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.

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.

Could YOU do ME a favor? Could you stop actually BEING dumb as fuck?

My analysis is correct regardless of what the jury does, because it's not dependent on the defense attorney being correct in his assumptions or in the jury agreeing with him. And you will notice, if you can pull your hyperemotional, partisan-obsessed head out of your colon for two seconds, that my analysis INCLUDES the fact that the defense could be mistaken.

Just because YOUR entire existence is obsessed with the reality-show melodrama surrounding the Trump administration doesn't mean everyone else is as invested as you are, twat.

Now, if you'd like to take a stab at pretending to be an intelligent, rational adult (I know, that'll take an acting job worthy of an Oscar), perhaps you could tell me something OTHER than "I want him convicted! I want DRAMA!" - possibly something based on facts, logic, and common sense, if that isn't too much of a stretch - that contradicts anything I've actually said.

 

[edward37]

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.

Couldn't possibly be that defense doesn't need anymore hot water spilled on their client ?

 

[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.

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.

 

[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.

*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.

 

[g5000]

Opinion | Things in the Paul Manafort trial that should scare Trump

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.

 

[g5000]

Manafort didn't take the stand because he would have been shredded by the prosecutor on cross.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Opinion | Things in the Paul Manafort trial that should scare Trump

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.

Any day now, any day now.

 

[g5000]

PROSECUTOR: I submit into evidence this gun with the defendant's fingerprints all over it which he used to shoot someone on Fifth Avenue. I also submit the 58 cell phone videos of nearby spectators who filmed the defendant shooting the victim.

DEFENDANT: B-b-b-b-but the prosecutor is a Democrat!!!!

RUBE HERD: A Democrat! A Democrat! A Democrat!

 

[g5000]

Opinion | Things in the Paul Manafort trial that should scare Trump

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.

Any day now, any day now.

In the next couple/few days, in fact.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

PROSECUTOR: I submit into evidence this gun with the defendant's fingerprints all over it which he used to shoot someone on Fifth Avenue.

DEFENDANT: B-b-b-b-but the prosecutor is a Democrat!!!!

G-Spot: B-b-b-b-TRUMP!!!!!!!

 

[Skylar]

PROSECUTOR: I submit into evidence this gun with the defendant's fingerprints all over it which he used to shoot someone on Fifth Avenue. I also submit the 58 cell phone videos of nearby spectators who filmed the defendant shooting the victim.

DEFENDANT: B-b-b-b-but the prosecutor is a Democrat!!!!

RUBE HERD: A Democrat! A Democrat! A Democrat!

Try and be fair. Republicans may insist that someone can only be fairly be prosecuted and investigated by members of their own party. But at least they've been consistent in this belief.

As Ken Starr was a democrat.

Right?

 

[edward37]

etter to the editor
Re “F.B.I. Banishes an Agent Who Reviled Trump” (front page, Aug. 14):

Three of the most senior F.B.I. officials working on the initial Russia investigation — James Comey, the F.B.I. director; Andrew McCabe, deputy director; and Peter Strzok, a senior counterintelligence agent — have now been fired. In Mr. Strzok’s case, the firing was against the judgment of the bureau’s own Office of Professional Responsibility.

One wonders, given the targeting of these dedicated public servants, patriots all: Who exactly are the real witch hunters?

 

[Dragonlady]

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

Or they may argue the prosecution did not meet it's burden of proof and ask for summary dismissal.

There are two things that the defense is probably banking on. Either acquittal or the judge throwing out the case as you said or him throwing out the conviction.

At that point will Mueller bother to retry.

There is far too much evidence to dismiss this case, and the judge will never issue a summary dismissal in a big public jury trial like this. And there's also the second trial and the witness tampering charges if he did.

Manafort is guilty. He knows it and so do his lawyers. He's counting on a pardon.

have you ever sat on a jury in a white collar crime case? Proving what happened is much harder than who did it, (which is what you usually deal with in things like murder and robbery).

You have to prove 1) something happened and 2) what happened was illegal.

Yes I have been in the jury pool for a financial crimes trial, but the defence “challenged” me after the first question and I was gone. Defence: “What is your occupation?” Me: “I’m a Bank Manager at BMO, downtown”. Defence: “Your Honour, the defence uses one of its Challenges for this juror”. Judge: “Thank you Dragon, you’re dismissed”.

3 defendants, 18 separate charges, the trial lasted three months. I was grateful to get out of it.

Jurors who were seated: an unemployed welder, a housewife, the guy who sat behind me in grade 7, who had “failed” twice and who dropped out of school when he turned 16. Jurors who were challenged: an accountant (he went just like I did), a teacher, anyone with a degree.

After I went into law, I wasn’t called again.

 

[martybegan]

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

Or they may argue the prosecution did not meet it's burden of proof and ask for summary dismissal.

There are two things that the defense is probably banking on. Either acquittal or the judge throwing out the case as you said or him throwing out the conviction.

At that point will Mueller bother to retry.

There is far too much evidence to dismiss this case, and the judge will never issue a summary dismissal in a big public jury trial like this. And there's also the second trial and the witness tampering charges if he did.

Manafort is guilty. He knows it and so do his lawyers. He's counting on a pardon.

have you ever sat on a jury in a white collar crime case? Proving what happened is much harder than who did it, (which is what you usually deal with in things like murder and robbery).

You have to prove 1) something happened and 2) what happened was illegal.

Yes I have been in the jury pool for a financial crimes trial, but the defence “challenged” me after the first question and I was gone. Defence: “What is your occupation?” Me: “I’m a Bank Manager at BMO, downtown”. Defence: “Your Honour, the defence uses one of its Challenges for this juror”. Judge: “Thank you Dragon, you’re dismissed”.

3 defendants, 18 separate charges, the trial lasted three months. I was grateful to get out of it.

Jurors who were seated: an unemployed welder, a housewife, the guy who sat behind me in grade 7, who had “failed” twice and who dropped out of school when he turned 16. Jurors who were challenged: an accountant (he went just like I did), a teacher, anyone with a degree.

After I went into law, I wasn’t called again.

Welcome to the jury system.

I was a foreman at 22 years old on a Tractor Trailer vs. Toyota Camry case, and I had a B.S in Chemical Engineering.

 

[Dragonlady]

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

Or they may argue the prosecution did not meet it's burden of proof and ask for summary dismissal.

What people who watch too many bad movies and TV shows (like Ted) tend to forget is that the accused doesn't have to prove himself innocent; the prosecution must prove him guilty . . . beyond a reasonable doubt. To that end, if they feel that hasn't happened, they're much better off just making THAT case, and keeping their mouths shut otherwise, to avoid giving the prosecution anything to dig at.

And except in extreme cases, the defense lawyer is a damned fool if he allows his client anywhere near the witness stand.

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.

As someone who spent over 40 years working in banking, insurance and law, this is as close to a slam dunk case as I’ve ever seen. I’m certainly not having difficulty seeing or understanding the crimes or how they were committed.

On the other hand, see my previous post on jury selection in such cases.

 

[Avatar4321]

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.

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

 

[edward37]

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

Or they may argue the prosecution did not meet it's burden of proof and ask for summary dismissal.

There are two things that the defense is probably banking on. Either acquittal or the judge throwing out the case as you said or him throwing out the conviction.

At that point will Mueller bother to retry.

There is far too much evidence to dismiss this case, and the judge will never issue a summary dismissal in a big public jury trial like this. And there's also the second trial and the witness tampering charges if he did.

Manafort is guilty. He knows it and so do his lawyers. He's counting on a pardon.

have you ever sat on a jury in a white collar crime case? Proving what happened is much harder than who did it, (which is what you usually deal with in things like murder and robbery).

You have to prove 1) something happened and 2) what happened was illegal.

Yes I have been in the jury pool for a financial crimes trial, but the defence “challenged” me after the first question and I was gone. Defence: “What is your occupation?” Me: “I’m a Bank Manager at BMO, downtown”. Defence: “Your Honour, the defence uses one of its Challenges for this juror”. Judge: “Thank you Dragon, you’re dismissed”.

3 defendants, 18 separate charges, the trial lasted three months. I was grateful to get out of it.

Jurors who were seated: an unemployed welder, a housewife, the guy who sat behind me in grade 7, who had “failed” twice and who dropped out of school when he turned 16. Jurors who were challenged: an accountant (he went just like I did), a teacher, anyone with a degree.

After I went into law, I wasn’t called again.

Wife was once dropped when asked if she had any bumper stickers She said yes and was asked what it said
IMPEACH BUSH Everyone roared and she was gone

 

[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.

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?

What are these "big details" I'm missing? If you're going to assume for yourself some sort of superiority in legal knowledge, you'd best get to demonstrating it by providing specifics.

As for whether or not what I've said "amounts to much", how would you know, when your every post indicates that you either didn't read what I said, or were utterly incapable of understanding it?

 

[Cecilie1200]

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

Or they may argue the prosecution did not meet it's burden of proof and ask for summary dismissal.

What people who watch too many bad movies and TV shows (like Ted) tend to forget is that the accused doesn't have to prove himself innocent; the prosecution must prove him guilty . . . beyond a reasonable doubt. To that end, if they feel that hasn't happened, they're much better off just making THAT case, and keeping their mouths shut otherwise, to avoid giving the prosecution anything to dig at.

And except in extreme cases, the defense lawyer is a damned fool if he allows his client anywhere near the witness stand.

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.

As someone who spent over 40 years working in banking, insurance and law, this is as close to a slam dunk case as I’ve ever seen. I’m certainly not having difficulty seeing or understanding the crimes or how they were committed.

On the other hand, see my previous post on jury selection in such cases.

Yup, you put your finger right on it. Lawyers have no use for jurors who might actually know anything. The more easily confused, the better.

 

[Skylar]

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.

*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.