What he's doing makes no sense otherwise.
First, he went to trial in Federal court. U.S. Federal courts are like Chinese courts- both have a conviction rate around 98%. The laws, procedures, and court rules are constructed to virtually guarantee convictions. And the judges are mostly pro-prosecution; many actually ARE former prosecutors. I have yet to read of a judge with a background as a defense attorney, much less a Legal Aid lawyer, etc.
Second, Manafort is obviously "guilty" under U.S. law of the charges heaped on his head, "tax fraud" and "bank fraud." U.S. law is very repressive. (Manafort faces possible life in prison on the current charges!) But applying U.S. law, Manafort is guilty. He apparently didn't report all his income to the tax authorities (the IRS, Internal Revenue Service), which is being labeled tax fraud, a crime. (The vast majority of incidents of unreported income are treated as civil matters in the U.S. and the IRS applies penalties and interest, so every criminal prosecution for tax evasion is in a sense selective prosecution.)
The bank fraud charge is another legal curve ball. A bank president hankered after an appointment in the Trump regime, so he approved a loan for Manafort over the objections of his underlings. In other words, he bribed Manafort with a dicey loan. Manafort's paperwork for the loan was inaccurate, but the application was really pro forma, since the bank president made the decision without regard to Manafort's creditworthiness. Yet the false paperwork is the basis for claiming that Manafort "defrauded" the bank- even though the head of the bank was well-aware of what was going on.
In the U.S., the rich are glorified by the media on a daily basis. Filthy rich billionaires like Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, Warren Buffett, and others are feted as figures of admiration. But in this trial, the government prosecutors used a common tactic, stoking class envy and resentment. Their opening gambit was harping on expensive clothes Manafort bought (the media in the U.S. had a great time ridiculing the items of clothing- since they are devoted to bringing down Trump, naturally they are hostile to Manafort). I find it hypocritical for a government that is the handmaiden of the super-rich to do an ideological somersault and play that populist, resent-the-rich card in court.
In this case obviously Manafort was never going to be prosecuted if he hadn't been involved with Trump and thus provides a target for the special prosecutor, former FBI secret police chief Robert S. Mueller III, to use as a vector to get at Trump by forcing Manafort to "cooperate" in the Get Trump campaign of the secret police, most of the major media, and the Democratic Party. The FBI had long known about what Manafort was up to, having interrogated him and his former henchman Rick Gates, an admitted adulterer and crook who embezzled from Manafort (now turned states' evidence) in 2014. At that time the Department of "Justice" didn't see any reason to bring charges, even though they were questioning him about his work for the since-overthrown president of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych. Now however, Mueller is charging him for failing to register as an agent of a foreign power- that charge to be tried in an upcoming, separate trial. And of course the CIA and NSA knew all about his activities, as Manafort was advising the former president of Ukraine when he was in office, retroactively deemed a hostile act since the U.S. subsequently arranged the overthrow of that president. The FBI, DEA, CIA, and other agencies have free access to the NSA's massive databases. All Paul Manafort's telephone calls (the content, not just the metadata, as the mendacious U.S. media keeps lying), emails, websearches, bank transfers, and more are in the NSA's possession, and a search of "Paul Manafort" would instantly pull up all that data, (All your data is in the NSA's paws too.) [1]
So the government knew all about everything Manafort was doing that Mueller has suddenly decided is criminal and merits prosecution.
By the way, Manafort isn't the only person doing what he did. Other political hustlers "advise" foreign "leaders" and don't necessarily register. In Britain, Tony Blair has made millions as an image adviser to tyrants- but UK law isn't U.S. law. In the U.S., Israel has an entire cadre of agents of influence, in and out of the U.S. government, who don't register as their agents.
But the U.S. "justice" system has nothing to do with justice. It is political from start to finish.
Manafort's lawyers didn't call any defense witnesses. Their efforts in the trial were limited to cross-examining the government's witnesses, and making opening and closing arguments. In U.S. trials, prosecutors get to speak last to the jury before the jurors retire to deliberate on a verdict- yet another advantage for the government, as they're making the final impression and can rebut whatever the defense said without contradiction and make any and all manner of prejudicial assertions and slip in distorted or even false facts.
Manafort's defense team tried to blame everything on Rick Gates, the government's "star" witness. I rather doubt a conviction will be avoided. They'll be lucky to even get a hung jury (when the jurors can't agree on a unanimous verdict), in which case Manafort can and will be retried, unless he caves and offers Mueller something incriminating on Trump.
One defense "strategy" seems to be relying on a guilty verdict being overturned on appeal. Seems to me Manafort's lawyers are taking him for a ride, one very profitable for them. (Manafort had five very expensive lawyers in court for the trial.)
I can only guess that Manafort expects Trump to ultimately pardon him (after Manafort has been drained of hundreds of thousands of dollars by his lawyers). If that is what Manafort is counting on, he's a fool. He probably doesn't have any genuine information that could convict Trump of anything. Because it is obvious there was no conspiracy between Trump or anyone else and the Russians to hack computers or somehow fix the election. So Trump has no incentive to pardon Manafort.
1] "Manafort Asks Federal Judge in Virginia to Dismiss Fraud Case," Bloomberg, March 27, 2018. Manafort's lawyers filed a pre-trial motion, which Bloomberg News described thusly:
In his filing, Manafort [that is, Manafort's lawyers] refers to Justice Department interest in his activities that preceded his work as [Trump's] campaign chairman. In July 2014, he met with U.S. prosecutors and Federal Bureau of Investigation agents to discuss his offshore consulting activities, the filing said.
“The DOJ had thus already investigated Mr. Manafort’s tax filings for the time period covered by the indictment” and chose not to charge him, according to the filing. “The Special Counsel was obviously the driving force behind the decision to charge Mr. Manafort.”
First, he went to trial in Federal court. U.S. Federal courts are like Chinese courts- both have a conviction rate around 98%. The laws, procedures, and court rules are constructed to virtually guarantee convictions. And the judges are mostly pro-prosecution; many actually ARE former prosecutors. I have yet to read of a judge with a background as a defense attorney, much less a Legal Aid lawyer, etc.
Second, Manafort is obviously "guilty" under U.S. law of the charges heaped on his head, "tax fraud" and "bank fraud." U.S. law is very repressive. (Manafort faces possible life in prison on the current charges!) But applying U.S. law, Manafort is guilty. He apparently didn't report all his income to the tax authorities (the IRS, Internal Revenue Service), which is being labeled tax fraud, a crime. (The vast majority of incidents of unreported income are treated as civil matters in the U.S. and the IRS applies penalties and interest, so every criminal prosecution for tax evasion is in a sense selective prosecution.)
The bank fraud charge is another legal curve ball. A bank president hankered after an appointment in the Trump regime, so he approved a loan for Manafort over the objections of his underlings. In other words, he bribed Manafort with a dicey loan. Manafort's paperwork for the loan was inaccurate, but the application was really pro forma, since the bank president made the decision without regard to Manafort's creditworthiness. Yet the false paperwork is the basis for claiming that Manafort "defrauded" the bank- even though the head of the bank was well-aware of what was going on.
In the U.S., the rich are glorified by the media on a daily basis. Filthy rich billionaires like Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, Warren Buffett, and others are feted as figures of admiration. But in this trial, the government prosecutors used a common tactic, stoking class envy and resentment. Their opening gambit was harping on expensive clothes Manafort bought (the media in the U.S. had a great time ridiculing the items of clothing- since they are devoted to bringing down Trump, naturally they are hostile to Manafort). I find it hypocritical for a government that is the handmaiden of the super-rich to do an ideological somersault and play that populist, resent-the-rich card in court.
In this case obviously Manafort was never going to be prosecuted if he hadn't been involved with Trump and thus provides a target for the special prosecutor, former FBI secret police chief Robert S. Mueller III, to use as a vector to get at Trump by forcing Manafort to "cooperate" in the Get Trump campaign of the secret police, most of the major media, and the Democratic Party. The FBI had long known about what Manafort was up to, having interrogated him and his former henchman Rick Gates, an admitted adulterer and crook who embezzled from Manafort (now turned states' evidence) in 2014. At that time the Department of "Justice" didn't see any reason to bring charges, even though they were questioning him about his work for the since-overthrown president of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych. Now however, Mueller is charging him for failing to register as an agent of a foreign power- that charge to be tried in an upcoming, separate trial. And of course the CIA and NSA knew all about his activities, as Manafort was advising the former president of Ukraine when he was in office, retroactively deemed a hostile act since the U.S. subsequently arranged the overthrow of that president. The FBI, DEA, CIA, and other agencies have free access to the NSA's massive databases. All Paul Manafort's telephone calls (the content, not just the metadata, as the mendacious U.S. media keeps lying), emails, websearches, bank transfers, and more are in the NSA's possession, and a search of "Paul Manafort" would instantly pull up all that data, (All your data is in the NSA's paws too.) [1]
So the government knew all about everything Manafort was doing that Mueller has suddenly decided is criminal and merits prosecution.
By the way, Manafort isn't the only person doing what he did. Other political hustlers "advise" foreign "leaders" and don't necessarily register. In Britain, Tony Blair has made millions as an image adviser to tyrants- but UK law isn't U.S. law. In the U.S., Israel has an entire cadre of agents of influence, in and out of the U.S. government, who don't register as their agents.
But the U.S. "justice" system has nothing to do with justice. It is political from start to finish.
Manafort's lawyers didn't call any defense witnesses. Their efforts in the trial were limited to cross-examining the government's witnesses, and making opening and closing arguments. In U.S. trials, prosecutors get to speak last to the jury before the jurors retire to deliberate on a verdict- yet another advantage for the government, as they're making the final impression and can rebut whatever the defense said without contradiction and make any and all manner of prejudicial assertions and slip in distorted or even false facts.
Manafort's defense team tried to blame everything on Rick Gates, the government's "star" witness. I rather doubt a conviction will be avoided. They'll be lucky to even get a hung jury (when the jurors can't agree on a unanimous verdict), in which case Manafort can and will be retried, unless he caves and offers Mueller something incriminating on Trump.
One defense "strategy" seems to be relying on a guilty verdict being overturned on appeal. Seems to me Manafort's lawyers are taking him for a ride, one very profitable for them. (Manafort had five very expensive lawyers in court for the trial.)
I can only guess that Manafort expects Trump to ultimately pardon him (after Manafort has been drained of hundreds of thousands of dollars by his lawyers). If that is what Manafort is counting on, he's a fool. He probably doesn't have any genuine information that could convict Trump of anything. Because it is obvious there was no conspiracy between Trump or anyone else and the Russians to hack computers or somehow fix the election. So Trump has no incentive to pardon Manafort.
You handsome devil, you! (What, no $15,000 ostrich jacket?)
1] "Manafort Asks Federal Judge in Virginia to Dismiss Fraud Case," Bloomberg, March 27, 2018. Manafort's lawyers filed a pre-trial motion, which Bloomberg News described thusly:
In his filing, Manafort [that is, Manafort's lawyers] refers to Justice Department interest in his activities that preceded his work as [Trump's] campaign chairman. In July 2014, he met with U.S. prosecutors and Federal Bureau of Investigation agents to discuss his offshore consulting activities, the filing said.
“The DOJ had thus already investigated Mr. Manafort’s tax filings for the time period covered by the indictment” and chose not to charge him, according to the filing. “The Special Counsel was obviously the driving force behind the decision to charge Mr. Manafort.”
No comments:
Post a Comment