Mueller's investigation into Trump takes action

drbrumley

drbrumley

Well-known member
WizardofOz said:
Just to humor you, how about the banks he defrauded?
Click to expand...

LOL to humor me...

If they don't come forward with a complaint, which I am pretty sure they will now as there is no way Manafort will be able to pay on that reason alone, then yes the banks are hurt and they have recourse to pursue further action. But that's not what this is about is it? This was a fishing expedition, Mueller hooked a catfish.....that's all this is.

Bottom line, the Neocons and their sisters in bed are upset because the real powers that be, want Ukraine for themselves....this is a bigger issue then what you believe it to be....you have been played like a fiddle....all of us have.....
 
WizardofOz

WizardofOz

New member
drbrumley said:
LOL to humor me...

If they don't come forward with a complaint, which I am pretty sure they will now as there is no way Manafort will be able to pay on that reason alone, then yes the banks are hurt and they have recourse to pursue further action. But that's not what this is about is it? This was a fishing expedition, Mueller hooked a catfish.....that's all this is.

Bottom line, the Neocons and their sisters in bed are upset because the real powers that be, want Ukraine for themselves....this is a bigger issue then what you believe it to be....you have been played like a fiddle....all of us have.....
Click to expand...

Bottom line, you want people who broke the law to walk.

I don't.
 
WizardofOz

WizardofOz

New member
drbrumley said:
He is innocent UNTIL proven GUILTY by a jury of his peers.......that's all I have to go on...The indictment means nothing.....when the government can prove their case beyond a shadow of a doubt, then I can change my mind.
Click to expand...

I stand corrected. You want people who may have broke the law to avoid prosecution.

I do not.
 
WizardofOz

WizardofOz

New member
drbrumley said:
I did say that
Click to expand...

Why did you want a jury nullification?

....was.that in regards to charges of fraud?

No
Click to expand...

I asked a very general question about what should happen to them if they broke the law.
Do you think Manafort and Gates broke the law? Do you think they should be prosecuted if they did?
Click to expand...
You said
There is this thing, very seldom used, called jury nullification.....I hope they use it.
Click to expand...

So it seemed you wanted them to walk regardless of what they did or what the verdict would otherwise be. Again, I am not sure why you are going so far out of your way to defend a guy like Manafort. :idunno:

Again, other than defrauding banks, what crime has been committed?
Click to expand...

We're going in circles. There are 12 charges against them in the indictment.


- Between at least 2006 and 2015, MANAFORT and GATES acted as unregistered agents of the Government of Ukraine

- MANAFORT and GATES funneled millions of dollars in payments into foreign nominee companies and bank accounts

- MANAFORT and GATES concealed from the United States their work as agents of, and millions of dollars in payments from, Ukraine and its political parties and leaders

- MANAFORT used his hidden overseas wealth to enjoy a lavish lifestyle in the United States, without paying taxes on that income

- GATES aided MANAFORT in obtaining money from these offshore accounts, which he was instrumental in opening. Like MANAFORT, GATES used money from these offshore accounts to pay for his personal expenses, including his mortgage, children's tuition, and interior decorating of his Virginia residence.

- In total, more than $75,000,000 flowed through the offshore accounts. MANAFORT laundered more than $18,000,000, which was used by him to buy property, goods, and services in the United States, income that he concealed from the United States Treasury, the Department of Justice, and others. GATES transferred more than $3,000,000 from the offshore accounts to other accounts that he controlled.

- Between in or around 2008 and 2017, both dates being approximate and inclusive, in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, MANAFORT and GATES devised and intended to devise, and executed and attempted to execute, a scheme and artifice to defraud, and to obtain money and property by means of false and fraudulent pretenses, representations, and promises from the United States, banks, and other financial institutions. As part of the scheme, MANAFORT and GATES repeatedly provided false information to financial bookkeepers, tax accountants, and legal counsel, among others

- In order to use the money in the offshore nominee accounts of the MANAFORT-GATES entities without paying taxes on it, MANAFORT and GATES caused millions of dollars in wire transfers from these accounts to be made for goods, services, and real estate. They did not report these transfers as income to DMP, DMI, or MANAFORT.

- From 2008 to 2014, MANAFORT caused the following wires, totaling over $12,000,000, to be sent to the vendors listed below for personal items. MANAFORT did not pay taxes on this income, which was used to make the purchases.

- In 2012, MANAFORT caused the following wires to be sent to the entities listed below to purchase the real estate also listed below. MANAFORT did not report the money used to make these purchases on his 2012 tax return

- It is illegal to act as an agent of a foreign principal engaged in certain United States influence activities without registering the affiliation. Specifically, a person who engages in lobbying or public relations work in the United States (hereafter collectively referred to as lobbying) 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. The filing, made under oath, must disclose the name of the foreign principal, the financial payments to the lobbyist, and the measures undertaken for the foreign principal, among other information. A person required to make such a filing must further make in all lobbying material a “conspicuous statement” that the materials are distributed on behalf of the foreign principal, among other things. The filing thus permits public awareness and evaluation of the activities of a lobbyist who acts as an agent of a foreign power or foreign political party in the United States.

- In furtherance of the scheme, from 2006 until 2014, both dates being approximate and inclusive, MANAFORT and GATES engaged in a multi-million dollar lobbying campaign in the United States at the direction of Yanukovych, the Party of Regions, and the Government of Ukraine. MANAFORT and GATES did so without registering and providing the disclosures required by law

- As part of the scheme, in February 2012, MANAFORT and GATES solicited two Washington, D.C., firms (Company A and Company B) to lobby in the United States on behalf of Yanukovych, the Party of Regions, and the Government of Ukraine. For instance, GATES wrote to Company A that it would be “representing the Government of Ukraine in [Washington,] DC.”

- Toward the end of that first year, in November 2012, GATES wrote to Company A and Company B that the firms needed to prepare an assessment of their past and prospective lobbying efforts so the “President” could be briefed by “Paul” “on what Ukraine has done well and what it can do better as we move into 2013.”

- At the direction of MANAFORT and GATES, Company A and Company B engaged in extensive lobbying. Among other things, they lobbied multiple Members of Congress and their staffs about Ukraine sanctions, the validity of Ukraine elections, and the propriety of Yanukovych's imprisoning his presidential rival, Yulia Tymoshenko (who had served as Ukraine President prior to Yanukovych). MANAFORT and GATES also lobbied in connection with the roll out of a report concerning the Tymoshenko trial commissioned by the Government of Ukraine. MANAFORT and GATES used one of their offshore accounts to funnel $4 million to pay secretly for the report.

- To conceal the scheme, MANAFORT and GATES developed a false and misleading cover story that would distance themselves and the Government of Ukraine, Yanukovych, and the Party of Regions from the Centre, Company A, and Company B. For instance, in the wake of extensive press reports on MANAFORT and his connections with Ukraine

- In September 2016, after numerous recent press reports concerning MANAFORT, the Department of Justice informed MANAFORT, GATES, and DMI that it sought to determine whether they had acted as agents of a foreign principal under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), without registering. In November 2016 and February 2017, MANAFORT, GATES, and DMI caused false and misleading letters to be submitted to the Department of Justice, which mirrored the false cover story set out above.

- For each year in or about and between 2008 through at least 2014, MANAFORT had authority over foreign accounts that required an FBAR report. Specifically, MANAFORT was required to report to the United States Treasury each foreign bank account held by the foreign MANAFORT-GATES entities noted above in paragraph 12 that bear the initials PM. No FBAR reports were made by MANAFORT for these accounts.

- Furthermore, in each of MANAFORT's tax filings for 2008 through 2014, MANAFORT represented falsely that he did not have authority over any foreign bank accounts.

- In late 2015 through early 2016, MANAFORT applied for a mortgage on the condominium. Because the bank would permit a greater loan amount if the property were owner-occupied, MANAFORT falsely represented to the bank and its agents that it was a secondary home used as such by his daughter and son-in-law and was not a property held as a rental property.

- the defendants PAUL J. MANAFORT, JR., and RICHARD W. GATES III, together with others, knowingly and intentionally conspired to defraud the United States by impeding, impairing, obstructing, and defeating the lawful governmental functions of a government agency, namely the Department of Justice and the Department of the Treasury, and to commit offenses against the United States, to wit, the violations of law charged in Counts Three through Six and Ten through Twelve.



How are you just shrugging this off or going as far to hope for a jury nullification?
 
kmoney

kmoney

New member
Hall of Fame
Casing doubt on the Manafort stuff.


http://www.nationalreview.com/article/453244/manafort-indictment-no-signs-trump-russia-collusion
The Manafort Indictment: Not Much There, and a Boon for Trump


The offense of failing to register as a foreign agent (Count Ten) may be a slam-dunk, but it is a violation that the Justice Department rarely prosecutes criminally. There is often ambiguity about whether the person’s actions trigger the registration requirement, so the Justice Department’s practice is to encourage people to register, not indict them for failing to do so.

It may well be that Manafort and Gates made false statements when they belatedly registered as foreign agents, but it appears that Mueller’s office has turned one offense into two, an abusive prosecutorial tactic that flouts congressional intent.

Specifically, Congress considers false statements in the specific context of foreign-agent registration to be a misdemeanor calling for zero to six months’ imprisonment. (See Section 622(a)(2) of Title 22, U.S. Code.) That is the offense Mueller charges in Count Eleven. But then, for good measure, Mueller adds a second false-statement count (Count Twelve) for the same conduct — charged under the penal-code section (Section 1001 of Title 18, U.S. Code) that makes any falsity or material omission in a statement to government officials a felony punishable by up to five years’ imprisonment.

Obviously, one cannot make a false statement on the foreign-agent registration form without also making a false statement to the government. Consequently, expect Manafort to argue that Mueller has violated double-jeopardy principles by charging the same exact offense in two separate counts, and that the special counsel is undermining Congress’s intent that the offense of providing false information on a foreign-agent registration form be considered merely a misdemeanor.

Finally, the money-laundering conspiracy allegation (Count Two) seems far from slam-dunk. For someone to be guilty of laundering, the money involved has to be the proceeds of criminal activity before the accused starts concealing it by (a) moving it through accounts or changing its form by buying assets, etc., or (b) dodging a reporting requirement under federal law.

Now, it is surely a terrible thing to take money, under the guise of “political consulting,” from an unsavory Ukranian political faction that is doing the Kremlin’s bidding. But it is not a violation of American law to do so. The violations occur when, as outlined above, there is a lack of compliance with various disclosure requirements. Mueller seems to acknowledge this: The money-laundering count does not allege that it was illegal for Manafort and Gates to be paid by the Ukrainian faction. It is alleged, rather, that they moved the money around to promote a scheme to function as unregistered foreign agents, and specifically to avoid the registration requirement.

That seems like a stretch. To be sure, the relevant money-laundering statute includes in its definition of “specified unlawful activity” “any violation of the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938.” (See Section 1956(c)(2)(7)(D) of Title 18, U.S. Code.) But the prosecution still has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the money was the proceeds of unlawful activity in the first place. Moreover, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Manafort and Gates (a) knew the money was the proceeds of illegal activity and (b) transported the money the way they did with the specific intent of avoiding having to register as foreign agents. This count will thus fail if there is any doubt that the Ukrainian money was illegal under American law, that Manafort and Gates knew it was illegal, that they knew the work they were doing required them to register as foreign agents, or that it was their intention to promote a failure-to-register violation.

Even from Paul Manafort’s perspective, there may be less to this indictment than meets the eye — it’s not so much a serious allegation of “conspiracy against the United States” as a dubious case of disclosure violations and money movement that would never have been brought had he not drawn attention to himself by temporarily joining the Trump campaign.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/453244/manafort-indictment-no-signs-trump-russia-collusion


 
kmoney

kmoney

New member
Hall of Fame
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/453253/robert-mueller-investigation-trump-winning-now
An Earthquake That Shouldn’t Shake Trump


Enthusiastic liberals have responded to this obvious observation with hopeful remarks about these being just the first in what they hope will be an eventual avalanche of indictments that will lead all the way to the top. In particular, they expect that the prospect of conviction on these serious charges will induce Manafort and Gates to accept plea bargains that will require them to give up crucial information about Trump that will ensure his fall. But while this is a theoretical possibility, the expectation that the pair will fold in this manner (and that they have anything damning to say about Trump in the first place) is based on nothing more than wishful thinking on the part of those who still hope that a legal coup will reverse the outcome of the 2016 presidential election.

Papadopoulos plead guilty for lying to the FBI about the efforts of the Russians to reach out to the Trump campaign with talk about providing “dirt” on Hillary Clinton. On the surface, this plea is potentially more of a problem. But here again, the emails that have been released show nothing more than that the Russians were interested in making mischief and the Trump campaign was always ready to listen to those who claimed to have damaging information on their opponent. Despite the attempt to hype this into proof of a connection between Trump and the Russians, there is nothing here (as was also the case with the meeting in Trump Tower involving Donald Trump Jr.) that can justify charges that this led to actual collusion. Nor was Papadopoulos a senior figure with connections who might have had any influence on campaign activities. And revelations about the funding for the much-ballyhooed Russia dossier shows that both parties were always willing recipients of anything that fell under the category of opposition research, no matter its source.
...
Yet it is that same assumption about Trump’s guilt that undermines the effort to portray Mueller’s actions as significant developments. Though they’d like to scale back expectations about Mueller’s work, Democrats, whether they like it or not, have set a very high bar for him to meet. It won’t be enough to take down figures such as Manafort and Gates or even snaring a low-level volunteer on an advisory council that met once (such as Papadopoulos) for lying about contact with the Russians. No matter how many indictments or pleas Mueller gets by the time he is through, none of it will mean a thing if he doesn’t wind up proving actual collusion between Trump and the Russians, and nothing we heard today did that.


Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/453253/robert-mueller-investigation-trump-winning-now



I tend to agree with this, the idea that anti-Trump people shouldn't start celebrating. Who knows where this will go. There is some smoke, but is there fire?

And it seems that the most significant Russian meddling involved social media influence, none of which has been tied to Trump, as far as I can tell.


I'm still in wait-and-see mode.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/7/13/15952212/trump-russia-investigation-evidence

The biggest questions to focus on going forward
Again, the big picture question is if all these separate incidents — and others we may not yet know about — point toward a substantive effort of collusion.

So far, Mueller’s investigation has resulted in one plea agreement with Trump adviser George Papadopoulos, who pleaded guilty for making false statements to the FBI about his contacts with Russians during the campaign. It has also resulted in the indictment of Paul Manafort and Rick Gates for crimes unrelated to collusion that mostly preceded the campaign.

But it has not yet resulted in any public revelations of solid evidence that Trump advisers and the Russian government had any sort of secret arrangement, or that they shared information about Russian interference in the election.

As Mueller and various congressional committees proceed in their investigations, much will depend on the answers to the following questions.

First, did any sort of collaborative effort between anyone close to Trump and the Russian government end up materializing?

Second, if there was some sort of collusion, what exactly did it entail? Policy promises, either on Ukraine or sanctions? Consultation on or tip-offs about the Russian hackings? Money? Dirt on Hillary Clinton or other helpful information of some kind? The answer here will be important for just how serious both the political and the criminal aspects of the scandal are.

Third, what evidence exists on all these matters? That is, are there email and phone records or other documents of some kind, did money change hands in any way that is traceable, and will witnesses prove willing to testify?

And fourth, if anything did go on, who specifically was involved — and what, exactly, did Donald Trump himself know?

The answers to these questions will determine whether the Russia scandal fizzles out — or keeps growing ever larger.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top