DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Paul Manafort

You should "a feel the need" to hang up the phone next time.

Lol Typical.

I always feel the need to do that. Nor do I feel the need to do that anymore.

I have been in a little bit of aggressive mode today, this priest stuff has got me worked up to be honest, and maybe I am being a bit headstrong jerk right now with you.

I was just trying for you see the point I was trying to make which is why I kept posting the same line over and over again.

I have my views on there, you have yours. we may just disagree, but we are cool.

I see you decided not to actually address my points as outlined. I actually expected that to be the outcome as they are all well thought out and completely logical.

And what you are suggesting above also does not address any of those points. When you have no location in which to move a trial to remove media bias, which is the case when it's been publicized on a national scale, you have no choice but carry forward on the charges. You must convene a trial.

Once again the judicial systems changes venues often when they feel the media may have influenced the jury. It appears you feel the justice system undermines itself.

Since you refuse to actually address my points as I had hoped, I guess we're done here.

But, the 'bias', publicized on a national scale, has overwhelmingly been anti trump - regardless of his tweets.

There is no way to deny that.

I hope the jury (were they sequestered? I"ve not read that they were) can come to a decision based on the FACTS, and facts alone.

No worries.

If Manny is found guilty, it will be job well done.
If Manny is found not guilty, it will be because the Jury was tainted.

It's called Lib-Think.

I hope they can too arch.

You did leave out one ingredient though. You have Trump and the right wing media. Not Trump alone. And you can claim that the majority of the outlets are left wing, and that's true, yet Trump was popular enough to win the election. And it seems most of his followers agree with almost anything and everything he says.

And while I do see your point, let me repeat myself yet again.....

It would take 12 people biased by the left wing media to cause a conviction. It would take 1 person biased by the right wing media to cause a hung jury.

We both agree that we hope it doesn't come to that.

Well..........

What I'm saying is, if the jurors do their job with the facts presented them, their decision should be easy.

You do have a point though. Only takes 1 juror to cause a hung jury. And if it's only 1 juror that votes against? I might be tempted to agree with you.

If the jury is, say 6-6? Or even less, I have to call you out on it being 'biased' (the jury, being biased, that is)

I mean, let's face it - there's a panel on HERE that have already found him guilty simply because he was on the trump campaign.

There really wouldn't be a need to call me out. I really have no idea if media bias or Trump will play any role in the outcome of the trial. My actual rationale in all of this is that it could certainly be possible in the current times we live in.

I mean I've seen our nation divided, but not when it comes to damned near everything going on everywhere. And I'm certainly not trying to lay the blame for all of it on either side.

So you may "call me out" as you say for something I simply see as a possible scenario that may or may play itself out, but I think that sounds a little silly there arch. lol

But yes, if the jury is split more evenly it would serve to show that the actual testimony lacked the evidence to convict him and if there is one lone juror holding out for acquittal it would tend to lean that my scenario may have played out. But even at that there really wouldn't be any way to really know unless members of the jury started talking.

Careful man, he's using that WV Mental Kungfu.

Things in the Paul Manafort trial that should scare Trump

By Jennifer Rubin
August 15

Paul Manafort’s lawyers rested their case without allowing their client to take the stand and without presenting a single witness. Defense counsel Kevin Downing gave the formulaic explanation for declining to put on any case: “Mr. Manafort just rested his case, and he did so because he and his legal team believe that the government has not met its burden of proof.” While every defendant is intended the presumption of innocence, the mound of documentary evidence and parade of witnesses in this case sure seemed to fulfill the prosecutors’ burden of proof. But the jury will have its say.

We can speculate as to why Manafort even went to trial. Perhaps he’s expecting a pardon. However, now that the public has gotten a good look at the financial machinations and opulent lifestyle of his former campaign chairman, would President Trump risk the political hit by pardoning him? (Remember there is another trial coming up in Washington in September.) It’s one thing to know intellectually that one could be convicted, but quite another to hear an adverse verdict and get a prison sentence.

What can we learn from the proceedings to this point?

First, Trump declaring a trial a “witch hunt” or unfair, or vouching for the character of an ex-staffer tells us nothing about the strength of the case or the actual character of the defendant. The president operates in a fact-free and lawless universe, one in which any proceeding that implicates either him or his inner circle is by definition a “witch hunt.” Trump likely had no idea what the facts of the Manafort case were (the public sure didn’t), or understanding of the laws implicated. Keep this in mind with regard to his pronouncements regarding the Russia investigation and any cases stemming from that. Trump is about the least-reliable person one could ask for an accurate assessment of someone’s legal exposure. And that includes possible cases against the president himself.

Second, the general public, as noted above, knows a fraction of the evidence prosecutors have collected before they put on their case. The same is true of potential conspiracy and/or obstruction charges against Trump, his family and top advisers. In particular, the mound of financial documents in the Manafort case was staggering, and that evidence was confirmed by more witnesses who are not household names (at least not before the trial). Keep that in mind when Trump’s sycophants say there is “no evidence” of anything.

Third, prosecutors know all about burden of proof. They aren’t going to file charges or go to trial unless they have lots and lots of evidence. (Remember all those indictments obtained by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III?) They rarely rely on a single document or a single witness — especially if that witness is vulnerable on cross-examination. The notion that Trump will be able to invalidate a carefully crafted case against him, for example, by smearing an FBI agent (e.g., Peter Strzok) who left early in the investigation, and whose work was confirmed by others, is downright silly. The president also has been trying to discredit former FBI director James B. Comey from the beginning, but the amount of evidence that supports Comey’s recollection may be just as impressive as the case brought by Manafort’s prosecutors.

Fourth, PR arguments and political spin (Not fair! What about . . . ?) have zero weight in court. Manafort cannot avoid prison time by saying the government didn’t catch all tax cheats. (So-called “selective prosecution” defenses are available in very narrow circumstances and rarely succeed.) Likewise, defendants in other cases are going to have to face the pros and cons of taking the stand (where their credibility may be shredded) and putting on witnesses whose own integrity is suspect.

Fifth, understanding that the facts and the law are not favorable to Trump, his legal team seems more inclined these days to fall back on far-fetched constitutional pleas — e.g., a president cannot obstruct justice — or baseless allegations against prosecutors. (The political affiliation of prosecutors is irrelevant in a trial so long as they are credible and have the goods; absent any showing of political bias, it’s far from clear Trump or his cohorts’ lawyers would even get to raise the point.) And remember, legal arguments about possible prosecution only relate to prosecution in office; there’s zero bar for prosecuting him the moment a new president is sworn in.

In sum, when you see a real trial conducted by professional, experienced prosecutors, you realize the disadvantage Trump and/or others in his administration may face if cases are brought against them. The prosecutors will come armed with a mountain of evidence and the Trumpers will cry “Unfair!” (How’s that working out for Manafort?) Once we move to a venue in which facts do matter, and Sean Hannity doesn’t get to dismiss out of hand whatever bad facts come up, Trump and his inner circle may find themselves like Manafort — defenseless.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/rig...m=.d8c85c81195b

It's in the hands of the jury starting today so I guess it won't be long now.

Yup. Prosecutions biggest risk IMHO is Rick Gates. I know criminals don't cavort with the best people, but it's definitely a risk.

If the paper trail is strong enough, I don't believe Gates actually matters.

If the paper trail isn't strong enough, I don't think Gates actually matters.

Bro, your from Lancaster according to your bio - I wouldn't be throwing stones around about where people live or are from......

10 years in Lancaster... lol. Read my response in the other thread. Plus I knew hitting you about living in WV would cause a meltdown. It has. lmao

So this is a bit interesting:

https://abcnews.go.com/US/manafort-jury-...ory?id=57231086

------------------------------------------------

After a full day of deliberation, the 12-person jury in the financial crimes trial of former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort has yet to reach a verdict, meaning the panel will reconvene Friday to continue considering Manafort’s fate.

Jurors’ first day deliberating the special counsel’s case against Manafort, who faces 18 counts of tax- and bank-related fraud, ended with questions – not answers. Before leaving the courtroom on Thursday, jurors sent a note to the judge asking four questions about nuances of the case, including the definition of "reasonable doubt."

(MORE: With closing arguments wrapped, Manafort case goes to jury)
Judge T.S. Ellis – the federal judge overseeing Manafort’s case in Alexandria, Virginia, clarified to jurors that the government is not required to find "guilt beyond all possible doubt," but defined reasonable doubt as a "doubt based on reason."

PHOTO: This courtroom sketch depicts Paul Manafort, fourth from right, standing with his lawyers in front of U.S. district Judge T.S Ellis III, and the jury during the jury selection of his trial in Alexandria, Va., July 31, 2018.Dana Verkouteren via AP
This courtroom sketch depicts Paul Manafort, fourth from right, standing with his lawyers in front of U.S. district Judge T.S Ellis III, and the jury during the jury selection of his trial in Alexandria, Va., July 31, 2018.more +
Jurors also asked the court to define "shelf company," and for more information on foreign bank account records. Jurors also asked for the special counsel’s indictment of Manafort to be included in their exhibit list.

Judge Ellis told jurors to rely on their collective recollection based on testimony to answer those questions.

(MORE: Meet the legal team defending former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort)
Leaving the courthouse after learning of the jury’s questions, Manafort’s lead attorney Kevin Downing told reporters that the jury’s questions are "good news" for Manafort.

PHOTO: This courtroom sketch depicts Rick Gates, right, testifying during questioning by prosecutor Greg Andres, standing at left, as Manaforts trial continues at federal court in Alexandria, Va., Aug. 7, 2018.Dana Verkouteren via AP
This courtroom sketch depicts Rick Gates, right, testifying during questioning by prosecutor Greg Andres, standing at left, as Manafort's trial continues at federal court in Alexandria, Va., Aug. 7, 2018.more +
"Well we just got some good news. The jury’s been deliberating. They had some questions which the judge addressed, and they’ve asked to come back tomorrow to continue deliberation," Downing said. "So, overall a very good day for Mr. Manafort."

Manafort has pleaded not guilty to all charges.

--------------------------------------------------



Of course Manafort's attorney's are going to claim good news, but they have good reason to be hopeful. When a jury is asking to have legal standards like that defined, they may have some doubts about the evidence and testimony. This isn't necessarily to say the prosecution did a bad job per say, but one of the biggest challenges with a jury is educating them on the topic at hand. If they don't understand the nuances of the criminal activity and the laws, it becomes much more difficult for them to see the evidence, hear the testimony and quickly conclude "yup! he's guilty!".

Devil, maybe you can answer this, Manafort is on trial for tax evasion basically, correct? Is that average sentence like 5 years, with about 2 years served? Why is Manafort being tried for a 300 year sentence and being held in solitary confinement?

They had a total of four questions. I watched a prosecutor explain that asking for the definition of 'reasonable doubt' happens frequently as most laymen have no idea of it's legal definition.

Also when a judge tells them they will have to rely on their collective recollection, the judge is avoiding a situation where their response to the question could be construed as testimony.

FWIW

I am not devil, but he has 18 charges so if found guilty and had to serve consecutively it adds up. If guilty and sentenced to the max it would indeed be over 300 years total.

He won’t serve the max time.

But even if he gets only 2 years a pop, that’s 36 years minimum. Manafort is 69, which means he’ll die in prison.

And again, he still has another trial in September, with these charges carrying way more jail time then the ones in this trial.

At this point, the only logical reason he’s fighting this is because he’s hoping his loyalty will get him a pardon.

Honestly I don't know what sentencing and actual time served is like. I do find it extremely unlikely that he would serve any charges consecutively. If found guilty he's probably only looking at a few years max in a minimum security prison plus some home monitoring time, especially if he has a legitimate source of income for the Feds to recoup the owed money.

It sounds like a lot hinges on this Rick Gates fella. From my understanding he himself was originally looking a at a couple hundred years worth of consecutive time. It'll be interesting to see if the Prosecution was able to show that Manaforts transgressions were so much greater that it was worth letting Gates off.

Basically, did you let the guy with 1 kilo of coke go for testimony against El Chapo.. or did you let the guy with 1 kilo go to turn on the guy with 2 kilos?

Don’t you guys do that all the time? Give drug dealers lighter sentences, or sometimes no sentence at all, if they rat out the supplier?

It depends on how useful their testimony is, but it also depends on how much bigger that fish is. It also depends on the severity of their own crimes.

The other challenge for prosecutors when they do this kind of thing is how to handle the obvious question: If Gates is facing so much time himself and the Gov't is willing to not prosecute him in return for his testimony, isn't it in his best interest to say whatever the Govt wants him to say?

As the defense you don't even have to outright accuse the Prosecutor of leveraging the witness, just bringing up the possibility in a round about way in order to question their motives, can undermine that witness credibility.

It's probably nothing that breaks a case and hopefully a prosecutor isn't relying soley on that witness testimony.

That would be judicial suicide. Mueller isn't stupid. I'm betting Muellers case is air tight.

Well if it is, he better hope the jury understands what it is they are looking at. If they don't understand what they've heard and the pile of papers in front of the them, it's going to chip away at that "beyond a reasonable doubt".

Trump defends ex-aide Manafort as jury considers verdict

https://www.yahoo.com/news/jury-weigh-ma...21--sector.html

Wife of guilty Trump aide: He should scrap Mueller plea deal

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/wife-guilty-trump-aide-scrap-165909682.html

odd that his wife is suddenly out in public trying to run interference. wonder who she got the marching orders from.

Judge in Manafort trial says he's been threatened over case

Ellis said that because of the threats against him, he travels with U.S. Marshals.

“The Marshals go where I go,” Ellis said.

Earlier Friday morning, Ellis, a famously prickly judge known for his colorful comments, acknowledged facing criticism about how he’s handled this case.

At one point, Ellis told attorneys “I’m no stranger to criticism,” saying “this case has brought it to a new level.”

A number of news organizations – the Washington Post, New York Times, AP, CNN, NBC, Politico and BuzzFeed – filed a motion to unseal all the records that have been sealed so far in the Manafort case.

But in rejecting the motion, Ellis said he doesn’t “feel right” about releasing the names of jurors, saying, “to do so would create a risk of harm to them.”

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/08/...-over-case.html

this can go both ways.

we dont who is threatening him. could be the anti trump people. could be the pro trump people.

I think everyone would agree, that the names of the jurors should not be released, no matter the outcome.

I agree. But I wonder how some will react if the jurors wish to have their stories publicized and speak out about the case once it's all over.

My guess is that they will be smeared depending on what they have to say.

I have no doubt your gonna see people come forward, once the media outlets put up money for their stories.

Hope its enough do deal with the crap they will most certainly deal with lol.

My guess is they will be smeared no matter what they say.

Yeah, I wasn't very clear. I meant that which ever side of the issue they take, the other side will be smearing them. lol

Gotcha, and I agree.

But once their names are released only one side will spit on them, hound them at their work, attack them wherever they eat,
or outright assault them and threaten their families.

We have seen this a million time already and actually have elected leaders calling for this treatment of those they disagree with!

I agree.

Here’s an actual trump quote...
“If you do (hurt him), I’ll defend you in court, don’t worry about it”

And another... “I’ll beat the crap out of you”

Another... “Knock the crap out of him, would you? I promise you, I will pay your legal fees”

And yet another... “I’d like to punch him in the face”

You’re right. The disgusting POS in office does condone physically abusing those with differing opinions. Thanks for pointing it out.

Mad Max(ine) Beyond Thunderdome!

And the other side will have the president of the United States attacking them in public to appease his base.

Still no verdict in the Manny trial.

Boy o Boy Mule Liar, this is really hard.

OCD, Swish, Pitt and CHS had this wrapped up months ago!