Convicted on eight-of-eighteen counts of tax evasion, bank fraud, money laundering, etc., 69-year-old former Trump campaign Chairman Paul Manafort looks to spend some real time in federal prison. Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s prosecutors went overboard, antagonizing Virginia U.S. District Court Judge T.S. Ellis III, talking about Manafort’s extravagance, buying a variety of luxury items. Ellis reminded Miueller’s prosecutors that Manafort was not on trial for profligate spending but for violating U.S. banking and tax laws. When the dust settled the 6-man, 6-woman jury delivered guilty verdicts on only eight-of-eighteen counts, showing, if nothing else, inconsistencies found in juries. If the jury couldn’t find guilt beyond-a-reasonable-doubt on 10 counts, how did they find Manafort guilty on the remaining eight? Whatever the reasons, Manafort faces seven-to-nine years in prison.
Manafort’s conviction was heralded by Democrats as proof that the Special Counsel’s investigation was not, as Trump likes to say, a “witch hunt.” When you consider that Manafort was convicted of crimes performed over 10 years before the 2016 campaign while working for former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, it makes you wonder whether Manafort has regrets. Only working as campaign chairman for five months, Manafort has to have serious regrets about joining the campaign. Had he stayed away from Trump, he might have never been investigated for bank fraud and tax evasion. Prosecuting Manafort for nefarious business activities years before the campaign stretched Mueller’s mandate to the breaking point. Manafort’s attorney Kevin Downing hoped the jury would buy his argument that the government couldn’t prove its case beyond-a-reasonable doubt
Going count-by-count enabled the jury to decide on specific charges, rather than lump them all together. Finding a mistrial on 10 counts, it’s difficult to understand the jury’s reasoning. If the jury were hung on 10 counts, how were they able to convict on the remaining eight? Jumping to political conclusions about Manafort’s conviction and Trump’s personal attorney Michael Cohen, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) insisted that the two convictions precluded the Senate from moving forward on Trump’s Supreme Court Pick Brett Kavanaugh. Democrats seized on the chance to link Manafort and Cohen’s convictions to Trump’s eventual criminal wrongdoing. Faced with possible campaign violations for silencing adult actor Stormy Daniels and former Playboy centerfold Susan McDougal, several Senate Democrats called on Republicans to halt Kavanaugh’s hearings.
Manafort’s defense attorney Kevin Downing expressed his gratitude to Judge Ellis and the jury for their deliberations. “Mr. Manafort is disappointed of not getting acquittals all the way through or a complete hung jury on all counts,” said Downing, not sure how the jury could convict on eight counts and acquit on 10 others. Prosecutors presented the exact same evidence and made the same arguments on all 18 counts. How the jury convicted Manafort on eight counts, acquitting him on 10 others is anyone’s guess. Downing did his utmost to discredit the prosecution’s star witness, Manafort’s former business partner Rick Gates. Nothing in the trial implicated Trump in any Russian meddling or collusion, the main contention of Democrat elected officials. Trump called Manafort’s conviction a “sad thing that happened,” having “nothing to do with Russian collusion.”
Democrat partisans like Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) jumped all over Manafort and Cohen’s convictions as proof of Trump’s involvement. “Manafort’s conviction shows that Mueller’s investigation is far from a witch hunt, as Trump falsely repeats as a mantra,” said Schiff, Co-Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. Schiff went for the jugular. “It also shows his campaign and administration were rife with people with a history of unscrupulous business dealings and concerning ties to overseas interests,” said Schiff, referring to Cohen’s ties to the Ukraine and Russia. Schiff has tried-and-convicted Trump of Russian collusion, just not Special Counsel Robert Mueller. Neither Schiff nor any other Demoorat wants to admit any wrong doing by the Obama administration in investigating Trump before the Nov. 8 election. Democrats keep pointing fingers at Manafort and Cohen.
Writing Trump’s obituary because of Manafort or Cohen stretches logic to the breaking point. Whatever Manafort did in the Ukraine in 2005 has nothing to do with Russian meddling or alleged Trump collusion in the 2016 election. Cohen’s fast-and-loose business dealings also have little or nothing to do with Trump, other than the fact he made money on some Trump-related real estate transactions. With Democrats pounding theirs chests and writing Trump off, there’s little in Manafort or Cohen’s cases that relate to high-crimes-and-misdemeanors. Focusing on whether or not Trump plans to pardon Manafort makes good Democrat headlines but has no reality to it. “The pardon is about rewarding a person for doing something right after being convicted, it’s not about helping you as a politician,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), allaying media hype that Trump plans to pardon Manafort.