How many charges will the jury put in Manafort's sentencing cart?

[Jersey Devil]

I doubt it will be 0 or all 18 counts. My speculation is that a verdict comes today, that the jury throws out at least one bank fraud charge (the one where the bank ceo was offered Sec of the Army), 1 or 2 of the tax fraud charges and 1 or 2 of the failure to declare foreign bank account charges. My prediction is 11 convictions and 7 acquittals.

Shouldn't we have a pool?

[beachbum bob]

1. I see a low of 8 and as many as 16.

[Jersey Devil]

5. I think we're in the same ball park

The jury is probably buying the "materiality" defense on some of the bank fraud charges (that the loans would have been given despite Manafort's dishonesty, as with the Sec of the Army loan) and the defense that he wasn't paying attention to his finances on some of the tax fraud charges and the defense that he didn't understand the law on some of the foreign bank account charges. If the jury is liberal about granting such "reasonable doubt" defenses I could see 8 being a number they could come up with.

[lagomorph777]

8. Yup, majority of charges, but not all, seems likely

[SHRED]

2. Verdict is coming out today?

[Jersey Devil]

3. Just a guess, could be tomorrow

Based on the fact that they were willing to work late yesterday I believe they think they think they are close to a verdict, but of course that is just speculation.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

4. :eyes:

[emulatorloo]

6. What's the rationale for throwing out the bank fraud charge where the CEO conspired with Manafort

to defraud the bank?

Thanks!

[lagomorph777]

9. Judge TS Eliot told them that charge is BS in his opinion.

i.e. he influenced the jury.

[emulatorloo]

11. I hope the jury can see through some of the judges bullshit. He did instruct them to ignore his BS

comments. But time will tell.

Thanks for the reply.

[Jersey Devil]

13. "materiality"

The judge told the jury that what Manafort told the bank about his finances had to be "material" to the bank granting the loan, i.e., a basis for its favorable decision. The defense argued that since the bank was giving the loan due to the offer of a job at the White House to an officer regardless of what Manafort said about his finances, that Manafort's lies were not "material" to the granting of the loan. Apparently, the judge was saying that while "material" lies about a loan were a crime, offering a job in the White House to get a loan is not criminal. At least that is how I understood what he said.

[lagomorph777]

14. Yeah, something like that. Of course it was BS and he later admitted it.

[Jersey Devil]

15. Still, the well was poisoned by the judge

I can't fault the jury if they find Manafort not guilty on that bank fraud charge based on what the judge said. The whole thing is probably confusing as hell to them so if they have a doubt about that charge and they want to do their duty they would have to find him not guilty.

[lagomorph777]

16. Yeah, just like Comey's belated retraction of the big Hillary e-mail re-investigation.

Too little too late.

[avebury]

7. I would be so pissed off if they throw out the bank

fraud case (where they tried to bribe the bank official).

I was a Loan Review Officer for several years. My job was to review the existing loan portfolio for safety and soundness issues, compliance with Federal and State Rules and Regulations and internal Bank policies and procedures. We also reviewed new loans (every loan above a certain $ threshold and a random sample of new loans below that threshold).

The fact that a Senior Bank official was actually considering granting a multi-million dollar loan knowing that Manafort had provided false information shows that the official was not operating within safety and soundness and in the bank's best interest. I seriously doubt that the Bank President and Board would have been happy about such a loan. As a Loan Review Officer I would want to conduct a thorough review of the guy's entire loan portfolio. If he was willing to make this loan you know that he has made other questionable loans.

I have run an audit review of a rogue group of loan officers and I know from my personal experience that the President and Board were pretty pissed off when they read my report and saw the extent of the group's bad acts. They ordered that every loan officer at that bank receive a copy of the written report with a warning that they never wanted to see a report like that again regarding loan officer behavior.

You cannot claim that the bad acts of one employee represents proper approval by the entire bank.

There was one training exercise that was conducted for loan review officer and credit analysts. We were divided into 2 groups. Each group was given a set of documents. The exercise was, this client wants a new loan for $X amount of money (can't remember how much but at least a 6 figure amount) and we were to review our packet and say whether or not we would grant the loan. Here is where it got interesting. One group got a packet that sure as heck made the guy look good and they came back with a favorable ruling that they would grant the loan. Our group got the more interesting package. The bank that I worked for had purchased two other banks so we were a conglomeration of what had been 3 banks. This particular real life client had been a customer of two of the banks. Our package contained copies of the financial statements that the guy had provided to his 2 different loan officers. Interestingly enough, the financial statement given to each loan officer did not mention the loan that the other loan officer had provided the guy. The client had given both loan officer fraudulent statements. Our response was that not only would we not extend any additional credit but we would be talking with the police about the client. Once the bank became aware of what the client was doing that brought a pretty fast end to that banking relationship.

[emulatorloo]

12. Well said.

[ffr]

10. I'd be pissed off if I was in the jury pool. WTF! This is a slam dunk!!!

That a$$hole money laundered and helped sell our country out. He's a fucking traitor and I have to take time out of my life to pass judgement on him??? Fuck him! Fuck his lawyers. And especially fuck anyone who takes his side of the issue. I don't get to money launder, so why should he?

The only thing I'm deliberating his how harshly I get to sentence him. I'm making an example of him, so others like me don't have to also serve in future cases. What he did should be punished; and punished harshly!

[Jersey Devil]

17. Money laundering was not part of this trial

Those charges against Manafort will be tried in September. I think in our yearning for justice we are getting out in front of ourselves. We have to be patient, like Mueller. When Manafort is convicted of money laundering then everything you say will be on point. Until then we just have to wait and grit it out.

[ffr]

18. Factually true, I'm not on this jury and haven't studied the charges.

But I'm patient to the point of having taken enough shit in my lifetime from fraudsters. In this case, this a$$hole can't even defend himself verbally against any single charge of the 18. That speaks volumes. Patient's spent. Guilty!

[rusty fender]

19. 13 guilty, 4 not guilty and

one hung jury, since everything is a guess at this point.