Manafort is first ex-Trump aide to go on trial in Russia probe

[bristolboy]

1 hour ago, Nyezhov said:

Oh I'm sorry I forget many of you aren't Americans. So that you non Americans know, Here we are lucky enough to have a system where an accused person is presumed innocent and the Government has the heavy burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt via material and relevant evidence that is admissable under long standing evidentiary standards.

 

Americans learn that in Grammer school as it is one of the bedrocks of our legal and constitutional system and we all view criminal cases that way. 

 

 

 

This topic was posted because the moderators thought it was worthy of discussion. Often threads are introduced about legal processes. Unless every one of those is posted to give us all a civics lesson, I don't see the point of your  lecturing us about the basics of criminal law in the USA.

[thaibeachlovers]

3 hours ago, webfact said:

The charges against Manafort largely predate the five months he worked on the Trump team in 2016, some of them as campaign chairman.

Exactly. IMO if he is convicted of anything, it won't be colluding with the Russians to sway the election, if that is even illegal.

[mtls2005]

2 minutes ago, zaphod reborn said:

Journalists always fail to connect the dots.  Trump recently indicated he is going to have the Treasury Dept exempt Deripaska's aluminum company, Rusal, from the sanctions that Congress imposed against Deripaska. 

 

This has been widely reported, as has been Mnuchin's floating of this "idea". Mnuchin also sold his share in his Hollywood production company, RatPac-Dune Entertainment, to Jewish-Ukrainian-Russian-British-American businessman, Sir Leonard Blavatnik.

 

 

 

 

[Becker]

47 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I’m an engineer, you’re a former trial attorney.

 

Within the next 2-3weeks time we’ll discover if I missed a career in law or if you obtained client fees under false pretences.

Well, I know who my money is on.

[thaibeachlovers]

11 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Are there any criminal law cases in the USA where this is not so?

Ask Fatty Arbuckle about proof to convict.

[mtls2005]

3 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Exactly. IMO if he is convicted of anything, it won't be colluding with the Russians to sway the election, if that is even illegal.

 

Correct, I think this first trial involves eighteen (18) counts of financial/tax crimes. They're still crimes if that matters to anyone.

 

The next trial involves similar financial crimes, I think. It's so hard to keep track of Manafort's trail of crimes.

 

Some believe that he may/will be indicted in the future, along with DJTJ and Jared (among many, but not Trump45), for conspiracy involving the Russians, and their efforts to sway the election for Trump. We'll just have to be patient and wait until after the mid-terms for that third or fourth hand-made shoe to drop.

[bristolboy]

1 minute ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Ask Fatty Arbuckle about proof to convict.

I think I made it exceedingly clear that I was referring to a basic principle of US law. That a defendant is innocent until proven guilty. A jury or a judge has to come to that finding. Your example is utterly irrelevant.

[Chomper Higgot]

8 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Exactly. IMO if he is convicted of anything, it won't be colluding with the Russians to sway the election, if that is even illegal.

You doubt collusion with a foreign power to ‘sway an election’ is a crime?

[thaibeachlovers]

1 hour ago, Silurian said:

Ouch...ouch...ouch! Things are not looking good for Manafort.

 

 

 

Perhaps so, but as I understand it, none have anything to do with colluding with the Russians over the election.

[bristolboy]

1 minute ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Ask Fatty Arbuckle about proof to convict.

I think I made it exceedingly clear that I was referring to a basic principle of US law. That a defendant is innocent until proven guilty. A jury or a judge has to come to that finding. Your example is utterly irrelevant. It pertains to a possible miscarriage of justice which is another matter entirely.

[Nyezhov]

29 minutes ago, kamahele said:

I'm not sure how you can make that assumption as no evidence has been produced to the public yet.

I think I set that forth in

nlater posts

[mtls2005]

2 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Perhaps so, but as I understand it, none have anything to do with colluding with the Russians over the election.

 

Who said it did?

 

Not sure why "defenders" like that doofus Guiliani bring up crimes that haven't yet resulted in Grand Jury hearings, or indictments?

[Nyezhov]

13 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

This topic was posted because the moderators thought it was worthy of discussion. Often threads are introduced about legal processes. Unless every one of those is posted to give us all a civics lesson, I don't see the point of your  lecturing us about the basics of criminal law in the USA.

In light of the posts that demonstrated a lack of knowledge about American law, I felt it was necessary for an educated discussion.

[thaibeachlovers]

Just now, Chomper Higgot said:

You doubt collusion with a foreign power to ‘sway an election’ is a crime?

Depends on the law. Perhaps you can link to the specific law that says talking to the Russians about an election is a criminal offence. IMO, they'd have to produce voters that testify they voted based on something he did, or have proof of a conversation in which he stated he wanted to illegally do something to change voters minds. Just talking about the election can hardly be criminal.

[bristolboy]

2 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

I think I set that forth in

nlater posts

No you didn't. You just made some generalizations. Interesting you can't tell the difference. Quite bizarre actually for someone who claims to have been a criminal lawyer.

[mtls2005]

6 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Depends on the law. Perhaps you can link to the specific law that says talking to the Russians about an election is a criminal offence. IMO, they'd have to produce voters that testify they voted based on something he did, or have proof of a conversation in which he stated he wanted to illegally do something to change voters minds. Just talking about the election can hardly be criminal.

 

A criminal conspiracy can be relatively simple to prove, assuming some of the rats flee the sinking S.S. Trump, and "sing". Do rats sing?

 

Example:

923. 18 U.S.C. § 371—Conspiracy to Defraud the United States
The general conspiracy statute, 18 U.S.C. § 371, creates an offense "f two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose. (emphasis added).

 

I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV.

 

 

 

[Nyezhov]

7 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

You doubt collusion with a foreign power to ‘sway an election’ is a crime?

Technically,  it is not. The offense would conceivably be a conspiracy to commit a Federal offense.....such as hacking the DNC server....thus....

 

It would have to be proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, the the President agreed with a Russian to Hack, and in furtherance of that conspiracy, the hack did occur.

 

Easy to allege, impossible to prove.

[thaibeachlovers]

1 minute ago, mtls2005 said:

 

A criminal conspiracy can be relatively simple to prove, assuming some of the rats flee the sinking S.S. Trump, and "sing". Do rats sing?

 

Example:

923. 18 U.S.C. § 371—Conspiracy to Defraud the United States
The general conspiracy statute, 18 U.S.C. § 371, creates an offense "f two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose. (emphasis added).

 

I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV.

For that to apply, they'd have to PROVE that Manafort sought to defraud the US, or that he actively worked with the Russians to commit election fraud. To my knowledge, merely discussing the election is not a crime.

[Nyezhov]

7 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

No you didn't. You just made some generalizations. Interesting you can't tell the difference. Quite bizarre actually for someone who claims to have been a criminal lawyer.

As to my posts, res ipsa loquitur.

 

As to my qualifications, you are entitled to your opinion. It's the internet, for all I know you may be an intelligent guy.

[Nyezhov]

6 minutes ago, mtls2005 said:

 

A criminal conspiracy can be relatively simple to prove, assuming some of the rats flee the sinking S.S. Trump, and "sing". Do rats sing?

 

Example:

923. 18 U.S.C. § 371—Conspiracy to Defraud the United States
The general conspiracy statute, 18 U.S.C. § 371, creates an offense "f two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose. (emphasis added).

 

I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV.

 

 

 

You need either an offense or a fraud, used as a term of art.

 

Then you need agreement and overt act.

 

Thus,  obtaining political dirt is not a crime. Hacking is.

[Chomper Higgot]

1 minute ago, Nyezhov said:

Technically,  it is not. The offense would conceivably be a conspiracy to commit a Federal offense.....such as hacking the DNC server....thus....

 

It would have to be proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, the the President agreed with a Russian to Hack, and in furtherance of that conspiracy, the hack did occur.

 

Easy to allege, impossible to prove.

I’m not sure if you have been following the news this weekend.

 

It reported Cohen attended a meeting with others* in which Trump was advised of and agreed to the Trump Tower Russia meeting.

 

It is also reported that the Trump campaign team* held a meeting to discuss how to handle the Russian offers of ‘help’.

 

* Gates (already turned state witness) attended these meterings as did Manafort.

 

But you are correct, the crime is ‘conspiracy’. There is no crime of ‘collusion’ which is almost certainly why Trump and his lawyers keep stating ‘no collusion’.

 

 

[mtls2005]

15 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Quite bizarre actually for someone who claims to have been a criminal lawyer.

 

Law in Russia different.

 

If you don't understand we throw you out window.

 

AKA: Gravity Overdose, or Concrete Poisoning.

 

 

[mtls2005]

7 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

To my knowledge, merely discussing the election is not a crime.

 

Again, who said it was?

 

Why jump ahead? We can open our Christmas presents closer to the end of the year.

 

For now, let's just enjoy Paully Man's first trial.

 

 

 

 

[Nyezhov]

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I’m not sure if you have been following the news this weekend.

 

It reported Cohen attended a meeting with others* in which Trump was advised of and agreed to the Trump Tower Russia meeting.

 

It is also reported that the Trump campaign team* held a meeting to discuss how to handle the Russian offers of ‘help’.

 

* Gates (already turned state witness) attended these meterings as did Manafort.

 

But you are correct, the crime is ‘conspiracy’. There is no crime of ‘collusion’ which is almost certainly why Trump and his lawyers keep stating ‘no collusion’.

 

 

Assuming that all is true, what statute was violated? Can't have a conspiracy unless there is an underlying crime. What federal statute did President Trump's agree to violate?

 

 

[Nyezhov]

3 minutes ago, mtls2005 said:

 

Law in Russia different.

 

If you don't understand we throw you out window.

 

AKA: Gravity Overdose, or Concrete Poisoning.

 

 

Actually, defenestration was not the chosen method of torture even under the Great Terror, nor was it the state sanctioned method of execution. Admittedly, some folks met their doom

 in so called car accidents, S.A. Ter-Petrossian and S. Mikhoels come immediately to mind, but beatings, sleep deprivation and humiliation were the order of the day followed by 9 grams in the back of  the head  from V. Blokhin.

 

So tossing out the window is not historically correct.

[Tug]

Hey Paul they have a room waiting for you at Leavenworth they will leave the light on for ya!!

[Chomper Higgot]

12 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

Assuming that all is true, what statute was violated? Can't have a conspiracy unless there is an underlying crime. What federal statute did President Trump's agree to violate?

 

 

Do we have list these every time an Illiberal asks the question?

 

You’re the defence lawyer go look them up.

[Chomper Higgot]

Getting back to topic.

 

Manafort’s trial starts tomorrow, all his legal challenges have failed.

 

He’s charged with tax evasion, money laundering, fraud and witness tampering.

 

The verdict will come down within the next three weeks.

 

It’s not a long time to wait.

 

 

Tick....tock.... tick....tock...

 

[Chomper Higgot]

Do you think he’ll cut a deal?

[mtls2005]

3 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Do you think he’ll cut a deal?

 

Maybe.

 

It depends on whether he knows more about the relations between Russians and the campaign than say Gates, Hicks, Jared, Ivanka, DJTJ, or other cooperating sources heretofore unidentified.

 

Note that his knowledge could extend both before and after his five-month stint as Campaign Manager. Owing, and possibly defrauding, Oleg Derepaska tens of millions of dollars can make one do some crazy stuff.

 

He may wait until he sees how many of the jurors are carrying pitchforks and torches before seeking leniency?