I don’t think he is blundering. I just think he does not do the expected “presidential act”.

I think he plays to the mistrust many have in the usual politicians who “act presidential” while being essiantlially criminal behind public scenes.

People generally know presidents and politicians of the past are corrupt.

For all we know, on a scale Trump maybe less so. If he isn’t less so he will want to appear less so.

Also, it appears to be his personality and so if he attempted to sound “presidential” he would not carry it as believable.

By the way, what liar did he beat to be where he is?

Testimony under oath:

https://youtu.be/dax8KvfPXPI

Manafort trial jury deliberations begin today.

18 charges. Maximum sentence of 305 years. How many will he be found guilty of? How long, if he gets one, will his prison sentence be? Place your bets.

Just a wild guess since I don't know what the defence raised. I think the bank frauds need also to show banks acted on it and some sort of proof they wouldn't have even they had the correct information. As far as I know that connection hasn't been shown in detail as they didn't call any banks for witness. In one case it was Gates who told the accountant to lie and we don't know if he decided that independently or at Manafort's request. So I suspect a minimum of 9 counts. I also would expect the judge to mitigate the sentence because of the proceedings being used as a means to pressure Manafort into witnessing in the Russian investigation. So let's say 25 years.

As far as I know that connection hasn't been shown in detail as they didn't call any banks for witness. — Benkei

They did. The problem is that the CEO forced the loan to go through (against the president) because he wanted Manafort to get him on Trump's team. This was the argument the defence used; the loan would have been approved regardless so it doesn't matter that he lied on the form.

Let's look at the law in question:

Bank fraud

Whoever knowingly executes, or attempts to execute, a scheme or artifice—
(1) to defraud a financial institution; or
(2) to obtain any of the moneys, funds, credits, assets, securities, or other property owned by, or under the custody or control of, a financial institution, by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises;
shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both.

Whoever knowingly executes a scheme to obtain moneys from a financial institution by means of false representations...

Tricky one. He certainly did falsely represent himself (the defence admitted it), but given the prosecution's own argument, the loan was granted in exchange for a personal favour for the CEO. So the defence has a point. On the other hand, if it was just about the favour then Manafort wouldn't have bothered to lie on the form, which suggests that the false representation was intended to help secure the loan, with perhaps the favour as a backup. As the law looks to refer to intent rather than outcome, as a professional non-lawyer I side with the prosecution.

Manafort trial jury deliberations begin today.

18 charges. Maximum sentence of 305 years. How many will he be found guilty of? How long, if he gets one, will his prison sentence be? Place your bets. — Michael

Manafort did his crimes during the Obama Administration. His dealings were known by the FBI years before he worked for Trump. The Obama Administration never acted on this until the Democrats thought they could associate his crimes with Trump using fake news. How many fell for this scam?

Manafort did his crimes... — wellwisher

So he's guilty and should be punished accordingly.

His dealings were known by the FBI years before he worked for Trump. — wellwisher

Which dealings? Certainly not the fraudulent bank loan, as from what I can see that was late November 2016.

And of the dealings they knew about, did they have sufficient evidence to charge him, and if so then why didn't they? Are you saying that they decided not to charge him because they hoped that in a few years time he would work for Trump who would be running for President and win, and then they could use Manafort's financial crimes to somehow get revenge on Trump?

You really need to spell out your accusation more clearly because at the moment it doesn't make much sense.

How many fell for this scam? — wellwisher

What scam? If he's guilty then he's guilty and the prosecution is entirely warranted.

The Obama Administration never acted on this until the Democrats thought they could associate his crimes with Trump using fake news. — wellwisher

And this definitely doesn't make any sense. It was under the Trump administration that Manafort was indicted and is being prosecuted.

Are you just saying that the Obama administration was lenient towards white collar crime and that the Trump administration is finally cracking down on criminals like Manafort who should be held accountable?

Let the criminals go free because they're on our side is what he's saying. Which is a fairly typical attitude of hardcore Trump supporters and of Trump himself, the "law and order" president.

Let the criminals go free because they're on our side is what he's saying. Which is a fairly typical attitude of hardcore Trump supporters and of Trump, the "law and order" president. — Baden

The idea that the Republicans are the party of "law and order" (and of "family values" and "fiscal responsibility") is laughable.

Also, why is wellwisher bringing up Trump at all? This is about Manafort and his alleged crimes. He seems to have this weird belief that if Trump is innocent of any criminal conspiracy involving Russian interference (and subsequent obstruction) then anybody who's even remotely connected to Trump shouldn't be prosecuted for their criminal behaviour? Why, because it might reflect badly on Trump? That's some crazy hero worship right there.

shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both

Wait a minute. Fines are a possibility under the other charges as well. I'm going to drop the imprisonment and go straight to a prison term the length of his time already in jail for breaching his bail terms and a penalty of 3 million USD.

I'm going to drop the imprisonment and go straight to a prison term the length of his time already in jail for breaching his bail terms and a penalty of 3 million USD. — Benkei

That would be hella lenient.

It's white collar crime there aren't any "real" victims.

It's white collar crime there aren't any "real" victims. — Benkei

And yet possessing drugs for personal use gets you years in prison.

And yet possessing drugs for personal use gets you years in prison. — Michael

I really should learn to clarify when something is an explanation or argument from someone else rather than something I actually believe. I meant "I suspect the judge, like most people, will think white collar crime doesn't have any "real" victims and therefore the punishment will be lenient".

I really should learn to clarify when something is an explanation or argument from someone else rather than something I actually believe. I meant "I suspect the judge, like most people, will think white collar crime doesn't have any "real" victims and therefore the punishment will be lenient". — Benkei

Yes, sorry, I was just reflecting on the sorry state of affairs in US law. Those same judges will punish drug possession harshly.

Here's a ruling by Ellis in a bribery case:

In November 13, 2009, Jefferson was sentenced to thirteen years in federal prison for bribery after a corruption investigation, the longest sentence ever given to a congressman. He began serving that sentence in May 2012 at a Federal Bureau of Prisons facility in Beaumont, Texas. He appealed his case after a U.S. Supreme Court ruling on similar issues. In light of these findings, on October 5, 2017, Jefferson was ordered released, pending sentencing or other action, after a U.S. District judge threw out 7 of 10 charges against him. On December 1, 2017, Judge T. S. Ellis III accepted his plea deal and sentenced Jefferson to time served. — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_J._Jefferson

You might be on to something. Although that was a plea deal.

You might be on to something. Although that was a plea deal. — Michael

He still served 8 years so not that bad. :-)

5 years, but yeah.

The jury has four questions, and here are the judge's proposed answers:

Q: Is one required to file an FBAR if they own less than 50% of the company and no signatory authority?

A: Rely on your collective recollection.

Q: Define "shelf company"?

A: Rely on collective recollection.

Q: Can you redefine reasonable doubt?

A. The government is not required to prove beyond "all possible doubt," just doubt that can be reasoned.

Q: Can the exhibit list be amended to include the indictment?

A: No.

The last one made me laugh.

Endgame!

It's about time... Feels like it's been multiple lifetimes since the investigation began...

What shall come of it all though?

My guess is - not going to have to wait long.

With any luck, next week, Brexit will fall through, and Trump will be finished. The whole 2016 nightmare will finally begin to be over.

I don't want to get my hopes up, but surely Mueller is going to deliver something (else it probably would not have taken this long).

I think our best shot is that Trump will finally be embarrassed into resigning; the ghost of collusion-past might fix him yet!

Yeah, well, arguably he has to be impeached and convicted before he can be indicted. Trump can also pardon folks charged with federal crimes - state crimes I'm not sure of, or whether he can commute sentences on state convictions. And I hope he is indicted, convicted, and depending on the level of collusion, even perhaps hanged. Likely that would depend on whether his collusion killed anyone - and it seems entirely possible it might have.

In sum, knowing what he did and rendering him justice are not quite a simple two-step. As to impeachment, just how bad does it have to smell for a Republican to acknowledge it?

hanged — tim wood

Woah, hold your horses!

Something so extreme would tear the U.S apart at the seams (it would make a martyr out of Trump for far right causes). Much better it would be for America and the world to see him capitulate and plead mercy.

just how bad does it have to smell for a Republican to acknowledge it? — tim wood

I reckon it has been shrinking, but there is still a group of Trump supporters who are tone-deaf to any and all Trump foibles; no matter what he says or does, fake news, MAGA, they took our jobs, etc...

I wonder about the house republicans though (the actual representatives)... They would not want to risk betraying Trump if their constituents might cannibalize them for it, but on the other hand Trump legitimately represents a festering constitutional and national crisis (he has no respect for American law, and he has turned America into a political laughingstock, and is generally incompetent or demented).

Trump is the most popular president among Republicans pretty much ever, which is why the only Republicans throwing him shade are those retiring. Unless he's unequivocally guilty of something utterly heinous that even his base would object to (=almost nothing) Republican pols will continue to kiss his ass, and trying to impeach him will be a complete waste of time.

Unless Mueller has some seriously juicy stuff (as you say) he almost certainly won't be impeached...

If he can be sufficiently embarrassed though - the kind of embarrassment that will make even the staunchest Trumpeter gulp - he may decide to resign in lieu of being disrespected at every turn.

I read somewhere that Trump's cabinet actually considered using the 25th amendment to declare him unfit/incapable of doing the job, but they "didn't want to precipitate a constitutional crisis". As it becomes more and more clear that Trump is himself a constitutional crisis, maybe we can get a classic back-stabbing out of it...

"Et tu, Pence?"