It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


U.S. judge questions special counsel's powers in Manafort case

page: 10
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in


posted on Aug, 6 2018 @ 11:01 PM

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: shooterbrody
This is a mess.

That is putting it nicely.. I have never seen a prosecution piss a judge off this badly this number of times and on a continual basis as this.

Wtf is the special counsel think they are doing. It is almost like they are intentionally undermining their own case.

They got held after class again today.
Gates admitting to these crimes and embezzlement is supposed to hang Manafort how again?
Why would the defense put Manafort on the stand after this?

posted on Aug, 7 2018 @ 02:52 AM
a reply to: shooterbrody

People who are Innocent want to prove their innocence even though in our system a person is innocent until a court says otherwise. Given the issue between the judge and the prosecution leads me to think the judge is pissed at what he is seeing and I dont think that bodes well for the prosecution. A judge accusing the prosecution of nothing more than dragging a person thru the mud is rare.

The defense opening statements dealing with Gates I think scared the prosecution. I think that is why they attempted to not have him testify. You dont put a person on the stand as your star witness after they already lied to you. You dont give that person a deal either (Gates had 22 charges dropped in exchange for his testimony).

You draw a picture with your line of questioning when gates is on the stand. In this case the defense did that effectively. Gates had to admit he lied and also that he embezzled money from Manafort's business. It didnt help knowing Gates was responsible for finances and not Manafort.

I have had very little exposure to testifying in Federal court. On the occasions I had it was an eye opener with the leeway federal judges have in running their courts. During one of those instances I was called as a witness in a federal case. When the defense attorney started his cross examination he tried to play the word change game. Its when the defense asks you a question you already answered but they change the wording to trip you up. An example would be testifying to being a hundred feet away from something and defense would ask so you were a hundred yards away. Agree with what he says and then you get nailed on conflicting testimony and from there on out they attack your credibility. I also had him try and get me to explain evidence handling procedures for the FBI and State police. Both times I had to explain to him he needed to ask the FBI or State police as I wasn't a member of either agency (I was municipal). He tried to use my agencies policies for evidence handling against me and I had to explain to him my policies were not in effect as the incident and aftermath had nothing to do with my agency.

His line of questioning and the way he was phrasing questions pissed the judge off and the judge made it clear he didnt care for what the defense was doing.

They do crap like that and its effective but if you get a judge who doesnt care for it they let you know right then and there. In all my experiences I never had a municipal or state judge speak / handle lawyers in the same manner as federal judges do.

edit on 7-8-2018 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 8 2018 @ 03:28 PM
From earlier...

In stunning testimony, Gates stated he and Manafort had 15 foreign accounts they did not report to the federal government, and knew it was illegal. Gates said he did not submit the required forms "at Mr. Manafort's direction."

Gates then admitted that he also turned the tables on Manafort -- cheating him out of "several hundred thousand" dollars by submitting false expense reports that were paid out of some of the undisclosed foreign bank accounts in Cyprus.

Unless Gates has some evidence he was directed by Manafort, I don't think his testimony does anything other than support Manafort's defence that it was Gates who was playing fast and loose with the cash. I mean Gates just admitted he stole from Manafort.

I think this might explain why Gates testimony was on/off... the prosecution probably knew the defence had proof Gates stole from Manafort... they had to come up with a plan and it looks like they may be trying to save their case by trying to get out in front of the fairly easy character assassination of their star witness.

If Gates does not have some documentary evidence then how do we know it was not he who opened foreign accounts as part of his admitted theft - in order to hide his stolen money?

edit on 8/8/2018 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 8 2018 @ 04:47 PM
a reply to: Annee

I agree, they are clearly breaking the law. Just so everyone else understands I'd like you to explain exactly why that investigation into the judge is necessary.

posted on Aug, 8 2018 @ 04:59 PM

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Annee

I agree, they are clearly breaking the law. Just so everyone else understands I'd like you to explain exactly why that investigation into the judge is necessary.

Where was that original comment? Page 1?

Going to the original source is something I state often.

IF (Big IF) - - a judge (or anyone) seems to be bias - - - research them. Pretty simple.

top topics
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in