Jump to content

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


webfact

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 94
  • Created
  • Last Reply
1 hour 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?

Lmao... your bleating about needing an answer, but when it’s provided, you bleat about it being biased... no worries... name your preferred source and I’ll do the leg work for you and provide a link to their coverage.

 

as far as “partisan” goes.... I have no idea who’s biased one way or another, beyond the obvious hannity network one.... so if my link, which was the first one that popped when I googled “ manaforts crimes”, is biased against your POV, it was entirely coincidental

 

as to “what do you know?”.... only what the various news outlets tell me.... unless I’m really interested or excessively bored

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour 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?

Is adversely Reuter’s biased, against you point of view, as this article has even more detail than the other?

 

meaning I know even more than before.

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-charges-factbox/factbox-ex-trump-aide-paul-manafort-faces-18-criminal-counts-idUSKBN1KK12V

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Any point to this?

The point would be that as we all know everyone takes liberties on tax returns and loan documents, etc. if they are able to do so.  That's the way it is. Is the scale bigger, perhaps, but whether it is $100 or $1,000,000 it's the same crime.  He got 4 years and has another trial in the works so there will probably be more jail time. Rarely to judges hand out maximum sentences. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Trouble said:

The point would be that as we all know everyone takes liberties on tax returns and loan documents, etc. if they are able to do so.  That's the way it is. Is the scale bigger, perhaps, but whether it is $100 or $1,000,000 it's the same crime.  He got 4 years and has another trial in the works so there will probably be more jail time. Rarely to judges hand out maximum sentences. 

 

Oh, one of them "as we all know" things. Right.

And no, the scale and manner in which such things are done does matter.

Regardless, there still isn't and wasn't a point - just endless deflections.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, farcanell said:

From the article you linked to:

 

“Factbox: Ex-Trump aide Paul Manafort faces 18 criminal counts”

“Half the counts involve bank fraud and bank fraud conspiracy, which carry a maximum sentence of 30 years in prison for each count, although he would, if convicted, likely face a far less severe sentence based on federal sentencing guidelines.

If convicted on all 18 counts, Manafort, 69, could face seven to 12 years in prison based on the guidelines, said Tess Lopez, a California-based sentencing expert. Lopez noted that judges did not always sentence within guideline ranges and could also take extenuating circumstances into account.

Justin Paperny, co-founder of Prison Professors, estimated Manafort could, if convicted on all counts, face eight to 10 years in prison based on the guidelines.”

 

One of the “experts” claimed if convicted on all 18 counts Manafort could face 7-10 years, the other “expert” claimed he could face 8-10 years.

 

Given he was only convicted on 8 of the 18 counts, 4 years seems reasonable to me, what do you think?

 

Reading the Reuters article, the only serious crime (in my opinion) is tax evasion. The FBAR charges I assume are related to tax evasion and the bank fraud seems to be making false claims on loan applications which he (apparently) made good on. What do you think?

 

I assume everything and everyone is biased.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎3‎/‎8‎/‎2019 at 12:23 AM, 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.

That's because the Republican Party wasn't infected with the ODS. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

From the article you linked to:

 

 

 

“Factbox: Ex-Trump aide Paul Manafort faces 18 criminal counts”

 

“Half the counts involve bank fraud and bank fraud conspiracy, which carry a maximum sentence of 30 years in prison for each count, although he would, if convicted, likely face a far less severe sentence based on federal sentencing guidelines.

 

If convicted on all 18 counts, Manafort, 69, could face seven to 12 years in prison based on the guidelines, said Tess Lopez, a California-based sentencing expert. Lopez noted that judges did not always sentence within guideline ranges and could also take extenuating circumstances into account.

 

Justin Paperny, co-founder of Prison Professors, estimated Manafort could, if convicted on all counts, face eight to 10 years in prison based on the guidelines.”

 

 

 

One of the “experts” claimed if convicted on all 18 counts Manafort could face 7-10 years, the other “expert” claimed he could face 8-10 years.

 

 

 

Given he was only convicted on 8 of the 18 counts, 4 years seems reasonable to me, what do you think?

 

 

 

Reading the Reuters article, the only serious crime (in my opinion) is tax evasion. The FBAR charges I assume are related to tax evasion and the bank fraud seems to be making false claims on loan applications which he (apparently) made good on. What do you think?

 

 

 

I assume everything and everyone is biased.

 

4 years vs (say) 15, for 8 convictions of 18 charged... is that fair?

 

thats an irrelevant aside, as it depends on the specific charges, not the amount of charges. For example, if a murderer is charged with 18 things ( kidnapping, rape, theft, tourture, dangerous driving, evading police etc etc) but only convicted on 1 count of murder, would 4 years be appropriate? Obviously not

 

I think sentencing guidelines should be followed and universally applicable,... sentencing guidelines are set for a reason, and say a minimum of 19 1/2 years (I got that number from a news broadcast vs this item.) was the minimum, in manaforts case

 

Or... sentencing guidelines should be amended to be fairer to all, verses cherry picked to excuse the elite.... but this is an issue for US lawmakers to consider.

 

but of note, is the feeling being expressed that in a stupidly low sentence, a presidential pardon is less likely (appropriate), because presidential pardons ( from what I have gleaned, so I could be completely wrong) are less likely if there is no overt bias or unfairness in sentencing.... so this sentence may not garner a presidential pardon, whereas a 15 year sentence would.... meaning manafort might just have to serve the sentence, vs being pardoned and doing time served only, whilst waiting on a pardon (47 months vs SFA)

 

also... in assuming everyone is biased, so unworthy of your consideration, and therefore dismissable, your not really that interested in the original statement you made wherein you expressed a desire to know more about the charges against manafort, which is what the links I supplied laid out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, farcanell said:

4 years vs (say) 15, for 8 convictions of 18 charged... is that fair?

 

thats an irrelevant aside, as it depends on the specific charges, not the amount of charges. For example, if a murderer is charged with 18 things ( kidnapping, rape, theft, tourture, dangerous driving, evading police etc etc) but only convicted on 1 count of murder, would 4 years be appropriate? Obviously not

 

I think sentencing guidelines should be followed and universally applicable,... sentencing guidelines are set for a reason, and say a minimum of 19 1/2 years (I got that number from a news broadcast vs this item.) was the minimum, in manaforts case

 

Or... sentencing guidelines should be amended to be fairer to all, verses cherry picked to excuse the elite.... but this is an issue for US lawmakers to consider.

 

but of note, is the feeling being expressed that in a stupidly low sentence, a presidential pardon is less likely (appropriate), because presidential pardons ( from what I have gleaned, so I could be completely wrong) are less likely if there is no overt bias or unfairness in sentencing.... so this sentence may not garner a presidential pardon, whereas a 15 year sentence would.... meaning manafort might just have to serve the sentence, vs being pardoned and doing time served only, whilst waiting on a pardon (47 months vs SFA)

 

also... in assuming everyone is biased, so unworthy of your consideration, and therefore dismissable, your not really that interested in the original statement you made wherein you expressed a desire to know more about the charges against manafort, which is what the links I supplied laid out.

 

The "experts" in the post you linked to said 7-10 and 8-10 if convicted of all 18 charges, and he could still be convicted of 10 of the charges that resulted in a mistrial, meaning additional sentencing could still be added.

 

In any event, he was basically convicted of tax fraud, what do most people get for that?

 

The feeling expressed by who? So the thinking is that the judge made the sentencing lenient to avoid the President pardoning him? That might be a stretch.

 

Why the need to make stuff up? I never said that something being biased made it unworthy of consideration, that’s something you threw in discount what I said. I considered both the articles you linked to, and the Vox article was clearly much more biased than the Reuters article. But they were both articles, written more to entertain and generate emotion than to provide accurate information.

In my opinion, only a fool would read or hear something and not assume there is bias.

 

You assume I’m biased yes? Do you believe you are not?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

 

The "experts" in the post you linked to said 7-10 and 8-10 if convicted of all 18 charges, and he could still be convicted of 10 of the charges that resulted in a mistrial, meaning additional sentencing could still be added.

 

In any event, he was basically convicted of tax fraud, what do most people get for that?

 

The feeling expressed by who? So the thinking is that the judge made the sentencing lenient to avoid the President pardoning him? That might be a stretch.

 

Why the need to make stuff up? I never said that something being biased made it unworthy of consideration, that’s something you threw in discount what I said. I considered both the articles you linked to, and the Vox article was clearly much more biased than the Reuters article. But they were both articles, written more to entertain and generate emotion than to provide accurate information.

In my opinion, only a fool would read or hear something and not assume there is bias.

 

You assume I’m biased yes? Do you believe you are not?

Para one.... the sentence length is irrelevant... the “outrage” is in the disparity between the guidelines and the actual sentence for the charges that manafort is currently deemed guilty of. If more charges find him guilty of more crimes, then more time seems appropriate, regardless of the current sentence, as we may see next week 

 

para two... revert to the link for guidelines, as I’m not about to go and read up on the history of it... if you need to know that specifically, google US law cases, but again, the issue is about the outrage at a lenient sentence, so obviously the norm is more than the actual

 

para three... I reference feelings expressed by the talking heads in various segments currently airing... i was hilighting one excuse that’s “out there” which might account for the judges reasoning... and I did mention it was uninformed, and I did not claim it as an opinion, so no need to sweat that. (I was simply sharing a point that I found interesting)

 

para four... you unequivocally implied that the sentence was not out of order, saying 4 years for 8 out of 18 counts was reasonable even though it was below justice department guidelines, but regardless of that, you mocked me when I supplied a link which outlined the charges in length, which is what you requested... as in saying you would like to see the charges in a more comprehensive manner... this was supplied and was unbiased as they were factual vs opinion, regardless of source. By mocking the post, you imply it’s worthless of consideration.... a “thanks for the link” might have been a more appropriate response... sans that, suggests you are trolling

 

Para five... your bias is clear, which is not to say mine is not, but again, you asked for a fuller coverages of the charges, which I supplied, as you were apparently too lazy to google them yourself, and to then work them into an argument to back up any consideration that the sentence handed down was other than exceptionally lenient. Bias is irrelevant in that the guidelines were demonstrablely not followed for whatever reason ...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guess we now know what the Judge thought of this prosecution. Ive seen it before. The US Atty indicts what the Judge thinks is a ***t case, either evidentiarily or otherwise so he beats the Government up and if they win, he finds every way he can to help the defendant.

 

The converse is the Judge knows its a good case, so he beats the Government up and bends over backward for the Defendant...when the conviction comes down, so does the sentencing hammer and the case is Appeals proof.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, farcanell said:

Para one.... the sentence length is irrelevant... the “outrage” is in the disparity between the guidelines and the actual sentence for the charges that manafort is currently deemed guilty of. If more charges find him guilty of more crimes, then more time seems appropriate, regardless of the current sentence, as we may see next week 

 

para two... revert to the link for guidelines, as I’m not about to go and read up on the history of it... if you need to know that specifically, google US law cases, but again, the issue is about the outrage at a lenient sentence, so obviously the norm is more than the actual

 

para three... I reference feelings expressed by the talking heads in various segments currently airing... i was hilighting one excuse that’s “out there” which might account for the judges reasoning... and I did mention it was uninformed, and I did not claim it as an opinion, so no need to sweat that. (I was simply sharing a point that I found interesting)

 

para four... you unequivocally implied that the sentence was not out of order, saying 4 years for 8 out of 18 counts was reasonable even though it was below justice department guidelines, but regardless of that, you mocked me when I supplied a link which outlined the charges in length, which is what you requested... as in saying you would like to see the charges in a more comprehensive manner... this was supplied and was unbiased as they were factual vs opinion, regardless of source. By mocking the post, you imply it’s worthless of consideration.... a “thanks for the link” might have been a more appropriate response... sans that, suggests you are trolling

 

Para five... your bias is clear, which is not to say mine is not, but again, you asked for a fuller coverages of the charges, which I supplied, as you were apparently too lazy to google them yourself, and to then work them into an argument to back up any consideration that the sentence handed down was other than exceptionally lenient. Bias is irrelevant in that the guidelines were demonstrablely not followed for whatever reason ...

 

4

 

Okay, if this is correct, and if I understand it correctly, it looks like the average sentence for tax fraud is 17 months, which is well below the recommended minimum of 24-26 months. In any event, the 7-10 and 8-10 estimates were based on being guilty of all accounts.

 

https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-publications/quick-facts/Tax_Fraud_FY17.pdf

 

I am sorry I forgot to thank you for the links you provided, but I was hoping for a list of facts, not a wordy article. I get wordy articles every time I open my browser. I would also like to apologize for mocking, you, it was not my intent. 

 

Again, thanks for the links, and I am sorry if I offended you. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

Guess we now know what the Judge thought of this prosecution. Ive seen it before. The US Atty indicts what the Judge thinks is a ***t case, either evidentiarily or otherwise so he beats the Government up and if they win, he finds every way he can to help the defendant.

 

The converse is the Judge knows its a good case, so he beats the Government up and bends over backward for the Defendant...when the conviction comes down, so does the sentencing hammer and the case is Appeals proof.

Wrong. actually this sentence was quite typical of what happens when wealthy people  get convicted of crimes.

"Scott Hechinger, a public defender in Brooklyn and a pithy presence on criminal justice on Twitter, made a similar point. “For context on Manafort’s 47 months in prison, my client yesterday was offered 36-72 months in prison for stealing $100 worth of quarters from a residential laundry room,” he wrote."

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/08/us/politics/manafort-sentencing-ellis.html?action=click&module=Top Stories&pgtype=Homepage

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, EVENKEEL said:

That's because the Republican Party wasn't infected with the ODS. 

That's because the Republican Party was tripping over themselves screaming "Bengazi" until their ears were bleeding...

 

Fixed it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Wrong. actually this sentence was quite typical of what happens when wealthy people  get convicted of crimes.

"Scott Hechinger, a public defender in Brooklyn and a pithy presence on criminal justice on Twitter, made a similar point. “For context on Manafort’s 47 months in prison, my client yesterday was offered 36-72 months in prison for stealing $100 worth of quarters from a residential laundry room,” he wrote."

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/08/us/politics/manafort-sentencing-ellis.html?action=click&module=Top Stories&pgtype=Homepage

 

2

Petty theft in NY max is a year, most people walk.

 

His poor client probably assaulted someone in the process and or did significant damage to get the quarters. 

 

“A” Misdemeanors

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Yellowtail said:

Petty theft in NY max is a year, most people walk.

 

His poor client probably assaulted someone in the process and or did significant damage to get the quarters. 

 

“A” Misdemeanors

 

'His poor client probably assaulted someone in the process and or did significant damage to get the quarters. '

3-6 years for damaging a washing machine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bristolboy said:

"Scott Hechinger, a public defender in Brooklyn and a pithy presence on criminal justice on Twitter, made a similar point. “For context on Manafort’s 47 months in prison, my client yesterday was offered 36-72 months in prison for stealing $100 worth of quarters from a residential laundry room,” he wrote."

 

Just curious, when you read that statement from that lawyer talking about his client - do you honestly believe that some guy just stole a bunch of quarters and got 3 1/2 years for it and there isnt anything more to the story that might make a little more sense?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

'His poor client probably assaulted someone in the process and or did significant damage to get the quarters. '

3-6 years for damaging a washing machine.

 

When I said assaulted someone I meant a person, not a washing machine. But yes, the DA is offering three-six times the maximum sentence to plea petty theft down.

 

That you (apparently) believe this indicates you likely have an advanced degree in something...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He tried to tamper with a witness at his trial

He spent 10 years aiding and abetting a bunch of gangsters run the Ukraine

He was fired from his lobbying firm for cheating his partners

He funneled $125000 from a Trump campaign PAC to pay off a debt of his.

As part of his guilty plea he promised to provide honest information to prosecutors. Instead he lied repeatedly. His lawyers actually fed information about what the Feds were asking to Trump's lawyers.

 

The ‘Otherwise Blameless Life’ of Paul Manafort

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/03/paul-manaforts-otherwise-blamess-life-crime/584419/?utm_term=2019-03-08T03%3A32%3A21&utm_source=facebook&utm_content=edit-promo&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=the-atlantic&fbclid=IwAR3bNy5nalreM94KVFcRBKqOR4I8yN8ACCRysbXJ4w0Pcst6gsniF6C_sxM

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Mason, in a case seen as emblematic of voter suppression, faces over five years in prison for a mistaken vote that was not counted

 

She voted while on probation for tax fraud, and did it knowingly. She was not given 5 years for a "Mistaken Vote". 

 

Why are you doing this? Its right there in your own article. 

 

Oh and that tax fraud case? She was ordered to pay $4.2 million dollars in restitution. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/8/2019 at 12:38 PM, 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."

It was just a tiny mistake Judge. And if I had told the whole truth, I would be in huge doo dah.

And please judge, we come from the same elite background.

 

OK boy, only 4 years with remission. And try not to get caught again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Thainesss said:

"The Atlantic"

 

That article is filled with about as much fact as an MSNBC "analysis". 

Its weird. Its almost like you guys dont even care whats an actual fact, and what simply one persons opinion and view on a situation. 

So he didn't get fired for cheating his partners?

He didn't funnel 125,000 from Trump's Pac to pay off a debt?

He didn't backtrack on his promise to help the prosecutors? He didn't in fact lie to them?

His lawyers weren't communicating with Trump's lawyers subsequent to Manafort's promise to help?

He didn't try to contact a potential witness against him even though that was expressly forbidden?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bristolboy said:

So he didn't get fired for cheating his partners?

He didn't funnel 125,000 from Trump's Pac to pay off a debt?

He didn't backtrack on his promise to help the prosecutors? He didn't in fact lie to them?

His lawyers weren't communicating with Trump's lawyers subsequent to Manafort's promise to help?

He didn't try to contact a potential witness against him even though that was expressly forbidden?

 

He didn't get convicted and sentenced to four years,  with likely more to come? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Thainesss said:

 

She voted while on probation for tax fraud, and did it knowingly. She was not given 5 years for a "Mistaken Vote". 

 

Why are you doing this? Its right there in your own article. 

 

Oh and that tax fraud case? She was ordered to pay $4.2 million dollars in restitution. 

Nonsense. Where did you read that ? Here's the text from the article:

 

"When she turned up to the polling station her name was not on the register, so she cast a provisional ballot that was never counted. She did not read the small print of the form that said that anyone who has been convicted of a felony – as she had, having previously been convicted of tax fraud – was prohibited from voting under Texas law."

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.





×
×
  • Create New...