Right, it’s like the CEO is complicit in Manafort’s crime. Dare I say they colluded?
13 Likes
The judge was appointed by Reagen. You actually expect competence?
6 Likes
Agree. But here, the victim is the bank, not the CEO.
19 Likes
…but the bank OFFICIAL is not the victim. The BANK is the victim.
12 Likes
Surely this is not the first time in Hizzonor’s long career that he’s encountered a case of bank fraud in which employees at the bank were complicit?
12 Likes
You have freakin’ got to be kidding.
The judge is NOW arguing the case FOR the defense ???
This in itself should be cause for mistrial.
There’s your “deep state”, folks ---- it’s in the judiciary and it’s Republican
12 Likes
Maybe he even knows a case where the trial judge was involved? By his reasoning, the more the merrier, and if two people lined up a friendly judge who would take a commission , then even less of a crime occurred.
9 Likes
I wonder if this will be Ellis’ last time on the bench? His behavior has become so egregious that perhaps he will be persuaded that it’s time to “spend more time with his family”?
13 Likes
So, I guess two wrongs DO make a right?
11 Likes
Corporations only act through their officers and employees so the President’s knowledge is usually imputed to the bank. In a civil case a lawyer representing the bank would probably have to argue that the bank executive and the Manafort-type were conspiring together to defraud the bank. Anyway, all of this is not relevant to this trial and it’s disturbing that the Judge is making so many highly irregular statements.
11 Likes
Here’s a good piece, by no less than Trump cheerleader Jonathan Turley on Ellis’s bizarre behavior:
Judge in the Manafort trial is creating some big problems
By Jonathan Turley, opinion contributor
Ellis, who has long had a controversial record for his courtroom outbursts, has repeatedly attacked the federal prosecutors from the Justice Department office of the special counsel. His actions are creating serious potential problems for the case. Before the trial began, he made highly problematic comments about the motivation of special counsel Robert Mueller’s team in pursuing Manafort to pressure him to turn on President Trump.
Many of us agree with this take on the prosecution, but it is not the domain of a trial judge to opine on prosecution strategy or other extrinsic issues. During the trial, some of the comments from Ellis have been less comical than cringeworthy. Consider this truly bizarre exchange with prosecutor Greg Andres, reported by Bloomberg News.
When he was criticized for openly chastising the prosecutors over their inclusion of details of Manafort’s dealings with Ukrainian sources, Ellis went off on Andres. Ellis said, “Look at me when you’re talking to me.” Andres replied, “I’m sorry, judge, I was.” Ellis disagreed, “No, you weren’t. You were looking down.” Andres said, “Because I don’t want to get in trouble for some facial expression. I don’t want to get yelled at again by the court for having some facial expression when I’m not doing anything wrong, but trying my case.”
Ellis told another prosecutor, “You must be quiet.” Andres said, “I’m sorry, judge.” Ellis replied, “Well, I understand how frustrated you are. In fact, there’s tears in your eyes right now.’’
Andres told him, “There are not tears in my eyes, judge.” Ellis said, “Well, they’re watery. Look, I want you to focus sharply on what you need to prove the crime, and I don’t understand what a lot of these questions have to do with it.”
.
"I want you to focus sharply on what you need to prove the crime, and I don’t understand what a lot of these questions have to do with it.”
That’s all the judge needed to say. That’s all he SHOULD have said.
16 Likes
I am beginning to see a certain line of “reasoning” among some in Republican circles.
As long as everyone is in “the know” it is not a crime.
That is, Trump can go in the middle of 5 avenue and shoot someone, because everyone will see it. It’s all good.
9 Likes
Indeed; Calk’s awareness simply elevates him to a co-consporator, given that the money being “loaned” wasn’t his, but belonged to another entity for which he had fiduciary responsibility.
20 Likes
And the dead guy doesn’t get a vote.
4 Likes
Is anyone on this forum a criminal attorney? In a civil case, the plaintiff and defense submit dueling jury instructions, agree where they can, and leave only a limited number of disputes for the Judge to decide (with supporting precedent for their conflicting views). Is it the same in a criminal case?
1 Like
interesting contorted creative legal thinking by this judge
- how much would it cost to buy this judge in a normal run-of-the-mill case ? had to be a whole lot more in this situation.
guess ‘fraud’ can be a tricky concept … funny - credit card fraud can be charged simply by having more than 2 credit cards in your possession bearing a name other than your own - you don’t need to use them - the prosecution does not need to prove that you intended to use them - just possess them & you can be charged …
But seriously - if if this judge is holding fast to the idea that the demonstrably FRAUDULENT official documents submitted by Manafort some how magically don’t count as FRAUD simply because the bank’s chairman and CEO was complicit in the misrepresentations - - well then this judge probably needs to be investigated because he is smelling a lot like somebody who has been bought.
12 Likes
If they don’t get a conviction Trump will claim the high ground for his “witch hunt” accusations and move to fire Mueller.
7 Likes
If Manafort is acquitted, there is no appeal. There is no retrial possible. This is a politicized judge who is doing everything in his power to give Team Trump an acquittal, so that they can proclaim the illegitimacy of the Al Capone No Collusion prosecution of Manafort. Who is being treated very unfairly. This judge is trying to influence the outcome in everything he does. Last week he fucked up and after ruling pre trial that an expert witness could sit in the courtroom prior to testifying, chastised the prosecution for having the expert witness in the court for other witnesses testimony. His mea culpa to the jury was not “Gee I fucked up and contradicted my own pre trial order,” but, “Gee, I may well have been wrong…”
This is an activist ideologue judge. One more irony for the GOP and its crusade against purportedly activist liberal judges.
17 Likes
So stealing is legal just as long as two or more people are involved? I’m learning so much in this trial!
13 Likes
THE BANKER WAS IN ON THE CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD THE BANK
You muscle-headed PRICK
8 Likes