the fbi was going farther a field. yeah, you re absolutely right, anderson. he was according really traffic ticket treatment to a crime that couldn t wind up with 45 years of exposure, prison exposure. all you have to do is look at the indictment that was handed down and unsealed in new york on monday. that indictment actually reaches back to the year 2002 to palm beach to epstein s mansion in palm beach and includes the incidents that were very much under acosta s jurisdiction at that time. over a decade later, new york prosecutors were able to put together a case against him when acosta claims no case was possible at that time. there were lots of federal crimes that were possible here because telephones were used, computers were used, airplanes and boats were used with respect to the commission of the crime all of this would have generated federal jurisdiction. yet he walked away and really
we do know that the potential prison exposure for paul manafort runs as high as 24 years and for somebody of paul manafort s age, that s pretty much tantamount to a live sentence. we wonder whether or not donald trump is still perhaps looking at paul manafort for a possible presidential pardon, but we also know that the new york state attorney general s office just a few days ago announced that it has a contingency plan. its insurance policy is that they are preparing state, tax and other fraud-related charges for paul manafort on the off chance that trump does give him a pardon. in a new article in the atlantic, there were omissions. manafort was not charged with conspiring with russia, but if mueller does have evidence of conspiracy, why wasn t it included in that filing? i know a lot of people were let down about that, phillip. listen, even i was interested to see what the mueller team would be willing to disclose.
number of counts, some limited conduct that would vastly reduce his prison exposure. we believe this plea is happening in washington, d.c. as you mentioned, there was another indictment handed down in the case yesterday in virginia that charged a raft of new bank and tax fraud charges against both gates and manafort. those could be waived under any kind of plea deal as would typically happen. the real significance of this is that robert mueller seems to be approaching this like he would prosecuting the gambino crime family. he s trying to flip people up the chain. it appears he s flipped mr. gates, who was paul manafort s right hand man and this puts enormous pressure on paul manafort, who is already facing 15 years in prison under the existing indictment under federal sentencing guidelines. he s 68 years old. the pressure on manafort now to consider a guilty plea would seem to be enormous. peter baker, rick gates is a central figure here. he actually was part of the campaign for a l
to defraud the united states, up to three years for fraudulent tax returns and for obstructing and impeding the irs. up to six months for employing unauthorized aliens. this looks serious. how serious is this? it s incredibly serious. it suggests when he was physically threatening this reporter. he recalled it was stress relating to hurricane sandy. it wasn t hurricane sandy, it was healthalicious. with everything they have in the indictment, you almost have to take out your calculator to figure out the prison exposure. they re talking about major amounts of cash he did not report, cash payments he then made to employees. and in some instances, employees that did not have a legal status. it s a long list of charges, very serious ones.
idea what he was doing or what he was posting. so there s information out there. i don t know if that s just a rumor. again, you know, there s a lot of rumors out there. so you really have to pull it apart. but right now they are looking at an invasion of privacy. paul, what would the bear minimum be with a charge of hate crime? under new jersey which has the toughest biased laws in the united states, you basically would be doubling the exposure, the prison exposure. so the invasion of privacy charge, which in new jersey, if you public sexual content of other people over the internet without their permission, that s invasion of privacy. that s currently punishable by a maximum of three to five years in prison. if, however, prosecutors can prove this was done with hatred of gay people in mind, for instance, which is what they will be trying to prove here, that could double the sentence to ten years. with a what exactly would you have to prove? what they would have to show