[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Joe Rogan Experience #2138 - Tucker Carlson

Police Dispersing Student Protesters at USC - Breaking News Coverage (College Protests)

What Passover Means For The New Testament Believer

Are We Closer Than Ever To The Next Pandemic?

War in Ukraine Turns on Russia

what happened during total solar eclipse

Israel Attacks Iran, Report Says - LIVE Breaking News Coverage

Earth is Scorched with Heat

Antiwar Activists Chant ‘Death to America’ at Event Featuring Chicago Alderman

Vibe Shift

A stream that makes the pleasant Rain sound.

Older Men - Keep One Foot In The Dark Ages

When You Really Want to Meet the Diversity Requirements

CERN to test world's most powerful particle accelerator during April's solar eclipse

Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone

No - no - no Ain'T going To get away with iT

Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots

Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks

Questioning the Big Bang

James Webb Data Contradicts the Big Bang

Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began

A fine romance: how humans and chimps just couldn't let go

Early humans had sex with chimps

O’Keefe dons bulletproof vest to extract undercover journalist from NGO camp.

Biblical Contradictions (Alleged)

Catholic Church Praising Lucifer

Raising the Knife

One Of The HARDEST Videos I Had To Make..

Houthi rebels' attack severely damages a Belize-flagged ship in key strait leading to the Red Sea (British Ship)

Chinese Illegal Alien. I'm here for the moneuy

Red Tides Plague Gulf Beaches

Tucker Carlson calls out Nikki Haley, Ben Shapiro, and every other person calling for war:

{Are there 7 Deadly Sins?} I’ve heard people refer to the “7 Deadly Sins,” but I haven’t been able to find that sort of list in Scripture.

Abomination of Desolation | THEORY, BIBLE STUDY

Bible Help

Libertysflame Database Updated

Crush EVERYONE with the Alien Gambit!

Vladimir Putin tells Tucker Carlson US should stop arming Ukraine to end war

Putin hints Moscow and Washington in back-channel talks in revealing Tucker Carlson interview

Trump accuses Fulton County DA Fani Willis of lying in court response to Roman's motion

Mandatory anti-white racism at Disney.

Iceland Volcano Erupts For Third Time In 2 Months, State Of Emergency Declared

Tucker Carlson Interview with Vladamir Putin

How will Ar Mageddon / WW III End?

What on EARTH is going on in Acts 16:11? New Discovery!

2023 Hottest in over 120 Million Years

2024 and beyond in prophecy

Questions

This Speech Just Broke the Internet

This AMAZING Math Formula Will Teach You About God!


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

United States News
See other United States News Articles

Title: Manafort Judge to Prosecutor: ‘There’s Tears in Your Eyes’
Source: Bloomberg
URL Source: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti ... tor-there-s-tears-in-your-eyes
Published: Aug 7, 2018
Author: David Voreacos, Andrew M Harris, and Dan
Post Date: 2018-08-07 11:20:49 by nolu chan
Keywords: None
Views: 1627
Comments: 20

Manafort Judge to Prosecutor: ‘There’s Tears in Your Eyes’

By David Voreacos, Andrew M Harris, and Daniel Flatley
Bloomberg
August 7, 2018, 6:25 AM CDT

Tensions at the Paul Manafort fraud trial grew so heated Monday that the judge suggested that one of Robert Mueller’s prosecutors was crying during a discussion out of the jury’s earshot, according to a transcript of the proceedings.

“I understand how frustrated you are,” U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis III said during the discussion. “In fact, there’s tears in your eyes right now.’’

When Prosecutor Greg Andres protested that he didn’t have tears in his eyes, the judge shot back: “Well, they’re watery.”

The exchange came during testimony by Manafort’s former right-hand man, Rick Gates, who offered dramatic details about how he stole hundreds of thousands of dollars from his boss while helping him hide offshore accounts from U.S. tax authorities and defraud bankers to secure loans.

Mueller’s team has clashed repeatedly with Ellis, who questions the relevance of detailed evidence about Manafort’s work as a political consultant in Ukraine, where prosecutors say he made more than $60 million from 2010 to 2014. Some of those confrontations continued in bench conferences that jurors and dozens of media members couldn’t hear in federal court in Alexandria, Virginia.

Andres complained that Ellis was blocking him from asking important questions while placing an emphasis on moving quickly at the bank- and tax-fraud trial of Manafort, President Donald Trump’s former campaign chairman. Ellis disagreed, saying he wasn’t emphasizing speed over substance. The judge continued that delay is unnecessary, and prosecutors should stick to the relevant evidence.

What follows is taken from the transcript:

“Look at me when you’re talking to me,” Ellis said to Andres.

“I’m sorry, judge, I was,” Andres said.

“No, you weren’t,” Ellis said. “You were looking down.”

“Because I don’t want to get in trouble for some facial expression,” the prosecutor said. “I don’t want to get yelled at again by the court for having some facial expression when I’m not doing anything wrong, but trying my case.”

Ellis said to another prosecutor: “You must be quiet.”

“I’m sorry, judge,” Andres said.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 19.

#2. To: nolu chan (#0) (Edited)

The prosecutors can't appeal a Not Guilty verdict, but I hope Ellis isn't setting himself up for a mistrial argument on the basis of bias.

Some of those confrontations continued in bench conferences that jurors and dozens of media members couldn’t hear in federal court in Alexandria, Virginia.
Unless they're sequestered, they'll hear about it.

Hank Rearden  posted on  2018-08-07   11:30:20 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: Hank Rearden (#2) (Edited)

I hope Ellis isn't setting himself up for a mistrial argument on the basis of bias.

That is the default position of ALL Democrats-Commies, isn't it?

Ellis knows this entire case is based on nothing but smoke & warped mirrors, and a agitprop BS. I think you're right in anticipating the Dems eventual move to dismiss the Judge as "prejudicial".

Dems truly believe ALL decisions AGAINST Dems-Lefties IS "bias". OR "bigotry". OR racism/sexism/xenophobia, etc.

NOTHING should surprise us since we currently live in a State of Kangaroo Courts of public-opinion and virtual Anarchy. No longer have we a pesky pseudo-Constitution and Law to get in the way of fascist place these Dem-Left & their weaselly cousins (the GOPe colluders) plan on taking us.

Liberator  posted on  2018-08-07   15:26:33 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#11. To: Liberator, Justified, Hank Rearden (#7)

[Liberator #7] Ellis knows this entire case is based on nothing but smoke & warped mirrors, and a agitprop BS.

I believe part of the Manafort defense was to claim that much money reflected as earned from Ukraine was never paid, so his tax returns accurately reflected what he believed to be his true and accurate income. However, the inflated figures were used on loan applications. Such argument could create reasonable doubt about Manafort's guilt regarding income tax charges, but could facilitate proving charges of falsified loan application charges. It would not be a walk, but it would be the next best thing.

Just an FYI for a court happening today, continuing from yesterday. I have seen a few reports blown out of proportion, so here is the actual Mueller motion for a curative instruction.

USA v Manafort, 18-cr-83 (9 Aug 2018) Doc 216, Government's Motion for Curative Instruction

On Thursday morning, Judge Ellis issued a curative instruction to the jury, “Put aside any criticism. I was probably wrong in that," regarding Wednesday about an expert witness from the IRS having been covered by an order to exclude witnesses from the proceedings except for during their testimony.

In another update, Cindy Laporta, the CPA who testified earlier that she knew, or suspected, tax claims were fraudulent, had her employment with the Virginia accounting firm Kositzka, Wicks & Co. terminated. It is very possible her license may follow.

nolu chan  posted on  2018-08-09   17:22:25 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#12. To: Liberator, Justified, Hank Rearden (#11)

Today's minor kerfuffle. Another government motion for curative instruction.

https://www.scribd.com/document/385909122/USA-v-Manafort-18-cr-83-10-Aug-2018-Doc-223-Government-s-Motion-for-Curative-Instruction

At page 1937 of the transcript, page 32 of 32 of the transcript excerpt appended to the government motion for curative instruction:

Mr. Asonye for the government.
Mr. Nanavati for defendant Paul Manafort.

Q. Was the Union Street loan ever funded?
A. No, it was not.
Q. Do you know why?
A. No, I don't. I was never given a specific reason for it, me personally. I was just told that we weren't moving forward with the loan.
MR. ASONYE: The Court's indulgence?
No further questions, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Nanavati.
MR. NANAVATI: Yes, Your Honor. Thank you.
THE COURT: You might want to spend time on a loan that was granted.
MR. NANAVATI: Thank you, Your Honor.
MR. ASONYE: Your Honor, I just want to note that this is a -- this is a charged count in the indictment.
THE COURT: I know that.

MR. ASONYE: Oh, okay.

nolu chan  posted on  2018-08-10   14:09:09 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#13. To: nolu chan, Justified, Hank Rearden (#12)

Thanks for your follow up.

The Gummint prosecution is embarrassing itself. But neither they, the Dems or Sessions care. It's *perception* that matters. And it provides fodder to CNN/MSNBC, lib-left MSM etal.

The Manafort Case is definitive Deep State "Because-We-Can!" weaponizing, abuse of power and Gestapo-ism, having NOTHING to do with "National Security" or "Law Enforcement". Fascinating how this turns out.

The players of the Deep State seem to be tentacles of not only 0bama's Machination, but of the International/NWO Elite's. No matter how this turns out., America is irreparably damaged (part of the NWO "Wish-List" IMO).

Nolu, if you can analyze, breakdown and editorialize your opinion on stuff like this, I know I'd appreciate it.

Liberator  posted on  2018-08-10   14:27:45 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#14. To: Liberator, Justified, Hank Rearden (#13)

https://twitter.com/ZoeTillman/status/1029115887813623809

The judge allowed the govt to introduce evidence that Manafort's businesses didn't file foreign bank account reports, over defense objection (they argued it wasn't relevant to whether Manafort individually willfully failed to file required FBARs).

https://twitter.com/BBuchman_CNS/status/1029121423175020546

Judge T.S. Ellis III has said he will instruct jurors that they cannot find Manafort guilty for omissions made by his company since the indictment doesn’t name his entities but only him as an individual.

nolu chan  posted on  2018-08-13   19:05:44 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#16. To: Liberator, Justified, Hank Rearden (#14)

https://www.courthousenews.com/muellers-team-rests-in-manafort-fraud-trial/

Mueller Team Rests in Manafort Fraud Trial

Brandi Buchman
Courthouse News Service
August 13, 2018

ALEXANDRIA, Va. (CN) – Prosecutors wrapped up their case against former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort on Monday afternoon, as the judge agreed to instruct jurors they cannot find Manafort guilty for omissions made by his company because the indictment only names him individually.

That information can be used as evidence, however, to determine Manafort’s intent or “willfulness” to omit information about the entities on his personal tax returns, U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis III told attorneys after jurors were dismissed from the courtroom.

The penultimate witness called by attorneys for Special Counsel Robert Mueller was James Brennan, who worked as a construction and commercial loan office at the Chicago-based Federal Savings Bank.

Brennan testified Monday that even though it was evident that he lacked the assets to back them up, two loans for Manafort were approved at the behest of an executive who was angling for a spot in the Trump administration.

Judge Ellis will now consider defense attorneys’ motion for acquittal following his decision to allow additional testimony from Paula Liss, a special agent with the Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network.

Liss testified last week but was questioned again Monday about whether Manafort’s companies reported foreign bank accounts on their tax records from 2011 to 2014.

Following a rapid line of questioning from prosecutor Greg Andres, Liss told jurors the companies had not.

On that note, Andres rested the prosecution’s case.

During a procedural sidebar, defense attorneys argued that the overarching charges brought by Mueller’s team against Manafort were invalid because they lacked “materiality” and failed to show “necessary willfulness.”

Ellis sealed the courtroom before discussing the defense’s motion to acquit, but noted that what was discussed in secret Monday will eventually be revealed.

“When the case is over, the seal will be lifted,” Judge Ellis said.

Defense attorney Kevin Downing requested until Tuesday morning to write the motion for acquittal. Ellis granted the request.

The motion hinges on details that another defense attorney, Thomas Zehnle, said would likely come up during closing arguments.

Zehnle argued during one sidebar that Manafort had no obligation to report foreign bank accounts held by Davis Manafort International LLC since he only owned 50 percent of the company at the time. Manafort’s wife, Kathleen, owned the other half from 2012 to 2014.

The alleged conduct in the government’s indictment spans from 2011 to 2014. Prosecutor Uzo Asonye was quick to point out that Manafort was the sole owner of Davis Manafort International for at least one of those years, in 2011.

Asonye also emphasized that when Manafort filed as a foreign agent in 2017, he also listed himself as 100 percent owner of the company.

Judge Ellis replied that the government “could have indicted the company but you didn’t.”

This is a developing story…

nolu chan  posted on  2018-08-13   19:09:12 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#18. To: nolu chan (#16)

Judge Ellis replied that the government “could have indicted the company but you didn’t.”

Judge Eliis: "DUH. You are prosecuting a fundamentally FUBARed case. TARGET MISSED."

Prosecution:

"Ooops."

Liberator  posted on  2018-08-14   10:52:20 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#19. To: Liberator (#18)

Jury submitted four questions to the court late this afternoon (Thursday):

1. Is one required to file an FBAR if they own less than 50 percent of the company and no signatory authority?

2. Define shelf company.

3. Can you redefine reasonable doubt?

4. Can the exhibit list be amended to include the indictment?

- - - - - - - - - -

#1 Judge Ellis explained that a person must own more than 50 percent of the account's profits or capital.

An FBAR is a Foreign Bank Account report.

I believe there were five contested years (2011-2015) and the Manafort defense argued that during four of these years (2012-2015) the account was shared equally by Manafort and his wife, resulting in there being no individual FBAR reporting requirement for those four years.

- - - - - - - - - -

#2 Judge Ellis advised the jury would have to rely on their own collective recollections of the testimony provided to define shelf company and the filing requirements related to income.

A "shelf company" is one that is created and then lies dormant with no assets or activity. When some person or entity needs a company, a shelf company can be acquired for immediate use, not needing to go through the creation process.

It is created, put on the shelf, and taken down off the shelf when someone wants to acquire an existing empty company.

Note: as distinct from shell corporation.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A shell corporation is a company or corporation that exists only on paper and has no office and no employees, but may have a bank account or may hold passive investments or be the registered owner of assets, such as intellectual property, or ships. Shell companies may be registered to the address of a company that provides a service setting up shell companies, and which may act as the agent for receipt of legal correspondence (such as an accountant or lawyer). The company may serve as a vehicle for business transactions without itself having any significant assets or operations. Sometimes, shell companies are used for tax evasion, tax avoidance, and money laundering, or to achieve a specific goal such as anonymity. Anonymity may be sought to shield personal assets from others, such as a spouse when a marriage is breaking down, from creditors, from government authorities, besides others.

Shell companies do have legitimate business purposes. They may, for example, act as trustee for a trust, and not engage in any other activity on its own account. This structure creates limited liability for the trustee. A corporate shell can also be formed around a partnership to create limited liability for the partners, and other business ventures, or to immunize one part of a business from the risks of another part. Shell companies can be used to transfer assets from one company into a new one, while leaving the liabilities in the former company.

- - - - - - - - - -

#3 Judge Ellis advised that the government is not required to prove the defendant's guilt beyond all possible doubt — only doubt based on reason.

- - - - - - - - - -

#4 Judge Ellis advised that the exhibit list could NOT be amended to include the indictment; the jury would have to rely on their own memory of the testimony.

- - - - - - - - - -

Jury adjourned for the day, to resume deliberations tomorrow at 9:30 a.m.

The Q&A about the FBAR reporting requirements would appear to annihilate four counts regarding reporting requirements.

The Q&A about reasonable doubt is not what the prosecution wants to hear.

nolu chan  posted on  2018-08-16   20:01:59 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 19.

#20. To: nolu chan (#19)

Jury adjourned for the day, to resume deliberations tomorrow at 9:30 a.m.

The Q&A about the FBAR reporting requirements would appear to annihilate four counts regarding reporting requirements.

The Q&A about reasonable doubt is not what the prosecution wants to hear.

Aaaah....thanks.

Looks good for Manafort then? Prosecution appears o be whiffing.

Ellis is a fair judge. And NOT about to be intimidated.

Liberator  posted on  2018-08-17 14:09:45 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 19.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com