Master Index of Archived Threads


ITT: USA v PAUL J. MANAFORT, JR. (split from Politics in 2018)

Lefty Specialist Aug 01 2018 12:46 PM

So Paul Manafort had an ostrich jacket worth $15,000. At least he's not a flight risk.

Edgy MD Aug 01 2018 01:07 PM Re: Politics in 2018

I'm thinking the Manafort trial deserves it's own thread. What say you?

MFS62 Aug 01 2018 01:32 PM Re: Politics in 2018

Edgy MD wrote: I'm thinking the Manafort trial deserves it's own thread. What say you? Yea! Please do the honors. Later

Lefty Specialist Aug 01 2018 02:16 PM Re: Politics in 2018

An ITT!

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Aug 01 2018 10:12 PM Re: ITT: USA v PAUL J. MANAFORT, JR. (split from Politics in

Lefty Specialist wrote: So Paul Manafort had an ostrich jacket worth $15,000. At least he's not a flight risk. Oh, inDEED Also, no "oligarchs" allowed? The judge might as well instruct the jury not to think of collusion.

Lefty Specialist Aug 01 2018 11:02 PM Re: ITT: USA v PAUL J. MANAFORT, JR. (split from Politics in

This trial isn't about Trump, or collusion. It's about tax fraud. He received money, he didn't pay taxes on it. They've got documentation up the yin-yang. If this was Paul Smith, there'd be no doubt about the outcome; it's as open and shut as they get. The fear the prosecution has is the possibility of a MAGA juror who holds out and creates a hung jury.

Edgy MD Aug 03 2018 06:47 PM Re: ITT: USA v PAUL J. MANAFORT, JR. (split from Politics in

Seems like blaming Gates is going to be a stretch when the accounts were for Manafort's use that he wired money out of for personal expenses. Unless you've got Gates' name on those accounts and him wiring more money out of them, it's going to be a hard sell. But as noted, it only takes one nut to hang a jury. We are Q.

Lefty Specialist Aug 03 2018 08:20 PM Re: ITT: USA v PAUL J. MANAFORT, JR. (split from Politics in

Edgy MD wrote: We are Q. Don't even go there.

Lefty Specialist Aug 06 2018 11:39 PM Re: ITT: USA v PAUL J. MANAFORT, JR. (split from Politics in

Batting cleanup for the prosecution, Rick Gates. Admits everything, including embezzling from Paulie himself.

Nymr83 Aug 07 2018 02:49 AM Re: ITT: USA v PAUL J. MANAFORT, JR. (split from Politics in

The judge seems to really have it in for the prosecution though. He has pretty broad discretion to declare a mistrial if he wanted to.

Lefty Specialist Aug 07 2018 12:27 PM Re: ITT: USA v PAUL J. MANAFORT, JR. (split from Politics in

It's good that he's tough on the prosecution. Makes it harder to overturn on appeal. The paperwork alone seals this case. Gates didn't even need to testify. The defense will try to rough him up on cross-examination today, but the paperwork (and the ostrich jacket) is damning.

Edgy MD Aug 07 2018 01:10 PM Re: ITT: USA v PAUL J. MANAFORT, JR. (split from Politics in

I don't think the ostrich jacket is going to get him. If anything, it's his tax accountant. I'm no lawyer, but I would've put her on after Gates. She corroborates Gates' testimony and does it from a less self-interested point of view. Yeah, I think the paperwork is damning enough, but in 2018, folks vote too often for the personality.

Benjamin Grimm Aug 07 2018 01:16 PM Re: ITT: USA v PAUL J. MANAFORT, JR. (split from Politics in

Edgy MD wrote: I don't think the ostrich jacket is going to get him. Well, it depends. Are there any ostriches on the jury?

Edgy MD Aug 07 2018 07:42 PM Re: ITT: USA v PAUL J. MANAFORT, JR. (split from Politics in

Rick Gates said that President Trump’s onetime campaign chairman wanted his help in getting Stephen Calk, founder and CEO of Federal Savings Bank, on the list of names being considered for the secretary of the Army. Federal Savings Bank was one of the banks that extended Manafort a loan in 2016. Well, that sure opens up a new category of charges.

Nymr83 Aug 08 2018 05:39 PM Re: ITT: USA v PAUL J. MANAFORT, JR. (split from Politics in

Gates is a sleezy sleezebag, but I'm sold that Manafort was right there sleezing with him.

Fman99 Aug 14 2018 06:57 PM Re: ITT: USA v PAUL J. MANAFORT, JR. (split from Politics in

Defense rests without calling any witnesses. That means they know they are sunk, right? I'm not a legal scholar but I can't think of another reason why you punt there.

Benjamin Grimm Aug 14 2018 07:10 PM Re: ITT: USA v PAUL J. MANAFORT, JR. (split from Politics in

I guess it could be interpreted as a message to the jury that the prosecution didn't present a compelling case.

Edgy MD Aug 14 2018 07:24 PM Re: ITT: USA v PAUL J. MANAFORT, JR. (split from Politics in

Yeah, it suggests that the whole enterprise is farcical and beneath them. [list]"Is that all they've got?! Well, then, I move to dismiss! NO?! OK, you're the judge, I guess you want this not guilty verdict delivered as solidly as possible. And I guess these good folks here know that's got to come from them." "Listen, these people, the prosecution, with endless resources at their disposal, really tried to throw the book at my guy. They don't even WANT him! They want the president! But my client wouldn't flip for them because he knows, as you know, that he's not. Guilty. Of ANYTHING. Call witnesses? Why? To rebut this nonsense? You heard this bunch of clowns the prosecution threw at you. And you heard them fall apart under cross-examination. THEY REBUT THEMSELVES!! I don't NEED to call any witnesses. Unless you want me to waste the court's time and bring back the same parade of bozos to repeat their nonsense. THE PROSECUTION DID MY WORK FOR ME by introducing this train wreck of a narrative. The holes were all through their testimony the first time around. I heard you good people of the jury laughing and frankly, I had a hard time keeping a straight face myself. I know you all heard what I heard and no witness I call could destroy this case any more than the prosecution's own witnesses did." "The defense rests! We SO rest!!"[/list:u] Act so damn confident in your own crazy reality that people begin to doubt their own. Gaslighting. It's happening everywhere. It's the hot thing.

Nymr83 Aug 15 2018 01:55 PM Re: ITT: USA v PAUL J. MANAFORT, JR. (split from Politics in

I'm not sure who you would expect the defense to call in a tax evasion case that hasnt already been called?

Chad Ochoseis Aug 15 2018 02:02 PM Re: ITT: USA v PAUL J. MANAFORT, JR. (split from Politics in

Nymr83 wrote: I'm not sure who you would expect the defense to call in a tax evasion case that hasnt already been called? -> An accountant to rebut the testimony of Manafort's accountant. -> Manafort himself, for the same reason.

Nymr83 Aug 15 2018 04:02 PM Re: ITT: USA v PAUL J. MANAFORT, JR. (split from Politics in

an accountant would make sense if his defense was that nothing illegal happened, but his [bullshit] defense is that he didn't know about it, not sure what an accountant could accomplish and nobody is putting their not credible defendant on the stand :)

Lefty Specialist Aug 18 2018 01:48 AM Re: ITT: USA v PAUL J. MANAFORT, JR. (split from Politics in

Jurors home for the weekend- not sequestered. Instructed by the judge not to talk to anybody. Yeah, sure.

d'Kong76 Aug 18 2018 02:03 AM Re: ITT: USA v PAUL J. MANAFORT, JR. (split from Politics in

I don't see the 'yeah sure' point unless you think the judge is corrupt too?

Lefty Specialist Aug 18 2018 10:59 AM Re: ITT: USA v PAUL J. MANAFORT, JR. (split from Politics in

I mean the jurors. Nobody said anyone is corrupt (except Manafort). A jury like this one in a very high-profile case, where the judge has gotten death threats, where the man on trial has been accused of witness tampering, and where the result could have national implications, should be sequestered.

Edgy MD Aug 21 2018 02:32 PM Re: ITT: USA v PAUL J. MANAFORT, JR. (split from Politics in

Jury still out. If this guy somehow beats the rap, the president is going to take SUCH a victory lap. Of course, if he doesn't, the president is going to cite it as proof of a witch hunt.

Lefty Specialist Aug 21 2018 03:16 PM Re: ITT: USA v PAUL J. MANAFORT, JR. (split from Politics in

I'm hoping that they're carefully considering every charge before finding him guilty. A quick verdict would more likely have been a not-guilty one. Nerve-wracking nonetheless.

Edgy MD Aug 21 2018 03:50 PM Re: ITT: USA v PAUL J. MANAFORT, JR. (split from Politics in

That's not my experience. My history says no news is almost always good news for the defense.

Benjamin Grimm Aug 21 2018 04:17 PM Re: ITT: USA v PAUL J. MANAFORT, JR. (split from Politics in

I don't know. The OJ jury came back quickly and the jury that convicted Bill Cosby deliberated for two days.

Edgy MD Aug 21 2018 05:28 PM Re: ITT: USA v PAUL J. MANAFORT, JR. (split from Politics in

Good point. Fuckin' OJ. That jury came back in four hours. Johnny Cochrane deserves first ballot Lawyer Hall of Fame for that closing argument. Michael Jackson's jury, though, was out for seven days, but I think they only deliberated for three or four hours a day. Let's look up Phil Spector and Robert Blake. We all know that creepy celebrity trials should be the reference point for all of our understanding of how the law works.

Nymr83 Aug 21 2018 06:02 PM Re: ITT: USA v PAUL J. MANAFORT, JR. (split from Politics in

longer deliberations are generally considered good for the defense, but its by no means automatic. there are 18 counts here - there could be one or more folks on the jury who (rightfully!!) insist on discussing each count individually and making a determination independent of the others

Benjamin Grimm Aug 21 2018 06:08 PM Re: ITT: USA v PAUL J. MANAFORT, JR. (split from Politics in

NPR wrote: Jurors in the case of Donald Trump's former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, asked the judge on Tuesday what they should do if they couldn't agree on one of the 18 counts on which they've been deliberating. Judge T.S. Ellis told jurors to resume their work. He said that their situation wasn't unusual and that they could reach a partial verdict. Jurors went back into their meeting room after Ellis' remarks to them in court. This may mean that they've reached a consensus on all of the counts but one.

Edgy MD Aug 21 2018 09:05 PM Re: ITT: USA v PAUL J. MANAFORT, JR. (split from Politics in

Eight guilties, no not-guilties, and hung jury on the other 10. I could think of worse outcomes. ONTO DC!!

Nymr83 Aug 21 2018 09:07 PM Re: ITT: USA v PAUL J. MANAFORT, JR. (split from Politics in

Edgy MD wrote: Eight guilties, no not-guilties, and hung jury on the other 10. I could think of worse outcomes. ONTO DC!! this shows the jury took their job seriously.

Lefty Specialist Aug 22 2018 12:05 AM Re: ITT: USA v PAUL J. MANAFORT, JR. (split from Politics in

A victory in the first game of the doubleheader, and there's plenty of Mueller offense left for the nightcap.

Edgy MD Aug 22 2018 01:11 AM Re: ITT: USA v PAUL J. MANAFORT, JR. (split from Politics in

Has the president blown out his sphincter on Twitter yet?

John Cougar Lunchbucket Aug 22 2018 04:33 PM Re: ITT: USA v PAUL J. MANAFORT, JR. (split from Politics in

He has Manafort dickbreath on twitter this morning

Nymr83 Aug 23 2018 03:32 AM Re: ITT: USA v PAUL J. MANAFORT, JR. (split from Politics in

[url]http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/08/22/manafort-juror-reveals-lone-holdout-prevented-mueller-team-from-convicting-on-all-counts.html “Finding Mr. Manafort guilty was hard for me, I wanted him to be innocent, I really wanted him to be innocent, but he wasn’t,” Duncan said I want to really give credit to this juror, a self-confessed MAGA hat wearing Trump supporter who voted to convict Manafort ... because he was guilty.

Edgy MD Aug 23 2018 01:30 PM Re: ITT: USA v PAUL J. MANAFORT, JR. (split from Politics in

Hopefully, his or her self-exploration isn't over.

Lefty Specialist Aug 23 2018 07:25 PM Re: ITT: USA v PAUL J. MANAFORT, JR. (split from Politics in

Without her, though, he’d have been convicted on all 18 counts.

Nymr83 Aug 24 2018 12:42 AM Re: ITT: USA v PAUL J. MANAFORT, JR. (split from Politics in

Lefty Specialist wrote: Without her, though, he’d have been convicted on all 18 counts. i'm not actually sure from reading it that SHE was the vote against on the other 8 counts but whoever that vote was, good for them too. they obviously took their job seriously to believe in such a split verdict and not blindly going one way or the other

Lefty Specialist Aug 28 2018 03:30 PM Re: ITT: USA v PAUL J. MANAFORT, JR. (split from Politics in

Fun fact: The ten charges Manafort escaped on can be re-filed as state charges in Virginia, which Agent Orange can't pardon. Also Paulie was trying to negotiate with Mueller about a plea in the second trial, but Mueller turned him down. So much for not being a 'rat'.

Lefty Specialist Aug 28 2018 05:55 PM Re: ITT: USA v PAUL J. MANAFORT, JR. (split from Politics in

Ha. McCain refused to let Manafort run 2008 convention due to Russia ties: report http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing- ... -to-russia

Nymr83 Aug 28 2018 06:44 PM Re: ITT: USA v PAUL J. MANAFORT, JR. (split from Politics in

I feel like if you dug hard enough you'd find a bunch of these "omg Russia Russia Russia" folks are the same people who criticized McCain when he said he looks at Putin and sees a K a G and a B

Lefty Specialist Aug 28 2018 06:57 PM Re: ITT: USA v PAUL J. MANAFORT, JR. (split from Politics in

I don't think anyone's had any illusions about Putin on either side. Once a KGB man, always a KGB man.

Edgy MD Aug 28 2018 07:12 PM Re: ITT: USA v PAUL J. MANAFORT, JR. (split from Politics in

Oh, President Trump sure has had illusions. And in fairness, nobody can deny the illusions expressed by President I-Looked-into-His-Eyes before him. And President Reset Button is hardly in the clear either.

Lefty Specialist Aug 28 2018 07:40 PM Re: ITT: USA v PAUL J. MANAFORT, JR. (split from Politics in

Well, having a relationship with Russia is desirable under controlled circumstances. It's not in anyone's interest for it to be overly antagonistic, and there are some instances where Russia and the US have common goals (terrorism, for instance). But we've gone so far in the opposite direction that it's head-spinning. You could power a small city on the spinning of Reagan's, McCarthy's and Nixon's caskets alone.