Manafort is first ex-Trump aide to go on trial in Russia probe

[webfact]

Manafort is first ex-Trump aide to go on trial in Russia probe

By Nathan Layne, Karen Freifeld and Sarah N. Lynch

 

FILE PHOTO: Former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort arrives for arraignment on a third superseding indictment against him by Special Counsel Robert Mueller on charges of witness tampering, at U.S. District Court in Washington, U.S. June 15, 2018. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst/File Photo

 

(Reuters) - Paul Manafort on Tuesday will become the first of President Donald Trump's former aides to go on trial, accused of bank and tax fraud by federal investigators probing Russian meddling in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

 

Despite a focus on financial crimes, the trial could yield politically damaging headlines about a man who ran Trump's campaign for three months and attended a June 2016 meeting with Russians offering damaging information on Trump's Democratic rival Hillary Clinton that is now a focal point of Special Counsel Robert Mueller's 14-month-old investigation.

 

"My guess is you will see O.J.-type frenzy at this court event," said Michael Caputo, a former Trump aide and longtime Manafort associate, referring to the 1995 O.J. Simpson murder trial. "I really hope the president continues to watch and make public comments about this case."

 

He said Trump could help the public understand what is at stake in Mueller's investigation, which both Trump and Caputo have called a "witch hunt" aimed at ending his presidency.

 

Prosecutors are expected to argue that Manafort's lavish spending on suits, homes and luxury items did not match the income declared on his tax returns and that he misled lenders when he borrowed tens of millions of dollars against New York real estate. Manafort has pleaded not guilty to the charges.

 

On Monday, prosecutors said in court filings that they intended to prove Manafort earned more than $60 million lobbying for the former pro-Russia Ukrainian government and failed to report "a significant percentage" of that.

 

His lawyers are seeking to exclude evidence at trial that details Manafort's political lobbying work in Ukraine, saying it would be "irrelevant, prejudicial and unnecessarily time-consuming."

 

A pretrial hearing on the issue is slated for 9 a.m. (1300 GMT) on Tuesday, before jury selection begins.

 

The charges against Manafort largely predate the five months he worked on the Trump team in 2016, some of them as campaign chairman.

 

Joshua Dressler, a law professor at Ohio State University, said the evidence against Manafort, 69, appeared strong but that he drew a favourable judge in the 78-year old T.S. Ellis, who is known to be tough on prosecutors.

 

Manafort faces 18 counts. The nine bank fraud and conspiracy charges alone carry maximum sentences of 30 years each, and Ellis noted in April that Manafort could be facing the rest of his life behind bars if convicted.

 

Given the strength of the evidence, however, some legal experts have suggested Manafort may be banking on an eventual pardon from Trump, who has called his former campaign chairman a "nice guy" who has been treated unfairly.

 

The trial, starting with selection of a 12-member jury, coincides with growing speculation that Trump's former personal lawyer Michael Cohen may cooperate with federal investigators against the president.

 

Mueller's team has estimated it could take eight to 10 days to present its case to the jury, suggesting the trial may last at least three weeks.

 

TRUMP PARDON?

Mueller has submitted more than 500 pieces of evidence, including tax filings and mortgage statements, and pictures of Manafort's expensive watches and homes. There are 35 potential witnesses, many of them bankers and accountants expected to verify documents and speak to Manafort's alleged intent to violate the law. Five witnesses were granted immunity.

 

Rudy Giuliani, a lawyer for Trump, said no one facing trial should expect a pardon, but he did not rule one out. Giuliani said he and Jay Sekulow, another Trump lawyer, had told the president: "This would be a very bad thing to do now."

 

But once Mueller's Russia investigation ends, Giuliani told Reuters: “He has a right to consider it. ... It’s his power.”

 

Mueller's team said it would not present evidence at the trial in the Washington suburb of Alexandria, Virginia, about possible campaign collusion with Russia, potentially saving it for a second Manafort trial in Washington in September. Trump has denied any collusion took place.

 

Manafort's defence strategy is still unknown. Previously, he tried to challenge Mueller's prosecutorial authority, a move that included filing a civil lawsuit against the Justice Department.

 

A federal judge dismissed the civil case and Manafort appealed the decision to a higher court.

 

On Monday night, Manafort's lawyers and the government filed a joint notice saying they mutually agreed to dismiss the appeal.

 

RUSSIAN CONNECTIONS?

If the judge rules in their favour, prosecutors could present evidence that delves deeper into Manafort's Russian connections. Last month, Mueller's team disclosed in a court filing what it said was a $10 million (7.61 million pounds) loan to Manafort from Oleg Deripaska, a magnate with close ties to Russian President Vladimir Putin.

 

"It seems to me we’re seeing deeper ties that Manafort has had financially with his business deals in the Ukraine and with Russia," said Shanlon Wu, a former lawyer for Manafort associate Rick Gates, who pleaded guilty in February and is aiding Mueller's probe. "He could expose himself to further criminal culpability if he has to expose the full extent of those ties."

 

Expected to be a main witness, Gates was Manafort's right-hand man for years and has knowledge of their offshore accounts and work for Deripaska and in Ukraine.

 

Mueller's team has indicted or secured guilty pleas from 32 people and three companies, including the indictment of 12 Russian intelligence officials. Of the four former Trump aides ensnared in the probe, Manafort is the only one to go to trial.

 

Gates, former national security adviser Michael Flynn and George Papadopoulos, a foreign policy adviser on the campaign, all have pleaded guilty.

 

(Reporting by Nathan Layne and Karen Freifeld; Additional reporting by Sarah N. Lynch in Washington; Editing by Howard Goller and Grant McCool)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2018-07-31

[Samui Bodoh]

"...Manafort is first ex-Trump aide to go on trial in Russia probe..."

 

But, I'd bet my life savings that he will not be the last.

 

I have said it before and I (sadly) need to say it again;

 

Donald Trump (and his associates) are an ever-expanding cloud of toxic waste that defiles everything they touch.

 

God help us all.

 

[Nyezhov]

Speaking as a former Criminal defense attorney, I feel there is a more than a good chance the Government will fail to convict this innocent man.

[pegman]

12 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

Speaking as a former Criminal defense attorney, I feel there is a more than a good chance the Government will fail to convict this innocent man.

What happened? Disbarred? This guy has one way out. That's flipping, sometime between now and his sentencing.

[Chomper Higgot]

14 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

Speaking as a former Criminal defense attorney, I feel there is a more than a good chance the Government will fail to convict this innocent man.

He’s facing (at least) two trials, this first trial for tax evasion, money laundering and bank fraud, financial crimes that are easily provable.

 

And the bonus ‘witness tampering’.

 

But you’re the former Trial lawyer, so perhaps you are right.

 

Manafort’s first trial is in ‘fast track’ Virginia, so we’ll find out in the next two to three weeks if you are correct.

 

Assuming of course he doesn’t do the smart thing and cut a deal.

[Proboscis]

1 hour ago, Nyezhov said:

Speaking as a former Criminal defense attorney, I feel there is a more than a good chance the Government will fail to convict this innocent man.

Troll alert!

[Emster23]

1 hour ago, Nyezhov said:

Speaking as a former Criminal defense attorney, I feel there is a more than a good chance the Government will fail to convict this innocent man.

You're right, but what does this have to do with Manafort??

[Nyezhov]

Oh I'm sorry I forget many of you aren't Americans. So that you non Americans know, Here we are lucky enough to have a system where an accused person is presumed innocent and the Government has the heavy burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt via material and relevant evidence that is admissable under long standing evidentiary standards.

 

Americans learn that in Grammer school as it is one of the bedrocks of our legal and constitutional system and we all view criminal cases that way. 

 

 

 

[Silurian]

Ouch...ouch...ouch! Things are not looking good for Manafort.

 

2 hours ago, webfact said:

Manafort faces 18 counts. The nine bank fraud and conspiracy charges alone carry maximum sentences of 30 years each, and Ellis noted in April that Manafort could be facing the rest of his life behind bars if convicted.

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

16 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

Oh I'm sorry I forget many of you aren't Americans. So that you non Americans know, Here we are lucky enough to have a system where an accused person is presumed innocent and the Government has the heavy burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt via material and relevant evidence that is admissable under long standing evidentiary standards.

 

Americans learn that in Grammer school as it is one of the bedrocks of our legal and constitutional system and we all view criminal cases that way. 

 

 

 

You are correct, before the court Manafort is innocent until proven guilty.

 

As a former defence attorney you know there are some crimes for which  prosecutors very much easier secure convictions.

 

Which is why the first charges against Manafort are tax evasion, money laundering, bank fraud (and thanks to Manafort himself) witness tampering.

 

All charges for which a paper trail will be used to demonstrate guilt.

 

Manafort is toast.

[mtls2005]

2 hours ago, Nyezhov said:

Speaking as a former Criminal defense attorney, I feel there is a more than a good chance the Government will fail to convict this innocent man.

 

The trial(s) of Manfort are taking place in the U.S., and not Russia. 

 

Hence, if convicted and most are on Federal charges, he will be convicted by a jury of his peers, rather than by the "Government" as may be done in your home country (Russia?).

 

 

[Nyezhov]

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

You are correct, before the court Manafort is innocent until proven guilty.

 

As a former defence attorney you know there are some crimes for which  prosecutors very much easier secure convictions.

 

Which is why the first charges against Manafort are tax evasion, money laundering, bank fraud (and thanks to Manafort himself) witness tampering.

 

All charges for which a paper trail will be used to demonstrate guilt.

 

Manafort is toast.

Actually, looks like they are trying it as a net worth case in terms of taxes but as I haven't seen the evidence I can't comment on the legal strength of the case.

 

 

In light of the nature of the case, I assume that the Judge, who is no friend to the government, will bend over backwards for the defense, simply to forestall appealable issues....the Govt don't get to appeal matey if Manafort is aquitted 555

 

Add to it a good jury, raise the flag of an oppressive Govt, it could be a circus. And Manafort lawyers will make it a circus.  Going to be a great trial.

[Chomper Higgot]

1 minute ago, Nyezhov said:

Actually, looks like they are trying it as a net worth case in terms of taxes but as I haven't seen the evidence I can't comment on the legal strength of the case.

 

 

In light of the nature of the case, I assume that the Judge, who is no friend to the government, will bend over backwards for the defense, simply to forestall appealable issues....the Govt don't get to appeal matey if Manafort is aquitted 555

 

Add to it a good jury, raise the flag of an oppressive Govt, it could be a circus. And Manafort lawyers will make it a circus.  Going to be a great trial.

I’m an engineer, you’re a former trial attorney.

 

Within the next 2-3weeks time we’ll discover if I missed a career in law or if you obtained client fees under false pretences.

[Nyezhov]

2 minutes ago, mtls2005 said:

 

The trial(s) of Manfort are taking place in the U.S., and not Russia. 

 

Hence, if convicted and most are on Federal charges, he will be convicted by a jury of his peers, rather than by the "Government" as may be done in your home country (Russia?).

 

 

Tovarish, please read a Federal Court pleading or a Court case and see how the federal prosecutors are referred to. Need a hint? Well in a State trial, the prosecutors are referred to as the People, or the State, or the Commonwealth.....

 

And of course, at the end of proof, the AUSA will rise and say "your honour, the Government Rests"...

 

Hope I cleared it up for you. Dad vidanye

[mtls2005]

8 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

Going to be a great trial.

 

This one? In U.S. District Court in Alexandria, Va.

 

Or the next one, in federal court in Washington, D.C., on Sept. 17?

 

I suspect a jury is going to be rough on Paul "Karaoke" Manafort? TAx dodging, and spending huge amounts of foreign cash on luxuries, and defrauding a small bank which loans to military personnel, will not invoke sympathy.

 

 

Want to be on the Paul Manafort jury? Start here

 

Dozens of potential jurors in the upcoming trial of former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort were given a questionnaire to determine their ability to serve on what is expected to be a three-week trial.

 

Here's the questionnaire given out in the Alexandria, Virginia, court:

 

 

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/07/24/politics/read-paul-manafort-jury-questionnaire/index.html

 

 

 

[Nyezhov]

Just now, Chomper Higgot said:

I’m an engineer, you’re a former trial attorney.

 

Within the next 2-3weeks time we’ll discover if I missed a career in law or if you obtained client fees under false pretences.

When you have the facts argue the facts. When you have the law, argue the law. When you have neither, argue.

 

Sometimes it's smoke and mirrors OJ. They have to prove it.

[Chomper Higgot]

 

5 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

Tovarish, please read a Federal Court pleading or a Court case and see how the federal prosecutors are referred to. Need a hint? Well in a State trial, the prosecutors are referred to as the People, or the State, or the Commonwealth.....

 

And of course, at the end of proof, the AUSA will rise and say "your honour, the Government Rests"...

 

Hope I cleared it up for you. Dad vidanye

Because crimes are committed against ‘the commonwealth’.

 

Basic principles of the Anglo Saxon common law upon which US justice is founded.

[Nyezhov]

2 minutes ago, mtls2005 said:

 

This one? In U.S. District Court in Alexandria, Va.

 

Or the next one, in federal court in Washington, D.C., on Sept. 17?

 

I suspect a jury is going to be rough on Paul "Karaoke" Manafort? TAx dodging, and spending huge amounts of foreign cash on luxuries, and defrauding a small bank which loans to military personnel, will not invoke sympathy.

 

 

Which ever one Judge Ellis has. And I doubt the nature of the banks business will ever be brought up? What's the probative value? Does the probative value outweigh the prejudice? Is it even relevant?

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

3 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

When you have the facts argue the facts. When you have the law, argue the law. When you have neither, argue.

 

Sometimes it's smoke and mirrors OJ. They have to prove it.

Within the next three weeks we’ll have a verdict.

 

I’m cool with that.

[mtls2005]

5 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

Sometimes it's smoke and mirrors OJ. They have to prove it.

 

If the bespoke suit fits, you must convict.

 

 

[Nyezhov]

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

 

Because crimes are committed against ‘the commonwealth’.

 

Basic principles of the Anglo Saxon common law upon which US justice is founded.

There ya go. So the Government must prove that a crime was committed. See how easy?

[Chomper Higgot]

Just now, Nyezhov said:

There ya go. So the Government must prove that a crime was committed. See how easy?

When did I dispute that.

 

Here’s a clue.

 

I did not.

[mtls2005]

3 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

And I doubt the nature of the banks business will ever be brought up?

 

The bank's employees are scheduled to testify. Asking them about their loan practices seems like it will come up.

 

Did you run out of Trump Vodka?

[Nyezhov]

2 minutes ago, mtls2005 said:

 

If the bespoke suit fits, you must convict.

 

 

Actually that's not in the pattern jury instructions

[Nyezhov]

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

When did I dispute that.

 

Here’s a clue.

 

I did not.

Re-read your objection to my post then

[Nyezhov]

1 minute ago, mtls2005 said:

 

The bank's employees are scheduled to testify. Asking them about their loan practices seems like it will come up.

 

Did you run out of Trump Vodka?

And again, I refer to the issues or materiality, relevance, probative value noted above.

 

And why praytell, is one who tries to look at things through a lens of objectivity and constitutional requirements accused of drinking Trump Vodka? Do you mean to tell me that folks are not concerned about the antics of the government? I myself don't like the idea of folks Ginning up a scenario to surveil me.....

 

That's why the NACDL has the motto Liberty's Last Champions. The Government can bring all it's resources to bear on little old you and me at any time....

[kamahele]

2 hours ago, Nyezhov said:

Speaking as a former Criminal defense attorney, I feel there is a more than a good chance the Government will fail to convict this innocent man.

I'm not sure how you can make that assumption as no evidence has been produced to the public yet.

[bristolboy]

30 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

There ya go. So the Government must prove that a crime was committed. See how easy?

Are there any criminal law cases in the USA where this is not so?

[KKr]

1 hour ago, Nyezhov said:

Oh I'm sorry I forget many of you aren't Americans. So that you non Americans know, Here we are lucky enough to have a system where an accused person is presumed innocent and the Government has the heavy burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt via material and relevant evidence that is admissable under long standing evidentiary standards.

 

Americans learn that in Grammer school as it is one of the bedrocks of our legal and constitutional system and we all view criminal cases that way. 

Wow, (for lack of a more appropriate word) thank you so much for this deep and invaluable insight.
Surely only the soon to be great again USofA boasts such invaluable rules that, if I am not mistaken, were first discussed by the recently deceased Prof. Gaius ?

[zaphod reborn]

3 hours ago, webfact said:

Last month, Mueller's team disclosed in a court filing what it said was a $10 million (7.61 million pounds) loan to Manafort from Oleg Deripaska, a magnate with close ties to Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Journalists always fail to connect the dots.  Trump recently indicated he is going to have the Treasury Dept exempt Deripaska's aluminum company, Rusal, from the sanctions that Congress imposed against Deripaska.  Manafort serves as campaign manager at no salary, gets $10 mil loan from Deripaska, Trump gives Deripaska's aluminum company an exemption from sanctions.  Quid Pro Quo, case closed.

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/07/27/politics/mnuchin-russia-sanctions-rusal/index.html