Right. It was and is a legally questionable thing. But because Nixon’s pardon was never challenged or tested. It’s stands as precident that you can do that. Any legal argument over the subject of pre-emptive, blanket pardons is going to have to rehash and settle or dismiss Nixon’s pardon.
In the decades since watergate there’s been endless analysis and scholarship on the subject so I think it’s likely to come down on the “you can’t do that” side. But atm it’s less of a you have to be convicted to be pardoned situation, than a you can do that but it might get messy and might not succeed situation.
You can have that expectation all you’d like. But there’s nothing in this that indicates that’s the way it’s going. Just like there’s nothing in this that indicates Manafort is about to flip and release multiple pee tapes.
It’s a pretty routine legal strategy. Particularly where you don’t have a solid defense to put on. They’re doing what they’ve already been doing. Focusing on tearing up Gates to keep the jury from focusing on the solid documentary evidence backing the charges. Apparently they don’t have evidence or witnesses to counter that so they’re going to stick with the damage they did to Gates on cross. Calling witnesses, especially Manafort, just gives the prosecution the opportunity to do the same to them.
Closing arguments will be today. After then jury deliberations. The trial hasn’t even finished yet.
The best indicator of which way it’s going to go is how long it takes them to return a verdict. The longer a jury is out the less likely conviction is.
I agree with you. The last time I served on a jury, the judge went out of her way to explain that the defense doesn’t have to put on a case, and if they don’t, that doesn’t mean the defendant is guilty.
And what witnesses could they call, that would help their case, and not be a potential liability on cross-examination? What case could they put on that would help them? They’ve already given their explanation: Gates did it, Manafort was clueless.
Closing arguments, tl:dr: Defense-Manafort didn’t know anything, is an innocent victim. Prosecution-Gates is not the Star Witness, the documents are. Even if Gates is a scumbag, look at all the other evidence.
Yeah cant really tell one way or the other just from that strategy.
Prosecution stresses the documentary evidence, and that Gates was called only to corroborate and explain things already known from elsewhere.
Defense hammers on Gates, and runs the reasonable doubt game.
Which is more or less what happened. I just caught a recap on the radio. The prosecution went back through the evidence itself and stressed the charges and overall frame work of how the fraud worked.
And the defense called witch hunt, and argued the prosecution failed to make their case.
It doesnt seem like they focused on Gates. Which could mean they dont think they damaged his credibility enough, or they dont want to remind too much of the other witnesses or Gates’ specifics.
Dunno what that says. Sounds a lot less strong than anticipated. The prosecution seems to have laid out a clear story. The defense seems to have just settled for “witch hunt”.
I know in a debate focuing on debunking your opponants statements makes you look like you’re losing. Thats a big part of why the gish gallop works. I know juries get bored by overly technical, document based approaches. But it seems like the prosecution gave a full narative. And the defense gave a political slogan.
I’m curious what comes out as more complete transcripts start to hit.
And there was that sealed hearing the other day. Ive seen speculation that the defense’s current approach was a result of that. And “its all politically motivated” would seem to be one of those things you want to set up. Say by offering that as a defense.
The hearing was apparently only sealed to keep any news rolling out of it making its way to the jury. Full transcripts are supposed to come out as soon as the trials done.
