the Alzheimer‘s Association. >>> WE’RE BACK AT THE PAUL
MANAFORT TRIAL IN AL SANDEXANDRI
VIRGINIA.
VIRGINIA. CLOSING ARGUMENTS ARE GETTING
UNDERWAY.
UNDERWAY. THE JUDGE BOTH SIDES TO KEEP
THEIR SUMMATIONS TO LESS THAN
TWO HOURS.
TWO HOURS. THE DEFENSE RESTED WITHOUT
CALLING ANY WITNESSES, COMPARED
TO THE 27 WITNESSES WHICH
TESTIFIED FOR THE GOVERNMENT,
INCLUDING KEY WITNESS RICK
GATES, MANAFORT’S FORMER
RIGHT-HAND MAN.
RIGHT-HAND MAN. THE PROSECUTION PRODUCED 367
EXHIBITS COMPARED TO JUST 12 FOR
THE DEFENSE.
THE DEFENSE. LET’S BRING IN OUR LEGAL
EXPERTS, BOB, A CRIMINAL DEFENSE
ATTORNEY AND A FORMER NEW JERSEY
PROSECUTOR, AND JEFF, A WHITE
COLLAR CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY
WHO REPRESENTED THREE WHITE
HOUSE EMPLOYEES DURING THE
CLINTON SCANDALS.
CLINTON SCANDALS. THANKS SO BOTH OF YOU FOR BEING
HERE.
HERE. REALLY APPRECIATE IT.
>> GOOD MORNING.
>> MORNING TO YOU.
THANKS FOR BEING HERE.
LET ME START WITH YOU.
AND ASK WHERE YOU THINK THINGS
STAND.
STAND. THE DEFENSE SAID, WE’RE NOT
CALLING WITNESSES.
CALLING WITNESSES. A LOT OF PEOPLE WERE EXPECTING
THAT.
THAT. WHAT ARE YOU EXPECTING FROM THE
CLOSING ARGUMENTS?
CLOSING ARGUMENTS? >> WELL, THE DEFENSE WILL
PROBABLY, AND MOST LIKELY, AND
REALLY IT IS THEIR ONLY WAY OF
DOING IT, ARGUE THAT THE
GOVERNMENT HAS NOT MET THE
BURDEN BEYOND A REASONABLE
DOUBT.
DOUBT. THE GOVERNMENT WILL ARGUE IT IS
A PAPER CASE.
THEY WILL NOT DISTANCE
THEMSELVES FROM RICK GATES, BUT
THEY WILL SAY THAT WE PRESENTED
SIGNIFICANT EVIDENCE SHOWING
THAT MANAFORT COMMITTED TAX
FRAUD, COMMITTED BANK FRAUD, AND
IT IS ALL HERE IN THE PAPER.
>> YOU’RE NOT SURPRISED THEY
DIDN’T CALL ANY WITNESSES?
>> YOU KNOW, IT IS NOT CLEAR
WHAT MANAFORT WOULD HAVE
TESTIFIED ABOUT.
TESTIFIED ABOUT. THE EVIDENCE APPEARED TO BE
OVERWHELMING AGAINST HIM.
IT IS ALSO NOT CLEAR IF YOU’RE
GOING TO HAVE ONE OR TWO JURORS
WHO MAYBE WILL HANG UP THE JURY
BECAUSE THEY THINK IT IS AN
UNFAIR PROSECUTION.
UNFAIR PROSECUTION. I THINK, BASED ON MY EXPERIENCE
AT THAT COURTHOUSE AND IN TRYING
CASES, THAT THE JURY WILL BE
BACK BY FRIDAY NIGHT.
>> WOW.
>> WOW. OKAY.
OKAY. THAT’S QUITE A PREDICTION.
THAT’S FAST.
THAT’S FAST. BOB, LET ME GET YOU TO WEIGH IN.
FIRST, DO YOU SHARE THE
ASSESSMENT?
ASSESSMENT? YOU THINK THE JURY WILL BE BACK
BY FRIDAY NIGHT?
>> I THINK IT IS GOING TO BE A
QUICK CASE, KRISTEN, BUT I DON’T
THINK WHAT THE DEFENSE DID HERE
WAS UNUSUAL.
WAS UNUSUAL. HERE IS THE REASON WHY, THE
GOVERNMENT CHOSE TO PUT RICK
GATES ON, AND THAT WAS A RISKY
MOVE.
MOVE. AS A PROSECUTOR MYSELF, WORKING
WITH COOPERATING WITNESSES, WHEN
YOU PUT THEM ON, I USE THE
ANALOGY, WHEN YOU SLEEP WITH A
DOG, YOU CATCH FLEEAS, OR THEY’L
ARGUE BIRDS OF A FEATHER FLOCK
TOGETHER.
TOGETHER. THERE WAS NO NEED FOR A DEFENSE
TO PUT ON A DEFENDANT WHO WOULD
HAVE BEEN HAMMERED ON
CROSS-EXAMINATION BECAUSE OF THE
E-MAIL AND DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
AND TAX RETURNS, WHEN THEY HAD
AN OPPORTUNITY AT THEIR OWN
WITNESS, IF YOU WILL, BY
CROSS-EXAMINING GATES.
CROSS-EXAMINING GATES. THEY’RE GOING TO MAKE THE WHOLE
CASE ABOUT GATES.
THEY’RE GOING TO SAY, AND HERE’S
HOW I DO IT IN SUMMATION, LADIES
AND GENTLEMEN OF THE JURY, THEY
CALLED DPAETS SEDED GATES FOR A
THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WASN’T
ENOUGH.
ENOUGH. YOU’RE GOING TO PUT MY CLIENT --
THEY WON’T SAY IN JAIL -- BUT
YOU’RE GOING TO CONVICT MY
CLIENT BASED ON A PERSON HAVING
AFFAIRS, A PERSON WHO STOLE
MONEY?
MONEY? THEY DIDN’T PUT HIM ON FOR NO
REASON.
REASON. THAT WAS THE PERSON THEY NEEDED.
YOU SHOULD NOT BELIEVE HIM
BECAUSE HE IS NOT WORTHY OF
BELIEF.
BELIEF. I THOUGHT IT WAS A RISKY MOVE
FOR THEM TO PUT HIM ON.
>> YOU SEE, IN RESPONSE TO THAT,
THE GOVERNMENT HAS A REBUTTAL.
THEY HAVE THE BURDEN OF PROOF.
IN THE REBUTTAL, THAT I WILL
SAY, GATES CORROBORATES
EVERYTHING THAT’S IN THE PAPER.
WE PUT GATES ON SO YOU CAN GET A
FLAVOR OF THE EVIDENCE OF WHAT
HAPPENED.
HAPPENED. IT IS BIRDS OF A FEATHER FLOCK
TOGETHER.
TOGETHER. THESE ARE THE PEOPLE THAT THE
PRESIDENT IS HANGING OUT WITH.
>> WE HEARD FROM PAUL MANAFORT’S
DEFENSE ATTORNEY.
DEFENSE ATTORNEY. LET ME PLAY THAT AND THEN GET
EVERYONE’S REACTION ON THE OTHER
SIDE.
SIDE. >> MR. MANAFORT JUST RESTED HIS
CASE.
CASE. HE DID SO BECAUSE HE AND HIS
LEGAL TEAM BELIEVE THAT THE
GOVERNMENT HAS NOT MET ITS
BURDEN OF PROOF.
THANKS, EVERYONE.
THANKS, EVERYONE. >> THEY WERE ACTUALLY ASKING FOR
AN ACQUITTAL.
AN ACQUITTAL. THE JUDGE DISAGREED, DENIED THE
MOTION FOR AN ACQUITTAL.
WHAT CAN THE DEFENSE DO AT THIS
POINT IN TIME TO RAISE THE
SPECTER OF A REASONABLE DOUBT?
>> YOU KNOW, THEY HAVE TO ASK
FOR AN ACQUITTAL.
YOU’RE OBLIGATED TO DO IT AS A
DEFENSE COUNSEL, TO DO IT AT THE
CLOSE OF THE EVIDENCE.
IT IS A ROUTINE PROCEDURE.
GENERALLY, JUDGES DENY IT.
THEIR ONLY ARGUMENT AT THIS
POINT, REALLY, IS TO ATTACK
GATES, ATTACK HIS CREDIBILITY,
TO SAY HE IS A LIAR, AND TO SAY
THE GOVERNMENT HAS NOT MET THEIR
BURDEN.
BURDEN. >> WE ALSO HEARD FROM PAUL
MANAFORT YESTERDAY, ALBEIT VERY
BRIEFLY.
BRIEFLY. LET’S PLAY A LITTLE BIT OF THAT
CLIP.
CLIP. WE DON’T HAVE ANY MORE SOUND,
BUT HE DID SAY, I HAVE DECIDED,
YOURSELF
YOURSELF YOUR HONOR, DO YOU WISH TO
TESTIFY, NO, SIR.
EVERYONE THOUGHT HE ULTIMATELY
WASN’T GOING TO TESTIFY.
HOW DO YOU MAKE WHAT WE SAW FROM
PAUL MANAFORT DURING THIS CASE?
DIDN’T HEAR A WHOLE LOT FROM
HIM.
HIM. NO SURPRISE THERE.
>> SOMETHING, KRISTEN, I FOUND
WAS INTERESTING, IS AT ONE POINT
IN TIME, HIS ATTORNEY
MISCHARACTERIZED AN EVIDENCE
NUMBER OF A PIECE OF EVIDENCE IN
THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS OF PAGES
OF DOCUMENTS.
OF DOCUMENTS. IN FRONT OF THE JURY, HE
CORRECTED HIS OWN LAWYER TO GIVE
HIM THE RIGHT EXHIBIT NUMBER.
NOW, IF YOU’RE A GOOD TRIAL
LAWYER, YOU’VE BEEN AROUND THE
BLOCK LIKE I HAVE, YOU KNOW THE
JURY IS WATCHING EVERY SINGLE
THING THAT IS GOING ON.
I THINK THAT THAT WOULD SPELL TO
THEM, IN A VERY SUBTLE WAY, THAT
THIS IS NOT A GUY WHO JUST LETS
GATES DO WHATEVER HE WANTS.
HE IS A DETAIL GUY.
HE KNOWS WHAT HE IS DOING.
THERE SEEMED TO BE A LOT OF
TIMES WHERE HE IS SITTING SMUGLY
AT THE COUNSEL TABLE.
I DON’T THINK HE MADE A GREAT
APPEARANCE THAT WAY.
EVEN THOUGH HE HAS A RIGHT NOT
TO TESTIFY, NEVERTHELESS, THAT
JURY IS LOOKING AT HIM.
OBVIOUSLY, HE CHOSE NOT TO
TESTIFY BECAUSE THEY HAD GATES,
AND THAT IS THE CENTERPIECE OF
THE CASE.
THE CASE. MOREOVER, IF HE GOT ON THE
STAND, YOU HAVE TO REMEMBER,
HE’S GOT ANOTHER INDICTMENT HE’S
FACING, AND HE COULD HAVE BEEN
SUBJECTING HIMSELF TO
CROSS-EXAMINATION AND COULD HAVE
GOTTEN HIMSELF INTO DEEPER,
HOTTER WATER.
HOTTER WATER. HE’S REALLY BETWEEN A ROCK AND A
HARD PLACE.
HARD PLACE. I AGREE WITH THE GUEST, THAT IT
WOULD BE, IN MY REASON, A QUICK
RETURN OF A GUILTY VERDICT ON
MOST COUNTS.
MOST COUNTS. >> I’LL TELL YOU WHO IS WATCHING
THIS CLOSELY, THE PRESIDENT AND
THE WHITE HOUSE.
GUESS WHAT?
GUESS WHAT? HE’S UP AND TWEETING TODAY.
LET ME READ THAT FOR YOU BOTH.
THE RIGGED RUSSIAN WITCH MUSTN’T
GOES ON AND ON AS THE
ORIGINATORS AND FOUNDERS OF THE
SCAM CONTINUE TO BE FIRED AND
DEMOTED FOR THEIR CORRUPT AND
ILLEGAL ACTIVITY.
ILLEGAL ACTIVITY. ALL CREDIBILITY IS GONE FROM
THIS TERRIBLE HOAX.
MUCH MORE WILL BE LOST AS IT
PROCEEDS.
PROCEEDS. NO COLLUSION.
NO COLLUSION. HE REFERENCES PETER STRZOK WHO
WAS FIRED YESTERDAY FROM THE
FBI, CALLING IT A DECISIVE STEP
IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION.
JEFF, LET ME GIVE THE FINAL
COMMENT TO YOU.
OBVIOUSLY, THE JURY NOT PAYING
ATTENTION TO THE TWEETS, OR AT
LEAST NOT SUPPOSED TO.
>> LET’S HOPE SO.
>> WHAT DOES IT MEAN THAT THE
PRESIDENT IS TWEETING, CALLING
THIS ALL A RIGGED WITCH HUNT,
WHILE THIS SERIOUS CASE IS
MOVING FORWARD?
MOVING FORWARD? >> INTERESTING POINT.
IF, IN FACT, THE JURY IS PAYING
ATTENTION TO WHAT THE PRESIDENT
IS TWEETING, THEN YOU HAVE A
SITUATION WHERE THE PRESIDENT IS
ULTIMATELY INFLUENCING WHAT THE
JURY VERDICT WOULD BE.
IF I’M MUELLER, I WOULD LOOK AT
THAT AND SAY, IS THIS ANOTHER
ACT TOWARD OBSTRUCTION?