Bolow posted:

Solaris 2.0 posted:

It's amazing how you can make so much money off of white fragility. Can't wait to see what white people do when all of Bangladesh is underwater from climate change and 163 million brown people look for a new home!

crazyivan45 posted:

I thought this administration already had one case hosed up as Donnie’s tweets were seen as UCI? Was it the Bergdahl trial?

Solaris 2.0 posted:

lol it's like a mini-version of Brexit. Stir up the anti-brown sentiment to the point where actual laws are passed, but end up loving over the towns long term with legal fees, litgation, loss productivity, ect. Meanwhile the people pushing the new policy take their money and run. Just like Brexit!

It's amazing how you can make so much money off of white fragility. Can't wait to see what white people do when all of Bangladesh is underwater from climate change and 163 million brown people look for a new home!

crazyivan45 posted:

I thought this administration already had one case hosed up as Donnie’s tweets were seen as UCI? Was it the Bergdahl trial?

sharknado slashfic posted:

Trial going well so far

sharknado slashfic posted:

Trial going well so far

hobbesmaster posted:

Yes.


I mean to be fair this is all completely irrelevant to the question of whether the money was legitimate and whether he paid his taxes on it. It makes me fear that the prosecutors aren't playing this well and we'll end up with a Bundy like jury nullification.

As Nero Danced posted:

I assume (hope) they're showing that he had X amount of money on his tax returns while he was spending even more in a given year.

hobbesmaster posted:

Yes.

quote:

As the second day of Manafort's trial got underway Wednesday, U.S. District Court Judge T.S. Ellis III indicated he was worried that referring to the businessmen who funded Manafort's political work in Ukraine as "oligarchs" had the tendency to suggest that the defendant was engaged in shady and unsavory work.

"We're not going to have a case tried that he associated with despicable people and, therefore, he's despicable," the judge declared during an exchange before jurors were brought into the courtroom. "That's not the American way."

"Oligarchy is just despotic power exercised by a privileged few," Ellis observed. "Principals of high schools are oligarchs in that sense. What I want to avoid ... is how you use the term oligarch to mean he was consulting and being paid by people [who] are criminals. Of course, there will be no evidence about that."

Ellis said that if the term simply meant a wealthy person, it might not be objectionable. "Well, Mr. Soros would be an oligarch by that definition, and so would Mr. Koch, but we wouldn't call them that," the judge said, referring to politically active American billionaires George Soros and, apparently, to either Charles or David Koch, or perhaps both.

"The word 'oligarch' has come to have a pejorative meaning about which there will be no evidence in this trial," the judge said.

Prosecutor Greg Andres rose to object to the government being prevented from using the term.

"We don't call American businessmen oligarchs. Ukrainian businessmen are referred to as oligarchs. Those are the facts," Andres said.

Ellis interrupted to disagree. "Those are not the facts of this case," he snapped, saying that any witnesses using the term would be offering an opinion.

sharknado slashfic posted:

From what I briefly read I think that was the intent, yeah. Some guy said it so I assume it's true:

https://twitter.com/Ugarles/status/1024726046493630465

hobbesmaster posted:

They need receipts or something else to prove what they cost and more importantly when.

WAR CRIME SYNDICAT posted:

I think showing his lavish lifestyle would be a good way to show that he would be easily caught up in ways to make more money. Sort of like lots of debt will make you lose a clearance because they assume you'll be more easily swayed to give up secrets for money.

quote:

"We don't call American businessmen oligarchs. Ukrainian businessmen are referred to as oligarchs. Those are the facts," Andres said.

Ellis interrupted to disagree. "Those are not the facts of this case," he snapped, saying that any witnesses using the term would be offering an opinion.

Laranzu posted:

Don't loving blow this, Justice department

mlmp08 posted:

https://twitter.com/morninggloria/status/1024716155913613313?s=21

Fallom posted:

This is also the same judge that pressed the prosecution hard on why Manafort ought to be in jail pre-trial and had everybody wondering if he was a Trump plant. Seems like he’s just trying to make sure the prosecution’s argument is iron tight.

Fallom posted:

This is also the same judge that pressed the prosecution hard on why Manafort ought to be in jail pre-trial and had everybody wondering if he was a Trump plant. Seems like he’s just trying to make sure the prosecution’s argument is iron tight.

Fallom posted:

This is also the same judge that pressed the prosecution hard on why Manafort ought to be in jail pre-trial and had everybody wondering if he was a Trump plant. Seems like he’s just trying to make sure the prosecution’s argument is iron tight.

McNally posted:

This judge has also ordered the lawyers on both sides to stop rolling their eyes after they talk to him.

http://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/399897-judge-in-manafort-trial-tells-attorneys-to-reign-in-their-facial

holocaust bloopers posted:

Isn’t this a tactic to ensure a guilty verdict is indisputably given?

Fallom posted:

This is also the same judge that pressed the prosecution hard on why Manafort ought to be in jail pre-trial and had everybody wondering if he was a Trump plant. Seems like he’s just trying to make sure the prosecution’s argument is iron tight.

EBB posted:

E: oh cool ICE is killing kids now great