nm Spoke to a prosecutor and got his thoughts.

BMX Bandit said:

---

Quote:

---

Rosenstein knew there were some old tax issues with Manafort because he didn't charge him 10 years ago.

---

Has Napolitano ever given his basis for this claim?

Seems like he said it, then it just went away.

---

Timelines just don't match up support Napolitano's claims.

The only thing that made sense of any of it, came up in the trial, about Gates cooperating with the FBI when the bureau was investigating money that Viktor Yanukovych in 2014, nothing Napolitano said lined up chronologically. Gates said they knew about the accounts but were never audited or talked to the IRS only FBI agents.

Very odd exchange there on the experts. Wish I had the actual transcript.

I've nevr had a judge exclude experts from listening to other testimony. Hard to tell if Ellis let them then forgot or changed his mind

Will he have to recuse himself from his own investigation?

BMX Bandit said:

---

I've nevr had a judge exclude experts from listening to other testimony.

---

Yeah I thought that was odd. Curious to see what was actually said.

blindey said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

I've nevr had a judge exclude experts from listening to other testimony.

---

Yeah I thought that was odd. Curious to see what was actually said.

---

Prosecution asking judge to tell jury he messed up.

Ellis really should cure the mistake, but that's pretty brave to ask

So sounds like the rule was implemented on the usual basis (parties and experts allowed in courtroom, all others outside).

I wouldn't do that via written motion (unless you have to). Would make that request on the record to the judge before the jury is seated.

BMX Bandit said:

---

Very odd exchange there on the experts. Wish I had the actual transcript.

I've nevr had a judge exclude experts from listening to other testimony. Hard to tell if Ellis let them then forgot or changed his mind

---

Well, I have, depending on exactly which area of expertise from which they would testify. Defense experts would be allowed in to watch their plaintiff expert counterparts and vice versa for rebuttal or surrebuttal but not always on other fact witnesses.

This kind of ties into how bass-ackwards they have chosen to present the evidence in this trial. Get the foundational evidence in which the expert will testify, call him/her and then they can usually stay thereafter until the other party objects. End with the flourish providing motive and intent in supporting Manafort's extravagant lifestyle.

But it seemed odd to me as well, especially with such a stickler to detail as Ellis. No prosecution is ever flawless of course, mistakes and missteps are made, many of which the jury never even knows.

Judge Ellis begins court with mea culpa for outburst over expert
U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis III has raked prosecutors from the special counsel's office over the coals for the past week and a half. But on Thursday, he backed down, telling jurors to ignore one piece of criticism.

"I was critical of counsel for allowing an expert to remain in the courtroom," he said before testimony began. "You may put that aside I may well have been wrong."

Ellis said Thursday that he had not actually read the transcript, which was attached to the government motion.

But, the judge said, "I was probably wrong."

He added that he makes mistakes, "like any human and this robe doesn't make me any more than a human."

He concluded, "Any criticism of counsel should be put aside it doesn't have anything to do with this case."

Okay then. Asked and answered.

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

Judge Ellis begins court with mea culpa for outburst over expert
U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis III has raked prosecutors from the special counsel's office over the coals for the past week and a half. But on Thursday, he backed down, telling jurors to ignore one piece of criticism.

"I was critical of counsel for allowing an expert to remain in the courtroom," he said before testimony began. "You may put that aside I may well have been wrong."

Ellis said Thursday that he had not actually read the transcript, which was attached to the government motion.

But, the judge said, "I was probably wrong."

He added that he makes mistakes, "like any human and this robe doesn't make me any more than a human."

He concluded, "Any criticism of counsel should be put aside it doesn't have anything to do with this case."

---

Can this be used to claim a mistrial if prosecution doesn't get what they want?

No

Nowhere near being grounds for a mistrial.

Plus, prosecution wouldn't ask for one because "double jeopardy" has now attached. It would need to be something extremely egregious to try Manafort again

Who is the Case Agent? Those normally are allowed to sit at counsel table under the Lead Investigator exception to the exclusionary rule. What's the name?

BMX Bandit said:

---

Quote:

---

Rosenstein knew there were some old tax issues with Manafort because he didn't charge him 10 years ago.

---

Has Napolitano ever given his basis for this claim?

Seems like he said it, then it just went away.

---

So was he wrong about Rosenstein dismissing a case, the time, or both?

Rosenstein being the one that stopped investigation

Interesting question. I think the answer has 'conspiracy' somewhere in the response.

aggiehawg said:

---

Okay then. Asked and answered.

---

Going back looking at that transcript it's easy to see how all that got tangled up, but I would have called the Judge's attention to his error in a sidebar and let him cure it. I think memorializing it in a motion could be a mistake, maybe not now, but he will see this judge again down the road on a different case and that will still be on the record.

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Okay then. Asked and answered.

---

Going back looking at that transcript it's easy to see how all that got tangled up, but I would have called the Judge's attention to his error in a sidebar and let him cure it. I think memorializing it in a motion could be a mistake, maybe not now, but he will see this judge again down the road on a different case and that will still be on the record.

---

Not to nit-pick but Asonye practices before Judge Ellis often. If that really is Ellis' SOP in his courtroom, experts are not automatically excepted from the exclusionary rule, burden was on Asonye to clarify that the expert was excepted along with the case agents a/k/a Lead Investigator, in that pre-trial hearing. I think that's why they went the written route. In a sidebar, Ellis might have gone off on him knowing full well that is his SOP. In the end the defense didn't object (although they should have as to the experts) and it's a no harm type of foul.

My WAG.

The puzzling thing to me is why the hell DOJ even cared all that much about individual Russians not getting visas to come to the U.S. Further why Steele would need another POC (point of contact) in case Ohr was fired after Yates was canned in January 2017?

Only thing that makes sense to me is that Steele's efforts to keep Trump from being elected was because Deripaska had been assured he would be fine vis a vis the US if Hillary won. Deripaska was the true master for whom he was working.

Which would explain his desperation late in the campaign to get the story out there. Displeasing Deripaska is deleterious to continuity of breathing.

So after all these pages and pages of yallls expert reviews (which are great).. why don't they just come out and say this was rigged and Trump got F ed by the Hussein administration/FBI?

Are they waiting for the right time (ie elections coming) or is there just a lot of stuff to get hashed out? It's pretty obvious the Obama government tried to frame Trump..

Or does this need to keep playing out?

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

Fascinating the new look of surprise by these emails talking about Steele and Ohr still working together after Steel was dismissed. Glenn Simpson testified to the fact months ago just no one was paying attention, to busy chasing the laser.






Interesting that he says Steele is his connection to Bruce Ohr, not Fusion GPS employee Mrs. (Nellie) Ohr.

---

aggiehawg said:

---

fullback44 said:

---

So after all these pages and pages of yallls expert reviews (which are great).. why don't they just come out and say this was rigged and Trump got F ed by the Hussein administration/FBI?

Are they waiting for the right time (ie elections coming) or is there just a lot of stuff to get hashed out? It's pretty obvious the Obama government tried to frame Trump..

Or does this need to keep playing out?

---

Well, Giuliani pretty much said the Mueller investigation was about blow up in their faces and that the investigators should be investigated.

Granted, it's Giuliani and he is a prone to hyperbole as his client but it's something at least. We'll see.

---

Ready for some action.... like to see Comey take the stand as well as some of these other treasonous perps like John Kerry and so on

fullback44 said:

---

Ready for some action.... like to see Comey take the stand as well as some of these other treasonous perps like John Kerry and so on

---

Steel yourself and lower expectations. I'd put odds at 30/70 we'll see even half of the conspiracy exposed.

VegasAg86 said:

---

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

Fascinating the new look of surprise by these emails talking about Steele and Ohr still working together after Steel was dismissed. Glenn Simpson testified to the fact months ago just no one was paying attention, to busy chasing the laser.






Interesting that he says Steele is his connection to Bruce Ohr, not Fusion GPS employee Mrs. (Nellie) Ohr.

---

---

Not really at the time of that testimony she was an anomaly. He didn't want to out his own employee, and also he testified under oath that no "employee of Fusion GPS" was in contact with FBI. And he also played dumb when asked if he was aware that Steel was in direct communication with the FBI.

Both of Simpsons Transcripts are full of deception, chucked full of contradictions.

Hhm, FNC reporting Steele was on Deripaska's payroll? (No link yet.) Who would have thunk that?

They don't have anything on Trump and Trump enjoys railing against the "witch hunt". Trump supporters eat it up. I don't expect the status quo to change unless it doesn't have value to Trump any more.

Good read.