Guest views are now limited to 12 pages. If you get an "Error" message, just sign in! If you need to create an account, click here.

Jump to content
  • CRYPTO REWARDS!

    Full endorsement on this opportunity - but it's limited, so get in while you can!

Manafort


Recommended Posts

Somehow the Russian collusion investigation against Trump turned up tax evasion trial for Manafort who was his campaign director for several months.... This alleged crime happened in 2010..... 2010 was pre FATCA...... And that fact alone changes the landscape of the charges..... You might recall Mitt Romney also had as many as 22 shell companies in the Caribbean conducting his business to his advantage legally..... That was the nature of the loopholes in the tax code of America.... So we will see what the jury concludes in this matter...... I suspect they may decide today... and if he is found innocent then I would suspect George Papadopoulos ..... Will drop his immunity and plea deal and go to court with his situation as he is very likely to be found not guilty due to entrapment..... If this all happens.... the house of cards around the Mueller investigation should come toppling down...... But then if a frog had wings he wouldn't bump his a** every time he jumped.... You all enjoy your weekend.....CL

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 4
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kind of surprised to know none of our lefty representatives have commented on this...... Additionally I will say that the star witness for the prosecution, Mueller's team, was Rick Gates..... What a pathetic star witness..... He was the one who is guilty of the crime but yet was trying to get out of it by accepting immunity..... Now the jury is nervous because they have seen what has gone on with people from the left in conflict with people from the right...... Such as a the abuse Sarah Sanders took in the restaurant..... Among others...... So who knows what the verdict will be....... Either way there will probably be an appeal...... Because Gates was so pathetic the defense feels they can win without calling any defense witnesses...... Those possible appeal....if four f guilty....would involve the difference in the laws of 2010 pre fatca...... Which will clearly indicate that Manafort was not guilty of doing anything illegal by the 2010 laws that were in place...... That fact is the defenses Ace in the hole...... So time will tell but  I believe the house of cards is about to fall in on the Mueller investigation......JMO......CL

  • Thanks 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The indictment was designed to get Manafort to flip and get dirt on President Trump.  That’s why he was put in solitary confinement for 23 hours of the day.  All for tax fraud?!!!!!   It’s a bogus flimsy case that has absolutely nothing to do with Russian collusion.  Unfortunately Manafort will probably be found guilty on his tax garbage but I suspect President Trump cannot wait to pardon him just to rub Muellers nose in it.  

 

In in the meantime where in the hell is Jeff Sessions on the real Russian Collusion and the real obstruction charges against HRC, the FBI elites, and the DOJ.  

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 4
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

A little more........So many charges.....18.........multiple counts to each one........and the prosecution had a summary of the extensive evidence targeting each charge........but neglected to present it in the final summary..........so these non professional financial jurors are being asked to to do the impossible.......great job by the Mueller team....!

 

Of course if you throw enough spaghetti at the wall.....some of it is bound to stick....

 

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/8/19/17752532/paul-manafort-jury-decision-judge-ellis

 

8 experts on why the Paul Manafort jury doesn’t have a verdict yet — and what it might mean

“You could speculate that there’s some dynamic involving a holdout, but the better fit with the facts is that they’re just moving through methodically.”

By Emily Stewart  Aug 19, 2018, 2:20pm EDT
 

975252232.jpg.0.jpg Paul Manafort arriving at a Washington, DC court hearing in June 2018.  Photo by Mark Wilson/Getty Images

If it feels like the jury in Paul Mafort’s trial is taking forever to reach a verdict, actually, it’s not. This is how long you’d expect them to take, despite the defense’s claims that extended deliberations and the jury’s questions are a good sign.

 

Jurors headed home on Friday (they weren’t sequestered) without reaching a verdict after two days of deliberations, frustrating onlookers eager for answers in the highest-profile development yet in special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation. Manafort, the former campaign chairman for President Donald Trump, has been charged on 18 total counts. They include bank fraud, bank fraud conspiracy, false income tax returns, and failure to report foreign bank or financial assets, and has pleaded not guilty to all of them. Trump on Friday told reporters he believes the “whole Manafort trial is very sad.

 

Thus far, it’s been hard to glean what, if anything, is happening in jury deliberations. Even the names of the people deliberating are unknown: US District Court Judge TS Ellis III, who is overseeing the trial, on Friday expressed surprise that the case would “incite this emotion” and said he has received “threats” related to the case, expressing concern that something similar might happen to the jury if its members’ names are revealed.

 

Here’s what we do know: The jury asked Ellis four questions on their first day of discussions, and the judge answered two.

So as we wait, I asked eight lawyers what it might mean that the Manafort jurors are taking so long. Their answer, by in large, was that they aren’t.

 

“Probably means nothing,” Shira Scheindlin, former United States district judge in the Southern District of New York, told me. “Most juries are very meticulous. Bank fraud and tax fraud are complex statutes and involve unfamiliar concepts. They are not in the everyday experience of jurors.”

 

Jens David Ohlin, vice dean and law professor at Cornell Law School, said the jury continuing to deliberate likely means they’re not super close to a verdict — but he pointed out that there are a lot of charges against Manafort for him to just walk away. “Manafort was charged with multiple counts of multiple charges, thus increasing the mathemetical likelihood of a conviction on at least some counts,” he said.

 

And even if the jury deadlocks, that doesn’t mean that Manafort is off entirely. Rob Long, a former federal prosecutor, pointed out that certainly wasn’t the case for Bill Cosby, who was found guilty of sexual assault after his first trial ended in a mistrial. Manafort is on trial for other charges later this year, too.

 

In other words, don’t read too much into the jury taking its time on deliberations just yet. The full responses from Scheindlin, Ohlin, Long, and five other attorneys, edited for length and clarity, are below.

Michael Bromwich, former Justice Department inspector general

These deliberations have not been lengthy by any measure. No one should have expected a quick verdict.

The defense’s claim that the length of the deliberations is a good sign for them is pure spin; indeed, quick verdicts in complex cases are frequently for the defendant.

 

Jurors feel a high degree of responsibility in any case, and a heightened sense of responsibility in a high-profile case. The Oliver North case (1989) took a jury 12 days to deliberate in a case with 12 counts. The Scooter Libby case (2007) took 10 days of deliberations in a case with five counts. This case has 18 counts, supported largely by scores of documents. The judge prevented the prosecutors from showing some of the evidence to the jury during the trial, which means they are looking at some of it for the first time. They must carefully match the evidence with the counts before they can reach a judgment on any count. That’s what they are doing, and it is not at all surprising that this process will take some time.

Harry Litman, former US attorney for the Western District of Pennsylvania and former deputy assistant attorney general at the Justice Department

The most likely thing it means is that they’re going through the charges, which are paper-driven and require confirmation methodically. We know that’s happening, based on their questioning, and it’s the kind of the case that doing that would take three, four, five days anyway.

You could speculate that there’s some dynamic involving a holdout, but the better fit with the facts is that they’re just moving through methodically and this is how long it would take.

 

Then, there would be two kinds of holdouts: one would be a person or persons who are genuinely unpersuaded about one count or another, and then they’d talk it through, and they would take more time. Then there’s the possibility that people are now thinking about that there’s a classic holdout, somebody who for non-merits-driven reasons doesn’t want to convict, and that could emerge. But now there’s no particularly good proof of that. I think we just have a conscientious jury.

 

I think the decision not to sequester does seem more questionable in this last week, especially because the president of the United States is tweeting things about the trial and obviously advocating the cause of the defendant, which is mighty funky, and it’s certainly plausible that it could reach them.

 

Judge Ellis expressed a little bit of a surprise at the attention the trial was getting, and it seems like he made his decision thinking it would be a little less the subject of focus than it has been. It was a judgment call on his part, and it’s too late to change, but it’ll be interesting to see, for example, whether the jury in the next trial is sequestered.

Shira Scheindlin, former United States district judge in the Southern District of New York

Probably means nothing.

 

Most juries are very meticulous. Bank fraud and tax fraud are complex statutes and involve unfamiliar concepts. They are not in the everyday experience of jurors. On top of that is the applicability of these statutes to foreign bank accounts. The jurors’ questions merely show they are being careful and thorough.

 

Also, I don’t consider two days long for a three-week trial involving complicated financial issues. There has been no hint through notes of dissension among jurors or a possible impasse. I suggest patience is the best response.

Laura Appleman, law professor at Willamette University

First I would note that two days of deliberations isn’t really that long. I think that the American public has an unrealistic expectation, from all the depictions of criminal justice we get in the media, particularly television and movies, that every criminal adjudication, no matter how complex, can be decided in a short period of time. With something like the Manafort trial, which involves 18 counts related to tax fraud, bank fraud, money laundering, failure to register as a foreign agent, and obstruction of justice, it is likely taking the jury some time just to sort through the counts alone — 18 charges are a lot to bring to trial, and the jury must decide guilt or innocence on all 18.

 

In addition, the charges against Manafort are extremely complex; fraud, money-laundering, obstruction of justice all are complicated issues, even for experts. The jury must consider paper trails, international financial transactions, and reams of documents — this is not an open-and-shut case. Moreover, the jury pool is not comprised of experts in international finance, so it makes sense that the deliberations are a slow, painstaking process.

 

Finally, given that the jurors asked the judge to define “reasonable doubt” on Thursday, August 16, it is likely that they are deliberating — as all juries should — on whether the prosecutors have met their burden of proof. The reasonable doubt standard is notoriously vague, particularly for non-lawyers, and in a high-profile case like this, the jurors are particularly motivated to get it right.

Rob Long, partner at Bell Nunnally Attorneys & Counselors and former federal prosecutor at the Justice Department

Relatively speaking, the jury has not been deliberating that long, especially considering that this is a complicated white collar crime case. I think the jury understands that this is a significant matter. Jurors are doing their civic duty, taking the matter seriously, and carefully considering the evidence, including piles of documents and whether to believe the testimony of Rick Gates.

 

We can see just how carefully based on the questions they asked the judge on Thursday, August 16. Included in the questions was a question about the definition of “reasonable doubt.” Defense counsel have suggested that this is a good sign for Paul Manafort. In June 2017, a jury in the criminal trial of Bill Cosby (totally different type of criminal charges) asked the judge to clarify the definition of “reasonable doubt.” Ultimately, the jury in the June 2017 Cosby trial deadlocked and the judge declared a mistrial.

 

So the question about “reasonable doubt” could bode well for Manafort. It is worth noting, however, that after the June 2017 Cosby mistrial, he was subsequently convicted about a year later when the case was retried. The Manafort prosecution team may have a second bite at the apple — he is scheduled to go on trial on separate criminal charges in September. Prosecutors may also have a third bite at the apple if the Manafort jury in this case deadlocks and he is retried.

 

The odds are on the prosecutors’ side.

Patrick Cotter, former federal prosecutor and white-collar defense attorney at Greensfelder

First, it is not taking a long time. The case was large, over a dozen separate charges, hundreds of exhibits, about two hours of legal instructions and it took about three weeks to present the case. Three days is not a long deliberation in such a case.

 

I do not, therefore, think anything is going on other than normal deliberations, though perhaps the jury, not being completely oblivious to the attention being shown the case, is proceeding even more carefully than they might in a normal case where no one other than the parties pays attention. They realize that their decision will be publicly scrutinized, so they want to get it right.

The other possibility that might happen/be happening (though, again, I see no reason to presume this) is that one or more jurors is confused. But that too is normal. The financial fraud law is complicated and the facts in this case are not the sort of thing many/most people encounter in their everyday life.

 

Once they got by Friday (when many juries try to finish to avoid disrupting yet another week of their lives) I figured they would go at least two more days, and maybe a few more. That would not be odd since their week is already, in that sense, committed.

 

In sum, I see a fairly normal and unexceptionable deliberation so far. I expect a verdict this coming week of guilty on most if not all counts.

If they are still at it a week from this Monday, I will revise my opinion. Then they have an outlier who is probably refusing to vote just on the evidence and the law and they may then become “hung.”

Seth Abramson, lawyer and professor at New Hampshire University at Manchester

Because this is a “paper case” with a number of charges, complicated financial records, and a lay jury not selected for its understanding of international financial transactions, we would expect a medium-length to long deliberation process — at least a couple days — simply for the jurors to work through all the evidence and discuss each charge separately.

 

Quick verdicts are not generally associated with lengthy, document-heavy white-collar prosecutions. And if any or all of the jurors have a sense of the public interest in this case, they are likely to be even more careful and deliberative in their review of the evidence than usual.

 

In some cases, juries reach quick decisions on nearly all the charges but take a long time to decide what to do with a final charge or two that they think may not have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. We should not take anything about the current length of the deliberations to suggest that Manafort will or will not be convicted on all or most of the charges he faces.

 

The question from the jury about the definition of reasonable doubt is also not particularly unusual. Jurors often discuss in broad terms the question of what doubt should be considered reasonable, and as they do so they may come to realize they have different understandings of the phrase “beyond a reasonable doubt.” In those situations, they may ask for the judge’s assistance to resolve any disagreement between individual jurors on how to exercise their duties and understand the standard of proof they’ve been asked to work with.

Jens David Ohlin, vice dean and law professor at Cornell Law School

The questions from the jury indicate that they are being diligent in their deliberations —thinking seriously about the evidence, about the elements of the offenses, and the standard of proof. I’m not surprised that the judge was unwilling to give them more direction on the concept of “reasonable doubt,” since any explanation runs the risk of changing, rather than elaborating, the reasonable doubt standard.

 

I suspect that the jury is not close to a resolution, otherwise they would have wrapped up their deliberations before the weekend. In one sense this is bad news for the prosecution because they would have preferred a quick conviction — agreement between all of the jurors that the prosecution presented an overwhelming case. But the lack of a quick verdict doesn’t signal which way they’ll ultimately go.

However, it is important to remember one thing: Manafort was charged with multiple counts of multiple charges, thus increasing the mathematical likelihood of a conviction on at least some counts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/17/2018 at 6:26 PM, Pitcher said:

The indictment was designed to get Manafort to flip and get dirt on President Trump.  That’s why he was put in solitary confinement for 23 hours of the day.  All for tax fraud?!!!!!   It’s a bogus flimsy case that has absolutely nothing to do with Russian collusion.  Unfortunately Manafort will probably be found guilty on his tax garbage but I suspect President Trump cannot wait to pardon him just to rub Muellers nose in it.  

 

In in the meantime where in the hell is Jeff Sessions on the real Russian Collusion and the real obstruction charges against HRC, the FBI elites, and the DOJ.  

Way past time Jeff sessions out. NOW. 

  • Thanks 2
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mueller has nothing and all he is doing is looking for anything what so ever to cause POTUS Trump issues and nothing is working. He Indicted 12 or 13 Russians thinking they would never appear in court and guess what.....They did and wanted the move forward..

 

Mueller again had nothing and wanted the judge to give him more time.......Time for what, write another Fake Dossier to make them out to be Guilty.....

 

If the liberals had to write the check for this Witch Hunt that is going no place it would have never even made it a month......But the American Tax Payers are funding it so it can go on a couple more years until time has past to tie Hillarious to her Illegal Doings and no way the American People Ever See Justice and them behind Bars.

 

Karsten

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 3
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trump will pardon Manaforte immediately , if he is found guilty ! He will not let the wolf's have their feast ! This is now our Armageddon and when the battlefield is knee deep in blood and the currupt SOB's have drawn their last breath , then can we give tribute to our maker ! They are barking up the wrong tree LOL .....the wolf's lamb skin has broken ! Their staff is not working anymore ! Their bite is less than a flee on an elephant ! The next elections are crucial....the one after that is monumental ! God bless America ! 

  • Thanks 4
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The left really seems to be desperate for some kind justification for the Mueller adventure....hard to believe they would go so low as to try to intimidate the jurors.....but apparently so.....CNN sueing for the names and addresses of these jurors...so they can put them out to the public.....a new low for CNN.....imagine if you were on that jury!

https://thefederalist.com/2018/08/17/cnn-just-sued-government-get-names-addresses-manafort-jurors/

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, coorslite21 said:

The left really seems to be desperate for some kind justification for the Mueller adventure....hard to believe they would go so low as to try to intimidate the jurors.....but apparently so.....CNN sueing for the names and addresses of these jurors...so they can put them out to the public.....a new low for CNN.....imagine if you were on that jury!

https://thefederalist.com/2018/08/17/cnn-just-sued-government-get-names-addresses-manafort-jurors/

 

The left seems to think Privacy is only a Right that they have coming.......look how many times CCW Permit holders addresses and personal information  have been posted so.....Once by a liberal sheriff somewhere back east.

 

Look what happens to people that work for POTUS Trump when they go out to eat.......Harassed until they are forced to leave and even then followed and shouted down and threatened with violence .....For some reason after 8 years of feeling entitled and empowered under the last administration they still feel the Rule of Law has no bearing on anything they do. They also feel there should be no consequences for any of their actions no match how violent, deadly or destructive it make be. 

 

Karsten

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Manafort found guilty on 8 counts in tax fraud trial

After nearly four days of deliberation, a jury found former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort guilty on eight counts of financial crimes, marking the first major prosecution won by special counsel Robert Mueller in his investigation of Russian meddling during the 2016 election.

Manafort was found guilty on the eight counts of the special counsel’s 18-count indictment. Each count carries a hefty prison term – when combined, he is facing a maximum of 80 years in prison, but at sentencing the total will likely be less. The federal judge declared a mistrial in the other ten counts after jurors could not reach consensus.

Special counsel Robert Mueller and his team of prosecutors secured an 18-count indictment on tax- and bank-fraud charges against Manafort in February. At trial, the special counsel rested its case after parading more than two dozen accountants and associates of Manafort over the course of two weeks, painting the longtime Republican operative as a man who shielded millions of dollars from American authorities in order to fund his lavish lifestyle.

PHOTO: Paul Manafort departs federal court in Washington D.C., Dec. 11, 2017. Robert Mueller departs the Capitol after a closed-door meeting with members of the Senate Judiciary Committee about Russian meddling in the election, June 21, 2017. (AP)

During one of the most dramatic portions of the trial, defense attorneys representing Manafort sought to shift blame onto Manafort’s long-time business partner and Trump campaign deputy manager, Rick Gates. During his testimony, Gates admitted to stealing from Manafort and using that money to finance at least one extramarital affair.

Last Tuesday, Manafort’s attorneys rested their case, electing not to call any witnesses or mount a defense.

In closing arguments on Wednesday, prosecutors slammed Manafort as a liar and a schemer. "When you follow the trail of Mr. Manafort's money, it's littered with lies,” special counsel prosecutor Greg Andres said, telling jurors that Manafort is “not above the law.”

MORE: With closing arguments wrapped, Manafort case goes to jury

PHOTO: This courtroom sketch depicts Rick Gates, right, testifying during questioning by prosecutor Greg Andres, standing at left, as Manafort's trial continues at federal court in Alexandria, Va., Aug. 7, 2018. (Dana Verkouteren via AP)

"He lied to his tax preparers, he lied to his bookkeeper, because he wanted to hide that money and avoid paying taxes," Andres added, emphasizing the mountain of documents presented to jurors – not the witnesses – as evidence of Manafort’s guilt.

Defense counsel disagreed. Attorneys Richard Westling and Kevin Downing sought to point the finger at Gates, who they say was the mastermind behind Manafort’s legal woes, making the case to jurors that prosecutors failed to meet the burden of proof in charging Manafort with all these crimes.

MORE: Manafort trial, first in Mueller investigation, gets underway

Having been found guilty, Manafort, 69, faces the possibility of serving the rest of his life in prison. Manafort will be the second figure in Mueller’s investigation to serve a prison sentence. Dutch lawyer Alex van der Zwaan pleaded guilty to lying to federal investigators in April and served a 30-day prison term.

This past Friday, President Donald Trump expressed sympathy for his former campaign chairman, who he called a “good person,” telling reporters gathered at the White House that “it’s very sad what they’ve done to Paul Manafort.” Asked whether he will pardon Manafort, Trump declined to answer.

Manafort faces another trial brought by the special counsel next month in Washington, D.C., where Manafort has been charged with obstruction of justice, conspiracy, and foreign lobbying violations.

 

 

Is this an example of hiring the best? Well at least he will get out quick when our honest and forthright president gives him a pardon. Just like other presidents left or right who pardon their criminal buddies... What a disgrace our system has become.

B/A

  • Thanks 2
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, coorslite21 said:

 

 

Thank you Coorslite21, for putting into words everything I didn't know exactly how to say.

I've been watching CNN for more than an hour, for the express purpose of hearing what they have to say about the illegal alien who killed Molly Tibbetts.

Not a word, so far, about it.

Only talk of Cohen, Manafort, and how the President is really in trouble now.  Gotcha, this time Trump!  Over and over, that's all they talk about.

Hillarious Clinton?  She's innocent of everything, of course!

I will continue to watch tonight to see how long it takes them to mention Molly Tibbetts and how she wouldn't have died if if wasn't for an illegal alien.

Same as Kate Steinle.

Meanwhile, my blood is boiling.

I don't understand the liberal media at all - open borders, let them all in, more votes for us.

What a bunch of morons!

Edited by Floridian
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a little truth to throw on the insane liberals

 

 

TWPundit

FollowingFollowing @TWPundit

More

BREAKING NEWS: Paul Manafort found guilty on 8 Counts of Fraud,

committed during his time working for the Hillarious Clinton’s campaign manager’s company, The Podesta Group.

 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ladyGrace'sDaddy said:

Here's a little truth to throw on the insane liberals

 

 

TWPundit

FollowingFollowing @TWPundit

 

More

BREAKING NEWS: Paul Manafort found guilty on 8 Counts of Fraud,

committed during his time working for the Hillarious Clinton’s campaign manager’s company, The Podesta Group.

 

 

Now, Now, LadyGrace'sDaddy, THIS is the TRUTH behind all the REAL "National Disgrace!!" that the Liberals are sooooooooo concerned about since their flippin' the script ain't workin' to protect Hilly, Billy (goat), and their accomplices from being actually found out for their crimes and drained as part of the swamp and will become post swamp berserkers!!!

 

 

"Leave HER alone, PLEASE!!!

 

What will happen when it all comes crashin' down on Hilly and what will Hilly's supporters doooooooooooooo???!!!

 

Are THEY REALLY saying.........................................

 

 

So the opening line goes....................................

 

I met a devil woman
She took my heart away
She said, I've had it comin' to me
But I wanted it that way

 

SAY WHAT???!!!

 

THEY wanted it THAT way???!!!

 

Well, OK, Bring It ON AND Come And Take It!!!

 

image.png.c499e6e75ab6eb9aa6bbf0b8962c2455.png

 

We Are READAE'!!! Oh, Yeah, You Ain't seen Nothin' Yet but it ain't no STINKIN' Devil Woman AND it ain't HER kind of LOVIN'!!!

 

Yeah, the Liberals supporting Hilly, Billy (goat), and their accomplices can't Come And Take Faith In Free Enterprise, Faith In The Resourcefulness Of The AMERICAN PEOPLE, AND Faith in The US Economy 'cause to those LIBERAL Critics who are sooooooooooo pessimistic about our economy (in the very words of Arnold Schwarzenegger):

 

DON'T BE ECONOMIC GIRLIE MEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

 

Oh, Yeah, the "Come And Take It" crowd ain't no stinkin' Girlie Men!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, ladyGrace'sDaddy said:

Here's a little truth to throw on the insane liberals

 

 

TWPundit

FollowingFollowing @TWPundit

 

More

BREAKING NEWS: Paul Manafort found guilty on 8 Counts of Fraud,

committed during his time working for the Hillarious Clinton’s campaign manager’s company, The Podesta Group.

 

Didn't hear this in the news. Is this true.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BREAKINGNEWS: Paul Manafort found guiltyon 8 Counts of Fraud,

committed during his time working for the Hillarious Clinton’s campaign manager’s company, The Podesta Group.

 

Didn't hear this in the news. Is this true.

 

BUMP

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, ladyGrace'sDaddy said:

Here's a little truth to throw on the insane liberals

 

 

TWPundit

FollowingFollowing @TWPundit

 

More

BREAKING NEWS: Paul Manafort found guilty on 8 Counts of Fraud,

committed during his time working for the Hillarious Clinton’s campaign manager’s company, The Podesta Group.

 

I could not find this on the website as posted; TWpundit. Any ideas  ladyGrace'sDaddy

 

OK, ffound it. Thanks. 

 

 

  1.  Pinned Tweet

    Actor Robert de Niro has been linked to child trafficking rings, according to court records.

    497 replies4,386 retweets4,736 likes
    Reply
     497
     
    Retweet
     4.4K
     
     
    Like
     4.7K
  2. .@Ocasio2018 On Socialism.

    DlNRpBZXcAA48hG.jpg
    1 reply12 retweets37 likes
    Reply
     1
     
    Retweet
     12
     
     
    Like
     37
  3. Liar. He does not hate Muslims. He hates radical Islam. I’m a Muslim and your leftist propaganda is fake news.

    0 replies5 retweets17 likes
    Reply
     
     
    Retweet
     5
     
     
    Like
     17
  4. BREAKING NEWS: Paul Manafort found guilty on 8 Counts of Fraud, committed during his time working for the Hillarious Clinton’s campaign manager’s company, The Podesta Group.

    DlJ74CuW4AAEk9u.jpg
    63 replies1,068 retweets1,328 likes
    Reply
     63
     
    Retweet
     1.1K
     
     
    Like
     1.3K
  5. Replying to @Johnnyira @Ocasio2018

    Evidence? This? For what? Did you not study this case? He’s in trouble for his work with the Podesta Group which was owned by Hillarious CLINTON’s campaign manager. If anything, this is evidence that she’s UNFIT FOR OFFICE!!!

    0 replies7 retweets13 likes
    Reply
     
     
    Retweet
     7
     
     
    Like
     13
  6. Replying to @Ocasio2018

    Tell the whole story. He was found guilty on 8 charges of fraud during his time with the Podesta Group. These crimes were ordered by the Podestas. They received immunity by Mueller. This group was owned by Hillarious Clinton’s CAMPAIGN MANAGER!!! Tying this to Trump is FAKE NEWS

    1 reply22 retweets32 likes
    Reply
     1
     
    Retweet
     22
     
     
    Like
     32
  7. What the Murder of Mollie Tibbetts by Illegal Alien Reveals About our Broken Border Policies

    0 replies21 retweets50 likes
    Reply
     
     
    Retweet
     21
     
     
    Like
     50
  8. The Man Behind the Social Media Censorship has been Revealed

    5 replies31 retweets48 likes
    Reply
     5
     
    Retweet
     31
     
     
    Like
     48
  9.  

    Imran Awan receives no prison time after being found guilty of fraud by an Obama judge. Paul Manafort faces up to 80 years in prison after being found guilty for fraud. His judge is also an Obama judge. Let’s see if he receives the same treatment.

Edited by jg1
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


  • Testing the Rocker Badge!

  • Live Exchange Rate

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.