blindey said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Directed verdict is the term you are looking for. And I agree this strategy is odd, do a little about his lavish lifestyle but then move onto to the nuts and bolts of how he paid for it using his tax returns and bank records.

---

Has to be some serious combination of weak and dry if you're calling his tailor right out of the gate.

---

Personally if I were trying this case I'd lead with the money records and bring up the lavish lifestyle at the end. Creates a better narrative and can be hammered in closing arguments, pointing to slide after slide of houses, cars, etc. If you want the jury to hate the defendant make them go into deliberations with that being the first thing on their minds.

Whens lunch said:

---

blindey said:

---

From the linked article:

Quote:

---

The trial has recessed for lunch until 1:30 p.m., when prosecutors said they will return and call three more witnesses to the stand, including one of Manafort's suit makers Maximillian Katzman, The Washington Post reported.

---

How on earth is this relevant to any crime being prosecuted?

---

Laundering money through your tailer is much more clever than laundering money through say.....your dry cleaner.

---

Quote:

---

Mikuska said he did not know how the FBI obtained the key.

---

As the seizing agent, wouldn't you want to know if the key was obtained legally?

akm91 said:

---

Quote:

---

Mikuska said he did not know how the FBI obtained the key.

---

As the seizing agent, wouldn't you want to know if the key was obtained legally?

---

If I was sitting on a jury, and a law enforcement agent testified he did not know where the key came from that he was using to open the door to the defendant's home, then I would surmise that the agent was lying.

akm91 said:

---

Quote:

---

Mikuska said he did not know how the FBI obtained the key.

---

As the seizing agent, wouldn't you want to know if the key was obtained legally?

---

I think that report is inaccurate

Live tweeting from the courthouse detailed it as "refusing to disclose where it came from"

Far cry from not knowing.

Peter Doocy reported they declined to disclose

They just happened to have the key?

Is it safe to assume if the judge did throw this case out the window, it would eventually be retried (and perhaps with an adversarial judge presiding)?

akm91 said:

---

Quote:

---

Mikuska said he did not know how the FBI obtained the key.

---

As the seizing agent, wouldn't you want to know if the key was obtained legally?

---

Well, they have the warrant so they could kick the door in technically anyway. The origin of the key wasn't of paramount importance at the time. And it isn't enough to suppress the evidence garnered therefrom but hiding it from the Judge until now wasn't wise.

Ok, that makes lot more sense.

Rockdoc said:

---

Is it safe to assume if the judge did throw this case out the window, it would eventually be retried (and perhaps with an adversarial judge presiding)?

---

Unlikely, in my view. I also doubt Ellis throws the case out.

Quote:

---

But prosecutor Uso Asonye said jurors may not hear from Mr. Gates after all.

"He may testify, he may not," Mr. Asonye told Judge T.S. Ellis III.

The revelation sent journalists and others out of the courtroom to report the disclosure.

"That's news to me and about 25 others who scurried out of here like rats on a sinking ship," Judge Ellis shot back.

Mr. Asonye attempted to backtrack, telling Judge Ellis that the evidence presented will determine if Mr. Gates' testifies.

That drew a sharp rebuke from Judge Ellis.

"You know who you are going to call," He said. "If you are [not] going to call him then this is a waste of time."

---

Ok another dumb question. If found guilty, who sentences? Judge or jury?

SpreadsheetAg said:

---

---

Proving income? No it is about proving expenses in excess of his declared income.

So the prosecution doesn't trust Gates on the stand? Can Manafort's team call Gates as hostile witness?

More about Ellis
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/he-has-torn-my-head-off-manafort-judge-known-for-being-tough/2018/07/31/f604e25a-6f28-11e8-afd5-778aca903bbe_story.html

Quote:

---

With degrees from Princeton, Harvard and Oxford and 31 years on the bench, Ellis is formidably sharp. And although he might scold prosecutors for not meeting his high standards, in trials Ellis often uses his intellect to their benefit.

"It's important for him that everyone in the courtroom knows he is the smartest person in that courtroom, and just be aware that he usually is," defense lawyer John Zwerling says he warns lawyers who are new to the District. "So you better be on your A game."

Ellis regularly interrupts trial testimony with his own questions and demands that certain lines of inquiry be cut short, clearing up ambiguity that defense attorneys hoped to create. More than one lawyer has tried to block him from doing so with pretrial motions or mid-case demands for a mistrial. Several have appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, arguing that Ellis's interventions made a fair trial impossible.

The appeals court has repeatedly struck down those claims, saying Ellis's questions were posed in the service of clarity.

...

Mikolashek recalled once appearing opposite one of the judge's former clerks. Ellis assured him he would not be biased.

Besides, the judge added, "I am confident that my former clerk did not play a substantial role in writing this brief. If he had, there would be no fewer than four split infinitives."

---

I'm gonna go back and watch My Cousin Vinnie just to bone up on legal terminology.

Even better, they weren't rolling their eyes at Manafort, they were rolling their eyes at Ellis!

MadDog73 said:

---

So the prosecution doesn't trust Gates on the stand? Can Manafort's team call Gates as hostile witness?

---

They'll have to subpoena him but yes they can if they want to.

Quote:

---

Besides, the judge added, "I am confident that my former clerk did not play a substantial role in writing this brief. If he had, there would be no fewer than four split infinitives."

---

That's some wit right there!

aggiehawg said:

---

SpreadsheetAg said:

---

---

Proving income? No it is about proving expenses in excess of his declared income.

---

Been having internet trouble, so couldn't show off beforehand. I suspected the tailor would testify to payment using out of country funds. Relevant to show Manafort's direct access to those funds for spending in the US. In other words, it's a link to suggest every dollar in those accounts constitutes income to Manafort. Not huge, but relevant.

So Manafort wore 10k-15k suits, so what! Doesn't appear to be a buy off the rack kinda of guy.

They could also show that using bank records. If his testimony was short and used for the purpose of admitting his own company bank records showing the receipt of the wires, that's fine. Establishes a foreign bank account.

Who pays for clothes with wire transfers anyways? Write a damn check or whip out the credit card with no limit. So Manafort used wire transfers from overseas banks to buy consumer goods in the US? Not too smart of a crook, then.

aggiehawg said:

---

They could also show that using bank records. If his testimony was short and used for the purpose of admitting his own company bank records showing the receipt of the wires, that's fine. Establishes a foreign bank account.

Who pays for clothes with wire transfers anyways? Write a damn check or whip out the credit card with no limit. So Manafort used wire transfers from overseas banks to buy consumer goods in the US? Not too smart of a crook, then.

---

Maybe not a crook? (as to this) Could lend credence to his 'thought everything was being done properly' claim. Didn't feel he needed to hide that money, or his access to it.

VegasAg86 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

They could also show that using bank records. If his testimony was short and used for the purpose of admitting his own company bank records showing the receipt of the wires, that's fine. Establishes a foreign bank account.

Who pays for clothes with wire transfers anyways? Write a damn check or whip out the credit card with no limit. So Manafort used wire transfers from overseas banks to buy consumer goods in the US? Not too smart of a crook, then.

---

Maybe not a crook? (as to this) Could lend credence to his 'thought everything was being done properly' claim. Didn't feel he needed to hide that money, or his access to it.

---

Maybe. I would think the wire transfers would be going to his bank however. But then I'm not mega rich with bank accounts all over the world.

And this arises from the opium den

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

And this arises from the opium den

---

Did this dipwad tweet the same thing when Obama twice exonerated Hillary publicly while the investigation was on-going?

Probably suggested he do it.

oneeyedag said:

---

So Manafort wore 10k-15k suits, so what! Doesn't appear to be a buy off the rack kinda of guy.

---

If this was a woman, and she had 10k-15k pairs of shoes, would anyone really care.....?

Sounds like the prosecution is going off the rails. At the very least they're off to a bad start.

- Capt. Obvious.

I'd like to think Trump would be better served by declassifying the FISA docs and the info that the HPSCI has been after.

Maybe he would..maybe not but, I'd sure like to know.

Daniel Opsut, a salesman at Mercedes Benz of Alexandria.

Opsut testified that Kathleen Manafort, Paul Manafort's wife, paid for a new SL550 in 2012 with a wire transfer from Lucicle Consultants Ltd, one of the Cypriot shell companies prosecutors say Manafort used to hide his Ukrainian income. The car cost $124,000 but Manafort traded in two older Mercedes, an E350 convertible and an SL500, saving herself $56,000.

"It's not common, but it's not unheard of" for customers to pay by wire transfer, Opsut testified.