World, Writing, Wealth discussion
World & Current Events
>
Who's going to be the fall guy? First charges filed in Mueller investigation
Disappointing they're keeping us in the dark as to who it is.
At least we know it's probably not Mrs Clinton enjoying from the reasonable doubt -:)
J.J. laments we don't know who they are yet, so at least we know who they aren't
Ah, I see. Well, we'll know Monday. That is apparently when they are executing the warrants they just got. My money is on Manafort. He's been the focal point of the investigation lately, particularly in terms of how he laundered dirty Russian money. http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/27/politic...
The nominees so far are:* Bannon
* Flynn
Any other takers? I wonder if I should start a pool? I could start a group poll.
My guess is Paul Manafort. He had his house raided a week or so ago, which makes me think the arrow is pointed at him. Added to which he has Ukraine connections, and that is clearly BAD 😀😀
Dangit, I said Bannon, but meant Manafort. In addition to what Ian said, he's also the focal point of investigations into possible money laundering for the Russians, which apparently played role in camp Trump's collusion efforts.But of course, don't ask him to confirm or deny this ;)
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wor...
If they already have the indictment, why wait to execute it? It would be strangely funny to find out that after all the speculation and suspense, it turns out they're indicting a simple clerk who forgot to dot an "i" on an important form. :D"After millions of dollars invested and thousands of man-hours spent, we finally got our man - 'Bob' who forget to file a form during the campaign. That is all."
Sorry for having a bit of fun, but the topic is the "fall guy" and there is always someone lower on the food chain to take that fall...
Ian and Matthew: You're spot on.Ex-Trump aide Manafort charged with US tax fraud over Ukraine work
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-cana...
Yea! And not even needing Delphic ambiguity 😄 Goes to show that opposing a Clinton requires squeaky cleanness if the Clinton loses. And don't tell me this is not political, or that it proves the Russians upset the US election.
Ian wrote: "Yea! And not even needing Delphic ambiguity 😄 Goes to show that opposing a Clinton requires squeaky cleanness if the Clinton loses. And don't tell me this is not political, or that it proves the ..."
Why would anyone NOT tell you that? Because it's already obvious? For months, we've been treated to a steady diet of how Trump's team was conducting secret meetings with the Russians while they were also interfering with the US election. Yes, its political. It's the US political system trying to restore dignity and legality to itself after being manipulated and undermined.
As for "squeaky clean", need I remind you Hillary Clinton lost the election because of the mere appearance of impropriety and the fact that she was too "establishment"? Trump made every stupid mistake in his campaign he possibly cloud, including accepting the support of White Supremacist, praising Putin, Saddam Hussein, and Kim Jong-un and admitting to sexually assaulting women. Yet Hillary faced criticism for not looking energetic enough, not being funny enough, being too smart, and coughing. She was the one who had to be squeaky clean just to get people to consider voting for her! To suggest this is Trump is being treated this way because he beat Clinton is idiotic. He and his team made their beds by committing acts of blatant corruption and thinking no one could touch them.
Still, you're right. This doesn't prove the Russians upset the election. An investigation by four intelligence agencies and Trump Jr's released emails prove that.
Matthew wrote: "To suggest this is Trump is being treated this way because he beat Clinton is idiotic. He and his team made their beds by committing acts of blatant corruption and thinking no one could touch them. "My argument is, if so, then why is Mueller going after something totally unrelated? If the argument is, so that Manafort will make a deal and incriminate someone else, that seems to me to be an odd way of going about it. I suppose from Manafort's point of view, though, this should go to a jury, and where do you get a jury that has no political axe to grind or no preliminary opinion from?
Ian wrote: "Matthew wrote: "To suggest this is Trump is being treated this way because he beat Clinton is idiotic. He and his team made their beds by committing acts of blatant corruption and thinking no one c..."Seriously? Because that is how law enforcement breaks up criminal rings. You go after the guys who handled the nuts and bolts of the criminal act, and then get them to turn on the people who ordered it. How is that odd? It's been historically proven to work since the head honchos take great pains to cover their asses. Hence the topic of this thread - "who will be the fall guy?"
And it will go the southern district of New York, since that the office that is working with Mueller's office to file these indictments. That has been made clear for some time, since Mueller wanted to ensure that Trump could not obstruct the investigation by simply pardoning any of his affiliates once they were indicted.
Worrying to that Trump or his people will be unfairly treated for political reasons seems like the most ass-backwards sentiment ever. They have been shielded until this point thanks to politics and corruption at the highest of levels. What they get now will demonstrate that the US system is capable of reaching past that to enforce the law.
Well, there is Papadopoulos:Mr Papadopoulos has admitted to lying to the FBI about contacts he had with Russian nationals while serving as a Trump foreign policy adviser.and Fusion GPS:
Mr Papadopoulos's indictment document reveals he learned from his connections that Russia claimed to have "dirt" on Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton in the form of "thousands of emails" in a late April 2016 meeting. Damaging emails from the Democratic National Committee and Clinton campaign chair John Podesta started emerging, through Wikileaks, just a few months later.
Now Mr Papadopoulos is co-operating with the independent counsel's office. At the very least, he has told them who in the top levels of the Trump campaign he was passing this information to.
If Mr Mueller's case ends up about more than just illegal activities by Mr Manafort and a business associate years ago, Mr Papadopoulos could be a key piece of the puzzle.
Perkins Coie, a law firm representing the Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee, hired intelligence firm Fusion GPS in April 2016.
Fusion GPS, based in Washington DC, was paid to dig up dirt on Mr Trump, who was then Mrs Clinton's rival for the presidency.
(Trump adviser George Papadopoulos lied about Russian links
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-ca...)
How does “southern district of New York, since that the office that is working with Mueller's office” trump a presidential pardon?
Matthew, my comment about fairness was based on the very limited information in a radio broadcast here, and it was obvious that there may well be more to everything, but the news comment seemed to be that it was more about Manafort not registering that he was working with "a foreign agent" or something in the Ukraine. There was also something about money laundering, which is serious if true. My comment about it being political is that all this is supposed to have happened some time ago, and had Manafort not been associated with the trump campaign, who would have dug up all this.From my point of view, it depends on how serious this really is. If Manafort has concealed income from the IRS, or if he has been laundering money, he needs to go to jail. That is substantive, and if so, he has nobody to blame but himself. If, however, he merely has not not followed the proper formalism, and who the hell knows the US tax code, say, backwards, then if the threat is jail if he doesn't do a deal and incriminate someone else, then the issue of a fair jury does come to prominence. (Incidentally, in answer to the tax code, I ha done issue as a foreigner, and I rang the IRS more than once, and I got three different interpretations. If specialists in the IRS cannot get US tax rules right, and at least two were not right, then why blame Manafort?)
Further to my previous comments, I have just read the indictments. As stated, there are a number of charges, but the one I think that is the key one is that Manafort brought in $18 million for his own use and did not declare it to the IRS. If this stands, he should be up for serious jail time.
Ian wrote: "Matthew, my comment about fairness was based on the very limited information in a radio broadcast here, and it was obvious that there may well be more to everything, but the news comment seemed to ..."You're missing the point, Ian. Manfort's activities went far beyond business contacts, he was the bridge between Russian oligarchs looking to launder their money in the US and Kremlin agents making contact with the Trump transition team to offer their support and ask for favors. He was at the high-level meeting at Trump tower where Russian agents said they had obtained hacked emails that contained dirt on Hillary, which they wanted to give Trump so he would win, in exchange for favors from his administration.
Once again, this was when Russia was hacking the DNC servers and leaking the emails. Manafort therefore played a key role in collaborating with a foreign state undermining the 2016 election. The fact that he was part of the transition team and had ties to Russia is what allowed him to be the go-between. So yes, had he not been one of Trump's people, he wouldn't be tried. But it;s because he would not have been able to commit this crime in the first place!
Had he simply been doing illegal business with Russian oligarchs, and this been dug up, it would have been part of a racketeering and money laundering sting. No disrespect, I understand your speaking in terms of point of view and opinion, but the only way to claim this is somehow "political" is by noting knowing what he did and to miss the point of his involvement.
Alex wrote: "How does “southern district of New York, since that the office that is working with Mueller's office” trump a presidential pardon?"Because a president cannot pardon a person of a crime convicted by a state court. Presidential pardons are for federal crimes only. Hence why Mueller was sure to go this route, so Trump can't obstruct.
Matthew, you are missing my point. None of these indictments have anything to do with Trump and the election. If true, Manafort has committed major financial and tax evasion crimes. That is why he will be going to jail. This probably would not have been unravelled had he not been involved in the election, so he may well be political collateral damage, but so be it.I suppose Mueller is hoping Manafort will do some sort of a deal and expose Trump. Suppose Manafort is offered such a deal, what does anyone think it would be? Would he take it? Would he tell all in front of the deal (the point being nobody knows what to offer unless Manafort tells, but once he tells, they don't really need to offer much.)
The other question is, can Manafort beat this indictment? Some of the lesser ones, probably not, but the major ones they have to prove that Manafort owns the money, as opposed to Manafort operating for a Cypriot company, say.
Ian wrote: "Matthew, you are missing my point. None of these indictments have anything to do with Trump and the election. If true, Manafort has committed major financial and tax evasion crimes. That is why he ..."No, I get the point you're trying to make. Unfortunately, that point isn't based on all the facts. This goes much farther than money laundering for friends of Vlad. The allegations are that while Manafort was Trump's chief advisor, he was an active agent of a foreign government because he was in their pay - the same as Flynn.
And since he facilitated the New York meeting at Trump tower and acted as a go-between with Russian officials, his money laundering efforts and charges of collusion are linked. As the buddy of people directly connected to Putin, he was there to connect Trump and his son to the Russian agents who were representing he hacking efforts and wanted him to win.
So saying he wouldn't be on the hook if he weren't part of the Trump team is pointless. Of course he wouldn't be. But that doesn't mean he's being indicted for political reasons. It is because he went from being a corrupt business man who fronted for Russian interests to being actively involved in a presidential campaign, and facilitated Russian efforts to try and sway it. His being part of "team Trump" is what made the crime possible.
What I am restricting myself to is accusations for which evidence is claimed, and which could lead further. There may or may not have been collusion; as I have said before, we await evidence as opposed to "I know there was".
Ian wrote: "Matthew wrote: "To suggest this is Trump is being treated this way because he beat Clinton is idiotic. He and his team made their beds by committing acts of blatant corruption and thinking no one c..."Side note here, but I had on the end of Murder, She Wrote before flipping to the local news as this was coming out. As I've been hearing more and more of the details through the day, it struck me that this is almost how they end every episode of Murder, She wrote - the evidence of every case is circumstantial, and they need that confession at the end of every episode before they can make the arrest. In this case, they arrest Manafort on something unrelated. The consensus I'm hearing on the news is they are probably hold that indictment over his head hoping he'll offer something incriminating on the case they're actually investigating. Just the fact they need that kind of blackmail suggests they don't have enough actual evidence to tie Trump to Russian interference for legal purposes...And these aren't street-level drug dealers involved, these players could hire a lawyer strong enough to tear apart any case without air-tight evidence to back any "claims" they might get from Manafort.
On another, unrelated side note, it is worth noting that the local news station I caught the first report on felt their advertisement - I mean story (god how could I have gotten the two mixed up! :D ) of the Chicago Fire, PD, etc. midseason finales deserved more airtime than the development we're discussing in this thread.
J.J. wrote: "Ian wrote: "Matthew wrote: "To suggest this is Trump is being treated this way because he beat Clinton is idiotic. He and his team made their beds by committing acts of blatant corruption and think..."Unrelated? Do you know what he was charged with? The charges include:
-Conspiracy against the United States
-Conspiracy to launder money
-Unregistered agent of a foreign principal
-False and misleading FARA statements
-False statements, and seven counts of failure to file reports of foreign bank and financial accounts.
These are hardly unrelated to the case of Trump-Russia collusion. They go to very role Manafort was playing as Trump's transition advisor. Mueller and his investigation team know for a fact for months that he was laundering millions for Russian oligarchs that were directly tied to Putin, which made him effectively an agent in the pay of a foreign state. However, they were able to document this thanks to evidence they seized when executing a warrant on his home.
Manafort also was the one acting as go-between with Russian agents and Trump admin officials, including Kushner and Trump's own son. And - Newsfllash! - the meeting that took place at Trump Tower in the summer of 2016 was the smoking gun. Trump openly accepted an invitation to emails they claimed to have hacked from her campaign because (they said this!) they wanted Trump to win and lift sanctions on their country.
Seriously, where does all this "they don't have hard evidence" come from? For months, more and more evidence has been produced that indicates with ridiculous clarity how the Trump team was colluding with Russia and it was based on a relationship that went back years. And yet, every time new evidence comes out, you and Ian here keep saying "oh, its not concrete, it won't stick, etc etc."
Matthew, the indictments against Manafort all are for events well before he was part of the Trump campaign. My view is, if they had hard evidence relating to the collusion allegation, they would have pinned it on him. I am with J.J. on this - I think they are hoping Manafort will try to do a deal. Whether that will work will depend on how clever Manafort was before. I find it quite unexpected that Manafort would do all these things without having hired a lawyer to protect him. It is one thing to allege; it is another to prove wrong-doing. The case Mueller has brought forward looks compelling, but we still need the evidence. My question is, why didn't Manafort better hide the ownership of the money. If he did protect it well, this case could evaporate. If he didn't, he is off to jail.So far, the most telling is Papadopoulos - but who was he? He claims he was a Trump advisor, but he was not on any payroll, as far as we can tell. He looks to me as someone likely to crumble on a cross examination.
I wonder where those announced apprehended hackers from Cozy Bear or whatever? Weren't there reports of someone arrested in Prague and maybe another one in Spain? They could cast some light, whether someone retained their services..
Hate to say wait and see, but apparently Papadopolous was first arrested in July? Only now has that come out following his guilty plea (bargain) to the connections. My presumption is that several others could be in the negotiation phase of a plea bargain until the investigators have enough evidence/allegations to file against someone really serious. What's happened to Flynn and others?This has a long way to run. The overseas arrests of hackers are probably in that time frame of deal making and possibly extradition hearings. If there is enough evidence. Most countries (unlike the UK) don't just allow extradition to the US.
Like many Americans, I don't give a damn about whatever role Russia may have played in the election - as long as Hillary lost. Sure, Trump is bad, but Hillary personifies the corruption of the American political system.
Hey Scout, no holding back. Well done. ;-).
Philip wrote: "This has a long way to run. The overseas arrests of hackers are probably in that time frame of deal making and possibly extradition hearings. If there is enough evidence. Most countries (unlike the UK) don't just allow extradition to the US. ..."Yeah, extraditions may take forever or just not happen..
This guy, for example, was/is under extradition requests from the States and Spain, but seems to still be in Austria: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dmytro_...
Extraditions are funny things. One that you may have forgotten about involves Kim (no, not rocket man - rather .com) which was going on in NZ about copyright. It has been going on for years and so little progress has been made, in part thanks to lawyers finding smart ways to delay, and possibly that once this happens our somewhat overloaded high court has scheduling issues, that I wondering whether there will ever be a verdict. Major danger - has the judge forgotten what it is all about???
Few delays in UK to US thanks to the warrant system. Likewise with the EU Arrest Warrant. Occasional legal cases regarding health of dependent but most have to go. Of course some people go and hide in embassies for years rather than face the Swedish legal system
I think in the Kim.com case, the problem is that Kim was, as I recall, never a US resident and his only participation in the US is through the internet. The problem then is, if this is a breach of copyright, why is the case not being brought in NZ, which also has strict copyright laws? The argument is whether a foreigner accused of commercial misdeeds against US corporates could get a fair trial in the US, and why are not other US companies doing the same thing being accused?
Matthew wrote: "J.J. wrote: "Ian wrote: "Matthew wrote: "To suggest this is Trump is being treated this way because he beat Clinton is idiotic. He and his team made their beds by committing acts of blatant corrupt..."The thing about the US legal system is that conclusions drawn by the DailyKos and Huffington Post do not count as "evidence" The charges against Manafort stem from something that happened outside the campaign. Do they raise questions? Sure? Should this connection you claim exists be explored? Sure. But let's face facts. If they had this supposed evidence into "collusion" with the Trump campaign, the charges and indictments would have been made around the campaign, not just activity Manafort engaged in 10 years ago. The reason those charges and indictments have not been brought is because the evidence isn't there. If you think you understand the American legal system, don't forget the FBI had evidence for a case against Clinton over her mishandling of classified emails, but they decided not to bring charges because they doubted they could get the conviction. At this point, Meuller can't get a conviction in regards to the 2016 election because he doesn't have the evidence, plain and simple or he would bring those charges. That's not to say things won't change, only to say where they are right now.
Yes, the Manafort charges have nothing to do with the election, other than that Manafort was also involved in the election. The speculation that Mueller hopes Manafort will strike a deal may have some basis, but my guess is it is unlikely Manafort can do much other than dig the hole deeper for himself.
J.J. wrote: "Matthew wrote: "J.J. wrote: "Ian wrote: "Matthew wrote: "To suggest this is Trump is being treated this way because he beat Clinton is idiotic. He and his team made their beds by committing acts of..."Uh, J.J. these are not conclusions drawn by "liberal media" outlets, they have been documented and demonstrated by Mueller's and Comey's investigation. And it seems to me you would know this if you read what the charges in the indictment were all about. Ian, you should pay attention to because you still don't seem to get it.
For starters, the charges are not separate from the campaign! Once again, the charges of laundering money for Russian oligarchs and "conspiracy against the US" are connected. Manafort was an "agent of a foreign state" because of his ties to Russia and Putin, at a time when he was Trump's foreign policy advisor. And as the leader of Trump's transition team, he facillitated the contacts with Russia to discuss how they would help Trump get elected.
Also, reality check, they do have evidence of collusion, which is why they filed these charges in the first place. That evidence includes Manafort's role in the meeting at Trump tower and his repeated contacts with Russian officials during the transition period. This is why "conspiracy against the US" was included in the indictment! Collusion was proven the day Trump Jr released his emails that showed the Russians admitting to hacking Hillary's emails and wanting to help Trump campaign, and Trump agreeing to accept them.
Also, the reason the FBI didn't bring charges against Clinton was because they were none to bring! Despite their best efforts, all they could ever prove was she had been careless, and that the emails themselves did not clearly indicate if they were "classified" or "sensitive".
Seriously, I don't know how you think you're informed about the indictments or the investigation when you're so clearly ignorant of key facts. Collusion has been already been proven, all that remains is to make the charges stick. If you want to continue to pretend there's nothing going on here, that's your prerogative. But please don't presume to tell me what the facts are or how the system works. Not when I'm clearly more up on the facts than you are.
Ian wrote: "Matthew, the indictments against Manafort all are for events well before he was part of the Trump campaign. My view is, if they had hard evidence relating to the collusion allegation, they would ha..."I'm getting really sick of explaining things to people here. They mistake their selective reading of the charges and the evidence as fact. Once again, Ian, the charges went beyond money laundering 10 years ago and included "conspiracy against the United States'. What the hell do you think this means???
As Mueller already indicated, this charge goes directly to Manafort's involvement as the leader of Trump's transition team. Like Flynn, he was an agent in the employ of the Russian government at the time, and he facilitated the meetings where Russian agents told Trump they had hacked Hillary's emails and wanted to hand them over to help Trump's campaign.
We've know this ever since Trump Jr. handed over his emails that proved the meeting took place and what the Russian's intentions were. This is the very definition of collusion and proves what has been said for months now! How are you still missing this???
From my reading of the indictment, Matthew, the conspiracy related to working for Yanukovich, which is hardly anything to do with the election. He was apparently working against the interests of the CIA, which appeared to be (and succeeded) trying to overthrow a legally elected government. That raises the question, how would he know he was working against the interests of the US if he was working for a legally elected government? It also raises the interesting question that it it were the purpose of the US to overthrow such an elected government and have its own oligarchs in place, why is it such a crime for some other country to influence US elections by placing ads, etc? (Here I am referring to the argument about Twitter and facebook ads.)By the way, these were not Russian agents. They were Russians who were trying to make out they were agents, and were seemingly trying to scam Manafort et al. As far as I can make out, there is no evidence that Flynn or Manafort were in the employ of the Russian government, using the usual definition of "employ" where there are contractual obligations between the parties, either written or implied.
Well you obviously haven't read the charges, because they go so far beyond the election in the Ukraine. They go to the fact that Manafort, who laundered Russian money and had connections to Russian-allied Ukrainian politicians failed to report any of these long-standing ties and contacts to the US government. In short, he was an agent in the employ of a foreign government while acting as Trump's transition team leader.This pertain to THREE of the charges in the indictment! They include:
-Conspiracy against the United States
-Unregistered agent of a foreign principal
-False and misleading FARA statements
You keep saying this is just about laundering money ten years ago. But in this, you're not only way off, you're also getting your facts confused. The money laundering was ongoing, what he did ten years ago involved the Yanukovich campaign. All of this constitutes actions that he failed to report to the US government, and is in addition to the contacts he had with the Russians during the campaign.
//By the way, these were not Russian agents. They were Russians who were trying to make out they were agents, and were seemingly trying to scam Manafort et al.//
Now you're just making things up! Do you not know what a government agent entails? Natalia Veselnitskaya, the Russian lawyer who arranged the meeting with Trump Jr, Manafort, Kushner, et al. has used her position in the US to advocate against the Maginsky Act on behalf of Moscow, which makes her an agent of their government. The same is true of Rinat Akhmetshin, Anatoli Samochornov and Ike Kaveladze - the others who attended the meeting. Each of these individuals represent Russian government-controlled interests, and therefore is acting on behalf of the Russian government!
And whether or not they even trying to dupe Manafort and the others is irrelevant. By taking the meeting, which was to discuss helping the Trump campaign in exchange for sanctions being lifted, Trump's people openly accepted an invitation to take part in a criminal conspiracy. Whether or not anything came of it is irrelevant. They agreed, so definition, they colluded!
//As far as I can make out, there is no evidence that Flynn or Manafort were in the employ of the Russian government, using the usual definition of "employ" where there are contractual obligations between the parties, either written or implied.//
As far as you can make out? I can only assume you haven't even tried because, if you've so much as listened to the news for the past year, you'd know that their employ has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. Flynn was a paid lobbyist for the Turkish government and was also paid by RT (Russia's state-owned media outlet) . He registered the former work with the US Justice Department but failed to report the latter. This, and his secret dealings with Russian diplomat Sergey Kislyak, are why he was fired.
Manafort's work with the Russians was also known about for months, which included his paid work for Yanukovich, Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska, and other oligarchs who had direct ties to Putin. Between 2012 and 2014 alone, Manafrot reportedly made $17 million, and he kept working for these people into the election. Manafort also broke the law by failing to register with the US Justice Department and continued to be an acting lobbying for Russian and Russian-backed Ukrainian politicians and businessmen while acting as Trump's transition team leader.
It's one thing to be unaware of the details surrounding this case. It's another thing entirely to be ignorance of the facts and pretend you know.
//He was apparently working against the interests of the CIA, which appeared to be (and succeeded) trying to overthrow a legally elected government. //And that is complete nonsense. The CIA was trying to assist the pro-democratic, pro-EU majority in the Ukraine against the oppressive puppet government of Yanukovich. Yanukovich was a corrupt oligarch who maintained an iron grip on Ukrainian poltiics through murder and Russian money.
He rigged the 2007 election, thus prompting the Orange Revolution. In 2014, he used military force to crush protests demanding that Ukraine sever their dependencies on Russia and join the EU. Once his government was overthrown was a populist uprising, Putin responded by invading the Crimea and financing civil war in the eastern parts of the Ukraine. Did you not this? It too has been well-established.
By assisting Yanukovich's government, Manafort was serving his Russian masters and working against his own country and the democratic elements of the Ukraine. This, better than anything, should show you what kind of man he is and where his loyalties lie. He is a bought and paid for man working for a foreign government that sees the US as an enemy. And then he went to work for Trump and facilitated closer ties with Russia, which was working to undermine the election and make Trump win.
Seriously, is this about the facts of the case? Or are you saying nothing wrong happened simply because you don't disagree with it? If you have a pro-Russian bent, fine and dandy. But don't dismiss the facts or legal questions based on personal bias.
Matthew, Indictment 1 was related to work in Ukraine. Nobody is disputing at present that he did not register or report what he did, and he is accused of laundering money from the Ukraine. The indictment says between 2006 - 2015, although the laundering would continue until he disposed of the assets.Indictment 2 effectively says he used tax shelters. Indictment 3 says in 2016 he lied about it to continue concealing his activities.
Indictments 4 - 6 says he took some of this money for personal use and did not declare it to the IRS, or used it as collateral, and specified amounts.
Items 7 - 13 define the terms used for the various parties.
Items 14 - 16 list a number of transactions involving various presumably companies formed for this purpose to defraud the IRS.
Item 17 outlines various property transactions that were not reported on his tax return.
Items 18 - 26 involve Manafort's lobbying on behalf of the Ukraine and failure to report.
Items 27 - 32 involve Manafort's failure to provide proper filings to the IRS, particularly about foreign bank accounts, which is required under US law.
Items 33 - 36 are effectively fraud allegations.
There follow various counts to make these items into legal accusations to be pursued in court, and requests for the US government to seize assets.
Sorry, Matthew, but your logic completely exposes an interesting point. you wrote :
"The CIA was trying to assist the pro-democratic, pro-EU majority in the Ukraine against the oppressive puppet government of Yanukovich." Yanukovich might have been oppressive, but he WAS democratically elected, and his election was no more corrupt than most of the other ones in the Ukraine. If you think the current Ukrainian regime is all roses, take a look at the composition and behaviour of the Azov battalion. They are basically a bunch of Nazis.
My argument is, sure Manafort deserves to go to jail if the court finds him guilty (remember the trial gives him the chance to explain his side of things) but my view is, failing to file properly to the IRS is going to be hard to defend.
I am not dismissing the facts, but I am also not adding to them. The indictments make no mention of the election. There is no evidence so far that Trump knew anything about this. As for Russia invading the Crimea, I would say more annexing, but from Putin's point of view, he needs the CIA organising missiles on Russia's border like the plague, and he would like to keep his Black Sea naval base. Of course that was Putin's self interest, but no more than what the CIA did in their self-interest. That is just Real Politik
Matthew wrote: "J.J. wrote: "Matthew wrote: "J.J. wrote: "Ian wrote: "Matthew wrote: "To suggest this is Trump is being treated this way because he beat Clinton is idiotic. He and his team made their beds by commi..."Here is the full indictment for anyone that actually wants to read through it..
https://www.politico.com/f/?id=000001...
I have read the indictment, and there is no mention - not even the hint of his work during for the Trump campaign. His lobbying work on behalf of Ukraine ended in 2014 with the fall of Yanukovych. The money laundering covers only that earned from that lobbying work, which does cover time after 2014. There were also several incidents where he lied to secure loans or secure loans above the amounts he normally would have been eligible for and at rates more favorable than he deserved.
But back to the lobbying (the work that leads to the charge of conspiracy), the only thing that made it illegal was the fact he didn't report it. The indictment itself says this under item 18:
"...a person who engages in lobbying or public relation works in the United States...for a foreign principal such as the Government of Ukraine or the Party of Regions is required to provide a detailed written registration statement to the United States Department of Justice."
There was nothing illegal about the work itself save for the fact he didn't report it. Any ties you suggest between this specific indictment and the Trump campaign, yes they are speculative. There is nothing in the indictment covering any meetings the Trump campaign had with Russian entities, no mention of any work he did for the Trump campaign.
Personally, if I were to draw a conclusion about Manafort and Gates based on the indictment, I would say everything surrounding these specific charges was intended to hide vast sums of money. I'm inclined to believe the reason he didn't disclose the lobbying years ago was because he was trying to hide the money, and not because he had some master plan to "someday" work on Trump's campaign and bring Russian influence into our elections. There is one section in the indictment that leads me to believe the Trump campaign wasn't even aware of his criminal acitvity.
"MANAFORT and GATES had repeatedly and falsely represented in writing to MANFORT'S tax preparer that MANAFORT had no authority over foreign bank accounts, knowing that such false representations would result in false MANAFORT tax filings."
It's a stretch to think he lied to his tax preparer, his lenders, and the government, but that he was up front with Trump. But again, I'm speculating. Maybe Trump was the one person in the entire world he admitted the entire truth to. But the narrative that seems to be unfolding is that a lot of people told the campaign they had dirt on Clinton, no one advised Trump that he might be crossing legal lines, and in the end all those promises were oversold - the lawyer in the infamous meeting didn't have anything, and it sounds like Papodoplous didn't have the contacts he claimed to have had.
Maybe I'm wrong about this, but I don't think anyone here is saying there definitely wasn't some wrongdoing during the campaign. The counterargument from where I sit has always been that these claims are coming out of the media, and when you get past the bitter grapes, the evidence doesn't yet support the media's charges of "collusion." Again, I could be wrong, if you want to point out where in the indictment these charges relate to his work for the Campaign. On a side note, I find it interesting that these charges are so serious, Manafort isn't even in jail - he's been on house arrest.
I heard one comment that Manafort isn't even under strict house arrest - for bail of $10 million (I think it was) he was permitted to travel between three states.AS I said above, I think the tax evasion is the most serious charge, but we have to be careful about that until it goes to court because tax law is riddled with complications, exceptions, and whatever.
Also, in all tax law I know of, a contractor is not the same as an employee. In NZ at least, you cannot be a contractor unless you can prove two separate sources of income, so there is nothing exceptional about working for one "person" while also taking income from another. (The quotes are because "person" can take quite odd legal meanings.)
My money’s always been on Flynn.Trump-Russia: Michael Flynn admits lying to FBI http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-ca...
Now Flynn has a plea bargain deal - who's next. Statements on BBC tonight say the road leads upwards i.e. Flynn did the phone call because he was told to by ....
I would venture that both Jared Kushner and Donald Trump Jr will have lots of explaining to do, especially concerning that famous meeting at the Trump Tower with that Russian lawyer and about those exchanges of emails with Russian contacts and proxies.
J.J. wrote: "Matthew wrote: "J.J. wrote: "Matthew wrote: "J.J. wrote: "Ian wrote: "Matthew wrote: "To suggest this is Trump is being treated this way because he beat Clinton is idiotic. He and his team made the..."Then you're missing the obvious, J.J. The indictment claims Manafort committed a crime not only because he failed to disclose his activities, but that he was an agent of a foreign state while acting as Trump's head campaign advisor. This goes to the very heart of the entire investigation. A man working for the Russians was advising the future U.S. president WHILE the Russians were trying to influence the election so he'd win.
That is why the charges included "conspiracy against the United States".
Also, interesting you would mention 2014, because that is when the FBI investigation of his ties to the Yanakovich campaign and Russian interests began. What's more, after 2014, he continued to have business dealing with entities connected to Putin and Russian oligarchs based on outstanding debts he owed. You also seem to have missed the fact that he (in conjunction with known Russian political operative Konstantin Kilimnik) offered to provide private intelligence briefings to Russian oligarch Oleg Vladimirovich Deripaska - a man directly tied to Putin - during the presidential campaign.
This was at the same time that Jared Kushner was attempting to set up back channel talks with other Russian oligarchs who were directly tied to Putin, and Trump Jr. was meeting with known Russian agents to discuss helping the Trump campaign. If you're seriously going to contend that Manafort's ties to Russian interests ended in 2014 and had nothing to do with his campaign work, or that this is not part of the indictment despite the charge of "conspiracy against the US", I would have to ask what you've been smoking.
Speaking of which, collusion was demonstrated the moment Trump Jr released his emails proving that Russian agents were in contact with the Trump team during the election, when he accepted an invitation to talk to multiple known Russian agents. At this meeting, said agents openly said that they had hacked emails of Hillary's that they wanted to hand over because they wanted to help Trump win. And they expressly said they wanted to do this in exchange for the Maginsky Act being lifted.
Do you not understand what collusion means, and this is a crystal clear example of it? Do you honestly maintain at this point that Trump was unaware of Manafort's activities, despite the fact that Manafort was merely one of several team members with ties to Russia and who was having clandestine meetings with Russian agents? Was Trump also unaware of what Sessions, Flynn, Kusher and Jr were doing?
Worst of all, are you seriously willing to believe that this is some kind of media conspiracy based on "sour grapes"? If so, you are not so much wrong as blatantly and obviously biased. It's not your grasp of the facts here, but the filter through which you're forcing them.
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/10/27/pol...
Not surprisingly, the charges came after the revelation: