Manafort Trial

[triplehorn 2,664]

Chrysostomides, known as “Dr. K”, helped Manafort establish points of contact at the Bank of Cyprus and Marfin Popular Bank, Gates said. Before 2012, Manafort often kept his name listed on records connected to the accounts that Dr. K established.

But when Manafort learned he was being targeted in a lawsuit in Ukraine, he asked Gates to have his name removed from any account information. “Why would he do this?” Andres said.

Gates said Manafort told him he wanted the information removed so “individuals could not find information on him or who paid him.” Gates eventually had his name removed from the bank records as well, he said.

When a banking collapse gripped Cyrpus in 2012, Dr. K told Manafort and Gates it was time to open new accounts elsewhere, Gates said.

This time the funds would be routed through St. Vincent and the Grenadines. Manafort and Gates opened only two accounts there for Manafort’s shell companies Global Endeavor and Junette.

As they had done with other accounts, Gates said Konstantin Kiliminik became the point of contact with the bank.

 

Gates also offered prosecutors a peek into how he and Manafort created “dummy” invoices for various vendors including SP and C, the company which renovated Manafort’s Bridgehampton, New York home, Alan Couture – Manafort’s clothier – New Leaf Landscaping, House of Bijan et al.

“I created the invoice based on information Mr. Manafort gave me,” Gates said, explaining that when Manafort wanted an invoice made, the two of them would pull most of the details from an authentic invoice to use as a template.

One of the “invoices” displayed in court Tuesday was for Alan Couture totaling $42,000. Gates said the invoice was actually a front for wire transfers from Global Endeavor.

Building on their strategy to show Manafort as ringleader in the fraud, prosecutors were careful to have Gates confirm who signed off the fabricated bills and who gave Gates permission to sign off wire transfer agreements.

It was Manafort, Gates said repeatedly. Andres displayed an email from February 2016 from Manafort to Gates and asked him to read it aloud.

“I need you to sign my name to another document,” Gates read Manafort’s email from a computer monitor. “Usually he reached out to me to sign the documents.”

 

1 reply7 retweets12 likes

 

 

[texas08 1,599]

Pigs

[Biff Tannen 45,683]

Pretty incredible.  So let's wrap this thing up, yeah?

[triplehorn 2,664]

Good point here about Gates testifying that he embezzled 100k's from Manafort:

 

 

[Brisketexan 105,132]

9 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

Good point here about Gates testifying that he embezzled 100k's from Manafort:

 

 

That's not exactly a clever secret or something.  It's kind of trial lawyer 101: if there's a fact or line of testimony that 1) you know about and 2) will surely be used to impeach the witness by the other side, you air the dirty laundry yourself on direct.  That way, you control the narrative, it makes the witness look relatively honest and forthcoming, and yes, takes the wind out of the other side's sails on cross examination.  That tactic more or less neutralizes the "bad facts" that you're dealing with (unless, of course, the facts are SO bad that they can't be neutralized at all).  But in a case like this, a story of "hey, we were a gang of crooks, doing crook things, and among those things, I also stole from my fellow crook, because that was kinda our thing" is pretty credible, and telling it now takes away much of the risk of it being used to attack his credibility on cross.

[triplehorn 2,664]

 

[WhatTheBuck 28,781]

When does Wilbur Ross get tied in to this?

[Poolflood 845]

5 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

See and I thought Konstantin V. Kilimnik was the rooskies version of Marbury V. Madison

[Jograves 357]

59 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

That's not exactly a clever secret or something.  It's kind of trial lawyer 101: if there's a fact or line of testimony that 1) you know about and 2) will surely be used to impeach the witness by the other side, you air the dirty laundry yourself on direct.  That way, you control the narrative, it makes the witness look relatively honest and forthcoming, and yes, takes the wind out of the other side's sails on cross examination.  That tactic more or less neutralizes the "bad facts" that you're dealing with (unless, of course, the facts are SO bad that they can't be neutralized at all).  But in a case like this, a story of "hey, we were a gang of crooks, doing crook things, and among those things, I also stole from my fellow crook, because that was kinda our thing" is pretty credible, and telling it now takes away much of the risk of it being used to attack his credibility on cross.

Just like Eminem in 8 Mile!

[Chad Fuck 17,678]

When does Wilbur Ross get tied in to this?

Any second now.

[TwiceHorn 31,464]

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

That's not exactly a clever secret or something.  It's kind of trial lawyer 101: if there's a fact or line of testimony that 1) you know about and 2) will surely be used to impeach the witness by the other side, you air the dirty laundry yourself on direct.  That way, you control the narrative, it makes the witness look relatively honest and forthcoming, and yes, takes the wind out of the other side's sails on cross examination.  That tactic more or less neutralizes the "bad facts" that you're dealing with (unless, of course, the facts are SO bad that they can't be neutralized at all).  But in a case like this, a story of "hey, we were a gang of crooks, doing crook things, and among those things, I also stole from my fellow crook, because that was kinda our thing" is pretty credible, and telling it now takes away much of the risk of it being used to attack his credibility on cross.

Better to eat the shit sandwich on your own terms, with mustard, mayonnaise, or ketchup, as you prefer, than to be force fed it on cross, sans condiment.

Still, I think Gates has substantial credibility problems and this doesn't help.  Enough to make reasonable doubt, I dunno. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

33 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Still, I think Gates has substantial credibility problems and this doesn't help.

You must be a defense attorney 

[Horn Dog 9,854]

21 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

lol this is awesome

So Gates also was cucking Manafort?  Awesome.

[TwiceHorn 31,464]

26 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

You must be a defense attorney 

Nope, just realistic about this stuff.  I predicted OJ would walk.

Also, I'm not a huge fan of "cooperating witnesses" or "jailhouse snitches" or what I call investigation by indictment.  It's I suppose a necessary evil, but if you look at the wrongful convictions that have been uncovered in the last decade or so, you will find that witnesses relieved of criminal responsibility in return for their testimony figure prominently in them.  Not saying that's what's going on here, but it is truth.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

I just don’t see how you can objectively pass judgment on Gates’ credibility without seeing his performance in person.

A persons demeanor and mannerisms play a big part in making a determination of credibility.

The prosecution is basically telling the jury, “Gates is a really bad guy and we will make him confess as much but we’re also going to convince you he should be believed in this case.”

It doesn’t seem like a hard sell from what I’m hearing.

Edited August 7, 2018 by Hugo Stiglitz

[lemonlime 5,503]

Gates has credibility problems.   But Manafort's biggest problem with his defense is that blaming underlings is generally a last ditch defense.  Claiming that you didn't know what the people under you were doing is a hard sell, and even if you're somehow successful, you come across as a  moron to the jury 9 times out of 10.  Even if Gates is not credible, Manafort's team has to sell that this disreputable person worked for him for decades and Manafort somehow magically didn't know how awful Gates was for all these years or what Gates was doing on his behalf.

[TwiceHorn 31,464]

I don't pretend to be objective nor did I say he wasn't credible.  I said he has credibility problems.   He's a fucking crook that is trading testimony for lenience.  That is a credibility problem.

 

The fact of the matter is that his name appears at the top of the indictment in this very case, yet he is not on trial.  It's very good for the government that he isn't the main witness.

[Dertyberd 394]

Plus the fact they were running the game together for so long.  It's not like Gates got popped for something else and is rolling to get out it.  This is a long term intimate relationship that goes back years of crime of which he has already confessed to in court.  I think that helps his credibility.  

[Foosters 17,856]

19 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Nope, just realistic about this stuff.  I predicted OJ would walk.

Also, I'm not a huge fan of "cooperating witnesses" or "jailhouse snitches" or what I call investigation by indictment.  It's I suppose a necessary evil, but if you look at the wrongful convictions that have been uncovered in the last decade or so, you will find that witnesses relieved of criminal responsibility in return for their testimony figure prominently in them.  Not saying that's what's going on here, but it is truth.

I agree. I haven't been following the trial, so it may be that the case is strong, but if prosecution is relying on Gates to supply elements needed, then I'd be a bit concerned.

[Loco 3,752]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

Better to eat the shit sandwich on your own terms, with mustard, mayonnaise, or ketchup, as you prefer, than to be force fed it on cross, sans condiment.

Still, I think Gates has substantial credibility problems and this doesn't help.  Enough to make reasonable doubt, I dunno. 

I prefer this quote..."If you've got shit on your plate, don't nibble at it"

[Lagunamadre 1,975]

1 hour ago, Jograves said:

Just like Eminem in 8 Mile!

Fuck Cranbrook 

[TwiceHorn 31,464]

19 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I just don’t see how you can objectively pass judgment on Gates’ credibility without seeing his performance in person.

A persons demeanor and mannerisms play a big part in making a determination of credibility.

The prosecution is basically telling the jury, “Gates is a really bad guy and we will make him confess as much but we’re also going to convince you he should be believed in this case.”

It doesn’t seem like a hard sell from what I’m hearing.

It's a subtle dance. The defense could turn him into the biggest turncoat liar since Benedict Arnold.

[Biff Tannen 45,683]

19 minutes ago, lemonlime said:

Gates has credibility problems.   But Manafort's biggest problem with his defense is that blaming underlings is generally a last ditch defense.  Claiming that you didn't know what the people under you were doing is a hard sell, and even if you're somehow successful, you come across as a  moron to the jury 9 times out of 10.  Even if Gates is not credible, Manafort's team has to sell that this disreputable person worked for him for decades and Manafort somehow magically didn't know how awful Gates was for all these years or what Gates was doing on his behalf.

Replace Manafort with Trump in this paragraph and I think it's roughly what we will see with dotus at some point.

[Tuco 5,076]

12 minutes ago, lemonlime said:

Gates has credibility problems.   But Manafort's biggest problem with his defense is that blaming underlings is generally a last ditch defense.  Claiming that you didn't know what the people under you were doing is a hard sell, and even if you're somehow successful, you come across as a  moron to the jury 9 times out of 10.  Even if Gates is not credible, Manafort's team has to sell that this disreputable person worked for him for decades and Manafort somehow magically didn't know how awful Gates was for all these years or what Gates was doing on his behalf.

That's where the embezzlement is helpful.  Not only does it reflect badly on Gates' honesty, it reflects on Manafort's competence regarding how well he kept the books.  The fact is Gates was working the books under Manafort's nose without him realizing it. Granted, I think there is a huge difference between fraudulent expense statements and the level of fraud being discussed.  Still, I imagine that is an important part of the defense's narrative.

But, it's not just Gates.  The hard evidence (emails, paperwork) and other testimony helps build the govt narrative.  Also, I would think Gates is more credible than an empty chair.  If Manafort doesn't testify, I don't know how you could believe him over Gates.  I don't even know how you enter accusations, rather than speculation, if there isn't a witness to state the accusation.  If he does testify, I think it opens the door to challenge his credibility, which could really open up Pandora's box.  One of my big questions is where is Stephen Calk - the Chicago banker who approved loans to Manafort and got a place in the campaign for his troubles.  While two of his underlings have been given immunity, he's not listed as a govt witness.  Question for the law dogs: if Manafort were to testify about those loans, could the government call an unlisted witness to refute the testimony?

[deech 2,275]

It's not like the prosecution just has Gates.   The defense blames Gates for everything, the prosecution lays it at the feet of Manafort.   If it was just Gates' word v. Manafort, it might be a credibility issue.  The documents including the fraudulent loan document, his tax returns, the information on these foreign accounts, emails,  are all in evidence.  They also have testimony that Manafort lived well above his taxable income means paying for most everything via offshore accounts.  Offshore accounts that Manafort never claimed on income tax documents.  So he can use the account to pay for home improvements and clothing for him, but does not claim it as income?  

 

[kevwun 15,787]

Yeah, asking Gates to help him doctor the loan document is going to make it real hard for his defense to claim he didn't know that Gates was committing fraud.

Edited August 7, 2018 by kevwun

[deech 2,275]

17 minutes ago, Tuco said:

That's where the embezzlement is helpful.  Not only does it reflect badly on Gates' honesty, it reflects on Manafort's competence regarding how well he kept the books.  The fact is Gates was working the books under Manafort's nose without him realizing it. Granted, I think there is a huge difference between fraudulent expense statements and the level of fraud being discussed.  Still, I imagine that is an important part of the defense's narrative.

But, it's not just Gates.  The hard evidence (emails, paperwork) and other testimony helps build the govt narrative.  Also, I would think Gates is more credible than an empty chair.  If Manafort doesn't testify, I don't know how you could believe him over Gates.  I don't even know how you enter accusations, rather than speculation, if there isn't a witness to state the accusation.  If he does testify, I think it opens the door to challenge his credibility, which could really open up Pandora's box.  One of my big questions is where is Stephen Calk - the Chicago banker who approved loans to Manafort and got a place in the campaign for his troubles.  While two of his underlings have been given immunity, he's not listed as a govt witness.  Question for the law dogs: if Manafort were to testify about those loans, could the government call an unlisted witness to refute the testimony?

It's possible if the witness was solely to impeach Manafort's testimony, but they would have a hard time explaining why they felt the need and expected the testimony of the two bankers that were granted immunity, but they did not expect Calk's testimony until Manafort testified first.  So I don't believe he would be allowed to testify, barring some quasi-unexpected testimony from Manafort that only Calk could refute.  Also, I don't think the prosecutors care to call Calk.  Why?  He's a smart banker who may be able to explain some of these issues away as opposed to his two minions listed who will already give it up for the immunity they have been provided.  No reason to throw a wild card into the mess.

[Updawg 2,266]

It's a subtle dance. The defense could turn him into the biggest turncoat liar since Benedict Arnold.

Or worse - Trump

[TwiceHorn 31,464]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

I don't pretend to be objective nor did I say he wasn't credible.  I said he has credibility problems.   He's a fucking crook that is trading testimony for lenience.  That is a credibility problem.

 

The fact of the matter is that his name appears at the top of the indictment in this very case, yet he is not on trial.  It's very good for the government that he isn't the main witness.

I should add that by saying I don't pretend to be objective, that doesn't mean I want Manafort to skate.  Credibility is an inherently subjective thing.  And, my biases tend against the state in most criminal cases, which I tend to view in sort of an abstract, tactical and strategic way.

To quote Robert Duvall as Jerome Facher:

Quote

The truth? I thought we were talking about a court of law. Come on, you've been around long enough to know that a courtroom isn't a place to look for the truth.  Truth is found at the bottom of a bottomless pit.

That's an extreme cynical viewpoint, but not too far off.

Edited August 7, 2018 by TwiceHorn

[Chooky 13,307]

Here's my defense strategy if I'm a former associate of Paul Manafort:

It all started when Paul asked me if I'd bang his wife.  I did.  I banged her.  Paul watched from the corner while eating a bowl of pistachios.  Kinda weird but whatever, ya know?  So anyway, the next thing I know I'm laundering all of this Russian money.  "What the heck?," I said.  So then I said I didn't want to launder money anymore.  Then these two large guys in black and white Adidas track suits and aviator shades parked in front of my house and smoked cigarettes for three days straight.  I got the message -- got right back to laundering and I mean right fast.  Then some other weird shit happened.  Not as weird as Paul and that bowl of pistachios, but still weird.  And now here I am.  I regret all of it.  Really, I'm sorry.  I used to like pistachios.   

[RomaVicta 29,907]

3 hours ago, triplehorn said:

Chrysostomides

I thought this was a joke name: Christ o'mighty.

[Chuychanga 133]

18 minutes ago, Chooky said:

Here's my defense strategy if I'm a former associate of Paul Manafort:

It all started when Paul asked me if I'd bang his wife.  I did.  I banged her.  Paul watched from the corner while eating a bowl of pistachios.  Kinda weird but whatever, ya know?  So anyway, the next thing I know I'm laundering all of this Russian money.  "What the heck?," I said.  So then I said I didn't want to launder money anymore.  Then these two large guys in black and white Adidas track suits and aviator shades parked in front of my house and smoked cigarettes for three days straight.  I got the message -- got right back to laundering and I mean right fast.  Then some other weird shit happened.  Not as weird as Paul and that bowl of pistachios, but still weird.  And now here I am.  I regret all of it.  Really, I'm sorry.  I used to like pistachios.   

And now I just chill at the Blue Cat Lodge, a little place I bought on the Lake of the Ozarks...

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

Rick Gates admits he may improperly submitted personal expenses to Trump's inaugural committee.

[Brisketexan 105,132]

10 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Rick Gates admits he may improperly submitted personal expenses to Trump's inaugural committee.

Embezzled money from Manafort to maintain a London poon-pad?

 

[Loco 3,752]

14 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Rick Gates admits he may improperly submitted personal expenses to Trump's inaugural committee.

[Gap03 3,306]

Curious to get the resident litigators' perspective on Judge Ellis' behavior in the last couple of days, as reported by the Washington Post and others.

 

WP on Day 5 argument with Judge Ellis

Spoiler

5:58 p.m.: Prosecutor Greg Andres gets into argument with Judge Ellis

After dismissing the jury, Judge Ellis laid into prosecutor Greg Andres for what he saw as unnecessary questioning about the motivations of billionnaires involved in politics in Ukraine. 

Andres pushed back angrily, prompting a heated exchange that went on for over ten minutes.

Ellis repeatedly criticized Andres for not making eye contact, saying “look at me” and saying he “looked down as if to say, ‘that’s BS.'”

Andres responded with frustration saying, “You continue to interpret our reactions in some way,” when the lawyers don’t do the same to the judge.

“You never rolled your eyes,” Ellis said, a reference to when he criticized the attorneys for doing so last week, “but you’re not the only one sitting at that table.”

The substance of the argument is how prosecutors can characterize the people who paid Manafort through companies in Cyprus.

He has already barred prosecutors from using the word “oligarch.” Andres had asked Gates whether these men were billionaires who benefited financially when their political party did well, and Gates agreed. 

After court, Andres said he had to have Gates explain their financial motivations because Ellis had interjected and called their spending “political contributions.”

“These people are not like any Americans,” Andres said.

“These people are not like any Americans,” Andres said, after Ellis for the second time invoked the Koch brothers and George Soros for comparison.

“These people are oligarchs, and that means they control a segment of the economy based on the government’s allowing them to do that,” Andres said. Ellis cut in, laughing, “That makes it even clearer to me that it doesn’t have anything to do with the allegations in this case,” he said. “It throws dirt on these people. They may deserve it; I don’t know and I don’t care.” It’s irrelevant, the judge said, to whether Manafort reported and paid taxes on the money they paid him. 

Andres said that “respectfully” he disagreed.

“It proves the flow of money,” he said. “We’re just trying to prove these men in Ukraine are the payers.” The payments come from companies in Cyprus that are not in their names to companies in Cyprus not in Manafort’s names, and so they need to show these people “have the ability to make these payments” and the motivation.

Ellis disputed that he had limited prosecutors significantly or interrupted them often and said the record would support him on that.

“I will stand by the record as well,” Andres retorted.

“All right, then you will lose,” Ellis responded.

I've read some people speculating that Ellis' distaste for the independent  / special counsel role may be coloring his conduct a bit in this trial.  How normal is this sort of behavior from judges?

[Mojo Hand 4,580]

35 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Rick Gates admits he may improperly submitted personal expenses to Trump's inaugural committee.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

8 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

Michael Cohen right now.

[Lagunamadre 1,975]

20 minutes ago, Gap03 said:

Curious to get the resident litigators' perspective on Judge Ellis' behavior in the last couple of days, as reported by the Washington Post and others.

 

WP on Day 5 argument with Judge Ellis

  Reveal hidden contents

5:58 p.m.: Prosecutor Greg Andres gets into argument with Judge Ellis

After dismissing the jury, Judge Ellis laid into prosecutor Greg Andres for what he saw as unnecessary questioning about the motivations of billionnaires involved in politics in Ukraine. 

Andres pushed back angrily, prompting a heated exchange that went on for over ten minutes.

Ellis repeatedly criticized Andres for not making eye contact, saying “look at me” and saying he “looked down as if to say, ‘that’s BS.'”

Andres responded with frustration saying, “You continue to interpret our reactions in some way,” when the lawyers don’t do the same to the judge.

“You never rolled your eyes,” Ellis said, a reference to when he criticized the attorneys for doing so last week, “but you’re not the only one sitting at that table.”

The substance of the argument is how prosecutors can characterize the people who paid Manafort through companies in Cyprus.

He has already barred prosecutors from using the word “oligarch.” Andres had asked Gates whether these men were billionaires who benefited financially when their political party did well, and Gates agreed. 

After court, Andres said he had to have Gates explain their financial motivations because Ellis had interjected and called their spending “political contributions.”

“These people are not like any Americans,” Andres said.

“These people are not like any Americans,” Andres said, after Ellis for the second time invoked the Koch brothers and George Soros for comparison.

“These people are oligarchs, and that means they control a segment of the economy based on the government’s allowing them to do that,” Andres said. Ellis cut in, laughing, “That makes it even clearer to me that it doesn’t have anything to do with the allegations in this case,” he said. “It throws dirt on these people. They may deserve it; I don’t know and I don’t care.” It’s irrelevant, the judge said, to whether Manafort reported and paid taxes on the money they paid him. 

Andres said that “respectfully” he disagreed.

“It proves the flow of money,” he said. “We’re just trying to prove these men in Ukraine are the payers.” The payments come from companies in Cyprus that are not in their names to companies in Cyprus not in Manafort’s names, and so they need to show these people “have the ability to make these payments” and the motivation.

Ellis disputed that he had limited prosecutors significantly or interrupted them often and said the record would support him on that.

“I will stand by the record as well,” Andres retorted.

“All right, then you will lose,” Ellis responded.

I've read some people speculating that Ellis' distaste for the independent  / special counsel role may be coloring his conduct a bit in this trial.  How normal is this sort of behavior from judges?

Possible that the Judge is trying to take all of the arrows out of the defenses quiver for the inevitable appeal. Appears that Manafort's lawyers will not be able to use "the Judge is bias against us" defense during appeal. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

10 minutes ago, Lagunamadre said:

Possible that the Judge is trying to take all of the arrows out of the defenses quiver for the inevitable appeal. Appears that Manafort's lawyers will not be able to use "the Judge is bias against us" defense during appeal. 

This is the only theory that holds water, otherwise the judge is just a dick.

could be both too

[Mojo Hand 4,580]

26 minutes ago, Gap03 said:

Curious to get the resident litigators' perspective on Judge Ellis' behavior in the last couple of days, as reported by the Washington Post and others.

 

WP on Day 5 argument with Judge Ellis

  Reveal hidden contents

5:58 p.m.: Prosecutor Greg Andres gets into argument with Judge Ellis

After dismissing the jury, Judge Ellis laid into prosecutor Greg Andres for what he saw as unnecessary questioning about the motivations of billionnaires involved in politics in Ukraine. 

Andres pushed back angrily, prompting a heated exchange that went on for over ten minutes.

Ellis repeatedly criticized Andres for not making eye contact, saying “look at me” and saying he “looked down as if to say, ‘that’s BS.'”

Andres responded with frustration saying, “You continue to interpret our reactions in some way,” when the lawyers don’t do the same to the judge.

“You never rolled your eyes,” Ellis said, a reference to when he criticized the attorneys for doing so last week, “but you’re not the only one sitting at that table.”

The substance of the argument is how prosecutors can characterize the people who paid Manafort through companies in Cyprus.

He has already barred prosecutors from using the word “oligarch.” Andres had asked Gates whether these men were billionaires who benefited financially when their political party did well, and Gates agreed. 

After court, Andres said he had to have Gates explain their financial motivations because Ellis had interjected and called their spending “political contributions.”

“These people are not like any Americans,” Andres said.

“These people are not like any Americans,” Andres said, after Ellis for the second time invoked the Koch brothers and George Soros for comparison.

“These people are oligarchs, and that means they control a segment of the economy based on the government’s allowing them to do that,” Andres said. Ellis cut in, laughing, “That makes it even clearer to me that it doesn’t have anything to do with the allegations in this case,” he said. “It throws dirt on these people. They may deserve it; I don’t know and I don’t care.” It’s irrelevant, the judge said, to whether Manafort reported and paid taxes on the money they paid him. 

Andres said that “respectfully” he disagreed.

“It proves the flow of money,” he said. “We’re just trying to prove these men in Ukraine are the payers.” The payments come from companies in Cyprus that are not in their names to companies in Cyprus not in Manafort’s names, and so they need to show these people “have the ability to make these payments” and the motivation.

Ellis disputed that he had limited prosecutors significantly or interrupted them often and said the record would support him on that.

“I will stand by the record as well,” Andres retorted.

“All right, then you will lose,” Ellis responded.

I've read some people speculating that Ellis' distaste for the independent  / special counsel role may be coloring his conduct a bit in this trial.  How normal is this sort of behavior from judges?

Was that quote in front of the jury?  If so, the judge should not be recharacterizing "frequently" as "not closely."  If not, he's just a dick. 

[Brisketexan 105,132]

15 minutes ago, Lagunamadre said:

Possible that the Judge is trying to take all of the arrows out of the defenses quiver for the inevitable appeal. Appears that Manafort's lawyers will not be able to use "the Judge is bias against us" defense during appeal. 

That's likely part of it.  Beware the case when the judge is giving you everything you ask for.  He's setting you up to have no appellate points when your ass gets toasted.

12 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

This is the only theory that holds water, otherwise the judge is just a dick.

could be both too

He's an old Federal judge -- the smart money is on "both."  Just because he's working to preclude an appeal by the defense doesn't mean he isn't also power-tripping.

10 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

Was that quote in front of the jury?  If so, the judge should not be recharacterizing "frequently" as "not closely."  If not, he's just a dick. 

Nope, looks like it was when the jury was excused.  If he made such a characterization WITHIN hearing of the jury, he would genuinely be overstepping his bounds.  I haven't seen that he's done that, but I confess to not reading every dispatch from the front.

[J.R. 150]

I have diagnosed Judge Ellis with Old Male Federal Judge Syndrome, which is endemic in the species for which it is named and its primary symptom includes inserting yourself into the game when you are supposed to be acting as a referee, and it is caused by the general assumption you know everything.  It would not surprise me in the least if the remark was in front of the jury.  

[TwiceHorn 31,464]

By most accounts, Ellis gives attorneys before him complete hell.  One might think there would be as much hell for the defense attorneys, but it hasn't been reported, but I'm not sure that means much.  I wouldn't put too much stock in it.

[J.R. 150]

9 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

By most accounts, Ellis gives attorneys before him complete hell.  One might think there would be as much hell for the defense attorneys, but it hasn't been reported, but I'm not sure that means much.  I wouldn't put too much stock in it.

I dont think he's accused the defense attorney of crying yet.  That is such fucking petty bullshit.  And there is no way the guy was crying because (1) he's an experienced federal prosecutor and (2) his evidence was coming in beautifully at that point.  

[TwiceHorn 31,464]

7 minutes ago, J.R. said:

I have diagnosed Judge Ellis with Old Male Federal Judge Syndrome, which is endemic in the species for which it is named and its primary symptom includes inserting yourself into the game when you are supposed to be acting as a referee, and it is caused by the general assumption you know everything.  It would not surprise me in the least if the remark was in front of the jury.  

I don't find it to be restricted to the old or the male.  See, e.g. Barbara Lynn, among others.

Federal judges, unlike judges in Texas and most states, have the ability to comment upon the evidence before the jury.  Most of them don't exercise that right too often, but they do tend to be active questioners of witnesses (not the same thing, exactly).

Considering that federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, they get a shit-ton of lawsuits and criminal cases and there are relatively few federal judges. They have very few days of trial time to use in a given year and a whole lot of cases to use it on.  I have found that they are extremely conscious of using very limited trial time wisely.  Therefore, they tend not to be indulgent of meandering counsel or witnesses.  They are not likely to "let you try your own case."

[Gap03 3,306]

11 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

Was that quote in front of the jury?  If so, the judge should not be recharacterizing "frequently" as "not closely."  If not, he's just a dick. 

The tweet and several other sources made it sound like it was in front of the jury.  If so, that is just some bullshit coming from a judge. 

[Brisketexan 105,132]

11 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I don't find it to be restricted to the old or the male.  See, e.g. Barbara Lynn, among others.

Federal judges, unlike judges in Texas and most states, have the ability to comment upon the evidence before the jury.  Most of them don't exercise that right too often, but they do tend to be active questioners of witnesses (not the same thing, exactly).

Considering that federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, they get a shit-ton of lawsuits and criminal cases and there are relatively few federal judges. They have very few days of trial time to use in a given year and a whole lot of cases to use it on.  I have found that they are extremely conscious of using very limited trial time wisely.  Therefore, they tend not to be indulgent of meandering counsel or witnesses.  They are not likely to "let you try your own case."

QFT.  I agree, that's certainly my experience.  See, e.g., Judge Sparks in Austin.  But, if you know your judge and know the rules of his particular playing field, you can do just fine.  Sometimes you need to push back the right amount -- you do what you gotta do.

[Incredulity 11,671]

Anyone have any perspective on how this rolls up to Trump?  Beyond the hope he turns after conviction( assuming).  

 

Not trolling or baiting.  Don’t see anything being speculated here or on a quick google.

[Ollie Slatt 289]

43 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Considering that federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, they get a shit-ton of lawsuits and criminal cases and there are relatively few federal judges. They have very few days of trial time to use in a given year and a whole lot of cases to use it on.  I have found that they are extremely conscious of using very limited trial time wisely.  Therefore, they tend not to be indulgent of meandering counsel or witnesses.  They are not likely to "let you try your own case."

Generally true. But in this case the judge is old AF and on senior status, so I doubt his case load is too heavy.