# Paul Manafort, 1.4 million spent on clothes



## Mr. B. Scott Robinson (Jan 16, 2017)

I wish I had 1.4 million to spend on my wardrobe. I could probably do it if challenged!



Cheers, 

BSR


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Great b&w pic from 1985. I’m drawn to the lapel gorge on Manafort’s suit. It looks like something that would fit in nicely 30 years later. 

Roger Stone, on the other hand, looks terrible. Even by the standards of the 1980’s, the double breasted suit looks like something he stole out of his dad’s closet.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Depending on how much of that $1.4M was spent on shoes and boots, $1.4M might not be an unreasonable amount to spend on one's wardrobe. Indeed, the foundation upon which our respective sartorial presentations are built is our shoe leather! LOL.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

It may mean over his professional life. Over 30 years? I could do that if asked.


----------



## drlivingston (Jun 21, 2012)

He spent at least $500K at Bijan in Beverly Hills. At their prices, that is about two suits and a pocket square.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

I bet he only bought the “100% Bijan”!


----------



## Jaded Hedonist (Jun 4, 2014)

I read that article independent of this thread, and kept thinking how can one man spend $1 million on clothes, and I'm sure he's not waiting for sales at AE's Shoe Bank!


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

The blue coat is not worth buying. It doesn't really fit him. And the trousers don't look good either. Even the shirt has problems. He may have spent a lot of money on junk.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Over six years? It sounds like a figure his accountant has conjured up for his tax return.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

What's his handle on AAAC?


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Flanderian said:


> What's his handle on AAAC?


It's that guy a couple of years ago who used to obsess over Brioni suits.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
Indeed, the truth can sometimes be stranger than fiction! LOL.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Langham said:


> Over six years? It sounds like a figure his accountant has conjured up for his tax return.


Indeed. Like as not a substantial sum has been expended on an undeclarable outgoing such as doing the *ahem* Hokey-Cokey.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Shaver said:


> Indeed. Like as not a substantial sum has been expended on an undeclarable outgoing such as doing the *ahem* Hokey-Cokey.


This gentleman knows the ways of the world! The look of smug self-satisfaction of Mr. Manafort likely has chemical origins.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

SG_67 said:


> It's that guy a couple of years ago who used to obsess over Brioni suits.


I thought he got elected President? :icon_scratch:


----------



## 127.72 MHz (Feb 16, 2007)

SG_67 said:


> It's that guy a couple of years ago who used to obsess over Brioni suits.


If he was in fact the same fellow then I am not surprised.


----------



## Mr. B. Scott Robinson (Jan 16, 2017)

Note to self...if one finds oneself in the dock, it is best to have dressed down for some considerable amount of time prior to appearing in court. 



Cheers, 

BSR


----------



## 127.72 MHz (Feb 16, 2007)

Wear too nice a suit and a U.S. attorney may use it in an attempt to turn the masses against you in open court,...

To be fair, some of Manafort's wardrobe, including the ostrich jacket, should be a crime.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

I believe the judge has disallowed references to his clothing collection.


----------



## 127.72 MHz (Feb 16, 2007)

^^ I did hear that the Judge reminded the jury that it is not a crime to have a lot of money and spend it freely. And that they should disregard any reference to Manafort's money made by the U.S. attorney prosecuting the case ....After they had already heard it.

Not that Manafort has been an angel but knowing that he is being prosecuted for not declaring income, like old Al Capone, it should be no surprise that the full weight of the U.S. government's legal process should focus on images from a defendant's closets. Prime form from the U.S. attorney's office that all Americans should be proud of. :icon_pale:

I cannot help but wonder how most citizens would fair if the U.S. government spent a few months sifting through a lifetime of financial documents and talking to everyone a given individual has spoken to or done any financial transactions with. 

I wonder if selling a jacket across state lines without declaring the income with proof of depreciation of the said item could cause a U.S. attorney's office to come knocking? :icon_scratch: (I wonder if that is a federal crime?)


----------



## jts287 (Apr 19, 2018)

Was it Dolly Parton who quipped that it takes a lot of money to look that cheap...?


----------



## 127.72 MHz (Feb 16, 2007)

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/29/us/politics/paul-manafort-trial.html

Here are the charges. I wonder how many other "Garbage human beings" there are involved with governments,....

I recall an in depth discussion about morality involving abortion here at AAAC. If one does not see a morality issue with abortion but finds Paul Manafort amoral that might be hyprocracy. 
Perhaps morality is a bit subjective in this context. :fish:


----------



## Dhaller (Jan 20, 2008)

127.72 MHz said:


> https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/29/us/politics/paul-manafort-trial.html
> 
> Here are the charges. I wonder how many other "Garbage human beings" there are involved with governments,....
> 
> ...


It's quite the opposite of subjective.

Abortion is legal. It's not a crime. Period. You can look it up; there's no subjective interpretation about it.

Fraud, conspiracy, racketeering, bribery, money laundering, etc, etc. are crimes. You can look them up in a book. There's no subjective interpretation there whatsoever.

Conflating abortion and the laundry list of crimes Manafort has allegedly committed is a pretty dramatic failure of logic, quite frankly! Objectively!

DH


----------



## 127.72 MHz (Feb 16, 2007)

^^ Abortion leads to death. (You can look it up.)

Be expedient and go back to the thread where this was debated in detail. You can look it up.

Morality and "The law" have no business being mentioned in relation to one another. Morality is subjective and the law is supposed to be objective. You can look it up.


----------



## Dhaller (Jan 20, 2008)

127.72 MHz said:


> ^^ Abortion leads to death. (You can look it up.)
> 
> Be expedient and go back to the thread where this was debated in detail. You can look it up.
> 
> Morality and "The law" have no business being mentioned in relation to one another. Morality is subjective and the law is supposed to be objective. You can look it up.


What are you even talking about?

Manafort is being tried for specific crimes. Worse, he is a practitioner of one of the few professions which actually require oaths about not committing those crimes. How does that relate to abortion at all?

Any other recommendations for random, unrelated threads I should read which are equally alien to the issue of Paul Manafort's trial? Shaving techniques, perhaps? Whiskeys?

DH


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

I've seen those clothes, and I find the defendant -

*GUILTY* of bad taste!!!


----------



## Mr. B. Scott Robinson (Jan 16, 2017)

Seeing Mr. Manafort's closet contents dragged out and sneeringly critiqued in the media makes me very nervous.

I have items in my closet that if paraded in court, without the context of their acquisition, I would be hard put to explain.

I can hear the prosecution now. 

"Mr. Robinson, is it true that you own an AK-47 bayonet and a confederate flag? Then you deny that you are a crypto-confederate communist?

"Mr. Robinson, is it true that you keep a copy of the Koran by your bed? Then you deny that you are Muslim and supporter of ISIS?"

"Mr. Robinson, is it true that you own an arsenal of 15 guns and hundreds of rounds of ammunition? Then you deny that you are secretly plotting the violent overthrow the US government?"

As a member of the global 1%, a group comprised of anyone who makes in excess of $33,000 per annum, I resist grabbing my pitchfork and torch whenever the "Eat the Rich" crowd comes down with a media induced case of hydrophobia. We have seen the enemy, and it is us...eating the rich is a snake swallowing its own tail. 

If he is guilty of the financial crimes he is accused of perpetrating, then I hope Mr. Manafort is convicted and serves time in the pokey.

Bring forth the evidence, give the man a fair chance at rebuttal, and let the jury decide. 

Cheers,

BSR


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Lucido said:


> The moral issue alone of him colluding with despots in the Ukraine and the Philippines are enough to earn him the distinction of being a truly garbage human being.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Lucido said:


> He's not just being prosecuted for not declaring income. The indictment against Manafort lists the charges as :
> 
> 
> Engaging in a conspiracy against the United States
> ...


The accused is presumed innocent, until proven guilty. Should we not wait until he is convicted before presuming to pass judgment on him? :icon_scratch:


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

eagle2250 said:


> The accused is presumed innocent, until proven guilty. Should we not wait until he is convicted before presuming to pass judgment on him? :icon_scratch:


Because that takes all of the fun out of condemning people publicly and feeling good about yourself.

Come on man! Where have you been the last 2 years?


----------



## derum (Dec 29, 2008)

SG_67 said:


>


Posing with truly bad guys is not a crime. If it were there would be 8 people here going to jail.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Lucido said:


> Obama was an elected official and part of his job description was dealing with the heads of other nations. Manafort chose to work with Ferdinand Marcos and Viktor Yanukovych to line his own pockets. Whether or not he is guilty of the charges brought against him is up to the courts to decide, but his history of colluding with despots and kleptocrats is a matter of public record.


Ok.


----------



## Cassadine (Aug 22, 2017)

Lucido said:


> He's not just being prosecuted for not declaring income. The indictment against Manafort lists the charges as :
> 
> 
> Engaging in a conspiracy against the United States
> ...


I think the debate on morality/abortion etc. stems from the final paragraph of this post. I never equate "legal" as being co-referntial to "moral" as a linguistic term. Language is utilized like a wet, dirty mop in the States.


----------



## Cassadine (Aug 22, 2017)

derum said:


> Posing with truly bad guys is not a crime. If it were there would be 8 people here going to jail.
> View attachment 23316


I only count seven/7 "guys". LOL. And a few of them aren't exactly cut from the same cloth as, say, Bruce Lee or Roberto Duran.


----------



## Mr. B. Scott Robinson (Jan 16, 2017)

One mans collusion is another mans commerce. And occasionally the ends justifies the means.

The western democracies colluded with one of the most notorious psychopathic mass murders in history when they linked arms with Uncle Joe Stalin. 

And then after the war they colluded with the Emperor of Japan. 

Cheers,

BSR


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

It’s always a crime when the person in question does not agree with your politics.


----------



## derum (Dec 29, 2008)

Mr. B. Scott Robinson said:


> One mans collusion is another mans commerce. And occasionally the ends justifies the means.
> 
> The western democracies colluded with one of the most notorious psychopathic mass murders in history when they linked arms with Uncle Joe Stalin.
> 
> ...


The collusion with Stalin enabled the war to be won. Without the Russians it would have dragged on to a very different conclusion. As Japan were members of the League of Nations they were "colluding" with Japan since the 1920's.


----------



## Mr. B. Scott Robinson (Jan 16, 2017)

As I noted, on ocassion one must engage with unsavory fellows to achieve a greater good. The good should not always be sacrificed in pursuit of the perfect despite the protestations of those who would prefer to cling to their spotless virtue while the world is engulfed in flames around them.

Cheers,

BSR


----------



## LoneWolf (Apr 20, 2006)

Apparently appearance still remains paramount...

https://thehill.com/homenews/news/411849-judge-denies-manaforts-request-to-wear-suit-to-court


----------



## Orsini (Apr 24, 2007)

Hardly seems fair.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
Wearing a suit for a post conviction court appearance presents challenges that are simply not an issue, prior to the issuance of a guilty verdict. :icon_scratch: It is good to embrace reality!


----------



## derum (Dec 29, 2008)

I think he will look just right in that nice orange suit.


----------



## alvaromun7995 (Dec 23, 2019)

Good for him honestly. If he has done well for himself, he's got every right to spend his money how he sees fit. And, quite frankly, I can't say I wouldn't spend the same or more on clothes if I could.


----------



## smmrfld (May 22, 2007)

alvaromun7995 said:


> Good for him honestly. If he has done well for himself, he's got every right to spend his money how he sees fit. And, quite frankly, I can't say I wouldn't spend the same or more on clothes if I could.


Ummm...his present situation likely precludes further sartorial purchases. Probably just sticking with basic orange right now. You're in Illinois, so you're no doubt familiar with fashion choices made by politicians and the politically-affiliated prior to conviction.


----------



## Dhaller (Jan 20, 2008)

Perhaps Hermes makes an orange jumpsuit?

I'd guess $5800 or so.

DH


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Certain threads and topics are timeless. Then there are those that are of the moment. The latter applies to this one. 
This story jumped the shark long ago.


----------

