No worries Dixie.

I have watched it twice nice now. Catherine Herridge reported that Team Mueller sicced the Comptroller onto FSB for the 2016 loans to Manafort. Meaning that the loans had not attracted regulatory attention until Mueller urged attention to it.

Not so say that it was illegal at all. In fact Hank Paulson used the FDIC head to intimidate his way through to TARP with the major banks being required to all take a bite of the s*** sandwich or face the wrath of the FDIC. Skeezy but legal.

But also evidence of selective prosecution, which was a subject of yet another whine by the prosecution about the closing arguments of the defense today.

I also noted that Ellis' instruction to the jury to disregard his own comments was quite watered down. He effectively said they could assign whatever weight they wished as opposed to an instruction that his comments are not to be considered as evidence. Again, according to Herridge.

Hhmm.

aggiehawg said:

---

He effectively said they could assign whatever weight they wished as opposed to an instruction that his comments are not to be considered as evidence.

---

That's probably worse than no instruction at all. "I am an old man, a long-tenured federal judge, and you've been in my court room for the last several weeks for this trial. Assess my credibility however you feel like it."

Talk about a gift.

I'm waiting for the transcript to see what he actually said, of course. But Herridge is usually pretty reliable.

Seems off to me that he would go that far.

drcrinum said:

---

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/aug/15/adam-lovinger-pentagon-analyst-lost-security-clear/

Quote:

---

A Trump-supporting Pentagon analyst was stripped of his security clearance by Obama-appointed officials after he complained of questionable government contracts to Stefan Halper, the FBI informant who spied on the Trump presidential campaign.

Adam Lovinger, a 12-year strategist in the Pentagon's Office of Net Assessment, complained to his bosses about Halper contracts in the fall of 2016, his attorney, Sean M. Bigley, told The Washington Times.

On May 1, 2017, his superiors yanked his security clearance and relegated him to clerical chores.

Mr. Bigley filed a complaint July 18 with the Pentagon's senior ethics official, charging that Mr. Lovinger's superiors misused the security clearance process to punish him. He said his client complained about excessive "sweetheart" deals for Mr. Halper and for a "best friend" of Chelsea Clinton....

---

Interesting tidbit.

---

LOL.. Thanks. Brock Landers is claiming security clearances are some sort of right on the Brennan thread.

Retaliation against good faith reporting of possible irregularities or misdeeds is usually unlawful.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/fbi-mueller-team-obscured-two-key-papadopoulos-meetings-in-legal-documents_2625190.html

Quote:

---

Two key meetings involving Trump foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos appear to have been intentionally obscured in legal documents unsealed by the FBI and special counsel Robert Mueller.

The documents also shed light on the unusual timing of Papadopoulos's agreement with Mueller's team, which was reached within hours after he was arrestedwithout a lawyer present....

---

Good read. It's a little complicated for extracts. Mueller & Company are hiding stuff about Papadopoulos and his contacts.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1029924124691456000.html

Techno Fog's (an attorney) analysis of the closing defense argument/transcript for Manafort.

drcrinum said:

---

https://www.theepochtimes.com/fbi-mueller-team-obscured-two-key-papadopoulos-meetings-in-legal-documents_2625190.html

Quote:

---

Two key meetings involving Trump foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos appear to have been intentionally obscured in legal documents unsealed by the FBI and special counsel Robert Mueller.

The documents also shed light on the unusual timing of Papadopoulos's agreement with Mueller's team, which was reached within hours after he was arrestedwithout a lawyer present....

---

Good read. It's a little complicated for extracts. Mueller & Company are hiding stuff about Papadopoulos and his contacts.

---

Now this explains what was going on with the strange filings two days ago in the Papadopoulos case. Suddenly after he's already pled out a year ago they are filing a "Protective Order regarding Discovery". Mueller is caught again with these shady charging documents.

aggiehawg said:

---

I'm waiting for the transcript to see what he actually said, of course. But Herridge is usually pretty reliable.

Seems off to me that he would go that far.

---

I'm liking the closing arguement put together by the defense. Pretty solid work

Reasonable doubt for sure

I dont see how there is any reasonable doubt on the tax charge.

If Manafort walks on that, his lawyers deserve a gold star for clouding the issues

BMX Bandit said:

---

I dont see how there is any reasonable doubt on the tax charge.

If Manafort walks on that, his lawyers deserve a gold star for clouding the issues

---

Isn't the argument that this is an issue the IRS can/should handle?

I disagree very strongly with Trump on one major issue. It is not a swamp. It is a a cesspool filled with every kind of slime ball and human garbage imaginable and unimaginable.

FriscoKid said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

I dont see how there is any reasonable doubt on the tax charge.

If Manafort walks on that, his lawyers deserve a gold star for clouding the issues

---

Isn't the argument that this is an issue the IRS can/should handle?

---

its an argument, but not a legal argument to raise reasonable doubt on whether or not he's guilty.

BMX Bandit said:

---

I dont see how there is any reasonable doubt on the tax charge.

If Manafort walks on that, his lawyers deserve a gold star for clouding the issues

---

Tend to agree HOWEVER the IRS expert relied on a chart (Exhibit) created by someone "at the FBI" to determine deposits to the bank accounts were income. He didn't see all of the source documents only "some" according to his testimony.

That's problematical because of Gates. Without knowing how expenses and costs were to be reimbursed in accordance with the various consultancy agreements, how would the expert know for sure everything was income? Gates was embezzling using expense accounts. If he's submitting false expense accounts to his boss isn't he also submitting false expenses to the client at some point? And wouldn't the IRS expert want to know which was which in determining income?

Now, I'm not sure the jury will really click to that defect in the proof. They could just as easily rely completely on the word of the IRS expert as not.

What is good for Manafort in regards the time it takes the jury to reach conclusions? Long deliberations? Short deliberations?

SpreadsheetAg said:

---

What is good for Manafort in regards the time it takes the jury to reach conclusions? Long deliberations? Short deliberations?

---

I would imagine the longer deliberations are, the better for Manafort.

*** I'm no expert, and I did not stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night either.

SpreadsheetAg said:

---

What is good for Manafort in regards the time it takes the jury to reach conclusions? Long deliberations? Short deliberations?

---

Long. Increases the chances of a hung jury. They have 18 counts to go through and vote on. Each one must be unanimous. If they deliberate for only a few hours, say four or five, guilty verdict is more likely. If deliberations continue more than a day, they are hung somewhere on one or more of the counts.

Pretty much right. In almost all criminal cases, the longer the better.

Does the jury have the case now? Anyone know?

blindey said:

---

Pretty much right. In almost all criminal cases, the longer the better.

Does the jury have the case now? Anyone know?

---

Yes they've had it for a couple of hours

blindey said:

---

Pretty much right. In almost all criminal cases, the longer the better.

Does the jury have the case now? Anyone know?

---

I had a Fox News alert on my phone last night saying "Jury deliberations in Paul Manafort trial to begin Thursday morning, judge says."

I am like 99.9% sure Manafort is guilty of something. But, the melt would be all time if he walked on all charges.

Papadopoulos' wife came out yesterday to seek a new legal team to vacate the plea deal.

If he is acquitted across the board, I will be shocked. Hung jury would mildly surprise me as would guilty on all charges. Guilty on a small subset (tax related) is my expectation.

But juries are fickle. You really never know.

aggiehawg said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

I dont see how there is any reasonable doubt on the tax charge.

If Manafort walks on that, his lawyers deserve a gold star for clouding the issues

---

Tend to agree HOWEVER the IRS expert relied on a chart (Exhibit) created by someone "at the FBI" to determine deposits to the bank accounts were income. He didn't see all of the source documents only "some" according to his testimony.

That's problematical because of Gates. Without knowing how expenses and costs were to be reimbursed in accordance with the various consultancy agreements, how would the expert know for sure everything was income? Gates was embezzling using expense accounts. If he's submitting false expense accounts to his boss isn't he also submitting false expenses to the client at some point? And wouldn't the IRS expert want to know which was which in determining income?

Now, I'm not sure the jury will really click to that defect in the proof. They could just as easily rely completely on the word of the IRS expert as not.

---

This caught my attention as well. Did the prosecution actually prove up enough of the income? If not, that's an appellate point or you could see the judge throwing out that charge even if the jury convicts.

Quote:

---

This caught my attention as well. Did the prosecution actually prove up enough of the income? If not, that's an appellate point or you could see the judge throwing out that charge even if the jury convicts.

---

Or conversely did they quantify the amount of Gates' embezzlement? Was it several hundreds of thousands? Millions? How much?


The accounting here is less than stellar it would appear. At least to me there are some questions.

aggiehawg said:

---

I'm waiting for the transcript to see what he actually said, of course. But Herridge is usually pretty reliable.

Seems off to me that he would go that far.

---

not surprised at all based on what I have seen the OCC do

Sasappis said:

---

blindey said:

---

If he is acquitted across the board, I will be shocked. Hung jury would mildly surprise me as would guilty on all charges. Guilty on a small subset (tax related) is my expectation.

But juries are fickle. You really never know.

---

Much more likely he is guilty on all charges as opposed to not guilty on them all.

I anticipate him being convicted on most to all of the charges.

The taxes/failure to disclose foreign accounts is very simple and straightforward. As are the fact that he lied on the loan applications.

---

Practical question....

What's the difference between loan fraud and signing a loan that contains false information?

The point is not a defense of Manafort as much as it's a potential poke at Mueller's case. Maybe the EDVA didn't bring these cases because they didn't think there was enough evidence of mens rea on these charges.

I suspect he'll get convicted on not disclosing the foreign accounts and acquitted on the other charges...and it will happen due to horse trading in the jury room some time tomorrow so they can all go home.

Quote:

---

Practical question....

What's the difference between loan fraud and signing a loan that contains false information?

---

false information is just that its wrong.

bank fraud is:

Whoever knowingly executes, or attempts to execute, a scheme or artifice
(1)
to defraud a financial institution; or
(2)
to obtain any of the moneys, funds, credits, assets, securities, or other property owned by, or under the custody or control of, a financial institution, by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises;
shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both.

this is how 5th circuit instructs (sorry for the cut & paste error):

Title 18, United States Code, Section 1344(1) makes it a crime for anyone to knowingly execute a scheme or artice to defraud a nancial institution. For you to nd the defendant guilty of this crime, you must be convinced that the government has proved each of the following beyond a reasonable doubt:

First: That the defendant knowingly executed a scheme or artice;

Second: That the scheme or artice was to defraud a nancial institution, as alleged in the indictment;

Third: That the defendant had the intent to defraud the nancial institution;

Fourth: That the scheme or artice to defraud was material [employed a false material representation] [concealed a material fact]; and

Fifth: That the defendant placed the nancial institution at risk of civil liability or nancial loss. A "scheme or artice" means any plan, pattern, or course of action intended to deceive others in order to obtain something of value, such as money, from the institution to be deceived. [Such a scheme or artice can involve a scheme to deprive a nancial institution of the intangible right to honest services through soliciting or accepting bribes or kickbacks. [Dene "bribery" pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 201(b) or 665(a)(2) or state law; dene "kickback" pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 52(2) or state law].]
It is not necessary that the government prove all of the details alleged in the indictment concerning the precise nature of the alleged scheme or artice, or that the alleged scheme or artice actually succeeded. What must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt is that the accused knowingly executed a scheme that was substantially similar to the scheme alleged in the indictment. [A representation is "false" if it is known to be untrue or is made with reckless indierence as to its truth or falsity. A representation is also "false" when it constitutes a half truth, or eectively omits or conceals a material fact, provided it is made with intent to defraud.] A scheme [representation] [concealment] is "material" if it has a natural tendency to inuence, or is capable of inuencing, the institution to which it is addressed. A defendant acts with the requisite "intent to defraud" if the defendant acted knowingly and with the specic intent to deceive, ordinarily for the purpose of causing some nancial loss to another or bringing about some nancial gain to the defendant. "Financial institution" means [insert appropriate denition from 18 U.S.C. 20]. To prove that "the defendant placed the nancial institution at risk of civil liability or nancial loss," it is not necessary for the government to demonstrate that the nancial institution actually suered civil liability or nancial loss, or that it faced a substantial likelihood of risk of loss.