Trump Campaign Chairman Paul Manafort talks to reporters on the floor of the Republican National Convention at Quicken Loans Arena, Sunday, July 17, 2016, in Cleveland. (AP Photo/Matt Rourke)

Just a short while ago, the defense for Paul Manafort announced that it was resting without calling single witness or presenting a single exhibit.

Manafort is on trial on multiple charges of fraud and felony tax evasion stemming from his under reporting income to the IRS by classifying consulting fees as loans and by lying to banks to get other loans to buy ostrich skin coats and whatever (I can’t begin to describe my disappointment when I found that the ostrich skin coats did not have feathers).

This was probably their best move. Putting Manafort on the stand was unlikely to produce any useful testimony but a lot of perjury. he government’s star witness, Rick Gates, had pleaded guilty to lying to investigators while he was trying to cut a plea bargain. On the stand he came across as a dishonest, unscrupulous douchebag…pretty much like Manafort…his dishonesty was even highlighted by the trial judge. If you’re going for reasonable doubt, showing confidence by resting could be their best play.

Ok. So. Why would the Manafort defense team not put on a defense, and how unusual is it?

It's not unusual at all. It's common. Here are some possible reasons why. /1

— ProfanityLadenTweetsHat (@Popehat) August 14, 2018

/2 Remember it's the prosecution's burden to prove things beyond a reasonable doubt. When the defense puts on a case, there's always a subtle tendency for the jury to start putting a burden on the defense, which you don't want.https://t.co/dInKgnq8kz

— ProfanityLadenTweetsHat (@Popehat) August 14, 2018

/3 If your defense case is marginal anyway, resting is a way to convey to the jury a level of confidence that the government has nothing. It's a way to emphasize that it's the government's burden. https://t.co/3n2q71JXVJ

— ProfanityLadenTweetsHat (@Popehat) August 14, 2018

/4 Another subtle problem with putting on a defense case is that it emphasizes when the defendant doesn't testify. Defendant isn't required to, prosecution isn't allowed to call attention to it, but juries notice.

— ProfanityLadenTweetsHat (@Popehat) August 14, 2018

/5 Next, one of the toughest things to learn as a trial lawyer is to sit down when you've gotten something done as well as it's going to get done. They may have accomplished on cross-examination everything they reasonably could in a defense case . . . .

— ProfanityLadenTweetsHat (@Popehat) August 14, 2018

/6 …when you've already accomplished what you want (showing Gates to be a liar, for example), you need to be careful of trying to pile more on, because things can go wrong and you can lose what you accomplished.

— ProfanityLadenTweetsHat (@Popehat) August 14, 2018

/7 This is especially true with skeevy/questionable defense witnesses. If you're unlucky they get up there, give you some marginal testimony, and then the AUSA gets up and joyrides them all over your case for an hour. Skeevy people do badly on cross.

— ProfanityLadenTweetsHat (@Popehat) August 14, 2018

/8 Plus, the government doesn't necessarily have to give you impeachment evidence about witnesses they aren't calling. Do they have something really horrific on your defense witness, and they're just hoping you'll call that person? Guess you'll find out, huh.

— ProfanityLadenTweetsHat (@Popehat) August 14, 2018

/9 Finally, your defense may just suck. For every good thing your witnesses might say, they might have to admit four bad things on cross. This is not unusual when knowledge or intent are the issue at hand …….

— ProfanityLadenTweetsHat (@Popehat) August 14, 2018

/10 …the defense direct goes "did defendant ever say he was trying to hide money?" "no" Then the prosecution gets up and takes the witness through the eight skeevy things the defendant did suggesting consciousness of guilt. It winds up emphasizing the government's case.

— ProfanityLadenTweetsHat (@Popehat) August 14, 2018

/11 And, let's bear in mind that we are in a historic, unique situation. Manafort may be counting on a pardon, in which case there's little upside to a defense.

But it's not unusual and one cannot CONFIDENTLY draw any conclusion from it.

/end

— ProfanityLadenTweetsHat (@Popehat) August 14, 2018

Right now you’d have to bet that Manafort gets convicted because that’s what federal juries do. But you wouldn’t be shocked if there were not-guilty verdicts too. The star prosecution witness essentially set himself on fire in the witness stand. The prosecution was publicly flogged by the judge which made them seem a lot like Gates (Fact Check: they are). The fact that executives at the bank knew Manafort’s loan application was pretty much fantasy and gave him the loan anyway is going to have an impact.

I see this as a lose-lose for the prosecution. If they win a tax evasion case, they are expected to. If they lose it, the entire Mueller investigation takes on more of a clown car appearance than it already has. Of course, the one with the most to lose is Manafort. He’s 69 and if convicted will get what is tantamount to a life sentence. Then the big question becomes does Trump pardon him?