A not unusual recess in the Manafort trial but there's plenty going on

Considering who’s currently in the post, apparently any bank CEO thinks they could become Treasury Secretary.

We haven't been told what's going on. At one point, a court security officer was called over to the bench conference, which is unusual. Before we recessed, the judge repeated his instruction to the jury not to discuss the case w/ anyone, and to keep an open mind until the end

— Zoe Tillman (@ZoeTillman) August 10, 2018

Trial back on after a three-hour recess… “Robert Mueller's team says it's ready to rest its case on Friday against Paul Manafort, Donald Trump's former campaign chairman.” That might not happen today.

FoxNews and its troll-bots have been expending speculation space in Twitter on whatever might delay the trial, whereas those familiar with the judge’s style indicate that it’s SOP.

Over the last week, Judge T.S. Ellis III, the judge presiding over the Paul Manafort trial, has sparred with prosecution and joked with the jury — his typical courtroom style, lawyers say https://t.co/OMG06b4jNw

— The New York Times (@nytimes) August 9, 2018

A former Federal Savings Bank executive has testified that the bank's CEO asked him to call Paul Manafort to inquire about whether he could become a candidate for U.S. Treasury secretary.

Dennis Raico, the former executive, said Federal Savings Bank CEO Stephen Calk asked him to make the call to Mr Manafort on 11 November 2016, just days after Donald Trump's victory in the presidential election.

Mr Raico was granted immunity for his testimony.

Dennis Raico, a loan officer at Federal Savings Bank, has testified that he acted as a go-between for his bank's founder and chairman Stephen Calk and Paul Manafort.

Mr Raico testified that this took place as the bank rushed to approve loans while Mr Calk allegedly sought upper-level perks in the Trump political operation.

www.independent.co.uk/...

Per @BarbMcQuade from the Manafort trial: A banker from Federal Savings Bank testified that bank president Stephen Calk approved $16M in loans for Paul Manafort in a single day [unheard of]. Shortly thereafter, Calk asked Manafort if he could be Treasury Secretary. WoW.#Maddow https://t.co/wBlJkWfLZv

— Polly Sigh (@dcpoll) August 10, 2018

Your moment of zen from the Manafort trial. pic.twitter.com/5lHqTNMcK9

— Josh Campbell (@joshscampbell) August 9, 2018

Thread by @renato_mariotti:

"THREAD: What did we learn from Day Eight of the Manafort trial?

1/ Yesterday had none of the fireworks of the prior two days of the Manafort trial, as several witnesses took the stand to discuss bank fraud committed by Manafort. That required them to explain how the loan process works and why lying to a lender can hurt the bank.

2/ Much of the media coverage of yesterday's proceedings focused on Judge Ellis's admission that he made a mistake when he criticized prosecutors for letting their expert witness remain in the courtroom, given that he had previously told them that the witness could be there.

3/ I don't defend Judge Ellis's conduct in the case, and I agree with others that he is not acting in the manner that we would prefer a federal judge to act. Also, as I've pointed out, some of his comments have been improper.

4/ But it is (unfortunately) fairly common for federal judges to make mistakes during trials, to give the defense the benefit of the doubt in criminal cases (because they want to give the defense fewer issues to appeal), and to be rude or inconsiderate to the attorneys.

5/ I continue to believe his behavior is not really that important in the context of this trial and will not impact the verdict. Manafort's only hope at this point is that there is a juror who has off-the-wall views that are not impacted by the mountains of evidence in this case.

6/ One upside of Judge Ellis's "move along" approach, which I think is actually positive attribute, is that the prosecution has moved fairly quickly through its case. The jurors will reward them for that. Instead, the defense has slowed down the case with long cross-examination.

7/ Much of the defense's cross of the bank witnesses was focused on how the banks made mistakes and could have caught Manafort's fraud if they were more careful. That is completely irrelevant as a legal matter. It is a crime to defraud careless or foolish people or companies.

8/ But in most white collar fraud cases I tried, this issue came up because it is in the defense's interest to "blame the victim." It's a particularly important issue in bank fraud cases because jurors dislike banks and a common defense strategy is to go after the bank victims.

9/ The amount of leeway judges give the defense to show why the bank was careless varies, but I think most judges would have let the defense make the cross-examination points that Judge Ellis allowed yesterday. As I've said before, typically the defense is outgunned.

10/ For that reason, most judges expect a conviction and a defense appeal, and give the defense leeway to avoid issues on appeal. The same thing will =likely happen here. Although yesterday's evidence was boring and didn't get any headlines or TV time, it proved Manafort's guilt.

11/ Today the prosecution is expected to wrap up its case, which means it will be defense's turn to call witnesses. The defense can call witnesses and introduce exhibits just like the prosecution. They have the same power as the prosecution to subpoena witnesses and documents.

12/ Unlike the prosecution, however, the defense does not have the burden of proof. Often the defense doesn't have much to work with, and it is rare for the defense to have more than a few witnesses at most. Often the defense calls no witnesses whatsoever.

13/ Sometimes that is a better strategy than calling one or two witnesses. If the defense calls only one witness who doesn't say much that's important, it highlights to the jury that the defense didn't have much of anything to offer to bolster their claims.

14/ If the defense calls no one, it keeps the focus on the prosecution and their burden of proof, which is better if the defense doesn't have much to work with. Obviously the defense would prefer to put up many witnesses, but they usually don't have a strong story to tell.

15/ One big choice the defense will have to make before they rest their case is whether to call Manafort himself. He has an absolute right to testify if he wants to, but he also has the right to remain silent and the jury will be instructed not to consider that (but may do so).

16/ Calling the defendant really changes the dynamic of a trial. If the defendant doesn't testify, the focus is on whether the government met its burden. Once the defendant testifies, the focus is on whether jurors believe the defendant. If they think he's a liar, he loses.

17/ That's because instead of jurors imagining various possible things Manafort could have done, Manafort will tell them his story, and either the jury will believe it or it won't. I wouldn't call Manafort here because there is far too much evidence for him to explain away.

18/ There is a school of thought that if you're likely going to lose badly anyway, you might as well throw a Hail Mary, but I think the downside is too great and likely to happen if he testifies to do it. If Manafort took the stand and lied, it would also hurt him at sentencing.

19/ The cross-examination of Manafort would be so brutal that I'd avoid that if I were his lawyers. But obviously he can overrule them. It's also worth noting that if anyone testifies in the defense case (or if they introduce exhibits), the government can call rebuttal witnesses.

20/ The government's rebuttal witnesses (or rebuttal exhibits) have to respond directly to something in Manafort's defense case--something a defense witness or exhibit said. I'd expect Judge Ellis to limit the prosecution to testimony or exhibits that closely rebut the defense.

21/ Avoiding a rebuttal case is another valid reason for the defense to limit the witnesses or exhibits they put in during their own case. If I were them, I'd put on surrogates who can tell Manafort's story for him, or I'd put on no one at all.

22/ We'll talk about sentencing later, but one point I want to clear up because it appears in media coverage. Manafort is not realistically facing 100+ years in prison. It is true that the maximum possible sentence is hundreds of years in prison. But that number means nothing.

23/ The real question is what the federal sentencing guidelines range for Manafort's conduct is. My guess is that it's probably well under 20 years in prison, although I haven't calculated it myself. To be clear, Manafort is facing many years in prison. Just not hundreds. /end

Yes, Mr. President, a year & a half later and your Nat'l Security & Foreign Policy Advisors both pled guilty to felonies, Campaign Chair is on trial & Deputy Chair is a witness against him (also pled) and dozens of Russians indicted.

The speed of it DOES take your breath away. https://t.co/eC3nd0Najn

— Adam Schiff (@RepAdamSchiff) August 10, 2018