When I was a very young reporter, I occasionally covered sentencings at the US District Court of the Eastern District of Virginia, where yesterday Judge Ellis gave a derisory sentence to Paul Manafort, saying that he had led "a blameless life." (This sentence was in Alexandria; I reported from the courthouse in Norfolk.)
Lying, cheating, stealing, supporting murderous dictators, subverting democracy and that sort of stuff. Some judges find some things easy to overlook.
The judge in my day in the Eastern District was "20 years Kellam" who I believe was the last Federal judge to be appointed who had not attended law school. He was a small-town banker and political power broker who was appointed by Kennedy as a political payoff, one of the numerous reasons that I have never worshiped at the cathedral in Camelot.
Judges have their predilictions. Just as Ellis has a soft spot in his heart for decrepit tax frauds, Kellum had a hard spot in his heart for anyone who would rob a bank. He was limited to 20 years for a bank robbery, so that's what he gave out.
It is said the mills of the gods grind slowly yet they grind exceeding fine. Nowadays the gods can dial in a coarser setting and so they do.
Manafort's sentence was rather less than what guys in hoodies get for robbing a 7-Eleven where the typical take is a couple hundred bucks. I do not want to minimize the heinousness of robbing 7-Elevens with a firearm where minimum wage clerks end up getting shot because of our worship of guns.
On the other hand, Manafort stole somewhere in eight figures. To get that much, the guy in the hoodie would have to knock over upwards of 100,000 7-Elevens.
On the other hand, Manafort stole somewhere in eight figures.
ReplyDeleteNo, he didn't.
He was convicted on two counts of bank fraud, five counts of tax fraud and one count of failing to declare a foreign bank account.
The bank fraud consisted of lying about his income. I didn't see any indication he has failed to pay back loans.
You must have been a hell of a journalist, Harry.
Do you read the articles you cite? The one above notes bank fraud, etc. on the order of millions of dollars (e.g. to support the lifestyle to which he had become accustomed). You have to be rather willful to ignore that.
DeleteYes, M, I read the articles I cite. Did you read my comment?
DeleteLet me help here: the bank fraud was lying about his assets to get a loan. There is no indication he failed to pay that loan back.
It's very good to know that, by the letter of the law, in your interpretation, grand larceny is completely forgiven so long as you eventually return the goods. I was unaware of that facet of the law.
Delete25 millions have eight figures. Making Harry completely right.
ReplyDeleteCan't do math anymore, Skipper?
"Judge T.S. Ellis ordered Manafort to pay restitution of $6M-$25M, and undergo three years of supervised release after his nearly four years in jail."
https://deadline.com/2019/03/paul-manafort-sentenced-47-months-tax-evasion-bank-fraud-virginia-court-1202571595/
I don't expect he will pay much, if anything, and he gets to keep 2 houses.
ReplyDeleteTrump feels very badly about Manafort, making Manafort the only big-time tax cheat Trump does not feel good about
“25 millions have eight figures. Making Harry completely right.”
ReplyDeleteNo, it doesn’t. Harry said he stole in the neighborhood of 8 figures. That is not true.
"Judge T.S. Ellis ordered Manafort to pay restitution of $6M-$25M"
DeletePlease Skipper, explain to me the legal concept of restitution in your codes.
“I don't expect he will pay much ...”
ReplyDeleteWhat does he owe, Harry?
More than $6 mil, not counting the 10 mil (plus interest?) he owes Derepaska.
ReplyDeleteI have no particular opinion about what absolute amount of time he should have gotten, but relatively, considering the number of his crimes, the long period over which he committed them, the large amount he stole, the fact that he continued to commit crimes after he was convicted, his lack of remorse and the fact that he is (or was) an officer of the court, it seems he should have gotten one of the longest sentences Ellis ever gave a non-violent criminal.
I have some experience of observing retired federal judges on senior status, and they are a cantankerous, outspoken and opinionated lot. Ellis is all that, and his comments were inaccurate, intemperate and indicative of political bias.
Tax evasion is theft
ReplyDelete[Harry:] On the other hand, Manafort stole somewhere in eight figures.
ReplyDelete...
[Harry:] Tax evasion is theft.
Thanks for the tax code update, Harry. But that isn't the point -- you asserted "Manafort stole somewhere in the eight figures."
He did not.
Oh, by the way, you seem to have forgotten that the DOJ in 2013 decided not to prosecute Manafort. What changed since then?
Understand: Paul Manafort would never have been prosecuted if he had not joined Donald Trump’s campaign. He would not have been prosecuted if Hillary Clinton had won the 2016 election and spared Democrats the need to conjure up a reason to explain their defeat — something other than nominating a lousy candidate who stopped campaigning too early.
By all means, read the whole story. Caution: contains actual facts.
Avoids one actual fact: Ellis forbade any introduction of evidence about the Russia connection. So your argument is circular.
ReplyDeleteYour rightwing kook source also evades the actual crimes for which Manafort was either convicted by a jury or admitted guilt:
tax evasion, money laundering etc.
The reason those were not prosecuted in 2013 is that no one had gotten Manafort's financial records then.
We already know that Manafort and the Trumps colluded with the Russians. They've admitted that much, once they were caught out. What the public does not know is the full extent of the trickery.
[Harry:] Avoids one actual fact:
ReplyDeleteThe fact you are avoiding is that he didn't steal eight figures worth.
We already know that Manafort and the Trumps colluded with the Russians.
No, we don't. In fact, it is near as dammit to certain that Mueller's report will show no collusion at all.
Here is something we do, know, though: epic political corruption in the FBI, including subverting the FISA court.
Funny, you never mention that.
Your rightwing kook source also evades the actual crimes ...
No, he didn't. That wasn't the point of the article.
Judge Jackson cut the spine out of your kooky publicist like a horse mackerel being set out in the hot sun to shrivel into cat food, didn't she?
ReplyDeleteHarry, why do you keep missing the point?
ReplyDeleteI'm not defending Manafort, but rather criticizing your very casual relationship with facts.
Then why do you post misleading srticles defending Manafort?
ReplyDeleteHarry, it wasn't a misleading article. It was addressed at very specific points about what he had actually done, vs. what the Russian collusion suckers insist he had done. Also, it notes that the only reason he was prosecuted was his association with the Trump campaign.
ReplyDeleteDo you deny either of those assertions is true?
Better yet, how about showing us exactly how that article was misleading.
Then, speaking of misleading, how about re-addressing your assertion he had stolen in the 8-digits.
Judge Jackson did it for you.
ReplyDeleteWhat Manafort is actually being sentenced for:
ReplyDeleteThe charges against Manafort in Virginia were in two parts. First, they alleged that in the years before he joined the Trump campaign, he’d gotten paid millions for his work for Ukrainian politicians. The, he moved $30 million of that money from foreign shell companies into the US — but he didn’t disclose this income on his tax forms, pay taxes on it, or fill out legally required disclosures of his foreign accounts. For all this, he was convicted on five tax charges and one failure to declare foreign accounts charge.
Second, Mueller’s team focused on what Manafort allegedly did once he lost his Ukrainian income after the country’s president was deposed. They claimed he tried to conjure up more cash via bank fraud — and was convicted on two counts for that.
Then in the District of Columbia, Manafort eventually pleaded guilty to a broad “conspiracy against the United States” — in which he admitted unregistered lobbying and money laundering related to the Ukraine work — as well as “conspiracy to obstruct justice” (his attempts to get witnesses to stick to a false story about that work). He also admitted to the truth of all the Virginia charges filed against him.
Finally, Jackson assessed Mueller’s accusations that Manafort lied during cooperation. She ruled that Manafort did indeed deliberately lie about a $125,000 payment made on his behalf, about his contacts with Konstantin Kilimnik (his longtime Russian associate), and about another Justice Department investigation.
Looking really hard for where he stole eight figures. Can't find it.
I'm sure you can help.