All-purpose news and politics thread: Two Steps Beyond!

[BeastieRunner]

WSJ has come out swinging, attacking Manafort and Trump.

Is there blood in the water now?

[worstblogever]

WSJ has come out swinging, attacking Manafort and Trump.

Is there blood in the water now?

And during Shark Week, too. We all know how much sharks unsettle the president.

By the by, just want to point out that Trump's "work week" this week involved running off on two separate days to two rallies that served no purpose but to nurture his ego, and he's now taking a three-day weekend at his Bedminister golf course in New Jersey on taxpayer dime and post Tweets to lie about the Mueller investigation some more.

[BeastieRunner]

And during Shark Week, too. We all know how much sharks unsettle the president.

By the by, just want to point out that Trump's "work week" this week involved running off on two separate days to two rallies that served no purpose but to nurture his ego, and he's now taking a three-day weekend at his Bedminister golf course in New Jersey on taxpayer dime and post Tweets to lie about the Mueller investigation some more.

If I were 45, I'd take as many breaks as I could.

Doesn't sound too promising that anybody that doesn't plead guilty will be having a nice life afterwards.

[PaulBullion]

After Manafort does this kind of damage to Trump? The words snowball, chance, and hell come to mind.

Besides, what benefit would it be to Trump? Pardoning him won't put any of this back in the bottle.

ETA: okay, if Manafort still has money maybe he can buy a pardon. Bound to happen sooner or later, the way Trump's been using them.

Putin might order Trump to pardon Manafort.

[BeastieRunner]

Putin might order Trump to pardon Manafort.

They have him on State and Federal charges.

Every plea deal has been for State and Federal.

It's pardon proof. The State crimes still all carry 2-15 year sentences.

And a pardon will mean Manafort can incriminate himself and suffer no penalty.

Pardoning would be bad.

[PaulBullion]

They have him on State and Federal charges.

Every plea deal has been for State and Federal.

It's pardon proof. The State crimes still all carry 2-15 year sentences.

And a pardon will mean Manafort can incriminate himself and suffer no penalty.

Pardoning would be bad.

Except polonium poisoning or a nerve toxin letter.

[PaulBullion]

They have him on State and Federal charges.

Every plea deal has been for State and Federal.

It's pardon proof. The State crimes still all carry 2-15 year sentences.

And a pardon will mean Manafort can incriminate himself and suffer no penalty.

Pardoning would be bad.

Except polonium poisoning or a nerve toxin letter.

[Tami]

Two interesting, related articles

How Fake Influence Campaigns on Facebook Lured Real People

In late June, after word emerged that the white supremacists who organized last year’s deadly “Unite the Right” march in Charlottesville, Va., had applied to hold an anniversary rally this month in Washington, a local political activist, Brendan Orsinger, saw that a Facebook event page had been created for a counterprotest.

He recognized it as trouble. Little did he know just how much.

The event page was created on June 24 by a feminist-oriented Facebook political page called Resisters. On June 25, Mr. Orsinger reached out via Facebook to a Resisters administrator he knew as “Mary,” whom he had messaged before, to discuss how Washington-based activists resent it when national activists crowd out local organizers on an event.

Mr. Orsinger gently suggested to “Mary” that the Resisters “get buy-in from local DC organizers of color first,” like the local Black Lives Matter chapter, for the counterprotest, according to messages reviewed by The New York Times. “Mary” appeared receptive, he said. So Mr. Orsinger connected several other Washington-based activist groups to help flesh out the event page the Resisters had started.

This week, to the shock of Mr. Orsinger and other activists, Facebook deleted the event page, including all their handiwork. On Tuesday, the company suspended the account of “Mary,” apparently deeming it a fake, and said the Resisters page was a tool in a coordinated political influence operation to sow division ahead of the midterm elections. National security officials on Thursday said Russia was still injecting misinformation into American social media every day.

Truth, Disrupted

In March of 2018 President Trump’s tweets claiming that Amazon pays “little or no taxes to state & local governments” sent the company’s stock toward its worst monthly performance in two years. Trump had his facts wrong — and the stock price has since recovered — but the incident highlights an unsettling problem: Companies are profoundly vulnerable to misinformation spreading on social media. Unsurprisingly, the mainstream media has focused primarily on whether false news affected the 2016 U.S. presidential election. But the truth is that nobody is safe from this kind of damage. The spread of falsity has implications for our democracies, our economies, our businesses, and even our national security. We must make a concerted effort to understand and address its spread.

For the past three years Soroush Vosoughi, Deb Roy, and I have studied the spread of false news online. (We use the label “false news” because “fake news” has become so polarizing: Politicians now use that phrase to describe news stories that don’t support their positions.) The data we collected in a recent study spanned Twitter’s history from its inception, in 2006, to 2017. We collected 126,000 tweet cascades (chains of retweets with a common origin) that traveled through the Twittersphere during this period and verified the truth or falsehood of the content that was spreading. We then compared the dynamics of how true versus false news spreads online. On March 9 Science magazine published the results of our research as its cover

What we found was both surprising and disturbing. False news traveled farther, faster, deeper, and more broadly than the truth in every category of information, sometimes by an order of magnitude, and false political news traveled farther, faster, deeper, and more broadly than any other type.

The importance of understanding this phenomenon is difficult to overstate. And, in all likelihood, the problem will get worse before it gets better, because the technology for manipulating video and audio is improving, making distortions of reality more convincing and more difficult to detect. The good news, though, is that researchers, AI experts, and social media platforms themselves are taking the issue seriously and digging into both the nature of the problem and potential solutions.

In this article I’ll examine how we might contain the spread of falsity. A successful fight will require four interrelated approaches — educating the players, changing their incentives, improving technological tools, and (the right amount of) governmental oversight — and the answers to five key questions:

How can we educate people to spot and resist falsity?
How can we disincentivize the spread of falsity and incentivize the spread of good-faith communication and truth?
How can technological tools — algorithms in particular — be used to contain false information?
How can regulators usefully weigh in without destroying the economic and social value created by social media?
And, perhaps most important, Who gets to decide what’s true and what’s false?

[BeastieRunner]

PM Manafort Trial update:

Defense characterized the jurors as bored and unable to understand the case.

Team Mueller objected. Defense recanted. Judge noted the copious notes the jury was taking. Admonished the defense for inciting the jury.

Defense probed the accountants credentials.

He said "that was a lot more complicated than determining whether there was signature control" when it came to foreign accounts.

Manafort corrected his attorney when he pointed to the wrong evidence.

The accountant said he was a "generalist” but sometimes roped in other accountants at the firm who specialized in foreign tax issues when dealing with Manafort.

Manafort corrected his attorney again for pointing to the wrong evidence.

The emails the defense used to make their point focused on one foreign telecommunications firm in which Manafort was invested but did not have signature authority.

The firm said it was not big enough to trigger an ding for foreign assets.

Manafort’s attorney shifted responsibility to Gates.

“Were you backed up year in and year out against filing deadlines?” Witness affirmed.

“Did you have difficulty getting information?” Witness affirmed.

“Primarily that information was provided by Mr. Gates, is that correct?” Witness affirmed.

Defense displayed a financial document, with the lettering “This is a loan … per Rick Gates call.”

Team Mueller called Cindy Laporta, another of Manafort’s accountants. She is the first person to testify under an immunity agreement with the special counsel to prevent her from facing possible legal exposure about what she might say.

Laporta signed Manafort’s tax returns in 2014 and 2015.

Laporta said her firm gave Manafort a letter making clear they were not “auditing or verifying” the information clients provided.

She said she gathered information from Manafort, Gates and his bookkeeper, and “Mr. Manafort approved that.”

Laporta testified she viewed Gates as Manafort’s “assistant.”

She said Manafort was always in charge but Gates offered advisement.

A September 15 email of Manafort forwarding Gates tax documents was shown, which Gates then forwarded on to her. She testified that was typical of how she would get Manafort’s tax documents.

Manafort never told her about control over foreign companies and bank accounts or about any accountants and tax preparers he had in Cyprus.

“We would always want to know the full picture.”

Team Mueller went through a list of over a dozen foreign companies and asked if she knew Manafort controlled them. She said no to each one.

When those companies showed up on his tax returns, she said, they appeared as Manafort’s foreign clients ... because that’s what bookkeeper recorded them as.

Team Mueller Laporta asked Manafort specifically whether he had foreign accounts and the answer was “NONE.”

Laporta said had she known Manafort had control of the foreign companies and bank accounts.

“That would require reporting.”

She too said the accounting firm put more emphasis on foreign bank account reporting around 2012 when the Department of Justice began cracking down on them.

It was mentioned in the firm’s annual engagement letters, she said, and they made sure to ask about it annually rather than simply ask whether anything had changed from the previous year.

Laporta testified she didn’t believe Manafort about the loans.

Laporta testified that she was suspicious of the loans, many of which were thinly documented.

"Did you have concerns about representation you received about these foreign loans?” Witness affirmed.

“Did you believe the representations about these foreign loans?” Witness said, "No."

[PaulBullion]

And now, a word from Republican intellectual and likely future GOP presidential candidate, Jacob Wohl:

[IMG][/IMG]

[Michael Watkins]

If you don't think whites ever get messed with by blacks in the same fashion, you're living in a dream world.

A few years back, I was walking by the side of the road, obviously minding my own business, and some black guy in a car thought it would be funny to pretend like he was going to hit me.

maybe they've read your posts.

[worstblogever]

If I were 45, I'd take as many breaks as I could.

It's not just that he's lazy, remember, he's billing taxpayers for the cost of rooming his own Secret Service detail at his own property. It's grift, as well. It's why he goes to his own properties and not just Camp David or the White House.

[BeastieRunner]

Team Mueller announced Obstruction of Justice findings will be presented in a letter to Congress just before Labor Day.

Manafort's criminal case is set for SEPT 4.

Coincidence?

[BeastieRunner]

It's not just that he's lazy, remember, he's billing taxpayers for the cost of rooming his own Secret Service detail at his own property. It's grift, as well. It's why he goes to his own properties and not just Camp David or the White House.

I was referencing that 45's goose is cooked. I don't think he's going to be a free man for much longer.

Did you see the big change in the Manafort case about 10 minutes ago? I'm still writing my bullet points for the final PM update but ...

His personal accountant testified that she went along with his tax fraud. Because she was scared. And mister GRU translator scared her more. But the latter half was stricken and the jurors cleared because it had to do with the Russian investigation, not the tax fraud case.

Team Mueller's going for the conspiracy home run today.

[BeastieRunner]

Final PM Manafort Update:

Laporta testified Gates asked her to modify Manafort loan to decrease taxes.

Laporta described how Gates asked tax preparers during a call in 2015 to modify the amount of a loan so that Manafort would have to pay less in taxes.

Confronted with a possible tax bill, Gates “said it was too high,” and that his boss, Paul Manafort, “didn’t have that money.”

Team Mueller asked her what was proposed as a solution, and she responded “changing the amount of the loan.”

“He was trying to reduce income and therefore, income taxes.”

“You can’t pick and chose what’s a loan and what’s income.”

She said what she did was wrong.

Team Mueller showed her an email that showed a subordinate at her firm wrote,” The loan amount may need to be changed.”

They ultimately decided on a $900k amount because “it resulted in a tax amount that Rick said could be paid.”

Laporta kept repeating how wrong it was for what she did.

There was a quick room clearing when the case turned to the translator and her not feeling safe around him or Manafort.

Jury came back.

She felt scared.

“I had a couple of choices at that point.”

She had just had a conference call with Rick Gates in which he said Manafort could not afford to pay his taxes and so they had to be reduced, possibly by inflating the value of that loan.

“I could have refused to file the tax return,” which she said could lead to litigation with Manafort’s firm.

“I could have called Mr. Manafort and Mr. Gates liars, but Mr. Manafort was a long-time client of the firm and I did not want to do that either,” she said.

Asked if she regretted her actions, she agreed; “I very much regret it.”

She said she was taking responsibility now.

The questionable loan saved Manafort $400k to $500k in taxes.

This was the motive for tax fraud.

One document, which prosecutors called an “adjusted trial balance,” showed how Manafort’s business, DMP International, initially made no reference to the $900,000 loan he would later claim on his taxes. But in a column for adjusted items, the $900,000 loan appeared. To support the change, an item initially listed as $900,000 in “other income” was reclassified as a loan in the books at Manafort’s business, Laporta testified.

Laporta testified she did not believe such a loan actually existed.

The loan document bore what Laporta said was Manafort’s signature.

The only document submitted without Manafort's signature was the email about a loan the defense provided with "AS PER GATES CALL" on the top.

Team Mueller provided email evidence to link Manafort to the misdeeds that Manafort’s defense attorneys have sought to blame on Gates. In one exchange following discussions about the loans, Manafort emails the accountant.

“Cindy, Have you what you need from Rick?” he wrote. Manafort then told her to call Gates, so he could move it “forward.”

Laporta testified she helped falsify documents to help Manafort get loans.

Laporta is now testifying that she was involved the falsification of documents to help Paul Manafort obtain loans.

She said that although documents from Manafort’s bookkeeper showed that a property he owned in Lower Manhattan was being used as a rental in 2015 — he made $116,000 in income while also claiming depreciation — she told an employee of Citizens Bank it was a second home because Manafort could “get a better rate” on a long that way.

She testified that the same bank employee said Manafort needed more “liquidity” to qualify for a loan.

“The bank wanted to see more money available to pay back the loan.”

Laporta reached out to Gates, who told her a $1.5M loan from Peranova Holdings in 2012 had been forgiven in 2015. She told that to the banker who then asked for documentation.

Asked who directed her to say the loan was forgiven, she said “Mr. Manafort or Mr. Gates.” She relied on “their word,” she said.

Did Laporta believe the loan had really been forgiven in 2015? “Uh… no,” she replied.

Gates sent her a Word document on Feb. 8, 2016, with that date in the file name. It was a letter from Peranova Holdings claiming the $1.5M loan was forgiven on June 23, 2015.

Laporta believed “it was false” she said, “because of the dates.” She did not modify the document, *she said after a pause, because* “I wanted it to be the client’s document.”

Her implication was that she did not want to be more complicit in fraud than she already was.

Asked directly if she used the document in the bank negotiations despite believing it to be false, Laporta said, “Yes.”

Laporta then made a call to help Manafort with the loan.

Laporta testified about how Rick Gates sent her backdated documents in an effort to help Manafort pay less in taxes and secure loans. Laporta said Manafort turned to her when his bookkeeper wouldn’t help.

Laporta said – and emails show — Manafort contacted the accountant about obtaining a profits and loss statement that would reflect $2.4 million in income he earned in Ukraine and expected to be deposited in November. His bookkeeper, Laporta testified, would not note the income because she only counted cash once he had come in.

Team Mueller whether she believed Manafort actually was getting the money, Laporta responded, “I had no idea.”

She said she asked for supporting documents.

Laporta said she never sent a profits and loss statement as Manafort requested, because she never got documents.

August 11, 2016 she emailed Federal Savings Bank to say that Manafort expected the $2.4M deposit.

She testified that Manafort had directed her to do so.

Team Mueller ended the day by saying they would not release the Manaforts’ tax returns yet, although they were entered into evidence yesterday, because defense attorneys have some concerns about personal information included.

Judge said they can work that out, but “ultimately these tax returns are going to be in the public record. Once it becomes an exhibit in a trial, I think it has to be public.”

Testimony ends for the day after the defense wants the weekend to prepare to question the accountant.