Manafort defense will call no witnesses (even Manafort)

[Cecilie1200]

But does it prove that a crime was committed.

Being in trouble with the IRS is a separate issue.

Manafort had numerous foreign bank accounts that he never reported. Failure to File Reports of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts is a felony. And Manafort is charged with 3 counts of it.

Worse for Manafort, his defense team admitted to these foreign accounts and millions of dollars within them that Manafort failed to report. They just tried to blame Gates for it, claiming that Manafort was hands off.

The paper trail shows Manafort's *deep* involvement with these accounts, loans, taxes, and the movement of funds. Along with extensive eye witness testimony from the banks, his accountant, and his former business partner Gates.

Conspiracy to Launder Money is also a very serious crime. And the paper trail, emails and eye witnesses show Manafort playing a shell game with bankers, loan officers and even his own son in law......buying property with 'loans' from Russian backed Ukrainian government officials that he never paid back.

And Manaforts defense? There was none. He called no witnesses. He didn't testify.

Which means the defense doesn't think the prosecution's case has sufficiently convinced the jury. YOU are convinced, but you're not on the jury.

That would be true of any case, ever. I'm citing the extensive evidence, Manafort admitting that the undeclared foreign accounts were his, Manafort admitting that there were millions in unreported income in those accounts, and Manafort's complete lack of defense.

Plus the exhaustive paper trail and eye witness testimony of Manafort's fraud.

All indications are that Manafort is well and truly fucked at this point.

Watergate Prosecutor: Paul Manafort case is 'a slam dunk'

Watergate Prosecutor: Paul Manafort case is 'a slam dunk'

When your own client won't testify in his own defense, and you've already admitted you did the things they're charging you with, that's ridiculously bad for you.

This isn't an episode of "Perry Mason", hon. Defendants rarely testify at their own trials, because a defense lawyer would have to be retarded to let his client anywhere near the witness stand. First day of law school, they teach you "Tell your client to SHUT UP."

If the defense called Manafort to testify, THAT would be sign that he was fucked and they were desperate.

Defense attorneys don’t have a choice in whether they testify. I’ve advised many clients who ignored my advice. Never worked out for them

Well, it is true that the defendant has the right to testify if he wants to, and his lawyer is bound by his wishes. When I say "let his client near the witness stand", I'm obviously referring to the advice the lawyer gives his client, and how he conducts his part of the trial assuming his client follows advice.

 

[Cecilie1200]

What, the fact that it's their job to prove their accusations? Uh, yeah.
But if the defense isn't calling any witnesses to try and rebut and cast doubt, it indicates that the defense lawyer doesn't think the prosecution succeeded in its job.

Given the overwhelming evidence of Manafort's guilt, the paper trail contradicting Manafort's account and the legion of witnesses and the documentation affirming their account....

.....that's a terrible assumption on the part of the defense. Its far more likely that Manafort would have been shredded on cross examination and made his case worse.

*sigh* I was talking about why the defense didn't call witnesses, not why Manafort himself didn't testify. I've already said, multiple times, that only a brain-damaged defense attorney lets the accused anywhere near the witness stand for anything less than a desperate, hail-Mary play.

Sigh.....manafort would have been a witness for the defense. They didn't call him for a reason. For someone who claims to be so versed in criminal law, you're missing some pretty big details.

As for 'what you've said', it doesn't amount to much. Its far, far more likely that Manafort would have been ripped to shreds in cross examination.

*SIGH* Where did I say, or even imply, that he WOULDN'T be a witness for the defense?

Right here.....

"sigh* I was talking about why the defense didn't call witnesses, not why Manafort himself didn't testify. "

Cecilie1200

Manafort IS a defense witness. So when you're talking about why the defense didn't call Manafort, you're talking about why the defense didn't call witnesses.

For all your sighing, you're missing cartoon simple things about this case. I'm very much doubting your self proclaimed expertise in criminal law. As the details you're missing are basic.

So like I said, the problem here is that you're a halfwit who doesn't understand what's being said beyond what he wants to hear.

I can't believe I'm being forced to word-parse like this just because some 'tard wants to pretend to be smarter than he is, but fine.

Right from the beginning, we have been talking about "witnesses" and "Manafort" separately. OBVIOUSLY, if Manafort was called, it would be as a defense witness. That goes without saying, or would have if you weren't such a moron. Equally obviously - to anyone but you - the defendant himself is rather different from garden-variety defense witnesses. Duuuuuhhhh. Do you feel better now that you've had the painfully apparent spelled out for you?

For all your lofty "you're missing stuff, you don't know much", you're really short on actually naming anything I've missed. Do you have anything more than just your need for explicit explanations of water being wet?

 

[Skylar]

Given the overwhelming evidence of Manafort's guilt, the paper trail contradicting Manafort's account and the legion of witnesses and the documentation affirming their account....

.....that's a terrible assumption on the part of the defense. Its far more likely that Manafort would have been shredded on cross examination and made his case worse.

*sigh* I was talking about why the defense didn't call witnesses, not why Manafort himself didn't testify. I've already said, multiple times, that only a brain-damaged defense attorney lets the accused anywhere near the witness stand for anything less than a desperate, hail-Mary play.

Sigh.....manafort would have been a witness for the defense. They didn't call him for a reason. For someone who claims to be so versed in criminal law, you're missing some pretty big details.

As for 'what you've said', it doesn't amount to much. Its far, far more likely that Manafort would have been ripped to shreds in cross examination.

*SIGH* Where did I say, or even imply, that he WOULDN'T be a witness for the defense?

Right here.....

"sigh* I was talking about why the defense didn't call witnesses, not why Manafort himself didn't testify. "

Cecilie1200

Manafort IS a defense witness. So when you're talking about why the defense didn't call Manafort, you're talking about why the defense didn't call witnesses.

For all your sighing, you're missing cartoon simple things about this case. I'm very much doubting your self proclaimed expertise in criminal law. As the details you're missing are basic.

So like I said, the problem here is that you're a halfwit who doesn't understand what's being said beyond what he wants to hear.

I can't believe I'm being forced to word-parse like this just because some 'tard wants to pretend to be smarter than he is, but fine.

Right from the beginning, we have been talking about "witnesses" and "Manafort" separately. OBVIOUSLY, if Manafort was called, it would be as a defense witness. That goes without saying, or would have if you weren't such a moron. Equally obviously - to anyone but you - the defendant himself is rather different from garden-variety defense witnesses. Duuuuuhhhh. Do you feel better now that you've had the painfully apparent spelled out for you?

For all your lofty "you're missing stuff, you don't know much", you're really short on actually naming anything I've missed. Do you have anything more than just your need for explicit explanations of water being wet?

Again, Manafort is a defense witness. You were talking about why his defense team didn't cite defense witnesses.

You've fastidiously avoided any talk of the mountains of evidence against Manafort. Which is wise, as its both incriminating and compelling. And I'll keep you in the loop on the basic matters of court procedures.

Like who is a defense witnesses.

 

[Cecilie1200]

*sigh* I was talking about why the defense didn't call witnesses, not why Manafort himself didn't testify. I've already said, multiple times, that only a brain-damaged defense attorney lets the accused anywhere near the witness stand for anything less than a desperate, hail-Mary play.

Sigh.....manafort would have been a witness for the defense. They didn't call him for a reason. For someone who claims to be so versed in criminal law, you're missing some pretty big details.

As for 'what you've said', it doesn't amount to much. Its far, far more likely that Manafort would have been ripped to shreds in cross examination.

*SIGH* Where did I say, or even imply, that he WOULDN'T be a witness for the defense?

Right here.....

"sigh* I was talking about why the defense didn't call witnesses, not why Manafort himself didn't testify. "

Cecilie1200

Manafort IS a defense witness. So when you're talking about why the defense didn't call Manafort, you're talking about why the defense didn't call witnesses.

For all your sighing, you're missing cartoon simple things about this case. I'm very much doubting your self proclaimed expertise in criminal law. As the details you're missing are basic.

So like I said, the problem here is that you're a halfwit who doesn't understand what's being said beyond what he wants to hear.

I can't believe I'm being forced to word-parse like this just because some 'tard wants to pretend to be smarter than he is, but fine.

Right from the beginning, we have been talking about "witnesses" and "Manafort" separately. OBVIOUSLY, if Manafort was called, it would be as a defense witness. That goes without saying, or would have if you weren't such a moron. Equally obviously - to anyone but you - the defendant himself is rather different from garden-variety defense witnesses. Duuuuuhhhh. Do you feel better now that you've had the painfully apparent spelled out for you?

For all your lofty "you're missing stuff, you don't know much", you're really short on actually naming anything I've missed. Do you have anything more than just your need for explicit explanations of water being wet?

Again, Manafort is a defense witness. You were talking about why his defense team didn't cite defense witnesses.

You've fastidiously avoided any talk of the mountains of evidence against Manafort. Which is wise, as its both incriminating and compelling. And I'll keep you in the loop on the basic matters of court procedures.

Like who is a defense witnesses.

Again, Manafort is THE DEFENDANT. Yes, only the defense can call him, but that's a mite different from a generic "defense witness". There is no amount of word-parsing, hair-splitting "AHA! Gotcha!" that is going to change that fact, OR make it so that I somehow said Manafort would not have been a witness for his own defense, had he testified.

I have not "fastidiously avoided" talking about the "mountains of evidence". They haven't been relevant to any of the topics I've been addressing. Know why? Because unlike you, I have a life and am not obsessively salivating over the "Get Trump!" melodrama, from EITHER side of it. I couldn't care less if Manafort is convicted or not, and the "mountains of evidence against him" have exactly jack and shit and nothing else to do with the reasons behind a defense attorney opting not to call witness.

And we're done. Thank you for proving me right in your lame-ass attempt to prove me wrong.

Shoo, Fido! Go lie down!

 

[Skylar]

Sigh.....manafort would have been a witness for the defense. They didn't call him for a reason. For someone who claims to be so versed in criminal law, you're missing some pretty big details.

As for 'what you've said', it doesn't amount to much. Its far, far more likely that Manafort would have been ripped to shreds in cross examination.

*SIGH* Where did I say, or even imply, that he WOULDN'T be a witness for the defense?

Right here.....

"sigh* I was talking about why the defense didn't call witnesses, not why Manafort himself didn't testify. "

Cecilie1200

Manafort IS a defense witness. So when you're talking about why the defense didn't call Manafort, you're talking about why the defense didn't call witnesses.

For all your sighing, you're missing cartoon simple things about this case. I'm very much doubting your self proclaimed expertise in criminal law. As the details you're missing are basic.

So like I said, the problem here is that you're a halfwit who doesn't understand what's being said beyond what he wants to hear.

I can't believe I'm being forced to word-parse like this just because some 'tard wants to pretend to be smarter than he is, but fine.

Right from the beginning, we have been talking about "witnesses" and "Manafort" separately. OBVIOUSLY, if Manafort was called, it would be as a defense witness. That goes without saying, or would have if you weren't such a moron. Equally obviously - to anyone but you - the defendant himself is rather different from garden-variety defense witnesses. Duuuuuhhhh. Do you feel better now that you've had the painfully apparent spelled out for you?

For all your lofty "you're missing stuff, you don't know much", you're really short on actually naming anything I've missed. Do you have anything more than just your need for explicit explanations of water being wet?

Again, Manafort is a defense witness. You were talking about why his defense team didn't cite defense witnesses.

You've fastidiously avoided any talk of the mountains of evidence against Manafort. Which is wise, as its both incriminating and compelling. And I'll keep you in the loop on the basic matters of court procedures.

Like who is a defense witnesses.

Again, Manafort is THE DEFENDANT.

Holy shit, you're just figuring this out? Welcome to the party. Tell us when you figure out who the prosecution is.

Yes, only the defense can call him, but that's a mite different from a generic "defense witness". There is no amount of word-parsing, hair-splitting "AHA! Gotcha!" that is going to change that fact, OR make it so that I somehow said Manafort would not have been a witness for his own defense, had he testified.

You were talking about why his defense team didn't cite defense witnesses. Manafort is a defense witness. Thus, you're talking about why they didn't call Manafort.

Its not that complicated.

 

[ColonelAngus]

If the jury comes back with a not guilty judgement, watch the looney left wing fucks find them and assault them in public for being TRUMPTARDS!!!

It’ll happen.

Do I have a crystal ball, or are the left wing lunatics predictable as fuck?

Manafort trial Day 14: Jury 'scared' as it heads home without a verdict

“Paul Manafort's trial will stretch into a fourth week, as jurors headed home Friday without reaching a verdict for the second straight day and the judge overseeing the case alluded to "threats" the jury may be receiving.

“I had no idea this case would incite this emotion,” U.S. District Court Judge T.S. Ellis III said in an open court hearing, responding to a motion from seven news organizations, including POLITICO, seeking access to sealed materials related to the trial that would have publicly identified the jurors.


Ellis denied the motion, telling the courtroom that jurors were "scared” and “afraid.” As a result, Ellis said, he didn’t “feel right” releasing the names of the 12-person jury.”

The lefttards are evil pieces of garbage. They are the threat to America, not Trump.

This trial has nothing to do with Trump, but jurors will be tormented if they don’t convict. That is absolutely fucked up.

Soooooooo predictable.

 

[ColonelAngus]

I knew this was a slam dunk case. But never THIS easy:
Paul Manafort trial Day 11: Defense rests, Manafort will not take the stand

OP did you know the jury and judge hold be threatened by left wing lunatics.