DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Paul Manafort

You are right Arch. I don't want him railroaded, I want this done right. If he is found innocent, so be it. But I doubt that he will be.

You never really know with the jury though. All it would take is one or two hardcore Trump supporters on the jury to say not guilty until the jury hangs or they all go that way. Then you also have this judge that might throw out a guilty verdict.

Ah, so, if he's found not guilty of anything, you already have a built in excuse. Just blame the jury if the prosecutor couldn't prove his case.

Got it.

Or, maybe, the jury could wait to determine anything until the defense rests? And possibly, we could wait and see what the jury decides?

I know, that's expecting a lot from someone like you, and Lord forbid he's found not guilty .....you know, by the jury.

Take the Fn win Arch... smdh

BREAKING

manafort's defense rest case without calling any witnesses.

yea....

Guilty..Pardoned...Now Lives in Moscow

As they prepare for closing arguments.
That is where they drop the Hamma on Mule Liar.

yea, thats not really gonna happen in a closing argument. should've did that during the peak of the trial.

Or maybe, since the president is daily attacking the validity of this entire investigation, any jury assembled is already tainted.

If you're being honest you'd have to admit that's a strong possibility.

Ah, I see you are already in defense mode in case he's found not guilty, eh?


Look, anything is possible, isn't it? Your scenario, or this scenario: The jury was tainted by the main stream media and the hatred of Trump.

And this scenario is most likely: The jury knows it's a high profile case, knows any decision they make will be scrutinized, and have decided to do exactly what a jury is supposed to do: Decide on the facts.

I certainly see all of those as possibilities. But as we see on this board, for the most part battle lines have been drawn. I don't believe that all of the jurors are going to leave their preconceived notions at the door.

And one thing I think everyone, including you need to keep in mind. And that's the math. It only takes one juror to be convinced by Trump to arrive at a hung jury. It would take twelve jurors to be convinced by the left wing media to get a conviction.

Those numbers don't bode well for your side of the debate.

I'm just curios, do you feel it's a problem that the president of The United states is trying to undermine an investigation of him and those that surround him on pretty much a daily basis to the entire nation? Do you find it unrealistic to think that by him doing this, that it may taint perspective future juries surrounding people being investigated?

Possibly.

I also find it plausible that all the hatred from the msnbc's, cnn's, etc could taint people as well.

When practically every political headline is anti-Trump, it has an affect. Would you agree?

i wonder who's responsible for all the anti-trump headlines.

could it be...oh, i dunno, trump himself?

I would say that both sides are just as guilty of this. That's why the math isn't good here. It would take 12 people to be jaded from the left for a guilty verdict. But only 1 to be tainted from the right to get a hung jury.

In case you missed it, there's a part of the media everyone follows that makes excuses for everything Trump just like there's a big part of the media that's anti-Trump. Let's please not pretend that it's otherwise.

You seem to keep ignoring the fact that it only takes one jaded juror from the right to get a hung jury. Yet twelve to be jaded to get a conviction.

I find it bothersome that before anything is ruled on, you and others are automatically saying that is going to be a crooked jury that decides this, and not the facts of the case.

Its a shame you try to undermine the way of the American Justice system like that.

Donald J. Trump
‏
Verified account

@realDonaldTrump
6h6 hours ago
More
Fired FBI Agent Peter Strzok is a fraud, as is the rigged investigation he started. There was no Collusion or Obstruction with Russia, and everybody, including the Democrats, know it. The only Collusion and Obstruction was by Crooked Hillary, the Democrats and the DNC!

lmfao, just stop it already, willit.

Wanna know when people are worried, when they find excuses for something that hasn't even happened yet.....

that describes Trump perfectly. good quote bro.

so anyways,

man, you really have to dig deep on fox news to find anything relating to the manafort trial.

wonder why.

We shall see if that holds true for Trump, or not - but nice "whatabout"

We are discussing you and others pertaining to Manafort. This case has nothing to do with Trump, nor has one piece of evidence been presented had to do with Trump.

If Manafort is found guilty of crimes from his past, he should go to jail. If not, the man should be refunded his fees for his lawyer, receive a formal apology, and be left alone.

Puh-lease! Obviously you have never had to go to court for any kind of action.

how was that what about?

we are talking about paul manafort, the ex campaign chair to Trump.

i think you do a real disservice to yourself and the situation when you try to claim this has nothing to do with trump.

this specific trial, sure. but there's already been sealed/closed discussions during the trial because of discussions having to deal with the next trial.

let me repeat that, the NEXT trial that starts next month. those charges are with the foreign lobbying, failing to register as a foreign agent, and other charges.

these charges are simply laying the foundation.

remember, willit: the GOP platform on ukraine changed when manafort was the running the campaign. this is a very complex web, and constantly statement how does anything relate to trump, while discussing people who indeed worked for trump, isn't really....umm..how do i say this nicely, smart?

Yeah, that's how criminal trials work. lmao

And that's why (partly, I guess) this is a big deal for the prosecution.

What crimes are being charged, and when did they happen?

Please see above response

So you try to bash me for saying this trial has nothing to do with trump, then you repy:





Ahh, so they are sealed and closed, but Swish got the low down from inside peeps....

That sentence structure, "isn't really...umm.. how do I say this nicely, smart?

Your comprehension skills must be limited. We're discussing possibilities that may exist.

And in case you've missed it, many trials are moved from one location to another in many cases for just such reasons. The only difference in this case is that this is seen all over in the national media. Often times trials are moved from one jurisdiction to another because they feel the jury pool may be tainted.

I know it doesn't fit your agenda but it's a real thing in many cases. Google is your friend.

maybe. but im not sure. there was such a large papertrail with the current charges on trial that the prosecution didn't even need gates to testify. i mean think about it: the largest "setback" for the prosecution wasn't even the case or evidence; it was the judge being an [censored], which to be fair, is what he's been known to be for years.

this trial appeared to just be a warm up for the prosecution. i mean the defense didn't even bother trying to call a witness to the stand. they already know manafort is screwed.

the big deal will be the trial next month. imo bro, this will determine whether or not mueller has a serious case with the whole collusion/obstruction case, or if its a whole lot of nothing.

so for me, im going to be critical of the feds come next trial and the evidence they provide. typically the feds dont lie about charges of bank and tax fraud and things like that.

my distrust of the government comes with cases like espionage and the stuff manafort will be on trial for. the feds better have some damning evidence, and not just he said/she said nonsense.

And yet the judge had ruled to proceed with this case, a this venue...so that entire logic is...well, dumb.

Talk about "limited".

you can google the charges. they are all over the interent.

the entire situation with manafort has to do with trump. i gave you a kind response and now you wanna play games.

we can play games if you want. you know better than anybody i have no problem throwing insults, if thats where we want to go.

Once again your comprehension has failed you. I stated clearly that this trial is different. That this trial has received national attention. There is nowhere to move this trial that would help because of this.

In local cases you can accomplish overcoming this by moving a trial. In a case that's garnered national attention it would accomplish nothing.

Ha! I literally replied with the exact response you gave me.....then you accuse that response as being an insult. So either you tried to insult me, or you didn't, which is it?

So then Cosby, OJ, The Mendez Brothers, all should not have had trials because they all were highly publicized and would have been tainted juries, is that what your getting at? Casey Anthony too?

pfffff, you can keep trying to undermine the American Way of life, it suits you.

Why lie?

You have to have the trials. I'm saying there is no way to move the trial to a location that can avoid the possibility of a tainted jury.

Are you a tripe dealer by trade?

We all know what you are tying to do. You are trying to have an excuse for in case Manafort comes out of this, to explain "why" he came out of it.

You are so funny. Did you even bother to follow the thread or just decide to spout off?

Arch and I discussed that both sides could be influenced. That the left wing media could influence jurors to be biased in the direction of guilt just as the right wing media, and unfortunately our own president by his incessant Tweet storms, could influence jurors on the right. Unless of course you're trying to deny the existence of human nature, which isn't a very good argument. lol

Maybe you should actually stick to the topic of the debate we're in rather than look for a nefarious motive.

So are you saying that feel assured that out of 12 human beings on a jury, with all of the national attention that's been focused on this case, that none of them have a chance of being influenced by the coverage in all of this? Because that certainly appears to be the case you're trying to make.

I believe that the jurors are probably sequestered and not receiving any information regarding the news or tweets.

I also believe, that in general when called upon to enact their civil duty, a citizen on the United States can put political differences aside and see the facts of the case.

Again, I feel sorry for you that you feel the need to undermine the justice system (which is rather ironic, since you have been screaming Trump is doing so - yet you are saying plain and day there is no faith the jurors can be impartial). I believe the Judge would say otherwise if he felt the same way as you, which I can confidently say, I do not feel he does.

How is saying jurors can be swayed, suddenly become
“A feel the need to undermine the justice system.”?

If your going to quote someone, please actually copy and past the quote, unless of course you "a feel the need to undermine" the person the quoting.

Other than one personal jab, it seems you have finally actually decided to debate the topic. You have the ability to do so and we've often had good discussions. But thus far on this topic you have decided not to. I hope that's a corner that has been turned as of now. There are some people in this forum who share many of your views that it's simply impossible to have an actual debate on a topic with, yet to this point we have had many good debates. I hope that trend can continue.

Can you possibly explain how you see this as me undermining the justice system? That would be a good start to a productive dialogue.

Let me review my points so hopefully we can have an earnest discussion here.

People are human. I do agree with you that many can put aside their personal beliefs when it comes to serving on a jury. Yet human nature dictates that not all can. My reasoning for that is based in fact, not opinion. As I pointed out, many times in local trials the venue is moved because the court system itself feels that local news coverage have made it impossible to find an unbiased jury. So it does seem that the justice system itself actually agrees with my opinion that the media can taint a jury. I would certainly feel you don't believe the justice system is trying to undermine themselves?

Let's look at your own quote.......



So it actually seems that when we break it down, we're not really that far apart. Even you seem to indicate that it's no sure bet that everyone will walk into a jury room without some bias. So are you too undermining the judicial system?

Yet when such a trial receives national news coverage to the extent this one has had, there is no place to move a trial that hasn't received such coverage. There isn't a venue you can move it to, to escape the media onslaught it receives from both sides of the media, and in this case, even Trumps Twitter account. So there is no "neutral venue". The best you can do is seat a jury in hopes that none of them have so much bias they can come to a decision based on the facts presented to them in that courtroom.

And yes, you can most certainly sequester the jury to prevent them from getting any further information, but that won't wipe out the information they received in the months before the trial began which was massive. Trump tweeted how "very unfair" this was back on June 15th. Long before the trial ever began. The stage was set by both sides long before this trial ever began.

Now let's get to my final point. It takes all 12 jurors to get a conviction. It takes 1 juror to get a hung jury to avoid a conviction. So by that honest conclusion, it would take 12 jurors influenced by the left wing media to convict Manifort. It would take 1 single juror tainted by the right wing media and/or Trump to get a mistrial.

Again, I'm not saying this will happen. I'm not making a prediction it will happen. But the human nature of man, the fact that trials are moved in many cases to avoid this exact thing from happening, show that it's not some made up scenario. It shows that even the Justice system has concerns in regards to this happening.

Hopefully we can actually have an honest debate about this. As I said, we've had many good debates about issues in the past. I would hope our conversations don't devolve to the point we can no longer have productive dialogue like seems to be a common theme around here.

On a phone, it was easier to just type it.. Excuse me, my bad. The question is still valid though. But whatever bro.

To be fair, I have been hinting at the "undermine" thing for you to try to see a point, which you have not.

You have posted countless times about undermining America and the justice system, yet then when you say the jurors are tampered with and not able serve anywhere, you kinda are undermining it yourself. As I stated, in my last post, I don't believe the judge would have proceeded with this if he felt they were tainted, so for its not an issue.