Jurors Hear Closing Arguments in Manafort Trial

witnesses yesterday. Manafort's attorney, Kevin Downing, explained why while walking out of the Alexandria Federal Courthouse yesterday, Mr Manafort just rested his case, and he did so because he and his legal team believe that the government has not met its burden approved joining me as former federal prosecutor Ellie Honick, special counsel at Loewenstein Sandler Ellie as a federal prosecutor.

How many times do you think you heard the defense say the government has not met its burden as an explanation for White didn't present its case all the time, whatever the number of trials I did, times a hundred um. This is this is the the constant refrain from defense lawyers, and it should be you know, that's how our constitution is set up. It is the burden of the prosecution

to prove every count beyond a reasonable doubt. And so it's not at all on common to see the kind of defense that we're seeing from Manapar here, which is no defense really. Um. But I don't mean that in a derogatory way. I mean they don't have to put on in any kind of defense, and so it's what we just call a reasonable about defense. Um. You don't put on any affirmative evidence of your own as a defendant. You just claim the government has not carried its burden.

That's obviously true that you don't have to put on a case, and many defendants don't. But would you expect with this the high caliber and high price of this defense team, you have three defense lawyers basically in the courtroom, that you would expect at least some character witnesses or is that too dangerous? Uh No, I wouldn't equate, you know, the quality with with quantity um and character witnesses. I've I've been on trials where people have hall character witnesses.

They really don't do much because all they come out and say is this is a good person and he gives the charity. And you know, the jury usually understands that has nothing to do with whether he committed the charge crimes. A person can be a good person and take care of his family and donate to charity, but still commit bank fraud and tax fraud. So um, sometimes I think jury see that as as just a dog

and pony show. Is sort of superficial. So if I was in the shoes of the defense or I think I do the same thing he did, I think I'd either mount a very robust defense or just go with reasonable belt. So now closings today, Gates, Rick Gates, the star of witness, appeared to have suffered some credibility problems during a tough cross examination he which exposed some lies. Is the defense likely to stick with that blame the star witness strategy and it's closing. They absolutely will. It's

really the only place they have to go. You know, you can't attack the documents. He can't really attack the bank witnesses that the vendors that came in. So they made clear in their opening they're gonna attack with Gates, and and I would expect that's what they're gonna do. And you can already see, you know, the prosecution is actually just within the last few minutes concluded, it's closing, and you can see the prosecutors are already bracing for that.

And and the line out of the prosecution's closing is the documents of the star witness in this case. Which when I saw that, I thought that's a smart line. It's it's not dazzling, it's not catchy or anything, but I think it's a really good way for the prosecutors to to sort of take the focus off of Rick Gates as the criminal. Of course, that's why he's up on the stand, you know, that's that's why Manafort liked him. But ultimately, look at the documents. So the prosecution has

to prove that Manafort had criminal intent. How do they get inside his mind when there are witnesses between Manafort and the transactions. Yeah, that's a circumstantial you know. So people people use the phrase circumstantial evidence like it's a bad thing, but it's not necessarily and judges will instructures. You may use your common sense inferences to to draw

to draw inferences about what the circumstances say. So if these if these accounts are controlled by manaphor, which it seems clear that they are, and if he's ordering documents to be falsified, as it seems clearly that he was. And if he's the one receiving all the benefit, all the millions of dollars, which seems pretty clear as well, then then a jury as well when it's right to

infer that he had the intent. Now we've talked about the judge before moving the trial along, but we haven't talked about all the comments that the judge made during the trial, some on the prosecution's evidence and one that was flatly contradicted by a transcript which he brought out, But he never really said he was wrong. Could his statements have an impact on the jury? They could. Juries, of course listened to judges, and you know the judge is the most powerful figure in the court room, and

juries literally look up at the judge. So yes, juries are swayed by things judges say. I think the judge got a few things wrong here, as you pointed out, um, and I think he even sort of misstated the law when he when he snapped at one of the witnesses. Can you tell us about bank loan that actually happened. It's a climate if they tried to get a bank loan illegally, even if that loan didn't happen, So that

could have an impact. I will say, though, on the other hand, I've seen situations where judges have bullied one party or another, maybe the prosecutors, maybe the defense. But sometimes if the judge is really uh over, you know, comes on too strong or abusive to a party, it has the effect of actually rallying the jury to that party side. You know that the party will sort of start to empathize or sympathize with that side, and that can actually sort of work the opposite way as well.

Let's turn to the Muller investigation for a moment. Trump's lawyer Rudy Giuliani has been stating deadlines from Muller to end the investigation just about since he got on the team. Now he's claiming that if the investigation isn't over by September, quote, then we have a very very serious violation of the

Justice Department rules. Explain that murky policy at the Justice Department, and whether where Trump isn't even on the ballot, there's any problem here If Rudy is off base and he knows he's he's been at this long he worked for the Department Justice for decades um. This is first of all, the idea that that you don't do things within sixty days of an election is a custom and a practice. It is not a rule. It is not a regulation,

It is not a statute. Second of all, Rudy seems to be suggesting that the rule says either you absolutely stop everything you're doing, you pause it until after the election, or it sounds like what Rudy's really saying is they have to finish by then and I have to just end the investigation. And neither of those are true. What the custom is is you don't take over steps, You don't get behind a podium and announce a new set of charges. You you know, typically don't go out and

do and arrest in that period. But can you continue doing your work? Of course, and and uh Mulla has made clear that he intends to keep doing his work. There's already there's a known grand jury day for Kristin Davis for September seven, So he has no intention on stopping what he's doing on September one, nor should he. Now. Giuliani has gotten the facts wrong at times, he's gotten the law wrong at times, But has he succeeded in confusing the public, murking the waters. It could be and

that may be the goal. Um. You know, he's certainly been out there in visible and loud, and I guess if he says something enough times, it sort of tends to stick in people's heads. And you know, there is pulling out there that shows that a good number of people across parties Democrats are Republicans would like to see Mueller finish up by September one. But everybody wants every criminal investigation to finish up, whether you're being investigated or

you're just a member of the public. It's not pleasant, but it's necessary that it go on until it's done right and concluded. And certainly the length of the Mueller investigation is far less so far than some of the other Special Counsel investigations. Thanks so much, Ellie, always a pleasure. That's Ellie Honick, Special Counsel A Lowenstein Sandler. It's unprecedented.

On Monday night, the West Virginia House of Delegates voted to impeach another branch of government, the entire state Supreme Court. If the Senate also votes to impeach the justices, their seats will be filled by the state's Republican governor, except for one seat, which the voters will decide because Democratic Justice Robin Gene Davis retired from her post effective one day before the impeachment. The majority members have ignored, ignored the will of the people who elected the justices of

this court. They have erased the lines of separation between the branches of government. Joining me is Patrick McGinley, a professor at the West Virginia University College of Law. Patrick, is this really about extravagance spending by the justices or is there more? Well? Certainly on the surface, uh, it's uh. The focus has been on extravagant spending and mismanagement by members of the Supreme Court, but critics UH suggests that

there's more to it. That this is a power play by the Republican legislature and the governor to replace all of the members of the Supreme Court with um UH justices friendly to their perspective by appointment of the governor. UH. And so that the specter of political impeachment certainly is on the horizon as being discussed here in West Virginia and exploring the media around the country, that's that's also

a topic of concern. The West Virginia's constitution, I understand allows the judiciary to sit and control its own budget. Are there specific laws or rules that govern the judge's expenditures that you know? The West Virginia House of Delegates

points to, Well, there's there is a civil law. Uh. The only one really cited specifically in the articles of impeachment is one that uh uh that allows the court to appoint retired judges to sit in places where they're needed, where there's a heavy caseload, there's illness of a judge, and that statute indicates that uh those um special especially appointed judges, should not be compensated more than sitting circuit

court judges in the state. And apparently there have been instances where uh the Supreme Court has approved the employment of judges in certain uh circuits where they're cumulative income during a year um exceeds that of a sitting judge. That's it's not a criminal statute, but that's what cited in the articles of impeachment. Have is there a separation of powers problem here that and this may set a

precedent in that area. Well, of course, there is uhh the ability of one branch of government to displaced the entire head of the judicial branches is a matter of concern, and of course, UM that is more likely to rise. I might say that it's really never these circumstances. Well, all the members of the court have been impeached, and impeached, by the way, doesn't mean conviction or removed from office.

It's a quote of an indictment. That's that's never occurred in West Virginia or in the United States, so that that's unusual and it's unsettling, But it only occurs in a situation like this where the both the legislative branch and the governor's office is occupied by members of the same party. And I think historically you don't see this because UH in state legislatures, the members are cognizant of

the impact of such a UH. Such a move would be on the integrity of the entire judicial system, and also the removal of all the judges would throw the West Virginia court system into disarray, with styusands of pending cases in the Supreme Court being the body that not only here's UH appeals from lower courts, but also administers a lower court system. So, Patrick, we have about a minute here. Does it seem as if this is going to go to the Senate. Will the republic is in

the Senate be able to to vote for impeachment? Will this actually go through? I'm skeptical. Uh, the members of the House have made their point. Uh, there's not going to be excessive spending on renovations. Judges will will be um. Uh, cognizance of spending tax pay money that's really seen the many to be overkill. All right, Thanks so much, Patrick, that's Patrick McGinley, professor at the West Riginia University College of Law. Thanks for listening to the Bloomberg Law Podcast.

You can subscribe and listen to the show on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud, and on bloomberg dot com slash podcast. I'm June Brosso. This is Bloomberg