Judge Challenges Prosecution Bullshit at Manafort Trial

[Tommy Tainant]

Isnt Mueller cleaniing the swamp ?

 

[koshergrl]

Judge Challenges Prosecution Bullshit at Manafort Trial

Mueller is still a criminal, and he is still going to jail.

Explain, please, what Mueller has done that is criminal and warrants a jail term.

Incidentally, the Manafort trial has to do with his financial misconduct alone.This is enough to send him to jail. Will his connections be revealed? Probably.

 

[Lysistrata]

Deflection!!!

Incidentally, why are you so interested in defending Manafort?

deflection of what? I'd defend any person unjustly arrested and his family burdened by corrupted fbi agents. especially for something half of DC is guilty of. and uncle Al.

Establish an 'unjust arrest," that FBI agents are "corrupted." Where do you get this from. Even if you are correct (which I don't think you are), that these things are true, and that others may be guilty of the same crimes (which I doubt you could prove), what would this have to do with the case against Manafort? It rises and falls on its own. Moreover, why are you so concerned with Manafort? Is there some connection between the two of you?

You will find out when the lawsuit is reported

Anyone can file a lawsuit. Go to the clerk's office with a complaint and pay the fee. What would you think is the basis for a lawsuit? Further, what is your relationship with Manafort?

wtf?

Are you on drugs?

You are trying to wriggle out of answering my questions. It was asserted that Manafort's arrest was unjust and that the FBI agents are corrupt. Weighty allegations. In No. 188, JC456 alluded to a lawsuit, without mentioning what this lawsuit would contend and non-responsive to my questions. I merely pointed out that anyone can file a lawsuit who pays the filing fee. No drugs required. This is the way the judicial system works. You simply don't know the usual procedure. The filing of a lawsuit means nothing unless the plaintiff can survive a motion to dismiss or sometimes converted to a motion for summary judgment. The mere filing of a complaint means only that the plaintiff (hopefully) has filed within the relevant statute of limitations.

Just what is your, and JC456's, relationship with Manafort?

 

[koshergrl]

deflection of what? I'd defend any person unjustly arrested and his family burdened by corrupted fbi agents. especially for something half of DC is guilty of. and uncle Al.

Establish an 'unjust arrest," that FBI agents are "corrupted." Where do you get this from. Even if you are correct (which I don't think you are), that these things are true, and that others may be guilty of the same crimes (which I doubt you could prove), what would this have to do with the case against Manafort? It rises and falls on its own. Moreover, why are you so concerned with Manafort? Is there some connection between the two of you?

You will find out when the lawsuit is reported

Anyone can file a lawsuit. Go to the clerk's office with a complaint and pay the fee. What would you think is the basis for a lawsuit? Further, what is your relationship with Manafort?

wtf?

Are you on drugs?

You are trying to wriggle out of answering my questions. It was asserted that Manafort's arrest was unjust and that the FBI agents are corrupt. Weighty allegations. In No. 188, JC456 alluded to a lawsuit, without mentioning what this lawsuit would contend and non-responsive to my questions. I merely pointed out that anyone can file a lawsuit who pays the filing fee. No drugs required. This is the way the judicial system works. You simply don't know the usual procedure. The filing of a lawsuit means nothing unless the plaintiff can survive a motion to dismiss or sometimes converted to a motion for summary judgment. The mere filing of a complaint means only that the plaintiff (hopefully) has filed within the relevant statute of limitations.

Just what is your, and JC456's, relationship with Manafort?

Shut up, bode.

 

[Lysistrata]

Establish an 'unjust arrest," that FBI agents are "corrupted." Where do you get this from. Even if you are correct (which I don't think you are), that these things are true, and that others may be guilty of the same crimes (which I doubt you could prove), what would this have to do with the case against Manafort? It rises and falls on its own. Moreover, why are you so concerned with Manafort? Is there some connection between the two of you?

You will find out when the lawsuit is reported

Anyone can file a lawsuit. Go to the clerk's office with a complaint and pay the fee. What would you think is the basis for a lawsuit? Further, what is your relationship with Manafort?

wtf?

Are you on drugs?

You are trying to wriggle out of answering my questions. It was asserted that Manafort's arrest was unjust and that the FBI agents are corrupt. Weighty allegations. In No. 188, JC456 alluded to a lawsuit, without mentioning what this lawsuit would contend and non-responsive to my questions. I merely pointed out that anyone can file a lawsuit who pays the filing fee. No drugs required. This is the way the judicial system works. You simply don't know the usual procedure. The filing of a lawsuit means nothing unless the plaintiff can survive a motion to dismiss or sometimes converted to a motion for summary judgment. The mere filing of a complaint means only that the plaintiff (hopefully) has filed within the relevant statute of limitations.

Just what is your, and JC456's, relationship with Manafort?

Shut up, bode.

Have I gotten a bit too close to home? You apparently are ignorant, have not thought this out, and have nothing constructive to say. Go back to bed. Manafort is waiting for you. I still don't understand the relationship between you, JC456, and Manafort.

 

[mudwhistle]

Isnt Mueller cleaniing the swamp ?

Muellers one of the swamp's favorite snakes.

 

[Lysistrata]

Isnt Mueller cleaniing the swamp ?

Muellers one of the swamp's favorite snakes.

How so?

 

[Bush92]

Mueller investigation is a crock of shit. Will result in same if charges are brought. Bunch of Keystone Cops amateur hour that can’t get over fact that Hillary lost in 2016. Donald J. Trump is doing a great job as President and you socialist turds will be taught another lesson in 2018 mid-terms. Public is sick of liberal media and campus professoriate trying to tell them how to think and what opinions they should have.
Manafort prosecutors, Judge Ellis engage in 10-minute courtroom spat

Manafort admits that there is millions in income he didn’t declare to the IRS.

Why then is the prosecution “a crock of shit”?

It appears to me what he has done was within the jungle of a tax code we have. Prosecution is trying to politicize the case by treating Manafort like he is some kind of serial killer. Guy should be at home right now with an ankle bracelet on. This prosecution is working in tandem with Mueller to see if Manafort will cut a deal and lie under oath and say collusion did exist between Trump campaign and Putin.

 

[Bush92]

I love these kinds of post. You're arguing that a case should be thrown out, not because of the accused not being guilty. Not because of a lack of evidence. Not even because the judge is fundamentally disagreeing with the evidence. No you are claiming that when a judge challenges the way the prosecution is presenting its case in any form, charges should be dropped.

The fact is that the judge could throw the case out if the prosecution violates manafort's rights. Forcing an end, or a new trial

The judge in this case is protecting Manafords right to a speedy trial. He rules on what evidence is permitted. What you are talking about is if procedural mistakes are made, evidence is been tampered with or something else egregious. Not something like to much evidence, what he considers irrelevant to the case being prosecuted. I have a question.Will you accept Manaford being convicted in this trial? Or will you then site perceived bias as a reason to not accept the verdict?

Manafort’s rights are being abused.
The prosecutor is presenting false testimony.
If they somehow get a conviction, it's only for show.
It will be overturned on appeal.

No the prosecution is presenting evidence that the judge ruled as irrelevant, big difference. Overturned on which grounds? The prosecution was to thorough in presenting their case?

And the key point of contention was the testimony of Gates. The judge said gates needed to testify for the prosecution to prove its charge of conspiracy.

Which is only one of roughly a dozen charges.

And Gates testified.

Manaforts lawyers openly admitted in their opening statement that there is millions in unreported income. Why defend this guy?

Gates is a worm.

 

[Bush92]

defraud the united states? huh? what the fk are you talking about? how is talking to someone at a hotel defrauding the US exactly? you mean every meeting a foreign person has is trying to defraud the government? dude. that is just too funny. are you peter pan? cause you need tinker belle right now.

Legal experts analyzing the younger Mr. Trump’s actions have also pointed to another, less discussed part of the federal conspiracy statute. It prohibits conspiracies to defraud the United States by impeding the federal government’s lawful functions.
Donald Trump Jr.’s Potential Legal Troubles, Explained

they should go after him then. why haven't they? it seems you have nothing as usual.

Last time I checked the probe is still ongoing. No report has been issued to congress. This strongly implies that more indictments will follow. As to me having nothing. I can't help that you feel not acknowledging points being made makes them go away.

Congress interviewed jr and released their report. No indictment!

You’re talking about the House Investigation?
The one that folded without interviewing 65 witnesses?
Nunes saw they were getting too close to actual Trump crimes so he shut it down.
You didn’t know that did you.

 

[Bush92]

View attachment 209243

A guy who worked for a Russian lickspittle and mobsters with connections to the Russian regime offers to work for free as Donald Trump's campaign manager.

Hmmmm. No red warning lights here!

You're using the Muller tactic.

Please back up the assertion that the prosecution's case in the Manafort trial is "bullshit." What do you know about him and Gates and their foreign bank accounts? Are you an insider?

The point about all of this is Manafort is being prosecuted simply because he worked for Trump for a few days.
That is the only reason they broke into his home.
How many of us would stand up under such scrutiny.
The press and the liars in the Democrat party will repeatedly say that Manafort worked for Trump.
Nothing else matters.
The Clintons had to amend their last tax return because of undeclared income and were allowed to. Manafort wasn't offered that option.

More mental masterbation for the trumpets....

Manafort wilfully evaded tax.... the proof is there....

Your problem is that you know Trump is guilty and that Manafort might have proof. Why didn't vote for a guy who isn't a criminal...

Because you can't resist a guy who jerks off your bigoted views...

Now when answering this don't forget "BUT BUT HILLARY/OBAMA.........

Guilty of what exactly?
No evidence exists of any crime, yet you keep saying Trump is guilty.

He's not guilty of beating Hillary, is he?
There's evidence of that.

Sent from my SM-G935P using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

Bripatty has no critical thinking skills. His blind devotion to his master reeks of a cult member.

Indictment by a grand jury is not hard to get...but process has to be initiated by prosecution. Obama Justice Department “ran block” for Hillary.

 

[Bush92]

I'm the end he will probably get away with it because I'm America if you are rich people like those on this forum support you. I believe if you want your money in a foreign country then move there,

Spoken like a true Marxist: “CLASS STRUGGLE!!!”

 

[mudwhistle]

defraud the united states? huh? what the fk are you talking about? how is talking to someone at a hotel defrauding the US exactly? you mean every meeting a foreign person has is trying to defraud the government? dude. that is just too funny. are you peter pan? cause you need tinker belle right now.

Legal experts analyzing the younger Mr. Trump’s actions have also pointed to another, less discussed part of the federal conspiracy statute. It prohibits conspiracies to defraud the United States by impeding the federal government’s lawful functions.
Donald Trump Jr.’s Potential Legal Troubles, Explained

they should go after him then. why haven't they? it seems you have nothing as usual.

Last time I checked the probe is still ongoing. No report has been issued to congress. This strongly implies that more indictments will follow. As to me having nothing. I can't help that you feel not acknowledging points being made makes them go away.

Congress interviewed jr and released their report. No indictment!

You’re talking about the House Investigation?
The one that folded without interviewing 65 witnesses?
Nunes saw they were getting too close to actual Trump crimes so he shut it down.
You didn’t know that did you.

65 witnesses, 17 intel agencies, 2500 scientists agreed, .....you guys think numbers are impressive, probably why the criminals in the establishment use them, because they just like throwing big numbers out to impress Dimmycrap voters. They know you're all mindless.

 

[Bush92]

Please back up the assertion that the prosecution's case in the Manafort trial is "bullshit." What do you know about him and Gates and their foreign bank accounts? Are you an insider?

The point about all of this is Manafort is being prosecuted simply because he worked for Trump for a few days.
That is the only reason they broke into his home.
How many of us would stand up under such scrutiny.
The press and the liars in the Democrat party will repeatedly say that Manafort worked for Trump.
Nothing else matters.
The Clintons had to amend their last tax return because of undeclared income and were allowed to. Manafort wasn't offered that option.

More mental masterbation for the trumpets....

Manafort wilfully evaded tax.... the proof is there....

Your problem is that you know Trump is guilty and that Manafort might have proof. Why didn't vote for a guy who isn't a criminal...

Because you can't resist a guy who jerks off your bigoted views...

Now when answering this don't forget "BUT BUT HILLARY/OBAMA.........

Guilty of what exactly?
No evidence exists of any crime, yet you keep saying Trump is guilty.

He's not guilty of beating Hillary, is he?
There's evidence of that.

Conspiracy to defraud the United States seems a possible, even likely crime. So does obstruction of justice. Less likely but still possible seems the charge of witness tampering, since the President of the United States deems it appropriate to comment on an ongoing trial. Thereby unduly influencing the jury.
These are possible charges just by what is available in the public realm. I'm not taking into consideration the likelihood that Trump committed financial crimes like the ones Manafort is now on trial for in his business deals. In the end Mueller will give the conclusions to his probe and that is when we will know if and which crimes were committed. Until that time my opinion on it is just as valid/or invalid, however you want to look on it as yours. Claiming there is no evidence of crimes though is wishful thinking. At the moment Trump has to hope that Mueller actually sees him as incompetent , otherwise the only other conclusion will be that he acted the way he did on purpose thereby proving intent and by extension the existence of crimes.

SHUT THE FORKUP!!!!

OBAMA THREATENED SCOTUS JUDGES DURING IMPORTANT CASES AND CLAIMED THAT THERE WAS NOT EVEN A SMIDGEN OF CHANCE HILLARY WOULD BE INDICTED!!

....and that ball is back,back,back, GONE!

 

[Bush92]

Mueller investigation is a crock of shit. Will result in same if charges are brought. Bunch of Keystone Cops amateur hour that can’t get over fact that Hillary lost in 2016. Donald J. Trump is doing a great job as President and you socialist turds will be taught another lesson in 2018 mid-terms. Public is sick of liberal media and campus professoriate trying to tell them how to think and what opinions they should have.
Manafort prosecutors, Judge Ellis engage in 10-minute courtroom spat

I love these kinds of post. You're arguing that a case should be thrown out, not because of the accused not being guilty. Not because of a lack of evidence. Not even because the judge is fundamentally disagreeing with the evidence. No you are claiming that when a judge challenges the way the prosecution is presenting its case in any form, charges should be dropped.

no based on what the judge said. they haven't submitted evidence of tax evasion. just political hate. so what is the case really about is the question the judge asked. It seems mueller's team can't answer that and for that reason alone, it should get tossed. It's obvious they have no evidence to support the charges.

No evidence of tax evasion? Manafort accountant who admitted role in false tax returns leaves Virginia firm You do realize the relevant tax returns were submitted as evidence right? You do realize Gates testified too right? So when you say no evidence. Do you mean no evidence except all the evidence, or something?

It's very confusing to people who do not understand the concept of evidence. Denial just ain't a river in Egypt.

No prosecutor will move in front of a grand jury, and then take a case to trial without having definite evidence against the defendant, despite the joke that a grand jury will indict a ham sandwich. I used to be a certified paralegal. I know what the reality is to go through mountains of documents, and now e-mails, to find what is necessary to take a case to trial. Deposition testimony has to be gone through line by line. It seems that there is a lot against Manafort, not only in the docs, but with the testimonies of Gates and the accountant.

But Shit Creek is what Mueller team is up...without a paddle mind you.

 

[Lysistrata]

The fact is that the judge could throw the case out if the prosecution violates manafort's rights. Forcing an end, or a new trial

The judge in this case is protecting Manafords right to a speedy trial. He rules on what evidence is permitted. What you are talking about is if procedural mistakes are made, evidence is been tampered with or something else egregious. Not something like to much evidence, what he considers irrelevant to the case being prosecuted. I have a question.Will you accept Manaford being convicted in this trial? Or will you then site perceived bias as a reason to not accept the verdict?

Manafort’s rights are being abused.
The prosecutor is presenting false testimony.
If they somehow get a conviction, it's only for show.
It will be overturned on appeal.

No the prosecution is presenting evidence that the judge ruled as irrelevant, big difference. Overturned on which grounds? The prosecution was to thorough in presenting their case?

And the key point of contention was the testimony of Gates. The judge said gates needed to testify for the prosecution to prove its charge of conspiracy.

Which is only one of roughly a dozen charges.

And Gates testified.

Manaforts lawyers openly admitted in their opening statement that there is millions in unreported income. Why defend this guy?

Gates is a worm.

You are saying that Gates has lied on the stand and that you somehow know the truth of the matter. How do you know? Were you in on it?

 

[DrLove]

typical liberal response - blame the judge. the left is never accountable for their actions it's always someone else holding them down.

grow the fuck up dude.

You grow the fuck up. I have now seen minimally 5 expert former federal prosecutors and a retired judge who have suggested his behavior is entirely inappropriate.

Manafort Judge Sass Watch: He May Have Made a Prosecutor Cry
Judge Ellis behavior in Manafort trial risks helping the defense

none of which excuses meullers several missteps so far in this case.

get the fuck back to ignore now.

There have been NO Mueller missteps. NONE

 

[Rosy]

The judge in this case is protecting Manafords right to a speedy trial. He rules on what evidence is permitted. What you are talking about is if procedural mistakes are made, evidence is been tampered with or something else egregious. Not something like to much evidence, what he considers irrelevant to the case being prosecuted. I have a question.Will you accept Manaford being convicted in this trial? Or will you then site perceived bias as a reason to not accept the verdict?

Manafort’s rights are being abused.
The prosecutor is presenting false testimony.
If they somehow get a conviction, it's only for show.
It will be overturned on appeal.

No the prosecution is presenting evidence that the judge ruled as irrelevant, big difference. Overturned on which grounds? The prosecution was to thorough in presenting their case?

And the key point of contention was the testimony of Gates. The judge said gates needed to testify for the prosecution to prove its charge of conspiracy.

Which is only one of roughly a dozen charges.

And Gates testified.

Manaforts lawyers openly admitted in their opening statement that there is millions in unreported income. Why defend this guy?

Gates is a worm.

You are saying that Gates has lied on the stand and that you somehow know the truth of the matter. How do you know? Were you in on it?

Actually nothing hates said matters in the least to trump. This trial is proof that duller has already failed

 

[DrLove]

I love these kinds of post. You're arguing that a case should be thrown out, not because of the accused not being guilty. Not because of a lack of evidence. Not even because the judge is fundamentally disagreeing with the evidence. No you are claiming that when a judge challenges the way the prosecution is presenting its case in any form, charges should be dropped.

No it needs to be thrown out because the charges lack merit..and the prosecution isn't trying to prove the charges, but instead are just flinging shit.

“I don’t know if they are bad or good. And I don’t care,” Ellis argued, reiterating his previous claim that the prosecution seemed to be focusing not on the actual charges but on what he considered “political contributions.”

"Ellis again compared the Ukrainians in question to American billionaires and “Mr. Koch and Mr. Soros” as political contributors.

“I don’t know why you keep bringing (up) these people,” Andres said, referring to the Ukrainians. “These people are not like any Americans. These people are oligarchs and that means they control a segment of the economy based on the governments allowing them to do that.”’

“These are not really political contributions,” he continued. “They are self-serving payments with respect to what oligarchs do.”

“That makes it even clearer to me that it doesn’t have anything to do with the allegations in this case,” Ellis responded. “It throws dirt on these people. They may deserve it. I don’t know - and I don’t care.”

Manafort prosecutors, Judge Ellis engage in 10-minute courtroom spat

Clearly, you've not looked at the MOUNTAIN of evidence. You simply don't care because Crooked Paul is one of your ilk.

if there's a mountain of evidence and this so clear to even us commoners, how come meuller is having a hard time in court with it?

if paul is guilty - take him in the same way you would anyone you don't know who faces this daily. but google "obama appointments tax evasion" and see how many tax cheats he put into public offices on his staff.

didn't see you and your "ilk" get upset about that.

Mueller is not having a bit of trouble in court. This judge just happens to be a grumpy, senile old asshole who favors the defense and should have retired ten years ago.

Thanks for rating my post as winner. Having said that and in the interest of honesty I want to say something. If the argument that a judge disallowed evidence so that means the prosecutors are imbeciles, and therefor the case should be dismissed is bullshit ( which it is). Than so is the argument that the judge favors the defense so he has to be a grumpy, senile old asshole. A judge act as a referee in these kinds of cases. I personally don't like a judge curtailing the prosecutors ability to make it's case in the interest of brevity, that doesn't mean it's necessarily wrong. I think he's ruling that the prosecutions case is sufficiently strong and the detail that they are providing unnecessary. Either way, making claims about this judge on the bases on who the law is favoring by a ruling is wrong.

Okay, perhaps I should apologize to the judge for my broad brush strokes. However, per the witnesses who've been in court the entire time, this judge is attacking ONLY the prosecutors. He criticizes their facial expressions. He accused one of them of "crying" who was not crying. He interrupts them and tells them how their questions SHOULD be asked. He is exerting FAR too much ego and influence over the proceedings.

It isn't just me. Even Fox Judge Andrew Napolitano concurs (top link)

Fox News analyst: Judge in Manafort trial showing 'extraordinary bias' against prosecutors
Cranky judge, flawed witness threaten Mueller’s Manafort case
Opinion | Manafort's judge berating the prosecutors isn't good for his defense

 

[Rosy]

No it needs to be thrown out because the charges lack merit..and the prosecution isn't trying to prove the charges, but instead are just flinging shit.

“I don’t know if they are bad or good. And I don’t care,” Ellis argued, reiterating his previous claim that the prosecution seemed to be focusing not on the actual charges but on what he considered “political contributions.”

"Ellis again compared the Ukrainians in question to American billionaires and “Mr. Koch and Mr. Soros” as political contributors.

“I don’t know why you keep bringing (up) these people,” Andres said, referring to the Ukrainians. “These people are not like any Americans. These people are oligarchs and that means they control a segment of the economy based on the governments allowing them to do that.”’

“These are not really political contributions,” he continued. “They are self-serving payments with respect to what oligarchs do.”

“That makes it even clearer to me that it doesn’t have anything to do with the allegations in this case,” Ellis responded. “It throws dirt on these people. They may deserve it. I don’t know - and I don’t care.”

Manafort prosecutors, Judge Ellis engage in 10-minute courtroom spat

Clearly, you've not looked at the MOUNTAIN of evidence. You simply don't care because Crooked Paul is one of your ilk.

if there's a mountain of evidence and this so clear to even us commoners, how come meuller is having a hard time in court with it?

if paul is guilty - take him in the same way you would anyone you don't know who faces this daily. but google "obama appointments tax evasion" and see how many tax cheats he put into public offices on his staff.

didn't see you and your "ilk" get upset about that.

Mueller is not having a bit of trouble in court. This judge just happens to be a grumpy, senile old asshole who favors the defense and should have retired ten years ago.

Thanks for rating my post as winner. Having said that and in the interest of honesty I want to say something. If the argument that a judge disallowed evidence so that means the prosecutors are imbeciles, and therefor the case should be dismissed is bullshit ( which it is). Than so is the argument that the judge favors the defense so he has to be a grumpy, senile old asshole. A judge act as a referee in these kinds of cases. I personally don't like a judge curtailing the prosecutors ability to make it's case in the interest of brevity, that doesn't mean it's necessarily wrong. I think he's ruling that the prosecutions case is sufficiently strong and the detail that they are providing unnecessary. Either way, making claims about this judge on the bases on who the law is favoring by a ruling is wrong.

Okay, perhaps I should apologize to the judge for my broad brush strokes. However, per the witnesses who've been in court the entire time, this judge is attacking ONLY the prosecutors. He criticizes their facial expressions. He accused one of them of "crying" who was not crying. He interrupts them and tells them how their questions SHOULD be asked. He is exerting FAR too much ego and influence over the proceedings.

It isn't just me. Even Fox Judge Andrew Napolitano concurs (top link)

Fox News analyst: Judge in Manafort trial showing 'extraordinary bias' against prosecutors
Cranky judge, flawed witness threaten Mueller’s Manafort case
Opinion | Manafort's judge berating the prosecutors isn't good for his defense

Chill out, this whole thing is fake news to protect the biggest loser in American history Hillary cliton