General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSpeculation: Why Manafort didn't call any witnesses
Last edited Tue Aug 14, 2018, 09:30 PM - Edit history (1)
Nobody was willing to testify that any of the transactions were legitimate.
Va Lefty
(6,252 posts)Either the defense is sure they have a juror who will not vote to convict or they are counting on a pardon from Traitor don
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)People need to remember that his lawyers got to cross and that the prosecution gets the same opportunity with their witnesses. There are reasons to hope that you have caused reasonable doubt with one person based off the prosecutions case alone.
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)The prosecution got a bunch of people to testify that they knew or had reason to suspect something fishy was going on. Manafort couldn't get anyone to testify that a single one of the transactions was legitimate. Calk didn't testify that he wanted the loan approved for legitimate reasons. Nobody he paid with wire transfers said, "Oh, we deal with all sorts of high rollers and many pay with wire transfers from foreign accounts." That sort of thing.
Hoping the prosecution made it's case when you have your own accountant and business partner testifying against you is really a long shot.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Manafort couldn't get anyone to testify that a single one of the transactions was legitimate.
Someone saying the transactions were legitimate can have major negative consequences for Manafort for many reasons.
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)I even added that to my OP.
But how would it have hurt him to demonstrate that he had legitimate reasons for doing what he did, assuming he was able to?
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)They dont just get to sit there without being questioned by the prosecution.
There are other reasons as well.
dawg day
(7,947 posts)And then they can say that the prosecution hasn't proved its case.
However... 18 counts.
And everyone on the jury files tax returns, and they all know you have to sign off on them-- you can't claim ignorance. The prosecution can say, "It's a crime if you lie on your tax return-- it's a crime if he does it. And he did it."
I think he'll be convicted on a few easy counts-- the tax ones-- because those are pretty much self-explanatory.
spooky3
(35,512 posts)Serious counts.
I think the defense had nothing to say. The evidence is overwhelming.
Xolodno
(6,593 posts)..no jail time, just fines.
Sorry, don't have much faith in this.
Grammy23
(5,868 posts)A mountain of it, including his tax returns. Just pure facts. No need for testimony, the documents speak for themselves. So if the jury can read and understand what was presented, Manafort is cooked. Of course, tRump May have other ideas. Guess we will have to see how this plays out.
No wonder tRump has tried so hard to keep his tax returns a deep, dark, secret. There is gold in them thar hills.
ChoppinBroccoli
(3,847 posts)The first reason is that you fear the cross examination of your witnesses. If whatever evidence your witnesses can testify to is outweighed by the damage likely to be done by the prosecution on cross, you rest.
Second, you don't think the prosecution has met his/her burden of proof and don't think there is enough evidence to convict. Resting without putting on a single witness is a bold strategy, but it also conveys confidence to a jury, which might influence their thinking. It's like playing a hand of poker where you raise the maximum amount on every round of betting in an attempt to get everyone else to fold (even if you have nothing in your hand, it conveys to the other players that you think you've got a winner). It doesn't always work (in fact, it often doesn't), but sometimes it's your only shot. And sometimes the prosecutor really hasn't put on enough evidence to convict. Just based on what little I've heard about this trial, it certainly seems like this prosecutor has put on more than enough.
Third, to prevent damaging evidence about your client from coming out. If you're considering putting your own client on the stand in his/her own defense, you have to consider several things. Will he/she make a good witness (i.e. will he/she damage himself/herself by taking the stand)? Is your client's own record going to hurt him/her? Remember that the prosecutor can bring up your prior record if you take the stand. The prosecutor can also ask all kinds of questions that you might not want to answer, and YOU CAN'T LIE. If the answers to those questions will damage you in this trial or in any other future trial, you rest. And probably the biggest reason when it comes to this specific trial, you have to remember that this is just the warm-up for bigger trial coming up later, and whatever Manafort testifies to on the record becomes solid gold evidence against him in any future proceeding. All his admissions he makes on the stand, literally WHATEVER he says on the stand, WILL be introduced into evidence against him in any future proceeding.
My guess is that Manafort's attorneys are willing to sacrifice this "small" trial in order to prevent exposing him in the bigger trial to come. I'm thinking that his attorneys are also concerned that Manafort will bury himself with his answers to certain questions that the prosecutor will DEFINITELY bring up. Plus, he seems like the cocky, I'm-smarter-than-everyone-else type (kinda like Trump, actually) who would get up there and try to smooth-talk his way out of things and end up only burying himself deeper. So, for strategic reasons, I think his attorneys are going to treat this trial as a "preseason game" before the big one.
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)Why is the other trial bigger? This one seems enough to put him away for many years. Even if he wins the other one, he still may die in prison.
ChoppinBroccoli
(3,847 posts)...........but I was told that this trial was "just" the State charges, whereas the trial for the Federal charges will come later. If that's not true, then I was misinformed and I would have to change my analysis.
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)I think Mueller offered to move the DC trial to Virginia and combine it into the current trial, but for some reason, Manafort refused. I don't understand why. The DC judge seems less sympathetic and the jury pool will be less favorable to him.
ChoppinBroccoli
(3,847 posts)......is whether Manafort's attorneys fear him being charged with Treason. If they think the case for Treason against him is flimsy now, but that he might get on the stand and talk himself right into a Treason charge, that might also be another reason to keep him off the stand.
I've been saying for a while now that I think Mueller is just itching to charge Manafort with Treason. And in fact, it might be his "ace in the hole" to get him to flip.