Ex-Trump Campaign Chief Paul Manafort Sentenced to 47 Months for Bank & Tax Fraud in Mueller Case … Nothing to do with Russian Collusion
THAT’S IT, AFTER ALL THE DEMOCRAT AND LIBERAL TALK … THOUGHT HE WAS SUPPOSED TO GET 20 YEARS?
As reported at CNBC, President Donald Trump’s former campaign chairman Paul Manafort was sentenced to only 47 months in prison, a far shorter length of time than prosecutors in the case had argued for and liberals had salivated over. Manafort will serve only 38 more months of the 47-month sentence because of time he has already spent in jail. Prosecutors argued that Manafort receive a sentence between 19-to-24-year in prison length suggested by federal guidelines. Not even close. This had nothing to do with Russian collusion and was excessive from the outset. If this was the crown jewel of the Mueller probe, it truly has been a witch hunt.
U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis emphasized ahead of sentencing that the Manafort case was not about Russian interference in the 2016 election.
- A federal judge on Thursday sentences President Donald Trump’s former campaign chairman Paul Manafort to serve 47 months in prison.
- Manafort had been convicted in the Virginia court last summer on eight counts of bank fraud, tax fraud and failing to file a foreign bank account report.
- “He has lived an otherwise blameless life,” the judge says of Manafort, a central figure in the special counsel’s Russia probe.
A federal judge on Thursday sentenced President Donald Trump’s former campaign chairman Paul Manafort to serve 47 months in prison, a far shorter length of time than prosecutors in the case had argued for.
The decision from federal judge T.S. Ellis in Virginia comes less than a week before Manafort’s second sentencing hearing in another case in Washington, D.C., district court. Both cases were brought on charges lodged by special counsel Robert Mueller in his ongoing probe of Russia’s election meddling and possible collusion with the Trump campaign.
Manafort is expected to serve only 38 more months of the 47-month sentence because of time he has already spent incarcerated. In addition to the sentence, Ellis ordered Manafort to pay a $50,000 fine, the lowest fine provided for by guidelines that recommended a fine between $50,000 and $24 million.
TROUBLE IN CPL PARADISE …
We had actually called this from the beginning and stated that porn star Stormy Daniels was getting in over her head and would be used, abused and screwed by CPL Michael Avenatti in ways the porn star had never been in her life. Now it appears to be coming to fruition. As reported at The Daily Beast, Stormy Daniels states that Michael Avenatti sued Trump for defamation against my wishes and set up not one, but two crowd funding sites, and has refused to provide an accounting. In essence, Stormy Daniels is accusing the creepy porn lawyer of unethical conduct.
Michael Avenatti sued Donald Trump for defaming Stormy Daniels against her wishes, Daniels told The Daily Beast in a statement on Wednesday.
Avenatti also started a new fundraising site to raise money for her legal defense fund without telling her, Daniels said. She said she is not sure whether or not she will keep Avenatti on as her lawyer.
Here is her full statement, provided to The Daily Beast:
“For months I’ve asked Michael Avenatti to give me accounting information about the fund my supporters so generously donated to for my safety and legal defense. He has repeatedly ignored those requests. Days ago I demanded again, repeatedly, that he tell me how the money was being spent and how much was left. Instead of answering me, without my permission or even my knowledge Michael launched another crowdfunding campaign to raise money on my behalf. I learned about it on Twitter.
Stormy Daniels called her attorney “a great advocate in many ways,” she is unsure whether she will keep him. Did Avenatti ever act in his clients best interest or his own and just used her? Who could not see this coming a mile away? In the end Daniels appears to have been screwed again. The legal advice she was given will probably cost her money in the end.
The actress whose real name is Stephanie Clifford accused Mr. Avenatti, who has become a talk-show staple and a potential Democratic presidential contender, of not acting in her best interests.
“In other ways Michael has not treated me with the respect and deference an attorney should show to a client. He has spoken on my behalf without my approval. He filed a defamation case against Donald Trump against my wishes. … I don’t want to hurt Michael, but it’s time to set the record straight. The truth has always been my greatest ally,” Ms. Clifford said.
Michael Avenatti provided an identical statement on the matter to The Daily Caller as he did The Daily Beast on the matter.
He said, “I am and have always been Stormy’s biggest champion. I have personally sacrificed an enormous amount of money, time and energy toward assisting her because I believe in her. I have always been an open book with Stormy as to all aspects of her cases and she knows that. You need only look back at her numerous prior interviews where she states we talk and communicate multiple times every day about her cases.”
“The retention agreement Stormy signed back in February provided that she would pay me $100.00 and that any and all other monies raised via a legal fund would go toward my legal fees and costs. Instead, the vast majority of the money raised has gone toward her security expenses and similar other expenses,” Avenatti continued. “The most recent campaign was simply a refresh of the prior campaign, designed to help defray some of Stormy’s expenses.”
STRIKE ONE, CPL AND STORMY DANIELS LOSE DEFAMATION CASE AGAINST TRUMP …
As it turns out, presidents have First Amendment rights too. On Monday U.S. District Judge S. James Otero dismissed a defamation lawsuit from adult-film actress Stormy Daniels and her CPL that claimed President Donald Trump defamed her when he suggested she had lied about being threatened to keep quiet about their alleged relationship. The judge also ordered that Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford, is also liable for Trump’s legal fees.
A federal judge on Monday dismissed a lawsuit from adult-film actress Stormy Daniels that claimed President Trump defamed her when he suggested she had lied about being threatened to keep quiet about their alleged relationship.
U.S. District Judge S. James Otero in Los Angeles ruled that Trump’s speech was protected by the First Amendment as the kind of “rhetorical hyperbole” normally associated with politics and public discourse in the United States.” He ordered Daniels, whose given name is Stephanie Clifford, to pay Trump’s legal fees.
Trump attorney Charles Harder cheered Otero’s decision.
“No amount of spin or commentary by Stormy Daniels or her lawyer, Mr. Avenatti, can truthfully characterize today’s ruling in any way other than total victory for President Trump and total defeat for Stormy Daniels,” Harder said in an emailed statement.
Great advice given to Daniels by her attorney to sue. CPL, Avenatti announced that they will appeal the case with the Ninth Circuit court. Great, adding more court fees to his client when she ultimately loses because free speech is free speech.
UPDATE I: Trump calls Stormy Daniels ‘Horseface’
Not sure I would have done this, but it is pure Donald Trump.
President Trump on Tuesday called adult-film star Stormy Daniels “Horseface” and threatened to “go after” her after he won a court victory over his alleged mistress.
“’Federal Judge throws out Stormy Danials [sic] lawsuit versus Trump. Trump is entitled to full legal fees.’ @FoxNews Great, now I can go after Horseface and her 3rd rate lawyer in the Great State of Texas. She will confirm the letter she signed! She knows nothing about me, a total con!’ he tweeted.
Former Obama AG Eric Holder: “When They Go Low, We Kick Them” … Welcome to the Intolerant & Violent Democratic Party
BE VERY CAREFUL WITH YOUR DEMOCRAT HATEFUL RHETORIC …
The Democrat party and the LEFT has become more and more intolerant and violent. As reported at the WAPO, during a campaign stop in McDonough, GA, former Obama attorney general Eric Holder altered former first lady Michelle Obama’s 2016 slogan, “When they go low, we go high” and in steads stated the new Democrat slogan is … “When they go low, we kick ‘em.” So this is what the Democratic Party is about these days? You kick them, seriously? And we wonder why individuals are being bullied in restaurants and on the streets and people receiving death threats. And this guy was the chief law enforcement officer under Obama? Doesn’t that explain a lot.
I guess we can be assured the Democrats will never go high again, as if they ever did.
For the second time this week, a leading Democratic voice is proposing that the party pursue a meaner, more combative approach — with this one going so far as to allude to metaphorical violence.
During a campaign swing in McDonough, Ga., on Sunday, former attorney general Eric Holder notes former first lady Michelle Obama’s high-minded 2016 slogan, “When they go low, we go high.” Then he makes clear he disagrees.
“No, no,” Holder says. “When they go low, we kick ‘em. That’s what this new Democratic Party is about.”
Several minutes later, Holder clarifies that he’s not advocating anything illicit.
“When I say we, you know, ‘We kick ‘em,’ I don’t mean we do anything inappropriate. We don’t do anything illegal,” Holder said. “But we got to be tough, and we have to fight for the very things that [civil rights leaders] John Lewis, Martin Luther King, Whitney Young – you know, all those folks gave to us.”
SO MUCH FOR THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE … WELCOME TO THE BAIS & TAINTED DEMOCRAT JURY.
The actions of the LEFT and Democrats should be frightening to all. Their political bias and Trump resistance at all cost, including trashing the US. Constitution and the laws of the United States is chilling. The Democrats have deemed SCOTUS nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh as guilty of something he has not either been accused of in a court of law, nor substantiated. That is correct, guilty before being proven innocent. No one knows whether Kavanaugh or his accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, is telling the truth or credible, until they present their case in front of the Senate Judiciary committee. But not for Democrats, they know he is guilty. They have a crystal ball.
I have two cases for you where all thought they were guilty also, Duke Lacrosse and the University of Virginia rape case brought to us by Rolling Stone. We both know now has both of those sexual assault and rape cases went , don’t we? Both were lies. Crystal Mangum and Jackie lied. No such accusations ever occurred. But of course these two huge miscarriages of justice and jumps to conclusions seem to mean nothing to Democrats.
Let’s take a look at the fact we know. A supposed accusation of sexual misconduct happened 36 years ago when Christine was 15 years old, but was never mentioned to anyone, including family, friend or the authorities. Not until 2012 in a doctors office and no names were referenced. Her therapist notes state that four people were present, 3 individuals have come forward to say they have no knowledge or recollection of the incident. Ford can’t remember the year the incident happened, she can’t remember how she got to the house party, or how she got home, or where the part was. She was a 15 year old girl consuming alcohol and has no memory of major facts of the case. The accused, Brett Kavanaugh has denied it ever happened. So tell me … if this was in a court of law in front of a jury, this would be the textbook definition of reasonable doubt. But not for Democrats, Kavanaugh Is Guilty, even though nothing has been presented in front of them. Talk about a tainted and bias jury.
JUST FOOD FOR THOUGHT, WHAT HAPPENS IF KAVANAUGH PROVIDES PROOF LIKE A PASSPORT OR PHOTO STAMPED PICS THAT HE WAS NO WHERE NEAR THIS SO-CALLED PARTY? WILL THERE BE DEMOCRAT APOLOGIES?
Kavanaugh, many Democrats say, is clearly guilty.
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) said Thursday: “I believe her because she is telling the truth and you know it by her story.” [You know it by her story? What story? Dr. Ford's story is 36 years old and lacking the basic who, what where, when and why of any story. The accusers story is vague at best. If anything, Ford's story is so lacking in every form of detail that is pertinent to the case, that it is the textbook definition of reasonable doubt.]
“Judge Kavanaugh has not asked to have the FBI review the claims,” Gillibrand added. “Is that the reaction of an innocent person? It is not.” [WTF you liberal fool, talk about your straw argument. Judge Kavanaugh does not have the right or standing to ask the FBI to do anything. The FBI is not his personal private detective. No Sen. Gillibrand, the mark of an innocent person is his obsolete denial of what he is being accused of and his want to show up on Monday and clear his name.]
When Sen. Duckworth (D-Ill.) was asked about Kavanaugh denying the accusation, the senator responded, “Well, I have heard, you know, many, many predators say and refute allegations against them.” [Actually Sen. Duckworth, many accusers actually know when and where the presumed assault took place.]
Former spokesman for Bernie Sanders and CNN contributor, Symone Sanders, said she didn’t even need to wait for more information: “For me there is no debate. I believe Professor Ford. Judge Kavanaugh has lied multiple times under oath.” [Wow, really Bernie. Kavanaugh lied under oath. When. I think Bill Clinton might be squirming with that position you took, hoping Juanita Broderick doesn't pursue her rape claims years later.]
And here are other select quotes from Democratic lawmakers:
Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-HI) said: “I believe Dr. Ford as I refer to her because she makes a very credible case. It is really difficult for someone to come forward in this way. Why should she destroy her life? Already there are efforts to cast aspersions on her credibility, to look into her family, all of that. This is really very much like what happened with Anita Hill where she was vilified, she was called names. This cannot happen to Dr. Ford.” [Hmm, she came forward and the letter that was supposed to remain confidential was presented right before the Kavanaugh vote. It might be more credible that this is a political scam.]
Sen. Blumenthal (D-Conn.): “Let me just say right at the outset I believe. Dr Ford, I believe the survivor here, there’s every reason to believe her. She has come forward courageously and bravely knowing that she would face a nightmare of hostile and vicious scrutiny and challenge. And there are plenty of reasons to disbelieve Judge Kavanaugh after his evasive and seemingly misleading testimony before the Judiciary Committee.” [So here is a dude that strictly on the accusations of a woman, he is believable and Kavanaugh is guilty. You want want to see Duke Lacrosse rape case and UVA. Really? You better hope no woman ever accuses you of anything.]
Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.); “I hope that she does [testify], because I’m afraid that what the Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee really want is they want her to go away. They don’t want the country to hear from her, and they certainly don’t want the country to hear from her live and on television. She’s absolutely right, the FBI should do a thorough vetting of these allegations. The Senate shouldn’t simply rely on hearing two conflicting accounts and decide, ‘Well, we’re OK with not knowing. We’re OK with the fact we might be putting a — someone who committed attempted rape on the Supreme Court of the United States.’ They should get to the bottom of this. And it wouldn’t take that long to do. This is the same crowd that waited a year to fill the last vacancy during the Obama administration on the Supreme Court, so why this rush? And I think they realize they have a very imperfect candidate, in fact they may have a candidate who has committed attempted rape.”
Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.): “Listen, it comes down to credibility to your point. It’s going to be about listening to what each party has to say, but I believe her. Listen, first of all, anybody who comes forward at this point to — to be prepared to testify in the United States Senate against someone who’s being nominated to one of the most powerful positions in the United States government, that takes an extraordinary amount of courage. And frankly, you know, I have personally prosecuted sexual assault cases, and my concern is— and she knows this — she is putting herself out there knowing that they’re going to try and excoriate her. She’s doing it, I believe, because she knows that this is an important matter. It’s a serious matter, who serves on that court. And she has the courage to come forward? She has nothing to gain. What does she have to gain?” [LOL, what does she have to gain? Seriously? She is a Democrat operative. I think we all know what she has to gain. Good grief, do not insult people's intelligence.]
Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.): “Well I can tell you it really does have a ring of truth to it. The fact that she can refer to therapist notes so that she did bring it up before. I am skeptical of polygraphs, but those who believe them, she has passed a polygraph test.” [The notes that Durbin refer to in no where references names.]
Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.): “I believe Professor Ford. I think she’s credible and I think when the investigation is finished and when she testifies and Judge Kavanaugh testifies, I think a majority of senators will find her credible.”