Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Not necessarily. Remember, the jurors are generally people who are ignorant of the nature of the complicated ideas and complicated crimes. It could be the case that, to a knowledgeable person, the charges have been proven many times over. That's part of the reason Gates was brought in, if not the only reason: to corroborate the over simplified, "Manafort cheated" narrative that is catered to ignorant jurors.All I suggested is that if the prosecution did provide the evidence and prove it, then that's not why the jurors asked the judge to instruct them on "reasonable doubt".
I have made no assertions at all as to why any questions were asked by the jury.
Learn to follow a conversation.
I don't have to tell myself that. These are the results from the methods by which we attempt to measure these things. So, the data tells me that.And yet most people identify more with the democrat platform, and most people recognize the validity and importance of the investigation. So, are we supposed to be impressed that you know how to make stuff up?Regular people on the right (i.e. most people, even the ones you try to smear as alt right) know this is nothing more than a witch hunt.
keep telling yourself that.
Not necessarily. Remember, the jurors are generally people who are ignorant of the nature of the complicated ideas and complicated crimes. It could be the case that, to a knowledgeable person, the charges have been proven many times over. That's part of the reason Gates was brought in, if not the only reason: to corroborate the over simplified, "Manafort cheated" narrative that is catered to ignorant jurors.
Yes,I know. But it could be the case that they simply don't well understand all of the evidence.They weren't asking about the details of the case, when they asked the judge to instruct them on "reasonable doubt".
Not "stupid".... Ignorant. If you are going to live in my country, please learn the language.Liberals presetting the stage for “stupid jurors”
That could be included in the other three questions, I wouldn't know.Yes,I know. But it could be the case that they simply don't well understand all of the evidence.They weren't asking about the details of the case, when they asked the judge to instruct them on "reasonable doubt".
I don't have to tell myself that. These are the results from the methods by which we attempt to measure these things. So, the data tells me that.And yet most people identify more with the democrat platform, and most people recognize the validity and importance of the investigation. So, are we supposed to be impressed that you know how to make stuff up?Regular people on the right (i.e. most people, even the ones you try to smear as alt right) know this is nothing more than a witch hunt.
keep telling yourself that.
I have made no assertions at all as to why any questions were asked by the jury.
Learn to follow a conversation.
I'm following the conversation in the OP, catch up when it suits you.
My posts are directed at the poster I'm responding to, dope. Not always the OP.
If you're going to jump in, at least know the context.
Which, of course, you did first. The key difference being that your Statement is opinion based only on what you wish were true, while my statement was a statement of fact, supported by data.Wow, what an attempt to quantify a qualitative concept, i.e. your opinion.
Which, of course, you did first. The key difference being that your Statement is opinion based only on what you wish were true, while my statement was a statement of fact, supported by data.Wow, what an attempt to quantify a qualitative concept, i.e. your opinion.
Jurors in Manafort trial send judge four questions, including asking him to redefine reasonable doubt
asking to define/redefine "reasonable doubt". now each side will twist this to mean he's guilty/innocent depending on what you thought before this question from the jury was asked, but what does it really mean?
to me it sounds like someone or some people in the jury want to know how to put that against what meuller presented. does it apply or doesn't it? there must be some concerns around whether or not he did or this wouldn't come up. if some jurors were saying there was "reasonable doubt" it would come up. someone else would have to say "no there wasn't" - hence the clarification.
that alone says someone is questioning that on the jury.
if manafort is failed to be charged with a majority of the 18 charges, mueller's case against trump takes a huge it and things start falling apart. i'm glad to see the jury take this seriously and ask these questions for their own clarification. we'll see what they decide hopefully soon so we can at least get this behind us.
I think you can puzzle that out for yourself. Now how would we collect sich data? Hmm....quite an enigma!What data?
Except my statement wasn't an opinion, for precisely the reasons I stated. You, on the other hand, pulled your opinion out of your ass based on nothing but what you hope to be true, and you even used a quantifier ("most"), making you the only one of the two of us guilty of the accusation you also pulled out of your ass.Your opinion is just an opinion, nothing more.
My posts are directed at the poster I'm responding to, dope. Not always the OP.
If you're going to jump in, at least know the context.
I jumped in and added to the context. If you feel the need to defend yourself, or be offended, knock yourself out. Beating your head against a wall may be more productive.
I jumped in and added to the context.
You insulted fort, called me a liar.if opinion - why do you insult people who opinion you do not share?We're talking about public opinion here, so no I can't link it. I'm sorry, if you can't understand it I can't help you.how? how will getting manafort for tax evasion help his russia investigation on trump?You ain't real bright are you.Oh, is Trump on trial here.....you lying fuck???
No he is not.
Do you lying fucks think he is???
You bet your ass!!!
Of course he's not on trial directly but everyone is looking at this as a referendum on tRump vs Mueller. And in a way it is. A conviction would add veracity to Mueller's investigation, while an acquittal would in turn lend support to the tRumpkins.
Got I now? Let me know if you have trouble with the bigger words.
come on 200w - you should be bright enough to link these 2.
to me there is no link. manafort guilty, goes to jail, back to "investigation" with nothing further added to said "investigation". manafort not guilty, now there is a risk that mueller sold this as a connection and lost in court. IN MY OPINION the risk isn't worth mueller trying to link these together when in a black and white sense they have nothing to do with each other.
you are right about 1 thing. you can't help me. back to ignore. have a day.
Ignore is for snowflakes.
Enjoy it snowflake.
I think you can puzzle that out for yourself. Now how would we collect sich data? Hmm....quite an enigma!What data?
Except my statement wasn't an opinion, for precisely the reasons I stated. You, on the other hand, pulled your opinion out of your ass based on nothing but what you hope to be true, and you even used a quantifier ("most"), making you the only one of the two of us guilty of the accusation you also pulled out of your ass.Your opinion is just an opinion, nothing more.
Ironic, eh?
