Jump to content
IGNORED

Pavel Manafort's Trials and Tribulations


AmazonGrace

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, onekidanddone said:

What did this treasonous twit do to get a street named after him?  I hope the name gets changed soon. I’m thinking Rufus boulevard or Free Jinger Avenue 

My error—my bad! I just did some research and learned that Paul Manafort Drive is named after Paul Manafort SENIOR, a former mayor of New Britain. I didn’t realize that Pavel is a junior.

  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The defense rests without calling Manafort to testify so it's just the closing arguments and the trial ought to be done soon.

  • Thank You 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Why Trump will pardon Paul Manafort"

Spoiler

Today saw a major development in the trial of former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, as the defense decided not to call any witnesses. So not only won’t Manafort be testifying, neither will anyone else on his behalf.

Which brings us a bit closer to what could be the final disposition of this case: the day when President Trump pardons Manafort.

We should acknowledge that criminal defendants often decide not to call any witnesses; there are a number of situations in which you might choose to do so. Maybe you feel the prosecution did such a poor job that there’s nothing more to add. And since the burden is on them to prove that the defendant is guilty, not calling any witnesses can be a way of making sure the jury focuses on the prosecution’s case, instead of muddying up their deliberation with questions about whether the defense witnesses were credible. You also might be concerned about what the cross-examination of your witnesses could reveal.

But in Manafort’s case, it’s certainly a risk. The prosecution offered not only people who testified that he committed crimes but also extensive documentation of bank fraud and tax fraud. There’s another explanation, though, one well put by Franklin Foer, who has reported extensively on Manafort:

Going on the stand himself was probably never under consideration, since cross-examination would have been a nightmare. It’s unclear whether Manafort had any fact witnesses who could refute the evidence that was offered in the prosecution’s case. And there may not be anyone around who would testify to Manafort’s sterling character, both because few people want to be associated with him today and because he has long been known as a particularly immoral schemer, almost a walking caricature of the mercenary lobbyist willing to do anything for a buck. It’s unclear whether, even if they had wanted to, his defense could find someone to stand up and say Manafort is a great guy who would never do the things he is accused of.

From the beginning, there has been a question hanging over Manafort’s case: Why won’t he flip? After all, other Trump aides have when faced with possible jail time, and Manafort is facing more than anyone. There’s a real possibility he’ll never see another day as a free man. One popular explanation is that he’s afraid that if he tells everything he knows, some people in Russia would become displeased enough to kill him. The oligarch Oleg Deripaska, whom Manafort supposedly owes $19 million, allegedly has links to a Russian organized crime group.

So Manafort may have decided that it’s better to take his chances with a jury than to find a strange substance smeared on his door handle one day. It’s also possible Manafort really has nothing to offer special counsel Robert S. Mueller III about Trump, that his activities, criminal though they might have been, never actually involved the president. That would mean he has no one to flip on.

But let’s imagine for a moment that he knows something incriminating about the president — or even that the president isn’t sure what Manafort knows, but suspects that he might know something. (This, by the way, is Adam Davidson’s extremely plausible theory of Russian kompromat: Trump acts the way he does toward Vladimir Putin not because he knows Putin has damaging information on him, but because he just isn’t sure what Putin might have.) Would Trump actually go so far as to pardon Manafort, given the firestorm of criticism he’d get?

There are some lines even Trump is unwilling to cross. For instance, while he complains loudly about Attorney General Jeff Sessions not being able to protect him by shutting down the Mueller investigation, so far he hasn’t actually fired Sessions and replaced him with someone more pliable, presumably at least in part because his aides have convinced him that doing so would be a political disaster.

At the same time, Trump has spent the past 15 months since Mueller was appointed trying to discredit the investigation, in a campaign designed less to persuade the broader public than to convince his base that it is a witch hunt from start to finish and therefore everything it produces, no matter how factual and supported by evidence, should be ignored and discounted. He has obviously calculated, and rightly so, that if he can keep that base firmly behind him, Republicans in the House will never vote to impeach him, and even if Democrats took control of the chamber and did so, Republicans in the Senate would never vote to convict.

You can already see the argument he’ll make: The whole thing is a witch hunt, the charges are bogus, the jury was a bunch of Angry Democrats, and I’m intervening in the interests of justice. Trump also seems to genuinely believe that the investigation is unfair, and pardoning Manafort would be a great way for him to both assert control and stick it to Mueller.

It’s important to remember that no matter what the jury in this case decides, it’s only the first of two trials Manafort faces. The next one, in a federal court in Washington, will deal more directly with Manafort’s relationships in the former Soviet Union. That’s when Trump may start feeling the heat and feeling oppressed, and look for a way to let everyone know who’s really in charge. And that’s the day Manafort, sitting in his jail cell, is fervently hoping for.

 

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/paul-manafort-trial-day-12-live-coverage/ar-BBLXBY5?ocid=ientp

Closing arguments underway.

It does make me nervous. I'm afraid if it comes back as a not guilty or hung jury type of deal, that it will be seen as a huge win by Caligula and his crew. See! There's nothing there! WITCHHUNT!!!

  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A good one from Jennifer Rubin: "Things in the Paul Manafort trial that should scare Trump"

Spoiler

Paul Manafort’s lawyers rested their case without allowing their client to take the stand and without presenting a single witness. Defense counsel Kevin Downing gave the formulaic explanation for declining to put on any case: “Mr. Manafort just rested his case, and he did so because he and his legal team believe that the government has not met its burden of proof.” While every defendant is intended the presumption of innocence, the mound of documentary evidence and parade of witnesses in this case sure seemed to fulfill the prosecutors’ burden of proof. But the jury will have its say.

We can speculate as to why Manafort even went to trial. Perhaps he’s expecting a pardon. However, now that the public has gotten a good look at the financial machinations and opulent lifestyle of his former campaign chairman, would President Trump risk the political hit by pardoning him? (Remember there is another trial coming up in Washington in September.) It’s one thing to know intellectually that one could be convicted, but quite another to hear an adverse verdict and get a prison sentence.

What can we learn from the proceedings to this point?

First, Trump declaring a trial a “witch hunt” or unfair, or vouching for the character of an ex-staffer tells us nothing about the strength of the case or the actual character of the defendant. The president operates in a fact-free and lawless universe, one in which any proceeding that implicates either him or his inner circle is by definition a “witch hunt.” Trump likely had no idea what the facts of the Manafort case were (the public sure didn’t), or understanding of the laws implicated. Keep this in mind with regard to his pronouncements regarding the Russia investigation and any cases stemming from that. Trump is about the least-reliable person one could ask for an accurate assessment of someone’s legal exposure. And that includes possible cases against the president himself.

Second, the general public, as noted above, knows a fraction of the evidence prosecutors have collected before they put on their case. The same is true of potential conspiracy and/or obstruction charges against Trump, his family and top advisers. In particular, the mound of financial documents in the Manafort case was staggering, and that evidence was confirmed by more witnesses who are not household names (at least not before the trial). Keep that in mind when Trump’s sycophants say there is “no evidence” of anything.

Third, prosecutors know all about burden of proof. They aren’t going to file charges or go to trial unless they have lots and lots of evidence. (Remember all those indictments obtained by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III?) They rarely rely on a single document or a single witness — especially if that witness is vulnerable on cross-examination. The notion that Trump will be able to invalidate a carefully crafted case against him, for example, by smearing an FBI agent (e.g., Peter Strzok) who left early in the investigation, and whose work was confirmed by others, is downright silly. The president also has been trying to discredit former FBI director James B. Comey from the beginning, but the amount of evidence that supports Comey’s recollection may be just as impressive as the case brought by Manafort’s prosecutors.

Fourth, PR arguments and political spin (Not fair! What about . . . ?) have zero weight in court. Manafort cannot avoid prison time by saying the government didn’t catch all tax cheats. (So-called “selective prosecution” defenses are available in very narrow circumstances and rarely succeed.) Likewise, defendants in other cases are going to have to face the pros and cons of taking the stand (where their credibility may be shredded) and putting on witnesses whose own integrity is suspect.

Fifth, understanding that the facts and the law are not favorable to Trump, his legal team seems more inclined these days to fall back on far-fetched constitutional pleas — e.g., a president cannot obstruct justice — or baseless allegations against prosecutors. (The political affiliation of prosecutors is irrelevant in a trial so long as they are credible and have the goods; absent any showing of political bias, it’s far from clear Trump or his cohorts’ lawyers would even get to raise the point.) And remember, legal arguments about possible prosecution only relate to prosecution in office; there’s zero bar for prosecuting him the moment a new president is sworn in.

In sum, when you see a real trial conducted by professional, experienced prosecutors, you realize the disadvantage Trump and/or others in his administration may face if cases are brought against them. The prosecutors will come armed with a mountain of evidence and the Trumpers will cry “Unfair!” (How’s that working out for Manafort?) Once we move to a venue in which facts do matter, and Sean Hannity doesn’t get to dismiss out of hand whatever bad facts come up, Trump and his inner circle may find themselves like Manafort — defenseless.

 

  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

He has to have done something that Trump can't pardon. The man is rolling in crimes, at least one has to be a state crime that will put him in jail. 

  • Upvote 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rachel talks at length about the corruption involved in promising cabinet jobs for money and about the banker who thought he was going to be the army secretary. (Spoiler: apparently he's a bit of a moron.)

  • Upvote 2
  • Thank You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

About the note:

 

We've got more waiting to do:

 

  • Upvote 2
  • Thank You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, AmazonGrace said:

Still no verdict. https://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKCN1L50V2?__twitter_impression=true 

I wonder If it will end up a hung jury. 

I think it's too early to jump to that conclusion. We have to remember that the jury has to work through 18 counts in the indictment and come to a verdict on each of them separately. They have a lot of evidentiary exhibits at their disposal, but they have not been told which exhibit belongs to which count and I can imagine that it's taking them a long time to work all that out and then come to a verdict. Even if all of the jurors are all in accordance, that's still a hell of a a lot of work. Some counts may be easy to come to a verdict on, but others can take up a lot of time. And although in the court of public opinion Manafort has already been found guilty, the jurors (many if not all of them laymen) have to base their conclusions in law. That's a pretty big ask. 

  • Upvote 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Jury: "We cannot agree if the ostrich jacket is a fashion crime", probably.

  • Upvote 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Watching CNN, guilty on 8 counts, mistrial on 10. Can someone tell me why people are running in and out of the courthouse? Not one person has walked normally.

Stand by for the pardon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, fraurosena said:

Guilty on 8 counts!

 

I’m figuring Club Fed might not be as swanky as Mar-a-largo

  • Upvote 1
  • I Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, onekidanddone said:

I’m figuring Club Fed might not be as swanky as Mar-a-largo

I don't think he will do any time King Dump will swiftly pardon him.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does this mean they can try him again for these 10 counts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.