Jump to content
Required Reading for any Longhorn ×

Manafort Trial

Grandioso

By Grandioso
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

SaucyJack

SaucyJack 3,504

Posted
Posted
13 hours ago, J.R. said:

Manafort was a whore who stood tall amongst the other whores in a city filled with whores. Lobbying for brutal African dictators takes a special brand of whore. 

IIRC, one iteration of his lobbying groups was Stone, Atwater, and Manafort. Fuckin' trifecta or troika, if you prefer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

retread
retread
Hugo Stiglitz
Hugo Stiglitz
Chooky
Chooky

If Mueller completes this investigation leaving no doubt of criminal activity from this administration while at the same time paying for %80 of it with seized cash from Russian money laundering scheme

jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 46,228

Posted
Posted
17 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

When/if we get past all this, I hope Trump becomes an object lesson and we really start demanding better from our politicians and other public servants, to include really scrutinizing their sources of campaign funds.

I think that's an admirable perspective.  I also think it will never, ever fucking happen.  Look at Trumpkins.  They are dug in and will dig in deeper, and likely start getting violent en masse if Trump is impeached or resigns.

There is no good ending to this.  I am firmly in the camp of "fuck 'em", but it is going to be ugly and not a one of them will learn anything.  They are intellectually incapable.  We just have to wait for them to die off, and some will do so early, on the other end of <you choose>.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mdhorn

Mdhorn 5,990

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, jimmyjazz said:

I think that's an admirable perspective.  I also think it will never, ever fucking happen.  Look at Trumpkins.  They are dug in and will dig in deeper, and likely start getting violent en masse if Trump is impeached or resigns.

There is no good ending to this.  I am firmly in the camp of "fuck 'em", but it is going to be ugly and not a one of them will learn anything.  They are intellectually incapable.  We just have to wait for them to die off, and some will do so early, on the other end of <you choose>.

those fuck sticks can look as batshit crazy as they want but is anybody scared of them?  Hell no--they stand out on the metro and in the city. Fat asses can't stand the heat, it's why they're fat. And the older models aren't going to be much for doing anything physical.  They make excellent slow moving, large targets and should probably wait for spring when the weather is milder and there is more foliage for coverage.  Otherwise, I'll take my Filipino, Nigerian, Salvadorian neighborhood for a 1000 Alex because these mofos work regularly in worst conditions. Plus the shock when Trumpkins find out that the NRA works to sell weapons to everyone and not just them will be a hoot.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 89,831

Posted
Posted (edited)
19 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

When/if we get past all this, I hope Trump becomes an object lesson and we really start demanding better from our politicians and other public servants, to include really scrutinizing their sources of campaign funds.

I wish that would happen, but the reality is that it's the old saying - those who want the position are the ones most unsuited for it.

And here in 2018, it takes even more whoring yourself out to various special interests and/or playing to shitty parts of the voting public.

Edit: To put it another way, think about all of the mini-Manaforts we don't hear about because the candidates lose, or if they win, they keep a low profile.

Edited by atomheartbevo
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31,562

Posted
Posted

Here's a bit of contrary perspective on Judge Ellis.  Honestly, this rings more true to me than the criticisms.  https://www.nbcnews.com/think/amp/ncna900001

 

Jonathan Turley, whom I normally respect, trashed Ellis recently, which only served to reveal that Turley is, in fact, an academic with almost zero trial experience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kyrie Eleison

Kyrie Eleison 9,312

Posted
Posted
16 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Here's a bit of contrary perspective on Judge Ellis.  Honestly, this rings more true to me than the criticisms.  https://www.nbcnews.com/think/amp/ncna900001

 

Jonathan Turley, whom I normally respect, trashed Ellis recently, which only served to reveal that Turley is, in fact, an academic with almost zero trial experience.

ummm...you might want to take a look at some of the cases and verdicts the members of the prosecution have tried and won.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31,562

Posted
Posted
On 8/11/2018 at 2:15 PM, jimmyjazz said:

I think that's an admirable perspective.  I also think it will never, ever fucking happen.  Look at Trumpkins.  They are dug in and will dig in deeper, and likely start getting violent en masse if Trump is impeached or resigns.

There is no good ending to this.  I am firmly in the camp of "fuck 'em", but it is going to be ugly and not a one of them will learn anything.  They are intellectually incapable.  We just have to wait for them to die off, and some will do so early, on the other end of <you choose>.

Well, while there are certainly a fairly large number of toads in Trump's constituency, and they may have put him over the top, I think a probably equally large segment of the populace held their nose and voted for something different over Hillary and those people are redeemable/recoverable if not full of regret.  Another lesson is that the sentient population needs not to cede elections to the chuckleheads through apathy.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31,562

Posted
Posted (edited)
21 minutes ago, Kyrie Eleison said:

ummm...you might want to take a look at some of the cases and verdicts the members of the prosecution have tried and won.

Doesn't mean they can't be "unprofessional."  Joe Jamail is about as unprofessional as it gets.

There are a fair number of lawyers that think they're pretty hot shit (they may be right or maybe not), that don't like to play in the strike zone the ump is calling, as brisket aptly put it.  Start arguing strikes and balls, boom, you're outta there.

The author of the article didn't say they were bad lawyers, just said they did shit without due regard/respect for the judge and got their ass ate out.  Kinda like arguing strikes.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ollie Slatt

Ollie Slatt 289

Posted
Posted

The article does a nice job of pointing out that local knowledge is important no matter who you are.  

I have worked on a few cases in front of a judge in SDNY that has some interesting idiosyncrasies in bench trials (direct exam is done on the papers and not conducted live, she sometimes writes a draft or outline of the opinion and presents it to counsel at the pre-trial conference so counsel know which way she is leaning, etc.).  Its different, but if you know what is coming you can adjust accordingly.  At the end of the day, she is a great judge, but I have seen opposing counsel get a bit petulant (which is what the govt is accused of here) because they had never tried cases in front of her before and were not prepared for some of the idiosyncrasies.   

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
SuingToGetAMessageBoard?

SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3,861

Posted
Posted
22 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

Calk, who pushed for $16M in shady loans to Manafort, listed his preferences for Trump appointments in rank order.

 

DkhL5hkX4AA2KYP?format=jpg

DkhL44wWwAEoM0U?format=jpg

Lulz.  I just read his wiki to catch up with the discussion. It ends with this

Quote

He didn't even get the cabinet position he paid for, which is (objectively) pretty funny.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
HOOK'EMHOOAH

HOOK'EMHOOAH 1,610

Posted
Posted (edited)

Motherfucker runs a bank and doesn't even know difference between a role and a roll or perspective and prospective.

He should be indicted on this fact alone. Maybe not by Mueller, but definitely by someone. Jesus fuck.

Edited by HOOK'EMHOOAH
keyboard
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 105,444

Posted
Posted
Not just rolls - "perspective rolls."  Obviously one of the best people - just not best enough.

This is from the onion, right?

Fucking these.

Holy shit. He’s a perfectly blended cocktail of ignorance and arrogance. Yeah, that UK ambassadorship isn’t, you know, the most plum appointment a president makes, or anything like that. Jesus. This fucking guy....

This fucking administration....for fuck’s sake.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 105,444

Posted
Posted
20 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Not sure why, exactly, but I kind of figured that might happen.

 

20 minutes ago, Chad Fuck said:

Why?

 

Because who would you put on?  Not Manafort.  Not a counter-expert saying "no, all of these transactions are totally cool, you guys just don't get it."  Can't imagine you have anyone to counter the facts as being wrong/untrue (would have done that on cross anyway).  Even in a civil case, it's not uncommon to have very few witnesses once the plaintiff rests -- everyone who needs to testify has already testified.  Often, all that's left is your expert witness. 

Here, they're counting on a strategy of "even after all that, the prosecution didn't prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt."  It's tough, but I can see that strategy.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
hayden_horn

hayden_horn 11,365

Posted
Posted
19 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

 

Because who would you put on?  Not Manafort.  Not a counter-expert saying "no, all of these transactions are totally cool, you guys just don't get it."  Can't imagine you have anyone to counter the facts as being wrong/untrue (would have done that on cross anyway).  Even in a civil case, it's not uncommon to have very few witnesses once the plaintiff rests -- everyone who needs to testify has already testified.  Often, all that's left is your expert witness. 

Here, they're counting on a strategy of "even after all that, the prosecution didn't prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt."  It's tough, but I can see that strategy.

when you got nothing good to say, it's best to say nothing.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31,562

Posted
Posted
45 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

 

Because who would you put on?  Not Manafort.  Not a counter-expert saying "no, all of these transactions are totally cool, you guys just don't get it."  Can't imagine you have anyone to counter the facts as being wrong/untrue (would have done that on cross anyway).  Even in a civil case, it's not uncommon to have very few witnesses once the plaintiff rests -- everyone who needs to testify has already testified.  Often, all that's left is your expert witness. 

Here, they're counting on a strategy of "even after all that, the prosecution didn't prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt."  It's tough, but I can see that strategy.

Yeah, I thought about editing, but it's because there's probably no one that can credibly contradict the government's witnesses and withstand cross.  They knocked as many holes in the government's case as they're gonna.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Loco

Loco 3,754

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

Yeah, I thought about editing, but it's because there's probably no one that can credibly contradict the government's witnesses and withstand cross.  They knocked as many holes in the government's case as they're gonna.

I missed it, what holes?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 105,444

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Tuco said:

How do the lawyers feel about a "my word against yours" defense where your client doesn't take the stand?

Depends. In general, in a criminal case?  Sometimes, it's the smart play.  The prosecution has the burden of proof, and it's a high one -- gotta be beyond a reasonable doubt.  There's plenty of cases where "poke enough holes in their story and evidence" can get you an acquittal.

I don't think it will be the case here....but it still might have been the best play they had (which means all the other plays were even worse).

There's three possible outcomes for Manafort going through the criminal process:

1 - flip and take a good deal.

2 -- be convicted, sentenced, and die in prison.

3 -- be convicted, sentenced, and be pardoned by Trump.

Oh, and of course, option 4 -- be tried and acquitted.  But based on the evidence we've seen, that seems to be a real long shot, and Manafort's team would know that.

Why wouldn't he take option 1, when he KNOWS the evidence is there to convict him?  It means he prefers options 2 or 3.  You prefer option 2 when option 1 means you die from Polonium tea.  You prefer option 3 when option 1 means you die from Polonium tea, and you don't wanna die in prison.  Which means that my suspicion is that Manafort's long game is to play for the pardon.  But man, I'm still guessing here.  Maybe Mueller didn't offer Manafort a good deal because he doesn't really need Manafort?

Anyway, closing arguments tomorrow morning at 9:30.  Judge wants them done in 4 hours total, so figure the jury gets the charge mid-afternoon on Wednesday.  When do we get a verdict?

Edited by Brisketexan
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kyrie Eleison

Kyrie Eleison 9,312

Posted
Posted
23 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Depends. In general, in a criminal case?  Sometimes, it's the smart play.  The prosecution has the burden of proof, and it's a high one -- gotta be beyond a reasonable doubt.  There's plenty of cases where "poke enough holes in their story and evidence" can get you an acquittal.

I don't think it will be the case here....but it still might have been the best play they had (which means all the other plays were even worse).

There's three possible outcomes for Manafort going through the criminal process:

1 - flip and take a good deal.

2 -- be convicted, sentenced, and die in prison.

3 -- be convicted, sentenced, and be pardoned by Trump.

Oh, and of course, option 4 -- be tried and acquitted.  But based on the evidence we've seen, that seems to be a real long shot, and Manafort's team would know that.

Why wouldn't he take option 1, when he KNOWS the evidence is there to convict him?  It means he prefers options 2 or 3.  You prefer option 2 when option 1 means you die from Polonium tea.  You prefer option 3 when option 1 means you die from Polonium tea, and you don't wanna die in prison.  Which means that my suspicion is that Manafort's long game is to play for the pardon.  But man, I'm still guessing here.  Maybe Mueller didn't offer Manafort a good deal because he doesn't really need Manafort?

Anyway, closing arguments tomorrow morning at 9:30.  Judge wants them done in 4 hours total, so figure the jury gets the charge mid-afternoon on Wednesday.  When do we get a verdict?

Friday afternoon...they're not going to want to come back on a Monday.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31,562

Posted
Posted
53 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

I figure there will be 1 juror that thinks anything related to Russia is a witch hunt, and therefore Manafort is innocent.  

(I realize this trial has nothing to do with Russia but there will be 1 juror who will feel otherwise.)

An irony of all this is that EDVa is supposed to be more reliably conservative than DDC.  But that also tends to mean more pro-prosecution.  So you see, Ellis' exclusion of the political aspects of this are a double-edged sword.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Loco

Loco 3,754

Posted
Posted
56 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

I figure there will be 1 juror that thinks anything related to Russia is a witch hunt, and therefore Manafort is innocent.  

(I realize this trial has nothing to do with Russia but there will be 1 juror who will feel otherwise.)

Yup, there is bound to be a closeted Trumpkin desperate to finally make a stand for 'murica

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dahobbs

Dahobbs 17,698

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

GOLL says Friday morning.

I say Thursday at the end of the day.

Wednesday. I don't think a jury takes a long time on this one. I could see the bank fraud stuff taking more than 10 minutes to decide, but nothing else. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sheeeit

sheeeit 129

Posted
Posted

I will be shocked if he gets off.  His only chance is the fact that Gates admitted stealing from him.  Without that, there really isnt any defense.  I do not think it will or should work, but the argument that Gates was stealing so he kept Manafort in the dark on the details is at least a half court shot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...