Judge Challenges Prosecution Bullshit at Manafort Trial

[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?

Prosecution needs to move beyond political grandstanding.

Not an answer to the question I asked now is it? You claim the prosecution is incompetent. You claim the case is weak. You claim the judge isn't accepting the prosecutions case. You claim the case is politically motivated. Will you accept a guilty verdict from a jury of his peers, if all these things are true?

You know what I find interesting . I give you a clear, what I consider easy question. Yet you refuse to even say you will accept the findings of a jury trial. Is this honestly what being a Trump supporter means? If they were in the Trump campaign by definition they are above the law?

This trial has nothing to do with Trump.
You refuse to see this

The case is not weak, it is not even there, the case is against Trump remember

At this point all the different, often mutually exclusive arguments coming from the right are enough to make anybody doubt his sanity. Something I suspect is the general idea.

Thanks for making my point. You can't keep your arguments straight for more then 5 hours.

Repeat after me, Trump is the president...

I didn't hear you

 

[Rosy]

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?

What does that have to do with Trump sillypooo

 

[forkup]

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?

Prosecution needs to move beyond political grandstanding.

Not an answer to the question I asked now is it? You claim the prosecution is incompetent. You claim the case is weak. You claim the judge isn't accepting the prosecutions case. You claim the case is politically motivated. Will you accept a guilty verdict from a jury of his peers, if all these things are true?

Does it really matter, we already know you idiots haven't accepted the outcome of the Presidential election. Pretty sure you won't accept the outcome of this trial.

As a matter of fact I will. I'm probably the only person on this board who can prove he was on Comey's side when he made his first speech that claimed no prosecutor would go after Clinton. Who can prove he was on Comey's side when he reopened the Clinton case. And who can prove he still was on Comey's side when he acquitted her again. I would accept the verdict of this trial, I will accept the verdicts of all the trials that will follow, and yes I would accept it if Trump is cleared of any wrongdoing if that would be the conclusion of the Mueller probe. I would even accept if congress would ignore another conclusion for political gain. Accepting that, that is how the founding fathers set up their checks and balances. I would hope they would get punished at the ballot box for it, but I would accept it. My view and the importance of due process and law and order doesn't change depending on the situation.

You can not prove that you were or are on Comeys side, because he is a scared lush who has no side

What does that even mean?

 

[sartre play]

Again, the investigation is about Russia, interfering in American elections in order to cause division & weaken America, its us that have made it about trump. its not Muller's fault that people working for Trump have been caught up by doing illegal things.

 

[forkup]

Prosecution needs to move beyond political grandstanding.

Not an answer to the question I asked now is it? You claim the prosecution is incompetent. You claim the case is weak. You claim the judge isn't accepting the prosecutions case. You claim the case is politically motivated. Will you accept a guilty verdict from a jury of his peers, if all these things are true?

You know what I find interesting . I give you a clear, what I consider easy question. Yet you refuse to even say you will accept the findings of a jury trial. Is this honestly what being a Trump supporter means? If they were in the Trump campaign by definition they are above the law?

This trial has nothing to do with Trump.
You refuse to see this

The case is not weak, it is not even there, the case is against Trump remember

At this point all the different, often mutually exclusive arguments coming from the right are enough to make anybody doubt his sanity. Something I suspect is the general idea.

Thanks for making my point. You can't keep your arguments straight for more then 5 hours.

Repeat after me, Trump is the president...

I didn't hear you

Lol, deflect much?

 

[Rosy]

Prosecution needs to move beyond political grandstanding.

Not an answer to the question I asked now is it? You claim the prosecution is incompetent. You claim the case is weak. You claim the judge isn't accepting the prosecutions case. You claim the case is politically motivated. Will you accept a guilty verdict from a jury of his peers, if all these things are true?

Does it really matter, we already know you idiots haven't accepted the outcome of the Presidential election. Pretty sure you won't accept the outcome of this trial.

As a matter of fact I will. I'm probably the only person on this board who can prove he was on Comey's side when he made his first speech that claimed no prosecutor would go after Clinton. Who can prove he was on Comey's side when he reopened the Clinton case. And who can prove he still was on Comey's side when he acquitted her again. I would accept the verdict of this trial, I will accept the verdicts of all the trials that will follow, and yes I would accept it if Trump is cleared of any wrongdoing if that would be the conclusion of the Mueller probe. I would even accept if congress would ignore another conclusion for political gain. Accepting that, that is how the founding fathers set up their checks and balances. I would hope they would get punished at the ballot box for it, but I would accept it. My view and the importance of due process and law and order doesn't change depending on the situation.

You can not prove that you were or are on Comeys side, because he is a scared lush who has no side

What does that even mean?

It means Comey helped everyone to save his skin

How can you not see this. By not indicting Hillary Comey helped Clinton, and trump who wanted to run against a loser who could not win

 

[Rosy]

Not an answer to the question I asked now is it? You claim the prosecution is incompetent. You claim the case is weak. You claim the judge isn't accepting the prosecutions case. You claim the case is politically motivated. Will you accept a guilty verdict from a jury of his peers, if all these things are true?

You know what I find interesting . I give you a clear, what I consider easy question. Yet you refuse to even say you will accept the findings of a jury trial. Is this honestly what being a Trump supporter means? If they were in the Trump campaign by definition they are above the law?

This trial has nothing to do with Trump.
You refuse to see this

The case is not weak, it is not even there, the case is against Trump remember

At this point all the different, often mutually exclusive arguments coming from the right are enough to make anybody doubt his sanity. Something I suspect is the general idea.

Thanks for making my point. You can't keep your arguments straight for more then 5 hours.

Repeat after me, Trump is the president...

I didn't hear you

Lol, deflect much?

Repeat after me, trump is still the president if Manafort NEVER PAID TAXES

HE HE HE

 

[mudwhistle]

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 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

Lack of merit? Manafort has been buried under a mountain of incriminating paperwork and several testimonies of people who admitted they had broken the law together with Manafort.

Perjured testimony.
Mueller’s been down this road before.

 

[mudwhistle]

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.

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?

I didn't mention the irrelevant evidence.
If Mueller had a strong case he wouldn't have bothered with prejudicing the jury against Manafort. Instead the judge reprimanded the prosecution and put a stop to it.

 

[forkup]

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?

I didn't mention the irrelevant evidence.
If Mueller had a strong case he wouldn't have bothered with prejudicing the jury against Manafort. Instead the judge reprimanded the prosecution and put a stop to it.

if the judge stopped it what are the grounds for the case being overturned?

 

[iceberg]

Again, the investigation is about Russia, interfering in American elections in order to cause division & weaken America, its us that have made it about trump. its not Muller's fault that people working for Trump have been caught up by doing illegal things.

lord knows the democrats would NEVER stoop to illegal behavior.

 

[mudwhistle]

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?

I didn't mention the irrelevant evidence.
If Mueller had a strong case he wouldn't have bothered with prejudicing the jury against Manafort. Instead the judge reprimanded the prosecution and put a stop to it.

if the judge stopped it what are the grounds for the case being overturned?

Some of the irrelevant evidence was presented. It was intended to prejudice the jury against Manafort with irrelevant facts that had nothing to do with the charges. Also, the judge has told the prosecution that its clear that the only reason they're pressing charges in the first place is to get Manafort to testify against the president. Justice doesn't even enter into the equation.

 

[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?

I didn't mention the irrelevant evidence.
If Mueller had a strong case he wouldn't have bothered with prejudicing the jury against Manafort. Instead the judge reprimanded the prosecution and put a stop to it.

if the judge stopped it what are the grounds for the case being overturned?

Some of the irrelevant evidence was presented. It was intended to prejudice the jury against Manafort with irrelevant facts that had nothing to do with the charges. Also, the judge has told the prosecution that its clear that the only reason they're pressing charges in the first place is to get Manafort to testify against the president. Justice doesn't even enter into the equation.

If the judge believes that, how can he let this continue

 

[forkup]

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?

I didn't mention the irrelevant evidence.
If Mueller had a strong case he wouldn't have bothered with prejudicing the jury against Manafort. Instead the judge reprimanded the prosecution and put a stop to it.

if the judge stopped it what are the grounds for the case being overturned?

Some of the irrelevant evidence was presented. It was intended to prejudice the jury against Manafort with irrelevant facts that had nothing to do with the charges. Also, the judge has told the prosecution that its clear that the only reason they're pressing charges in the first place is to get Manafort to testify against the president. Justice doesn't even enter into the equation.

Some of the evidence was presented and it was then not admitted. Hardly grounds for dismissal. As to the rest. Motions to that effect were put forth by the defense and this same judge shot it down. The court system doesn't allow for inadmissible for ulterior motives. Just be glad it doesn't. It doesn't judge when a defendant pays of a victim out of court and allows for plea deals. If it didn't not 1, but 4 people of Trumps campaign team would now be on trial.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

The case can't be thrown out. There have been multiple witnesses providing evidence that Manafort has committed the crimes he's charged with. There is also documentary evidence to that effect. There is no legal basis for a dismissal.

Gee Stormy surprised you can take time to write...ya know...with all the guys banging you 24/7.

It's called multitasking. When getting banged by guys like you, I gotta pass the time somehow.

 

[Thinker101]

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?

Prosecution needs to move beyond political grandstanding.

Not an answer to the question I asked now is it? You claim the prosecution is incompetent. You claim the case is weak. You claim the judge isn't accepting the prosecutions case. You claim the case is politically motivated. Will you accept a guilty verdict from a jury of his peers, if all these things are true?

Does it really matter, we already know you idiots haven't accepted the outcome of the Presidential election. Pretty sure you won't accept the outcome of this trial.

As a matter of fact I will. I'm probably the only person on this board who can prove he was on Comey's side when he made his first speech that claimed no prosecutor would go after Clinton. Who can prove he was on Comey's side when he reopened the Clinton case. And who can prove he still was on Comey's side when he acquitted her again. I would accept the verdict of this trial, I will accept the verdicts of all the trials that will follow, and yes I would accept it if Trump is cleared of any wrongdoing if that would be the conclusion of the Mueller probe. I would even accept if congress would ignore another conclusion for political gain. Accepting that, that is how the founding fathers set up their checks and balances. I would hope they would get punished at the ballot box for it, but I would accept it. My view and the importance of due process and law and order doesn't change depending on the situation.

But accept the outcome of the 2016 election....evidently not.

 

[Rosy]

The case can't be thrown out. There have been multiple witnesses providing evidence that Manafort has committed the crimes he's charged with. There is also documentary evidence to that effect. There is no legal basis for a dismissal.

Gee Stormy surprised you can take time to write...ya know...with all the guys banging you 24/7.

It's called multitasking. When getting banged by guys like you, I gotta pass the time somehow.

Multitasking, is that when you take it in all three holes

 

[forkup]

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?

Prosecution needs to move beyond political grandstanding.

Not an answer to the question I asked now is it? You claim the prosecution is incompetent. You claim the case is weak. You claim the judge isn't accepting the prosecutions case. You claim the case is politically motivated. Will you accept a guilty verdict from a jury of his peers, if all these things are true?

Does it really matter, we already know you idiots haven't accepted the outcome of the Presidential election. Pretty sure you won't accept the outcome of this trial.

As a matter of fact I will. I'm probably the only person on this board who can prove he was on Comey's side when he made his first speech that claimed no prosecutor would go after Clinton. Who can prove he was on Comey's side when he reopened the Clinton case. And who can prove he still was on Comey's side when he acquitted her again. I would accept the verdict of this trial, I will accept the verdicts of all the trials that will follow, and yes I would accept it if Trump is cleared of any wrongdoing if that would be the conclusion of the Mueller probe. I would even accept if congress would ignore another conclusion for political gain. Accepting that, that is how the founding fathers set up their checks and balances. I would hope they would get punished at the ballot box for it, but I would accept it. My view and the importance of due process and law and order doesn't change depending on the situation.

But accept the outcome of the 2016 election....evidently not.

Hmms, because I don't agree with crappy arguments in defense of someone who broke the law I don't accept the outcome of the elections? I said that I would even accept Trump being president if Mueller would present evidence of criminal behavior on the part of Trump, if congress chooses to turn a blind eye. How much more acceptance do you want?

 

[Rosy]

Prosecution needs to move beyond political grandstanding.

Not an answer to the question I asked now is it? You claim the prosecution is incompetent. You claim the case is weak. You claim the judge isn't accepting the prosecutions case. You claim the case is politically motivated. Will you accept a guilty verdict from a jury of his peers, if all these things are true?

Does it really matter, we already know you idiots haven't accepted the outcome of the Presidential election. Pretty sure you won't accept the outcome of this trial.

As a matter of fact I will. I'm probably the only person on this board who can prove he was on Comey's side when he made his first speech that claimed no prosecutor would go after Clinton. Who can prove he was on Comey's side when he reopened the Clinton case. And who can prove he still was on Comey's side when he acquitted her again. I would accept the verdict of this trial, I will accept the verdicts of all the trials that will follow, and yes I would accept it if Trump is cleared of any wrongdoing if that would be the conclusion of the Mueller probe. I would even accept if congress would ignore another conclusion for political gain. Accepting that, that is how the founding fathers set up their checks and balances. I would hope they would get punished at the ballot box for it, but I would accept it. My view and the importance of due process and law and order doesn't change depending on the situation.

But accept the outcome of the 2016 election....evidently not.

Hmms, because I don't agree with crappy arguments in defense of someone who broke the law I don't accept the outcome of the elections? I said that I would even accept Trump being president if Mueller would present evidence of criminal behavior on the part of Trump, if congress chooses to turn a blind eye. How much more acceptance do you want?

You are confused. See Trump is the president and you fully accept this, sure your flea brain is fighting this acceptance and as such you have Trump Derangement Syndrome...…………….

Now go feed the illegal immigrants under the bridge, and pick up their poop while you are there

 

[ColonelAngus]

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?

I didn't mention the irrelevant evidence.
If Mueller had a strong case he wouldn't have bothered with prejudicing the jury against Manafort. Instead the judge reprimanded the prosecution and put a stop to it.

if the judge stopped it what are the grounds for the case being overturned?

Some of the irrelevant evidence was presented. It was intended to prejudice the jury against Manafort with irrelevant facts that had nothing to do with the charges. Also, the judge has told the prosecution that its clear that the only reason they're pressing charges in the first place is to get Manafort to testify against the president. Justice doesn't even enter into the equation.

If the judge believes that, how can he let this continue

It seems that Manaforte probably did evade taxes, and they were hoping he would say something about Trump that would help in the midterms at a minimum and maybe help Mueller find something in his useless investigation.

He didn’t, so now he is being prosecuted, like all tax cheats....like Al Sharpton....