U.S. judge gives Trump ex-aide Manafort leniency: under four years in prison

[Yellowtail]

Just now, Briggsy said:

 

There are so many non-sequiturs and false rationales in these 2 posts, I don't know where to start.

No doubt so many you can't start or finish.

 

Typical

[Baerboxer]

3 hours ago, bristolboy said:

Made a mistake?

"Manafort was found guilty by a jury last August of five counts of tax fraud, two counts of bank fraud and one count of failing to disclose foreign bank accounts."

 

Sounds like the "honest mistake" the very rich so often make when fiddling the system 555!

[bristolboy]

15 minutes ago, TopDeadSenter said:

It was surprising to learn Manafort used to work for Ferdinand Marcos and other despots. It's starting to look lucky Bob Mueller locked this rogue up before he led Trump astray. I wonder if Trump knew of his past? Probably not. But I still can't help wondering how this ties in to Russia? The Ukraine, Russia, same same? No, not really. Time somebody buys Bob an atlas.

Time somebody learns that Yanukovich, the Ukranian President was backed by the Russians. 

[joecoolfrog]

1 hour ago, Boon Mee said:

The judge has also stated that he's giving Manafort 'time served' so his sentence could be considerably shorter than 48 months. 

Plus of course the additional 10 years he will be given next week.

[riclag]

40 minutes ago, TopDeadSenter said:

It was surprising to learn Manafort used to work for Ferdinand Marcos and other despots. It's starting to look lucky Bob Mueller locked this rogue up before he led Trump astray. I wonder if Trump knew of his past? Probably not. But I still can't help wondering how this ties in to Russia? The Ukraine, Russia, same same? No, not really. Time somebody buys Bob an atlas.

 "I wonder if Trump new of his past,Probably not"

One would think once Candidate Trump started receiving intel briefings back in August 2016 he would of been told of Mr. Manaforts dubious past 

Trumps first briefing was Aug 17 . Manafort quit on the 19th

[Sir Swagman]

2 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Any point to this?

Guess there is, it is the same old tired Faux News method of ‘But what about.....’ has zero bearing on the fact that this sentence appears to be questionable. The judges statement that he ‘had been blameless up until this’ flies in the face of factual evidence. ‘But what about alternative facts....’ lol.

[Morch]

1 hour ago, johnnybangkok said:

This is just a friendly reminder that in 8 years, not a single person affiliated with President Obama's administration or his campaign was ever charged with or found guilty of any felonies.

Not a one.

 

Just another proof the system is rigged against Trump, isn't it?

[johnnybangkok]

43 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

More deflection, shocking.

 

If you don't know, just say you don't know.

It's not a deflection but then I wouldn't expect you to understand common English phrases. It was in fact an accusation. I was accusing you of trying to excuse a convicted tax dodger, perjuror and liar with the not so subtle 'well we all do it don't we?' line of defense.

We don't all 'do it'. Except maybe you.  

And your straw man attempt with 'just say you don't know' won't work either. I do know. I know exactly what you are trying to infer. It wasn't that sophisticated.     

[Morch]

56 minutes ago, TopDeadSenter said:

It was surprising to learn Manafort used to work for Ferdinand Marcos and other despots. It's starting to look lucky Bob Mueller locked this rogue up before he led Trump astray. I wonder if Trump knew of his past? Probably not. But I still can't help wondering how this ties in to Russia? The Ukraine, Russia, same same? No, not really. Time somebody buys Bob an atlas.

 

29 minutes ago, riclag said:

 "I wonder if Trump new of his past,Probably not"

One would think once Candidate Trump started receiving intel briefings back in August 2016 he would of been told of Mr. Manaforts dubious past 

Trumps first briefing was Aug 17 . Manafort quit on the 19th

 

Hires the best people. Knows more than generals. Or anybody else, for that matter.

Somehow misses out on top advisors and associates, go figure.

 

Either he's a bad guy, or he's a numpty. Neither is very comforting.

[Yellowtail]

2 minutes ago, johnnybangkok said:

It's not a deflection but then I wouldn't expect you to understand common English phrases. It was in fact an accusation. I was accusing you of trying to excuse a convicted tax dodger, perjuror and liar with the not so subtle 'well we all do it don't we?' line of defense.

We don't all 'do it'. Except maybe you.  

And your straw man attempt with 'just say you don't know' won't work either. I do know. I know exactly what you are trying to infer. It wasn't that sophisticated.     

1

Now you are (apparently) lying, I made no excuse for anyone. While I don't doubt for a moment you're pure as the driven show, but I know that if the full force of the US judicial system put together a special counsel with virtually unlimited power and funding to convict me or someone I have worked for of anything they can find, I am certain they could convict me of a number of things. 

 

I would like to see the crimes better defined before I would complain that the sentence was too harsh or too lenient. You seem to be ready to hang anyone for no other reason than it might make things harder on Trump. 

 

[Morch]

11 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Now you are (apparently) lying, I made no excuse for anyone. While I don't doubt for a moment you're pure as the driven show, but I know that if the full force of the US judicial system put together a special counsel with virtually unlimited power and funding to convict me or someone I have worked for of anything they can find, I am certain they could convict me of a number of things. 

 

I would like to see the crimes better defined before I would complain that the sentence was too harsh or too lenient. You seem to be ready to hang anyone for no other reason than it might make things harder on Trump. 

 

 

To remind: "Lock her up! Lock her up!".

Didn't seem to bother Trump supporters at the time (or now). Same goes for the times Trump  went public asserting guilt without proof, investigations or legal proceedings.

[Yellowtail]

4 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

To remind: "Lock her up! Lock her up!".

Didn't seem to bother Trump supporters at the time (or now). Same goes for the times Trump  went public asserting guilt without proof, investigations or legal proceedings.

But, but, but...

 

That all ya got, really? 

[Ulic]

4 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

I wonder what percentage of US expats have failed to file or made a mistake on their FinCEN/FBAR, lied on a tax return, lied on a loan agreement or lied under oath on a statement at the embassy.

 

 

 

 

 

Apples and oranges. I may have taken a pen from work but I didn't forget to report 24 million in taxable income or lobby the government (Canadian) on behalf of despots while forgetting to register myself as a lobbyist for a foreign government. White lies/bending the truth versus criminal whoppers, again and again, and again. 

[Yellowtail]

1 minute ago, Ulic said:

Apples and oranges. I may have taken a pen from work but I didn't forget to report 24 million in taxable income or lobby the government (Canadian) on behalf of despots while forgetting to register myself as a lobbyist for a foreign government. White lies/bending the truth versus criminal whoppers, again and again, and again. 

 

Have you ever failed to report any taxable income?

Have you taken deductions you weren't entitled to?

Have you bribed a government official?

Have you ever participated in or benefited from criminal activity?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[farcanell]

1 hour ago, Yellowtail said:

 

I would like to see the crimes better defined before I would complain that the sentence was too harsh or too lenient. You seem to be ready to hang anyone for no other reason than it might make things harder on Trump. 

 

Surely (and logically) the fact that the sentence is less than that which manaforts lawyers had pleaded for, in seeking leniency, is proof positive that it was, in fact, a very lenient sentence.

 

9 hours ago, webfact said:

The sentence was even less than what defence lawyers had sought. They had asked Ellis to sentence Manafort to between 4-1/4 and 5-1/4 years in prison, writing in their sentencing memo that Mueller's "attempt to vilify Mr. Manafort as a lifelong and irredeemable felon is beyond the pale and grossly overstates the facts before this court."

 

[Yellowtail]

1 minute ago, farcanell said:

Surely (and logically) the fact that the sentence is less than that which manaforts lawyers had pleaded for, in seeking leniency, is proof positive that it was, in fact, a very lenient sentence.

 

 

 

Or it could just mean that the judge agreed that (quoted from your post) "...Mueller's "attempt to vilify Mr. Manafort as a lifelong and irredeemable felon is beyond the pale and grossly overstates the facts before this court."

 

It would be just as logical to believe that as well, yes? 

[wwest5829]

"And equal justice for all" ... And some wonder why we "take a knee"...

 

[Yellowtail]

1 minute ago, wwest5829 said:

"And equal justice for all" ... And some wonder why we "take a knee"...

 

I don't wonder...

 

 

[farcanell]

1 minute ago, Yellowtail said:

 

Or it could just mean that the judge agreed that (quoted from your post) "...Mueller's "attempt to vilify Mr. Manafort as a lifelong and irredeemable felon is beyond the pale and grossly overstates the facts before this court."

 

It would be just as logical to believe that as well, yes? 

It’s a long stretch, but if you go down that road,  you would then have to believe that manaforts lawyers were idiots, in that their lowball call was higher than the outcome.

 

Regardless of the applicability of the sentence (time vs crime), the simple fact that the sentence is less than the lowest time the lawyers were hoping for, justifies sceptism in that sentence, and by extension, the judges motivation.

 

[Kieran00001]

2 hours ago, TopDeadSenter said:

It was surprising to learn Manafort used to work for Ferdinand Marcos and other despots. It's starting to look lucky Bob Mueller locked this rogue up before he led Trump astray. I wonder if Trump knew of his past? Probably not. But I still can't help wondering how this ties in to Russia? The Ukraine, Russia, same same? No, not really. Time somebody buys Bob an atlas.

 

Manafort ran a lobbying firm Trump employed throughout the 90's, Trump's known him for 30 years, its more probable that he knew exactly who he was again employing.

 

It doesn't tie to Russia and Bob doesn't need an atlas, its painfully simple stuff, he uncovered other crimes while investigating collusion, did you expect him to just let those go that were not related to the prime investigation?

[Yellowtail]

1 minute ago, farcanell said:

It’s a long stretch, but if you go down that road,  you would then have to believe that manaforts lawyers were idiots, in that their lowball call was higher than the outcome.

 

Regardless of the applicability of the sentence (time vs crime), the simple fact that the sentence is less than the lowest time the lawyers were hoping for, justifies sceptism in that sentence, and by extension, the judges motivation.

 

I never said skepticism wasn't justified, I admitted I didn't know enough about it to make a judgment.

 

It seems to me it's everyone else here that is certain, not me. 

 

In any event, I would like to see all the crimes outlined in more detail than a few sound-bites...

[mikebike]

5 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

That all ya got?

 

Okay, I'll rephrase: I wonder what percentage of US expats have failed to file their FinCEN/FBAR (failure to disclose foreign bank accounts), lied on a tax return (tax fraud) , lied on a loan agreement (bank fraud) or lied under oath on a statement at the embassy (perjury).

 

Any idea?

Is your position that if someone gets away with a crime no one should ever be pursued or convicted for that crime, ever, in the future.

 

If so no one should ever be arrested for murder, theft, crap, any crime because someone else got away with it...

 

Really bizarre point of view.

[Yellowtail]

2 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

Manafort ran a lobbying firm Trump employed throughout the 90's, Trump's known him for 30 years, its more probable that he knew exactly who he was again employing.

 

It doesn't tie to Russia and Bob doesn't need an atlas, its painfully simple stuff, he uncovered other crimes while investigating collusion, did you expect him to just let those go that were not related to the prime investigation?

"Bob", you guys mist me tight..

[direction BANGKOK]

This is so sad. It's like a Hollywood movie payoff or something in real life. Who knows what deals are struck. It is so interesting the judge felt so much compassion for him after he showed no remorse on many occasions, and never even said the word sorry in his closing statement. What a disgrace the United States justice system is. It really is being made a mockery of as the entire premise is "nobody is above the law" yet the president sits in there unable to be indicted, so he is not above the law?! 

[farcanell]

15 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

I never said skepticism wasn't justified, I admitted I didn't know enough about it to make a judgment.

 

It seems to me it's everyone else here that is certain, not me. 

 

In any event, I would like to see all the crimes outlined in more detail than a few sound-bites...

Here ya go then.... more detail

 

https://www.vox.com/2018/8/21/17692626/manafort-guilty-charges-verdict

[Yellowtail]

13 minutes ago, mikebike said:

Is your position that if someone gets away with a crime no one should ever be pursued or convicted for that crime, ever, in the future.

 

If so no one should ever be arrested for murder, theft, crap, any crime because someone else got away with it...

 

Really bizarre point of view.

 

No, that is not my position. It is just you bleating out nonsense in an attempt to discredit me, rather than you actually addressing what I've actually said. Or what you guys call an "ad hominem" argument. 

[Yellowtail]

2 minutes ago, farcanell said:

Here ya go then.... more detail

 

https://www.vox.com/2018/8/21/17692626/manafort-guilty-charges-verdict

 

Again, when you don't know something, just say you don't know, don't post a link to a partisan website. 

 

What do you know?

[bristolboy]

12 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Again, when you don't know something, just say you don't know, don't post a link to a partisan website. 

 

What do you know?

Where is the partisan spin in that article? Did you even bother to look at it? And where did you get your information from? You hanging out with the judge?

[Yellowtail]

4 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Where is the partisan spin in that article? Did you even bother to look at it? And where did you get your information from? You hanging out with the judge?

 

Said I would like an outline of the charges with some detail and you link to something that reads like a NY Times article.

 

You don't see the spin, just like you don't don't see the spin in the NY Times...

 

But we both see the spin on Fox, yes?

 

 

[mikebike]

50 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

 

No, that is not my position. It is just you bleating out nonsense in an attempt to discredit me, rather than you actually addressing what I've actually said. Or what you guys call an "ad hominem" argument. 

Ok. That is not your position. So what is the point of bringing up the fact that other people commit the same crime(s) and get away with it?