(I’m a newbie and can’t figure out how to make the text click to the link for my sources. So, I just put the link after the info from the link. I apologize for this amateurish style.)
At a hearing back in May (2018), Judge T.S. Ellis III questioned whether Mueller had the power to prosecute Manafort. His reasoning was that the original memo naming Mueller as the special counselor stated he was to investigate Russia’s interference in the 2016 election and whether anyone in Trump’s campaign aided or worked with them and any investigation resulting from it. These charges against Manafort are from before he worked on Trump’s campaign and his alleged illegal payments received in Ukraine were already well known and an investigation- presumably- was already under way. That would make sense. However, the prosecution had already provided the court and Judge Ellis a memo from August of 2017 which read in part:
“The May 17, 2017[appointment] order was worded categorically in order to permit its release without confirming specific investigations involving specific individuals. The following allegations were within the scope of the Investigation at the time of your appointment and are within the scope of the Order: ... Allegations that Paul Manafort: Committed a crime or crimes by colluding with Russian government officials with respect to the Russian government's efforts to interfere with the 2016 election for President of the United States, in violation of United States law. Committed a crime or crimes arising out of payments he received from the Ukrainian government before and during the tenure of President Viktor Yanukovych.” (https://www.politico.com/story/2018/04/03/mueller-paul-manafort-probe-rosenstein-approves-497701)
This very clearly states, verbatim, that Mueller and his team were to investigate any crimes Manafort may have committed from payments he received from the Ukrainian government. The current trial alleges Manafort illegally evaded paying taxes on and illegally laundered money he received from the Ukrainian government. Large portions of the memo were redacted on national security grounds.
Nonetheless, Ellis demanded they produce and show him a copy of the unredacted memo. When prosecutors objected, that it contained vital national security information not pertaining to Mr. Manafort, Ellis indignantly replied, “I’ll be the judge of that!” (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/05/04/federal-judge-accuses-muellers-team-lying-trying-to-target-trump-cmon-man.html)
At that hearing, Ellis also shared his theory on the case, and stated his theory as a matter of fact. “You don't really care about Mr. Manafort,” U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis III told Mueller’s team. “You really care about what information Mr. Manafort can give you to lead you to Mr. Trump and an impeachment, or whatever.”
The judge did not let it go with that, but continued to rant, “You don’t really care about Mr. Manafort’s bank fraud." What you really care about is what information Mr. Manafort could give you that would reflect on Mr. Trump or lead to his prosecution or impeachment. …The vernacular is to 'sing.'” (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/07/31/manafort-trial-judge-ts-ellis/816130002/)
Towards the beginning of the actual trial Ellis rebuked both attorneys for “facial expressions.” Literally. “Rein in your facial expressions” Ellis warned. (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/08/02/who-is-ts-ellis-look-at-judge-in-manafort-mueller-case.html)Yet, a week into the trial, Ellis made an audacious (even for him) accusation that the prosecuting attorney was crying. “I understand how frustrated you are, in fact, there’s tears in your eyes right now” the judge lamented. Which was shortly followed by this back-and-forth between a prosecutor and Judge Ellis:
“Look at me when you’re talking to me,’’ Ellis said to Andres.
“I’m sorry, judge, I was,’’ Andres said.
“No, you weren’t,’’ Ellis said. “You were looking down.’’
“Because I don’t want to get in trouble for some facial expression,’’ the prosecutor said. “I don’t want to get yelled at again by the court for having some facial expression when I’m not doing anything wrong, but trying my case.’’ (https://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/judge-tells-jury-put-aside-his-criticism-of-manafort-trial-prosecutors)
This was not the only time Ellis seemingly forgot his earlier statements, demands and/or rulings. From court transcripts for July 31:
Mr. Asonye: Judge, I’m sorry, we also—the government would move to exclude any witnesses once the opening statements start with the exception of our expert and our case agent.
The Court: All right. Any objection to the case agent and the expert?
Mr. Westling (defense attorney): No, Your Honor.
The Court: Who is the expert”
Mr. Asonye: Special Agent Michael Welch, Your Honor.
The Court: And in what discipline is he an expert?
Mr. Asonye: In tax, Your Honor, tax computation, Your Honor. He’s the IRS revenue agent.
The Court: All right. I will grant the motion to exclude witnesses. And other than the defendant, does the defendant wish to have anyone else present?
Despite this, when prosecutors called Welch to the stand and mentioned to Ellis that Welch had been in the courtroom during previous testimony, the judge blew up, “I don’t care what the transcript says, maybe I made a mistake,” Ellis said. “When I exclude witnesses I mean everybody, unless I make a special exception!” (https://www.politico.com/story/2018/08/08/manafort-trial-mueller-gates-ellis-768715)
When the prosecution filed a motion, the judge was forced to oblige and order the jury to disregard those comments. Even then, Ellis seemingly mimicked President Trump, by only conceding that he “may” have been wrong. There was no maybe about it; he granted specific admission for the witness to be allowed in the courtroom and then dressed down the prosecution-in front of the jury- for allowing him to be in the courtroom.
Now, an important part of any criminal case, for the prosecution is establishing a motive. In practically all violent crimes, the prosecution tries to establish a motive. Thus, they are generally allowed some leigh way; to question witnesses about aspects not directly dealing with the crime, but important in establishing a motive.
A defendant for fraud, money laundering, and tax evasion might have developed a taste for a luxurious lifestyle. A defendant might want to save face and have rich friends believe he or she still is a millionaire, when he no longer is. Thus, a habit of buying things like a $15,000 ostrich coat could be relevant; it would provide a motive to want to keep up appearances. However, when prosecutors mentioned this, the presiding judge, Judge Ellis, told the courtroom “it isn't a crime to have a lot of money and be profligate in your spending.” Apparently, the judge grew upset that the prosecution was proving Manafort had grown accustomed to a lavish lifestyle he could no longer afford.
However, when the prosecution’s star witness, former Manafort associate Rick Gates, was being questioned by defense lawyers, a main point was his lifestyle. Gates was questioned about his quite expensive “secret life”… he finally answered “In essence, I was living beyond my means.” Apparently, Judge Ellis has no problem about a witness being badgered about how he spent a small fortune, but the same line of thought cannot be applied to the defendant on trial for fraud and tax evasion.
During another point of his testimony, Gates said, “Mr. Manafort was very good about knowing where the money is and knowing where to spend it.”
“Well, he missed the amounts of money you stole from him, though, didn't he?” the judge quippedback.
When Gates answered in the affirmative, Ellis replied, “So, he didn't do it that closely.” Apparently, Ellis was worried the defense attorneys were not capable of effective cross-examination. Or perhaps he was worried, a guilty verdict might lead Manafort to “sing” against the president.
At one point, Ellis asked the prosecutor a question, and the attorney replied “yeah”. This set off Ellis once again, as he angrily shouted at the prosecution, reminding them this was not some type of informal hearing.
Perhaps the most egregious action by the judge turned defense attorney, was when prosecutors asked a bank official about false statements on a loan application made by Manafort. Ellis apparently had a problem with testimony, directly stating the guilt of Manafort. “You might want to spend time on a loan that was granted,” Ellis growled. The odd part is that this was one of the charges Manafort is on trial for! Rather the loan was granted or not does not change the fact that the action of filing false information on these loan forms is illegal. A witness answers a question, asserting that the defendant did in fact commit a crime he is on trial for, and yet the judge took issue with it and scolded the prosecution for it… in front of the jury no less!
Also, at the beginning of the trial, Ellis barred both sides from using the word “oligarch” to describe oligarchs. Ellis thought it had a bad connotation, so he barred the word that most accurately describes many of Manafort’s business associates.
This is in no way a complete list of all the instances of the judge attacking the prosecution. Judge Ellis’s blatantly biased manner and angry outbursts was so outlandish, that even Fox News employee, former judge Andrew Napolitano, took issue with it. From Fox News Insider:
“’I'm not happy with this judge,’ Napolitano said on ‘The Daily Briefing’ on Wednesday. ‘He's making too much of the case about him and he's showing an extraordinary bias against the government.’
He said if Ellis feels that negatively about the prosecution, then he should keep those feelings to himself or he shouldn't be on the case.
‘The jury can't be happy with this judge because of the snide, snarky comments,’ Napolitano said. (http://insider.foxnews.com/2018/08/08/napolitano-judge-manafort-trial-ts-ellis-showing-extraordinary-bias-against-government)
Napolitano is not alone in his analysis. Former federal prosecutor, Renato Mariotti tweeted out “improper statements that have hurt the prosecution.” From Politico:
“[T]he judge’s condescending attitude [could give] the jury the impression that the prosecution’s case is dubious,” added Philip Lacovara, a former U.S. deputy solicitor general. “This is an especially severe risk when the core of the case is the testimony of a co-conspirator who is admittedly a thief, liar, and embezzler. When the standard of proof is ‘beyond a reasonable doubt,’ there is no margin for error”… Lacovara, a former counsel for the Watergate prosecution team, said the judge’s impatience “forces the prosecution to truncate the witnesses so that Mueller winds up unable to prove everything that the prosecution promised to prove in the opening statement.” (https://www.politico.com/story/2018/08/08/manafort-trial-mueller-gates-ellis-768715)
Can anyone even imagine if the judge acted this way against the defense? Or even better, imagine if someone that was campaign chairman for either Obama or Hillary was on trial, and the judge displayed such profound bias?!? That is all that would be on the news for weeks. It would top every news show and be the front page headline of every paper. Yet, this outrageous, amazingly unprofessional, confrontational attitude is hardly mentioned anywhere. T.S. Ellis III should have been thrown off the case months ago, when he made clear that he thought the prosecution wasn’t interested injustice for these scores of felonies committed by Manafort, but that it was all simply part of some grand, partisan plot to take down the president. The prosecution, and the rest of Mueller’s team, have acted professionally since Mueller’s appointment. Ellis, on the other hand, has acted like a toddler who missed his nap from the very beginning of this trial.
Regardless of the jury’s verdict, Judge T.S. Ellis III should be reprimanded and possibly disbarred for his biased, reckless, and inflammatory behavior during this trial.