Thursday, August 09, 2018
Political Mayhem Thursday: The Manafort Trial
It's been an interesting week in criminal law, as all eyes have been on the Paul Manafort trial, as President Trump's former campaign manager defends himself against charges unrelated to that role.
We saw some good lawyering. It appears that the prosecutors did a pretty good job of fronting the bad facts about a key witness, Rick Gates, inoculating him from some hard hits on cross. That said, the defense attorneys did their job and worked every angle they could when they got their bit at Gates (who was Manafort's Capo and, apparently, victimizer through theft).
The thing that really struck me, though, was Manafort's stuff. This guy really wanted to live the high life! It seems that he was quite stylin', stepping out in a $21,000 watch and a $15,000 ostrich coat. He shopped at stores where you apparently have to have an appointment. Over the course of five years, he spent about $1,000,000 on clothes and jewelry.
People who know me are aware that, uh... let's just say that I don't spend a lot of money on clothes. Many of my clothes are from the last millennium, literally. And I'm stumped as to what the utility or value is to a watch which costs $21,000. Does it tell time super-well? Is it weightless? Can it make you invisible? (actually, if it can make you invisible, a lot of people will start saving).
A long time in criminal law has taught me that the desire for stuff is the undoing of a lot of people. I suspect that the objects are a proxy for something else, a way of showing accomplishment, I guess. No one is immune, of course-- we all lust for something now and then (I'll admit to fantasy car shopping online).
Virtues and vice haven't changed much since ancient times. Wealth, power, and revenge are strong motivators... and always have been.
Comments:
<< Home
From what I can tell (just what a layman reads), the case against Manafort is rock solid (even without his co-villain Rick Gates). The "paper case" is airtight?
What I find interesting: people who seem to know things keep saying that this is the kind of case that rarely gets prosecuted. Why? There clearly seems to be wrongdoing. To which people will say that this is the kind of case that is really hard to make. But, it seems to me, based on what we are seeing, if you put your shoulder into it, it is not that hard for a motivated prosecutor with unlimited resources. Is that unfair? Meaning, Manafort might could have skirted justice--if he had not worked for Donald Trump and drawn the ire of a motivated prosecutor with unlimited resources. Interesting question. On one side--if you break the law, you deserve prosecution and punishment--even if others are breaking the same law and not facing punishment. On the other hand, others will argue that arbitrarily prosecuting offenders for crimes that others commit regularly without fear of prosecution seems to undermine blind justice. Even more specific to this case: Gates seems at least as guilty as Manafort. Why should he get a sweetheart deal while we throw the book at Manafort? The answer seems to be that Manafort might yield something in the Trump investigation. Okay. I'm fine with that angle.
One other item: I am a bit taken aback by the fascination with the clothes. With all that is going on here, I am surprised that the so many focus on the flamboyant suits and jewelry. I suppose that is a carefully calculated prosecutorial maneuver to otherize the defendant, making him both ridiculous and also unsympathetically wealthy.
In the end, when the dust clears, I am fairly certain no one will shed a tear for Manafort.
What I find interesting: people who seem to know things keep saying that this is the kind of case that rarely gets prosecuted. Why? There clearly seems to be wrongdoing. To which people will say that this is the kind of case that is really hard to make. But, it seems to me, based on what we are seeing, if you put your shoulder into it, it is not that hard for a motivated prosecutor with unlimited resources. Is that unfair? Meaning, Manafort might could have skirted justice--if he had not worked for Donald Trump and drawn the ire of a motivated prosecutor with unlimited resources. Interesting question. On one side--if you break the law, you deserve prosecution and punishment--even if others are breaking the same law and not facing punishment. On the other hand, others will argue that arbitrarily prosecuting offenders for crimes that others commit regularly without fear of prosecution seems to undermine blind justice. Even more specific to this case: Gates seems at least as guilty as Manafort. Why should he get a sweetheart deal while we throw the book at Manafort? The answer seems to be that Manafort might yield something in the Trump investigation. Okay. I'm fine with that angle.
One other item: I am a bit taken aback by the fascination with the clothes. With all that is going on here, I am surprised that the so many focus on the flamboyant suits and jewelry. I suppose that is a carefully calculated prosecutorial maneuver to otherize the defendant, making him both ridiculous and also unsympathetically wealthy.
In the end, when the dust clears, I am fairly certain no one will shed a tear for Manafort.
I too think this case is a no brainer. What concerns me is the judge. He has done some strange things in the court room (from what I have heard) that could be cause for concern to the prosecution. Not regarding an initial guilty decision but for a Manafort appeal and the concept of Double Jeopardy.
Post a Comment
<< Home
