- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 8/2/18 at 9:42 am to Wednesday
quote:How many cases have you tried to a jury? I don’t know any lawyer that does not list “extra” witnesses. Better to list them and not need them than to leave them off the list, need them and have them excluded.
The decision to list and then not call gates is inexplicable to me.
Kind of Lawyering 101
This post was edited on 8/2/18 at 9:49 am
Posted on 8/2/18 at 9:47 am to Jjdoc
quote:
Judge slaps Mueller AGAIN
Until the Swamp takes an actual "L", I'm of the mindset that the dog and pony show that the Judge is putting on is simply so that the talking heads can say, "See, the judge was FAIR and impartial. He took Mueller to task throughout the trial and Mueller's team still got the conviction because it was the just decision."
I hope that I'm wrong, it just seems that I've seen this movie before.
Posted on 8/2/18 at 9:52 am to Jjdoc
Lol what a bunch of assclowns. The future of the US is in safe hands with these guys!
Posted on 8/2/18 at 9:55 am to AggieHank86
quote:
How many cases have you tried to a jury? I don’t know any lawyer that does not list “extra” witnesses. Better to list them and not need them than to leave them off the list, need them and have them excluded.
How many cases have to tried and not used you KEY witness?
I'm no lawyer, but I've seen my fair share of court room discourse. If you're only tie to corruption is a single witness, you call that witness.
Posted on 8/2/18 at 9:57 am to Jjdoc
Mueller is either completely inept or so drunk with power that he can’t function on an even playing field.
Posted on 8/2/18 at 10:01 am to TigerDoc
quote:
This is what Andres told the press on his way into the courtroom, not the judge. “We have every intention to call him as witness” sounds a bit squirrely.
CNN reporting now, though, that Gates is expected to testify Friday or Monday so this may be more solid. Still could be games.
CNN reporting? Frick me to tears!
Posted on 8/2/18 at 10:01 am to AggieHank86
quote:
How many cases have you tried to a jury? I don’t know any lawyer that does not list “extra” witnesses. Better to list them and not need them than to leave them off the list, need them and have them excluded.
Kind of Lawyering 101
the analysis I read yesterday said that was a head fake to get more latitude in questioning the witness.
Posted on 8/2/18 at 10:02 am to AggieHank86
quote:
How many cases have you tried to a jury? I don’t know any lawyer that does not list “extra” witnesses. Better to list them and not need them than to leave them off the list,
you do know that there is a negative inference allowed for witnesses listed and not called, right?
also
you do know the entire defense is built around "Gates did it. we didn't know he was committing crimes", right?
listing Gates and not calling him may not lose the case, but it supremely strengthens the defense
Posted on 8/2/18 at 10:03 am to brian_wilson
quote:
the analysis I read yesterday said that was a head fake to get more latitude in questioning the witness.
Can you explain how THAT strategy works? I'm willing to be educated. But, this sounds like a stretch to excuse the goofiness presented.
Posted on 8/2/18 at 10:04 am to AggieHank86
Cuck Aggie melts are the best melts folks!!
MELT
E
L
T
MELT
E
L
T
Posted on 8/2/18 at 10:04 am to Themole
quote:
CNN reporting?
Yep. Marshall Cohen now reporting that Andres told the judge that Gates will testify. Judge Ellis is holding these guys' feet to the fire but I expect we'll probably see Gates.
Posted on 8/2/18 at 10:05 am to brian_wilson
quote:
the analysis I read yesterday said that was a head fake to get more latitude in questioning the witness.
Posted on 8/2/18 at 10:10 am to BlackHelicopterPilot
quote:
Can you explain how THAT strategy works? I'm willing to be educated. But, this sounds like a stretch to excuse the goofiness presented.
I believe the government was examining a witness and the judge, being a stickler to avoid redundancy, tried to shut down a line of questioning by asking if they weren't planning to get Gates' testimony on the same issue, so the prosecutor responded he wasn't sure if Gates would testify, thus getting latitude to continue the line of questioning.
This post was edited on 8/2/18 at 10:29 am
Posted on 8/2/18 at 10:11 am to Strannix
quote:In Strannix’s “mind” (I use that term loosely), a simple comment on prophylactic pretrial strategy is a “melt.”
Aggie melts are the best melts folks!!
He really needs new material.
This post was edited on 8/2/18 at 10:12 am
Posted on 8/2/18 at 10:12 am to Jjdoc
It’s almost like Mueller is trying to tank it.
Posted on 8/2/18 at 10:13 am to TigerDoc
quote:
I believe the government was examining a witness and the judge, being a stickler to avoid redundancy, asked if weren't planning to getting Gates' testimony on the same issue so the prosecutor said they weren't sure if Gates would testify, thus getting latitude to continue the line of questioning.
Thank you. Seems like a silly "strategy". But, thank you for the explanation
Posted on 8/2/18 at 10:13 am to TigerDoc
If I'm the defense, I want Gates testifying in open court. In something like this you want the rat right up there in front of you so you can get him to squirm and impeach his testimony.
Gates is more of a liability for Mueller overall than Manafort
Normally a tax issue like this gets a person who is convicted about 2 years in a Club Fed. A FARA , Doc is usually a civil penalty, a fine
Gates is more of a liability for Mueller overall than Manafort
Normally a tax issue like this gets a person who is convicted about 2 years in a Club Fed. A FARA , Doc is usually a civil penalty, a fine
Posted on 8/2/18 at 10:19 am to BlackHelicopterPilot
quote:
Can you explain how THAT strategy works? I'm willing to be educated. But, this sounds like a stretch to excuse the goofiness presented.
Judge said when they were questioning an FBI agent that rick gates could provide this. The prosecutor said well maybe we won't call him, so we should ask these questions to the FBI agent if we don't.
it makes sense. FBI are generally great witnesses at trial, who the frick knows what Rick gates is going to sound like? And he inherently has a credibility problem.
Posted on 8/2/18 at 10:22 am to KiwiHead
quote:CBS and MSM reporting 305 years but probably 10 years. Also: Podesta did the same things. Will he plead da fif and skate?
Normally a tax issue like this gets a person who is convicted about 2 years in a Club Fed. A FARA , Doc is usually a civil penalty, a fine
quote:
What Manafort is being charged with
Manafort has been charged with four counts of bank fraud and five counts of conspiracy to commit bank fraud. In this case, he's also been charged with five counts of "subscribing to false United States individual income tax returns" and four counts of "failure to file reports of foreign bank and financial accounts."
The maximum sentence for these 18 counts is 305 years in prison. However, the government is currently recommending that Manafort serve 8 to 10 years if he is convicted.
As a result of their work with Ukraine, Manafort and Gates made tens of millions of dollars between 2006 and 2015. Neither Manafort nor Gates paid taxes on that income, instead classifying it as "loans" from offshore foreign entities, according to the government. They then used the money to purchase, refurbish and refinance their real estate holdings in the U.S.
cbsnews.com
Page 2 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News