What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Paul Manafort Thread (1 Viewer)

In what way did Manafort's work for Yanukovych not align with Putin's aims? Are you referring to the movement to have Ukraine join the European Union, or something else?
What part of Manafort lobbying for Ukraine to join the EU fits with the pro-Russia, anti-Western narrative that keeps getting pushed?  

 
a world where you cant launch nazi skinhead white supremecists who beat up holocaust concentration camp survivors in to the sun while bees eat them just because some aclu beatnik says so  is not a world i want to live in brohans take that to the bank 

 
Trump never asked them to do that.  The suspicion was that they had the emails because of the original Guccifer hack.  Anyone watching Fox News in May might have thought the same thing.  
He absolutely did.  Whether he was joking or not is debatable, whether he asked them to and the fact that they did it that same night (either because they took him seriously or because they knew if they did it would look bad for him if they did and thus give them even more leverage over him) is not.  There's video and everything.

There's different circumstances entailed with each example here.  I don't think Sessions was lying at all in the context of the question Franken asked him if that's what you're referring to.  Another explanation is that they could be trying to avoid the inevitable #### show that would result from acknowledging their interactions with the Russian state.  Is there a specific example you're referring to here?  
OK, but here's the thing about patterns of lying and deception- if you isolate them into "specific examples" there's often a reasonable explanation. If a guy tells his wife he's not having an affair he just was texting his ex about a mutual friend, that's reasonable, but if he and all his friends keep getting caught lying about his many contacts with his ex it's decidedly less reasonable. It's the pattern of repeated lies on the same subject, by many people, over and over and over, that makes the explanation unreasonable. 

One person saying something incorrect about Russian contacts one time can be chalked up to a mistake.  Tons of people lying or misleading people dozens of times about Russian contacts, including when under oath or to federal investigators?  Come on. That's a helluva coincidence.  To borrow a phrase from you, pull your head out of your ###.

Because he sucked at his job. 
If he was fired because Trump thought he sucked at his job, then he should have been fired when Trump took office.  What did he do between inauguration and May to newly reveal his suckiness?  The Rosenstein letter claimed it was stuff he did before inauguration so that doesn't make sense, and Trump admitted to Holt he did it because of Russia.  See previous borrowed phrase.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think it means that Trump preferred a reset with Russia. During the campaign he talked about a mutual opposition to ISIS.  Why can't the simple explanation be the more likely one than the collusion fantasy?  
Because he and every single person has lied about anything related to Russia from the very beginning. If there was a simple innocent explanation they would have made it

 
a world where you cant launch nazi skinhead white supremecists who beat up holocaust concentration camp survivors in to the sun while bees eat them just because some aclu beatnik says so  is not a world i want to live in brohans take that to the bank 
Maybe it will help make you feel better to hear a post script.  After sentencing I headed on home for the day.  I noticed on my drive I was being followed by a group of the Defendant's supporters, family, and friends.  I was near my home and was not about to lead them there.  I stopped my car and got out.  They stopped theirs and piled out and started charging towards me.  At that moment around a corner came first one and then several police cars.  One of the Officers with whom I regularly worked was in court in plain clothes that day to watch me work.  I was intent on what I was doing and was unaware that these folks were grousing throughout the hearing and mumbling threats towards me under their breath.  I left court unaware of them, my mind elsewhere.  Dean, my friend watched them follow me out and he rallied a few fellow officers to keep an eye on me.  They put charges on everyone in that vehicle for one thing or another.  It was the night before Thanksgiving so they got bologna loaf that night and turkey loaf the next day.  I smoked an extra turkey for Dean that year.

For those who have never had bologna loaf it is more or less a haggis, but with bologna as the protein source as opposed to sheep victuals. It is nasty, but apparently an efficient way to stretch one's bologna dollar.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Maybe it will help make you feel better to hear a post script.  After sentencing I headed on home for the day.  I noticed on my drive I was being followed by a group of the Defendant's supporters, family, and friends.  I was near my home and was not about to lead them there.  I stopped my car and got out.  They stopped theirs and piled out and started charging towards me.  At that moment around a corner came first one and then several police cars.  One of the Officers with whom I regularly worked was in court in plain clothes that day to watch me work.  I was intent on what I was doing and was unaware that these folks were grousing throughout the hearing and mumbling threats towards me under their breath.  I left court unaware of them, my mind elsewhere.  Dean, my friend watched them follow me out and he rallied a few fellow officers to keep an eye on me.  I looked at Dean and he at me. We didn't speak, didn't have to. I ran to my car and he to his. We both floored it, going towards each other, me in reverse. We ran over every one of them our cars only stopping because they collided. The noise of the bodies popping under my tires may make you squeamish but I still smile every Independence Day when some kid lights off a pack of lady fingers. 

Our cars were totaled so we split a pint of Old Crown that Dean had in his car as we waited for the tow trucks and hearse. No charges were ever filed and we are still treated as heros.  Our money isn't any good at Mr. Mcgillicuddy's diner and old Mrs. Hirschbach still brings by a piece of apple pie every now and again. 

 
In what way did Manafort's work for Yanukovych not align with Putin's aims? Are you referring to the movement to have Ukraine join the European Union, or something else?
What part of Manafort lobbying for Ukraine to join the EU fits with the pro-Russia, anti-Western narrative that keeps getting pushed? 
I haven't looked into it. I wanted to first confirm that that's what you were referring to. Off the top of my head, I can think of a few possibilities: (a) Manafort was advising Yanukovych to join the EU because it would help preserve Yanukovych's hold on the government. Putin wanted Yanukovych to remain in office rather than being ousted. (If this is the correct answer, it was quite prescient on Manafort's and/or Putin's part.) (b) Manafort didn't actually want Yanukovych to join the EU. He wanted Yanukovych to appear to consider the possibility for show, and Gates wasn't privy to the facade. (c) Putin at least initially wanted Ukraine to join the EU, perhaps as a prelude to Russia joining it. (If I'm not mistaken, this was all before Russia invaded Crimea.)

Maybe if I look into the matter further I'll come up with additional alternatives.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
He absolutely did.  Whether he was joking or not is debatable, whether he asked them to and the fact that they did it that same night (either because they took him seriously or because they knew if they did it would look bad for him if they did and thus give them even more leverage over him) is not.  There's video and everything.


He joked about them turning over the homebrew server emails that were under federal subpoena, but were deleted rather than turned over.  As far as anybody knows, those emails are still missing and nobody did anything with those...but go ahead and keep conflating...

 
He absolutely did.  Whether he was joking or not is debatable, whether he asked them to and the fact that they did it that same night (either because they took him seriously or because they knew if they did it would look bad for him if they did and thus give them even more leverage over him).
"On or about" 7/27- alleged in the indictment, which is where I assume you're getting this from- was a spearphishing attempt on a bunch of Clinton campaign staffers.  So the Russians in all their hacking might sent some spoofed phishing emails.  Even though they had already supposedly hacked the DNC in March.  

And somehow, "find" the emails is code for "hack the emails," not a piece of red meat thrown out to a Trump crowd when it was common speculation at the time that Russia had the emails.  Communicated openly in the middle of a press conference of course. Come on.  

 
He joked about them turning over the homebrew server emails that were under federal subpoena, but were deleted rather than turned over.  As far as anybody knows, those emails are still missing and nobody did anything with those...but go ahead and keep conflating...
You’ve got some details screwed up, but I don’t think it’s worth digging into at this point. Suffice it to say Trump may have been demanding and expecting ‘Hillary’ emails, not the DNC related emails he got.  Substantively that material was broadly ‘dirt on Hillary’. We’re talking about (sorry) a guy who’s not bright on technical stuff (and other things). I’ll grant him credit on hotels and real estate, he’s a stable genius there, but anything else? No way does he have any sense of detail. I really also seriously doubt that the GRU & Co would break operational security but especially not with this blabbermouth. 

Tbh I think this an interesting point, but I think it’s fair to say if it happened (ie coordination) Trump or his crew surmised that they were getting Hillary’s emails without ever really being told that they would get that exact thing.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I’ll grant him credit on hotels and real estate, he’s a stable genius there, but anything else?
This is actually an abjectly untrue statement.  Trump, by and large, was a failure at real estate. Aside from his illegal practices (fraud, not paying subcontractors, not living up to contractual obligations, running afoul of discrimination laws), he had such a poor track record of success, that his "core business" could no longer garner financing from just about any legitimate financial institution (hence, his reliance on shady / Russian / mob monies, as no traditional financial institution would back him). 

The guy was a failed developer, repeatedly.  No one had any faith in him.  I am in real estate, and was in NY Real Estate until post election, and this was common knowledge. 

Now, he was a great brandman / promoter... and those Hotels are not Trump real estate ventures (his repeated failures and bankruptcies eliminated that opportunity), but rather a brilliant job at promoting the Trump brand - something that he did exceptionally well, especially after/in conjunction with his latter career celebrity.

TL;DR - Trump was not a successful real estate developer, quite the opposite. But he was a great brand ambassador and promoter, buoyed by his success as a TV personality / entertainer/

 
This is actually an abjectly untrue statement.  Trump, by and large, was a failure at real estate. Aside from his illegal practices (fraud, not paying subcontractors, not living up to contractual obligations, running afoul of discrimination laws), he had such a poor track record of success, that his "core business" could no longer garner financing from just about any legitimate financial institution (hence, his reliance on shady / Russian / mob monies, as no traditional financial institution would back him). 

The guy was a failed developer, repeatedly.  No one had any faith in him.  I am in real estate, and was in NY Real Estate until post election, and this was common knowledge. 

Now, he was a great brandman / promoter... and those Hotels are not Trump real estate ventures (his repeated failures and bankruptcies eliminated that opportunity), but rather a brilliant job at promoting the Trump brand - something that he did exceptionally well, especially after/in conjunction with his latter career celebrity.

TL;DR - Trump was not a successful real estate developer, quite the opposite. But he was a great brand ambassador and promoter, buoyed by his success as a TV personality / entertainer/
I’ll sign off on that. Frankly I think you know what you’re talking about. Fred Sr. seemed to have a good story establishing the family business from youth on up, maybe he was the stable real estate genius. I think I read somewhere that he and his mother got out the hood by buying their first building when he was 15. Different story though.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
"On or about" 7/27- alleged in the indictment, which is where I assume you're getting this from- was a spearphishing attempt on a bunch of Clinton campaign staffers.  So the Russians in all their hacking might sent some spoofed phishing emails.  Even though they had already supposedly hacked the DNC in March.  

And somehow, "find" the emails is code for "hack the emails," not a piece of red meat thrown out to a Trump crowd when it was common speculation at the time that Russia had the emails.  Communicated openly in the middle of a press conference of course. Come on.  
I might be wrong (beering on remote right now...) but I think the 7/27 reference is about a reentry by GRU. I think the hack and entry came earlier.

As for your second point: eh spycraft can be done in plain sight, and also: Trump. Look at Ivanka’s face (besides for the usual reason) when Trump is saying what he’s saying. Bit of a wtf look IMO.

 
I’ll sign off on that. Frankly I think you know what you’re talking about. Fred Sr. seemed to have a good story building up the family business from youth on up, maybe he was the stable real estate genius. I think I read somewhere that he and his mother got out the hood by buying their first building when he was 15. Different story though.
There are some things that are opinion, some that are fact.  

I can buy / understand the "supreme court appointee is worth electing the devil incarnate" argument, much as I don't respect it - the same can be said about a President that will forward certain fiscal and monetary policies (even if I disagree on the mid-long term benefits of said policies)...

But whenever someone brings up the "well, he's a great (even good, hell, decent) businessman / real estate mogul" the facts are really starkly clear: Trump's greatest calling card is also his most lengthy resume of failure.  We can debate policy, but the guy was a repeated failure at real estate.

Which, ironically, both put him in a position for tremendous kompromat while launching a force of entertainment personality and brand which could leverage said kompromat like never before. 

 
The suspicion was that they had the emails because of the original Guccifer hack.
This is a better point. It certainly seemed like Lazar had a shot at getting entree. The problem of course is Papa getting the dangle of dirt in May and the TT meeting and communications around it. 

It’s not a good look. The story is basically ‘won’t someone rid me of this meddlesome priest?’

It’s Becket. Said out loud. Willing accomplices awaiting something to accomplice in, in earshot. Rule over a state at stake. Bad people with bad motives whispering behind curtains. I mean, the priest died, Yaknow?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
So I haven’t been following this closely so forgive my ignorance but is the judge just being a PITA to appeal-proof this decision once Manafort is found guilty? He seems awfully pro-defense from what I’ve read.

 
Maybe overnight the Prosecutor will evaluate the Judge's assessment of the case, that it is straightforward, and he will concentrate on that, not all of the interesting sidelights to the case which, while interesting, are not the sum and substance.  Maybe his Honor is trying to do him a favor if he could just see it.  Maybe not.

As a Prosecutor I only cried once in court.  It was not from getting lectured by a Judge, but was during the testimony of an aged victim.  He was a survivor of the holocaust.  He had been interred and had the arm tattoo to prove it.  He and his wife were attacked in their home by some neo Nazi's/white supremicists ####s who beat them severely and trashed their place and then painted swastikas on their home and car.  When he showed his tattoo from the stand and his wife started crying, I did too.  The judge did also and declared a recess.  Several members of the jury did as well.  The defense moved for a mistrial.  Their motion was not granted.
Not to be a heartless defense attorney, but this didn't draw an objection? I assume there was other proof that the invaders knew his past?

 
So I haven’t been following this closely so forgive my ignorance but is the judge just being a PITA to appeal-proof this decision once Manafort is found guilty? He seems awfully pro-defense from what I’ve read.
There may be something to this.  When I was a fresh defense attorney I did a bunch of trials in front of a particular judge.  I learned quickly that I knew during the trial that I was going to lose the trial when the judge started sustaining all my objections. 

 
those aclu brohans are always wreckin my good times take that to the bank brochacho
First SWCer post I've ever seen where I've preferred to do a remote deposit. :mellow:  
if you think nazi skinhead white supremecists who beat up concentration camp survivors should not be launched in to the sun while bees eat them i cant change your mind but brohan i think you are all sorts of wrong take that to the bank bromigo

 
Not to be a heartless defense attorney, but this didn't draw an objection? I assume there was other proof that the invaders knew his past?
“Your honor, if they’ll stipulate they knew he was a Holocaust victim, we agree there’s no need to show the jury how obvious his tattoo is.”

 
Also, any defense attorney who objected at the moment a man started to show his holocaust tattoo would pretty much be guaranteeing his client the electric chair.  Or whatever the highest possible penalty is.  Jury would eat him alive. 

 
Also, any defense attorney who objected at the moment a man started to show his holocaust tattoo would pretty much be guaranteeing his client the electric chair.  Or whatever the highest possible penalty is.
I'm pretty sure it's being launched into the sun while being eaten by bees.

 
So I haven’t been following this closely so forgive my ignorance but is the judge just being a PITA to appeal-proof this decision once Manafort is found guilty? He seems awfully pro-defense from what I’ve read.
It may be tough for non-attorneys to recognize, but a large percentage of judges are complete dip####s. 

When I was in law school, I imagined judges as having this divine sense of right and wrong. It wasn’t until I had practiced with some people who had assumed the bench that I realized competence wasn’t one of the selection criteria. 

This judge seems like a jackass of epic proportions no matter which side you’re on. 

 
Also, any defense attorney who objected at the moment a man started to show his holocaust tattoo would pretty much be guaranteeing his client the electric chair.  Or whatever the highest possible penalty is.  Jury would eat him alive. 
Any competent defense attorney would have pled the Skinhead v. Elderly holocaust survivor out to whatever the prosecutor offered and sent a basket of fruit to the DA’s office for not forcing a trial. 

 
Also, any defense attorney who objected at the moment a man started to show his holocaust tattoo would pretty much be guaranteeing his client the electric chair.  Or whatever the highest possible penalty is.  Jury would eat him alive. 
This is why motions in limine are a thing. 

ETA: Also, 

1. While I agree there are times where one shouldn't object when one can and a bad objection can influence the jury to find a client guilty, I wouldn't be considered with the jury determining punishment because that isn't their job in non-capital cases. 

2. If I've carried myself with professionalism I'd feel confident I could object to this, not have the jury hate me for it, and I'd probably request a bench conference to make the record outside of the jury. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
if you think nazi skinhead white supremecists who beat up concentration camp survivors should not be launched in to the sun while bees eat them i cant change your mind but brohan i think you are all sorts of wrong take that to the bank bromigo
I just kinda like the 8th Amendment. It's like my bro - at times I may not like exactly what my bro says or does but at the end of the day I'll go to battle with my bro even if my bro is in the wrong.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Any competent defense attorney would have pled the Skinhead v. Elderly holocaust survivor out to whatever the prosecutor offered and sent a basket of fruit to the DA’s office for not forcing a trial. 
What's the saying, "you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink"? 

Given that the decision to accept a plea agreement rests solely with the defendant and, shocking as it may sound, some defendants make poor life choices in the face of good advice, I disagree with your statement. 

 
It may be tough for non-attorneys to recognize, but a large percentage of judges are complete dip####s. 

When I was in law school, I imagined judges as having this divine sense of right and wrong. It wasn’t until I had practiced with some people who had assumed the bench that I realized competence wasn’t one of the selection criteria. 

This judge seems like a jackass of epic proportions no matter which side you’re on. 
RIP Judge Harold T. Stone  :( :pours40:

 
"On or about" 7/27- alleged in the indictment, which is where I assume you're getting this from- was a spearphishing attempt on a bunch of Clinton campaign staffers.  So the Russians in all their hacking might sent some spoofed phishing emails.  Even though they had already supposedly hacked the DNC in March.  

And somehow, "find" the emails is code for "hack the emails," not a piece of red meat thrown out to a Trump crowd when it was common speculation at the time that Russia had the emails.  Communicated openly in the middle of a press conference of course. Come on.  
Good point. How silly of me to suggest that the man who rambled on about sexually assaulting women with a microphone pinned to him, spilled details of a classified Israeli intelligence operation to the Russian ambassador in the Oval Office and admitted to obstructing justice in a national TV interview with Lester Holt might be dumb enough to do something like that. You got me again!
 

(I already said it was possible that he was joking and that the Russians attempted the hack that day not as a response to a directive but as a way to increase their leverage over him)

 
Not to be a heartless defense attorney, but this didn't draw an objection? I assume there was other proof that the invaders knew his past?
Of course it did.  Inflammatory, prejudicial, not probative of any contested issue.  Of course I did not ask him to do so, he did it on his own and the objection only drew out the impact of the moment. Her honor instructed him to roll down his sleeve but she did not declare a mistrial.  He looked defiantly at the defense table as he slowly complied.  I followed up asking him about the surgical scar on his arm which he got repairing his arm after the attack.  I wanted to put something on the record making it somewhat relevant and probative.

 
Also, any defense attorney who objected at the moment a man started to show his holocaust tattoo would pretty much be guaranteeing his client the electric chair.  Or whatever the highest possible penalty is.  Jury would eat him alive. 
Some moments should be allowed to pass uncommented upon rather than emphasized through objection.

 
This is why motions in limine are a thing. 

ETA: Also, 

1. While I agree there are times where one shouldn't object when one can and a bad objection can influence the jury to find a client guilty, I wouldn't be considered with the jury determining punishment because that isn't their job in non-capital cases. 

2. If I've carried myself with professionalism I'd feel confident I could object to this, not have the jury hate me for it, and I'd probably request a bench conference to make the record outside of the jury. 
Why would there be a MiL on this?  Nobody would have seen that coming. 

1. Of course. Those are two distinct but related thoughts.

a. He’s guaranteeing the jury convicts of the highest possible charge

b. The judge is going to give the highest possible sentence 

2. Sure, totally.  Probably one of first three witnesses, and we all know how much the public loves defense attorneys who work for Nazis.  

 
What's the saying, "you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink"? 

Given that the decision to accept a plea agreement rests solely with the defendant and, shocking as it may sound, some defendants make poor life choices in the face of good advice, I disagree with your statement. 
My favorite is after I rest my case.  At that juncture the jury is removed and the judge advises the Defendant on their right to testify, or not, the presumptions, and some of the risks. Defense counsel then talks to their client and you know this better than I, they advise on the strength of what I just put up.  Many times I have made enough of a case to survive a motion for directed verdict but the Defense attorney, the Judge, and I all know things are not going well for me.  I see the Defense attorney strenuously urging their client to not take the stand, but these rocket scientists can't wait to get up there and start bull####ing, hoping to make their case.  Here's a hint Defendants, you are not smarter than me, not more experienced, and if you were smart you would not be on trial.  You almost always are hurting your case.  I rely, or use to when I actively prosecuted, on your idiocy, your inability to keep a story straight, and your opening doors to evidence I could not get in on direct but with which I will crucify you on redirect. Defendants, you are not likeable and not smart.  I will catch you in lies and then you will lie again to try to get out of it.  Listen to your counsel.  The Woz's of the world are there to help you.  You do not know more than he. Take his advice.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
That's the thing, the reflex is to object and it is a tough reflex to overcome.
Well, a large part of it, at least for me, is gauging before the trial whether I have a real chance of winning. If I do, I’m much more reluctant to object and will strategically choose when to object. If the evidence is overwhelming and my odds are good, I’ll object (albeit it politely and professionally) far more often so as to preserve those issues on appeal. 

I’m also notorious for filing a number of motions in limine to preserve a bunch of objections so that helps keeping my speaking objections at trial to a minimum too.  

 
Well, a large part of it, at least for me, is gauging before the trial whether I have a real chance of winning. If I do, I’m much more reluctant to object and will strategically choose when to object. If the evidence is overwhelming and my odds are good, I’ll object (albeit it politely and professionally) far more often so as to preserve those issues on appeal. 

I’m also notorious for filing a number of motions in limine to preserve a bunch of objections so that helps keeping my speaking objections at trial to a minimum too.  
I just hope that your clients, who seek advice, who pay for it, follow it, though I am certain that they often do not.  I bet that when they do your success rate is remarkably better than when they do not. 

This is the bane of all of my Defense attorney friends. I am certain Henry and others would concur. They know they need your help, but they just can't take it in many instances.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ditkaless Wonders said:
I just hope that your clients, who seek advice, who pay for it, follow it, though I am certain that they often do not.  I bet that when they do your success rate is remarkably better than when they do not. 

This is the bane of all of my Defense attorney friends. I am certain Henry and others would concur. They know they need your help, but they just can't take it in many instances.
I don't even do much criminal work, but if all my client's actually just listened to me I wouldn't have to drink every day when I go home.

 
Ditkaless Wonders said:
I just hope that your clients, who seek advice, who pay for it, follow it, though I am certain that they often do not.  I bet that when they do your success rate is remarkably better than when they do not. 

This is the bane of all of my Defense attorney friends. I am certain Henry and others would concur. They know they need your help, but they just can't take it in many instances.
Would you want to listen to the really good doctor you paid a bunch of money to that you have AIDS?

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top