Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The federal district court judge presiding over the case, 78-year-old Reagan appointee T.S. Ellis, has been quick to snap at the U.S. attorneys in the early days of the trial. Namely, he has lashed them for presenting evidence of Manafort's lavish spending habits that, he said, could prejudice the jury against him.
In his opening statement on Tuesday, prosecutor Uzo Asonye's attempt to detail Manafort's purchase of pricey suits, rugs, cars and home renovations was quickly was quickly censured by Ellis, who told Asonye to "focus on the elements" of the criminal charges.
Manafort is "not on trial for having a lavish lifestyle," Ellis said at one point.
"To parade all of this," he said later, "seems to me unnecessary, irrelevant and maybe unfairly prejudicial."
"It isn't a crime to have a lot of money and be profligate in your spending," Ellis said.
-------------------------------------------------
Uh-oh. Looks like the liberal fanatics screwed up in their judge-shopping. They wound up with a judge who does NOT take it on faith, as extreme liberals do, that having a lot of money IS a crime.
This unpleasant exposure to reality outside their liberal drawing rooms and leftist forums, may come as a rude shock to the Democrats, as they find again and again that normal people aren't paying attention to their opinions and prejudices any more.
Or will they grasp reality at some point and retreat into the shadows? The Manafort Trial, that is catching the headlines now, is just the preface to what is to come.
This case has actually nothing to do with the president. Guess that escaped you?
This trial has nothing to do with collusion. You seem confused.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LifeIsGood01
This trial in not about collusion it's about his lifestyle that he wanted to keep up with since he was going broke from all the expensive homes and things he bought and his Ukrainian money dried up. He was working for Trump for free and we know no one works for free so he sought out bank loans with false income documents and made promises of high level military position to the bank President.
Lol, that is my point. The Mueller team was put together for;
"a United States law enforcement investigation of the Russian government's efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election, including an investigation of any possible links and/or coordination between Donald Trump's presidential campaign and the Russian government, "and any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation.""
While this of course comes under "and any matters that arose..." this seems to be an awful lot of resources spent on what amounts to trivial matters that should be referred to agencies that investigate such things.
The main purpose of the investigation is to determine interference and collusion, but seems it has gone off the rails using resources to do it. You do not need a special council for such matters, either they find evidence that supports the main purpose of the council, or they do not. Next thing you know they will be following suspects around to issue parking tickets.
While I've seen nothing to suggest that the charges will be thrown out, I will not rule it out. I seriously doubted that the feds anticipated that Manafort would actually contest the charges. I'm thankful that the judge appears to have some commonsense and doesn't seem to style himself as part of the anything goes "resistance."
I look forward to seeing this thread in 10 days when Manafort is found guilty and sentencing briefs are submitted. The OP will not have the stones to come back and admit he was wrong, but every poster on CD will know. Nor will others masquerading as lawyers on this thread who thought Manafort wouldn’t fight the charges.
It will be like that time BentBow told us Michael Flynn’s plea will be vacated on April 4... he never came back and took his lumps. but we all know...
I take my lumps like a man when they are delivered. But that’s just me.
The federal district court judge presiding over the case, 78-year-old Reagan appointee T.S. Ellis, has been quick to snap at the U.S. attorneys in the early days of the trial. Namely, he has lashed them for presenting evidence of Manafort's lavish spending habits that, he said, could prejudice the jury against him.
In his opening statement on Tuesday, prosecutor Uzo Asonye's attempt to detail Manafort's purchase of pricey suits, rugs, cars and home renovations was quickly was quickly censured by Ellis, who told Asonye to "focus on the elements" of the criminal charges.
Manafort is "not on trial for having a lavish lifestyle," Ellis said at one point.
"To parade all of this," he said later, "seems to me unnecessary, irrelevant and maybe unfairly prejudicial."
"It isn't a crime to have a lot of money and be profligate in your spending," Ellis said.
-------------------------------------------------
Uh-oh. Looks like the liberal fanatics screwed up in their judge-shopping. They wound up with a judge who does NOT take it on faith, as extreme liberals do, that having a lot of money IS a crime.
This unpleasant exposure to reality outside their liberal drawing rooms and leftist forums, may come as a rude shock to the Democrats, as they find again and again that normal people aren't paying attention to their opinions and prejudices any more.
Better luck next time, libbies.
Actually, Manafort had these charges removed from the DC Federal District Court to Virginia, but why worry about facts when you have... whatever it is you have.
And, for the record, I have no problem with Judge Ellis. He seems to be adept and reminds me a lot of Jed Rakoff in the SDNY - has his proclivities but is no nonsense and sharp as a tack. Just wanted to quash this “prosecutorial forum shopping” nonsense.
Manafort did not live in the USA and had not for a few years, when he had those bank accounts or made that money.
That money was then transferred into his US account and foreign accounts closed, once back in the USA and he set up a residence. (it was not immediate the day he returned, but a year afterward)
No, he is not required to pay income tax on that money.
He was not a US resident and you are not taxed for being a US Citizen.
Then you need to tell his account and bookkeeper.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
