WASHINGTON – Winston Churchill famously described Russia as “a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma.” The same might be said – and the Russia reference is no coincidence – of Paul Manafort and the trial now underway of President Trump’s former campaign chairman.
The riddle, of course, is why there is a trial at all. Given the strength of the documentary evidence against Manafort – millions in income stashed in overseas accounts and not reported to the Internal Revenue Service; doctored financial statements designed to obtain otherwise unavailable mortgages – why did he not cut a deal with prosecutors?
Manafort is doing the legal equivalent of trying to shoot the moon – twice. Even if he is acquitted in this case, another trial looms next month on separate charges of money laundering and failing to register as a foreign agent. Perhaps Manafort is angling for a presidential pardon. But even assuming Trump is willing to commit an act so blatantly self-interested, a pardoned Manafort could still be compelled to testify, and prosecuted for any ensuing perjury unless Trump is so brazen as to prospectively pardon that conduct as well.
The mystery is comprehending the magnitude of Manafort’s greed. Assuming the allegations are true, why would someone who vacuumed up so many millions of dollars take the risk of not paying the taxes due on that income?
The Manafort indictments detail a gusher of cash flowing to the lobbyist, $60 million from the Russian-backed political party in the Ukraine alone, according to a filing by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III. Even if you paid half of that in tax, which would mean you had a pretty bad set of tax accountants, you would have enough left for all the ostrich jackets a man might want. In this case, greed isn’t good – it’s stupid.