https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1024821385946791937.html

Thread on Manafort's opening statement. Gates done it!

Ugh! That wasn't much better, if not worse. Yeah, it happened for the most part but it wasn't his fault is not a winning argument.

I know my "Taxation is Theft" schtick gets old, and I'd have to lie to get on this jury, but I truly don't give a flying F*** if someone is avoiding being taxed by our federal government. I wish ALL of us would just tell them to pound sand. But the guy made millions working for Ukrainians - much of it IN Ukraine.

I don't think that money belongs to our corrupt and incompetent government. It belongs to who earned it.

Taxation is theft - I don't care if it's the Clinton Foundation dodging taxes or Manafort.

Yes, the term is whack. Taxation may have been theft in the 1700s. But dude, it's 2018. Good luck finding a livable place that doesn't tax income (again, in the 1700s it was possible). When you find it, let us know! I will say that too much taxation is bad (theft, if you will). How much is too much can be debated between reasonable people.

*side note* Interesting that humans have been trying to avoid taxes for thousands of years. Jesus said to give to Caesar what is his. *end side note*

I believe laws should be enforced, call me cray. I think there were laws broken by both Manafort and the Clintons. Too much smoke and slime from the swamp on them for there not to have been federal laws broken, IMO.

But what do I know? I was an RPTS major...

Rosenstein scuttled the previous investigation -- will he be called (subpoenaed) as a defense witness?

Where is the evidence Rosenstein was involved in that?

BMX Bandit said:

---

Where is the evidence Rosenstein was involved in that?

---

The FBI previously investigated Manafort starting circa 2014 when he was wiretapped. Manafort was previously interviewed by the FBI and provided documents. The investigation reputedly was ended in 2016 because of lack of evidence.
https://www.cnn.com/2017/09/18/politics/paul-manafort-government-wiretapped-fisa-russians/

Thanks for the link. But that doesn't answer my question. Rosenstein was in Maryland in 2014. Aggiehawg & I want to know what the "Rosenstein shut down the Manafort investigation" line is based on

BMX Bandit said:

---

Thanks for the link. But that doesn't answer my question. Rosenstein was in Maryland in 2014. Aggiehawg & I want to know what the "Rosenstein shut down the Manafort investigation" line is based on

---

You're right. My bad. Rosenstein didn't scuttle the previous investigation & associated FISA from 2014-early 2016. I was thinking he was in office in 2016. There apparently was a second FISA on Manafort beginning circa August 2016, and it probably continued on into Rosenstein's tenure and was passed on to Mueller's investigation.

drcrinum said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

Thanks for the link. But that doesn't answer my question. Rosenstein was in Maryland in 2014. Aggiehawg & I want to know what the "Rosenstein shut down the Manafort investigation" line is based on

---

You're right. My bad. Rosenstein didn't scuttle the previous investigation & associated FISA from 2014-early 2016. I was thinking he was in office in 2016. There apparently was a second FISA on Manafort beginning circa August 2016, and it probably continued on into Rosenstein's tenure and was passed on to Mueller's investigation.

---

Judge Napolitano said it yesterday on fox. I have no idea if his statement is correct or not. Doocey looked shocked when he said Rosenstein was part of the decision to not prosecute Manafort previously.

Larry S Ross said:

---

Judge Napolitano said it yesterday on fox. I have no idea if his statement is correct or not. Doocey looked shocked when he said Rosenstein was part of the decision to not prosecute Manafort previously.

---

http://thefederalist.com/2018/08/02/inspect-fisa-applications-closely-mysteries-arise-joseph-mifsud/

Long read, but new details, a summary:

1) The State Department arranged for Mifsud to give a talk in February 2017, and during this trip to the US was when the FBI interviewed Mifsud. It was during this interview when Mifsud claimed he never told Papadopoulos that he had dirt on Hillary, and the FBI did not detain him for being a foreign agent.

2) Upon comparison between the first (January 2017) & second (April 2017) renewal documents of Page's FISA warrant, the FISC apparently was not appraised that Mifsud had denied Papadoupoulos's claim in the February 2017 interview that Mifsud told him he had dirt on Hillary. Plus, the April 2017 renewal contained a footnote about a new FOIA code which allows government to withhold information that "could reasonably be expected to disclose the identity of a confidential source."

So, here is the State Department with its finger in the pie again, and there is circumstantial evidence suggesting that Mifsud may have been a confidential FBI/CIA source....while the current whereabouts of Mifsud remains unknown.

BMX Bandit said:

---

Thanks for the link. But that doesn't answer my question. Rosenstein was in Maryland in 2014. Aggiehawg & I want to know what the "Rosenstein shut down the Manafort investigation" line is based on

---

BMX, the only possible intersection for Manafort and Rosenstein was from 2001-2005 when Rosenstein was Principal Deputy Assistant for the Tax Division. By July, 2005 he was USA in Maryland. So there might have been a time when they crossed paths there but it sure as hell wasn't 8 years ago.

And notice that Napolitano uses the terms "young" in reference to Rod Rosenstein. By 2001, Rosenstein had been at DOJ for ten years, give or take.

I want to know the provenance for Napolitano's claims. Not seeing it.

Ellis is at it again, shutting down the endless string of photos of clothes and shoes and lavish living.

Judge Ellis informed the courtroom prior to seating the jury this morning that he doesn't see a path the prosecution can prove any conspiracy without Gates testimony. The Mueller team said not necessarily.

Not sure what Team Mueller is doing here, constantly testing the patience of Ellis, but it does make for courtroom drama.

Quote:

---

The government is "allowed to introduce amounts of money he had," Ellis said. "What I have not permitted is to gild the lily."

---

He noted in particular that it was irrelevant what Manafort spent his money on.

"It wouldn't matter if he spent the money on Men's Wearhouse clothes," he said, adding that some luxury items might color jurors against Manafort.

"All the evidence of the fancy suits really is irrelevant and besmirches the defendant," he said. "Most of us don't have designer suits, we don't have pagodas it engenders some resentment."

Ellis appeared to be referring to the pergola, a sort-of wooden trellis that typically creates shade, that a witness testified Wednesday he built for Manafort's daughter.

Ellis said that if the defense argued that Manafort did not spend the money, the government could go into more detail in a rebuttal case, though he said he doubted that would happen. He said jurors will presumably soon learn that Manafort did not pay taxes on the income, which, in his view, is the relevant issue.

The judge then jabbed at special counsel Robert S. Mueller III's team of prosecutors, saying "I might have started there had I been the government, but that's your choice."

Prosecution said they are calling Gates

Taxes suck, and they may be too high, but I'm not going to advocate lawlessness unless they are abusively high and come along with all sorts of other oppression.

The problem here is not Manafort getting nailed. It is Manafort getting singled out to provide political leverage, and the gross unevenness with which justice is dispensed for very similar crimes depending who you are and who you know, and what your politics are.

Does Gates have a deal, or is he also subject to prosecution for involvement?

Another exchange

Team Mueller filed a motion in court asking Judge Ellis for an "opportunity to further explain why such evidence is directly relevant to the elements of the charged offenses and its probative value is not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice." Ellis had repeatedly admonished prosecutors not to dwell on Manafort's luxurious lifestyle and blocked them from showing jurors pictures and other documents in court.

The special counsel's office argued in the Thursday morning court filing that type of evidence was "directly relevant" to the crimes of which Manafort is accused, because it shows that Manafort acted "willfully," and the money used to pay for the items "came directly from the unreported foreign bank accounts where Manafort deposited his foreign consulting income."

Prosecutors also argued that the luxurious nature of the purchases was important because it helped inform their narrative of the case. That Manafort "had an expensive lifestyle that required lots of money to maintain is important proof as to why he would commit the bank frauds," prosecutors wrote. They wrote that they intend to show Manafort "had grown accustomed to his material wealth," and when his income declined in 2014, "he resorted to bank fraud as a means to maintain his lifestyle."

Prosecutors wrote that asking witnesses about the documents, without showing them to jurors, "could expose the government to appellate risk."

"We have absolutely put him on the witness list," Andres told Judge Ellis this morning. "We have every intention to call him as a witness."

I don't think they want to because they aren't 100% sure what a "condemned man" might say.

Quote:

---

The judge then jabbed at special counsel Robert S. Mueller III's team of prosecutors, saying "I might have started there had I been the government, but that's your choice."

---

Have to agree. Team Mueller has presented this case bass-ackwards. Prove the income with bank records, prove they don't match his tax returns, end with what he spent the money on to piss off the jury and hammer it home in closing statements. That's a narrative a jury can follow easily, as it would imply motive for the acts they have previously seen presented. His lavish lifestyle. Greedy bastage.

Instead, now the jury has seen (although that particular exchange was out of their earshot) the judge's irritation and have to wonder where's the beef and if this is all smoke and mirrors.

If Ellis is not seeing how they prove conspiracy without Gates' testimony he's entertaining the notion of a directed verdict and not allowing the conspiracy charge to be decided by the jury. That was also a signal to the defense that they should reconsider whether to call Gates, IF the prosecution doesn't. (Which it now appears they will.)

MouthBQ98 said:

---

Does Gates have a deal, or is he also subject to prosecution for involvement?

---

Media outlets are saying he does, however to date there are only FIVE Use Immunity deals filed on the docket and Gates isn't one of them

Gates has a plea agreement. He wouldnt be on the use immunity list.

BMX Bandit said:

---

Gates has a plea agreement. He wouldnt be on the use immunity list.

---

Have you seen any plea agreement on paper?

I'm not saying he does or doesn't

I just said what I do know from seeing it on paper

Quote:

---

Prosecutors wrote that asking witnesses about the documents, without showing them to jurors, "could expose the government to appellate risk."

---

LOL. No s*** Sherlock. This ain't an episode of Perry Mason. If they are not admitted as evidence then you can't ask about them, other than establishing foundation for their admission.

Take a hard look at your witness list and the planned direct examination and make adjustments, instead Team Mueller is having tunnel vision.

Mueller filed another amended Exhibits list again this morning

They also filed this

This question may sound a little odd, but why would it matter if the Prosection angers Ellis? I'm not talking about angry enough for contempt charges, which he isnt going to do, but it's a jury trial. They're the one who will decide guilt or innocence.

I heard several times in the last three months that it's unwise to piss off Ellis, which I thought made sense. This morning, I wondered, since it's a jury trial, and the judge is highly unlikely to throw out contempt.

Candidly, if one, or both, sets of counsel rolled their eyes at my comments as a judge, I'd probably go contempt right there. But, I know nothing of court room drama and protocol.

This last motion is a little curious

With all the crap evidence they are putting on thus far, what are their fears of any civil tax audits that Manafort had in the past?

Saying a civil tax audit isn't relevant in someone charged with criminal tax fraud dating back over a ten year time span, sounds a bit hokey to me. If he had been audited and got a clean bill bill of health from the IRS would be directly relevant if you ask me. Especially if those audits took place in the time period they are accusing him of tax fraud.

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

Mueller filed another amended Exhibits list again this morning

They also filed this

---

i am not an attorney, but does this suggest that they indicted Manafort upon the appearance if tax fraud, since he was never audited?

Whiny little bastages, aren't they? Although the law is there to support the exclusion, there is a complicating factor. The star witness, Gates, was supposedly embezzling millions from Manafort that an IRS audit would have likely caught.

FTR: Not saying Gates did or did not embezzle, just saying there is another avenue that might be opened by Gates testimony. We'll see.

It's the defenses claim that they were never audited, but they opened the door that they may ask if the IRS was even considering auditing him, raising question if they were why not? Lack of evidence?

They are trying to create the appearance of doubt, whether it happened or not or was even being considered.

The prosecution is trying to shut that question down before it starts.

fasthorses05 said:

---

This question may sound a little odd, but why would it matter if the Prosection angers Ellis? I'm not talking about angry enough for contempt charges, which he isnt going to do, but it's a jury trial. They're the one who will decide guilt or innocence.

I heard several times in the last three months that it's unwise to piss off Ellis, which I thought made sense. This morning, I wondered, since it's a jury trial, and the judge is highly unlikely to throw out contempt.

Candidly, if one, or both, sets of counsel rolled their eyes at my comments as a judge, I'd probably go contempt right there. But, I know nothing of court room drama and protocol.

---

The jury pays attention to the judge, quite simply. There's also the matter of jury instructions and which counts the judge deems enough evidence has been adduced for them to be submitted to the jury for deliberation. The judge can enter a directed verdict on those counts, precluding the jury. Not that unusual.

Contempt is not the only way a judge can show his displeasure.

aggiehawg said:

---

Whiny little bastages, aren't they? Although the law is there to support the exclusion, there is a complicating factor. The star witness, Gates, was supposedly embezzling millions from Manafort that an IRS audit would have likely caught.

FTR: Not saying Gates did or did not embezzle, just saying there is another avenue that might be opened by Gates testimony. We'll see.

---

I haven't read the cases cited, but they seem to be about using civil remedies and penalties to muddy the waters about criminal penalties. Manafort's team is asking "why didn't they audit", not, "why file criminal charges instead of handling it as a civil matter".

He sure did use international wire transfers a lot. I don't live in that world, but that seems odd for a man trying to hide that money from the government.

In other business elsewhere, but directly affects the Manafort trial

Quote:

---

Judge Beryl A. Howell wrote that Mueller's power "falls well within the boundaries the Constitution permits," because he was supervised by an official who was himself accountable to the president. She wrote that "multiple statutes" authorized Mueller's appointment, and Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein, who named him to the post, "had power to do so."

The opinion came in response to a legal challenge from witness Andrew Miller who was arguing he could not be compelled to testify before a grand jury. The witness argued that Mueller wielded too much power and was appointed unlawfully. In the witness's view, Mueller should have been nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate, and there was no statute giving Rosenstein the authority to appoint him.

---

I here's the 93 page Opinion by Judge Howell

http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/sites/dcd/files/REDACTED_In_re_GJ_18-gj-34_MEM_OP_20180802_FINAL.pdf

fasthorses05 said:

---

This question may sound a little odd, but why would it matter if the Prosection angers Ellis? I'm not talking about angry enough for contempt charges, which he isnt going to do, but it's a jury trial. They're the one who will decide guilt or innocence.

I heard several times in the last three months that it's unwise to piss off Ellis, which I thought made sense. This morning, I wondered, since it's a jury trial, and the judge is highly unlikely to throw out contempt.

Candidly, if one, or both, sets of counsel rolled their eyes at my comments as a judge, I'd probably go contempt right there. But, I know nothing of court room drama and protocol.

---

The judge makes many small decisions during the course of the trial. He can make it more difficult, or easier, for you to prove your case. Life is easier if you don't piss off the judge.