Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThings in the Paul Manafort trial that should scare Trump
By Jennifer Rubin
August 15 at 9:15 AM
-snip-
What can we learn from the proceedings to this point?
First, Trump declaring a trial a witch hunt or unfair, or vouching for the character of an ex-staffer tells us nothing about the strength of the case or the actual character of the defendant. The president operates in a fact-free and lawless universe, one in which any proceeding that implicates either him or his inner circle is by definition a witch hunt. Trump likely had no idea what the facts of the Manafort case were (the public sure didnt), or understanding of the laws implicated. Keep this in mind with regard to his pronouncements regarding the Russia investigation and any cases stemming from that. Trump is about the least-reliable person one could ask for an accurate assessment of someones legal exposure. And that includes possible cases against the president himself.
Second, the general public, as noted above, knows a fraction of the evidence prosecutors have collected before they put on their case. The same is true of potential conspiracy and/or obstruction charges against Trump, his family and top advisers. In particular, the mound of financial documents in the Manafort case was staggering, and that evidence was confirmed by more witnesses who are not household names (at least not before the trial). Keep that in mind when Trumps sycophants say there is no evidence of anything.
Third, prosecutors know all about burden of proof. They arent going to file charges or go to trial unless they have lots and lots of evidence. (Remember all those indictments obtained by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III?) They rarely rely on a single document or a single witness especially if that witness is vulnerable on cross-examination. The notion that Trump will be able to invalidate a carefully crafted case against him, for example, by smearing an FBI agent (e.g., Peter Strzok) who left early in the investigation, and whose work was confirmed by others, is downright silly. The president also has been trying to discredit former FBI director James B. Comey from the beginning, but the amount of evidence that supports Comeys recollection may be just as impressive as the case brought by Manaforts prosecutors.
Fourth, PR arguments and political spin (Not fair! What about . . . ?) have zero weight in court. Manafort cannot avoid prison time by saying the government didnt catch all tax cheats. (So-called selective prosecution defenses are available in very narrow circumstances and rarely succeed.) Likewise, defendants in other cases are going to have to face the pros and cons of taking the stand (where their credibility may be shredded) and putting on witnesses whose own integrity is suspect.
Fifth, understanding that the facts and the law are not favorable to Trump, his legal team seems more inclined these days to fall back on far-fetched constitutional pleas e.g., a president cannot obstruct justice or baseless allegations against prosecutors. (The political affiliation of prosecutors is irrelevant in a trial so long as they are credible and have the goods; absent any showing of political bias, its far from clear Trump or his cohorts lawyers would even get to raise the point.) And remember, legal arguments about possible prosecution only relate to prosecution in office; theres zero bar for prosecuting him the moment a new president is sworn in.
In sum, when you see a real trial conducted by professional, experienced prosecutors, you realize the disadvantage Trump and/or others in his administration may face if cases are brought against them. The prosecutors will come armed with a mountain of evidence and the Trumpers will cry Unfair! (Hows that working out for Manafort?) Once we move to a venue in which facts do matter, and Sean Hannity doesnt get to dismiss out of hand whatever bad facts come up, Trump and his inner circle may find themselves like Manafort defenseless.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2018/08/15/things-in-the-paul-manafort-trial-that-should-scare-trump/?utm_term=.d161a8381dcb
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
3 replies, 890 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (15)
ReplyReply to this post
3 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Things in the Paul Manafort trial that should scare Trump (Original Post)
DonViejo
Aug 2018
OP
dalton99a
(81,510 posts)1. Great piece
exboyfil
(17,863 posts)2. The feeling that I get is that
they are making the case that these oligarchs and their henchmen are doing this stuff everyday and it was a targeted prosecution of Manafort to get him to flip on Trump.
You know something, they are right. Once we are done with Trump's cabal, we should continue the prosecutions of this class of crooks. Actually that sounds like something the Democrats could run on.
onecaliberal
(32,861 posts)3. The MSM is acting like he's going to get off.