Aug 19, 2018 -- 7:41PM, SontaranStratagem wrote:

Aug 19, 2018 --  6:19PM, Shab wrote: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.And this attitude is the reason why we are all being shafted daily People actually defending the bloke, and the one's defending him haven't a pot to **** in  that's the truly sad part He knew, he bought enough stuff with the money, he didn't think for one second "where's this money coming from" Some people are either very naive and wet behind the ears, or they are on the wind up

Where did I defend the guy? I just want to see evidence - which, if it was such a slam dunk (as you say) then no way on earth would he have gone to trial. The evidence is there - right? You say it is so it must be. So he will be found bang to rights. Absolute guarantee of a guilty verdict. So answer the question: why did he go to trial?

Your problem is that you do not think for yourself. You prefer to parrot what others say because it fits your political belief.

Aug 19, 2018 -- 8:06PM, Shab wrote:

Aug 19, 2018 --  7:41PM, SontaranStratagem wrote:Aug 19, 2018 --  6:19PM, Shab wrote: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.And this attitude is the reason why we are all being shafted daily People actually defending the bloke, and the one's defending him haven't a pot to **** in  that's the truly sad part He knew, he bought enough stuff with the money, he didn't think for one second "where's this money coming from" Some people are either very naive and wet behind the ears, or they are on the wind upWhere did I defend the guy? I just want to see evidence - which, if it was such a slam dunk (as you say) then no way on earth would he have gone to trial. The evidence is there - right? You say it is so it must be. So he will be found bang to rights. Absolute guarantee of a guilty verdict. So answer the question: why did he go to trial?Your problem is that you do not think for yourself. You prefer to parrot what others say because it fits your political belief.

To quote something from the movie the green mile

"everyone is entitled to a defense"

But he's guilty, don't you forget it

Aug 19, 2018 -- 6:52PM, lfc1971 wrote:

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

where did i suggest that then? he might be innocent i suppose, he might be guilty but it can't be proved &
he might go to jail or be found guilty but pardoned.
what i do think is that the president should not be commenting on an ongoing trial that does have a connection
to him.
he is definitely of crimes against fashion.