Most notably, Manafort’s attorneys have painted the prosecution’s star witness, Rick Gates, as a serial liar, embezzler and philanderer who — as a defense lawyer asserted in court on Wednesday — engaged in four extramarital affairs.
Several other setbacks have come courtesy of the cantankerous presiding federal judge, T.S. Ellis III... The judge also seemed to give credence to Manafort’s argument that he did not keep close enough track of his money to commit knowing fraud and tax evasion.
“Mr. Manafort was very good about knowing where the money is and knowing where to spend it,” Gates said.
“Well, he missed the amounts of money you stole from him, though, didn't he?” the judge said.
Gates conceded that was true.
“So, he didn't do it that closely,” the judge quipped, to some laughter in the courtroom....
९ ऑगस्ट, २०१८
"Special counsel Robert Mueller’s team of prosecutors have spent several days building what many legal experts consider a slam-dunk case against President Donald Trump’s former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort."
"But it has been surprisingly hard going at times, and as they prepare to rest their case by the week's end, they bear battle wounds that Manafort’s lawyers are sure to exploit as they mount their defense," Politico reports.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
१६० टिप्पण्या:
Yawn.
He and Roger Stone have been gaming the system for decades. Anybody who doesn't know it is clueless.
This means nothing politically.
Don't you love Politico's weasel words like "painted" and "seemed to" when "proved" and "believed" would be more accurate.
Looks like those "slam-dunk" legal experts are about as competent as Hillary was at campaigning.
The ham sandwich fights back.
Ellis called out the prosecutor for nearly crying.
The jury has to wonder why Gates gets off immunity and probation and Manafort's wife gets felt up at 5 am.
Who wouldn't love to host Judge Ellis for Thanksgiving dinner?
Only downside is that you'd definitely know what he thinks of the food and drink!
So the Prosecution has established that Manafort had $16.5M of undeclared income over five years. At a 40% tax rate, he didn't pay annual federal taxes of $1.32M per year during the five year period.
For that, he's facing 300 years in federal prison? That's just crazy. Corzine lost $1.5 Billion and wasn't even charged let alone do any time.
I doubt that Ukrainian politicians were paying Paul Manafort millions of dollars for political advice.
I suspect that, rather, Ukrainian politicians were giving him huge amounts of money to move safely out of Ukraine and to help them resettle in the West in case the Obama Administration succeeded in overthrowing Ukraine's legally elected government.
According to the European Union, Victor Yanukovych really did win the Presidential election of 2010. He did so by promising to improve relations with Russia and by winning the votes of practically all of the ethnic Russians who live in Ukraine.
Subsequently, however, Ukrainians who dominate the city of Kiev began continual protests in that city. These protests were encouraged and, to some extent, guided by the Obama Administration.
Ultimately the Ukrainian protesters in Kiev caused Yanukovych to flee from his Presidency and from Ukraine. Subsequently, the Ukraine's Russian regions -- Crimea and the Donbass -- voted to secede from Ukraine and to join Russia, where their votes would count in the future.
Ukrainian politicians in the Yanukovych administration foresaw that their elected government would be overthrown and that they personally would be persecuted. To prepare for that possibility, they hired Yanukovych to move their wealth abroad and to arrange for themselves to resettle in the West.
LOL. But Inga insisted this was going to go badly for Manafort and Trump. What a shitshow!
"Cantankerous?" That must mean "One who doesn't blindly accept what the liberals tells him."
The jury has to wonder why Gates gets off immunity and probation and Manafort's wife gets felt up at 5 am.
Not just immunity but he wasn't even charged with embezzling $400K from Manafort. How is that fair that the guy who steals from you, turns stool pidgeon and gets to keep the money if he pays taxes on it?
I'd like Inga and Ritmo to explain the fairness of such a move for alleged crimes (Manafort committed) that the DOJ dismissed in 2013 no less.
Blogger is woggy today
But Manafort was his campaign manager for like, ever! and ,... that means Trump is guilty too!
BTW - where do the Russians and the collusion fit in here?
The comments at Politico are amusing. The "magazine" turned hard left years ago and the readers are far left. They will be gobsmacked if Ellis dismisses the case for prosecutorial misbehavior.
Tye commenters are counting on an "appeal" if Ellis throws the case out.
Guardhouse lawyers know better than this.
Clintons have done far worse right under our noses. But - you know. The D's protect other D's.
Bernie Madoff defrauded his investors out of $65 BILLION and his sentence was 150 years. Mueller want's 300 years for $6.6 Million in unpaid taxes. I think the judge is calling B.S.
As I wrote above, I speculate that Paul Manafort was not paid to advise Ukrainian politicians how to win elections in Ukraine. Rather, Manafort was paid to move Ukrainian politicians' wealth out of Ukraine to the West.
I speculate further that Robert "The FBI Whitewasher" Mueller intended to prove that Manafort used Trump's businesses as means to move the wealth. Supposedly, Mueller moved the wealth through Trump's real-estate companies, golf-course companies, beauty-pageant companies and so forth.
Mueller is using the same police-state tactics against the elected US President that he used against the Mafia when he was FBI Director. Mueller is trying to remove Donald Trump from the Presidency just as he removed John Gotti from the New York Mafia. In other words, Mueller is persecuting the target's associates and then offering them deals to testify against the target.
Unfortunately for Mueller, however, Manafort has no anti-Trump knowledge to trade for a deal with Manafort. Therefore, all Mueller can do now is to prosecute Manafort for tax problems that happened many years ago.
A slam-dunk case? Good thing we're talking tax evasion and not national security.
The defects in every gear of the machinery our fine system of justice have been exposed for all to see. Incompetence at every level and every institution. No one will every think of the FBI, CIA, DOJ, and Courts the same. With a different judge--perhaps one of those Hawaiian fellows--this trial would be the kangaroo version that all the Lefties hoped for. The faux Lefty butthurt over the election will have far-reaching consequences.
I speculate further that Manafort will argue in his own defense that the money that he deposited into various foreign accounts was not his own money. Therefore, he did not owe any taxes on that money.
The money that the US Government is trying to tax is Ukrainian politicians' money that never has entered the USA financial system.
That might be why Manafort never has been charged previously. The US Government could not prove that the money is Manafort's money.
This judge sounds like bad news, and maybe a little past it at 78. I don't think he has the stamina for a complex criminal trial like this. Too irascible.
@Bill Peschel, I noticed the article’s weasel wording, too. I think the article is battleground prep for “the judge was unfair” as opposed to “Mueller couldn’t make the case, perhaps (probably?) because there was no case to make.”
This judge sounds like bad news, and maybe a little past it at 78. I don't think he has the stamina for a complex criminal trial like this. Too irascible.
Unless he falls asleep like RBG, he’s fine.
“LOL. But Inga insisted this was going to go badly for Manafort and Trump. What a shitshow!”
LOL @ yourself. If you think Manafort will get be found innocent here, you are beyond gullible. There’s another trial coming up for Manafort too, BTW.
Blogger The Crack Emcee said...
Yawn.
He and Roger Stone have been gaming the system for decades. Anybody who doesn't know it is clueless.
This means nothing politically.
Your lack of emotional response and swallowing the MSM clickbait is disturbing. It makes people uncomfortable when you don't engage in their mass cathartic outrage.
FOX News transcript.
"ANDREW NAPOLITANO: Here’s Manafort’s defense: I was investigated for all this by the government eight years ago, and I was exonerated. And I’m going to put on the stand as my first witness the young lawyer who exonerated me.
You know who that young lawyer is? Rod Rosenstein.
STEVE DOOCY: What?
NAPOLITANO: Yes! So this is going to be quite a show if they succeed in getting Rosenstein, who now runs the Justice Department —
DOOCY: So why was I innocent then and guilty now?
NAPOLITANO: There you go."
Manafort's real crime is helping get Trump elected.
My Other Blogger Darrell said...
The defects in every gear of the machinery our fine system of justice have been exposed for all to see.
Your about 1,000-years late to that revelation, Darrell. Common law means getting fucked is common.
Can somebody explain why possible financial crimes committed years ago connect to 2016 election fraud and collusion?
LOL @ yourself. If you think Manafort will get be found innocent here, you are beyond gullible. There’s another trial coming up for Manafort too, BTW.
In Ingas USA, some people are found innocent.
rhhardin said...
The ham sandwich fights back.
Gold.
“ALEXANDRIA, VA — After being chastised repeatedly by U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis in front of the jury during Paul Manafort’s ongoing trial in Virginia, the prosecutors arguing the case appear to have had enough. On Thursday, they filed a court filing taking issue with Ellis’s outburst over a government witness who had watched the full trial before being called to the stand.
Ellis told the jury Thursday morning to “put aside any criticism” of the prosecutors. “I sometimes make mistakes,” Ellis said.”
It would be nice if you folks kept up with the latest happenings in the courtroom.
well he's facing William 'cold 500 k' jeffersons atty, next, then again they may cut their losses,
Well, Inga, if you only pay attention to the prosecution then you only have part of the story. In our system of justice the defense gets its innings, too.
“Thursday’s filing asked for the judge to address the issue in front of the jury at the start of the day’s proceedings and correct “the court’s erroneous admonishment” of the prosecutors.
This is not the first time prosecutors pushed back on Ellis for his admonishments. At a bench conference last week prosecutor Greg Andres brought up the judge continuing to suggest that the government is making mistakes. We don’t have “to be chastised in front of the jury for every mistake,” Andres said.“
A slam dunk case at the close of prosecution? Unfortunately for the prosecution, that's not when we go to the jury.
I have no doubts that Manafort is one truly sleazy guy. A real "Smooth Operator"
However, the prosecution wants to have it all ways.
He is a slick operator who has conducted massive tax fraud. SO slick. So smart. Knows where every penny is. And look at the fugly clothes he wears!!!
Yet, he is so dumb that he doesn't miss millions of dollars stolen from him by his "trusted" financial guy.
Which is it. Smart/Dumb? Smooth Operator/ Patsy?
In any case. WTF does this have to do with the premise of the current witch hunt...I mean...."investigation"? Other than trying to put the screws to Manafort and make him say anything to get out of the Iron Maiden (as the judge has already supposed) there doesn't seem to be any purpose to this.
“...a government witness who had watched the full trial before being called to the stand.”
Inga, any comment on that. Or do you know even know about “The Rule” and why it exists?
Those prosecutors have a slam dunk case about which they whine constantly.
That circle is not square.
well greg andres, has been admonished in the past, by name, on appeal, as has Andrew Weissman,
This judge sounds like bad news, and maybe a little past it at 78. I don't think he has the stamina for a complex criminal trial like this. Too irascible.
Yeah! What we need is Ruth Bader Ginsberg's spry young ass on the bench so she can sleep and drool through the trial.
The judge in the Manafort case has been great. He said every version of the special prosecutor at the federal level has been a mistake, and he obviously regards the Mueller show as exhibit A. Manafort is no sleazier than thousands of people, many of whom he meets regularly and plays golf with. Everyone seems to agree he would not have faced prosecution had he not worked on the Trump campaign for a few months. This is not law enforcement, it is selectively using the threat of law enforcement to beat people into giving up something you really want. Prosecutorial misconduct. We tend to excuse such things, probably wrongly, as long as we end up seeing a big fish doing a perp walk. In this case none of the Manafort charges have anything to do with the 2016 campaign, which supposedly authorizes Mueller's work. A disgrace. It's probably too much to hope for that every Mueller case blows up while Mueller is still alive to see it happen. A pardon of Flynn should be pretty well automatic.
We don’t have “to be chastised in front of the jury for every mistake,” Andres said.“
The judge is surprisingly harsh, but the prosecution could try making fewer mistakes.
"The judge also seemed to give credence to Manafort’s argument that he did not keep close enough track of his money to commit knowing fraud and tax evasion."
-- Ah the Hillary Clinton "I'm too dumb to show intent" play. Well chosen.
I despise these immunity deals.
I would never join in a jury pool to believe any of it.
The process highlights the prosecution as conniving little bastards, seemingly worse than the citizen they wish to imprison. They are unworthy of serving the community.
If you don't have any evidence, stay home. Don't try to confuse or trick the peasants.
Special counsel Robert Mueller’s team of prosecutors have spent several days building what many legal experts consider a slam-dunk case ...
I just realized where I have heard that “many experts say” formulation! When we first got cable and I turned on the History Channel and got “Ancient Aliens.”
the most wretched of them, was probably in the ted stevens and other cases, where the chief witness, spoke of but never proferred key pieces of evidence, and his fbi handler, had something more than a professional interest, but this was discovered on appeal,
"How is that fair that the guy who steals from you, turns stool pidgeon and gets to keep the money if he pays taxes on it?"
-- Not a bad deal if you can get it. Robin Hood he ain't though.
" On Thursday, they filed a court filing taking issue with Ellis’s outburst over a government witness who had watched the full trial before being called to the stand."
-- Wait. Isn't that... a huge breach of ethical conduct? Like... witnesses go to jail/get fined for doing that! There SHOULD be an outburst.
"We don’t have “to be chastised in front of the jury for every mistake,” Andres said."
-- They don't have to be, but they can be. Especially with some of the mistakes they've made.
We don’t have “to be chastised in front of the jury for every mistake,” Andres said.“
We now have Inga LLB to advise us on the law.
Maybe it's Inga JD. I am certainly impressed, though.
I love this Judge Ellis. He should be appointed to SCOTUS - except he is too old.
I don't think he has the stamina for a complex criminal trial like this. Too irascible.
I see we have another lefty legal expert.
We are just blessed.
If Manafort is charged with being cheated by Gates, they got him dead to rights. It seems obvious even to me, and I get most of my news about this from NPR.
Somebody remind me again just what this has to do with the election? Collusion? Or any of the other bullshit they've been pushing for more than a year now?
Thanks, in advance.
Honestly, as a juror, if a witness illegally watched the whole trial, I'd be very suspicious as to why they broke a rule I knew about, without being a lawyer or anything like it. I wouldn't immediately assume that their testimony had changed, but if on cross they showed any hesitation or contradictions -- I'd be very suspicious.
Seems like the wrong guy is on trial. That is, if actually breaking the law is considered relevant.
A hung jury is a real possibility. If it is 12 people from Northern Virginia, I could very easily see 6 of them being hard left Trump haters, 3 of them being fairly non-political independents, and 3 of them being Trump lovers. One can definitely see 6 anti-Trumpers and 3 pro-Trumpers not even being interested in the evidence one little bit, and just voting their politics. So it is possible that Manafort escapes conviction here during this trial. The harder hurdle for him will be the DC trial where the jury pool is pulled from D.C. itself in which it is completely possible to have a jury of 12 Trump haters no matter how many challenges the defense gets and uses.
A less likely possibility is that Ellis takes the matter out of the jury's hands, but he probably wouldn't do that until they return with a verdict.
I'd like Inga and Ritmo to explain the fairness of such a move for alleged crimes (Manafort committed) that the DOJ dismissed in 2013 no less.
I wouldn't.
I'd rather they stay silent.
They're full of shit anyways.
Ah. The issue is that the prosecution thought the judge said he could watch it, and the judge was pretty sure he said they couldn't, and didn't waste time looking at the transcript and just said, "whatever, get it over with."
Special Prosecutors are a complex welfare program.
You start with $0 and ramp up to a $ Billion as quickly as possible, and then vanish back to Martha's Vineyard and Manhattan.
Performance and results are not as important as press.
The suckers are the peasants who deduct from their labor earnings.
Trump pulled one "swamp creature" out of the swamp looking for the "experience" and "maturity" the establishment was clamoring for.
Then, because of that nexus, the swamp selectively prosecutes that swamp creature for illegal activities that were pervasive among the swamp creature population.
But Manafort filled his car with Premium Unleaded. Premium. Unleaded.
I'd like Inga and Ritmo to explain...
This is a blog, you mouth-breathing shitheads.
Who gives a rats ass what one commenter or the next says?
It's a fucking blog, people write shit. You don't have to chew it.
Get a paper sack, and breath into it.
“Well, he missed the amounts of money you stole from him, though, didn't he?”
That's so good I just had to punch it up again.
Manafort will likely be convicted of some of the charges but his lawyers are doing a great job of exposing the corruption of Mueller. Gates testified that he’s @taking responsibility by pleading guilty and testifying against Manafort.@ Manafort’s lawyer then asked him if he’s going to pay back Manafort the million he stole from him and Gates said no. “So you’re actually not taking responsibility for your crimes?” Pure gold. “Did the special prosecutor charge you with stealing a million of Mr Manafort’s money?” Gates said “No.”
The lawyers are making a great case for jury nullification. So is the judge.
Sideshow Bob is doing a lot of damage to himself
“...a government witness who had watched the full trial before being called to the stand.”
Inga, any comment on that. Or do you know even know about “The Rule” and why it exists?
Right, Quayle. Like she would know or even care what she's pasting. You mean it's not like on TV where the witnesses just step from the gallery? Sequestered, you say! Hmmm. Having been both a witness in one criminal trial and the jury foreman in another I am very familiar with what our expert Inga "overlooked" in that cut-and-paste job.
As a purely theoretical discussion of the physics, about the only thing I might want to hear from Ritmo or Inga would be how exactly they got their heads into their asses in the first place.
Several other setbacks have come courtesy of the cantankerous presiding federal judge, T.S. Ellis III...
Are judges labeled as "cantankerous" when they don't appear to be all-in for Politico's side? Because that quoted comment does not seem bad-tempered to me.
"many legal experts consider ..."
Ah ... much more authoritative than the shopworn "many people say ..."
This is a blog, you mouth-breathing shitheads.
Who gives a rats ass what one commenter or the next says?
It's a fucking blog, people write shit. You don't have to chew it.
Get a paper sack, and breath into it.
So you quote me and then puke up this word salad. You can keep the rat's ass, and I'll mansplain it to you anyway. "People write shit" and then they repeat it daily for 18 months and make very specific predictions. But reality doesn't match their lousy predictions, because they were wishcasting more than actually, you know, thinking. So I want to know how they square their previous statements with today's reality. Maybe that interests you or maybe not. Apparently you haven't noticed that the posts are just a launching point for what we do here. The real action takes place in the comments.
But then I should admit I don't really expect an intelligent response from Inga and Ritmo. Not even a response that addresses the points I raised. And that is part of the point of writing here at all.
Manafort's real crime is helping get Trump elected.
A crime for which some jury members will gladly convict him.
We don’t have “to be chastised in front of the jury for every mistake,” Andres said.“
Boo-hoo. Was he crying when he said it?
This seems like a good time to mention the movie, on Netflix, "Get me Roger Stone"
It is mainly about Roger Stone, the Stone in Manafort, Stone and Black, an election consultancy.
Roger Stone cooperated fully and it is interesting throughout. Stone brags about some of the sleaze.
I think MSB broke up before the stuff currently on trial so I don't think he has any involvement. But he was involved in other shenanigans and happy to talk about them.
John Henry
Regarding the government witness who sat through the trial.
There are two kinds of witnesses, percipient and expert. It is common to exclude percipient witnesses before they are called if their recollection of events is likely to be contested. (Except the defendant, Manafort, who has a right to be in attendance at all times. If this were a civil case, the plaintiff(s) would have a right to attend also, or for a corporate party, a designated representative.)
But expert witnesses are different. They are there not to testify to a personal recollection of events, but to explain evidence to the jury that is beyond the juror's common experience. So it makes sense for expert witnesses to attend the trial and/or review the transcripts and exhibits introduced in advance of their tesitmony. This witness is an expert on taxes. The government got the judge's permission for him to attend, and the judge apparently forgot. Like I said before, he's old.
re the admonishment yesterday and the apology today.
Apparently, the judge and both sides agreed that the IRS witness could sit in during other testimony. I saw several stories about that this morning and that this was the reason for the apology by the judge.
What I did not see was what the reason for letting this particular witness sit in. My understanding is that this is an unusual exception.
Do any of the lawyers here have any idea why an exception might be granted?
CNN is liveblogging the trial with updates every few minutes. They seem to be glossing over prosecution setbacks that I am seeing in other reports. There are so many they can't seem to elide the completely.
https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/manafort-trial/index.html
Interesting but don't use it as your only source.
John Henry
what does the government have to prove? there were loans, to avoid declaring income, right? and then the loans were forgiven. where the loans illegal per se? or was the forgiveness illegal per se, or only if it can be proven that the loan was a sham from the beginning? Can anyone comment on this?
Mike Sylwester is probably right.
I had seen the Napolitano interview someone mentioned. Does anyone know if Rosenstein will be called?
Perhaps one of the lawyers here can explain how Manafort's lawyer can get Rosenstein's exoneration of Manafort in front of the jury if they can't/don't call him. Assuming they can get it admitted.
It seems pretty relevant.
What happens to the I.N.G.A.s if Manafort is found not guilty?
John Henry
I doubt a prior investigation exonerated Manafort. They might have investigated and elected not to prosecute, but such an exercise of discretion is not admissible unless the prosecution "opens the door" in this trial in some way I can't foresee.
Which trials test innocence?
But expert witnesses are different.
readering, how many times have you testified as an expert witness?
For me, it's been about 20 times in various states and I have NEVER sat in on the trial before testifying.
I assume the reason was to avoid slanting my testimony to one side or the other. I have testified for both plaintiff and defense in about six states.
I haven't seen anything at all presented by Mueller concerning "money laundering" or "tax evasion". In fact, am shocked at the lack of details toward the 2 primary charges? So far it is only in the indictment - which is meaningless without the proof. Money earned overseas does not have to be brought back to the U.S. Company's do this all the time. It is just a deferral of taxes concept. In fact, if companies lose money overseas, then they can just offset their prior overseas profits against their overseas losses. Tax evasion or money laundering is very difficult to prove, especially if Manafort used his LLCs, Corporations, Incs, etc. Moreover, how will Mueller's team get cooperation from the Ukrainian players who paid him? A slam dunk case? LOL!
Чикелит: "Which trials test innocence?"
Only 1 that I know of: "What floats?"
I must say I'm enjoying reading the Freder and readering posts.
Hilarious.
Blogger readering said...
I doubt a prior investigation exonerated Manafort.
Do investigations normally exonerate anyone? In the sense of saying "Nope, he didn't do it."
If the DA gets a tip that I am running a bookie joint out of my house, they will investigate, right?
So they come, investigate, find no evidence that I am running a bookie joint and drop the investigation. Have I been "exonerated"?
Why would I not be able to use this in a trial today of having run a bookie joint at the time in question? Especially if it appears that the new claims are politically motivated. Seems like this might go to intent in the current prosecution.
IANAL and mean that as a serious question.
John Henry
Blogger Michael K said...
Maybe it's Inga JD. I am certainly impressed, though.
Doctor Inga?
Naaah. She is a JN. Juris Nurse.
John Henry
Blogger Darrell said...
But Manafort filled his car with Premium Unleaded. Premium. Unleaded.
Darrrell, it's much worse than that. He was buying premium leaded gas under the counter.
John Henry
Those "legal experts" (translation: biased people who say what we want them to say in support of the narrative we are pushing) also think the case against Trump and/or Manafort is such a "slam dunk" that we don't even need to have a trial or put on any evidence.
Michael K. You have never sat in on prior trial testimony probably because no one has wanted to pay your hourly fee to do so. But if you were a truly retained expert (not an attending physician also offering opinions) there should be nothing wrong with you hearing/reading the other evidence.
I'm a trial attorney. Civil cases. There's enough money at stake that the experts read each other's reports, submit rebuttals, sit in on one another's pretrial depositions, the whole shebang. Of course, since they're experts, and as you indicate, nominally neutral, conversations with attorneys are not privileged and are fair game for trial examination. But with good lawyers on both sides (and an impatient judge), that's not a fruitful line of inquiry.
From what I have read Gates is one of the most impeachable witnesses ever to take the stand. I have, frankly, been amazed at some of the self-damaging testimony he has given. Other witnesses have been a bit contradictory saying that Manafort knew where every penny was then admitting that they had submitted fraudulent work papers to other parties. Manafort certainly doesn't seem like Mr. Clean, but the impression I get is that if he was crooked so were all the people who he hired to help with his financials and who are now testifying "against" him. From what has been reported so far it is easy to see why the DOJ decided not to prosecute this the first time around.
John Henry, have your attorney get a letter from the prosecution saying no bookie joint here. Keep the letter for future use.
Via TechnoFog, who is a lawyer and is positing parts of the transcript online. Via The Gateway Pundit at https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/08/muellers-star-witness-rick-gates-falls-apart-during-cross-examination-by-manafort-lawyers-perjures-himself/
HERE IS WHERE RICK GATES PERJURES HIMSELF:
Manafort’s lawyer persists, and here we catch Rick Gates in his first lie:
“I didn’t provide false and misleading information to the Special Counsel’s office.”
Their star witness just committed perjury.
Manafort’s lawyer persists, and here we catch Rick Gates in his first lie:
“I didn’t provide false and misleading information to the Special Counsel’s office.”
Their star witness just committed perjury. pic.twitter.com/StPpnVSUC7
— Techno Fog (@Techno_Fog) August 8, 2018
Judge Ellis blasts Rick Gates for lying.
Defense: If you didn’t lie, then why did you plead guilty to providing false information?
John Henry
Defense: If you didn’t lie, then why did you plead guilty to providing false information?
Potential Gates answer: I'm so happy to be a part of the Mueller team prosecution of Manafort that I'm willing to lie under oath about having lied to the Special Counsel!!
Readering,
Apparently my note asking why a witness could sit in crossed paths with your answer. I did not see it before I posted.
Good explanation and thank you.
John Henry
The judge also seemed to give credence to Manafort’s argument that he did not keep close enough track of his money to commit knowing fraud and tax evasion.
If “seemed to give credence to” means “demonstrated” then I have no objection to the phrasing.
one of the most impeachable witnesses ever to take the stand.
Let’s not drag Bill Clinton into every thread.
If they liked him, Judge Ellis would have a "dry wit" and be "charming"; they don't like him calling out the prosecution so he's "cantankerous". Fake News, all the way down.
This trial may come down to how the judge instructs the jury; based on what has been reported it is certainly no sure thing at this point.
And let's remember it has nothing to do with the Trump campaign.
Nothing but a political show trial.
What am I going to do when Trump is impeached, indicted, and convicted? That's easy: never leave home again without deploying an umbrella to block all the pigshit dropping from the pigs flying overhead.
Posting "direct and clear excerpts" of other people's writing is completely useless if you fail to (a) put them in quotation marks, and (b) link to the sources, so we can judge for ourselves.
But if you were a truly retained expert (not an attending physician also offering opinions) there should be nothing wrong with you hearing/reading the other evidence.
I guess that's why they always arranged for me to sit outside until I was called.
If you really are a trial lawyer, you probably know how many are really incompetent.
A lot of cases depended on a stupid or ignorant lawyer. I have a few stories about how cases were lost by bad lawyering.
I was going to write another book one time, with my trail lawyer son, on how to use experts.
“Right, Quayle. Like she would know or even care what she's pasting. You mean it's not like on TV where the witnesses just step from the gallery? Sequestered, you say! Hmmm. Having been both a witness in one criminal trial and the jury foreman in another I am very familiar with what our expert Inga "overlooked" in that cut-and-paste job.”
Funny, I always get the impression that you folks are extremely poorly informed and are incapable of understanding the things I cut and paste. I always try to post the most direct and clear excerpts I can and yet you folks who think you’re so much more intelligent than I am seem to completely miss the point, or stupidly disregard it out of hand. I’ve even seen numerous instances of when a different commenter, a conservative, posts the exact same thing I’ve posted and only then do you dumbasses seem to accept it. I have tried to give you Trumpists more credit, but at every turn you prove your ignorance and you continue to sink deeper into cultish behavior.
What are you going to do when this Trump/ Russia scandal is over and your President and those who are implicated are impeached, indicted and convicted?
What fools you people are.
What are you going to do when this Trump/ Russia scandal is over and your President and those who are implicated are impeached, indicted and convicted?
There is no arguing with determined ignorance or stupidity.
'Can somebody explain why possible financial crimes committed years ago connect to 2016 election fraud and collusion?'
To keep the other 'witnesses' re the '2016 election fraud and collusion' in line by making an example. Give us the goods on Trump and work with/for us OR ELSE. So basically a form of blackmail.
Trial lawyer son, in case FieldMarshal Freder is looking.
a slam-dunk case against President Donald Trump’s... former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort
Close association. Story continues below the fold.
readering said...
Michael K. You have never sat in on prior trial testimony probably because no one has wanted to pay your hourly fee to do so.
Come to think of it one lawyer asked me to sit at the lawyer's table.
He was the stupidest I've ever met. Lost a winnable case.
I don't have a time machine. My 2:48 and 2:50 comments are replies to the one Igna deleted and then reposted at 2:51.
The Drill SGT, 12:17:
"Can somebody explain why possible financial crimes committed years ago connect to 2016 election fraud and collusion?"
Belatedly, I can try.
Mueller is out there playing defense for the FBI/DOJ, of which he is an elder statesman. I'd guess he'd love to find something that gives the next Congress plausible grounds for impeachment, but pace Inga et al. I think that hope's gone glimmering.
In the meantime, it looks an awful lot as though some senior FBI/DOJ people abused their position to avoid/prevent/undo the election of Donald Trump. That would be hugely damaging institutionally - unless Mueller can build a case, however circumstantial, that that's not at all what happened.
The more he can show that Manafort and Gates are slimy, with deeply questionable foreign connections, the more he allows the FBI/DOJ to make the case to public opinion that they acted reasonably, that their concerns would have been shared by any sober-minded completely nonpartisan guardian of national security, and that no political weaponization occurred, or need be invoked.
Just a guess.
there's a kind of cool app called Thread Reader that I ran across the other day looking for some stuff by Thomas Wictor, who has some very interesting ideas on Mueller et al. He thinks Mueller may be working for President Trump and he makes a very interesting case.
Posting the perjury comments a few minutes ago reminded me that I had meant to go read some more Twitter posts by TechnoFog since he is posting chunks of Manafort trail transcripts, motions and more. Haven't had a chance to read it yet but it is here:
https://threadreaderapp.com/user/Techno_Fog
Very OT but perhaps interesting:
Thomas Wictor's threads are here:
https://threadreaderapp.com/user/thomaswictor
The interesting thread on Trump/Mueller collusion is here https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/959872429433565184.html
Something else I learned from Wictor is this bill currently before Congress:
This Act may be cited as the “Unmasking Antifa Act of 2018”.
Ҥ 250. Interference with protected rights while in disguise
“(a) In general.—Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, while in disguise, including while wearing a mask, injures, oppresses, threatens, or intimidates any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 15 years, or both.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/6054/text
John Henry
"We the jury find the defendant, Paul Manafort, guilty of owing an all-red billiard room with a stuffed camel and a bathtub shaped like a clam."
If I were a juror, I'd vote to nullify simply on the basis of the government granting immunity to Podesta.
JPS,
Its already served several purposes more aggressive-minded than institutional defense. This has hurt Trump's attempts to staff his administration by raising the risk of opportunistic prosecution. Mueller and co. are out to make examples of various Trump associates to scare off others.
Its also diverted Trumps attention and energies, and given the MSM huge amounts of propaganda material.
Several other purposes behind this all.
“Posting "direct and clear excerpts" of other people's writing is completely useless if you fail to (a) put them in quotation marks, and (b) link to the sources, so we can judge for ourselves.”
I always use quotes. I most often link, but sometimes I do forget to add the link, but not often. If my excerpt is from a source you consider left of Breitbart you reject it out of hand, making yourselves victims of epistemic closure. Also, I’m honest enough to quote directly, using quotation marks, while so many of you post comments from some rightist rag I just just read with almost identical wording, but no mention of source as if they revieved their info from God himself, lol. Yes I do read media both right and left of center, unlike most of you folks.
So, while you people are busy finding new and better conspiracy theories to post, I read articles from reputable sources and share them here, hoping you igmoramuses can learn a thing or two. But that would give you Cultists too much credit.
the witness non-exclusion was not a question of dueling memories. The conversation between judge, defense and prosecution is on transcript, posted here by technofog:
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1027564989152821248.html
He also posts this, from a transcript at the start of the trial:
Special Counsel moved to exclude all witnesses, except for their expert and case agent.
Judge Ellis: "I will grant the motion to exclude witnesses."
So this looks like witnesses were not to be excluded but the judge was asked to exclude them with the exception of the expert and a case officer and granted the general exclusion.
So absent this motion, would all witnesses have been permitted to view testimony? that's the way I read this.
John Henry
“There is no arguing with determined ignorance or stupidity.”
Indeed. I’ve noted this regarding you and your fellow Cultists. Not all here are Cultists, but enough to make it concerning. Cultism makes you stupid Michael. Why else did all those people drink the cyanide kool aid? They weren’t all ignorant or stupid before they became Cultists.
Inga,
"Yes I do read media both right and left of center, unlike most of you folks."
Can I ask, who's your favorite conservative or libertarian writer? You know, someone you may disagree with but always respect and can trust theyre not BS-ing you?
Flavor-Aid.
Don't ask the fool hard questions.
She knows enough to cut and paste.
That's it.
“Trial lawyer son, in case FieldMarshal Freder is looking.”
Yes, the son that Michael K has said he’s estranged from several times here in these comments sections.
If you're going to accuse "so many" of us of "post{ing} comments from some rightist rag I just just read with almost identical wording", you need to give some examples, naming names and quoting sources with links. Otherwise you look like a damned filthy liar. Start backing up your libel, or start apologizing, Igna.
By the way, I've never read Breitbart, so I can't tell what would be to their left and what wouldn't. Time to recalibrate your insults, Igna.
Michael K likes to name drop, it’s as if he thinks that makes him an authority in the area as the person whose name he’s dropped.
Whose name did I drop, fool ?
Are you imagining thongs again.
My trail lawyer sin is a lefty but we go back and forth.
Nice of you to show such glee.
“Start backing up your libel, or start apologizing...”
So sue me you ignorant insect, let’s see how far you’d get. I love how some people think that saying others are “libelous” they can scare them...or something, lol. You are nothing more than an anoying buzzing in my ear.
johnhenry100 said...
Blogger Darrell said...
But Manafort filled his car with Premium Unleaded. Premium. Unleaded.
Darrell, it's much worse than that. He was buying premium leaded gas under the counter.
Sounds like a fire hazard. Gas should never be stored under a counter.
“Are you imagining thongs again.”
Who me? Imagine thongs? Those annoying articles of underwear have no use for me in my grandma years, lol.
Special Counsel moved to exclude all witnesses, except for their expert and case agent.
Judge Ellis: "I will grant the motion to exclude witnesses."
So this looks like witnesses were not to be excluded but the judge was asked to exclude them with the exception of the expert and a case officer and granted the general exclusion.
So absent this motion, would all witnesses have been permitted to view testimony?
---
This reads to me as: I grant the motion to exclude witnesses. The period means he's not making the exceptions; that would be "I grant the motion to exclude witnesses, except A and B."
Given the judge says he never allows exceptions except for the case officer, this looks not like dueling memories or forgetting, but sloppy casework by everyone involved.
"I want to exclude everyone, but Bill and Ted, from this excellent adventure."
"I will exclude everyone."
Do Bill and Ted get to go on the excellent adventure? Anyone interpreting the judge as allowing the case officer and expert, and excluding the others, I think, is misinterpreting it.
No one threatened to sue you, Igna. Everyone else here understood what I was saying, which is that you have three choices: a. You can back up your statement by providing multiple instances of multiple people here quoting the words of others without acknowledgement, and proving them with links. b. You can apologize for saying something so obviously untrue and vicious. c. You can look like a lying asshole and a fool. Judging by your record, and your first reply here, you're obviously going with plan 'c'.
(Now, the confusion comes in that the motion is one lump deal, I think. The motion is to do A, but not B and C, and the judge said, "I'll grant the motion to do A," and by not addressing B and C, it is open to interpretation. This should've been clarified then.)
“Can I ask, who's your favorite conservative or libertarian writer? You know, someone you may disagree with but always respect and can trust theyre not BS-ing you?”
George Will, Bill Kristol, the late Krauthammer, just to name a few. Don’t forget Charlie Sykes.
Matthew,
technoFog is posting images of the transcript so I could not cut and paste excerpt except from what he has typed as text. And I was too lazy to retype from the transcript.
But, retyping from the transcript to be a bit clearer:
Mr Asonye: Judge, I'm sorry, we also -- the government would move to exclude any witnesses once the opening statements start with the exception of our expert and the case agent"
"The court: any objection to the case agent and the expert"
"Mr Westling: No your honor"
(Asonye is a prosecution attorney. Westling is defense attorney)
"George Will, Bill Kristol, the late Krauthammer, just to name a few. Don’t forget Charlie Sykes."
Hahahahaha!
Inga reads Trump hating leftist columnists and Trump hating GOPe columnists. That makes her so well informed!
Mike Sylwester is probably right.
I think that pretty often.
I have money in a foreign bank account, because I forgot to close our checking account when I moved. It's worth about $10.00. We made it while working there, but were paid in US dollars into a US bank by a US company, and then transferred any money we needed locally. We paid our US taxes on our income.
It irritates me to no end that every year I have to check the box that I have a foreign bank account, because it seems to me it is none of the US government's business. On the years that we actually kept money in it, we had to declare a certain amount. Again, it seems to me it is none of the US Government's business if I have the money to pay for my groceries and ITUNES n a foreign account.
That doesn't make what Manafort was doing legal, of course. But why don't people care more about the overreach of the US government into our own personal business?
Thanks, Inga.
exiledonmainstreet, green-eyed devil,
"Hahahahaha! / Inga reads Trump hating leftist columnists and Trump hating GOPe columnists. That makes her so well informed!"
Well - if I think of my favorite left-liberal writers, most of them made the list by willingness to break with their own side on an article of orthodoxy, or to call out allies on occasion for being partisan hacks. I'm sure my mention of them would be laughed at by other lefties: Sure, you would like that fuckin' traitor.
So I can't in good faith give Inga crap for her top four, even if I think Bill Kristol is moving rapidly leftward mainly to dissociate himself from those Trump people over there.
Johnhenry100: Excluding witnesses requires a motion but the motion is granted as a matter of right so there would be no argument of reasons (unless for such exceptions to the exclusions as experts or the proper party representative). The order applies to both sides so there could be situations where both sides mutually don't want to invoke their right to exclude. Not so much in a criminal case, where the government usually has more witnesses and defendant can stay anyway as of right.
Michael K: I don't see bad lawyers at trial, but I see many bad lawyers at hearings where the the court has multiple cases on its calendar. A reason I would never want to be a judge. But that's the thing about U.S. v. Manafort. These are the elite of the bar on both sides and most judges appreciate presiding over such trials. The judge sees far worse all the time, so I don't understand why he explodes so much (except that he believes they're not following his instructions).
"Do investigations normally exonerate anyone? In the sense of saying "Nope, he didn't do it."
It is standard practice for the director of the FBI to appear on television at the end of an investigation, review the clear and irrefutable evidence of crime, and then exonerate the criminal.
Steven Hatfill got $5.5 million from the federal government after Mueller fucked up the anthrax investigation. That’s exoneration and Mueller should have been fired for his arrogance and incompetence.
But he kissed the right ass in DC over the years, just like Comey, which is how he reached the top of the FBI. Sideshow Bob. Another swamp rat
"It is standard practice for the director of the FBI to appear on television at the end of an investigation, review the clear and irrefutable evidence of crime, and then exonerate the criminal."
Special people deserve special treatment. How else would we know who is special?
It would be impossible to assemble a group of investigators with a worse record of overreach, bias, prosecutorial abuse, and conflict of interest without letting the Dems select it themselves. It hard to believe our system allows it. The rules don't, but we are not a nation of laws.
Are you imagining thongs again.
Imagining thongs in the context of Inga made me throw up.
“Imagining thongs in the context of Inga made me throw up.”
Imagining Quackster in his underwear makes me want to laugh my ass off and take several steps backward and then make a hasty mental retreat. Skinny hairy legs with knobby knees, thighs that sag worse than an elderly woman’s, an ass that is freakishly fat considering the skinny legs, no mannish bulge in the crotch, just a girlish camel toe. I won’t even mention the foul sour odor and shit stain on the obviously unwashed tightly whities.
“Imagining thongs in the context of Inga made me throw up.”
Just re-imagine her in those type of granny panties that are always getting in a wad when someone calls her out.
Wait. That probably isn't better either.
I don't understand why he explodes so much (except that he believes they're not following his instructions).
I expect he is thinking of Ted Stevens.
Maybe there are more bad lawyers in med mal. I also did quite a few court sessions in criminal cases because of the trauma center.
I have a couple of stories in my second book.
A couple were pretty high profile lawyers, like one very famous Hollywood guy. His was one case where a defense lawyer lied in court.
The case was about a failure to [properly monitor anticoagulation in a guy (the famous lawyer) with a deep vein thrombosis.
He bled badly and almost lost a kidney. I don't want to get into jargon and too much detail but the defense lied in asking me a question on cross. I called the pathologist at our hospital and asked if he was willing to drive to West LA and testify. He was. He thought it would be interesting.
The lawyer declined to call him as a rebuttal witness and the client lost his case.
One story in my book is of a guy who shot a man who he found in bed with his wife.
A very sharp criminal defense lawyer named Ron Davis got him off on self defense.
A funny story. The prosecutor was dumber than Chris Darden and Marcia Clark.
DBQ, you’re older than I am so I guess you’re not wearing thongs much nowadays either, but feel free to take advantage of your remote location to bare your granny derrière to the critters that wander through your backyard, lol.
I can believe that a lot of lawyers in med mal are in over their heads.
The standard for a federal prosecutor is generally much high than for state prosecutors. And they have more resources (i.e., FBI/IRS/DEA agents).
I have been sued personally a few times. One was a car accident. Arguably my fault. But plaintiff's lawyer missed statute of limitations. But then my insurance company settled without telling me because it forgot I had raised the missed deadline. Another time a workman sued for premises liability for injury on a job. But the work was not being done on my house, and a simple check of internet permit records for the block would have given the lawyer the correct address. Third premises liability case was dog bite (my tenant co-defendant as dog owner). Once I told the lawyer my insurer was contesting coverage he just dropped his client. Yeah there are lots of bad lawyers.
Some great ones, too. I used to do cases for a guy named Clay Alspaugh in Alabama.
He told me the last time I reviewed a case for him that he was getting out of med mal. He said the jury pool had been poisoned by asbestos and silicone class actions. His firm was going to stick to non-med mal cases.
Great guy and a gentleman.
My son switched from defense to plaintiff a couple of years ago. I guess more money.
Not med mal.
" . . . what many legal experts consider . . ." is typical journalism shorthand for "what me and my friends think".
@Tim in VT From what I have read Gates makes Slick Willy look like a piker. Willy only lied about a couple of words here and there, Gates seems to be doing his best fabricate an entire fairy tale.
how long does this have to drag on before the 'special' prosecution in this Russian collusion case has earned its pound of flesh and we can move on with life? Or is it simply an on-going tool to distract the plebs from what is actually newsworthy in the real world?
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा