August 10, 2018

"The judge in Paul Manafort's trial has called a recess without explanation."

"U.S. District Judge T. S. Ellis lll huddled with attorneys from Special Counsel Robert Mueller's office and Manafort's defense lawyers, as well as court security officers, for more than 20 minutes before calling the recess. The judge then exited the courtroom toward the jury room...."

Yahoo News.

ADDED: As you can see at the same link, the trial resumed and there was no big deal. Too bad this boring post sat at the top of the blog all day! I hate when that happens. And before I went out for my 4-mile walk, I considered putting up this photograph:

IMG_2198

But I decided it was too boring. How wrong I was! It is fascinating compared to the Manafort trial.

109 comments:

john said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
john said...

If you call a recess just before noon on a Friday, it can only mean one thing:

You gotta swing by and get the beer and then get the barbi fired up

EDH said...

It really doesn't say who asked for the sidebar.

Sounds like the media is getting ready to blame the judge if there's a mistrial.

tim in vermont said...

My money is on the Democrats got another judge to intervene because the whole thing was going pear shaped.

Khesanh 0802 said...

Another article mentions that Ellis had some other court matters that he had to take care of.

rhhardin said...

Boys need recesses.

M Jordan said...

When Manafort gets acquitted is Mueller’s investigation over? Rhetorical question which I’ll answer: No. it will never be over. But it should be.

EDH said...

Doesn't the judge know recesses invariably lead to bullying and wedgies?

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Russians.

Matthew Sablan said...

"Sounds like the media is getting ready to blame the judge if there's a mistrial."

-- I think the prosecution would love a mistrial to get a jury that won't be told Manafort can't have been that careful with his money since the star witness stole from Manafort.

Jeremy Abrams said...

Whatever the reason, I'd guess it involves something the judge can or must tell the jury, since he went to the jury room. It's still Friday afternoon. I bet we learn more before the day is out.

rhhardin said...

Recesses used to be the time to burn ants with a magnifying glass.

eric said...

The guilt or innocence of Manafort is besides the point.

The media and their allies in Never Trump have already determined his guilt and tarred the entire Trump administration with it.

In the future, someone will challenge a friend and say, what was so bad about the Trump administration and the friend will give off a litany kf talking points, one of those will be, "Manafort" as though "everyone knows" sorta thing.

This is why the Dem Media does what it does.

mccullough said...

It’s Miller Time for da judge.

mccullough said...

Trump just emailed the judge a pardon for Manafort.

robother said...

Prosectors needed more time to wheel in the (literally) big guns.

EDH said...

robother said...
Prosectors needed more time to wheel in the (literally) big guns.

Stormy Daniels is going to testify?

bagoh20 said...

", I'd guess it involves something the judge can or must tell the jury, since he went to the jury room. "

"I'm not wearing anything under this. Woohooo! It's Friday!!!"

Etienne said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Achilles said...

Credible death threats against the judge are a possibility.

bagoh20 said...

""Here come da judge. Here come da judge".

"Wait.
Counsel, please approach the bench.
My penis pump is stuck. Are there any doctors on the jury?"

"Yes, one, your honor."

"Recess!"

traditionalguy said...

Older Judges are bad about calling the prosecutors and giving them advice mid-trial when it is going badly. They see themselves as a part of the law enforcement team. Maybe he wanted a face to face with the Prosecutor off the record to give him advice.

ndspinelli said...

This judge sounds like the late US District Judge in Madison, John Shabaz.

rhhardin said...

Lightning just took out the local Rush affiliate. No carrier, just disappeared.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

Jeremy Abrams said...

Whatever the reason, I'd guess it involves something the judge can or must tell the jury, since he went to the jury room.

I doubt it. Any jury instructions would be given in the courtroom, in front of attorneys for both sides. And it didn't say that he went to the jury room, only that he exited the court in that direction. ( The time I was on a jury, the jury room was down a side hallway with its own entrance to the courtroom, so that the jury was not mingling with random people. But that side hallway also contained an exit to the rest of the courthouse. ) So the judge may have just been avoiding the crowds/reporters on his way out of the building.

Darrell said...

Someone just noticed that ten years is greater than the three year Statute of Limitations on tax cases. Nah. Law doesn't matter anymore.

Browndog said...

It's almost surprising Ellis let this go to trial considering his pre-trial comments, and the hard lesson learned after presiding over the Ted Stevens railroading.

Leland said...

I'm sure it is unethical and wouldn't happen. Still:

Judge sticks head into Jury room: "Is it just me, or did the Prosecution make a case that makes sense at all?"

Jurors: "It's not just you Judge, can we go ahead and render a judgement of 'not guilty' now? We don't need to hear the Defense. It's the weekend and we'd like to go home to our families."

Judge: "Sure thing, but how about lunch first?"

EDH said...

Darrell said...
Someone just noticed that ten years is greater than the three year Statute of Limitations on tax cases. Nah. Law doesn't matter anymore.

If they can prove intentional fraud there is no statute of limitations.

narciso said...

he wanted to see how much of a trainwreck, mueller was capable of, it was epic,

victoria said...

I think he was taking a call from someone in the Administration telling him to wrap it up. Nothing here to see, except the illegality of all that Manafort did in the name of the Cheeto in Charge.


Vicki from Pasadena

Bob Boyd said...

Probably Putin meddling.

narciso said...

back in the Obama era of 'the reset' try again Victoria, of course the ones who actually were supposed to have lobbied, podesta sank it into bad art, gates seems to have been stealing everything that wasn't nailed down,

FullMoon said...

MSM will continue spin that Judge is mistreating prosecution. Setting up excuses in case they lose. They won't stop. Gonna be panels on news talking about judge favoring defense.

tim in vermont said...

Nothing here to see, except the illegality of all that Manafort did in the name of the Cheeto in Charge.


Not that I expect an answer from somebody who just uses their emotions to “think” but what is Manafort charged with that has anything to do with Trump?

When is Podesta going to be dragged in front of a court for taking millions from Putin cronies?

narciso said...

if they cast this as a law and order episode, there would be lots of dead lobbyists, and the bratva would have come to settle accounts, that's what happen when you swindle them right?

Darrell said...

If they can prove intentional fraud there is no statute of limitations.

People! Check your 1972 tax filings again!

Ignorance is Bliss said...

victoria said...

I think he was taking a call from someone in the Administration telling him to wrap it up. Nothing here to see, except the illegality of all that Manafort did in the name of the Cheeto in Charge.

Well, if the only thing to see is related to Manafort's involvement with Trump, then this case ( which has nothing to do with Manafort's time with Trump ) should be dropped, and Mueller sanctioned for malicious prosecution.

Glad we have that settled.

Dr. Caligari said...

There is no statute of limitations on civil tax fraud. Criminal tax fraud has a six year statute of limitations.

FullMoon said...


When is Podesta going to be dragged in front of a court for taking millions from Putin cronies?

8/10/18, 1:41 PM


Wouldn't that be a dream come true? Trump get a bunch of guys working toharrass and destroy every single crook involved?

NONE of the FBI or dems involved will be punished.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

Darrell said...

Someone just noticed that ten years is greater than the three year Statute of Limitations on tax cases.

IANAL, but I'm pretty sure that if the statute of limitations had run out this would have been tossed long ago with a summary judgement.

narciso said...

just be thankful it didn't take 3 1/2 years like with hatfill.

AllenS said...

Statutes of Limitations this or that. What is Manafort charged with? Once that has been established then let's talk about statutes of limitations.

readering said...

Testimony resumed.

narciso said...

so the beatings will continue till morale improves,

Rick said...

What is Manafort charged with?

Tax fraud.

He didn't declare his ownership of foreign bank accounts, and he didn't declare the income deposited there on his tax returns.

Darrell said...


IANAL, but I'm pretty sure that if the statute of limitations had run out this would have been tossed long ago with a summary judgement.

No, because lawyers never see a final answer and never run out of argumants. They would try and make a case that the SOL countdown timer stopped when Feds identified the problem years ago and that not deciding to prosecute doesn't matter. Decisions would have to be rendered.

tim in vermont said...

Appoint a special persecutor for Hillary. I think that would be great. “Any matters that arise” should be the purview. Destruction of evidence, federal records, taking money from a “hostile power” while doing its bidding.

Why not is because too much has been revealed already. We know that Mueller is going to release X number of days before the midterms. If he judges his case to be weak, it will be the Friday before, so pushback can’t catch up, if he thinks he has something, it will be ten days before.

The Crack Emcee said...

He saw this and couldn't contain himself.

tim in vermont said...

What is Manafort charged with?

Tax fraud.


You didn’t answer my question, the whole question was “What is Manafort charged with that has anything to do with Trump?

It’s. kind of amazing how people don’t see what they don’t want to see, like Vickie in Pasadena.

tim in vermont said...

“I don’t owe a response to unsolicited requests from men with bad intentions,” Ocasio-Cortez, the Democratic candidate for Congress in New York’s 14th District, wrote.

From Crack’s link

This reminds me of the “climate scientist” who said “why should I show you my data. when you are just going to try to find something wrong with it?”

We have fallen far from Einstein who said “It would only take one man to prove me wrong.” after publishing everything he had and inviting the criticism of the world.

tim in vermont said...

The important thing is to avoid the questions you know you can’t answer.

narciso said...

meanwhile mueller is putting the thumb screws to roger stone's assistant, because he can.

Darrell said...

He is also charged with bank fraud--hence the bank officers testifying. The lever there is that the income stated on the loan application doesn't match his tax filings. There are questions about whether the foreign bank balances are even his. Ukrainians were trying to get money out before the Russians came in and they had asked others doing business with them to move/keep money. "Asked" needs to be further defined. It's always complicated.

AllenS said...

Is there a statute of limitations on bank fraud. If so, what is it?

n.n said...

Ukrainians, Russians, etc. were trying to get money out before the coup was finalized.

hstad said...

Didn't the Judge say it the recess was about his other case load?????

Browndog said...

Is there a statute of limitations on civil tax fraud sentences?

Like, something shy of 300 years?

n.n said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
D 2 said...

Judge worried if jury saw him as "cantankerous ol curmudgeon" or "hoary ol geezer" or "charming ol silver-whiskered devil"

wild chicken said...

"than the three year Statute of Limitations on tax cases"


No statute for non-reporting income.

Darrell said...

No statute for non-reporting income

I hope you see it's not cut and dried. See the contentious word?
Hint:Income.

Darrell said...

Paul Manafort was a man who paid close attention and knew where every penny came from and where it went!

Weren't you stealing a lot of money from him for years without him noticing?

Umm, yeah. But the prosecutors gave me immunity!

From a new play, "Top Men!"

Mike said...

I’d like to clarify the “bank fraud/tax fraud” charges, because it is illustrative of the whole kangarooish nature of this court case. Manafort claimed X Income on his 2013 taxes (best as I recall), although earlier he had applied for a loan, telling a bank his income was X+Y and that discrepancy is the crime. For lying to the IRS he is charged using X+Y as his “true income.” But for the bank fraud the Feds say X was his “true income” because Manafort swore to it in his IRS forms. Therefore he was lying to the bank.

I wouldn’t buy it if I was hearing this as a juror.

Inga...Allie Oop said...

“Manafort is currently on trial for alleged financial crimes, defending himself against 18 federal charges of tax evasion, tax fraud, and bank fraud.”

Darrell said...

Mueller should warn the jury that he will have to look at them closely if they return a "not guilty" verdict.

You have to keep the farce going. Law2018.

Darrell said...

“Manafort is currently on trial for alleged financial crimes, defending himself against 18 federal charges of tax evasion, tax fraud, and bank fraud.”

And yet is still presumed innocent until proven guilty.

The prosecution is about to rest and, so far, have only produced speculation, innuendo, hearsay, and theories.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

Mike said...

For lying to the IRS he is charged using X+Y as his “true income.” But for the bank fraud the Feds say X was his “true income” because Manafort swore to it in his IRS forms. Therefore he was lying to the bank.

While this sounds strange, I believe it is a not-uncommon and reasonable prosecutorial approach. He is likely only guilty of one of the two crimes. But defending himself against one charge largely admits guilt to the other. So, rather than the prosecutor charging only the one crime that they think is most likely, they charge both and let the jury decide which is true.

Of course it may be possible that the legal definition of income is different for taxes and loan applications, so in theory he could be guilty of neither crime ( or both ).

Would be amusing if the case ended up with a hung jury, half wanting to convict on tax fraud and acquit on bank fraud, and the other half wanting to convict on bank fraud and acquit on tax fraud.

Darrell said...

Except for the "He fills his car with Premium Unleaded Gasoline" revelation.

President-Mom-Jeans said...

"I think he was taking a call from someone in the Administration telling him to wrap it up. Nothing here to see, except the illegality of all that Manafort did in the name of the Cheeto in Charge."

All of these farcical tax charges are from a time period far before Trump was ever going to run, you mongoloid Pasadena twat. It is shameful that you are able to vote.

Darrell said...

He is likely only guilty of one of the two crimes.

Or neither.

Self-employed individuals are always working with estimates. He could have used a number that represented his best honest estimate of income on his loan application, and used actual numbers when his taxes were filed the following year.

In similar cases bank officials have stated/testified that they always assume loan customers are overstating their income and adjust down according to a formula used at their particular bank. Since the loans were, and presumably, still are, performing--it shows that their judgement was sound. If it isn't performing now it probably has something to do with the arrest.

Inga...Allie Oop said...

“All of these farcical tax charges are from a time period far before Trump was ever going to run, you mongoloid Pasadena twat. It is shameful that you are able to vote.”

“WLS) -- The bank and tax fraud trial against former Donald Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort has wandered into the political arena, led by a Chicago bank executive who loaned Manafort millions.

Tuesday afternoon, Rick Gates testified that his then-business partner Manafort requested him to use his position in the Trump campaign to offer a series of favors to Stephen Calk, the founder and CEO of Federal Savings Bank, one of the banks that extended Manafort sizeable loans in 2016. Calk had been on Trump's small panel of economic advisors in the summer of 2016 when Manafort was campaign chairman.

https://abc7chicago.com/politics/gates-manafort-tried-to-get-sec-of-army-job-for-chicago-banker-stephen-calk-who-loaned-him-millions-/3901987/

It’s a shame someone as stupid as you gets to vote.

tim in vermont said...

Except for the “He fills his car with Premium Unleaded Gasoline" revelation.

I do that on moral grounds. Ethanol is a sop to farmers that is causing extinctions. You can only get non ethanol in premium gas.

Darrell said...

Third-party quid pro quo. . .

Shocking. Did Rick Gates do it? What compelled Gates to do whatever Manafort asked? Oh, he didn't? What a scoop!

I bet Obama had more flexibility after the election. Or secretly airlift $400 million in cash to Iran in January at the same time when he was getting his Iran deal approved.

narciso said...

Is that before or after he stole the three million from manafort?

Francisco D said...

"It’s a shame someone as stupid as you gets to vote."

Sez the cut and paste expert who thinks tenuous guilt by association is evidence of anything other than her leftist gullibility.

I need to stop reading your posts, sweetheart. The sheer stupidity gives me a headache.

grackle said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Yancey Ward said...

Note how Inga truncates the story about Calk. Calk got nothing from the Trump Administration- literally nothing. If the testimony by Raico is true, which I believe it probably is, then Manafort was dangling the possibility of post in a possible Trump Administration to entice Calk to approve the loan, and maybe Calk approved the loan because of that enticement, but he curiously wasn't called as a witness by the prosecution.

grackle said...

The prosecution is about to rest and, so far, have only produced speculation, innuendo, hearsay, and theories.

Would the judge be telling the prosecution that they need to produce real evidence soon or he’ll dismiss the charges? Naw … that would be too good. It’s probably nothing.

The bank and tax fraud trial against former Donald Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort has wandered into the political arena, led by a Chicago bank executive who loaned Manafort millions.

Manafort recommended a business associate for a high office. This is newsworthy?

Darrell said...

The Hill--

Openly gay Dem wins House primary, would be first Native American woman elected to Congress.

Democrats/MSM admit that Elizabeth Warren is a fucking liar.

AllenS said...

Allrighty, from IRS.gov

Apr 23, 2018 - Keep records for 3 years from the date you filed your original return or 2 years from the date you paid the tax, whichever is later, if you file a claim for credit or refund after you file your return. Keep records for 7 years if you file a claim for a loss from worthless securities or bad debt deduction.

Fernandistein said...

"without explanation"

I am on tenterhooks, whatever that means.

buwaya said...

My wife, can recreate at least the medieval version of the entire fabric industry from sheep to costume. I have threatened to buy her a second-hand Indian cotton mill, to get her into the 19th century; maybe we can fit a factory in the garage. A good place for a satanic mill.

She has has used an improvised "tenter", which is a frame used to dry woolen cloth. The tenterhooks are how you fasten cloth to the drying frame. I think she used nails.

n.n said...

So, the loan application was based on an estimated return, and the tax return on earned income. The finalization of the coup in Kiev and retroactive criminalization (e.g. special prosecutor) of Ukranians and others engaged in commerce with Russia, must have been a surprise to more than a few Democrats, Manafort, etc. It should be interesting to learn if they manage to uncover any babies in their hunt. That said, has Mueller responded to discovery requests?

Darrell said...

Christopher Steele's emails--released yesterday--showed he was putting in a lot of time advancing the interests of a Ukrainian aluminum oligarch. People doing consulting usually are paid for such work, although the oligarch's London attorney would neither confirm or deny that. This was at the same time Steele was playing for the FBI and Fusion--and for the same oligarch as Manafort. Steele was passing on what he learned from Obama Administration people to said oligarch. I bet we would find foreign bank accounts in Steele's name, too. But that would be a job for UK Revenue.

BUMBLE BEE said...

That native American woman was Prof. Jacobson's student as well as MMA fighter!.

BUMBLE BEE said...

Not the Prof's fighter... DOH

Bay Area Guy said...

Oh No, a Recess!!!

Clearly, Judge Ellis must declare a mistrial and start the whole case over again......

FullMoon said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
narciso said...

Raico is another immunized witness, these innocent people seem awfully guilty dontcha think?

Henry said...

It's a belfry!

steppin' razor said...

The prosecution has to be worried that, if they obtain a conviction, this is the judge who will be sentencing him. A light sentence (with a restitution requirement perhaps) is of little value to Mueller. Of course, Mueller has a whole 'nother trial set for Manafort on associated charges before another judge in another jurisdiction....how can that be appropriate BTW?

Inga...Allie Oop said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Achilles said...

Inga...Allie Oop said...

Tuesday afternoon, Rick Gates testified that his then-business partner Manafort requested him to use his position in the Trump campaign to offer a series of favors to Stephen Calk, the founder and CEO of Federal Savings Bank, one of the banks that extended Manafort sizeable loans in 2016. Calk had been on Trump's small panel of economic advisors in the summer of 2016 when Manafort was campaign chairman.”

Without any supporting documentation hearsay will be thrown out.

Remember also that Inga voted for, but won’t admit she voted for, a woman who took $145 million dollars in direct payments from Russians.

The leftists are just bad people who want power over other people.

Michael K said...

The prosecution is about to rest and, so far, have only produced speculation, innuendo, hearsay, and theories.

I still think there is a good chance that Ellis dismisses the case with prejudice after the prosecution rests.

Maybe the long recess today was him telling them to put up or shut up.

BAS said...

whether you buy 6 or 30 corn they are still 33 and 1/3 cents per ear instead of 35 cents per ear.

Unknown said...

Of all the things that I miss about Wisconsin the thing I long for the most is fresh sweet corn cooked on the grill dipped in a butter bath during summer, sigh....

tcrosse said...

Oddly enough, here in Nevada we can get wonderful sweet corn in season, as good as we got in Minnesota. God only knows where it comes from. What I really miss, as a displace Midwestener, is rhubarb, which we used to grow ourselves. It's available here, but too costly.

chuck said...

The photo reminds me that winter is coming.

Francisco D said...

"The leftists are just bad people who want power over other people."

Yes. They seem to be organized into leaders and mindless followers. The followers like to post their talking points here.

The leaders are desperate to keep the Trump administration from putting them in jail for weaponizing the government against citizens who believe in democracy.

Things are going to get messy.

Drago said...

Achilles: "Remember also that Inga voted for, but won’t admit she voted for, a woman who took $145 million dollars in direct payments from Russians"

The question for Inga is: how much money would Hillary have to accept from Russian oligarchs before her candidacy would be deemed undeserving of Inga's vote.

I suspect that there is no upper limit whatsoever.

Treeamigo said...

My local paper lead breathlessly with a story about how Manafort is accused of bank fraud - turns out he allegedly took out a mortgage for a second home and then rented it out (as an investment). Thank goodness for Robert Mueller! Glad he is getting to the bottom of these heinous crimes.

wwww said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
FIDO said...

Just remind me...I John Corzine in jail? But Democrats in NJ have a hard time applying the rule of law to their betters.


How is anything Mantafort did morally worse than that of a Corzine? How is anything Mantafort did worse than a Clinton?


Because as an advocate of the rule of law, I don't mind if you beat up on Mantafort...but you damn well better beat up the other two as well!

Clyde said...

narciso said...
meanwhile mueller is putting the thumb screws to roger stone's assistant, because he can.


No one expects the Torquemueller Inquisition!

BUMBLE BEE said...

tcrosse... Rhubarb! As my teeth grow less capable, I am comforted by my beautiful rhubarb plants, displacing sweetcorn on the table. Rhubarb sour cream pie is on today's to-do list. I feel for your loss.

AJ Lynch said...

So far the two main witnesses are his accountant, who got immunity, and Gates, who admitted stealing from Manafort and also got a deal.

Matthew Sablan said...

"So far the two main witnesses are his accountant, who got immunity, and Gates, who admitted stealing from Manafort and also got a deal."

-- See, the FBI *DOES* know how to use immunity to coax testimony against the target of their investigations, despite what the investigation into Hillary Clinton's server showed.

Matthew Sablan said...

"Manafort is accused of bank fraud - turns out he allegedly took out a mortgage for a second home and then rented it out (as an investment)."

-- Wait. That's... illegal?