Paul Manafort Jury

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"

he has another trial in Washington coming up soon to

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.

jury asked four questions to the judge last night one being defining reasonable doubt.

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

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

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)

Aug 17, 2018 -- 11:46AM, lfc1971 wrote:

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

more supercilious drivel. of course they are the most complex. at least do some research.
We have stone cold evidence that you can't even do simple arithmetic so shut the **** up

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

you can't even do primary school level arithmetic.

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 ?

grade e

poor use of grammar too. just plain ignorant imo

You’re not very intelligent are you northanlite
If you don’t understand words there’s no point in reading words

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 ....

jury asked four questions to the judge last night one being defining reasonable doubt.


that's a good sign for the defence

“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".

Aug 19, 2018 -- 10:11AM, A_T wrote:

jury asked four questions to the judge last night one being defining reasonable doubt.that's a good sign for the defence

It is the number #1 question asked by jurors apparently. may be a good sign for the defence may just be asking
for clarification. i wouldn't like to second guess American "justice"
The longest trials in the UK legal history have been fraud cases. They have even considered that jury
trial may not be the best method as it is too complex for many to fully understand.
You certainly would not want lfc on any "dury" arguing that as they are accused of stealing 40% of one companies
money and 50% from another they must have 90% of all the money

Aug 19, 2018 -- 10:16AM, dave1357 wrote:

“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".

Damn straight, if that were a PM or any politician in this country the trial would be stopped and it
would be a resigning issue. How the hell is he allowed to do that pre verdict???
No matter what you think of any trial you surely can't think that is ok

Trump has never ever done anything wrong in his entire life.

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

Reasonable doubt

They've literally got him red handed, if that's reasonable doubt then its ****

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

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

Will northanlite understand that ? anythings possible
I read it somewhere

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

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

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.

I’m sure the judge had his reasons , I’m not interested

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.

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.

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

* 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

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

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

^ there’s another one

If he has avoided tax that’s something that can be proven
That’s fine, let’s see I’m not particularly interested

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

So far he is not guilty , money made outside the  USA ?
They should be thankful if he spends some of it in America

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.

That’s what they’re like

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

And the man just looks dodgy

Any man who spends 6k on an ostrich jacket is to be suspicious of imo

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.

Ah I don’t think it mentions you

You see I think even the judge said that the prosecution team was trying to use the threat of life in prison to get Manafort to turn against Trump

People like that , understand northanlite ?

Of course you would never think that was fair or good or the right way to proceed would you ?
no , no I am not telling lies

People like that, and people like you , I might be wrong it’s just my impression

What do you think then  ?,
Go ahead .....

SontaranStratagem    Joined: 30 Aug 17
Replies: 3417 19 Aug 18 20:36 
And the man just looks dodgy

Any man who spends 6k on an ostrich jacket is to be suspicious of imo

The left spelt out, alarmingly.

i have no f***ing idea what you are rambling about. does anyone?

well you started it

I don’t see what you’re worried about regards Trumps comments

Maybe Trump will be called as a character witness for Manafort , by the prosecution team : )

We find the defendant guilty on all charges !!, life without parole

A few random points;

Gates has been shown to have been stealing from Manafort, who obviously didn`t know; this is his defence that, regardless of how much paperwork evidence there is, he knew nothing, it was all Gates.

Yes, the Judge has admonished the prosecution for bringing this case purely for political purposes.

(Here`s the best bit!) The authorities looked at the very same mountains of evidence against Manafort, eight years ago. They decided he had NOTHING to answer for, exonerating him. And who was the man that gave this exoneration? Why, none other than our old friend, Rod Rosenstein! Yes, the very same chap who found no case to answer eight years back, now deems the very same evidence worthy of 305 years in jail! So, while he might look guilty on all evidence known to you and me, he didn`t look guilty to Rosenstein; until, of course, after he had outraged the Deep Stater by working for The Don.

These types of cases carry a 95% conviction rate.

all federal case have a 90%+ conviction rate.

A district attorney can't "exonerate" anyone.  They can just decide that there isn't enough evidence to prosecute at any point in time and obviously that changes when they get more evidence.

www.bizzyblog.com/2018/07/31/appalling-media-negligence-manafort-was-exonerated-8-years-ago-federal-prosecutors-led-by-rosenstein-declined-to-charge-him/

Why Hasn’t the Press Reported That Paul Manafort Was Exonerated 8 Years Ago? Federal Prosecutors Led by ROD ROSENSTEIN Declined to Charge Him.
Filed under: MSM Biz/Other Bias,MSM Biz/Other Ignorance,Taxes & Government — Tom @ 6:27 pm

Okay, everyone. I want a show of hands (too bad I can’t see everyone participating).

How many of you know that Paul Manafort was exonerated by federal investigators who investigated his financial and tax affairs eight years ago?




exonerate
ɪɡˈzɒnəreɪt,ɛɡˈzɒnəreɪt/
verb
verb: exonerate; 3rd person present: exonerates; past tense: exonerated; past participle: exonerated; gerund or present participle: exonerating   
1.
(of an official body) absolve (someone) from blame for a fault or wrongdoing.
"an inquiry exonerated those involved"

I dgaf what bizzyblog (whoever they are) says.

A district attorney doesn't "absolve" anyone from fault or wrongdoing.  So they don't exonerate anyone - court proceedings do that.

I`m pointing out that Rosenstein exonerated/absolved Manafort eight years ago; this is an important and relevant fact. If you choose to twist and wriggle on what word we should use to describe this, preferring to ignore and deflect from the importance of the facts, I CHORTLE at you!!!

For the last time.  Rosenstein could have lain prostrate on the ground and begged manafort's forgiveness and it would have had absolutely zero relevance to future legal proceedings.  There is no part of the US legal process where a DA exonerates someone.

and btw why are thicko trumpkins still screaming "her emailzzzz" after Clinton was "exonerated"?

OK, you continue deflecting. Meanwhile, all right and good thinking people will be seeing the facts and truth, the big picture.

timbuctooth • August 20, 2018 11:47 PM BST
OK, you continue deflecting

Where's the deflecting?  You are inventing legal processes.  Do you seriously think that if Manafort had been in someway officially "exonerated", the obviously biased judge wouldn't have thrown out the case?

OK, you can continue navel gazing as the story, life and the big picture pass you by. I suppose such crumbs are all you can grab at when you`re so wrong on everything that matters. Enjoy yourself!

not exactly America 1st

guilty on 8 charges out of 18 mistrial declared on 10 charges

Juror reveals would have been 18 - 0 if not for one juror.

was he named Timbuctooth?

so that's where timbuctooth has been the crafty bugger, getting Manafort of 10 counts,

"it was only 8 so ner"

Trump is going to pardon him anyway

Lefties or not, the previous two posts are quite funny!