(10-30-2017 04:09 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-30-2017 02:29 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-30-2017 02:16 PM)No Bull Wrote:  

(10-30-2017 01:59 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-30-2017 01:55 PM)No Bull Wrote:  Manaforts crimes pre date Trump... However, the Podesta Group was active during Hillary Rodham Clintons stint in the Obama..
administration....

Again, Basically NO ONE here is defending Podesta or Hillary. Jumping up and down because their side was just as swampy does nothing to help your cause.

Not to mention, this is more than likely just the beginning. And you're not even giving an ounce of thought to Papa George saying he was guilty.

Stay tuned.

I will stay tuned... since Hillary and Podesta kicked off the dossier...I believe it to be very relevant...

anyone and everyone who clollu8ded with the Russians should be indicted... that includes both Obama and Trump...and any of there evil minions...

The dossier has nothing to do with Russian collusion! The guy as a former British spy. He was not an agent of or in anyway affiliated with the Russian government!

He paid Russians to get his fictional info. Or have you not been paying attention?

Source?

(11-01-2017 07:46 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  Seems like the whole case revolved around Mueller proving they laundered money into the US (since it isn't a crime to make money overseas and keep it there), and failure to register as a foreign agent (which I've heard is hardly ever prosecuted).

Papa's case is just a process crime, lying about when something happened.

Pretty damn weak looking to me.

Simply "laundering money" isn't illegal. It has to be in connection with a crime. I don't know how it passes the laugh test to believe he used a bunch of shell companies to avoid registering as a foreign agent when everyone knew he was working for the Ukrainian politician and nobody ever gets prosecuted for failing to register.

So that part is a REALLY weak case and makes it look like Mueller is simply trying to justify his existence.

There are only two logical reasons he could be doing all that manipulation: 1) laundering illegal money such as money from the drug trade or bribery-and there have been no allegations of that yet; or 2) trying to avoid taxes. Now you can do these things to legally avoid taxes. But it could also be an illegal way to hide income. That's where he has the potential to really nail Manafort. But we don't have enough information to know how strong the tax evasion charge is.

(11-01-2017 09:46 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-01-2017 07:46 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  Seems like the whole case revolved around Mueller proving they laundered money into the US (since it isn't a crime to make money overseas and keep it there), and failure to register as a foreign agent (which I've heard is hardly ever prosecuted).

Papa's case is just a process crime, lying about when something happened.

Pretty damn weak looking to me.

Simply "laundering money" isn't illegal. It has to be in connection with a crime. I don't know how it passes the laugh test to believe he used a bunch of shell companies to avoid registering as a foreign agent when everyone knew he was working for the Ukrainian politician and nobody ever gets prosecuted for failing to register.

So that part is a REALLY weak case and makes it look like Mueller is simply trying to justify his existence.

There are only two logical reasons he could be doing all that manipulation: 1) laundering illegal money such as money from the drug trade or bribery-and there have been no allegations of that yet; or 2) trying to avoid taxes. Now you can do these things to legally avoid taxes. But it could also be an illegal way to hide income. That's where he has the potential to really nail Manafort. But we don't have enough information to know how strong the tax evasion charge is.

It's in regards to how he got the money back into the US. I believe the charge is that he used the shell companies to launder the money so that he could avoid taxes on funds earned overseas and brought into the US, but I'm not sure. That's where the conspiracy and tax charges come from.

(11-01-2017 09:48 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(11-01-2017 09:46 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-01-2017 07:46 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  Seems like the whole case revolved around Mueller proving they laundered money into the US (since it isn't a crime to make money overseas and keep it there), and failure to register as a foreign agent (which I've heard is hardly ever prosecuted).

Papa's case is just a process crime, lying about when something happened.

Pretty damn weak looking to me.

Simply "laundering money" isn't illegal. It has to be in connection with a crime. I don't know how it passes the laugh test to believe he used a bunch of shell companies to avoid registering as a foreign agent when everyone knew he was working for the Ukrainian politician and nobody ever gets prosecuted for failing to register.

So that part is a REALLY weak case and makes it look like Mueller is simply trying to justify his existence.

There are only two logical reasons he could be doing all that manipulation: 1) laundering illegal money such as money from the drug trade or bribery-and there have been no allegations of that yet; or 2) trying to avoid taxes. Now you can do these things to legally avoid taxes. But it could also be an illegal way to hide income. That's where he has the potential to really nail Manafort. But we don't have enough information to know how strong the tax evasion charge is.

It's in regards to how he got the money back into the US. I believe the charge is that he used the shell companies to launder the money so that he could avoid taxes on funds earned overseas and brought into the US, but I'm not sure. That's where the conspiracy and tax charges come from.

He also failed to mark the box on his signed tax return that he held interest in foreign accounts...and he likely didn't file other forms to indicate his foreign holdings.

His only real defense will likely be if his accountant was stupid enough to not ask him the question as to whether he had foreign activity and then marked the box that he didn't anyway. Any decent accountant will have covered his bases on this. If they don't they get into serious trouble and can lose their ability to prepare returns, and therefore their livelihood.

(11-01-2017 09:53 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(11-01-2017 09:48 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(11-01-2017 09:46 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-01-2017 07:46 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  Seems like the whole case revolved around Mueller proving they laundered money into the US (since it isn't a crime to make money overseas and keep it there), and failure to register as a foreign agent (which I've heard is hardly ever prosecuted).

Papa's case is just a process crime, lying about when something happened.

Pretty damn weak looking to me.

Simply "laundering money" isn't illegal. It has to be in connection with a crime. I don't know how it passes the laugh test to believe he used a bunch of shell companies to avoid registering as a foreign agent when everyone knew he was working for the Ukrainian politician and nobody ever gets prosecuted for failing to register.

So that part is a REALLY weak case and makes it look like Mueller is simply trying to justify his existence.

There are only two logical reasons he could be doing all that manipulation: 1) laundering illegal money such as money from the drug trade or bribery-and there have been no allegations of that yet; or 2) trying to avoid taxes. Now you can do these things to legally avoid taxes. But it could also be an illegal way to hide income. That's where he has the potential to really nail Manafort. But we don't have enough information to know how strong the tax evasion charge is.

It's in regards to how he got the money back into the US. I believe the charge is that he used the shell companies to launder the money so that he could avoid taxes on funds earned overseas and brought into the US, but I'm not sure. That's where the conspiracy and tax charges come from.

He also failed to mark the box on his signed tax return that he held interest in foreign accounts...and he likely didn't file other forms to indicate his foreign holdings.

His only real defense will likely be if his accountant was stupid enough to not ask him the question as to whether he had foreign activity and then marked the box that he didn't anyway. Any decent accountant will have covered his bases on this. If they don't they get into serious trouble and can lose their ability to prepare returns, and therefore their livelihood.

Well that gets into legal definitions of whether he had a "financial interest." Now he could be arrogant enough to think he could get away with things. See Hillary Clinton. When I read about the things people in DC do I'm beginning to think intelligent people don't go to DC. But it would seem like he was intelligent enough to at least get a defensible reason for not checking it from discussion with his accountant, even if not a strong one.

(11-01-2017 10:13 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-01-2017 09:53 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(11-01-2017 09:48 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(11-01-2017 09:46 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-01-2017 07:46 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  Seems like the whole case revolved around Mueller proving they laundered money into the US (since it isn't a crime to make money overseas and keep it there), and failure to register as a foreign agent (which I've heard is hardly ever prosecuted).

Papa's case is just a process crime, lying about when something happened.

Pretty damn weak looking to me.

Simply "laundering money" isn't illegal. It has to be in connection with a crime. I don't know how it passes the laugh test to believe he used a bunch of shell companies to avoid registering as a foreign agent when everyone knew he was working for the Ukrainian politician and nobody ever gets prosecuted for failing to register.

So that part is a REALLY weak case and makes it look like Mueller is simply trying to justify his existence.

There are only two logical reasons he could be doing all that manipulation: 1) laundering illegal money such as money from the drug trade or bribery-and there have been no allegations of that yet; or 2) trying to avoid taxes. Now you can do these things to legally avoid taxes. But it could also be an illegal way to hide income. That's where he has the potential to really nail Manafort. But we don't have enough information to know how strong the tax evasion charge is.

It's in regards to how he got the money back into the US. I believe the charge is that he used the shell companies to launder the money so that he could avoid taxes on funds earned overseas and brought into the US, but I'm not sure. That's where the conspiracy and tax charges come from.

He also failed to mark the box on his signed tax return that he held interest in foreign accounts...and he likely didn't file other forms to indicate his foreign holdings.

His only real defense will likely be if his accountant was stupid enough to not ask him the question as to whether he had foreign activity and then marked the box that he didn't anyway. Any decent accountant will have covered his bases on this. If they don't they get into serious trouble and can lose their ability to prepare returns, and therefore their livelihood.

Well that gets into legal definitions of whether he had a "financial interest." Now he could be arrogant enough to think he could get away with things. See Hillary Clinton. When I read about the things people in DC do I'm beginning to think intelligent people don't go to DC. But it would seem like he was intelligent enough to at least get a defensible reason for not checking it from discussion with his accountant, even if not a strong one.

But it's way more straight forward that. There is really no room for variance here.

Quote:Schedule B - Part III - Question 7a
At any time during 2016, did you have a financial interest in or signature authority over a financial account (such as a bank account, securities account, or brokerage account) located in a foreign country?