Posted on 08/07/2018 6:47:28 AM PDT by yesthatjallen
The judge in Paul Manafort’s trial suggested to a prosecutor for special counsel Robert Mueller that he is “so frustrated” that there were tears in his eyes.
Bloomberg reported that U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis III made the comment to prosecutor Greg Andres during a discussion out of earshot of the jury and members of the media.
“I understand how frustrated you are,” Ellis said. “In fact, there’s tears in your eyes right now.’’
Andres disputed Ellis’s statement, to which the judge replied, “Well, they’re watery.”
Tensions have broken out between the prosecutors and Ellis throughout the trial: The judge has asked members of both sides to refrain from making facial expressions during the course of the trial.
He has also criticized Mueller’s team for presenting too much evidence on Manafort’s spending, arguing that it’s not a crime.
Bloomberg reported that Ellis and Andres had other tense private conversations during the trial on Monday, during which former Manafort associate Rick Gates testified that he and Manafort committed crimes.
Andres claimed that Ellis was preventing him from asking essential questions for the trial. Ellis disputed that he was prioritizing speed over the prosecutor’s arguments.
The pair have had other confrontations during the trial, according to Bloomberg.
“Look at me when you’re talking to me,’’ Ellis said to Andres at one point.
“I’m sorry, judge, I was,’’ the prosecutor replied.
“No, you weren’t,’’ Ellis said. “You were looking down.’’
“Because I don’t want to get in trouble for some facial expression,’’ Andres said. “I don’t want to get yelled at again by the court for having some facial expression when I’m not doing anything wrong, but trying my case.’’
If the judge in facade DID say these things...
It also says out of ear shot of the jury and the PRESS., so which is it?
Anymore I believe very little that the fake news puts out. Maybe this is somebody’s “insurance Policy” to set up an appeal argument
“A month ago, I could see them getting one or two charges on guilty, and the rest would be all hung-jury.”
That’s still about how I see it. The thing is that most of the charges against Manafort are still 5 or 10 year penalty deals, so he could be acquitted of the great majority of charges and still face heavy time. Additionally, he faces charges in a completely different venue and at some point, these liberal areas are going to express their hatred for Trump by convicting Manafort of *something*.
I *do* think Manafort is probably guilty of some number of offenses. Don’t forget that merely lying (”fudging”) on a bank loan app is attempted fraud and has considerable penalties attached.
I *do* think that Manafort would not be in a courtroom at all nor would be facing charges at all had he not become associated with Trump.
Defense attorney: you lied to the Special Counsel; are you lying now? How can we tell? were you promised anything by the prosecution? What were you promised?
Game, set, match.
but the Ostrich Jacket was my case ,WAAAAAAAAA
“I think it is beginning to look like the judge is going to dismiss the case.”
I have thought of that too and I would love to see it. Talk about taking all the wind out of Mueller’s sails.....time will tell.
If there’s an acquittal the prosecution can’t appeal. That would be double jeopardy.
After that, the mainstream media will be able to say, 'convicted criminal Paul Manafort and former campaign manager to now President Trump...'
The left needs a juicy talking point to, at the least, take Trump down a couple notches by making his campaign look tainted and questionable.
Mueller’s goal: Get 305 years of prison for Manafort for a BS tax case, and then put him in solitary confinement in a maximum security prison. (This is what Weissman did to witnesses in the Enron case against the Merrill Bankers, before it was all thrown out on appeal.) Once in solitary, Manafort will begin to lose his mind and Weissman will hand him a script and will tell him, just say this in court and all this pain will stop. (He suborned perjury in Enron. Read Sidney Powell’s “Licensed to Lie”, it gives chapter and verse to their unethical, even criminal, practices.)
Manafort will read that hostage-letter script that says he and Trump sought to hire Russia hackers to break into the DNC and Hillary’s emails. That is evidence of a criminal conspiracy. Trump will fight this lie with tooth and nail, as his base will also fully reject it. It will not lead to impeachment, but the left will be screaming, as well as the DNC-Media, as they will say..”See, there is the evidence.”
Mueller, the traitor and torturer, will declare victory.
They will have forever tainted the election with a massive lie.
I thought tears were reserved for the jury not the judge.... Something is not right
They are angling to kick the judge. They are trying to create reversible error, just like they’ve tried to create evidence of a crime here.
It sounds as if the prosecutors are attempting to taint the trial with these leaks.
“Manafort trial judge suggests prosecutor so ‘frustrated’ he’s tearing up”
The prosecutor was the one tearing up. Not the judge.
I believe Ellis will dismiss with prejudice.
What these scumbag attorneys did to Ted Stevens was unconscionable. They destroyed a Republican Senator, put in a Democrat, and then got Obamacare passed with one vote.
It was a deep state hit job, and Mueller’s team lied, and withheld exculpatory evidence from Ted Stevens and Judge Emmett Sullivan, who hit the roof. That judge, who is Flynn’s judge now, did go after the prosecutors and one committed suicide shortly thereafter.
I think the Federal judiciary is now on a new footing and much more skeptical of US attys, especially the unethical crew that Mueller put together.
The federal judges were all US Attys at one point in their own lives, so historically have given the government far too much leeway in these cases, and never, never doubted their integrity. Those days are gone, and they are skeptical, thankfully.
Looking forward also to the defense advocating jury instructions that say spending lavishly is not a crime.
Umm... What?
I seemed to us to be highly suspicious in some races that a key person would be taken out just before the election by the DOJ. It seems to have happened with Stevens and there was at least one house race where this happened. With all the corruption in the Democrat Party, it was a Republican who would get charged with something.
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.