Jump to content

Manafort Trial

Grandioso

By Grandioso
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

retread
retread
Hugo Stiglitz
Hugo Stiglitz
Chooky
Chooky

If Mueller completes this investigation leaving no doubt of criminal activity from this administration while at the same time paying for %80 of it with seized cash from Russian money laundering scheme

TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 32087

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Perhaps but it was a trial run for Gates who will all but certainly do a lot more testifying in the future.

Gates is Mueller’s crown jewel when it comes to cooperation and information.  

Gates likely has info on all the areas of the investigation. 

He also got the sweetest deal, outside of Flynn. 

Hopefully, Gates is more of a tour guide to the whole thing.  Seems pretty clear that he is easily neutralized as a witness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 32087

Posted
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, triplehorn said:

 

What a bunch of nonsense.  No appeal is ripe until up to 14 days after a judgement is signed, which takes place after sentencing, which takes place after Probation and Pretrial Services prepares the Pre Sentencing Report (PSR) and the parties/defendant object to it.  That's in all likelihood quite a bit more than 30 days, more like 60-120 even if no one asks for a delay.  The only other post-verdict motion is for a new trial, which is due 14 days after the verdict is returned.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChiTownDoc

ChiTownDoc 21346

Posted
Posted
20 minutes ago, Ted Lange said:

The Trump lady above, wasn’t the one holding up the vote, she voted guilty on all 18.  We don’t know the background on the holdout yet, other than she claimed reasonable doubt as the reason for refusing to convict on all 18. 

Mea Culpa...

Hoping that juror gives some background on her/his decision.  Maybe it was warranted.  Especially with how the judge kept yanking the rug out from under the prosecution.  I’d just like to hear the thought process. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RayDog

RayDog 682

Posted
Posted
29 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

If Gates is important to the next trial, the prosecution better find a way for the jury not to toss out all of his testimony. 

They did ok and would have had all 18 counts if it wasn't for one juror who does not understand reasonable doubt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 47239

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, RayDog said:

They did ok and would have had all 18 counts if it wasn't for one juror who does not understand reasonable doubt.

. . . which makes it a case study in why the prosecution needs to figure out how to frame his testimony, because all it takes is one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Party_Taco

Party_Taco 3890

Posted
Posted
Consciously or not, Trump's strategy of calling the investigation a witch hunt can pay dividends by turning 1 juror.
 
 

Which is why it’s jury tampering...

He shouldn’t be commenting on ANY active trial, let alone one that somehow implicates wrongdoing of a former associate..
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
J.R.

J.R. 150

Posted
Posted
7 hours ago, ChiTownDoc said:

Mea Culpa...

Hoping that juror gives some background on her/his decision.  Maybe it was warranted.  Especially with how the judge kept yanking the rug out from under the prosecution.  I’d just like to hear the thought process. 

She lays it out pretty plainly.  The prosecution probably came in overconfident and arrogant.  Nodding off during trial is a big no no.  The jurors try to stay awake (although often fail) so you definitely should.  They did not sufficiently establish why Rick Gates has no reason to lie.  They crushed him with documents.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nice Guy Eddie

Nice Guy Eddie 13740

Posted
Posted

I will give the Trump-supporter juror credit that she openly states she wanted Manafort to be innocent but the evidence was too strong.   Good for her to do her duty.  I do question some of her comments about what she saw or experienced..  For example one of her comments was that she didn't see other Republicans on the jury.  How does she know?     I've worked at my current job for 18 months and I seriously don't even barely know the politics of my co-workers.  We don't talk politics.     Or maybe that juror can determine politics by looking at someone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ted Lange

Ted Lange 16426

Posted
Posted

Her quote on the prosecution

“A lot of times they looked bored, and other times they catnapped – at least two of them did,” Duncan said. “They seemed very relaxed, feet up on the table bars and they showed a little bit of almost disinterest to me, at times.”

Is this normal? Seems really unprofessional 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nice Guy Eddie

Nice Guy Eddie 13740

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, Ted Lange said:

Her quote on the prosecution

“A lot of times they looked bored, and other times they catnapped – at least two of them did,” Duncan said. “They seemed very relaxed, feet up on the table bars and they showed a little bit of almost disinterest to me, at times.”

Is this normal? Seems really unprofessional 

It's doubtful she would think highly of the witch hunt people.  "look he yawned.  bastard thinks this is his bedroom. And my tax dollars are paying his salary."

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 32087

Posted
Posted (edited)
15 minutes ago, Ted Lange said:

Her quote on the prosecution

“A lot of times they looked bored, and other times they catnapped – at least two of them did,” Duncan said. “They seemed very relaxed, feet up on the table bars and they showed a little bit of almost disinterest to me, at times.”

Is this normal? Seems really unprofessional 

There was one guy that defended Ellis, I posted upthread and he called the prosecutors basically unprofessional.  Reasonably sure he was relying on the same media reports of  things, like eyerolling and the little tantrums when they didn't get their way.  That article rang true to me, much truer than others' speculation and misstatements about the arguments between Ellis and counsel, whether they were in front of the jury, etc.

So, no, that's not normal, and that is judicial scornworthy.  Snoozing during your own trial is terrible, terrible stuff.  In my observation, it tends to happen when you have too many cooks in the kitchen, or too many lawyers on the team.  That is, lawyers at the counsel table who aren't responsible for a current witness.  If you nod off when it's your witness, well you got problems.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Post Oak

Post Oak 20570

Posted
Posted
8 hours ago, Ted Lange said:

The Trump lady above, wasn’t the one holding up the vote, she voted guilty on all 18.  We don’t know the background on the holdout yet, other than she claimed reasonable doubt as the reason for refusing to convict on all 18. 

The Fox juror actually made me feel pretty good about the whole thing. Shes obviously a trumpkin but seemed to take her responsibility seriously.

Basically she likes Trump but Manafor is guilty AF and she had no problem saying so. 

Sounds like the other juror has MAGAts where their brain should be

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
swraith

swraith 348

Posted
Posted

On the 10 counts where a mistrial was declared, is there a statue of limitations?

Part of me is ok with the trumpkin holdout. If Trump grants a pardon for the eight guilty counts, could prosecutors follow up and retry the mistrial counts in a post Trump Presidency?

Almost like getting a second crack at ensuring Manafort goes to prison.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Longhorn_Fan68

Longhorn_Fan68 34106

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, swraith said:

On the 10 counts where a mistrial was declared, is there a statue of limitations?

Part of me is ok with the trumpkin holdout. If Trump grants a pardon for the eight guilty counts, could prosecutors follow up and retry the mistrial counts in a post Trump Presidency?

Almost like getting a second crack at ensuring Manafort goes to prison.

he has another whole trial that hasn't even started.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 32087

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, swraith said:

On the 10 counts where a mistrial was declared, is there a statue of limitations?

Part of me is ok with the trumpkin holdout. If Trump grants a pardon for the eight guilty counts, could prosecutors follow up and retry the mistrial counts in a post Trump Presidency?

Almost like getting a second crack at ensuring Manafort goes to prison.

The statute of limitations is "tolled" by the filing of the indictment.  Unless the government dismisses the mistried counts, limitations is no longer running. 

 

That said, there's little purpose in retrying the mistried counts.  For most purposes, if criminal charges are properly joined together in one case/indictment, then the sentences for the crimes alleged generally will run concurrently.  They most likely aren't going to get a longer sentence if they retry the counts, so it would be a waste of time and resources to do it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...