āEven though everything fits, you must acquit. Or something. Sorry your honor, weāve got nuthināā¦ā
Juries are unpredicatable. They may acquit him. Or get hung. If they do I envision Trump engineering the shut down of Muellerās investigation in no more than 2 weeks.
Iād be surprised if they didnāt find him guilty on at least a few of the 18 charges. I know Iām biased, but I think the prosecution probably made a strong enough case on at least a few of the charges. Iād like to think they made their case on all 18 counts, but it seems unlikely statistically that they will find either for or against all 18 charges.
The defense will pound away on Gates and Judge Ellisās comment that Manafort must not have been paying attention to what Gates was doing. And talk about reasonable doubt: āYouāre all reasonable people. If you have any doubt at all, itās a reasonable doubt.ā
Hopefully, the jury is smarter than that, and the strong jurors are with the prosecution.
18 counts. 11 guilty, 7 hung or not guilty. Nice compromise.
ETA: My mistake. 27 Counts. Letās go 18 guilty, 9 hung or not guilty. Nice 2 to 1 ratio.
(although I hope they get him on them all)
I donāt know how you arrived at 11-7, but I agree with your general point that the entire jury is unlikely to find for or against all charges.
ā¦whereas clothing arguments ceased days ago.
Defense Attorney: āLadies and gentlemen of the jury. Take a good long look at my client. Does he look like a crook to you? Strike that.ā
[quote=āesva, post:6, topic:76065ā]
I donāt know how you arrived at 11-7
[/quote]Made it up. Just shooting craps. And I like the sound of it as the inverse of 7-11.
The tax charges are pretty straight forward. It is going to be hard for Manafort to overcome those. Most of the bank fraud charges are pretty solid as well. The charge involving the Federal Savings Bank is solid as well, but Judge Ellis has demonstrated he doesnāt understand the law of criminal bank fraud. I want to see the instructions.
The judge clearly doesnāt like this prosecution because he thinks itās designed just to get to Trump, not for the illegal activity itself. Thatās a sad commentary, but the judge saying that the defense has a āsignificant argumentā that it canāt be bank fraud if they conspired to get the bankās money with an substantial owner of the bank, is what we call in poker a ātellā.
The question of how a hung jury will be viewed is another issue. (Actual acquittal from 12 jurors is out of the question unless the judge himself spiked it, which is not likely but not impossible.) If only one or two jurors hold out, Trump will declare it a victory ā which will damage his image some more ā and Muellerās team can blame the judgeās inappropriate comments. If itās more split like 6-6 or 7-5, then Trump will declare victory and suffer little or no damage, but I doubt that will be sufficient to end the Mueller investigation.
But the most likely outcome is guilty on at least some of the charges, and probably all of them. If so, Trump will distance himself some more, but the damage will be done. If he then pardons Manafort, his presidency is over for all intents and purposes. A jury finds his former campaign manager, who Trump himself plucked from relative obscurity, guilty of fraud, Trump has done everything he can to distance himself, but pardons him anyway because he says Manafort was treated āunfairlyā? That dog wonāt hunt.
Greg Andres is hitting his best points, keeping things simple and clear for the jury. I expect convictions on most of the counts. Thereās a higher chance that Manafort is convicted on all counts than he is of getting acquitted or a hung jury situation.
Prosecutors scored some big wins last night as Ellis rejected the motion to dismiss and a motion for judicial notice. Per the article he also agreed to some corrective jury instruction. Maddow had a great breakdown of this. While a rejection of a motion to dismiss is common, what Rachel pointed out is that the Judge specifically rejected the defenseās argument on the 4 counts of conspiracy to commit bank fraud in relation to Calk. The Judge did not buy the legal theory and was persuaded by the prosecution that conspiracy charges were at play here and that the jury should decide. Those email chains are so damning from a common sense point of view that I think it means conviction is in order, perhaps on all counts.
One thing I donāt understand: some of the email chains that we have seen were not actually shown to the jury during the prosecutionās making their case. Instead they are to be given to the jury either during closing arguments or deliberations. That makes no sense to me, but it happened. The most damning of these was the Calk/Manafort/Kushner one where Calk is listing the positions and ambassadorships he would like.
Hate to jump the gun butā¦GUILTY, GUILTY, GUILTY on all counts.
Yeah, Iād make a terrible juror.
Maybe at this phase of the proceedings. The appeal process will be where the action is if heās convicted. Bob McDonnell and his wife took all kinds of gifts and bribes from Jonnie Williams Sr. and Star Scientific and SCOTUS let them walk, on all charges.
Apples and oranges. Not the same case at all. This is routine tax fraud. Same thing that got Al Capone.
Thatās my opinion, too. Because the jurors have so many documents to review and the number of counts (what is it, 27?), I donāt expect them to return a verdict quickly. They will need time to read and discuss the documents. Andres apparently referenced much of his argument to the exhibits, and asked the jurors to write down the numbers of the exhibits he wanted them to review. I am currently overseas and somewhat at a disadvantage in following the trial proceedings, but I hope the jurors did write down the numbers.
Waiting eagerly ā¦
I donāt think the McDonnell case is comparable to this one. The Supreme Court decision hinged on the nature of the evidence needed to prove bribery. This case is about tax evasion and bank fraud. The evidence is pretty straightforward. The only colorable argument that the defense has, it seems to me, is that Calkās agreement to the loan his bank gave to Manafort immunizes Manafort from bank fraud charges for that loan. The judge rejected the motion to dismiss that count and said it is up to the jury. And thatās only one part of the case.