Not surprising.

I've said from the beginning if they can't get Trump on money laundering then they're just incompetent.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Aug 15 2018 07:32am

#MARA

https://www.defensenews.com/congress/2018/08/14/trump-signals-he-may-ignore-russia-provisions-in-defense-bill-he-just-signed/

https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trumps-fight-turkey-helping-russia-undermine-nato-experts-say-1072927

Oops epic fail on the hashtag LOL. Meant #MRGA

I've read some of Mariotti's threads. I think the prosecution has shown a good case for tax and bank fraud, but I also think there is a chance of a mistrial. Maybe Gates was found to be an unreliable witness for whatever reason. Also, the judge has not been kind to the prosecution. Perhaps that's just his style, but you never know what kind of impact that could have on the case.

I don't know as much about this case as you, but my general feel is that it wasn't as much of a slamdunk as it was played up to be. It's white collar crime in America...not everyone plays by the same sets of rules here.

Supposedly the case is strong even without Gates' testimony i've read. The prosecution introduced email evidence right before closing arguments.

Latest ive read on Manafort's defense's closing arguments

-Manafort was part of a team of accountants, bookkeepers, and tax preparers so that means he wasn't trying to hide anything (lol!)

-Mueller made sure only selective evidence was presented and doesn't paint the whole picture (also lol!)

Good luck manafort...

Also the defense tried to again discredit Gates because he was a criminal (like Manafort) lol!

Additionally, Manafort's defense attorneys "violated several of the judges orders in their closing arguments" including references to how the case should've been handled by the IRS (a reference that Judge Ellis barred).

witness credibility shouldn't be tied to the defendant. it wont work, but that part of your post just ignores a pretty basic common legal strategy. it's often effective, though here it likely wont be.

for a practical example, its basically the reason that a crack head who gets into a fight with an officer can never be taken seriously over the officer. even though in reality it should be one's word against another.

They can try to discredit him all they want, the documents are what's going to damn him.

so just manafort? anything else cracking?