My sense is that when there's no defense, the prosecution's case is either exceptionally weak or it's exceptionally strong.
Oh, in this case I think we do. The bank fraud issue is interesting. I don't know the statute. I can imagine a reality in which the law is written in such a way that it's not fraud if the bank president is in on it. Now, that bank president has gotta be guilty of something...I mean, he doesn't OWN the bank. It's not the 1850s anymore. But the loan applicant? I'd have to see the language. But he repeatedly used foreign accounts to hide income from the taxman, I don't see any way he skates on that stuff.
Yeah but Joe & Jane Juror might take sympathy on Manafort that he squandered tens of millions of dollars.
The bank manager is simply a party to the fraud and it is the bank that is the victim of the fraud It would be no different to a bank robbery where a bank manager helps the crooks pull off an inside job
Agreed I think poorly managed celebrity cases like Pistorius create a false impression that accused will usually run an elaborate narrative defence The frankly laughable witnesses in those cases show why its often best to shut up!
Yes. The defense has already attacked Gates on cross, which is the crux of their defense, ie., that Gates is the one who's the real dirtbag. The only way they could further support that narrative, in this instance, is to have Manafort testify. But there's no way they'd risk that.
This is interesting. Big Papa's wife tweeted this 1029883883616169984 is not a valid tweet id I have some vague recollection that she has ties to Russia, but don't take that to the bank. They started dating when she reached out to him on linkedin. Look at their photographs and make your own conclusions. She gave an interview to the Daily Caller, which I believe is Tucker Carlson's joint, that she and George are considering reneging on their plea deal. So, um, the plot thickens.
Sure, why not get Jackie? This administration is a gdamn farce already. "If you can't prove that he did collude, then you must free the dude!"
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/prime-beta/this-is-probably-the-key One of Josh's email pals, a former federal prosecutor, theorizes that Mueller knows some really disturbing shit about the Trump campaign but can't use the evidence he would need for a conviction because of the classification status of the evidence. So (the theory goes) he needs maximum leverage over Manafort because what Manafort can testify to makes that evidence unnecessary.
No verdict yet, but Judge Ellis revealed that he has been threatened, said he doesn’t go anywhere without protection of Marshals, and declined to unseal the names of jurors for their own safety. Added that he didn’t anticipate the level of attention this trial would receive— Natasha Bertrand (@NatashaBertrand) August 17, 2018 How the ******** did you not “anticipate the level of attention this trial would receive”?
I guess he thought nobody would notice his attempts (which may prove successful) to sabotage the government's case.
I'm beginning to fear this is what's happening. The jury has taken three days and still isn't ready to weigh in. I have a bad, bad feeling about this.