Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
drbubb

Manafort Trial a Gamble; Flipped to get Podesta?

Recommended Posts

Sure

Mueller = Scumbag & Liar ! (running an illegal witch hunt)

Another Lie at that link, almost certainly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, drbubb said:

Sure

Mueller = Scumbag & Liar ! (running an illegal witch hunt)

Another Lie, almost certainly

Have to concede I giggle inside everytime I hear this.

Both Rosenstein and Mueller have been lead investigators for republican witch hunts for decades, to hear republican media call them out and republicans buy into it is almost as hillarious as if CNN or ABC called out Prince Charles for his pedophilia, beastiality and murdered orphans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr Ellis said:

"Mr. Andres, you may call your next witness."

That's when Andres reminded him the jury still needed to be brought in. 

The courtroom erupted in laughter. 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/manafort-trial-live-updates-russia-trump-latest-mueller-ukraine-election-campaign-gates-a8485916.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Haha,

As if Nancy Pelosi was not 100X more embarrassing every single day.

And her position is way higher within the DEMocratic party

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Manafort's defense rests after calling no witnesses

ALEXANDRIA, Va. (AP) — Paul Manafort's defense rested its case Tuesday without calling any witnesses in the former Trump campaign chairman's tax evasion and fraud trial. Manafort himself chose not to testify.

The decision by Manafort's lawyer, Kevin Downing, not to call witnesses clears the way for the jury to hear closing arguments in the trial, now in its third week.
Manafort is accused of hiding millions of dollars in income he received advising Ukrainian politicians. The defense has tried to blame Manafort's financial mistakes on his former assistant, Richard Gates. Defense attorneys have called Gates a liar, philanderer and embezzler as they've sought to undermine his testimony.
Closing arguments in the case are scheduled for Wednesday morning.
Asked by Judge T.S. Ellis III whether he wished to testify in his defense, Manafort responded: "No, sir." The decision came after a more than two-hour hearing that was closed from the public.
The judge has not given any explanation for the sealed proceeding, only noting that a transcript of it would become public after Manafort's case concludes.
Manafort's decision not to testify and not to call witnesses came after Ellis rejected a defense motion that the case should be dismissed on grounds the government failed to meet its burden of proof. Manafort's lawyers asked the judge to toss out all the charges against him, but they focused in particular on four bank-fraud charges.
The government says Manafort hid at least $16 million in income from the IRS between 2010 and 2014 by disguising the money he earned advising politicians in Ukraine as loans and hiding it in foreign banks. Then, after his money in Ukraine dried up, they allege he defrauded banks by lying about his income on loan applications and concealing other financial information, such as mortgages.
Manafort's lawyers argued that there is no way that one of the banks, Federal Savings Bank, could have been defrauded because its chairman, Stephen Calk, knew full well that Manafort's finances were in disarray but approved the loan to Manafort anyway. Witnesses testified at trial that Calk pushed the loans through because he wanted a post in the Trump administration.
Ellis, in making his ruling, said that the defense made a "significant" argument, but ultimately ruled the question "is an issue for the jury."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

worth considering the witnesses he didn't call

A tax expert to show the tax shouldn't have been paid

A financial expert to say the loans should have been made

An account to say the acccounts were all in order

members of the trump administration to say he wasn't trying to get Calk a job

->he didn't even try. Will Trump really pardon him? I don't think he would have enough to gain to risk the backlash, and I really don't think a plea deal was ever even offered. He just pled innocent despite the wealth of evidence against him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Govt's case was so poorly argued, M. might get off (from many of the charges)

Will Mule-r then throw in the towel?

I am wondering when Mule-r's trial will start

He and his buddy, the King of Comedy, can share a cell, with the cardinal Comey on the top bunk, closer to God

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, drbubb said:

The Govt's case was so poorly argued, M. might get off (from many of the charges)

Will Mule-r then throw in the towel?

I am wondering when Mule-r's trial will start

He and his buddy, the King of Comedy, can share a cell, with the cardinal Comey on the top bunk, closer to God

I'll reconsider a lot of things if he gets off. Will you if he's found guilty of more than half the charges?

Big Black Cock reckons he gets 10 years, seems to me it could be quite a bit more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, mSparks said:

worth considering the witnesses he didn't call

A tax expert to show the tax shouldn't have been paid

A financial expert to say the loans should have been made

An account to say the acccounts were all in order

members of the trump administration to say he wasn't trying to get Calk a job

->he didn't even try. Will Trump really pardon him? I don't think he would have enough to gain to risk the backlash, and I really don't think a plea deal was ever even offered. He just pled innocent despite the wealth of evidence against him.

https://www.businessinsider.com/defense-rests-paul-manafort-trial-without-calling-witnesses-2018-8

  • "It is hard in a case like this for the defense to find witnesses to dispute the essential facts proven by the prosecution," said one Justice Department veteran.

I wonder if that was what happened on Friday. - All the defense witnesses pulled out. And thats why the judge was so mad the prosecution witness sat in on the case. (talked to each other)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Resting" Manafort : "I don't think they had any choice"

The best case for Manafort is a hung jury

Joe diGenova Discusses the Latest on the Mueller Probe

The Mueller team does not have a case without Mr Gates.

The prosecution made a case... but it relies on Gates, "a crook"

Joe DiG thinks Manafort was wise to not answer questions.

But also thinks the Manafort, who was "with the Trump campaign for only 90 days" had nothing on Trump.

"The only crime (that I can see) was the ILLEGAL OBTAINING of FISA warrants"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, drbubb said:

but it relies on Gates, "a crook"

This I don't agree with. because the book keeper testified it was manafort that gave the illegal orders and she told them him they were illegal.

Gates told them what to look for and gave them manafort, and the trump family. he won the prisoner dilemma game. 

But I am a long way from convinced they will pursue Trump, Muellers team just doesn't work that way. They seem to only do whitewash if you are a child raping nutjob.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be ironic if Manafort got off on some charges, where Gates committed crimes.

Remember Team Mueller did a "plea deal" with Gates to get at Manafort.

McCarthy: Mueller's Biggest Mistake in Manafort Trial Was Giving 'Shameful' Plea Deal to Gates

100 years of crime was negotiated down to 2 minor crimes FOR GATES!  

"Gates was guilty of the same crimes as Manafort"

This plea-deal thing STINKS to high heaven - Mueller and his team are obstructing Justice, just as Comey's FBI did

prison-bunk-beds-interior-design-bedroom

They both belong in prison... eventually. Hillary will be lucky if it stops at prison for her.

She might have her own "come to Jesus" moment, but in her case, it might be come to Satan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's what a slimebag, Ari Melberg at MSNBC & his lawyer friend thinks

"5 counts of filing a false return... several counts of bank fraud"

He was right about one thing: "If they put Manafort on the Stand, THEY ARE CRAZY!"

Former Prosecutor: Paul Manafort Will Be Found Guilty | The Beat With Ari Melber | MSNBC

Published on Aug 13, 2018

Special Counsel Mueller’s prosecutors have rested their case against former Trump campaign manager, Paul Manafort. Former Prosecutor in the Justice Department’s tax division, Gene Rossi, who has argued before the Judge in Paul Manafort’s case over 500 times joins Ari Melber. Rossi says he expects Manafort will be “found guilty of 5 counts of filing a false tax return”, “several counts of bank fraud, plus the foreign bank account requirement”. Rossi also describes the Judge in Manafort’s case a someone who uses a “sledgehammer with nails.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IS THIS all they Have? LOL

If Manafort gets off lightly, it may be seen as exoneration of Trump, thinks Styx

 

Manafort Won't Even Mount a Full Legal Defense Due To Crappy Prosecution

Mule-r may have been "set up by the FBI" (who had Nothing).

I disagree, I think Mule-r was part of the attempted coup & cover-up from Day 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jury to begin weighing U.S. charges against ex-Trump aide Manafort

A jury on Thursday will begin weighing the fate of Paul Manafort, the former Trump campaign chairman standing trial on bank and tax fraud charges that could put him behind bars.

The judge gave the jury of six men and six women in U.S. District Court in Alexandria, Virginia, their final instructions on Wednesday after closing arguments.

During the two weeks of testimony, witnesses described how Manafort routed $16 million in income hidden in foreign bank accounts to U.S. vendors to purchase real estate, bespoke suits and antique rugs, income he is charged with omitting from his tax returns.

The case is the first to go to trial arising out of special counsel Robert Mueller's probe of Russia's meddling in the 2016 U.S. election, although the charges against Manafort largely predate his five months on the campaign.

Manafort, 69, a veteran political consultant, made his fortune bringing pro-Russian politician Viktor Yanukovych to power in Ukraine in 2010. When Yanukovych fled the country in 2014, the political work dried up and Manafort lied about his finances to get loans from banks, prosecutors said.

In their closing argument on Wednesday, defense counsel argued that prosecutors had not proved Manafort willfully committed any crimes. They said he trusted employees, his accountants and bookkeeper to handle his financial affairs, and at times misplaced that trust.

The defense took direct aim at Rick Gates, Manafort's long-time right-hand man, who was charged in the same indictment but pleaded guilty and is cooperating with the government.

Gates' testimony was the highlight of the trial, and defense attorney Kevin Downing sought to undercut his credibility as he described the married father of four's "secret life" in London, that Gates admitted included an extramarital affair.

But Special Assistant U.S. Attorney Greg Andres told jurors in his closing that the star witness of the trial was "documents," and that, once the jury began deliberating, they should look at the exhibits to see how they corroborated Gates' testimony.

While some legal experts predicted the jury reach a decision before the weekend, others said the jury would likely deliberate longer, given the complexity and historic nature of the case.

"If this were a run-of-the-mill case, you could have a verdict Thursday afternoon or Friday because they don't want to come back Monday," said Gene Rossi, a former federal prosecutor who has watched parts of the trial. "This is a monumental case, and I would be surprised if they don't come back Monday to examine the jury instructions and the exhibits."

>

http://news.trust.org/item/20180816100001-wopdy

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MANAFORT JURY ASKS ABOUT 'REASONABLE DOUBT'...

Jurors weighing the fate of President Donald Trump's former campaign chairman Paul Manafort ended its first day of deliberations Thursday with a set of questions for the judge, asking for further explanation of legal points the defense made in closing arguments.

Just before 4:50 p.m., there was a knock at one of the doors to U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis' courtroom, behind which jurors are deliberating. The court security officer emerged minutes later with a note.

Jurors had four questions, some of which centered around defense arguments made by Manafort's lawyers.

Manafort faces 18 tax and bank fraud charges. Prosecutors say he hid millions of dollars from the IRS in overseas bank accounts, and then lied to banks to obtain multimillion dollar loans.

The jury's deliberations began just before 10 a.m. Thursday. They are expected to resume Friday at 9:30 a.m.

The jurors' questions suggest they are quickly diving into the weeds of the sometimes complex tax laws at issue in the case.

First, jurors asked if someone was required to file a form called an FBAR - which is required of people with foreign bank accounts containing more than $10,000 - if they owned less than 50 percent of such an account and did not have signature authority but did have the ability to direct disbursement.

At trial, Manafort's lawyers suggested their client might have believed he did not have to file such forms, because the companies in question were set up under his consulting firm. After 2011, he shared ownership of the firm equally with his wife. In response, the judge read to them again the legal instructions he had provided on that point Wednesday.

Second, jurors asked if the judge could define "shelf company" and the filing requirements related to income. Witnesses testified at Manafort's trial that he used so-called shelf companies - companies previously created by a lawyer in Cyprus that could be used to control the bank accounts in question - in order to move Manafort's money. To that question, the judge said the jury would have to rely on their memory of the evidence presented at trial.

Third, they asked if the judge could "redefine reasonable doubt." Jurors sometimes struggle with what constitutes a reasonable doubt of someone's guilt, versus an unreasonable doubt. The judge told them reasonable doubt "is a doubt based on reason," but added: "The government is not required to prove guilt beyond all possible doubt."

Defense attorneys emphasized in their closing argument that it's not enough to believe a defendant is "likely" guilty or even "highly likely" guilty, using a thermometer chart to make the point.

Fourth, the jurors asked if they could have an updated exhibit list, connecting each piece of evidence to the corresponding charge in the indictment. The judge said they would have to rely on their collective memory to link exhibits to specific charges.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

THE JURY has DOUBTS

"the odds of 12 people understanding this complex case... are low"

Scott Adams Predicts the Manafort Verdict Using the Persuasion Filter

Obviously, the jury is confused, and does not see the case as Slam Dunk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 31/07/2018 at 3:34 PM, mSparks said:

nothing i said works out well for them if they decide the former united states cant charge taxes on us citizens living abroad.

1. Is one required to file an FBAR if they own less than 50% of the company and no signatory authority?

answer seems to be "yes"

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, drbubb said:

THE JURY has DOUBTS

"the odds of 12 people understanding this complex case... are low"

Scott Adams Predicts the Manafort Verdict Using the Persuasion Filter

Obviously, the jury is confused, and does not see the case as Slam Dunk

A good thought game.

But here's why I don't think 1 or 2 or even 3 hold outs will be enough.

they have to find unanimously one way or the other, so bringing a hung jury verdict (which isn't a not guilty, and just means the whole thing starts again) will require [at least a week?] sat in a courtroom standing by their position. if they don't have the stamina to listen to the evidence, they definately don't have the stamina to hold out for several days/weeks arguing about something they don't know about, they'll just go with the majority.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Maybe the REPORTER'S NAMES who made this request should be exposed instead

(but GOP voters rarely harrass, maybe that needs to change)

CNN Fake News Demands Names of Manafort Case Jurors So That They Can Harass Them; Judge Says No, Citing Threats, Safety Concerns

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

  • 5 counts tax fraud: Guilty
  • 2 counts bank fraud: Guilty
  • 1 count failure to disclose foreign bank account: Guilty

retrial on the other 10 counts.

spending the rest of his life behind bars.

___

Cohan pleads guilty to fraud and campaign finance violations

Cohen stood and plead guilty to charges, including that in October 2016, he, in coordination with “the candidate” arranged to make a payment to an “individual with information that would be harmful to the candidate and to the campaign.”

Cohen said he used a company that was under his control to make the payment of $130,000 and those monies were later repaid to me by the candidate and that this was done “for the principal purpose of influencing the election.”

 

lllv6.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×