No witnesses?no testimony?..the D earned their dough on this one…
No. Not the legal meaning of “reasonable doubt”. Enough doubt to give a Trumper juror cover for a “civilian pardon” maybe.
If there’s too much waiting on the pardon that he’s been expecting or promised, he’ll appeal. How good his case is for the appeal are insubstantial to the decision for making one.
When you’ve got nothing, go with nothing. When you cannot defend the indefensible, don’t even try. They are banking on a pardon which would raise political holy hell.
For what it’s worth, Popehat’s analysis can be summed up as “Ellis likes yelling, quit over-reading”.
He brings his own biases and experience to the table, of course, but I give his take on things a hell of a lot more credit than the chicken-little version, which seems annoyingly popular.
Look at the pardons he’s issued. He doesn’t care, and it makes him feel powerful. It’s coming.
I hope not. Someone mentioned that a sentence of >10 years keeps him out of white collar prison. Anyone know for sure?
IANL, but I think the standard of proof for a civil trial is different than a criminal trial. Preponderance of evidence rather than reasonable doubt? This would be why OJ was convicted in his civil trial but not the criminal one.
Hoping one of the lawyerly folks can address that.
There will be closing arguments.
Better start cutting a deal
They’re obviously “banking” on a pardon.
What? Couldn’t they at least get Donnie to be a character witness?
Closing arguments Wednesday morning. Verdicts by Thursday. Guilty on at least half the charges.
Defense argument: We do not have to present a defense if the prosecution has not proved its case and met its burden. Gates did it all.
Mueller team: Yeah right. If they had a defense, they’d present it. There just is no defense to this overwhelming evidence. Ignore everything Gates said. The other witnesses and all the documents prove his guilt - not just beyond a reasonable doubt, but beyond any doubt whatever.
I don’t think his lawyers would not call witnesses just on the basis of a hope of a pardon. That isn’t how it works. They didn’t call any witnesses cause they didn’t have any,
Manafort didn’t testify because they didn’t want him subjected to cross examination. It’s too big a gamble not to present a case if the defense had one. They didn’t.
cmbudinger: I thought this was a criminal trial.
Trump pardons are certainly quid pro quo, but the “quo” is always loquacious public praise of Donald Trump. There’s certainly no sense of taking care of people who have helped you out. That would imply some semblance of loyalty and even payback, both of which Donald Trump does not grok even one iota.
Manafort is a quiet, behind-the-scenes character. Certainly you’ll never see him praising very big, very strong Donald Trump on Fox and Friends. I am certain that the dotard wouldn’t give Manafort a moment’s thought as the latter rots and eventually dies in prison.
And that’s not even raising the specter of Manafort’s compelled testimony after a pardon, which I think is potentially a thing (i.e., no more pleading the fifth).
10 to 1 that SHB frames this news that it will allow her boss to get back to focusing on the real crimes committed by Hillary and her ring-leader Pelosi.
The VA trial is criminal, the DC trial coming soon is civil. That might explain why Manafort was trying to get the VA trial held up: he figured he had a better chance of getting away clean in DC, then he could claim ‘witch hunt’ for the criminal trial.
ETA: bad Gateway!
Interesting points. Anything’s possible given the circumstances, I suppose.
Oh yeah:
‘Your Honor, the ostrich MADE me do it.’