Chit Chat
So the prosecutions argument is gospel surely?
Yet the jury can't come up with a verdict
Even if they find him guilty he will be appealing and this whole s*** show can carry on for another 6 months
$$$$$$$$$$ kaching
|
By:
Give em a chance. They only went to the jury room to deliberate yesterday after instructions so only had an afternoon to
consider 18 charges. Financial fraud trials are complex & must be a nightmare for the layman anyway, that is probably why so many get away with it in the first place. Seems to be a fairly clear paper trail in much of this case but who knows. No defence was offered so just relying on the jury thinking it hasn't been sufficiently proven "beyond reasonable doubt" |
|
By:
he has another trial in Washington coming up soon to
|
|
By:
Manafort's defence was that the Government had not proved it's case beyond reasonable doubt. If proven guilty I think it's a slam dunk that any appeal will be unsuccessful.
|
|
By:
jury asked four questions to the judge last night one being defining reasonable doubt.
|
|
By:
That jury should be struck off right away for asking a silly question
It is for the jury to exercise intelligence , diligence, fairness , and common sense That’s all , if they can’t do that they shouldn’t be there |
|
By:
Are financial fraud cases more complex ?
No they are among the simplest and easiest to come to a decision It merely needs the prosecution to show what has been done and if it is against the law Defence can also say that no , that didn’t happen or isn’t against the law Very very easy to determine guilt or innocence in a financial case |
|
By:
I think he's guilty just looking at him, I mean the bloke spent 6 grand on an ostrich coat
(you must be an ostrich, your head must be in the sand) |
|
By:
|
|
By:
pipe down what has arithmetic got to do with it ?
Never in the history of the world has a jury been asked to do maths You’re an idiot northanlite , don’t allow yourself to believe anything else |
|
By:
you can't even do primary school level arithmetic.
|
|
By:
What on earth are you on about now ?
If I’m called up for jury service and they ask us what maths qualifications we have I’ll bring my maths ‘0’ level cirtificate Happy with that ? |
|
By:
grade e
|
|
By:
poor use of grammar too. just plain ignorant imo
|
|
By:
You’re not very intelligent are you northanlite
If you don’t understand words there’s no point in reading words |
|
By:
Now if you think financial fraud cases are more difficult than other cases for a dury , just because someone has told you that’s a fact and you aren’t capable of thinking for yourself , let’s have a few examples of such cases and why
Go ahead northanlite , let’s see .... |
|
By:
jury asked four questions to the judge last night one being defining reasonable doubt.
that's a good sign for the defence |
|
By:
“I think the whole Manafort trial is very sad,” Trump said. “I think it’s a very sad day for our country. He happens to be a very good person, and I think it’s very sad what they’ve done to Paul Manafort.”
In Britain, Trump would right now be in front of the judge explaining why he shouldn't be jailed for contempt. It is also an insight into the way Trump thinks. Immigrants are criminals and rapists, but someone who evades millions in taxes and defrauds a bank is a "nice person". |
|
By:
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
Trump has never ever done anything wrong in his entire life.
|
|
By:
America should be sealed of until the prat is gone
When he's gone he needs to be arrested and banged up for the rest of his days for that syrup alone |
|
By:
Reasonable doubt
They've literally got him red handed, if that's reasonable doubt then its **** |
|
By:
Britain’s longest trial husband and wife found guilty
There were 29 charges ( not one as in many cases ) He was found guilty of 29 , she of 2 The amount of evidence meant it took a year to prosecute One juror got married Others off sick Others took holidays Evidence from the home of a witness to ill to attend his house was set up as a court one juror behind in pension contr, employer not liable And so it is the cost and the length of time and unconvience to juries etc. that has led to some calls to do away with the jury for these sort of trials But the jury was nevertheless quite capable of following the evidence and coming to its verdict Not just for one charge but 29 You see these cases are often easier than other non feats cases when it comes to deciding guilt or innocence They may take longer because it is a matter of following the documents , and following the money But the evidence is there , in black and white Unlike many other cases , that us why they are often easier , perhaps longer yes , but easier |
|
By:
I don’t know how long the OJ Simpson trial lasted
But there were no documents in that case , there was no money to follow , there was no fraud and no tax avoidance or mortgage fraud That is why it was so difficult to prove innocence or guilt Unlike a financial fraud case |
|
By:
Will northanlite understand that ? anythings possible
I read it somewhere |
|
By:
They've literally got him red handed, if that's reasonable doubt then its ****
juries sometimes get in a real muddle over this and end up thinking it means beyond any doubt whatsoever |
|
By:
In a financial fraud case they shouldn’t even have to ask that question
Because in a financial fraud case the evidence is there right in front of your eyes , as plain to see as the night and day Or it isn’t and you are not guilty |
|
By:
lfc - the prosecution wanted to provide a list of the evidence exhibits linked to the charges. The judge wouldn't allow that. So in this case the evidence can indeed be there but the jury won't be able to link it to the charges.
|
|
By:
I’m sure the judge had his reasons , I’m not interested
|
|
By:
This thread makes me laugh. The lack of knowledge about the case.... Right, Manafort's right hand guy - the onr who turned to give evidence against - was caught red-handed. That is why he turned. Not only was it him doing all of the dodgy stuff, it also came to light that he was stealing Manafort's money too. That is fact and not disputed.
So why did Manafort take the huge risk of standing trial, where the maximum jail term would see him never get out of jail? Maybe, just maybe, he did not know much about what was going on. That is what is needed to be proven, and there is very little evidence of that, if any. The other laughable thing about this trial is that it is just another lie that the liberals are trying to beat Trump with, even though it has absolutely nothing to do with him. |
|
By:
Manafort was already charged before Gates co-operated - so a Grand Jury found there was sufficient evidence without his testimony.
In the USA people normally plea bargain because they sentence is about a tenth of what they will get if guilty in a court. That doesn't apply to Manafort because he knows Trump will pardon him. |
|
By:
It’s very simple , who gives two hoots if Manafort told his bank that a house he owned was a second home and no rented out
That’s between him and the bank , thousands of people in Britain have done the same thing Bud people like northanlite want to have him face jail for life because of his connection to Trump That’s the sort of northernlite is , don’t trust people like that They don’t deserve to be trusted |
|
By:
* the sort of person northanlite is
Now if Manafort told the bank his house wasn’t rented out and it was Nobody sensible gives a f@ck |
|
By:
|
|
By:
Trump will pardon him anyway as said above
Ripped off the working man for millions, and those same working men will lap it up No wonder the financial sector is full of rats, they know they can easily get away with it |
|
By:
^ there’s another one
|
|
By:
If he has avoided tax that’s something that can be proven
That’s fine, let’s see I’m not particularly interested |
|
By:
Give him a year and a half in jail , of course if anything is proven, maybe much less
It’s his money don’t forget |
|
By:
So far he is not guilty , money made outside the USA ?
They should be thankful if he spends some of it in America |
that's the truly sad part