It’s that second to last word that matters

Manafort’s decision to take his chances in court has startled many observers. Speculation about whom Manafort may be protecting with his silence – and why – has steadily intensified.

Bradley Moss, a Washington-based attorney who specialises in national security issues, expressed dismay that Manafort was allowing his case to go this far.

“They have him nailed dead to rights,” said Moss. “He is going to spend the rest of his life in jail if convicted.”

Maybe he thinks he’s got a defence?

34 comments on “It’s that second to last word that matters

  1. Trump should have closed down the entire farce long ago, arrested Mully and the entire FBI/CIA /NSA gang and be preparing for a yuuge series of trials with Dollar Bill and Killery as Jewel in the Crown.

    And a promise that if any witnesses, lawdogs or jurors have even a single mysterious accident the Toxic Twosome will have a worse one.

  2. This Moss is akin to those Indian lawyers (which was all of them, as I recall it) who refused to defend the men accused of the bus gang rape a couple of years back.

  3. I believe the president can pardon anyone for any reason? Quite a useful Trump card to hold when going into a trial.

  4. I wonder if Manafort is the bait on the hook of a very long hook? Pretrial discovery will be very interesting, unless of course the FISA applications are released with the 74% redactions restored and the whole top echelons of the old State Department, DoJ, CIA and FBI come tumbling down. One can speculate….

  5. Very long ROPE: sorry blame my incipient senility and failing eyesight for letting that one through.

  6. This indictment isn’t for trialling, it’s for plea bargaining. Manafort is just not playing the game.

  7. “Maybe he thinks he’s got a defence?”

    Maybe he thinks he’s got nothing to offer in exchange for having it dropped. Presumably the idea is that they only drop it if he dishes the dirt on Trump. If there’s no dirt to dish, what’s he supposed to do?

  8. @Rhoda Klapp
    “This indictment isn’t for trialling, it’s for plea bargaining.”
    Which demonstrates what I think is a fundamental design fault in the US (so called) justice system. Makes me think of the film Red Corner https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Corner where the American businessman is framed for murder while in China and the court tells him that he’s been found guilty and he’ll get a painless execution if he confesses (a painful and slow one if he doesn’t).
    This plea bargaining business seems much the same – confess or we’ll really ruin your life.
    I know we have sentence discounts in the UK for pleading guilty early on – but nothing on the scale that plea bargaining in the US does.

  9. “This plea bargaining business seems much the same – confess or we’ll really ruin your life.”

    Yes, that is the outcome most of the time. The US DOJ has a 93% conviction rate, mostly because there is always some minor charge they can land that will force a ‘conviction’, else they will tie you up in court for a decade.

    In 2015 only 1.6% of Feb cases went to court.

    “Although overall federal courts generate convictions at a remarkable rate, there were twenty federal judicial districts that had a 100% conviction rate in 2015”

  10. David Moore & Simon

    Correct. The US Federal Criminal Justice system is a disgrace. The conviction rate is actually 99%, not surprising as 97% of cases never even proceed to trial.

    In fact the whole thing is positively Stalinist, in the – find me the man and I’ll find you the crime – sense. A significant portion of the charges – and in this Trump farrago, most – are procedural, usually along the lines of “lying to the FBI”. A disgrace.

    And yes, Rhoda, Trump can just pardon him if convicted.

  11. Yeah, but that “if” is looking awfully like a “when” now:

    https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/8omkfr/manafort_tried_to_tamper_with_potential_witnesses/e04ldny/

    Mr Ecks: If you can’t see from just what has leaked so far (and the number of people that have already admitted Russian links) that Trump is bought and paid for, you need to consider whether your opinions are based on facts or only visceral support for the conservative viewpoint.

  12. ‘Speculation about whom Manafort may be protecting with his silence – and why’

    Projection. Moss, Swaine would rat out their friends.

  13. that Trump is bought and paid for

    I’ve personally not followed much on any of this because, quite simply, it never seemed to pass the basic smell test?

    Have any of the regulars here seen anything vaguely credible and objective (obviously not written by sore Democrats or similar?) that presents a clear big picture overview, including accounting for the various motives, and which would be completely plausible to someone unconnected?

  14. “Trump is bought and paid for,”

    What is the market price of billionaires, again?

  15. Martin Audley–I need no lectures from a zombie leftoid fuckwit like you.

    “Bought and paid” for you silly Son of a Bitch?. In what fucking fake news Universe inhabited by the lying cultural Marxist scum of the Earth.

    I understand that all the dosser shite filling up San Francisco has to cleared up but think again if you think you are going to dispose of any of it on here.

  16. @ Martin Audley
    Oleg Deripaska had a meeting with Manafort and later had a completely unrelated meeting with someone from the Kremlin. Is that evidence of anything apart from an addiction to conspiracy theories?

  17. Mr Ecks: I never thought I would write this but you are guilty of understatement in your reply to Martin Audley.

  18. Martin Audley

    I’ve drunk Moskovskya vodka and slept with a Russian woman, should I be concerned about going to the US and having Mueller and his gang arrest me for clear collusion with the Russions?

    FFS!

  19. “Have any of the regulars here seen anything vaguely credible and objective (obviously not written by sore Democrats or similar?) that presents a clear big picture overview, including accounting for the various motives, and which would be completely plausible to someone unconnected?”

    How about: it’s all intended as a diversion/counter regarding the anticipated case over Uranium One?

  20. The Trial of Kill and Killery.

    What a mini-series it will make. If the leftist media liars could manage to make it while sobbing 24-7.

    The Trial and Execution etc would be even better.

  21. “We are now of the belief that this model can greatly benefit the Putin Government if employed at the correct levels with the appropriate commitment to success,” Manafort wrote in the 2005 memo to Deripaska. The effort, Manafort wrote, “will be offering a great service that can re-focus, both internally and externally, the policies of the Putin government.”

  22. Martin

    Was she a blonde?

    Apologies for my ignorance – are you able to translate (bigger picture)?

  23. “Apologies for my ignorance – are you able to translate (bigger picture)?”

    Manafort appears to have been a ‘hired gun’ professional influencer running a lobbying company that did business with a wide variety of clients, including Russian oligarchs.

    There was a deal with Deripaska in 2005 about promoting Russian interests, but they seem to have had a falling out some time around 2009 when Deripaska invested $19m with Manafort to be used on a Ukrainian TV company called Black Sea Cable, but the money vanished. Deripaska was sueing Manafort for the lost money.

  24. NiV

    Thanks, but I am being very slow.

    Martin was “suggesting” that the 45th President had been “bought and paid for”?

    I was strugglng (big picture) to get my head around thow his post was “decisive” in that context?

  25. “Thanks, but I am being very slow.”

    Are you? I was unsure whether you were genuinely asking for more context, or whether it was just a polite way to say the information offered was insufficient/nonsensical, or whether you intended to start an entertaining fight. (Apologies for butting in if it was this last – but I don’t think you’ll get much of one from Martin.)

    “I was strugglng (big picture) to get my head around thow his post was “decisive” in that context?”

    It wasn’t, obviously.

    Conspiracy theorists all think the same way. Any circumstantial vague association that supports the theory is irrefutable proof positive, any evidence that goes against their theory is disinformation and propaganda, any lack of evidence is the result of a cover-up by sinister forces. And they can’t understand how it is that other people don’t see it as obvious.

    But asking for their evidence and pointing to the holes in it is absolutely the right thing to do! (IMHO.)

  26. It wasn’t 3) (on this occasion!), and I didn’t regard 1) and 2) necessarily as mutually exclusive..

    “It wasn’t, obviously.”

    That’s pretty unambiguous!

  27. “It wasn’t 3) (on this occasion!), and I didn’t regard 1) and 2) necessarily as mutually exclusive..”

    🙂 Understood. And agreed.

    “That’s pretty unambiguous!”

    Well, I’ve not been following all the twists and turns in detail, but if they’ve found anything at all on Trump they’ve not released it or leaked it so far. The accusations that started it (and which they used to get FBI wiretaps and informants into the Trump campaign) appear to have been entirely based on a farcical bogus dossier made up by a couple of less-reputable Hillary’s spin doctors and which was sneaked in through the back door with its provenance disguised, and now they’re desperately fishing around for anything else they can use to justify/defend their actions.

    The stuff they’ve got on Manafort is entirely unrelated to Trump, and while there may or may not be something in it, it’s obviously a procedural abuse of authority for the special prosecutor devoted to the Trump case to be prosecuting it, and Manafort obviously thought it was worth a go to try to wriggle out on those grounds. And I did think it was very funny when one of the Russian companies they were prosecuting turned up in court *asking* to be prosecuted, despite there being no requirement to. Apparently, they were interested in using ‘discovery’ to find out what Mueller’s evidence was, and Mueller’s team were desperately trying to put off the prosecution while they tried to work out if they could get out of it! The entire thing’s a farce. You couldn’t make it up.

    As far as I can see, it looks like another master move by Trump. The longer they go on without finding anything, and the more noise they make without producing anything solid, the worse they look. And if Trump can time their ultimate collapse and surrender for just before the next election (or even just after), it would no doubt be a big help. He can then make his second term all about cleaning up the ‘deep state’, unimpeded.

    But I don’t know for sure. We will see.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.