Skip to main content

 Judge T.S. Ellis lost his patience with Mueller’s prosecutors Thursday afternoon and ended court early after the govt lawyers made the same mistake twice.

It’s amateur hour with Mueller’s lawyers!

The Judge even gave Mueller’s lawyers a good finger-wagging as he shouted at them–this is so good!

Via Law and Crime:

The last witness called to the stand was J. Philip Ayliff, a certified public accountant (CPA) at Paul Manafort’s long-serving tax-preparation agency, Kositzka, Wicks and Co. (KWC), of Richmond, Virginia. As time inched along during the last witness’s testimony, nothing of particular interest seemed to be occurring at all.

Ayliff was mostly providing foundational testimony regarding the basic functions of a tax-preparation company. Prosecutors then moved on to specifics and attempted to “publish” one of Manafort’s e-file forms. Judge T.S. Ellis III‘s weariness all but amazed the courtroom as he denied the request–complete with an actual and pronounced finger-wag–before shouting:

“No! You move it along!”

Composing themselves again, the prosecution moved slowly forward before asking Ayliff to define the term “financial interest.” Ayliff began to answer the question but was immediately cut off by Ellis who noted that Ayliff was not a noticed expert. The defense then belatedly objected, prompting a quick and sarcastic dressing-down from the judge–but it was again the prosecution’s turn for scorn.

Static filled the courtroom as the longest bench conference of the day ensued. Upon returning to Ayliff’s testimony, the jury learned that the issue had been deferred until Friday–if ever. Then, Assistant U.S. Attorney Uzo Asonye asked about another term of art contained on federal tax forms.

Judge Ellis, who was already standing by this point, advised Ayliff to wait and announced the court would recess early.

After the jury left, Judge Ellis explained to the press what was discussed during the bench conference.

That is, not only was Ayliff not an expert and not a noticed expert as necessitated by the Federal Rules of Evidence–but his testimony had the potential to derail an already-agreed-upon definition of the term(s) in question. This, Ellis said, could have “confused or clouded” things for the jury.

Judge T.S. Ellis, a Reagan appointee, became very irritated with Mueller’s prosecutors Wednesday as they droned on an on over Manafort’s lavish lifestyle and his expensive suits.

“It isn’t a crime to have money and be profligate with your spending,” Judge Ellis said to Mueller’s hack lawyer, Asonye.

On Wednesday Mueller’s lawyers took a beating from Judge Ellis after they went into detail about Manafort’s spending habits, whining about his expensive suits and how he paid for them via wire transfer–as if that’s somehow illegal.

At one point, Judge Ellis became so irritated with Mueller’s thugs fixating on Manafort’s spending habits, he interrupted the prosecutor and sternly said, “Let’s move on. Enough is enough. They can add.”

It looks like Mueller’s lawyers fall apart when they’re actually challenged by an ethical judge; they’re also getting smacked around in a the junk Russian bot case by Concord Management’s legal team because they aren’t prepared to try that case.

https://www.teaparty.org/judge...-court-early-317494/

Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Instead of sticking to the law and its arguments as to guilt, the prosecutors attempted to use the politics of envy against Manafort.  Judge had no patience with such idiocy.  Plus, attempted, perhaps thru stupidity, to derail areas agreed upon by both sides.  Meuller, that's what he gets for hiring all Democrats -- stupidity, or political?  Sometimes, with Democrats, its hard to tell the difference, if there is any. 

One thing I'm looking forward to seeing/hearing is the response to Manafort's defense of "he may have done it but he had no criminal intent".  In other words, the exact same defense that Hillary Clinton used.  In other words, Manafort had no intent on breaking the law.   I just wonder how that will play now that a conservative, pro-Trump person is using the exact same defense as Hillary used.

I'm betting that it won't be near as accepted as feasible when used for Manafort. 

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×