Posted on 08/14/2018 9:08:06 AM PDT by Coronal
Attorneys for Paul Manafort, the former Trump campaign chairman who is on trial for financial crimes in federal district court Alexandria, Virginia, will not present a defense of their client, ABC News has learned.
Government prosecutors from Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s office rested their case on Monday, so without a defense, the jury is expected to begin deliberations following closing arguments.
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
The defense made all their points during cross-examination. Judge even said the government made a decision to not prosecute over a decade ago. Rosenstien made the decision not to prosecute this case back then.
This case belongs in Tax Court, not in a criminal prosecution.
Manafort had a CPA file the tax returns, and the CEO of the bank personally approved the big loan knowing he likely did not qualify for it. Manafort’s people made have made some untruthful representations in the loan application, but that is not really a crime with the bank is normally required to confirm the information in an application; especially one of that size.
It should be blatantly obvious to even a num skull moron on the jury that this whole issue is a government BS “manufactured” witch hunt .
FREE MANAFORD
Depends on how much of their own evidence came in during the prosecution phase.
I was on jury duty in seattle a few decades ago (King Co. Superior court) on a 1 month long civil case. The “Jim Beam” suit was going on at the same time. The day the court found in favor of Jim Beam, the TV reporters and cameramen were at the bus stop asking people what they thought of the verdict (it was about a baby being born with fetal alcohol syndrome and the parents were suing Jim Beam).
The reporter came to me and asked me what I thought. I said, “Not only do I agree with it but I think they should be able to counter-sue on grounds that it was a frivolous lawsuit.”
It was shown on the news that night.
The next day in court. The plaintiff’s lawyers were looking over at the jury and discussing things and finally talked to the judge. The judge removed the jury - except for me. Then he asked me if it was me on TV last night. I said it was. He then asked me if my opinion on that case would impact my opinion on this one. I told him they were two completely different cases that had nothing to do with one another. He kept me on the jury.
BTW, we found for the defendant. A doctor was being sued for using a treatment that, though common, didn’t help in the end. It was dumb. But I got to give my jury nullification speech to the jury once we were permitted to deliberate. :)
Yeah
And as Ellis pointed out - lied under oath while a witness in his Courtroom.
They may feel that with the jury they have it does no good to put on a defense
I am guessing that there are essential elements of proof on each of the charges that are absent from the prosecution’s case and so it is dismissal by the judge or a direct appeal.
He never had a case, that was the problem
Showing off Manaforts suits and fur coats isn’t a case. But that is all they had. Being rich isn’t illegal, yet.
My guess is that it is going to be a hung jury. If there are only 1-2 holding out for acquittal, there will be another trial. 3+ “not guilty” votes, and a retrial is less likely. 6+ “not guilty” votes and a retrial is not going to happen.
“Move to strike, your Highness, on the grounds of Marisa Tomei being hot”
That’s ballsy, basically they are saying. Government didn’t prove its case so we don’t even need to put up a defense!
I dunno. Ronald Reagan said if your explaining your losing....this may be a stroke of genius.
.
The collapse of the prosecution’s main witness should result in either acquittal, or a hung jury.
There never should have been an indictment.
If he is found guilty, I’m hoping the Judge sentences him to ‘Time Served’.
It is a common tactic but I think (suspect?) that a jury is going to want to hear “the other side of the story” and even though there is no legal burden to present it, they are going to wonder why and suspect that the defendant lacked a credible counter-story. But of course I am rooting for an acquittal. But for his association with the President, Manafort would not be on trial. That makes this a political show trial.
.
Nothing in this fiasco has gone well for Mueller.
Why take a chance in turning a pot of gravy into a bucket of Poo?
Isn't this article jumping the gun a bit? Won't Manafort's team wait for the ruling on the acquittal motion before deciding how to proceed?
Is ABC News just stirring the pot with this article, did ABC News mistake the motion to acquit as the defense's closing argument, or did I miss the judge's decision on the motion to acquit?
-PJ
I don’t know, but they may feel so confident that they are okay letting the Jury decide, even with no defense, other than basically offering them closing arguments stating the government didn’t prove its case, you must acquit.
We’ll see how it all plays out, but based on the judges general hostility toward the prosecution that has been reported, I’d say he isn’t too happy with the prosecution either, and likely doesn’t care for his courtroom being used for political theater.
I'm suggesting that ABC is either making it up, or misunderstood what they were being told by their legal analysts.
I can't believe that the Manafort team would suggest these thoughts before hearing the judge's ruling on the motion to acquit, because even these thoughts might influence how the judge rules or how the prosecution might react.
I'm willing to bet that this article is psyops on ABC's part.
-PJ
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.