Your Honor - we strenuously object to the whole jail thingey.
Manafort: Your honors, there seems to be a misunderstanding here.
Court: Oh? What kind?
Manafort: Well, I’m being made to bear the consequences of my actions.
Court: Uh … so?
Manafort: But, I’m male, white, and wealthy! Consequences are for other people.
Manafort’s win-loss percentage will not improve with this appeal.
“I strenuously object?” Is that how it works? Hm? “Objection.” “Overruled.” “Oh, no, no, no. No, I STRENUOUSLY object.” “Oh. Well, if you strenuously object then I should take some time to reconsider.”
Nauseating Prediction:
Trump will throw a raging hussy fit - scream ‘unfair’… ‘biased’ … ‘manipulation’ … and in a total knee-jerk (and well calculated play acted outrage) … barks - ‘Must Halt this Abuse of the System’ … and issues a full pardon … to ‘stop the abuse of this man’s rights’
I almost wish the judge had just said, “Womp, womp.”
Lots of legal bills adding up for Manafort. Does he really have that much money on hand to pay his lawyers for endless, low percentage of success, appeals?
So who’s in the DC Circuit these days? There used to be judges there who would have made it a slam dunk for manafort.
This asshole is in prison awaiting trial. His capacity for self-delusion is endless. And his cashflow will determine whether he goes all the way up to The Supremes. Meanwhile let him rot.
This is a hail mary. The standard of review is clearly erroneous (this is from the 9th cir, but you will get the idea)
Review under the clearly erroneous standard is significantly deferential, requiring a “definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” See Easley v. Cromartie, 532 U.S. 234, 242 (2001); Fisher v. Tucson Unified Sch. Dist., 652 F.3d 1131, 1136 (9th Cir. 2011); United States v. Comprehensive Drug Testing, Inc., 621 F.3d 1162, 1175 (9th Cir. 2010) (en banc) (per curiam); see also Miller v. Thane Int’l, Inc., 519 F.3d 879, 888 (9th Cir. 2008) (concluding the district court clearly erred). If the district court’s account of the evidence is plausible in light of the entire record, the court of appeals may not reverse, even if it would have weighed the evidence differently. See Husain v. Olympic Airways, 316 F.3d 829, 835 (9th Cir. 2002); see also United States v. McCarty, 648 F.3d 820, 824 (9th Cir. 2011); Katie A., ex. Rel. Ludin v. Los Angeles County, 481 F.3d 1150, 1155 (9th Cir. 2007).
“Where there are two permissible views of the evidence, the factfinder’s choice between them cannot be clearly erroneous.” United States v. Elliott, 322 F.3d 710, 715 (9th Cir. 2003); see also United States v. Stanley, 653 F.3d 946, 952 (9th Cir. 2011); United States v. Al Nasser, 555 F.3d 722, 727 (9th Cir. 2009).
The court was not required to believe that he would behave. First rule of being a defendant: don’t make it worse.
Have to wonder how much cash is hidden away in not-so-usual places by a guy like Manafort. He’s been acting for a long time like not so much. Aside from cash, there is goodwill, and that also seems to be tapped out.
@bp mentions self-delusion, and this is probably a real problem for Manafort. His Best By date has been fading into the past and he still thinks he’s a big-shot, when he was never anything but an errand boy in PR.
aww, paulie doesn’t like his new accommodations.
start a tell all book, use the roll of toilet paper next to the throne between your bunk and the sink.
You got the time. lol