50/50 that he's convicted on one or more.  Gates admitted to embezzling money from Manafort, so it may be hard to justify "intent"  given he couldn't submit correct returns.  

20%.   Based on the limited internet reading, they made a lot of claims that money came out of these accounts, but no evidence that he "owned" them.  Kinda like giving your child a credit card on your account...who "owns" the account?  

80%, probably 2-5 years total for 1 count.  Again, from the limited reading, he leveraged "personal relationships" with the bank president but that isn't directly "FRAUD."  

Good chance he'll spend a few years in prison but not die there.  I doubt he'll get an immediate pardon from Trump.  

I think we all agree that if someone had written a novel describing all these outrageous shenanigans, 50 editors would have said "Too ridiculous, too implausible, too far-fetched, stretches the imagination, needs more realism."

If Donald pardons Paul, Donald may find that Congress may feel obliged to initiate impeachment proceedings for obstruction of justice. Maybe.

It would surprise me if Manafort cooperates with Mueller and his prosecutors. He's probably more terrified that his Russian overlords will assassinate his family if he spilled the beans. I wouldn't be surprised if he's killed in prison; dead men can't talk. That is Donald's best hope.

What a way to spend your twilight years, all because you can't stop binge shopping or keeping expensive mistresses.

Yes, Cohen, too, is at risk of being prosecuted by the State of New York. Donald's pardon won't ultimately help either of them. Donald seems to operate out of caprice, so he'd probably do it just to create more chaos and drama.

(Pretty sure Italian mafia flip on each other, btw)

I can think of no reason why I would consider Rush's analysis on any matter.

I also don't listen to any of the infotainment moderators and pundits; it's so rare that I hear sober, careful analysis. Many of the pundits throw words around carelessly (like treason) and I don't think it provides much value to audiences. More wrestle mania.

I prefer to read actual attorneys' interpretation of the law and context. Here are more lawfare excerpts (full article here):

The president’s former lawyer has not only confessed to criminal campaign finance violations, but he has also said under oath that he was doing so at the direction of the president himself. It’s hard to say yet what precisely this means. But it is not a small thing. Setting aside the question of whether Cohen will cooperate with Mueller, it remains to be seen whether prosecutors will pursue additional criminal charges against individuals mentioned but not charged in the criminal information ...

Among the counts to which the president’s former lawyer pleaded guilty are two violations of federal election law: “causing an unlawful corporate contribution,” regarding Cohen’s role in silencing Karen McDougal’s story of an affair with Trump by persuading her to sell the rights to a tabloid that then quashed the story; and “excessive campaign contribution,” regarding Cohen’s payment to Stormy Daniels as part of a hush agreement, for which he was then reimbursed by the Trump Organization.

The criminal information made public Tuesday states that Cohen “caused and made the payments ... in order to influence the 2016 presidential election”—that is, to prevent damaging information about the affairs from surfacing during the campaign. It is the political motive behind the payments that transforms the matter into a question of federal campaign finance law. As former White House counsel Bob Bauer wrote of the Cohen case Tuesday evening, legal constraints on such expenditures are implicated when “motivation[s] materially if not wholly shaped by political objectives” come into play.

The criminal information is not clear on the extent of any coordination between Cohen and Trump personally, though it does state that Cohen “coordinated with one or more members of the campaign, including through meetings and phone calls, about the fact, nature, and timing of the payments.” But in his court hearing Tuesday, Cohen accused Trump of personal involvement in both arrangements in all but name, saying that he acted “in coordination with, and at the direction of, a candidate for federal office.”

At the end of the day, what matters isn't the plethora of analyses or careless speculation, but rather what can be proven in court and how the law is interpreted in court.

BTW, thanks for all your generous, personal remarks. I haven't done this kind of commenting in years. It's nice to flesh out my own thoughts.

I gotta run, we have dinner plans.  But just saw this:

Trump sought his lawyers’ advice weeks ago on possibility of pardoning Manafort but they counseled against it, Giuliani says

Link