lol. Well yes, if you remove all the charges that he was not found guilty of, then he was found guilty on 100% of charges!
For the third time, admitting to the underlying allegations for purposes of allowing the prosecution to secure a conspiracy charge is not the same as admitting to the charges themselves. For example, Manafort will admit to money laundering, but not as a formal charge.
Also, it's 5 extra, not 6 extra.
The new charges mean that prosecutors have agreed to drop five counts, including money laundering, failing to register as a foreign agent and making false statements. Manafort appears set to admit to those allegations as part of the umbrella conspiracy-against-the-U.S. charge, but the individual charges and the potential prison time they carry are being dismissed.
I plead innocent. You misunderstood.
Of course confessions are not "proof" of guilt. They are highly suggestive of guilt. Pressure/coercion is just one vehicle that could create such a discrepancy. Anyway, this is not relevant.
No. I said that a plea to a minor charge under the cloud of a potential cooperation agreement and in the face of evidence of unprosecuted, more serious crimes is less convincing than a finding of guilt by a jury.
I think you are missing the forest for the trees. Of course we can never "prove" anyone guilty of anything in the sense of a mathematical proof. But in the case of Manafort, there is no good reason to believe he is innocent of tax evasion and money laundering.
That's obviously false. I already stated that it seems clear that Manafort didn't pay his taxes and created illegal schemes to avoid detection. That's not "meaningless".
