I realize this comparison is similar to marijuana to meth, but didn't the Clinton's go back and "modify" their tax returns in '13 or '14 when certian "irregularities" were brought to the attention of the IRS, not to mention the public?aggiehawg said:Tend to agree HOWEVER the IRS expert relied on a chart (Exhibit) created by someone "at the FBI" to determine deposits to the bank accounts were income. He didn't see all of the source documents only "some" according to his testimony.BMX Bandit said:
I dont see how there is any reasonable doubt on the tax charge.
If Manafort walks on that, his lawyers deserve a gold star for clouding the issues
That's problematical because of Gates. Without knowing how expenses and costs were to be reimbursed in accordance with the various consultancy agreements, how would the expert know for sure everything was income? Gates was embezzling using expense accounts. If he's submitting false expense accounts to his boss isn't he also submitting false expenses to the client at some point? And wouldn't the IRS expert want to know which was which in determining income?
Now, I'm not sure the jury will really click to that defect in the proof. They could just as easily rely completely on the word of the IRS expert as not.
How, if they are performing?Sasappis said:
Very possible. They also could have done it in response to the bank regulators calling them on the decision to make a bad loan.
For whatever reason they did it, the loss does help the prosecution's case.
I missed that tidbit somehow. What is the collateral worth?Sasappis said:captkirk said:How, if they are performing?Sasappis said:
Very possible. They also could have done it in response to the bank regulators calling them on the decision to make a bad loan.
For whatever reason they did it, the loss does help the prosecution's case.
He has defaulted on $11 million in loans.
How is that performing?
You have documentation of that?Sasappis said:captkirk said:How, if they are performing?Sasappis said:
Very possible. They also could have done it in response to the bank regulators calling them on the decision to make a bad loan.
For whatever reason they did it, the loss does help the prosecution's case.
He has defaulted on $11 million in loans.
How is that performing?
BMX Bandit said:
Isn't "not paying" both a technical & material default?
I agree. It's a long charge. The off-the-deep-end leftists (see the twitter posts that Spreadsheet is linking to) thought this was an open and shut deal and that it should have been as easy as 12 people voting guilty, checking the boxes, and calling it a day in under an hour. At a minimum they've reached a point where at least some people want to "get it right" and go over the testimony and admitted evidence before answering each question.Sasappis said:
This is that grey area of time where I think reading one way or the other is a mistake. If they are still out tomorrow at lunch, I agree that is a bad sign for the prosecution.
Okay when they enter that into evidence I'm sure it will be countered. Like I said before nothing was entered into evidence showing any load written off to support their fraud case. Not saying they had to show a loss to claim fraud, but if the statement did indeed support their claim of writing it off, you'd think, as you said support their claim. Proof of guilt not proof of innocence. The write off statement by the banker was more in passing, and under cross was when he explained that it was performing in July and was written off in less than 5 months. Then they went back and forth where they established that the bank had 15.8 million dollars worth of collateral on an 11.8 million dollar loan. That pretty much nullifies the mention of the bank being at a loss and raises question of the timeline and how quickly they wrote off 11 million without the normal steps of collections and foreclosure, that happens every day. Just raises doubt in what they are saying. Doubt is all they need.Sasappis said:RoscoePColtrane said:You have documentation of that?Sasappis said:captkirk said:How, if they are performing?Sasappis said:
Very possible. They also could have done it in response to the bank regulators calling them on the decision to make a bad loan.
For whatever reason they did it, the loss does help the prosecution's case.
He has defaulted on $11 million in loans.
How is that performing?
I have every scrap of paper generated in that trial and it's no where I can find.
There is the mention of a premature write off in testimony however no documentation was presented in evidence and the timeline of the write off is very suspicious. No foreclosure documentation, no notices of collection, notice by certified letter, nothing.
So I am sure in all of that documentation the defense presented cancelled check, wire receipts or other docs showing that Manafort is current on the loan? Seems something that would be very easy to prove. A simple loan statement could have been used when the banker claimed they were written off for $11 mil.
If the loan was "performing" and I was defense counsel I certainly would have shown something to counter the claim of the write off.
Definitely reading too much into it right now. I wouldn't even be overly concerned one way or another come lunch tomorrow. I could certainly see a guilty verdict on most counts come back after lunchSasappis said:
This is that grey area of time where I think reading one way or the other is a mistake. If they are still out tomorrow at lunch, I agree that is a bad sign for the prosecution.
