US v Manafort

Post Reply
User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14850
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: US v Manafort

Post by Forty Two » Fri Aug 10, 2018 4:08 pm

Brian Peacock wrote:
Fri Aug 10, 2018 12:05 am
So is Gates merely Manafort's employee, as suggested, or more of a business partner (apart from being his co-conspirator)? He started at Manafort, Black and Stone, has held various executive positions with Manafort and a number of Russian and Ukrainian entities, and has been variously described as Manafort's protege, right-hand man, and even his consigliere.

Washington Post profile.
Sure, and how he's been "variously described" is not evidence in a criminal court. Good thing, too. Manafort's guilt turns on his own culpability. It's not looking good for him in the trial on a number of issues. But the fact that employees engage in illegal activities or business partners turn out to be crooks is not itself evidence of culpability of Manafort himself.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14850
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: US v Manafort

Post by Forty Two » Fri Aug 10, 2018 4:09 pm

BarnettNewman wrote:
Thu Aug 09, 2018 7:28 pm
Forty Two wrote:That's what the thread is for - to continue the discussion as the case progresses partisan speculation - just like every other thread.
FIFY
FIFY2
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14850
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: US v Manafort

Post by Forty Two » Fri Aug 10, 2018 4:12 pm

Tero wrote:
Thu Aug 09, 2018 4:30 pm
Good old PJ. I’ve met him. They don’t make right wingers like they used to.
PJ is a Nazi. I'll punch him next time I see him. He carries water for the alt right racist, homophobic, Islamophobes. He should have his platform taken away. Not censored, mind you - just not allowed to publish his hateful ideas.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
Brian Peacock
Tipping cows since 1946
Posts: 22646
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:44 am
About me: Ablate me:
Location: Location: Location:
Contact:

Re: US v Manafort

Post by Brian Peacock » Fri Aug 10, 2018 4:19 pm


Forty Two wrote:
Brian Peacock wrote:
Fri Aug 10, 2018 12:05 am
So is Gates merely Manafort's employee, as suggested, or more of a business partner (apart from being his co-conspirator)? He started at Manafort, Black and Stone, has held various executive positions with Manafort and a number of Russian and Ukrainian entities, and has been variously described as Manafort's protege, right-hand man, and even his consigliere.

Washington Post profile.
Sure, and how he's been "variously described" is not evidence in a criminal court. Good thing, too. Manafort's guilt turns on his own culpability. It's not looking good for him in the trial on a number of issues. But the fact that employees engage in illegal activities or business partners turn out to be crooks is not itself evidence of culpability of Manafort himself.
I don't know who suggested that "variously described" is submissible evidence in court, but it wasn't me. What I was questioning is whetger referring to Gates only as an paid underling honestly reflects the nature of his and Manafort's personal and professional relationship - which I'm sure you'll agree is something which is of legitimate interest to the court as well as being something which will have had a bearing on their alleged criminal activity.
Rationalia relies on voluntary donations. There is no obligation of course, but if you value this place and want to see it continue please consider making a small donation towards the forum's running costs.
Details on how to do that can be found here.

.

"It isn't necessary to imagine the world ending in fire or ice.
There are two other possibilities: one is paperwork, and the other is nostalgia."

Frank Zappa

"This is how humanity ends; bickering over the irrelevant."
Clinton Huxley » 21 Jun 2012 » 14:10:36 GMT
.

User avatar
Sean Hayden
Microagressor
Posts: 10563
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2010 3:55 pm
About me: philobarbaros
Contact:

Re: US v Manafort

Post by Sean Hayden » Fri Aug 10, 2018 4:26 pm

But the fact that employees engage in illegal activities or business partners turn out to be crooks is not itself evidence of culpability of Manafort himsel
--since fucking when? Why is the burden of proof so high for these assholes man?

--//--

Oh wait, omg, is justice trickle down too! Holy Shit! Trickle Down Justice y'all!
shut up

User avatar
laklak
Posts: 16644
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 1:07 pm
About me: My preferred pronoun is "Massah"
Location: Tannhauser Gate
Contact:

Re: US v Manafort

Post by laklak » Fri Aug 10, 2018 7:34 pm

I think it all depends on what your definition of "is" is. Or something like that.

But it wasn't me. Musta been somebody what look like me.
Yeah well that's just, like, your opinion, man.

User avatar
Sean Hayden
Microagressor
Posts: 10563
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2010 3:55 pm
About me: philobarbaros
Contact:

Re: US v Manafort

Post by Sean Hayden » Fri Aug 10, 2018 7:45 pm

:lol:
shut up

User avatar
Brian Peacock
Tipping cows since 1946
Posts: 22646
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:44 am
About me: Ablate me:
Location: Location: Location:
Contact:

Re: US v Manafort

Post by Brian Peacock » Fri Aug 10, 2018 7:53 pm

The money was just resting in his account before he moved it on... Just resting.... A good, long rest..
Rationalia relies on voluntary donations. There is no obligation of course, but if you value this place and want to see it continue please consider making a small donation towards the forum's running costs.
Details on how to do that can be found here.

.

"It isn't necessary to imagine the world ending in fire or ice.
There are two other possibilities: one is paperwork, and the other is nostalgia."

Frank Zappa

"This is how humanity ends; bickering over the irrelevant."
Clinton Huxley » 21 Jun 2012 » 14:10:36 GMT
.

User avatar
Tero
Just saying
Posts: 26815
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 9:50 pm
About me: Something something birds
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: US v Manafort

Post by Tero » Fri Aug 10, 2018 10:53 pm

Forty Two wrote:
Fri Aug 10, 2018 4:12 pm
Tero wrote:
Thu Aug 09, 2018 4:30 pm
Good old PJ. I’ve met him. They don’t make right wingers like they used to.
PJ is a Nazi. I'll punch him next time I see him. He carries water for the alt right racist, homophobic, Islamophobes. He should have his platform taken away. Not censored, mind you - just not allowed to publish his hateful ideas.
Just another libertarian. No worse than Ann Coulter and mostly funnier.
http://karireport.blogspot.com/ (:_funny_:)
http://esapolitics.blogspot.com/
Dominus vo-bisque'em Et cum spear a tu-tu, oh!

User avatar
BarnettNewman
extemporaneous
Posts: 319
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2010 3:29 am
Contact:

Re: US v Manafort

Post by BarnettNewman » Sat Aug 11, 2018 5:13 pm

Forty Two wrote:
Fri Aug 10, 2018 4:09 pm
BarnettNewman wrote:
Thu Aug 09, 2018 7:28 pm
Forty Two wrote:That's what the thread is for - to continue the discussion as the case progresses partisan speculation - just like every other thread.
FIFY
FIFY2
Well that goes without saying.

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14850
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: US v Manafort

Post by Forty Two » Mon Aug 13, 2018 11:06 am

Tero wrote:
Fri Aug 10, 2018 10:53 pm
Forty Two wrote:
Fri Aug 10, 2018 4:12 pm
Tero wrote:
Thu Aug 09, 2018 4:30 pm
Good old PJ. I’ve met him. They don’t make right wingers like they used to.
PJ is a Nazi. I'll punch him next time I see him. He carries water for the alt right racist, homophobic, Islamophobes. He should have his platform taken away. Not censored, mind you - just not allowed to publish his hateful ideas.
Just another libertarian. No worse than Ann Coulter and mostly funnier.
Libertarianism is just a dog whistle for alt right Nazi. Having discussions about censorship is really peddling Nazism. https://pjmedia.com/video/protestors-dr ... ech-panel/
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14850
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: US v Manafort

Post by Forty Two » Mon Aug 13, 2018 11:10 am

Sean Hayden wrote:
Fri Aug 10, 2018 4:26 pm
But the fact that employees engage in illegal activities or business partners turn out to be crooks is not itself evidence of culpability of Manafort himsel
--since fucking when? Why is the burden of proof so high for these assholes man?
Since always. I mean, if I have employees and one of them robs a customer, am I guilty? Not if I didn't know anything about it, or do anything to encourage it.

And, the burden of proof is always on the prosecution and always "beyond a reasonable doubt." Courts generally explain to juries that the defendant being an otherwise bad guy is not relevant - the reasonable doubt needs to be raised about the specific offenses charged. Smearing the defendant as probably guilty of something, even if not what is charged, is a violation of due process and the right to be tried under the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Sean Hayden wrote:
Fri Aug 10, 2018 4:26 pm

--//--

Oh wait, omg, is justice trickle down too! Holy Shit! Trickle Down Justice y'all!
Not sure what that means.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14850
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: US v Manafort

Post by Forty Two » Mon Aug 13, 2018 11:12 am

Brian Peacock wrote:
Fri Aug 10, 2018 4:19 pm


I don't know who suggested that "variously described" is submissible evidence in court, but it wasn't me. What I was questioning is whetger referring to Gates only as an paid underling honestly reflects the nature of his and Manafort's personal and professional relationship - which I'm sure you'll agree is something which is of legitimate interest to the court as well as being something which will have had a bearing on their alleged criminal activity.
Gates' capacity in relation to Manafort is, of course, relevant to the case, and the burden of the prosecution to show.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
Sean Hayden
Microagressor
Posts: 10563
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2010 3:55 pm
About me: philobarbaros
Contact:

Re: US v Manafort

Post by Sean Hayden » Mon Aug 13, 2018 3:10 pm

Forty Two wrote:
Mon Aug 13, 2018 11:10 am
Sean Hayden wrote:
Fri Aug 10, 2018 4:26 pm
But the fact that employees engage in illegal activities or business partners turn out to be crooks is not itself evidence of culpability of Manafort himsel
--since fucking when? Why is the burden of proof so high for these assholes man?
Since always. I mean, if I have employees and one of them robs a customer, am I guilty? Not if I didn't know anything about it, or do anything to encourage it.

And, the burden of proof is always on the prosecution and always "beyond a reasonable doubt." Courts generally explain to juries that the defendant being an otherwise bad guy is not relevant - the reasonable doubt needs to be raised about the specific offenses charged. Smearing the defendant as probably guilty of something, even if not what is charged, is a violation of due process and the right to be tried under the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Sean Hayden wrote:
Fri Aug 10, 2018 4:26 pm

--//--

Oh wait, omg, is justice trickle down too! Holy Shit! Trickle Down Justice y'all!
Not sure what that means.
It means you're ignoring how the world works because you believe the defense of these principles in this case has an affect on all cases everywhere..dramatic music plays in the background....

I mean that's probably not really why you do this. It's just a funny way of making sense of your bizarre behavior.
shut up

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14850
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: US v Manafort

Post by Forty Two » Mon Aug 13, 2018 7:00 pm

Well, I believe that even the worst and least worthy defendants get the benefit of the presumption of innocence, the burden of proof being on the prosecution, the right not to self-incriminate, the right to a trial by jury if they choose, fair notice, a fair hearing, etc. I think that a liberal defense of those principles is not a statement that the world "works" in a particular way, and it certainly is not a naive view of the way the world actually works.

I don't consider it particularly bizarre to put the burden on the prosecution to prove guilt of the crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt. However, if that's bizarre to you, so be it.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], Bing [Bot] and 8 guests