They might not need him if the other witnesses sufficiently identify and describe the documentary evidence, and Manafort’s intent, knowledge and direct actions are made clear. Then how will the defense prove their defense that it was all Gates, with Manafort being in the dark? Put Gates on themselves? Not such a good idea to vouch for his credibility and let the prosecutors cross-examine. Put Manafort on the stand to “explain”? An even worse idea.
He’s fucked.
That is pretty much the same take I had. Since they have announced their primary defense, let them prove it. You might keep Gates in reserve for rebuttal.
Is it possible that Gates is a red herring witness? Gates was an obvious selection as a witness, so there was no harm in identifying him. Perhaps Mueller & Co. tricked Manafort and his team into wasting a lot of time and energy constructing and revealing a SODDIT defense against Gates, whom Mueller may not call to testify at all. As @ronbyers suggested, Gates could also be a rebuttal witness, if needed, rather than the heart of Mueller’s case.
I doubt this is the case. I just like spinning fantasies. Plus, I read far too many spy novels.
“This was news to me,” Ellis said, adding that it was probably also news to the people who ran out of the room.
WaPo reports that Ellis added, noticing reporters leaving the courtroom to report on the status of the prosecution effort, “Twenty-five people just scurried out of here like rats leaving a sinking ship.”
Say wot? This judge, he’s creeping me out …
“I paid my four bits to see the high-diving act and I’m a-gonna see the high-diving act.”
I think the Prosecutors showed Manafort a possible bait and switch, like an audible at the line of scrimmage. It looks to me that the Prosecution won its big battle when Manafort blinked at challenging Mueller’s authority (after the 2 judges looked at it with great skepticism). Once that was knocked out, Manafort was forced to put Gates on trial. That leaves Manafort overcommitted to a move and exposed on the essential tax and bank fraud aspects.
I think the prosecutors’ opening statement made clear that they were going to simplify things for the jury. Manafort earned money and didn’t pay taxes on it. To avoid paying those taxes he engaged in a broad scheme of lies, false statements, shady financial transactions and lavish purchases to hide the money from the government and avoid paying his fair share. Such things clearly violate the law. Therefore, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, you are duty bound to convict his ass.
If I were the prosecution, I might wait until the last day to call Gates in order to dare Manafort’s team to call him first. Let Manafort spend all his time on Gates, but essentially admit that he has no answer for the fraud claims. Then nail him with Gates on the last day to blow apart this idea that Gates acted alone or that Manafort took Gates’ lead.
I think this is the correct read, but I would also not discount the “head fake” aspects of this.
Gates is useful as Juries hate paper only cases. Shower them with documents and at times they get lost. But if the jury is smart (and this one appears to be) avoiding a witness who is not needed, and can be used to distract is important.
Remember, Gates was not given immunity to testify against Manifort, but to testify against Trump…