Ouch.... Manafort 'star witness' Rick Gates gets destroyed by Manafort's lawyers.

a reply to: theantediluvian

Rooting for him to get convictedfor it for no other reason than because he ran Trump's campaign in the Summer of 2016? What the hell is that?

Fixed it.. YW

originally posted by: notsure1
a reply to: theantediluvian

Rooting for him to get convictedfor it for no other reason than because he ran Trump's campaign in the Summer of 2016? What the hell is that?

Fixed it.. YW

Didn’t fix it you altered it comrade

a reply to: Feltrick

There is no reason not to, other than the shell game that is rewards for testimony and cooperation.

All charges at this level of people in the political sphere are tainted with political motives, and it's abhorrent.

a reply to: Boadicea

What about this particular case is an unjust law, in your opinion?

I mean, I agree with you in theory, but not in this particular case.

a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

Everything I read so far yesterday and today speaks the opposite of what you're claiming, OP, but then again you are using Gateway Pundit as the source.

Honest question -- should this story, one of hundreds, from Pundit end up untrue, will you stop reading it and reporting it here?

Or at least stop re-posting junk here?

originally posted by: Feltrick
a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

This whole trial is an absolute joke. Manafort is on trial because Team Mueller was hoping he'd flip on Trump. What an absolute judicial disgrace and waste of taxpayer money.

If this jury doesn't acquit I'll be surprised.

American juries have been mere rubber stamps for the government prosecutors for decades now. I would not bet on acquittal.

originally posted by: DJMSN

Just pointing out that selective prosecution is wrong and Mueller has a career full of decisions like this

Agreed.

originally posted by: Kharron
a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

Everything I read so far yesterday and today speaks the opposite of what you're claiming, OP, but then again you are using Gateway Pundit as the source.

Honest question -- should this story, one of hundreds, from Pundit end up untrue, will you stop reading it and reporting it here?

Or at least stop re-posting junk here?

My apologies. From now on, I'll only get my news from CNN, like a good little slave.

originally posted by: AndyFromMichigan

originally posted by: Kharron
a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

Everything I read so far yesterday and today speaks the opposite of what you're claiming, OP, but then again you are using Gateway Pundit as the source.

Honest question -- should this story, one of hundreds, from Pundit end up untrue, will you stop reading it and reporting it here?

Or at least stop re-posting junk here?

My apologies. From now on, I'll only get my news from CNN, like a good little slave.

No need to apologize, it's your mind, treat it the way you think it deserves. It's the rest of us that don't like being lied to, though. But most people here already know about the Gateway Pundit, among others.

Oh and CNN is crap, just like FOX. But they are a bit more accurate than Gateway Pundit, GP is just pure unadulterated propaganda and their stories turn out lies majority of the time. Read what you like, but just know you're reading lies so hope that helps you before you make a decision to re-post lies to others - meaning US.

a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, overt propaganda, poor or no sourcing to credible information and/or is fake news. Fake News is the deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for the purpose of profit or influence. Sources listed in the Questionable Category may be very untrustworthy and should be fact checked on a per article basis. Please note sources on this list are not considered fake news unless specifically written in the notes section for that source. See all Questionable sources.

Bias: Extreme Right, Propaganda, Conspiracy, Nationalism, Some Fake News

Notes: The Gateway Pundit is a hard-right website that is not afraid of conspiracy theories and the occasional flirtation with outright white supremacists. Not a credible source that occasionally publishes fake news. (10/4/2016) Updated (6/20/2017)

Media Bias

In other words, they are SOOOO bad, that even if a fraction of what others review them as is true, they are still worse propaganda than even the MSM, which we know is propaganda.

So do what you like, but as a colleague on this website I'm asking you to reconsider posting this junk here and help us be a better forum. Take care.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: Boadicea

What about this particular case is an unjust law, in your opinion?

I mean, I agree with you in theory, but not in this particular case.

First, the income tax on earned income in and of itself. Never should have been at all. And at this point, it is used as much as a tool AND weapon against the people than for legitimate revenue purposes. And a tool and carrot for some people, with credits and deductions and other loopholes.

Second, the selective prosecution. I don't believe for a minute that Manafort is being prosecuted for justice. He's being prosecuted as a weapon against Trump.

Finally, it's hard to reconcile giving one criminal immunity in order to throw the book at another, especially when neither one poses any threat at all to the general public... just government critters.

originally posted by: Boadicea
Second, the selective prosecution. I don't believe for a minute that Manafort is being prosecuted for justice. He's being prosecuted as a weapon against Trump.

Podesta literally committed the exact same offense as Manafort. But he was given a free pass, while Manafort was not. Mueller's team hasn't even tried to justify this glaring double standard.

No, I don't particularly care about Paul Manafort. But I do care about justice being applied evenly and fairly.

OK, preface (and I'm going to bold this so so maybe some people will read it):

Manafort is slimy as sin, and quite probably guilty of some tax finagling IMO. Rick Gates is a proven liar and an opportunist slimeball. Both probably should be in prison, or at least fined to crap and back. I hope both get justice.

Now, with that out of the way, this never was about Manafort. It's about Trump.

Robert Mueller was given the task, as Special Prosecutor, to investigate charges that members of the Trump campaign (preferably the Donald himself) had 'colluded' (not a crime) with the Russians (like Hillary did), or that Trump had somehow obstructed justice (which is a crime) by firing James Comey (which is his Constitutional authority and was supported by the DNC until Trump did it). That was his job. Instead, he decided to reopen an old FBI case against Paul Manafort. Why a Special Prosecutor was needed to handle an already-opened FBI case is something that still has not been explained, but it is what it is. I'd personally like to know why Manafort was not indicted way back then.

And this is not the first tangent path Mueller has taken. The raid on Michael Cohen, inspired by a 'tip' from Mueller, threats to go through private financial documents, his ongoing attempt to get Trump to sit down with an FBI investigator to get a perjury charge in the courts... there have been several.

I have been watching for daily news of the trial underway. I really don't care about the blow-by-blow accounts, but this is an interesting development that reinforces what I have believed for some time now. It's not about taxes. That's just an excuse. Yesterday Rick Gates, who apparently has been granted immunity from prosecution for his testimony, sang like a canary with a lit firecracker up the butt about a host of illegal activities. Today, his testimony is shot full of holes from getting him to perjure himself. OK, so Gates lied. Why? Because he wanted that immunity... d'oh!

But the fact that he got it, with testimony so riddled with holes, tells me that the prosecution is playing the frame game. Manafort could have been tried decades ago... why wait? Because Mueller wants something on Trump to charge him with. Truth doesn't seem to matter, as long as Mueller gets what he wants. So this was all a squeeze on Manafort to get him to lie on Trump, just like Gates was squeezed to get him to lie on Manafort. It is possible for a lie to be convincing enough to get a conviction... although it shouldn't be.

The sad, sad part of all of this is that one guilty person has already gotten immunity from prosecution (Gates) and another has certainly been offered such (Manafort) in order to obtain potentially false information on someone else (Trump) because Mueller apparently cannot find any illegalities without the testimony of coerced witnesses.

Will there ever again be justice in this country?

TheRedneck

a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

Podesta literally committed the exact same offense as Manafort. But he was given a free pass, while Manafort was not. Mueller's team hasn't even tried to justify this glaring double standard.

Exactly. But unlike Manafort, Podesta was "allowed" to amend his filings... after the fact.

Podesta Group files new disclosures in Manafort-linked Ukraine lobbying

Lobbying powerhouse the Podesta Group filed paperwork with the Justice Department today acknowledging that its work years ago for a European nonprofit benefited the same Ukrainian political party once advised by Paul Manafort, who later ran Donald Trump’s presidential campaign.

There is nothing fair or just or right about any of this.

a reply to: Annee

Wikipedia is a strongly leaning leftist organisation that allows groups and individuals to edit material on the various topics covered and often times are known to have approved factual information detrimental to political figures on the left to be removed from their biographies

a reply to: Annee

www.theguardian.com... the gaurdian article the ops article was citing.

“Did you submit personal expenses to the inaugural committee for reimbursement?” Downing asked. Gates answered: “I don’t recall. It’s possible.” Gates appeared nervous on the witness stand at the court in Alexandria, Virginia, blinking frequently, his throat apparently dry as he spoke. He frequently used the phrases “It’s possible” and “I don’t recall” as Downing challenged him about inconsistencies in testimony he gave to the special counsel’s office. “When did you start providing false and misleading information to the special counsel’s office?” the defence counsel asked bluntly. Gates struggled so badly to give a straight answer that eventually Judge T S Ellis III was forced to intervene. “Did you provide false information or did you have a bad memory?” he asked. Gates finally admitted that he had provided false information prior to striking a plea agreement. “I did, to one count, your honour,” he said. He has already admitted embezzling some funds from Manafort. Downing pressed him on the specifics of their business relationship: which payments to Gates were authorised and which were not. Regarding a trading company Manafort had started with a partner in 2011, he asked with deep scepticism: “You’re asking the jury to believe Mr Manafort authorised another $250,000 as a bonus?” Downing wondered aloud why Gates had shown “perfect recollection” during examination by the government but was now much less precise under cross-examination by Manafort’s defence. He challenged the witness: “Have they [the special counsel’s office] confronted you with so many lies you can’t remember any of it?”

Gates replied: “No.”

so it seems gates was not comfortable at trial like the gateway pundit said ,not a fan of them as a source my self but they usually do link to other news articles so things can be checked

a reply to: notsure1

Did the trial judge tell one of Mueller's attorneys to stop crying... get some Kleenex, wipe the tears out of his eyes and man up?

originally posted by: DJMSN
a reply to: Annee

Wikipedia is a strongly leaning leftist organisation that allows groups and individuals to edit material on the various topics covered and often times are known to have approved factual information detrimental to political figures on the left to be removed from their biographies

Many corporations and public figures pay someone to make sure their Wikipedia articles are complimentary toward them. There are PR firms that specialize in polishing one's online image.

You should use Wikipedia as a general introduction to a subject you are unfamiliar with. Do not rely on it or consider it authoritative, because that article is only as good as the last person who edited it.

a reply to: Boadicea

have to preface this by saying that there not be a tax on earned income to begin with, and therefore no tax fraud. So I have a much bigger problem with the income tax law than the tax "fraud."

There might be countries where people pay no income tax. The U.S. is not one of them, we do pay, and if we don't, it's a crime. It doesn't really matter whether we like it or not. If you dislike it as much as Manafort seems to have, you can go to prison.

Manafort is having a trial by Jury (supposedly a jury of his peers, but I doubt if there will be any Ukrainian Oligarchs included) so it will only be plain ole tax paying Americans returning a verdict.

We'll see what they think.