Manafort defense will call no witnesses (even Manafort)

[Skylar]

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.

His defense was in the cross examinations of the documents and the witnesses.

Not a very good defense. Especially when you open with admitting to many of the most serious charges.

Again, the evidence against manafort is extensive. As is the paper trail. All indications are he's thoroughly fucked. Even former federal prosecutors have admitted as much.

Seriously, Marty.......this isn't a hill to die on.

No need to die on it, I just found it interesting the defense didn't provide a case, even other witnesses.

Again, when it comes to blue collar crime taking a jury from point A to B with regards to criminality is a tough trip.

Now when this eventually goes to a Tax Court and he's in front of a Tax Judge, that's a different story.

Again, the charges against him are pretty straight forward. Undeclared foreign accounts is a serious crime. Manafort has already admitted to that one. And the paper trail on his Conspiracy to Money Launder is extensive. As all the 'loans' that he received from the Ukrainian government that he never paid back.

And Manafort lied his ass off to loan officials, lied about the use of his property (claiming it as a second resident while putting it up for rent), and lied to accountants and banks. All of which are crimes.

As for working as an unregistered foreign agent, Manafort admitted to that by registering as a foreign agent in 2017.....for 17 million in consulting work he'd done years before. Some as early as 2012.

Disclosure after the fact, years after the fact, doesn't work. He's guilty as sin.

Most of this relies on the testimony of a guy who also admits he broke the law and is getting off due to his testimony.

No, most of it relies on the paper records. Gates was necessary for the conspiracy charges. As conspiracy requires at least two people. The 'foreign agent' charges are already proven by Manafort registering as a foreign agent in 2017....for work he started doing in 2012.

The money laundering charges stick based on the paper trail, manafort's extensive involvement in the process, and the legion of bankers, loan officers and accountants that testified that Manafort lied to them personally to get fraudluent loans or to try and launder money transferred to his account as a 'loan' that Manafort never paid back.

Marty.......the evidence against Manafort is overwhelming. You're backing the wrong horse on this one.

 

[edward37]

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.

His defense was in the cross examinations of the documents and the witnesses.

Not a very good defense. Especially when you open with admitting to many of the most serious charges.

Again, the evidence against manafort is extensive. As is the paper trail. All indications are he's thoroughly fucked. Even former federal prosecutors have admitted as much.

Seriously, Marty.......this isn't a hill to die on.

No need to die on it, I just found it interesting the defense didn't provide a case, even other witnesses.

Again, when it comes to blue collar crime taking a jury from point A to B with regards to criminality is a tough trip.

Now when this eventually goes to a Tax Court and he's in front of a Tax Judge, that's a different story.

Again, the charges against him are pretty straight forward. Undeclared foreign accounts is a serious crime. Manafort has already admitted to that one. And the paper trail on his Conspiracy to Money Launder is extensive. As all the 'loans' that he received from the Ukrainian government that he never paid back.

And Manafort lied his ass off to loan officials, lied about the use of his property (claiming it as a second resident while putting it up for rent), and lied to accountants and banks. All of which are crimes.

As for working as an unregistered foreign agent, Manafort admitted to that by registering as a foreign agent in 2017.....for 17 million in consulting work he'd done years before. Some as early as 2012.

Disclosure after the fact, years after the fact, doesn't work. He's guilty as sin.

Most of this relies on the testimony of a guy who also admits he broke the law and is getting off due to his testimony.

And the testimony of that man had better be truthful or else he's libel for great penalties

 

[Skylar]

His defense was in the cross examinations of the documents and the witnesses.

Not a very good defense. Especially when you open with admitting to many of the most serious charges.

Again, the evidence against manafort is extensive. As is the paper trail. All indications are he's thoroughly fucked. Even former federal prosecutors have admitted as much.

Seriously, Marty.......this isn't a hill to die on.

No need to die on it, I just found it interesting the defense didn't provide a case, even other witnesses.

Again, when it comes to blue collar crime taking a jury from point A to B with regards to criminality is a tough trip.

Now when this eventually goes to a Tax Court and he's in front of a Tax Judge, that's a different story.

Again, the charges against him are pretty straight forward. Undeclared foreign accounts is a serious crime. Manafort has already admitted to that one. And the paper trail on his Conspiracy to Money Launder is extensive. As all the 'loans' that he received from the Ukrainian government that he never paid back.

And Manafort lied his ass off to loan officials, lied about the use of his property (claiming it as a second resident while putting it up for rent), and lied to accountants and banks. All of which are crimes.

As for working as an unregistered foreign agent, Manafort admitted to that by registering as a foreign agent in 2017.....for 17 million in consulting work he'd done years before. Some as early as 2012.

Disclosure after the fact, years after the fact, doesn't work. He's guilty as sin.

Most of this relies on the testimony of a guy who also admits he broke the law and is getting off due to his testimony.

And the testimony of that man had better be truthful or else he's libel for great penalties

Gates is clearly a piece of shit. But the paper trail backs his account and contradicts Manafort.

You can't claim you're innocent because you were 'hands off in your finances' and leave a paper trail of extensive involvement in your finances, even going so far as to personally falsify loan applications and personally lie to accountants, loan officers and bankers to get it done.

For fuck's sake, the man registered as a foreign agent in 2017.......for work he started doing in 2012. The evidence is overwhelmingly against him.

 

[martybegan]

His defense was in the cross examinations of the documents and the witnesses.

Not a very good defense. Especially when you open with admitting to many of the most serious charges.

Again, the evidence against manafort is extensive. As is the paper trail. All indications are he's thoroughly fucked. Even former federal prosecutors have admitted as much.

Seriously, Marty.......this isn't a hill to die on.

No need to die on it, I just found it interesting the defense didn't provide a case, even other witnesses.

Again, when it comes to blue collar crime taking a jury from point A to B with regards to criminality is a tough trip.

Now when this eventually goes to a Tax Court and he's in front of a Tax Judge, that's a different story.

Again, the charges against him are pretty straight forward. Undeclared foreign accounts is a serious crime. Manafort has already admitted to that one. And the paper trail on his Conspiracy to Money Launder is extensive. As all the 'loans' that he received from the Ukrainian government that he never paid back.

And Manafort lied his ass off to loan officials, lied about the use of his property (claiming it as a second resident while putting it up for rent), and lied to accountants and banks. All of which are crimes.

As for working as an unregistered foreign agent, Manafort admitted to that by registering as a foreign agent in 2017.....for 17 million in consulting work he'd done years before. Some as early as 2012.

Disclosure after the fact, years after the fact, doesn't work. He's guilty as sin.

Most of this relies on the testimony of a guy who also admits he broke the law and is getting off due to his testimony.

No, most of it relies on the paper records. Gates was necessary for the conspiracy charges. As conspiracy requires at least two people. The 'foreign agent' charges are already proven by Manafort registering as a foreign agent in 2017....for work he started doing in 2012.

The money laundering charges stick based on the paper trail, manafort's extensive involvement in the process, and the legion of bankers, loan officers and accountants that testified that Manafort lied to them personally.

Marty.......the evidence against Manafort is overwhelming. You're backing the wrong horse on this one.

Lol, that's what my friends said about the 2016 election, and I'm getting that same feeling I had then.

 

[Cecilie1200]

In their closing argument they will hammer across the point that the prosecution has to prove 1) something happened and 2) what happened was illegal.

Far easier to prove murder than white collar crime.

Um......Manafort's people already admitted that there were millions in unreported income. Manafort's only defense is that he can't be responsible because he was very hands off and didn't know what was going on.

Problem is.....he wasn't hands off. And personally orchestrated the fraud with many lenders. With witness after witness confirming Manafort's personal involvement, Emails affirming the same.

The paper trail on this one is ridiculous.

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.

 

[Skylar]

Not a very good defense. Especially when you open with admitting to many of the most serious charges.

Again, the evidence against manafort is extensive. As is the paper trail. All indications are he's thoroughly fucked. Even former federal prosecutors have admitted as much.

Seriously, Marty.......this isn't a hill to die on.

No need to die on it, I just found it interesting the defense didn't provide a case, even other witnesses.

Again, when it comes to blue collar crime taking a jury from point A to B with regards to criminality is a tough trip.

Now when this eventually goes to a Tax Court and he's in front of a Tax Judge, that's a different story.

Again, the charges against him are pretty straight forward. Undeclared foreign accounts is a serious crime. Manafort has already admitted to that one. And the paper trail on his Conspiracy to Money Launder is extensive. As all the 'loans' that he received from the Ukrainian government that he never paid back.

And Manafort lied his ass off to loan officials, lied about the use of his property (claiming it as a second resident while putting it up for rent), and lied to accountants and banks. All of which are crimes.

As for working as an unregistered foreign agent, Manafort admitted to that by registering as a foreign agent in 2017.....for 17 million in consulting work he'd done years before. Some as early as 2012.

Disclosure after the fact, years after the fact, doesn't work. He's guilty as sin.

Most of this relies on the testimony of a guy who also admits he broke the law and is getting off due to his testimony.

No, most of it relies on the paper records. Gates was necessary for the conspiracy charges. As conspiracy requires at least two people. The 'foreign agent' charges are already proven by Manafort registering as a foreign agent in 2017....for work he started doing in 2012.

The money laundering charges stick based on the paper trail, manafort's extensive involvement in the process, and the legion of bankers, loan officers and accountants that testified that Manafort lied to them personally.

Marty.......the evidence against Manafort is overwhelming. You're backing the wrong horse on this one.

Lol, that's what my friends said about the 2016 election, and I'm getting that same feeling I had then.

Laughing......even a broken clock is right twice a day. But I wouldn't starting using broken clocks to tell time.

The evidence is extensive on this one, Marty. Not just Gates, but accountants, loan officers, and bankers along with volumes of paper records that back their account and contradict Manafort.

Follow the evidence. Its the most reliable indicator of outcome.

 

[edward37]

Guess that's why Trump will NEVER put his hand on a bible

 

[martybegan]

No need to die on it, I just found it interesting the defense didn't provide a case, even other witnesses.

Again, when it comes to blue collar crime taking a jury from point A to B with regards to criminality is a tough trip.

Now when this eventually goes to a Tax Court and he's in front of a Tax Judge, that's a different story.

Again, the charges against him are pretty straight forward. Undeclared foreign accounts is a serious crime. Manafort has already admitted to that one. And the paper trail on his Conspiracy to Money Launder is extensive. As all the 'loans' that he received from the Ukrainian government that he never paid back.

And Manafort lied his ass off to loan officials, lied about the use of his property (claiming it as a second resident while putting it up for rent), and lied to accountants and banks. All of which are crimes.

As for working as an unregistered foreign agent, Manafort admitted to that by registering as a foreign agent in 2017.....for 17 million in consulting work he'd done years before. Some as early as 2012.

Disclosure after the fact, years after the fact, doesn't work. He's guilty as sin.

Most of this relies on the testimony of a guy who also admits he broke the law and is getting off due to his testimony.

No, most of it relies on the paper records. Gates was necessary for the conspiracy charges. As conspiracy requires at least two people. The 'foreign agent' charges are already proven by Manafort registering as a foreign agent in 2017....for work he started doing in 2012.

The money laundering charges stick based on the paper trail, manafort's extensive involvement in the process, and the legion of bankers, loan officers and accountants that testified that Manafort lied to them personally.

Marty.......the evidence against Manafort is overwhelming. You're backing the wrong horse on this one.

Lol, that's what my friends said about the 2016 election, and I'm getting that same feeling I had then.

Laughing......even a broken clock is right twice a day. But I wouldn't starting using broken clocks to tell time.

The evidence is extensive on this one, Marty. Not just Gates, but accountants, loan officers, and bankers along with volumes of paper records that back their account and contradict Manafort.

Follow the evidence. Its the most reliable indicator of outcome.

lets see if the jury can follow it.

 

[Skylar]

Again, the charges against him are pretty straight forward. Undeclared foreign accounts is a serious crime. Manafort has already admitted to that one. And the paper trail on his Conspiracy to Money Launder is extensive. As all the 'loans' that he received from the Ukrainian government that he never paid back.

And Manafort lied his ass off to loan officials, lied about the use of his property (claiming it as a second resident while putting it up for rent), and lied to accountants and banks. All of which are crimes.

As for working as an unregistered foreign agent, Manafort admitted to that by registering as a foreign agent in 2017.....for 17 million in consulting work he'd done years before. Some as early as 2012.

Disclosure after the fact, years after the fact, doesn't work. He's guilty as sin.

Most of this relies on the testimony of a guy who also admits he broke the law and is getting off due to his testimony.

No, most of it relies on the paper records. Gates was necessary for the conspiracy charges. As conspiracy requires at least two people. The 'foreign agent' charges are already proven by Manafort registering as a foreign agent in 2017....for work he started doing in 2012.

The money laundering charges stick based on the paper trail, manafort's extensive involvement in the process, and the legion of bankers, loan officers and accountants that testified that Manafort lied to them personally.

Marty.......the evidence against Manafort is overwhelming. You're backing the wrong horse on this one.

Lol, that's what my friends said about the 2016 election, and I'm getting that same feeling I had then.

Laughing......even a broken clock is right twice a day. But I wouldn't starting using broken clocks to tell time.

The evidence is extensive on this one, Marty. Not just Gates, but accountants, loan officers, and bankers along with volumes of paper records that back their account and contradict Manafort.

Follow the evidence. Its the most reliable indicator of outcome.

lets see if the jury can follow it.

I think they can. Its pretty straight forward. It wasn't a particularly long trial. And the evidence was simply overwhelming.

 

[Geaux4it]

Funny how Manafort was a threat to society and was put in solitary confinement, yet they let the terrorist loose in New Mexico

-Geaux

 

[Cecilie1200]

In their closing argument they will hammer across the point that the prosecution has to prove 1) something happened and 2) what happened was illegal.

Far easier to prove murder than white collar crime.

Um......Manafort's people already admitted that there were millions in unreported income. Manafort's only defense is that he can't be responsible because he was very hands off and didn't know what was going on.

Problem is.....he wasn't hands off. And personally orchestrated the fraud with many lenders. With witness after witness confirming Manafort's personal involvement, Emails affirming the same.

The paper trail on this one is ridiculous.

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.

You're not the defense, yet you are pretending to know what the defense thinks.

No, I'm ACTUALLY knowing how criminal law works in general. This isn't all that difficult.

In the United States, anyone accused of a crime enjoys the presumption of innocence. That means he does not have to prove a damned thing in court. It is wholly the prosecution's job to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, which makes the defense's job merely to try to get the jury to doubt.

None of that is speculative or "knowing what the defense thinks"; it's written in the law and precedent.

Common sense and logic therefore tell you that if the defense isn't calling any witnesses to attempt to create doubt in the jury's minds, it's because they think enough doubt already exists.

Now, they could be wrong. They could be completely incompetent (at which point he has grounds for an appeal). I have no idea, because I know nothing about the defense. But it's a simple fact that the only valid reason not to call witnesses is because you don't think they're needed.

 

[Skylar]

No, I'm ACTUALLY knowing how criminal law works in general. This isn't all that difficult.

In the United States, anyone accused of a crime enjoys the presumption of innocence. That means he does not have to prove a damned thing in court. It is wholly the prosecution's job to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, which makes the defense's job merely to try to get the jury to doubt.

Which might explain why the prosecution brought in all those witnesses backed by a paper trail affirming Manafort's criminal activity.

 

[Ted Frazier]

Um......Manafort's people already admitted that there were millions in unreported income. Manafort's only defense is that he can't be responsible because he was very hands off and didn't know what was going on.

Problem is.....he wasn't hands off. And personally orchestrated the fraud with many lenders. With witness after witness confirming Manafort's personal involvement, Emails affirming the same.

The paper trail on this one is ridiculous.

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.

You're not the defense, yet you are pretending to know what the defense thinks.

No, I'm ACTUALLY knowing how criminal law works in general. This isn't all that difficult.

In the United States, anyone accused of a crime enjoys the presumption of innocence. That means he does not have to prove a damned thing in court. It is wholly the prosecution's job to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, which makes the defense's job merely to try to get the jury to doubt.

None of that is speculative or "knowing what the defense thinks"; it's written in the law and precedent.

Common sense and logic therefore tell you that if the defense isn't calling any witnesses to attempt to create doubt in the jury's minds, it's because they think enough doubt already exists.

Now, they could be wrong. They could be completely incompetent (at which point he has grounds for an appeal). I have no idea, because I know nothing about the defense. But it's a simple fact that the only valid reason not to call witnesses is because you don't think they're needed.

Can you do me a favor? If the jury returns a guilty verdict, could you please edit your post noting that your analysis was dumb as fuck? Thanks.

 

[Skylar]

Funny how Manafort was a threat to society and was put in solitary confinement, yet they let the terrorist loose in New Mexico

-Geaux

Manafort was a flight risk....as he was caught trying to witness tamper in violation of his bail.

As for your 'terrorist', the judge asked for the evidence to back the claim up. And the prosecution couldn't produce it. Instead, the evidence is for the crime of child neglect.

Follow the evidence. Its the most reliable indicator of outcome.

 

[edward37]

Again, the charges against him are pretty straight forward. Undeclared foreign accounts is a serious crime. Manafort has already admitted to that one. And the paper trail on his Conspiracy to Money Launder is extensive. As all the 'loans' that he received from the Ukrainian government that he never paid back.

And Manafort lied his ass off to loan officials, lied about the use of his property (claiming it as a second resident while putting it up for rent), and lied to accountants and banks. All of which are crimes.

As for working as an unregistered foreign agent, Manafort admitted to that by registering as a foreign agent in 2017.....for 17 million in consulting work he'd done years before. Some as early as 2012.

Disclosure after the fact, years after the fact, doesn't work. He's guilty as sin.

Most of this relies on the testimony of a guy who also admits he broke the law and is getting off due to his testimony.

No, most of it relies on the paper records. Gates was necessary for the conspiracy charges. As conspiracy requires at least two people. The 'foreign agent' charges are already proven by Manafort registering as a foreign agent in 2017....for work he started doing in 2012.

The money laundering charges stick based on the paper trail, manafort's extensive involvement in the process, and the legion of bankers, loan officers and accountants that testified that Manafort lied to them personally.

Marty.......the evidence against Manafort is overwhelming. You're backing the wrong horse on this one.

Lol, that's what my friends said about the 2016 election, and I'm getting that same feeling I had then.

Laughing......even a broken clock is right twice a day. But I wouldn't starting using broken clocks to tell time.

The evidence is extensive on this one, Marty. Not just Gates, but accountants, loan officers, and bankers along with volumes of paper records that back their account and contradict Manafort.

Follow the evidence. Its the most reliable indicator of outcome.

lets see if the jury can follow it.

Wonder if they have an excuse for why he wanted no pay for working for Trump? Maybe because he could sell his relationship to Trump to bankers?

 

[toobfreak]

Guess that's why Trump will NEVER put his hand on a bible

Right. So much for THAT piece of facile, liberal bullshit.

 

[Skylar]

Most of this relies on the testimony of a guy who also admits he broke the law and is getting off due to his testimony.

No, most of it relies on the paper records. Gates was necessary for the conspiracy charges. As conspiracy requires at least two people. The 'foreign agent' charges are already proven by Manafort registering as a foreign agent in 2017....for work he started doing in 2012.

The money laundering charges stick based on the paper trail, manafort's extensive involvement in the process, and the legion of bankers, loan officers and accountants that testified that Manafort lied to them personally.

Marty.......the evidence against Manafort is overwhelming. You're backing the wrong horse on this one.

Lol, that's what my friends said about the 2016 election, and I'm getting that same feeling I had then.

Laughing......even a broken clock is right twice a day. But I wouldn't starting using broken clocks to tell time.

The evidence is extensive on this one, Marty. Not just Gates, but accountants, loan officers, and bankers along with volumes of paper records that back their account and contradict Manafort.

Follow the evidence. Its the most reliable indicator of outcome.

lets see if the jury can follow it.

Wonder if they have an excuse for why he wanted no pay for working for Trump? Maybe because he could sell his relationship to Trump to bankers?

There is evidence in the trial that support this idea. One of the loans that Manafort applied for but wasn't qualified for was pushed through by a Bank Exec that was apparently looking to curry favor with Trump and wanted a cabinet position.

There's no evidence (in the trial anyway) to back the idea that Manafort's loan would have actually resulted in a government position.

 

[edward37]

Guess that's why Trump will NEVER put his hand on a bible

Right. So much for THAT piece of facile, liberal bullshit.

View attachment 210526

Well ...he lied then too A pervert a liar a cheat ,,and those are his good points

 

[Cecilie1200]

No, I'm ACTUALLY knowing how criminal law works in general. This isn't all that difficult.

In the United States, anyone accused of a crime enjoys the presumption of innocence. That means he does not have to prove a damned thing in court. It is wholly the prosecution's job to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, which makes the defense's job merely to try to get the jury to doubt.

Which might explain why the prosecution brought in all those witnesses backed by a paper trail affirming Manafort's criminal activity.

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.

 

[Skylar]

No, I'm ACTUALLY knowing how criminal law works in general. This isn't all that difficult.

In the United States, anyone accused of a crime enjoys the presumption of innocence. That means he does not have to prove a damned thing in court. It is wholly the prosecution's job to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, which makes the defense's job merely to try to get the jury to doubt.

Which might explain why the prosecution brought in all those witnesses backed by a paper trail affirming Manafort's criminal activity.

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.