Posted on 08/14/2018 9:08:06 AM PDT by Coronal
And their main, less-than-credible witness claimed he's lied under oath before, and stole from his boss.
They can see the jury... We can’t. I’m pretty sure Mueller will claim that a acquittal was because of the disdain that the judge showed towards his prosecutors.
The good news for Mueller and the press.. It starts all over again in a much more friendly local (DC) and likely with a more anti-trump judge and jury.
That's ridiculous, he only has to testify if he wants to.
Even then he can plead the 5th with specific questions.
Has nothing to do with his lawyers putting up a defense.
Looks like he is counting on a Trump pardon.
The defence lawyer looked at the jury and just said,” Everything that man said is Bull Shit”.
[If Manifort is not guilty, what’s a Mulehead to do?]
Roger Stone is next on the list...
It’s a foregone conclusion. There will always be appeals. Who knows maybe even a Trump pardon.
That's what they spent their entire cross-examinations doing.
I presume this means that they are not going to call any of their own witnesses. Their “case” would be based on the cross examinations of prosecution witnesses that occurred already.
Okay, didn’t think of that.
“My Cousin Vinny” was Justice Scalia’s favorite movie.
If there is nothing relevant/helpful that could be added by calling someone else...you don't call them.
Also, this judge clearly tried to move this trial along, which may have led the prosecutors to ignore some stuff they might otherwise have introduced. Calling Manafort or other witnesses could give the prosecution another bite at the apple as well.
The defense likely feels it made its case in the cross-examination of the prosecution’s witnesses. If they are not calling Manafort himself, there is likely no one else they need to call.
When you have a number of witnesses confessing to serious felonies when there was plenty of proof to convict them, a jury may question why they weren’t prosecuted.
Manafort had a CPA who filed the tax documents and he had every reason to believe she complied with the law. That’s why she was hired. Whether she felt pressure to file false information, or not, is on her and in violation of the law and professional standards.
No. Dismissed without prejudice.
This is a fairly common tactic. They want the jury to hold the prosecution to their burden of “beyond a reasonable doubt” rather than just comparing the defense vs. prosecution case and voting on who had the better case.
“Oh yeah. You blend.”
In this case, I’ll change that back to “with prejudice”!
Dismissal with Prejudice
A dismissal with prejudice bars the government from prosecuting the accused on the same charge at a later date. The defendant cannot subsequently be reindicted because of the constitutional guarantee against Double Jeopardy. A dismissal with prejudice is made in response to a motion to the court by the defendant or by the court sua sponte.
Isn't the defense working on their motion to acquit? Wasn't that supposed to be presented today?
-PJ
LOL, you beat me by mere seconds.
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.