It’s from a Ron Suskind column in the NYT Magazine.
And in Ivana’s Slovakia. There’s some kind of symmetry there somewhere.
Your wording suggests that there are other possible charges. When Manafort is acquitted will he be bound over for trial on other charges?
There’s a whole other criminal indictment waiting for him in the DC district.
this Paul manafort case seems like the kind of case that would be ripe for witness tampering. Lots of money, foreign agents, potential for death threats, what could go wrong?
Why are people saying “when Manafort is acquitted?” I think there’ll be a revolving door at the end of the jury box and they’ll be back with a guilty verdict before the judge leaves the bench.
Source is Karl Rove, btw.
Has anybody come up with a picture of Manafort’s $15,000 ostrich skin coat?
Poor forgotten Flom.
Where those late-name guys really get the shaft is in mergers. PWC = PriceWaterhouseCoopers was a merger of PriceWaterhouse and Coopers & Lybrand. Coopers made the cut - Lybrand didn’t.
IIRC, in one of “Ted Nancy’s” Letters from a Nut, he was trying to market his product to Sears but asked at the end “Hey, whatever happened to Roebuck? You never hear of him anymore …”
He’s been demoted to the shoe department. 
On another note, perhaps some legal expert can comment on this:
What are the ramifications of Gates being called by the defense rather than the prosecution (since he would presumably say the same thing either way)? I would guess the prosecution would rather have him called by the defense since they would then have latitude to ask leading questions on cross examination - though since he’s cooperating with the prosecution perhaps the defense could have him declared as “hostile witness” and get that same latitude. But perhaps there’s more (or less) to it than that, and possibly someone knowledgeable can comment.
He’d still be a prosecution witness regardless of who calls him - you’re not limited to direct examination if you call one of the other sides’ witnesses in your case in chief.
My guess as to what is going on is this: the defense has made it clear that their strategy is to hang the whole thing on Rick Gates. The government, then, might decide that they have enough other witnesses and evidence to convict Manafort even without Gates’ testimony. (Which, from their perspective, is probably true - they have a lot of documentary evidence and they brought charges against Manafort and Gates originally, so they would have had to prove their case against both men without testimony from either if they’d both elected to go to trial.)
Then, in their closing argument, they can argue that the idea that Gates was behind the whole thing is absurd because they didn’t even need to bring him into it to show that Manafort didn’t pay taxes on however much money of foreign bank accounts that he then used to buy exotic animal couture via suspicious wire transfers. And if Manafort elects to call Gates as a witness, he can still give whatever damning testimony he has.
Right, as per friedo:
Well, not sure there is that much scope for that, as much of the Fed’s case seems to be primarily based on documentation. Also according to reports I’ve read, the government plans to call 35 witnesses. Granted, Rick Gates appears to be the ‘star’, but that seems like a lot of tampering to be done.
Did you mean jury tampering? That seems a possibility.
The feds offered Manafort the option to have all the charges heard at one trial, but he refused. (The DC court didn’t have venue over the offenses he’s currently being tried for, but that could be waived.)
That’s his right, but personally I’d take the chance on a single trial - no point giving them two shots to nail you.
All those buckles are kinda kinky.
A CNN reporter tweeted a pic she says is of Manafort’s coat, according to a men’s clothier who testified today.
In some ways, it looks less horrible than the example posted upthread. But the cloth cuffs and waistband are straight out of a high school letter jacket. And overall it just looks plain. Is it really expensive to raise ostriches and prepare the hides? Honest question. I have no idea what goes into making ostrich leather.
All the pictures I’ve seen of ostrich coats have a bunch of little holes that I presume are where the quills were when the ostrich was wearing it. That just creeps me the fuck out. I know I’m kind of squeamish about things like that, but still. Ugh.
It looks like what you’d get if you made a jacket out of dyed chicken skin. All those quillbumps…