Judge Challenges Prosecution Bullshit at Manafort Trial

[jc456]

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?

and what? why aren't they going after it. dude, you're barking at the wrong guy, go after the judge. he's the one going to throw it out. LOL. dude hilarious. the tax returns aren't the silver bullet, sorry to pop your fking cherry.

You do realize a trial is the way the court "goes after it" right? Throw it out on what bases by the way? It being to indisputable?

read the thread, it's in there, I posted it earlier today.

Judge Challenges Prosecution Bullshit at Manafort Trial

 

[initforme]

Nobody here can defend manaforts cheating on his taxes....what a scum for that. Nothing better than seeing ultra wealthy tax cheaters going down.

 

[jc456]

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.

then why aren't they prosecuting with that evidence?

 

[jc456]

Nobody here can defend manaforts cheating on his taxes....what a scum for that. Nothing better than seeing ultra wealthy tax cheaters going down.

why don't you first prove he did?

what about uncle al sharpton, why won't you call him the same thing? You know he hasn't paid his taxes right? why are you ok with him not paying? you all are fked up for sure. First you have to prove he didn't pay and that he evaded paying. so far that isn't the prosecutions case

 

[initforme]

It doesn't matter the party. Filthy rich of either idiotic party who try to pay less taxes by being dishonest should be prosecuted. There does that make you feel better? Or are you a uber wealthy boot kisser?

 

[jc456]

It doesn't matter the party. Filthy rich of either idiotic party who try to pay less taxes by being dishonest should be prosecuted. There does that make you feel better? Or are you a uber wealthy boot kisser?

well first prove he didn't pay his taxes. We already know about uncle Al.

 

[koshergrl]

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?

Well the judge seemed to think that the prosecution wasn't actually providing tax evasion evidence. The judge seemed to think the prosecution was just smearing people...and he's right.

 

[MACAULAY]

This is all Mueller and his Clinton Boot Licks have to hope for:

 

[initforme]

There is ample evidence manafort cooked the books. I'm glad trump cut ties with the likes of him.

 

[jc456]

There is ample evidence manafort cooked the books. I'm glad trump cut ties with the likes of him.

then why isn't the prosecution presenting that evidence then? why so evasive?

 

[initforme]

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,

 

[jc456]

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,

we wanted the money back therefore why the tax cuts. you missed that eh? not the sharpest knife in the drawer!

 

[initforme]

If he was a demoncrat you would be 180 degrees opposite in your opinions.

 

[forkup]

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.

STFU!!!!

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

STFU? All caps even? Wow that seems scary. Oh and don't look but you are doing exactly what Cowboyted said you would. BUT BUT OBAMA/HILARY. Anyways Mudwhistle I answered your premise on the existence of evidence of crimes, I can't help it that such evidence does exist. Take it up with Trump and Don Jr who are friendly enough to give a public record on their actions.

what evidence of crime? what crime? I still don't know what you all are referring to. why can't you tell us? are you chicken.

Not at all.
Conspiracy to defraud the United States.
-Don Jr has a meeting with Russians about getting dirt on Hillary. We know this because Don himself released the relevant e mails, and Trump admitted that was the purpose of the meeting via tweet.
A few days later Russians attempted to hack Hilary's servers after Trump himself called them to do it. Regardless of the fact that they were successful, in order to prove conspiracy, the only thing that has to happen is one party of an agreement to act on a proposed plan. Russians sure as hell acted on the intention of getting dirt on Hilary, and the Trump campaign did sure as hell solicited those actions.
Obstruction of justice.
-Trump knew about Flynn being under investigation. We know this because of testimony by both Don Mcgahn and Reince Priebus who said they informed him. Hours after that, he asked Comey to let the case against Flynn go, we know this because of the Comey memo's.
- Trump went on camera and said Comey was fired because of the Russia investigation
- Trump urged Mcgahn to try to get Mueller fired, who refused to do so.
-Trump tweets incessantly about "the Mueller witch hunt" up to and including urging Sessions to end it.
- Trump dictated the original statement which misrepresented the purpose of the Trump tower meeting.
All of this shows a persistent and malignant attempt to obstruct justice.

 

[initforme]

So some of you believe he is a good and honorable man correct?

 

[jc456]

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.

STFU!!!!

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

STFU? All caps even? Wow that seems scary. Oh and don't look but you are doing exactly what Cowboyted said you would. BUT BUT OBAMA/HILARY. Anyways Mudwhistle I answered your premise on the existence of evidence of crimes, I can't help it that such evidence does exist. Take it up with Trump and Don Jr who are friendly enough to give a public record on their actions.

what evidence of crime? what crime? I still don't know what you all are referring to. why can't you tell us? are you chicken.

Not at all.
Conspiracy to defraud the United States.
-Don Jr has a meeting with Russians about getting dirt on Hillary. We know this because Don himself released the relevant e mails, and Trump admitted that was the purpose of the meeting via tweet.
A few days later Russians attempted to hack Hilary's servers after Trump himself called them to do it. Regardless of the fact that they were successful, in order to prove conspiracy, the only thing that has to happen is one party of an agreement to act on a proposed plan. Russians sure as hell acted on the intention of getting dirt on Hilary, and the Trump campaign did sure as hell solicited those actions.
Obstruction of justice.
-Trump knew about Flynn being under investigation. We know this because of testimony by both Don Mcgahn and Reince Priebus who said they informed him. Hours after that, he asked Comey to let the case against Flynn go, we know this because of the Comey memo's.
- Trump went on camera and said Comey was fired because of the Russia investigation
- Trump urged Mcgahn to try to get Mueller fired, who refused to do so.
-Trump tweets incessantly about "the Mueller witch hunt" up to and including urging Sessions to end it.
- Trump dictated the original statement which misrepresented the purpose of the Trump tower meeting.
All of this shows a persistent and malignant attempt to obstruct justice.

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.

 

[mudwhistle]

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.

STFU!!!!

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

STFU? All caps even? Wow that seems scary. Oh and don't look but you are doing exactly what Cowboyted said you would. BUT BUT OBAMA/HILARY. Anyways Mudwhistle I answered your premise on the existence of evidence of crimes, I can't help it that such evidence does exist. Take it up with Trump and Don Jr who are friendly enough to give a public record on their actions.

What you did was pull shit out of your ass.

I reminded you of recent history which establishes precedence.......And all you can do is whine that I blistered you using all caps.

 

[Lysistrata]

Nobody here can defend manaforts cheating on his taxes....what a scum for that. Nothing better than seeing ultra wealthy tax cheaters going down.

why don't you first prove he did?

what about uncle al sharpton, why won't you call him the same thing? You know he hasn't paid his taxes right? why are you ok with him not paying? you all are fked up for sure. First you have to prove he didn't pay and that he evaded paying. so far that isn't the prosecutions case

Deflection!!!

Incidentally, why are you so interested in defending Manafort?

 

[jc456]

Nobody here can defend manaforts cheating on his taxes....what a scum for that. Nothing better than seeing ultra wealthy tax cheaters going down.

why don't you first prove he did?

what about uncle al sharpton, why won't you call him the same thing? You know he hasn't paid his taxes right? why are you ok with him not paying? you all are fked up for sure. First you have to prove he didn't pay and that he evaded paying. so far that isn't the prosecutions case

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.

 

[forkup]

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.

STFU!!!!

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

STFU? All caps even? Wow that seems scary. Oh and don't look but you are doing exactly what Cowboyted said you would. BUT BUT OBAMA/HILARY. Anyways Mudwhistle I answered your premise on the existence of evidence of crimes, I can't help it that such evidence does exist. Take it up with Trump and Don Jr who are friendly enough to give a public record on their actions.

what evidence of crime? what crime? I still don't know what you all are referring to. why can't you tell us? are you chicken.

Not at all.
Conspiracy to defraud the United States.
-Don Jr has a meeting with Russians about getting dirt on Hillary. We know this because Don himself released the relevant e mails, and Trump admitted that was the purpose of the meeting via tweet.
A few days later Russians attempted to hack Hilary's servers after Trump himself called them to do it. Regardless of the fact that they were successful, in order to prove conspiracy, the only thing that has to happen is one party of an agreement to act on a proposed plan. Russians sure as hell acted on the intention of getting dirt on Hilary, and the Trump campaign did sure as hell solicited those actions.
Obstruction of justice.
-Trump knew about Flynn being under investigation. We know this because of testimony by both Don Mcgahn and Reince Priebus who said they informed him. Hours after that, he asked Comey to let the case against Flynn go, we know this because of the Comey memo's.
- Trump went on camera and said Comey was fired because of the Russia investigation
- Trump urged Mcgahn to try to get Mueller fired, who refused to do so.
-Trump tweets incessantly about "the Mueller witch hunt" up to and including urging Sessions to end it.
- Trump dictated the original statement which misrepresented the purpose of the Trump tower meeting.
All of this shows a persistent and malignant attempt to obstruct justice.

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