’NO, U’ does not seem to me to be a particularly robust legal defense, but I guess you go to court with the arguments you have, not the arguments you wish you had.
At least it’s simple in description.
Um… that’s not going to work. Does Manafort have a plan B? If not… well, I guess he’s probably used to jail by now, which is where he’ll be staying for a very long time.
Based on his pretrial motion success … GUILTY
That isn’t a bad defense. Gates is the star witness. Paint him as the real bad guy who cut a deal to save his own skin. I don’t think it survives given the rest of the evidence, but it is the best defense they could come up with.
You dropped this:
Did the defense mention Manafort helped little old ladies across the street, got kittens down from trees, picked up litter that wasn’t his, and he recycles? It’s clear that Manafort is just an innocent victim of mean old Gates. Poor, poor pitiful him.
I’m disappointed. The report does not indicate that the lawyer blamed Obama, Hillary or Democrats in general. [shrug]
I am curious what evidence the defense will present to indicate how Rick forced Paul to buy all those rugs, and all those suits with money that he didn’t report to the Federal government, because Rick, you know, stole it from him.
The Prosecutor’s opening statement is usually considered the high water mark of the government’s case, because from there on out, the defense pokes holes in it. In this case it appears that the defense’s arguments are orthogonal to the government’s case. I’m guessing that this is not a winning strategy.
The problem is when you have exactly ZERO witnesses that testify to your good character and actions and the prosecutors have 35 who say you are a skunk and a fraud and can support that with paperwork.
One crook calling another robber a thief.
This could get a bit monotonous.
Does any of the alleged misconduct on Manafort’s part predate his business relationship with Gates? I know Manafort has been dirty dealing for some time, and I know he took Gates under his wing as a sort of protege.
FAIL
It’s probably the best defense they’ve got…“the guy testifying against me did it, not me, and he’s framing me to get a plea deal”…but that’s like celebrating that you’re the smartest kid on the short bus. For it to work, I think Manafort really has to testify, because they’re essentially relying on a “battle of credibilities.” I just can’t see how Manafort pulls off a credible story about why he is really just one of the victims. I expect Gates will flay him and Mueller’s team will wear his skin like a suit.
This looks like the only way forward for the defense, but I’m sure the prosecution has Manafort’s signature on all kinds of incriminating documents. They’re also sure to have texts and emails that will be hard for the defense to explain away. At the end of the day, the defense will be portraying Manafort as a clueless buffoon who somehow managed to rake in millions without really understanding the business he had been in for decades.
Not orthogonal, not orthogonal, you are orthogonal!
Thing is, to me, Manafort’s team can say what they want about Gates and they’re probably mostly right.
What they can’t really get around is the paper. The bank records, the money trail, the bookkeeper. All that stuff is pretty inarguable.
The guy was sloppy because he figured he’d never get caught. Then he hitched himself to this nameless star (at least for this trial) and all hell broke loose.
So Gates may be a slime, but Manafort’s fingers are all over these transactions.
Call it “The Trump defense.”
“The foundation of the special counsel’s case rests squarely on this witness,”
Ummm, no. That’s a risky game to play, because the documents are going to tell one wild fucking tale.
“to bring the country closer to western democracy”
I hardly think trying to paint him as a hero-patriot-saint of western democracy is going to go over well.
Damned pathetic defense! That’s all you’ve got??? Sad.
How much are you willing to bet that anyone on the jury knows anything about the recent history of the Ukraine and can tell Yanukovych from Tymoshenko or, even more confusingly, his actual pro-Western democracy opponent, Yuschenko. Since it’s not relevant to the case, the prosecution isn’t going to take time out to correct the defense’s misleading representation of Manafort’s Ukraine work.
Good question. And there’s also the problem of convincing the jury that Gates came up with the idea of doing all this illegal business totally on his own without ever once checking with the boss.
IIRC, they have accountants and others that worked for Manafort who will testify that he lied to them repeatedly in order to get them to do things to further his schemes. That might throw a wrench in this defense, as well.