Posted on 08/09/2018 4:07:18 AM PDT by cotton1706
Special counsel Robert Mueller’s team of prosecutors have spent several days building what many legal experts consider a slam-dunk case against President Donald Trump’s former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort.
But it has been surprisingly hard going at times, and as they prepare to rest their case as early as Thursday, they bear battle wounds that Manafort’s lawyers are sure to exploit as they mount their defense.
.
. Even as Mueller’s team methodically piled up evidence of Manafort’s alleged tax and bank fraud, jurors have seen the special counsel’s case hit some potholes.
Most notably, Manafort’s attorneys have painted the prosecution’s star witness, Rick Gates, as a serial liar, embezzler and philanderer who — as a defense lawyer asserted in court on Wednesday — engaged in four extramarital affairs.
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
“Manafort’s attorneys have painted the prosecution’s star witness, Rick Gates, as a serial liar, embezzler and philanderer”
I think Gates pretty much admitted to those sorts of things in court. No painting necessary. Not a very credible witness.
Beyond a reasonable doubt? If I'm on the jury, Manafort wouldn't have a worry.
The Politico link is busted.
So far, I’m loving this judge. He reminds me of Judge Galligan in NYC who gave Riker’s the nickname of “Galligan’s Island.” He once threatened to jail me and other jurors for laughing.
Hope Manafort’s team keeps its nose clean while presenting its case.
This is what the jurors hear when Gates is on the stand— “I embezzled from Manafort, he is guilty of everything charged. Can I go home now?”
In another line of thought, if he was able to embezzel, it means Manafort did NOT have knowledge of what was going on as far as the books....but a bookeeper likely would. Padding expenses does not add up to thousands and thousands.
Headline: “Cranky judge, flawed witness threaten prosecutor’s case.”
Conclusion: “Indications of displeasure over counsel’s facial expressions or lack of formality probably won’t be a factor in the jury’s decision. . .” “. . . at the end of the day in my seven trials, the jury was not swayed by his demeanor and comments.”
My conclusion: Politico’s editors are gravely concerned that Manafort could win, so they are trying to blame the judge, even though their own journalist and all of the court-watchers he cites think that’s absurd.
The high priced, high powered seasoned prosecution, team doesn’t appear to be as good as their reputation. Even responding with a “yeah” to the judge is a sign of disrespect.
I read a few of the leftist comments after the article. A number state that the documentary evidence will be what convicts Manafort and neither the judge’s treatment of the prosecution nor having Gates as the star witness will matter. Should Manafort be found innocent, I am sure they will change their position to how the judge biased the jury. I think the Politico article is out there to plant that argument. Things must not be very good for the prosecution, much worse than the article lets on.
Manafort CANNOT win....this is a VERY BLUE area! And Gates was given total IMMUNITY, so NOTHING will happen to him for all his crimes...NOTHING!
Cranky?? No....WISE
I think the prosecution realized Gates didn’t help their case, but they were raked over the coals in the courtroom and the media, so they put him up there anyway.
If you have a disloyal, lying, cheating, thieving stool pigeon, he’d better be able to back up his claims with evidence. If he does, you don’t need him. If he does not, the prosecution looks like it’s suborning perjury.
It’d be lesser if Gates weren’t committing the worse crimes. I’m no trial lawyer, but I think people can relate to, “You got us into this mess, boss. I’m not going down for YOUR crimes, even if you got me entangled in them.” They SHOULD be able to relate to whistle-blowers.
But, even in deep, deep blue Northern Virginia, can they believe someone who committed the worser crimes against his boss, got busted, and is now turning against his boss to save his own skin because his boss just got politically relevant? Maybe 7 out of 12, but all 12?
I think your arithmetic is about right. On the other hand, I’ve been told that the trial is 90% decided once the jury’s been picked. I’m not sure which team did a better job in that regard.
In the EDVA, Alexandria you are given only there premtory challenges when choosing a jury, so you do not have as much of a chance to pick the jury you might want. Still, three is better than nothing, and you can use them wisely to avoid some obvious problems. All that said, the jury pools there are not quite as bad or blue as another poster suggested.
Sorry, that should be ‘three challenges’ instead of ‘there’ challenges.
“Beyond a reasonable doubt? If I’m on the jury, Manafort wouldn’t have a worry. “
If for no other reason than the whole Mueller “probe” is a farce and utter bullshit.
Who knew loans were taxable income? There will be a least 1 juror that will have reasonable doubt about Manafort’s guilt.
Notice that Politico never mentions that Manafort is being prosecuted because he would not roll over on President Trump.
The leftist are right, about the documentary evidence. If it was put into evidence properly by the prosecution, it will be what sways the jurors. The sponsors of that evidence, were folks much more credible than Gates.
Gates just provides the defense with an opportunity to suggest doubt regarding who did what, as well as a diversion of the prosecutions main focus. If a juror or two thinks Mueller’s team are jerks, or are over-stepping the line, there are now some rationales available for those jurors to hold firm to the “reasonable doubt” line.
The very fact that Gates was able to embezzel thousands and thousands and Manafort knew nothing tells me that Gates controlled the books along with the dishonest bookkeeper.
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.