

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hank Scorpio

Hank Scorpio 17729

Posted
Posted
20 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

Been interesting so far.  It is obviously early, but the prosecutors haven't actually pointed out any crimes yet.  I am assuming they are setting up the lavish lifestyle so that they can then show how much income was reported on tax returns and there wont be enough.  

Got me to thinking about something that may not have anything to do with this particular case but is tangential.  If a person sets up a corp in a foreign country and then does work under that company and the money is paid to the corp in the foreign country, I do not think that money would be subject to US taxation.  Now any amounts that were transferred to the US would certainly be subject to taxation.  What I do not know is what happens to purchases made from that foreign account for the benefit of that corp.  For instance, if the corp had $5M in income then it should pay taxes on that income in the foreign country.  But if that corp then buys real estate in the US, and the real estate is owned by the corp that is based in a foreign country, I am not sure there is any kind of tax due other than property tax.  It would be complicated, but in theory, a person that earned significant income from outside of the US, could have their foreign corp own all of their assets (houses, cars, jewelry, furniture, art etc) and then "pay"themselves a nominal amount from the corp and then pay taxes on that amount only and be perfectly legal.

This is all very well thought out and correct. Can I hire you to do my taxes? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
yaqdum

yaqdum 182

Posted
Posted
56 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

“Even if you buy this blame Rick Gates defense, it doesn’t absolve Manafort of all these crimes we just proved he committed.”

i think you guys are over committed to the accouterments.  they are certainly nice, but that whole package is A+ to me, thus drawing the rare capital letter.  looks are the skin on the apple, for sure, but they are far from insignificant.  that is an exceptionally attractive woman in my book, though i admit my book doesn't have that many pages.

oh, the trial.  yes.  i think this apparent one-legged defense is testimony to the expectation of minifart that he would never see the inside of a courthouse from that chair.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 46116

Posted
Posted
24 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

Been interesting so far.  It is obviously early, but the prosecutors haven't actually pointed out any crimes yet.  I am assuming they are setting up the lavish lifestyle so that they can then show how much income was reported on tax returns and there wont be enough.  

Got me to thinking about something that may not have anything to do with this particular case but is tangential.  If a person sets up a corp in a foreign country and then does work under that company and the money is paid to the corp in the foreign country, I do not think that money would be subject to US taxation.  Now any amounts that were transferred to the US would certainly be subject to taxation.  What I do not know is what happens to purchases made from that foreign account for the benefit of that corp.  For instance, if the corp had $5M in income then it should pay taxes on that income in the foreign country.  But if that corp then buys real estate in the US, and the real estate is owned by the corp that is based in a foreign country, I am not sure there is any kind of tax due other than property tax.  It would be complicated, but in theory, a person that earned significant income from outside of the US, could have their foreign corp own all of their assets (houses, cars, jewelry, furniture, art etc) and then "pay"themselves a nominal amount from the corp and then pay taxes on that amount only and be perfectly legal.

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.

 

If you are a U.S. citizen or resident alien, the rules for filing income, estate, and gift tax returns and paying estimated tax are generally the same whether you are in the United States or abroad. Your worldwide income is subject to U.S. income tax, regardless of where you reside.

Pay your taxes

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...