|
Post by soonernvolved on Aug 16, 2018 8:06:47 GMT -6
www.nationalreview.com/2018/08/paul-manafort-trial-mueller-team-focuses-on-documents/Mueller v. Manafort: Is It about Gates — or a Mountain of Documents? By ANDREW C. MCCARTHY August 16, 2018 6:30 AM The prosecution wants the jury to focus on Manafort’s document trail. ‘Ladies and gentlemen, the star witness in this case is the documents.” That is the theme prosecutor Greg Andres hammered home in his summation at Paul Manafort’s bank- and tax-fraud trial in an Alexandria, Va., federal court. It is a theme that much of the media coverage has glossed over, though it is unlikely to have been overlooked by the jury of six men and six women that sat through the case presented by Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team. So will jurors stay focused on the documents — the financial records that prove tens of millions of dollars in income that Manafort, President Trump’s former campaign chairman, stashed in overseas accounts, failing to report the accounts or the income to the IRS? The defense, of course, has a strategy to help the jury overlook the documents. The strategy even has a name: Rick Gates. The idea is to portray Mueller’s case as rising or falling on Manafort’s longtime business partner and accomplice. Gates was the trial’s most prominent witness, and he is a scoundrel. Indeed, the only fraud that has been proved so far is Gates’s prodigious embezzlement from Manafort — during the time prosecutors allege that they were both cheating the government. According to the defense, embezzlement just scratches the surface of Gates’s loathsomeness, which also includes extramarital flings and other betrayals. Gates, then, is the star witness, according to Richard Westling, the lawyer who summed up on Manafort’s behalf. If the jury sees him as a fallen star, he just might take the prosecution’s case down with him. That’s why Andres says it’s all about the documents. And he’s got a point. In a big trial with accomplice testimony, there is nothing like the moment when the accomplice takes the stand. When he is called upon to identify the defendant as his partner in crime, when he begins to describe their schemes. It rivets our attention. One can be forgiven for overlooking all the dry documentary proof. But there is usually much more to the prosecution’s case than this dramatic coconspirator testimony. In Manafort’s case, that is true in spades. Remember — though it’s easy to forget — it’s not like Gates agreed to cooperate and suddenly a case against Manafort materialized. Manafort and Gates were indicted together. Mueller’s team had a strong case, based on extensive financial records. Prosecutors were ready to go to trial against both of them. It is Mueller’s case — the documents — that drove Gates to cooperate, not the other way around. By the time Gates took the stand in the surprisingly swift trial, Mueller’s prosecutors had already proved, or laid the groundwork to prove, the fraudulent transactions charged in the indictment. From the prosecutors’ standpoint, Gates merely tightens up one part of the case: mens rea, Manafort’s criminal state of mind. Yes, it is a critical element, but it is one prosecutors insist they could have proved without the accomplice’s help. Gates is there to assure the jury that Manafort was not too confused or distracted to grasp complex financial transactions. The documents prove that Manafort’s deceptions of financial institutions and the tax-man were not an accident; Gates just confirms that Manafort acted willfully. Nevertheless, Gates remains Manafort’s best shot at beating the case. That is why Manafort opted to exercise his right not to testify, and why his lawyers chose not to present any defense case. That would have reminded the jury that the case is about Manafort. They want the case to be about Gates. By selling his case against Gates on the cheap, Mueller undercut his prosecutors’ contention that the accomplice’s testimony is not that important. Gates’s gift to the defense is the sweetheart plea deal he was gifted by Mueller. Only a day after indicting Gates for the second time, on charges that potentially exposed him to hundreds of years in prison, the special counsel let him plead guilty to two minor charges, capping his potential exposure at just ten years, with a possibility of no jail time. As we noted at the time (here and here), the plea deal violated Justice Department guidelines. It was certain to make Gates a less effective witness. It did. Gates should have been forced to plead guilty to the most serious, readily provable charge in the indictment — bank fraud, a 30-year count. In my old office (the U.S. attorney’s office for the Southern District of New York), he would have been made to plead guilty to much more, but a 30-year count would at least have made it look like Mueller was not giving the store away. And Mueller did not need to give the store away — he had the same strong case against Gates as he did against Manafort. Instead, Gates did not plead guilty to the bank-fraud charges that Mueller alleges he and Manafort schemed up together. And, as Manafort’s lawyer was only too happy to remind the jury in his summation, Gates testified that he (Gates) did not intend to defraud a bank. There cannot be a conspiracy unless the two alleged culprits agree on the objective. More to the point, by selling his case against Gates on the cheap, Mueller undercut his prosecutors’ contention that the accomplice’s testimony is not that important. If it’s not, why did they give away so much to get it? Moreover, because of Gates’s testimony, the jury understands that, for the very same offenses that have Manafort looking at spending the rest of his life in a federal penitentiary, the special counsel essentially let Gates walk. Jurors are not going to like that. They will ask themselves, “How serious can these crimes really be?” Of course, that doesn’t make Manafort innocent. And it doesn’t mean the documents are not damning. They are. Will they be enough? Prosecutors are counting on them to be the real star witness. For a prosecutor, documents are much tidier than witnesses: They don’t have extramarital affairs, they don’t steal from their business partners, and you can get them by just issuing a subpoena — no slap-on-the-wrist plea deal required. Bob Mueller’s team is betting the documents are a mountain too steep for Paul Manafort to overcome.
|
|
|
Post by okirishfan on Aug 16, 2018 9:16:50 GMT -6
He's going to be found guilty. People generally ( I say generally because there exists some people who don't care about criminal endeavor if it's their guy committing the acts...they even attempt to reframe such acts with words like "mistakes" and "transgressions" to lesson the word-picture associated in people's minds as well as talk about "how long ago" it happened) don't like ultra-wealthy people scheming the system to get even MORE money and evading taxes while they are wondering how they're gonna put their kids through college (if they're EVEN that lucky) and pay the taxes owed to the government.
Manafort's only hope is there are 12 (or however many there are in this trial) Soonervolves in the jury box.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Aug 16, 2018 9:28:32 GMT -6
He's going to be found guilty. People generally ( I say generally because there exists some people who don't care about criminal endeavor if it's their guy committing the acts...they even attempt to reframe such acts with words like "mistakes" and "transgressions" to lesson the word-picture associated in people's minds as well as talk about "how long ago" it happened) don't like ultra-wealthy people scheming the system to get even MORE money and evading taxes while they are wondering how they're gonna put their kids through college (if they're EVEN that lucky) and pay the taxes owed to the government. Manafort's only hope is there are 12 (or however many there are in this trial) Soonervolves in the jury box. Lol. Another swing and a miss, but that’s your average so far. I’ve said this was a slam dunk case that went into the gray area after the prosecution’s star witness fell apart under defense council’s cross examination. As I’ve also said for Trump, Ellison, etc Innocent until proven guilty,(foreign concept for Trump haters I know). If/When Manafort is found innocent, it would be because the prosecution failed to prove their case. Nothing more or less than that.
|
|
|
Post by okirishfan on Aug 16, 2018 9:37:45 GMT -6
He's going to be found guilty. People generally ( I say generally because there exists some people who don't care about criminal endeavor if it's their guy committing the acts...they even attempt to reframe such acts with words like "mistakes" and "transgressions" to lesson the word-picture associated in people's minds as well as talk about "how long ago" it happened) don't like ultra-wealthy people scheming the system to get even MORE money and evading taxes while they are wondering how they're gonna put their kids through college (if they're EVEN that lucky) and pay the taxes owed to the government. Manafort's only hope is there are 12 (or however many there are in this trial) Soonervolves in the jury box. Lol. Another swing and a miss, but that’s your average so far. I’ve said this was a slam dunk case that went into the gray area after the prosecution’s star witness fell apart under defense council’s cross examination. As I’ve also said for Trump, Ellison, etc Innocent until proven guilty,(foreign concept for Trump haters I know). If/When Manafort is found innocent, it would be because the prosecution failed to prove their case. Nothing more or less than that. Speaking of swinging and missing, still waiting on your responses to the four points I made yesterday rebutting your erroneous claims. They're simple yes or no questions that can be answered fairly quickly.
And yes, innocent until proven guilty. That being said, I bet he's found guilty. In the end it won't matter, however. I'm sure he'll get a pardon.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Aug 16, 2018 9:59:23 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by politicalmexininja on Aug 16, 2018 11:21:38 GMT -6
I could see the jury convicting him one count and recommending time served...the gist being that if the guv is gonna let Gates skate then we'll let Manafort too...
|
|
|
Post by NN on Aug 16, 2018 12:14:30 GMT -6
Lol. Another swing and a miss, but that’s your average so far. I’ve said this was a slam dunk case that went into the gray area after the prosecution’s star witness fell apart under defense council’s cross examination. As I’ve also said for Trump, Ellison, etc Innocent until proven guilty,(foreign concept for Trump haters I know). If/When Manafort is found innocent, it would be because the prosecution failed to prove their case. Nothing more or less than that. Speaking of swinging and missing, still waiting on your responses to the four points I made yesterday rebutting your erroneous claims. They're simple yes or no questions that can be answered fairly quickly.
And yes, innocent until proven guilty. That being said, I bet he's found guilty. In the end it won't matter, however. I'm sure he'll get a pardon.
Doesn't Manafort have a court date in a state court? If he does and he's found guilty Trump pardon won't work in state court.
|
|
|
Post by kcrufnek on Aug 16, 2018 12:27:31 GMT -6
He's going to be found guilty. People generally ( I say generally because there exists some people who don't care about criminal endeavor if it's their guy committing the acts...they even attempt to reframe such acts with words like "mistakes" and "transgressions" to lesson the word-picture associated in people's minds as well as talk about "how long ago" it happened) don't like ultra-wealthy people scheming the system to get even MORE money and evading taxes while they are wondering how they're gonna put their kids through college (if they're EVEN that lucky) and pay the taxes owed to the government. Manafort's only hope is there are 12 (or however many there are in this trial) Soonervolves in the jury box. Orly takes one.
|
|
|
Post by NN on Aug 16, 2018 12:32:39 GMT -6
He's going to be found guilty. People generally ( I say generally because there exists some people who don't care about criminal endeavor if it's their guy committing the acts...they even attempt to reframe such acts with words like "mistakes" and "transgressions" to lesson the word-picture associated in people's minds as well as talk about "how long ago" it happened) don't like ultra-wealthy people scheming the system to get even MORE money and evading taxes while they are wondering how they're gonna put their kids through college (if they're EVEN that lucky) and pay the taxes owed to the government. Manafort's only hope is there are 12 (or however many there are in this trial) Soonervolves in the jury box. Orly takes one. *Only
|
|
|
Post by kcrufnek on Aug 16, 2018 12:38:04 GMT -6
Feel better now? Maybe the next time mommy changes your diaper she can give you tiny wee wee and extra rub.
|
|
|
Post by kcrufnek on Aug 16, 2018 12:39:57 GMT -6
Never mind. I'll tell her the next time I'm turning her bitch ass out.
|
|
|
Post by NN on Aug 16, 2018 12:48:32 GMT -6
LOL, double hate post=Triggered
|
|
|
Post by NN on Aug 16, 2018 12:50:57 GMT -6
Feel better now? Maybe the next time mommy changes your diaper she can give you tiny wee wee and extra rub. *your
|
|
|
Post by okirishfan on Aug 16, 2018 12:51:45 GMT -6
Feel better now? Maybe the next time mommy changes your diaper she can give you tiny wee wee and extra rub. *your
* an
Sorry, couldn't resist. That, and I'd like a diaper change and my tiny.....er.....average, wee wee rubbed too.
|
|
|
Post by NN on Aug 16, 2018 12:53:17 GMT -6
Feel better now? Maybe the next time mommy changes your diaper she can give you tiny wee wee and extra rub. *your
* an
Sorry, couldn't resist. That, and I'd like a diaper change and my tiny.....er.....average, wee wee rubbed too.
Good catch.
|
|
|
Post by kcrufnek on Aug 16, 2018 13:00:47 GMT -6
Congrats. I'd be proud of myself too if that's all I had. But carry on with the grammar patrol. Glad to see you finally something you don't totally fuck up.
|
|
|
Post by NN on Aug 16, 2018 13:14:12 GMT -6
Congrats. I'd be proud of myself too if that's all I had. But carry on with the grammar patrol. Glad to see you finally something you don't totally fuck up. *finally found something
|
|
|
Post by okirishfan on Aug 16, 2018 13:18:15 GMT -6
Congrats. I'd be proud of myself too if that's all I had. But carry on with the grammar patrol. Glad to see you finally something you don't totally fuck up. *finally found something
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Aug 16, 2018 13:27:29 GMT -6
Actually, my no American comment is not wishful thinking, I’m metely echoing what Rosenstein has stated twice now,(during both indictment Friday drops). www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/02/16/watch_live_deputy_ag_rod_rosenstein_announcement.htmlRosenstein: "No Allegation in This Indictment That Any American Had Any Knowledge" Of Russian Election Influence Operation Posted By Tim Hains On Date February 16, 2018 Now, there is no allegation in this indictment that any American was a knowing participant in this illegal activity. There is no allegation in the indictment that the charged conduct altered the outcome of the 2016 election. ...... Second set of indictments: www.bloombergquint.com/uselections/2018/07/13/mueller-indicts-12-russian-spies-for-hacking-in-2016-campaignNo Americans were charged Friday. But the indictment shows unidentified Americans -- including a person close to the Trump campaign and a candidate for Congress -- communicated with the Russian intelligence officers. Echoing Rosenstein, White House spokeswoman Lindsay Walters said that “today’s charges include no allegations of knowing involvement by anyone on the campaign and no allegations that the alleged hacking affected the election result.” ....... The lack of any evidence of “collusion “ after 18+ months is why team Mueller is going off the path and going after other unrelated crimes,(Manafort once again for bank fraud, tax evasion, etc). Unlike some here who are blinded by their dislike of the current administration for humorous reasons,( cough occasional lying cough), I’ve been up front that if any evidence should show up, then I’d gladly change my stance. However, this investigation is exactly like the Start investigation. Merely a political witch hunt to try and get something to impeach a sitting president. As for Rudy Giuliani goes, he’s right to call out Mueller’s “investigation “. If he keeps dragging it out,(which he’s doing), then he will go into the elections and could “inadvertently “ affect some of those,(which for one side I’m sure they’d gladly look the other way for that). 1. Answer this one question: Does "THIS" indictment refer to the indictment that Rosenstein was speaking about AT THE TIME or is it inclusive of the WHOLE of Mueller's investigation to this point?
2. No indictments and no evidence given to the public (I don't think Mueller is obligated to release what evidence he has obtained to the public) is NOT evidence that this is a witch hunt or that no evidence and/or indictments are not forthcoming and certainly not evidence of his innocence. You're using the absence of something to prove an act wasn't committed DURING the investigation of said investigated act. Can you tell me any other scenario where that is the normal functioning of how an investigation works, especially one of this magnitude with so many people involved (I mean look how long the Clinton stuff lasted....which I have no problem with)?
3. Giuliani has the "right" to say whatever stupid thing he wants to say; I'm not denying him that right. But I reserve the right to laugh at him for threatening the lead investigator as if it's going to get him somewhere.
4. Let's say I agreed with you that the government overstepped it's bounds (provided no collusion is found) and thus were wrong for doing so and it was all a political witch hunt as you say. If it's found that Trump has committed major crimes (not getting a blowjob and lying about it) like tax evasion, money laundering, etc. etc. would you want him to be held accountable for his crimes? I know you like to label anyone who disagrees with you a liberal, so going with that, I'd want Obama, Hillary, JFK, anyone to be prosecuted if it could be proven that they committed a crime. Can you say the same?
I itemized those points so it would be easy for you to give a simple answer to each one without missing anything. Looking forward to your responses.
Thanks for pointing this out to me, it did not pop up on my indicators. Anywho, to the rebuttals: #1: I actually referenced both sets of indictments that was released. One was from back in February, the other one in July,(both this year). They said the same thing. No Americans knowingly aided the Russians, no crimes were committed nor were any votes altered or election outcomes changed due to Russian meddling. Now, add to it FBI Director Christopher Wray recently talking about how Russia is not interested in attacking American infrastructure,(i.e. votes, machines, etc), but operate more from a troll outlook by taking hot button issues and put both sides against each other while they enjoy the show. Considering Mueller’s Investigation was created for the sole purpose of investigating Russia & their meddling. These three statements by both the #2 of the DOJ & the head of the FBI is pretty damning. Factor in his investigation has been going on for over 18 months & was one of FOUR investigations along with the House, Senate & FBI. All four have yet to bring forth any evidence or indictments that Trump & his campaign have conspired with Russia,(there is plenty of evidence of the DOJ/FBI violating their ethical standards to get their needed warrants though). #2: Again, Rosenstein told the public no Americans charged or indicted because they did not knowingly help the Russians,(meaning they were tricked/lied to). Factor in at the first round of indictments, an eagle eyed reporter noticed the indictments mentioned three lower tier staff members of the Trump campaign. Rosenstein again stated that they did not knowingly help. To think that Mueller would be “sitting on a charge” after his boss announced that not once, but twice is not being honest. Unless one believes Mueller is capable of making his boss look like a liar,etc to the national media/press. Also, another point. Early on in his investigation,(& on occasion since then), there have been leaks from “confidential sources close to the investigation “ that happened to land in the laps of media that were friendly with them,(I.e. the WaPo, NYTimes), & to think if the investigation and these same “sources” had access to information that would force Trump to talk,(where he could make the Bill Clinton mistake of perjury), then, once again, they are not being honest,(especially factoring in Mueller’s mindset and how he locks in on a “guilty” person and then attempts to make the crime fit that person). As for investigations, normally investigations begin when there is evidence of a potential crime. In this case, there was none, only wild conjecture & people upset over an election loss taking an off the cuff joke to be serious. After two years of investigations by four different committees,(one is completed and issued a final report), there is still no evidence of what many take as fact,(collusion). In fact, two leaders of the DOJ/FBI have announced statements that say no elections results were changed, nor were any votes changed. But carry on because Clinton? #3: Yes you do have that constitutional right. Just as other have the same right to call you out for remarks you make about people you dislike for obvious reasons. It’s what it means to have Freedom of Speech. #4: Already answered this one numerous times. If he is guilty of something then it would affect my opinion of him to a degree. Basically, (same as with the Starr investigation), if it is something other than what the investigation was created for,(I.e. tax fraud, lying about nailing porn stars), then it gets tempered somewhat as it proves that just like the Starr investigation, all it was, was a waste of taxpayer dollars in a political attempt to undercut a President that the opposing side did not like for juvenile reasons. But if evidence finally came out,(a throwback to Schiff, Waters, etc comments who early on went on numerous MSM channels talking about how much evidence of collusion there was), of collusion, then that would affect how I view him & possible impeachment proceedings. However, given repeated chances of indictments under this “evidence “ none of the President’s campaign people have been charged/indicted on collusion,(heck not even Carter Page who was the justification for the FISA warrants). Again, this investigation is following all the hallmarks of Starr’s political witch hunt. They failed to prove what it was that originally created them, so they floundered about until Clinton’s ego got the better of him & he walked into a perjury trap that the investigation used to “justify” their creation. Only difference here is, Trump learned that lesson, has checked his ego enough to not willingly walk into a ready made perjury trap,(which has upset his critics to a good degree).
|
|
|
Post by kcrufnek on Aug 16, 2018 14:36:22 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Aug 16, 2018 15:53:13 GMT -6
Brandi Buchman @bbuchman_CNS #ManafortTrial Update - The jury has submitted a note to the court. 5:03 PM - Aug 16, 2018
211
125 people are talking about this
Brandi Buchman @bbuchman_CNS Jury Trial Questions: Is one required to file an FBAR if they own less than 50 percent of the company and no signatory authority? Define shelf company. Can you redefine reasonable doubt? Can the exhibit list be amended to include the indictment? 5:27 PM - Aug 16, 2018
86
95 people are talking about this
Brandi Buchman @bbuchman_CNS Deliberations will resume tomorrow. #ManafortTrial 5:28 PM - Aug 16, 2018
42
32 people are talking about this ...... Politico legal reporter:
Josh Gerstein ✔ @joshgerstein BREAKING: Jury in Manafort case sends note asking for legal definitions on filing requirements for overseas accounts, also for clarification on 'reasonable doubt.' Suggests jurors may not view case as a slam dunk. Story TK 5:28 PM - Aug 16, 2018
285
158 people are talking about this
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Aug 16, 2018 15:58:45 GMT -6
www.nytimes.com/2018/08/16/opinion/john-brennan-trump-russia-collusion-security-clearance.htmlJohn Brennan: President Trump’s Claims of No Collusion Are Hogwash That’s why the president revoked my security clearance: to try to silence anyone who would dare challenge him. By John O. Brennan Mr. Brennan was director of the Central Intelligence Agency from 2013 to 2017. Aug. 16, 2018 When Alexander Bortnikov, the head of Russia’s internal security service, told me during an early August 2016 phone call that Russia wasn’t interfering in our presidential election, I knew he was lying. Over the previous several years I had grown weary of Mr. Bortnikov’s denials of Russia’s perfidy — about its mistreatment of American diplomats and citizens in Moscow, its repeated failure to adhere to cease-fire agreements in Syria and its paramilitary intervention in eastern Ukraine, to name just a few issues. When I warned Mr. Bortnikov that Russian interference in our election was intolerable and would roil United States-Russia relations for many years, he denied Russian involvement in any election, in America or elsewhere, with a feigned sincerity that I had heard many times before. President Vladimir Putin of Russia reiterated those denials numerous times over the past two years, often to Donald Trump’s seeming approval. Russian denials are, in a word, hogwash.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Aug 16, 2018 16:00:24 GMT -6
Lou Dobbs ✔ @loudobbs Senate Intel Chairman, Richard Burr is defending President Trump. I believe this is a remarkable turn in the tides of Washington affairs and may well represent the beginning of the end of the Mueller Witch Hunt. @realdonaldtrump #AmericaFirst #Dobbs 4:28 PM - Aug 16, 2018 2,657 1,577 people are talking about this
|
|
|
Post by sooner98 on Aug 16, 2018 16:03:31 GMT -6
Brandi Buchman @bbuchman_CNS #ManafortTrial Update - The jury has submitted a note to the court. 5:03 PM - Aug 16, 2018 211 125 people are talking about this Brandi Buchman @bbuchman_CNS Jury Trial Questions: Is one required to file an FBAR if they own less than 50 percent of the company and no signatory authority? Define shelf company. Can you redefine reasonable doubt? Can the exhibit list be amended to include the indictment? 5:27 PM - Aug 16, 2018 86 95 people are talking about this Brandi Buchman @bbuchman_CNS Deliberations will resume tomorrow. #ManafortTrial 5:28 PM - Aug 16, 2018 42 32 people are talking about this ...... Politico legal reporter: Josh Gerstein ✔ @joshgerstein BREAKING: Jury in Manafort case sends note asking for legal definitions on filing requirements for overseas accounts, also for clarification on 'reasonable doubt.' Suggests jurors may not view case as a slam dunk. Story TK 5:28 PM - Aug 16, 2018 285 158 people are talking about this Boots, what do you think this means? Are we headed for a hung jury?
|
|
|
Post by sooner98 on Aug 16, 2018 16:12:03 GMT -6
So, if hung jury or acquittal, the jury was made up of all Russians, right?
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Aug 16, 2018 16:21:47 GMT -6
So, if hung jury or acquittal, the jury was made up of all Russians, right? Honestly, if it’s either of those two then that is a major blow across the boards for Mueller’s team,(especially given most believed this case to be a slam dunk). If I was a guessing person, I would go with something like this: Jury deliberating hours/verdict: 1-3 hours: Innocent 4-8 hours: Guilty 8+ hours: Hung Jury
|
|
|
Post by Boots on Aug 16, 2018 17:33:33 GMT -6
He's going to be found guilty. People generally ( I say generally because there exists some people who don't care about criminal endeavor if it's their guy committing the acts...they even attempt to reframe such acts with words like "mistakes" and "transgressions" to lesson the word-picture associated in people's minds as well as talk about "how long ago" it happened) don't like ultra-wealthy people scheming the system to get even MORE money and evading taxes while they are wondering how they're gonna put their kids through college (if they're EVEN that lucky) and pay the taxes owed to the government. Manafort's only hope is there are 12 (or however many there are in this trial) Soonervolves in the jury box. You are right for different reasons. People who have been convicted can't serve on a jury. This is important because not one of the 14 know what it is like to be accused. So they all assume, "Well the government is charging him so he must be guilty of something". That and the feds have generally better attorneys. 95% conviction rate
|
|
|
Post by Boots on Aug 16, 2018 17:38:10 GMT -6
Brandi Buchman @bbuchman_CNS #ManafortTrial Update - The jury has submitted a note to the court. 5:03 PM - Aug 16, 2018 211 125 people are talking about this Brandi Buchman @bbuchman_CNS Jury Trial Questions: Is one required to file an FBAR if they own less than 50 percent of the company and no signatory authority? Define shelf company. Can you redefine reasonable doubt? Can the exhibit list be amended to include the indictment? 5:27 PM - Aug 16, 2018 86 95 people are talking about this Brandi Buchman @bbuchman_CNS Deliberations will resume tomorrow. #ManafortTrial 5:28 PM - Aug 16, 2018 42 32 people are talking about this ...... Politico legal reporter: Josh Gerstein ✔ @joshgerstein BREAKING: Jury in Manafort case sends note asking for legal definitions on filing requirements for overseas accounts, also for clarification on 'reasonable doubt.' Suggests jurors may not view case as a slam dunk. Story TK 5:28 PM - Aug 16, 2018 285 158 people are talking about this Boots, what do you think this means? Are we headed for a hung jury? Reasonable doubt question isn't good for the government. Questions on evidence isn't good for defense. Time out usually means the longer it goes the better foe defense. I would be really, really surprised if they don't find him guilty on something
|
|
|
Post by kcrufnek on Aug 16, 2018 20:39:32 GMT -6
Boots, what do you think this means? Are we headed for a hung jury? Only if I was on it.
|
|
|
Post by kcrufnek on Aug 16, 2018 20:41:20 GMT -6
www.nytimes.com/2018/08/16/opinion/john-brennan-trump-russia-collusion-security-clearance.htmlJohn Brennan: President Trump’s Claims of No Collusion Are Hogwash That’s why the president revoked my security clearance: to try to silence anyone who would dare challenge him. By John O. Brennan Mr. Brennan was director of the Central Intelligence Agency from 2013 to 2017. Aug. 16, 2018 When Alexander Bortnikov, the head of Russia’s internal security service, told me during an early August 2016 phone call that Russia wasn’t interfering in our presidential election, I knew he was lying. Over the previous several years I had grown weary of Mr. Bortnikov’s denials of Russia’s perfidy — about its mistreatment of American diplomats and citizens in Moscow, its repeated failure to adhere to cease-fire agreements in Syria and its paramilitary intervention in eastern Ukraine, to name just a few issues. When I warned Mr. Bortnikov that Russian interference in our election was intolerable and would roil United States-Russia relations for many years, he denied Russian involvement in any election, in America or elsewhere, with a feigned sincerity that I had heard many times before. President Vladimir Putin of Russia reiterated those denials numerous times over the past two years, often to Donald Trump’s seeming approval. Russian denials are, in a word, hogwash. This is one of the major talking points that both the MSM puppets and those involved are really pushing. I've yet to see how losing a clearance keeps someone from speaking freely.
|
|