Indictment-O-Rama 2: The Lying Game

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

This could be interesting:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The most remarkable thing here is that people seem to be taking anything Omarosa says at face value.  She has as much credibility as Trump which is to say anything she says should be treated as a lie until proven otherwise.  While Trump is also a dim-witted lowlife, he's not wrong to call Omarosa one.

Sometimes it’s fun to watch two horrible, hateful beings destroy each other.

Fair

[Badger]

Peter Strzok fired:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fbi-agent-peter-strzok-fired-over-anti-trump-texts/2018/08/13/be98f84c-8e8b-11e8-b769-e3fff17f0689_story.html

Downright criminal. This is so exhausting.

[Sir Mohamed]

This could be interesting:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Lol the writers sure have come up with an interesting twist in that case

Omarosa obviously got under Drumpf's thin skin. He just lashed out against her on Twitter a couple of times today, but this one is the best (so far):

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1029329583672307712

[KingSweden]

This could be interesting:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Lol the writers sure have come up with an interesting twist in that case

Omarosa obviously got under Drumpf's thin skin. He just lashed out against her on Twitter a couple of times today, but this one is the best (so far):

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1029329583672307712

I unfollow you, Omarosa. John Kelly is
My best friend now

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

This could be interesting:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Lol the writers sure have come up with an interesting twist in that case

Omarosa obviously got under Drumpf's thin skin. He just lashed out against her on Twitter a couple of times today, but this one is the best (so far):

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1029329583672307712

Combined with this:https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1029002242932834310

This would appear to be a full confession from Trump that his only actual standard in hiring is that people appeal to his narcissism.

[Sir Mohamed]

This could be interesting:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Lol the writers sure have come up with an interesting twist in that case

Omarosa obviously got under Drumpf's thin skin. He just lashed out against her on Twitter a couple of times today, but this one is the best (so far):

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1029329583672307712

Combined with this:https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1029002242932834310

This would appear to be a full confession from Trump that his only actual standard in hiring is that people appeal to his narcissism.

True, Drumpf is simply too stupid to notice that he's permanently contradicting himself. "I fired Comey because of Russia", "I didn't fire him because of Russia"; "I didn't know about a Stormy Daniels payment", "He knew about the payment [Giuliani]; "I didn't know about the Trump Tower meeting and it was only about adoption", "It was opposition research, which is very routine" (No, Mr. President, it is NOT). I could go on and on and on. Notice a pattern? I don't know how anybody can still defend him.

His lawyers don't want him to sit down with Bob Mueller for a very good reason.

[Silent Hunter]

Manafort's defence team are not calling any witnesses.

[KingSweden]

Manafort's defence team are not calling any witnesses.

Bold move, Cotton. Let’s see if it works out.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Manafort's defence team are not calling any witnesses.

Bold move, Cotton. Let’s see if it works out.

That’s actually a smart move in this case, tbh.

[KingSweden]

Manafort's defence team are not calling any witnesses.

Bold move, Cotton. Let’s see if it works out.

That’s actually a smart move in this case, tbh.

IANAL so how so?

[emailking]

IANAL so how so?

I don't know if this is the logic, but one way it which it can be a good move is if you think the prosecution was holding out on some of their best arguments for cross examination of a key witness.

I imagine though they just don't have much of a case and so don't want to make fools of themselves which could hurt their standing with the jury. They can argue in the closing that the prosecution didn't meet their burden.

[SteveRogers]

Manafort's defence team are not calling any witnesses.

Bold move, Cotton. Let’s see if it works out.

That’s actually a smart move in this case, tbh.

IANAL so how so?

It’s pretty common if the defense thinks that their strongest argument is that the prosecution’s case is all circumstantial and that the burden of proof hasn’t been met. In that case, no need to overcomplicate things for the jury by putting on defense witnesses. Just drop the mic and argue like hell in closing that the government has wasted everyone’s time by bringing such a weak case.

[Silent Hunter]

The last guy who I know declined to bring any evidence in his own defence was the man who killed Jo Cox. It didn't work out for him - he was given a whole life term.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Manafort's defence team are not calling any witnesses.

Bold move, Cotton. Let’s see if it works out.

That’s actually a smart move in this case, tbh.

IANAL so how so?

Manafort’s team doesn’t have much to work with and Giuliani-style gibberish/only calling a few witnesses looks pretty bad to a jury.  And putting Manafort on the stand mean a brutal cross-examination.  The best play left for Manafort is to focus on attacking the credibility of the prosecution witnesses and pray one of the jurors really thinks it is a politically-motivated witchhunt.

[Person Man]

Manafort's defence team are not calling any witnesses.

Bold move, Cotton. Let’s see if it works out.

That’s actually a smart move in this case, tbh.

IANAL so how so?

Manafort’s team doesn’t have much to work with and Giuliani-style gibberish/only calling a few witnesses looks pretty bad to a jury.  And putting Manafort on the stand mean a brutal cross-examination.  The best bet is play left for Manafort is to focus on attacking the credibility of the prosecution witnesses and pray one of the jurors really thinks it is a politically-motivated witchhunt.

Imagine the drama of a juror-nullification induced mistrial...

[BudgieForce]

Manafort's defence team are not calling any witnesses.

Bold move, Cotton. Let’s see if it works out.

That’s actually a smart move in this case, tbh.

IANAL so how so?

Manafort’s team doesn’t have much to work with and Giuliani-style gibberish/only calling a few witnesses looks pretty bad to a jury.  And putting Manafort on the stand mean a brutal cross-examination.  The best bet is play left for Manafort is to focus on attacking the credibility of the prosecution witnesses and pray one of the jurors really thinks it is a politically-motivated witchhunt.

Imagine the drama of a juror-nullification induced mistrial...

Given Judge Ellis's behavior during this, I think many would just go after him. 

[Silent Hunter]

Anyway, jury are considering their verdicts on that one, so it's "piece of string" time on that and wait for your phone notifications.

[GeorgiaModerate]

Excellent summary of the Manafort trial by Natasha Bertrand, whose reporting is always worthwhile: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/08/the-governments-technical-jargony-revealing-case-against-paul-manafort/567661/.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Anyway, jury are considering their verdicts on that one, so it's "piece of string" time on that and wait for your phone notifications.

Like I said before, the evidence is pretty overwhelming here.  The only real hope for the defense is that you get a random juror who believes this is just a big witchhunt (which I suspect is one reason Mueller started with charges from before Manafort was managing Trump’s campaign).  Btw, people are reading way too much into the judge’s comments.  They’re not ideal, but they’re not unusual either and won’t effect the outcome.  Tbh, speeding things along was probably in the prosecution’s best interest and it’s harder for the defense to argue on appeal (and there will probably be an appeal) that Manafort wasn’t being given a fair hearing.

I suppose the defense could also hope a juror buys into the “Gates was the mastermind” line, but that’s a bit like John Gotti saying “it was all Sammy’s [Gravano] idea!  He’s the brains of the operation and this is a giant frame-up job.  I’m just your average blue collar construction worker who goes around in thousand dollar suits and gives bartenders $180 tips just for keeping the beer cold.  I was just venting when I told my associates to whack people on a federal wiretap, I was as surprised as anyone when the guy who hit my son with a car got dumped in acid by four mobsters.”  I mean, that’s basically how out there the “Gates is the real mastermind” Hail Mary is given the mountain of evidence against Manafort.

[Silent Hunter]

Well, it's 4.55pm EDT now, so we might not get anything today.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Well, it's 4.55pm EDT now, so we might not get anything today.

I mean, they can go as late as they want.

[Silent Hunter]

Yes, but at some point, they've got to call it a day and resume in the morning, haven't they?

[Hindsight was 2020]

JFC Manafort might actually walk https://mobile.twitter.com/mkraju/status/1030202154479484930

[KingSweden]

Well, it's 4.55pm EDT now, so we might not get anything today.

I mean, they can go as late as they want.

Jury deliberations can take days if I’m not mistaken. Especially in a case like this, where I imagine they are going charge by charge

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

JFC Manafort might actually walk https://mobile.twitter.com/mkraju/status/1030202154479484930

That's some pretty forced reading of a note that might equally well be about copies of evidence or ordering pizza.