“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.
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.
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?
IMO Mueller always had a weak case. He was always just hoping to get to Trump.