No, ignorance of the law is not an excuse.
On the other hand, if Manafort had intended to file, but it was lost in the mail - or if he made a (good-faith) mistake on his tax forms, then no - he would not have committed a crime.
Me, too. 10 ch
Wait so if Hillary didn’t mean to . . . and that’s an element missing from the crime . .
If Manafort didn’t think he needed to file – isn’t that an element missing (meaning to not file and knowing he should)?
Law and Order folks…
1 Like
That would be a terrible, terrible miscarriage of justice. The jurors are triers of fact. That they’d allow, and you would encourage, press coverage from an unrelated scenario to come into their assessment of the facts is an abomination.
I hope you never serve on a jury. I’ve served on a couple and I would have been astonished to see any one of the earnest Americans that served with me bring baggage like that into the deliberation room and air it.
5 Likes
No. You’re not understanding what “intent” means in this situation.
If Manafort did not know that he needed to file his tax returns, and did not file, he committed a crime - because he willfully and intentionally did not file his tax return. The fact that (in this hypothetical) he did not know that he had to is not an excuse, because it’s his responsibility to know what the law is.
The situation with Hillary is different. It’s not a matter of ignorance of the law - no one is arguing that Clinton did not know that sending classified material via email was against the law.
I dont understand what that has to do with anything…?
So the secretary of state, former first lady didn’t know it was against the law to send out classafied material on a personal e-mail server?
How is that different from manafort saying he thought that under the rules he didn’t have to file.
Clintong didn’t know, and Manafort didn’t think he needed to.
Comparing the two (especially as a secretary of state dealing with classafied material, she signed off that she received security training Hillary Clinton | Washington Examiner)
No. This is what you’re not grasping.
No one is claiming that Hillary didn’t know that it was illegal to send classified material via email.
What Comey was saying - and what the IG said - is Clinton did not know or realize that there was any classified material in her emails.
Even though a couple were marked at the time as such.
That’s why they asked about her training, that she denied to the FBI she took. Yet she signed paperwork saying she took it.
But hey, she din’t know right 
How could an email be marked classified?
This is not a stupid question. I’m asking you to give me a scenario in which Clinton sent an email that was marked classified.
FBI asked her about an e-mail chain marked “C” at the time. She didn’t know what it ment.
That right there is confidential information according to the article.
All e-mails turned over. Yet in the recovery process they find 17 thousand more.
Lap top lost in the mail (doesn’t say if it was found or recovered)
Thumb drive with the e-mail lost (doesn’t say if it was ever found or recovered).
Sure as hell glad she isn’t president right now. Concusion made it so she doesn’t remember things (see article for that one).
But yea, she wasn’t guilty of anything.
This is from the IG report:
As described in Chapter Seven of our report, the prosecutors concluded that the evidence did not support prosecution under any of these statutes for various reasons, including that former Secretary Clinton and her senior aides lacked the intent to communicate classified information on unclassified systems. Critical to their conclusion was that the emails in question lacked proper classification markings, that the senders often refrained from using specific classified facts or terms in emails and worded emails carefully in an attempt to “talk around” classified information, that the emails were sent to other government officials in furtherance of their official duties, and that former Secretary Clinton relied on the judgment of State Department employees to properly handle classified information, among other facts.
None of that has anything to do with the elements of the crime you believe Clinton violated.
What happened with Clinton’s emails was spillage.
Spillage is generally not a crime, and it happens every day.
I knew that it would be about Hillary eventually.
2 Likes
I guess if we want to keep talking about the Manafort trial, we should make a Hillary thread.
5 Likes
just getting ready in case the apparent tax cheat goes free.
I dont really care if he is convicted or goes free. I have to trust the system we have in place and at times that means decisions may be rendered that I dont agree with but you will not see me whining and moaning about them.
If he is found not guilty then the prosecution did not do a good enough job and if he is found guilty then Manaforts defence did not do a good enough job to counter the evidence.
Though if he goes free Trump supporters will see this as a win for Trump even though none of the charges have anything to do with his work for Trump and if he is convicted they will conveniently remember that fact and tell us how this is a win for Trump.
1 Like
It would be a win for trump in that it would make Mueller look pretty bad if manafort gets acquitted on all charges
