I wish I had faith in this jury, but since November 8, 2016, I don’t have faith in humanity whatsoever.
Justice is a thing sadly lacking these days. Let us hope that when the jury goes out to deliberate, Manafort gets justice, and remains behind bars for the rest of his life (or at least until Trump pardons him).
Has Judge Cranky told the defense yet that they don’t need to present their side?
Is there someone with expertise who could provide thoughts on the merits of the prosecution? I’m a layman, and it seems straightforward and demonstrative.
It is not yet clear whether Manafort’s defense team intends to call witnesses in his defense, but the jury is likely to begin deliberations in the case this week.
Ummm…doesn’t that timing depend on the defense calling witnesses?
This slam dunk is still circling the rim.
Aren’t the defenses claims the kinds of matters the jury would deliberate on after the defense rests, not before?
The defense is hoping the judge will rule that the prosecution’s case has no merit without allowing the jury to have a say. I don’t see how that’s possible, the evidence clearly shows that Manafort was involved in shady deals and lied in several ways…whether others conspired with him is immaterial to his guilt. The defense is making the play that they can to try to delay having to call witnesses…I’m not even sure who they could call to prove that Manafort had nothing to do with any of the shenanigans the prosecution has laid out. I expect them to put on some kind of show though, full of nonsense; we’ll see if the judge allows them the latitude to say total garbage after how he reined in the prosecution.
Then, we want to see what the jury says, and if there is someone on there who is a Trump supporter and will not vote guilty no matter what.
After the prosecution rested, Manafort’s lawyers moved for acquittal on all charges. But they were especially focused on the bank fraud charges, arguing that the bank did not rely on Manafort’s representations when making the loans in question. They also said they intended to argue that the prosecution had failed to prove willfulness on the tax fraud charges.
This is interesting on the part of the defense.I would have bet that the defense would plead IOKIYAR. That seems to be their standard default on everything else.
So, who does the defense call as witnesses? S&L CEO Calk? An expert or two to testify the documents don’t say what they say and the prosecution witnesses don’t mean what they testified to?
My bet is no defense witnesses, unless they just throw someone up there to try to confuse the jury (although I hear Rudy is busy the next couple of days).
The Prosecution did a very professional and outstanding job presenting its case. The documentary evidence and the tie-ins with actual witnesses to speak to those documents are overwhelming. Manafort will be convicted on multiple counts.
I only wish Omarosa had an audio file of Manafort saying, “Now, I intend to defraud the federal government by transferring untaxed funds from this secret offshore account to this vender of birdskin clothing to purchase a lovely jacket which I will then enjoy personally wearing.”
Hold tight Pauly, Trump has promised a pardon with your name on it.
Every story is “BREAKING NEWS!” Well, no. The prosecution rests in every case, unless the defendant dies or takes a plea during trial. We have too much fake drama already. We don’t need it from TPM.
OK, rant over. At least for now.
So far, the judge has done everything he could to help out the defense. Let’s see if he keeps it up when he rules on the motion to dismiss. These motions are usually fairly perfunctory, but Judge Ellis hasn’t been able to restrain himself with perfunctory issues thus far, so I have little hope he will do so now.
There’s that person who said Rick Gates kicked his dog in the Comet Pizza basement.
But they were especially focused on the bank fraud charges, arguing that the bank did not rely on Manafort’s representations
I would be interested to read their brief on this. The case law pretty uniformly says that actual reliance is not required. It’s more of a “reasonable bank” standard – if the representation is one that a reasonable bank would be expected to rely on then it counts, whether they actually relied on it or not.
The defense calls Rick Gates to the stand.
“So Mr Gates, we understand you had an affair…”
I don’t think there’s anything to worry about here. The laws of gravity apply to the Trumpers. The evidence here is documentary and overwhelming. There will be convictions on multiple counts.