Discussion: Prosecutors Ask Manafort Trial Judge To Correct Earlier Statement

TPM Article Topics
21

Thanks and . The AP article did not explain the relevance of the denied loan.

3 Likes
22

That’s the other unusual feature of this trial. Virtually any other defendant, faced with the kind and quality of evidence that Mueller & Co. appear to have on Manafort, would have cut a plea deal months ago. The defense case promises to be entertaining.

3 Likes
23

or one that Mueller actually is the lead prosecutor ----

1 Like
24

Manafort was going to cut a deal. Then Putin had the Skrpal’s poisoned to send Manafort the message that he would be next if he opens his mouth.

The reason Manafort is such a threat to Trump is that Manafort recommended Pence. If Manafort was working for Moscow, and all signs point to him doing just that, Moscow would have directed Manafort to get a Vice President they could control selected. So they would have looked at their back-catalog of Kompromat.

If the Russians did a honeytrap op on Pence, they would make sure the boy is under age.

6 Likes
25

Maybe we should just go straight to a mistrial and start over with a competent judge.

4 Likes
26

On the other hand, I wonder if the judge is coming across to the jury as a crank as well.

1 Like
27

Ellis is a showboat, drunk on his power, and also has a strange animus against the prosecution. Perhaps he should be nominated for the Supreme Court?

1 Like
28

LOL, maybe he has some of that Innate Pharma stock that seems to be getting around.

4 Likes
29

I would like to recommend a podcast called “All the President’s Lawyers” which is an intelligent weekly discussion about all of the lawyers and judges making the news these days around Trump. It is a discussion between Josh Barro and Ken White, a former federal prosecuter - it is intelligent and nuanced. I would also recommend Preet Bharara’s Podcast “Stay Tuned with Preet” as more intelligent discussion of current happenings in the courts.

From what I can gather, Ellis’ asides and comments are not unusual for a lifetime appointed federal judge. It is not unusual for these guys to interject comments, play to the jury and the spectators and even join in on the questioning.

I guess this is what you get with lifetime appointments.

3 Likes
30

I believe this motion is really about massaging the jury’s attitude toward the judge, not about correcting any misunderstanding on whether a bank fraud has to be complete to be actionable.

The prosecutors want to hammer home the idea that the judge is impulsive and error-prone and thus the jury shouldn’t put much weight on his cranky comments. Basically they are saying to the jury “We get it right, he gets it wrong. You should listen to us, not him.”

4 Likes
31

After trying to excuse this judge’s behaviour I can’t help feeling that he is a self-important asshole. And the Prosecution is not taking his crap. Good for them.

1 Like
32

This guy is a first-class a******. Based on the reports I’m seeing, he really shouldn’t be on the bench. Too full of himself and full of vinegar to be a fair Arbiter of a trial.

33

Federal Criminal trials are a little out of my pay grade. But I suspect that one alternative to an acquittal for which there is no relief for the prosecution would be a motion for mistrial if the prosecutors feel that the judge has irredeemably prejudiced the case. I would be interested to hear what others with better experience have to say about this idea.

34

Mercer voters say that would be: “First Amendment free speech, and Second Amendment defense against the tyranny of government restriction of free flow of cash.”

2 Likes
35

Isn’t that one of Trump’s absurd arguments? If I tried to collude but didn’t get the dirt I wanted or it didn’t change votes, it’s not a crime? A variation of Nixon’s argument that, if the President does it, it’s not a crime even if you weren’t president yet but IOKIYAR?

This entire political party is comprised of psychopathic criminals and those that love them. Psychopaths think psychopaths are clearly superior beings unhampered by empathy or honesty so they should rule over the rest of us pathetic little cardboard cutouts. And, of course, since they are the white aristocracy (kakistocracy, kleptocracy, etc), they should never be held to account.

The one thing they fear is disclosure. The sheepskin removed from the wolf.

1 Like
36

I think juries are not usually up on the details of the law, so the law on bank fraud and conspiracy has to be clarified, since the judge clearly seems fuzzy on it! (Possibly intentionally fuzzy.)

37

This is in theory what part of the judge’s instructions to the jury should be about.

38

OK, that’s it. I’ve been holding out hope, but no longer. Judge Ellis is either senile or hopelessly biased against the prosecution in this particular case (I wonder why?). And frankly, I think both are true.
And this really leaves Mueller in a bind, because there is no appeal whatsoever if the jury acquits Manafort. Barring a full conviction, Mueller’s best shot is a hung jury, and a motion for retrial before A DIFFERENT JUDGE.
Christ, this country is so fucked up right now, I’m getting increasingly terrified about the future.

39

And if convicted we could have a repeat of the case involving the Hammond brothers.

At sentencing, the federal prosecutors requested the five-year mandatory minimum…U.S. District Judge Michael Robert Hogan independently decided that sentences of that length “would shock the conscience”…On his last day on the bench before retiring…Hogan instead sentenced Dwight Hammond to three months’ imprisonment and Steven Hammond to a year and a day’s imprisonment, which both men served…Chief Judge Ann Aiken re-sentenced the pair to five years in prison…On July 10, 2018, Trump issued pardons for both men.

40

Don’t worry, they will be. That’s what jury instructions are for. Judges sometimes permit a sort of “mini-explanation” of the law at the beginning of the case so jurors will have some idea what’s going on. But the real explanation comes when the case is submitted.