Manafort Trial

[Dahobbs 17654]

Look, the judge has been tough on the attorneys, but I really haven't seen anything that out of the norm or that I would consider obviously improper. It does look like this curative instruction has a decent chance of being granted, but the judge may feel that it would make a bigger issue out of the incident than necessary. I'd be interested in seeing precisely what was said during the incident. 

[SmokeyTheBear 5562]

Is this an effort (maybe misguided) to look impartial, if not overly tough on the prosecution, during these proceedings to limit an appeal request from Manafort? 

[Dahobbs 17654]

14 minutes ago, SmokeyTheBear said:

Is this an effort (maybe misguided) to look impartial, if not overly tough on the prosecution, during these proceedings to limit an appeal request from Manafort? 

Maybe it plays out that way. But I actually think it is just Judge Ellis' personality. 

[HOOK'EMHOOAH 1610]

14 minutes ago, SmokeyTheBear said:

Is this an effort (maybe misguided) to look impartial, if not overly tough on the prosecution, during these proceedings to limit an appeal request from Manafort? 

That's about the only thing that could possibly be gleaned from this judge's interaction with the prosecution during the course of this trial, if in fact that is the case at all.

[SmokeyTheBear 5562]

With the "deep state" theme being so prevailing, I wonder how that impacts those trying to administer justice. 

[TwiceHorn 31529]

25 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Look, the judge has been tough on the attorneys, but I really haven't seen anything that out of the norm or that I would consider obviously improper. It does look like this curative instruction has a decent chance of being granted, but the judge may feel that it would make a bigger issue out of the incident than necessary. I'd be interested in seeing precisely what was said during the incident. 

Agreed.  And to the extent the jury has seen it, they are equally likely to decide the judge is a dick, or at least a crusty old bastard, as they are to impute something negative to the prosecution.

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861]

27 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Agreed.  And to the extent the jury has seen it, they are equally likely to decide the judge is a dick, or at least a crusty old bastard, as they are to impute something negative to the prosecution.

 Not in my experience. The judge is trusted, full stop. the jury thinks both sides are trying to fool them and see one guy as being their guidance through it. 

[Tuco 5077]

1 hour ago, HOOK'EMHOOAH said:

This judge needs a review and maybe to be removed from the bench. His role is to ensure the proceedings are done properly; the judge is not the jury.

I'm not a lawyer myself, but my mom and brother are.  From what they've indicated, judges operate with extraordinary amount of freedom and that leads to eccentricities and abuses.  I don't think this judge's comments fall into abuses.  But it's pretty tough to remove them even when it does.  

Edited August 9, 2018 by Tuco

[TwiceHorn 31529]

I sense, a little bit and I could be wrong, some growing general distrust among judges as to prosecutors and the government.  They are no more immune than we are to the reports of prosecutorial abuses that have resulted in wrongful convictions and other grotesque distortions in the criminal justice system.  A big part of that comes from near-absolute deference to the prosecution in criminal trials and pretrial proceedings.  Older judges like Ellis seem to be the most "vocal" of this type and they have become more vocal in the last couple of years.

 

Ellis is most certainly a crusty old bastard, it is known, and this may just be his nature.  Honestly, though, in the general realm of criminal justice, more judges need to hold the government's feet to the fire at every opportunity.  I think the prosecution got off on a bad foot with him on two early issues.  One, the attempt to overplay the source (and expenditure) of the unreported income, and two, the making of faces.  The latter is real bush-league shit that professional and experienced attorneys should avoid.

 

And, I may have missed it, but there seems to be not much evidence or discussion of the bank fraud.

Edited August 9, 2018 by TwiceHorn

[Horn Dog 9904]

1 hour ago, SmokeyTheBear said:

Is this an effort (maybe misguided) to look impartial, if not overly tough on the prosecution, during these proceedings to limit an appeal request from Manafort? 

How about the judge just shut the fuck up to limit appeal request from Manafort?  If being extra hard on the prosecution and making biased comments is a common and well known tactic to limit appeals from the defendant, then if I was the dense attorney I would argue that the judge's antics warrant appeal since the jury is being signaled that my client's case is weak and thus has a biasing effect, even if it seemingly is in favor of my client.   Any bias exhibited by the judge can be construed to be negatively effecting either party in this situation. 

Edited August 9, 2018 by Horn Dog

[HOOK'EMHOOAH 1610]

15 minutes ago, Tuco said:

I'm not a lawyer myself, but my mom and brother are.  From what they've indicated, judges operate with extraordinary amount of freedom and that leads to eccentricities and abuses.  I don't think this judge's comments fall into abuses.  But it's pretty tough to remove them even when it does.  

You're correct. That doesn't take away from the fact that a judge at any level is still a public servant. No matter what the occupation or position within the hierarchy a person holds, there are still means in place to review their actions with appropriate measures should any be deemed necessary. In essence, everyone answers to someone.

There are certainly things the prosecution was corrected on as twicehorn pointed out, such as the issue about making faces with regard to the judge himself - which I would deem might be unprofessional on the part of the prosecution. However, the judge has done seemed to not really give any fucks whether the jury was present in his dressing down of anyone.

[Dahobbs 17654]

15 minutes ago, HOOK'EMHOOAH said:

You're correct. That doesn't take away from the fact that a judge at any level is still a public servant. No matter what the occupation or position within the hierarchy a person holds, there are still means in place to review their actions with appropriate measures should any be deemed necessary. In essence, everyone answers to someone.

There are certainly things the prosecution was corrected on as twicehorn pointed out, such as the issue about making faces with regard to the judge himself - which I would deem might be unprofessional on the part of the prosecution. However, the judge has done seemed to not really give any fucks whether the jury was present in his dressing down of anyone.

I honestly don't know what to make of the "making faces" thing. Sure, if the prosecutors are like sticking their tongues out or aggressively rolling their eyes, especially towards the jury, that is inappropriate. But, I could also see some relatively mundane facial expressions being blown out of proportion by the judge. 

[Tuco 5077]

28 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I sense, a little bit and I could be wrong, some growing general distrust among judges as to prosecutors and the government....

My uneducated guess is that Ellis is familiar with how a bank fraud/tax evasion case should be prosecuted, with respect to the level of resources, evidence introduced, and time spent explaining the case.  Because this case has higher stakes, the prosecution is going further than they normally would, and Ellis isn't down with it.  I think it's probably more of a situation where he is hostile to treating this case differently than other cases, than he is to the government in general.  If he can normally get through a case like this in four days, and it's taking three weeks, he's going to be cranky.

[Gap03 3310]

31 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

And, I may have missed it, but there seems to be not much evidence or discussion of the bank fraud.

Today's witnesses are covering the bank fraud.  Some discussion of the testimony of the mortgage loan assistant thus far is covered here:

WaPo Coverage of Day 8

[HOOK'EMHOOAH 1610]

14 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

I honestly don't know what to make of the "making faces" thing. Sure, if the prosecutors are like sticking their tongues out or aggressively rolling their eyes, especially towards the jury, that is inappropriate. But, I could also see some relatively mundane facial expressions being blown out of proportion by the judge. 

This is my guess as well. There was also something about rolling their eyes as well right after the trial began last week, which I believe was in response to the judge telling the prosecutors to limit their points about the defendant's "lifestyle."

[TwiceHorn 31529]

19 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

I honestly don't know what to make of the "making faces" thing. Sure, if the prosecutors are like sticking their tongues out or aggressively rolling their eyes, especially towards the jury, that is inappropriate. But, I could also see some relatively mundane facial expressions being blown out of proportion by the judge. 

True enough.  There have been enough instances reported of informality on the part of the prosecution that I took it at face value.

[TwiceHorn 31529]

20 minutes ago, Tuco said:

My uneducated guess is that Ellis is familiar with how a bank fraud/tax evasion case should be prosecuted, with respect to the level of resources, evidence introduced, and time spent explaining the case.  Because this case has higher stakes, the prosecution is going further than they normally would, and Ellis isn't down with it.  I think it's probably more of a situation where he is hostile to treating this case differently than other cases, than he is to the government in general.  If he can normally get through a case like this in four days, and it's taking three weeks, he's going to be cranky.

Great point.

[triplehorn 2664]

Judge Ellis apologized for his outburst.

Spoiler

 

 

[kevwun 15855]

Great time to have a senior moment.

[yaqdum 182]

31 minutes ago, kevwun said:

Great time to have a senior moment.

if his point is to show he's ready for the pasture and the young innocents, he's doing a hell of a job.

[Hank Scorpio 17729]

2 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

Maybe it plays out that way. But I actually think it is just Judge Ellis' personality. 

You're telling me that a 78 year old federal judge is an old fucking cranky asshole who thinks he is god's gift to the legal profession and is a complete fucking dick to the lawyers that appear in front of him? No fucking way. 

[TwiceHorn 31529]

Nowai.

[Mojo Hand 4580]

1 hour ago, triplehorn said:

Judge Ellis apologized for his outburst.

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

In front of the jury? 

[triplehorn 2664]

Yes the end of the exchange happened as the jury was filing back in.

[Gap03 3310]

19 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

In front of the jury? 

Yeah, which is why the prosecution requested curative instructions to the jury.  Apparently, the record was very clear that Ellis had okay'ed the expert staying in the courtroom.

[Mojo Hand 4580]

Good.  Everyone makes mistakes.  Glad he fixed it. 

[Orca of Peace 109]

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/get-your-kicks-on-paul-manafort-drive-city-will-not-rename-street

The city, located southwest of Hartford, has a street called “Paul Manafort Drive,” named after the currently relevant Paul Manafort’s father, a former mayor.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

[J.R. 150]

7 hours ago, Hank Scorpio said:

You're telling me that a 78 year old federal judge is an old fucking cranky asshole who thinks he is god's gift to the legal profession and is a complete fucking dick to the lawyers that appear in front of him? No fucking way. 

My sentiments exactly. This behavior is totally normal, and that’s not a good thing. 

[Heisenberg 162]

Senile judge is senile.  Old fuck should have gone to the house a long time ago.  His horseshit is likely grounds for a mistrial or future appeal.

[TwiceHorn 31529]

15 minutes ago, Heisenberg said:

Senile judge is senile.  Old fuck should have gone to the house a long time ago.  His horseshit is likely grounds for a mistrial or future appeal.

No it's not.

[Hank Scorpio 17729]

Not even a little bit. 

[J.R. 150]

Yeah not even close to the line

[Gil Bang 25998]

fucking surly lawyers, acting like "experts" on "law stuff". 

[zork 629]

14 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:

fucking surly lawyers, acting like "experts" on "law stuff". 

you have to admit they share their knowledge quite freely and are rep machines for a reason.

[TwiceHorn 31529]

Also, seems the bank fraud part began in earnest today.

 

One other thing, the prosecution got the boots put to them in their case in chief, the defense has not begun theirs.  It's conceivable they're going to get the boots put to them, too.  Direct examination and introduction of evidence generally is more fraught with opportunity for strenuous objections and a good judge bitch-out than cross.

Edited August 10, 2018 by TwiceHorn

[Gil Bang 25998]

21 minutes ago, zork said:

you have to admit they share their knowledge quite freely and are rep machines for a reason.

It's the aspect of this board (and the last one) that I find most interesting and educational.  I appreciate it greatly. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

According to media talking heads, the prosecution will be going head first into Manafort’s malfeasence during the the Trump campaign/transition.  Specifically Manafort attempted selling of the Secretary of the Army position for a $16 million loan.

[Kyrie Eleison 9312]

Senile judge is senile.  Old fuck should have gone to the house a long time ago.  His horseshit is likely grounds for a mistrial or future appeal.

lol...no.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

 

[triplehorn 2664]

I posted this July 9 Spicey tweet several pages ago:

"For some reason I get this eerie feeling that Manafort and/or his attorneys will do something so odious that it will result in a mistrial. I could be wrong but I can’t shake this nagging feeling. For Manafort the desperation has set it and that’s the only play left in his quiver"

Then this happened:

Question for the those w legal experience:  Chances defense did know what they were doing and this prohibited line of questioning was intentional ?  Also, the prosecutor immediately realized what was happening and intervened.  Was the kibosh put on it fast enough to prevent damage to the trial ?

 

[TwiceHorn 31529]

It is very difficult for the defense to secure a mistrial by its own actions, particularly for violation of a motion in limine made by, and ostensibly for the benefit of, the defense.

[TwiceHorn 31529]

12 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

According to media talking heads, the prosecution will be going head first into Manafort’s malfeasence during the the Trump campaign/transition.  Specifically Manafort attempted selling of the Secretary of the Army position for a $16 million loan.

That would be in pretty direct violation of the orders granting the motions in limine.  And of very limited relevance to this case, anyway.

[jimmyjazz 46093]

17 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

It is very difficult for the defense to secure a mistrial by its own actions, particularly for violation of a motion in limine made by, and ostensibly for the benefit of, the defense.

Yeah, that seemed a stretch.  "Whatever you do, don't bring up the campaign, or I will declare a mistrial"  Defense:  "OK."

[TwiceHorn 31529]

Also, it's my understanding that the foofaraw about the Mueller-related testimony is that the government wants the transcript sealed as it reveals information about the investigation.

[Brisketexan 105273]

23 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

It is very difficult for the defense to secure a mistrial by its own actions, particularly for violation of a motion in limine made by, and ostensibly for the benefit of, the defense.

This.

Twice has offered good observations on the procedure, how the judge has behaved, etc.  Just wanted to tip my hat to that - y'all should trust what he's saying, he's been pretty on-point.

[kevwun 15855]

25 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

It is very difficult for the defense to secure a mistrial by its own actions, particularly for violation of a motion in limine made by, and ostensibly for the benefit of, the defense.

Not a lawyer, but if it was that easy to throw a case in order to delay it would be a common strategy for anyone who was guilty.

Edited August 10, 2018 by kevwun

[TwiceHorn 31529]

18 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

This.

Twice has offered good observations on the procedure, how the judge has behaved, etc.  Just wanted to tip my hat to that - y'all should trust what he's saying, he's been pretty on-point.

Thank you, sir.  This whole thing has made me give some thought to how accepting we lawdogs are of obstreperous federal judges.  I guess the contrast is to indecisive state court civil judges that can't seem to deliver a timely, forceful ruling on anything, or control their docket worth a damn.  I'll generally take the former over the latter most of the time.

[Tuco 5077]

50 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

That would be in pretty direct violation of the orders granting the motions in limine.  And of very limited relevance to this case, anyway.

If they were pursuing an angle that Calk co-conspired on the bank fraud, and received some consideration in return for assistance, I think it would be pertinent.  I imagine the prosecution would need to walk a tight line on showing what actions Manafort did, rather than what the campaign as a whole did. For example, they should be able to show emails where Manafort recommended or pressured people to have Calk added as a campaign advisor or as the Army Secretary, but not necessarily how that played out.  And they have referenced Manafort talking a position in "campaign X" or something like that.

But, looking at the indictment, Lender D appears to be Calk's bank, and they don't make any suggestion of wrong doing on Lender D's part.  It doesn't discuss Manafort offering positions to Lender D. They would be going off-script to go down that path.   

Edited August 10, 2018 by Tuco

[Brisketexan 105273]

25 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Thank you, sir.  This whole thing has made me give some thought to how accepting we lawdogs are of obstreperous federal judges.  I guess the contrast is to indecisive state court civil judges that can't seem to deliver a timely, forceful ruling on anything, or control their docket worth a damn.  I'll generally take the former over the latter most of the time.

Yeah, I had the same impression.  Here's how I've looked at it:

I'm a competitor.  A pretty dedicated one.  The judge is the ref.  Sometimes, you get an easy-going ref. Sometimes, you get an asshole ref who makes it personal.  In EITHER case, only losers bitch about the ref and make him the focus of their game.  Winners play the game, and adjust to whatever kind of ref they've got.

If it's a judge I can laugh and banter with, I do that.

If it's a judge who tolerates no fun and games, I play that way.

If it's a judge who expects everything presented in a 2-page brief or less, I do that.

I play my game within the confines of the rules the way the ref at that game interprets them.  That's how you win.  BUT....that doesn't mean that we the people should tolerate a pointlessly irascible judge.  I remember coming home years ago after a pretty big hearing in Fed ct. in another state.   I told a story of the judge blowing up and yelling at me for 10 minutes (it was fully expected, we all knew it was coming, HE knew it was coming, so we let him make his point to ALL the parties, then moved on).  I didn't enjoy it, but it was part of the game, I was ready for it, and I didn't let it bug me.  My wife said "yeah, that's why I'm not a lawyer.  I'd have cut him off and said 'listen, fucker -- you work for ME!  You got that?  You work for the people, we don't work for you!"  While, of course, I told her that's a good way to get a taste of a jail cell....she was also right.  

And I DO really appreciate the judges who are respectful of all the parties and lawyers in front of them.  There's a Fed judge I know who purposefully lets ALL attorneys make full arguments, and put on their full argument/case, even when he already KNOWS that it's a dog and they're gonna lose.  He explained to me one time, "I know these folks paid a lot of money for their attorney to prepare their argument and go to court.  I think I owe it to 'em to let them see that they got their money's worth.  That way, even when they lose, they can feel like they tried, had a good lawyer, and were given a fair shake."  That's the way it should be, and as public servants, more judges should remember that.  A lot of them do, by the way.  We tell the stories of the cranky ones.  We don't tell many stories about the mundane, boring judges who just let us try our cases and issue rulings as requested.