• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Defense rests in Paul Manafort fraud trial after calling no witnesses

Cardinal said:
When the day comes that trump supporters hold him accountable for anything I will change my position.
Click to expand...

When the witch hunt produces evidence of a witch we will.
 
Common Sense 1 said:
Absolutely no "Russian" collusion so you have to get your jolly's off a 2006 tax case that has nothing to do with Trump, Russians or the 2016 election. Ok.......
but many on the left have the same issue. :doh
Click to expand...

Wait.

Muellers findings are out?

How did I miss it?
 
PIPEWRENCH said:
When the witch hunt produces evidence of a witch we will.
Click to expand...

You make my point for me, which is that trump supporters are simply not to be trusted on Manafort's jury since you see his trial as a surrogate trial for trump himself.
 
Cardinal said:
Just a small reminder: one.

That is the number of trump supporters required to be on the jury in order to sink the entire case against Manafort. Just one Commonsense1, Samhain or Hawkeye is all it takes.

Regardless of how strong the Prosecution's case may be, nobody should be treating this like it's in the bag.
Click to expand...
Do you think "Manafort" (or "Gates") are "household names", don't you imagine they screened these jurors for awareness and interest in political matters, any political bias before seating them? The judge was adamant about avoiding any reference to Russian collusion and Trump, I think he admonished some attorney for some oblique suggestion of this. If these jurors have no idea what the Manafort trial was really about, never heard about him or gates, the name "Mueller" doesn't 'ring a bell', then they probably could return a guilty verdict if they found the witnesses credible. The main witness was Gates, and he's already pled guilty to lying, I expect counsel for the defence must have at least mentioned that.
 
Plus Ultra said:
Do you think "Manafort" (or "Gates") are "household names", don't you imagine they screened these jurors for awareness and interest in political matters, any political bias before seating them? The judge was adamant about avoiding any reference to Russian collusion and Trump, I think he admonished some attorney for some oblique suggestion of this. If these jurors have no idea what the Manafort trial was really about, never heard about him or gates, the name "Mueller" doesn't 'ring a bell', then they probably could return a guilty verdict if they found the witnesses credible. The main witness was Gates, and he's already pled guilty to lying, I expect counsel for the defence must have at least mentioned that.
Click to expand...

Trump has railed against the investigation into Manafort incessantly. It only takes one trump supporter to a)listen to what Trump says and b)correlate the Manafort trial with the investigation into Trump...and bam...that's it.

Read Pipewrench's posts in this thread and imagine just one of him getting onto that jury.
 
MTAtech said:
What did you expect his lawyers to say when the prosecution had hundreds of thousands of documents pointing to Manafort's illegal activities, such as not declaring $60 million in income that he got from the Ukrainians?
Click to expand...

I did not have any expectations.
 
Cardinal said:
Trump has railed against the investigation into Manafort incessantly. It only takes one trump supporter to a)listen to what Trump says and b)correlate the Manafort trial with the investigation into Trump...and bam...that's it.
Click to expand...
Jurors aren't supposed to listen to the news. If one did, that's enough for the judge to dismiss that juror and replace him/her with an alternate.
 
MTAtech said:
What did you expect his lawyers to say when the prosecution had hundreds of thousands of documents pointing to Manafort's illegal activities, such as not declaring $60 million in income that he got from the Ukrainians?
Click to expand...
He reported none of that? Staggering.
I asked my tax accountant if he could work some magic for me, and he implied he could but that I would not longer be squeaky clean. Am I the only chump in the U.S. who is squeaky clean...I feel like one some days.

What I don't get are the accusations that the FBI knew about that, but wasn't gonna charge him. It seems like a mountain of crimes. I think that may be a conflation of stuff they had on him a decade ago though...and the 2014 stuff with Ukraine, I think they may have been working on seriously. Mueller was appointed, and he took it over.
 
MTAtech said:
Jurors aren't supposed to listen to the news. If one did, that's enough for the judge to dismiss that juror and replace him/her with an alternate.
Click to expand...

I've never been a jurist so I can't comment in detail, but I will just say that Trump has made the Manafort investigation about himself long before the jury was selected. Also (and this gets to the heart of my "I've never been a jurist" comment), how does one truly enforce a media blackout in this age? Even if the judge did somehow enforce the latter, I don't see how you account for the former.
 
Last edited:
PIPEWRENCH said:
Funny when the FBI came to my neck of the woods they found corruption in both parties was almost equal. I guess not. All the corruption is only from the people who support Trump.:lamo
Click to expand...

Huh? You totally befuddled me with your detour to a nondescript FBI Corruption Investigation in your neighborhood and away from the OP.

In an effort to understand, maybe we can agree no one party lays claim to corruption or integrity? Widespread corruption crosses all major political lines.
 
poweRob said:
Interesting. This should move things along faster.

Defense rests in Paul Manafort fraud trial after calling no witnesses
The former Trump campaign chairman has pleaded not guilty to all charges.

Defense attorneys for Paul Manafort — President Donald Trump's former campaign chairman, who is facing tax evasion, bank fraud and money laundering charges — rested their case Tuesday, after calling no witnesses.

Earlier Tuesday, Judge T.S. Ellis heard arguments in the defense's motion for acquittal, which he denied.​
Click to expand...

Not a bad strategy. Since they probably have no defense, they have made it appear as though the prosecution has not proven it's case against Manafort (as in it is all Gate's fault), so there is no need to call their own witnesses. Even though Manafort will probably be found guilty, this is not a slam dunk and the prosecution has kind of bungled the case somewhat. I wouldn't make any huge bets.
 
Moderate Right said:
Not a bad strategy. Since they probably have no defense, they have made it appear as though the prosecution has not proven it's case against Manafort (as in it is all Gate's fault), so there is no need to call their own witnesses. Even though Manafort will probably be found guilty, this is not a slam dunk and the prosecution has kind of bungled the case somewhat. I wouldn't make any huge bets.
Click to expand...

Do tell what you know about the prosecution "bungling" the case.
 
I think we discuss Manafort here more than any average juror would, that we comment on Trump's tweets, the investigation into Russian collusion, the allegations against the President, the character of his Cabinet, the bias of those investigating him and the integrity of Special Counsel much more than the average person. Also note jurors swear they'll decide on the facts and nothing but the facts, they're not supposed to base their decision on political affiliation.
 
PIPEWRENCH said:
Funny when the FBI came to my neck of the woods they found corruption in both parties was almost equal. I guess not. All the corruption is only from the people who support Trump.:lamo
Click to expand...

Recently, the percentage of the ones that are corrupt are much higher when it comes to trump supporters. The bell curve has been for decades skewed to the right.
 
poweRob said:
Do tell what you know about the prosecution "bungling" the case.
Click to expand...

The main bungling was Gates himself. Under cross, the defense was able to get him to admit numerous statements made during trial were lies, admit to crimes that aren't covered under his plea deal, admit that he violated his plea deal by lying to the prosecutors during his interviews, the list goes on and on. If Manafort gets off light(<3 years), I would be willing to be that Gates goes on trial for new charges.

Additionally, they offered zero evidence that Manafort's false statements on loan applications even mattered to him getting the loan. The prosecution's only evidence to these 4 fraud charges was the bank VP(I think) who testified he was going to give Manafort loans no matter what.
 
poweRob said:
Defense attorneys for Paul Manafort — President Donald Trump's former campaign chairman, who is facing tax evasion, bank fraud and money laundering charges — rested their case Tuesday, after calling no witnesses.
Click to expand...

To borrow an apropos Trump phrase ..... Lock him up!
 
Cardinal said:
Just a small reminder: one.

That is the number of trump supporters required to be on the jury in order to sink the entire case against Manafort. Just one Commonsense1, Samhain or Hawkeye is all it takes.

Regardless of how strong the Prosecution's case may be, nobody should be treating this like it's in the bag.
Click to expand...

Yes but also remember that cases of this type center around the financial and documentary evidence of which there is plenty. The defense sought to impugn the character and integrity of Gates as a witness. But even if successful it would very likely not be enough to carry the day for the defense if they were also not successful in impeaching the integrity of any the documentary evidence. The prosecution will say to the jury that they don't have to like Gates. They just have to believe him and that there exists good reasons for why they should. One of which the defense stupidly pointed out by asking Gates if per his agreement with the prosecution he would be subject to severe legal consequences should he lie now. They will also point out that while Gates can be described as an unscrupulous sleazy character they need to remember that wasn't the prosecution that picked him. Manafort did. In my opinion at the end of the day the financial and documentary evidence will prove to be too overwhelming to overcome.
 
Originally Posted by Common Sense 1
Absolutely no "Russian" collusion so you have to get your jolly's off a 2006 tax case that has nothing to do with Trump, Russians or the 2016 election. Ok.......
but many on the left have the same issue.



What if...? said:
Wait.

Muellers findings are out?

How did I miss it?
Click to expand...

Watch something different than MSNBC!
 
Trippy Trekker said:
Comedy Gold! Why deflect? Neither the OP nor my post #4 mention Russian Collusion or the 2016 Election. Manafort worked for the Trump Campaign. Trump as POTUS can grant pardons and commute sentences.

It comes as no surprise you already believe no part of this current trial or Manafort's sphere of influence overlaps with Mueller's investigation into Russian Meddling. I choose to wait and see.
Click to expand...

By all means dream away.......

This post stands: Originally Posted by Common Sense 1
Absolutely no "Russian" collusion so you have to get your jolly's off a 2006 tax case that has nothing to do with Trump, Russians or the 2016 election. Ok.......
but many on the left have the same issue.
 
Cardinal said:
Except any trump supporter on the jury would have already gone in with their final decision before the trial even began. That's the problem.
Click to expand...

As would any Trump hater.
 
Common Sense 1 said:
By all means dream away.......

This post stands: Originally Posted by Common Sense 1
Absolutely no "Russian" collusion so you have to get your jolly's off a 2006 tax case that has nothing to do with Trump, Russians or the 2016 election. Ok.......
but many on the left have the same issue.
Click to expand...

Still OFF topic I see. Repeating it does not change that fact.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom