Jurors in Manafort trial send judge four questions

[iceberg]

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.

You stressin', iceberg?
Don't want Manafort found guilty? How come, if he broke the law?

you seem to like to "pick a fight" then get all pissed off when i hand you your ass cause you never back up what you say, just FEELZ more.

not stressin at all. i have zero stock in manafort or gates. if they're guilty, fry 'em. that's how the laws work in our country. or at least they did until the dems decided they were above such reproach.

so - you're dead wrong on what im saying. again. yet you feel the need to come in and stomp around like a king kamayamaya bitch who's emo-side of things rules whatever form of common sense you think you were gifted with at birth.

if you want to talk the issue, trial and so forth please dive in and talk about it. you wanna bitch at me and fight, take it to PM where i can kick your ass in private.

 

[martybegan]

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.

The longer this goes on, the greater the chance of a hung jury on all or at least some of the charges.

I can see him getting convicted on some of the smaller ones, acquitted on some of the bigger ones, and hung juries on the ones in the middle.

White collar crimes are horrible for juries to figure out.

i'd have to admit i wouldn't be qualified to understand if all these shell companies or tax issues were or were not legal. but people like me are doing the best they can here and i hope they're following the letter of the law, not their emotions, in making their decisions. since they're asking some key questions to at least try and understand, it would appear so.

with 18 charges flung on the wall you'd think something has to stick and unfortunately that seems to have been their goal. throw enough darts to where at least some get the desired effect. to me those are "games" not a hunt for the truth but that's part of our legal system also and a tool for either side to use.

The biggest cause of reasonable doubt is probably the fact that Gates was doing all the legwork, and thus is another target for blame.

I am curious about the judges instructions in that matter, because those are a big deal.

The judge's instructions in what "matter?" Reasonable doubt is the basis on which every jury decision is made, isn't it?

In matters of the law. We may think we know what the laws say, but the judge is the one who tells the jury what the law says.

 

[iceberg]

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.

The longer this goes on, the greater the chance of a hung jury on all or at least some of the charges.

I can see him getting convicted on some of the smaller ones, acquitted on some of the bigger ones, and hung juries on the ones in the middle.

White collar crimes are horrible for juries to figure out.

i'd have to admit i wouldn't be qualified to understand if all these shell companies or tax issues were or were not legal. but people like me are doing the best they can here and i hope they're following the letter of the law, not their emotions, in making their decisions. since they're asking some key questions to at least try and understand, it would appear so.

with 18 charges flung on the wall you'd think something has to stick and unfortunately that seems to have been their goal. throw enough darts to where at least some get the desired effect. to me those are "games" not a hunt for the truth but that's part of our legal system also and a tool for either side to use.

The biggest cause of reasonable doubt is probably the fact that Gates was doing all the legwork, and thus is another target for blame.

I am curious about the judges instructions in that matter, because those are a big deal.

The judge's instructions in what "matter?" Reasonable doubt is the basis on which every jury decision is made, isn't it?

it should be. the prosecution needs to prove their case "beyond" reasonable doubt for anyone to be found guilty. if how this is defined is in question, then what was presented in potentially in question also. it could be they feel it *was* met and want to make sure just as easily as it *was not* met and again, making sure.

but the fact this wasn't a 1 day jury session means they are talking it out and taking it seriously. all i care about moreso than innocent or guilty. if they find him guilty then sentence him to whatever is customary here. if not, let it go and let's all move on. unfortunately we're to the point if we don't get the outcome we want/demand we protest and call people nazi communists these days.

 

[Obama2020]

All it's gonna take is one braindead tRumpkin who will refuse to believe anything bad about Cheeto Jesus and his associates to get us a hung jury.

I pretty much expect that to be the result.

Then mayne we can get a retrial with an unbiased and presenile judge.

Jesus... I think you nailed this one.

Is the eastern district court of Virginia in the Bible Belt ?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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.

The longer this goes on, the greater the chance of a hung jury on all or at least some of the charges.

I can see him getting convicted on some of the smaller ones, acquitted on some of the bigger ones, and hung juries on the ones in the middle.

White collar crimes are horrible for juries to figure out.

i'd have to admit i wouldn't be qualified to understand if all these shell companies or tax issues were or were not legal. but people like me are doing the best they can here and i hope they're following the letter of the law, not their emotions, in making their decisions. since they're asking some key questions to at least try and understand, it would appear so.

with 18 charges flung on the wall you'd think something has to stick and unfortunately that seems to have been their goal. throw enough darts to where at least some get the desired effect. to me those are "games" not a hunt for the truth but that's part of our legal system also and a tool for either side to use.

Only the most deluded hacks could determine he is innocent with the amount of paperwork showing the money and who owned it and where it came from. What Gates did it didn’t say or do is irrelevant.

The question all of the magamites should be asking themselves is who will pay the price down the road if he gets off?

Gates is their whole case, how can you say what he said or did is irrelevant?

Gates is not their whole case. Not by any measure.

Why you dopes continually argue from a position of ignorance is beyond me.

 

[iceberg]

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.

The longer this goes on, the greater the chance of a hung jury on all or at least some of the charges.

I can see him getting convicted on some of the smaller ones, acquitted on some of the bigger ones, and hung juries on the ones in the middle.

White collar crimes are horrible for juries to figure out.

i'd have to admit i wouldn't be qualified to understand if all these shell companies or tax issues were or were not legal. but people like me are doing the best they can here and i hope they're following the letter of the law, not their emotions, in making their decisions. since they're asking some key questions to at least try and understand, it would appear so.

with 18 charges flung on the wall you'd think something has to stick and unfortunately that seems to have been their goal. throw enough darts to where at least some get the desired effect. to me those are "games" not a hunt for the truth but that's part of our legal system also and a tool for either side to use.

Only the most deluded hacks could determine he is innocent with the amount of paperwork showing the money and who owned it and where it came from. What Gates did it didn’t say or do is irrelevant.

The question all of the magamites should be asking themselves is who will pay the price down the road if he gets off?

Gates is their whole case, how can you say what he said or did is irrelevant?

Gates is not their whole case. Not by any measure.

Why you dopes continually argue from a position of ignorance is beyond me.

why you have to insult people in each and every thread is also beyond most people older than 4.

this case isn't about trump. it's about the trial and what is going on there. take the hate and anger and find a trump thread.

 

[iceberg]

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.

All it's gonna take is one braindead tRumpkin who will refuse to believe anything bad about Cheeto Jesus and his associates to get us a hung jury.

I pretty much expect that to be the result.

Then mayne we can get a retrial with an unbiased and presenile judge.

so now the judge is already being called biased.

the left seems to be gearing up for a loss here then and already putting some excuses in the bank. like i said in this thread, if you don't get the results you want, it's protest time and time to demand an investigation.

thanks for proving me right here.

 

[martybegan]

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.

The longer this goes on, the greater the chance of a hung jury on all or at least some of the charges.

I can see him getting convicted on some of the smaller ones, acquitted on some of the bigger ones, and hung juries on the ones in the middle.

White collar crimes are horrible for juries to figure out.

i'd have to admit i wouldn't be qualified to understand if all these shell companies or tax issues were or were not legal. but people like me are doing the best they can here and i hope they're following the letter of the law, not their emotions, in making their decisions. since they're asking some key questions to at least try and understand, it would appear so.

with 18 charges flung on the wall you'd think something has to stick and unfortunately that seems to have been their goal. throw enough darts to where at least some get the desired effect. to me those are "games" not a hunt for the truth but that's part of our legal system also and a tool for either side to use.

Only the most deluded hacks could determine he is innocent with the amount of paperwork showing the money and who owned it and where it came from. What Gates did it didn’t say or do is irrelevant.

The question all of the magamites should be asking themselves is who will pay the price down the road if he gets off?

Gates is their whole case, how can you say what he said or did is irrelevant?

Gates is not their whole case. Not by any measure.

Why you dopes continually argue from a position of ignorance is beyond me.

Saying that Manfort directed Gates to do all the things that happened IS their whole case. the documents themselves don't implicate Manfort directly enough to work without Gates' testimony, which is why he got such a plum deal to testify.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

The longer this goes on, the greater the chance of a hung jury on all or at least some of the charges.

I can see him getting convicted on some of the smaller ones, acquitted on some of the bigger ones, and hung juries on the ones in the middle.

White collar crimes are horrible for juries to figure out.

i'd have to admit i wouldn't be qualified to understand if all these shell companies or tax issues were or were not legal. but people like me are doing the best they can here and i hope they're following the letter of the law, not their emotions, in making their decisions. since they're asking some key questions to at least try and understand, it would appear so.

with 18 charges flung on the wall you'd think something has to stick and unfortunately that seems to have been their goal. throw enough darts to where at least some get the desired effect. to me those are "games" not a hunt for the truth but that's part of our legal system also and a tool for either side to use.

Only the most deluded hacks could determine he is innocent with the amount of paperwork showing the money and who owned it and where it came from. What Gates did it didn’t say or do is irrelevant.

The question all of the magamites should be asking themselves is who will pay the price down the road if he gets off?

Gates is their whole case, how can you say what he said or did is irrelevant?

Gates is not their whole case. Not by any measure.

Why you dopes continually argue from a position of ignorance is beyond me.

why you have to insult people in each and every thread is also beyond most people older than 4.

this case isn't about trump. it's about the trial and what is going on there. take the hate and anger and find a trump thread.

I said nothing about Trump, dope.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

The longer this goes on, the greater the chance of a hung jury on all or at least some of the charges.

I can see him getting convicted on some of the smaller ones, acquitted on some of the bigger ones, and hung juries on the ones in the middle.

White collar crimes are horrible for juries to figure out.

i'd have to admit i wouldn't be qualified to understand if all these shell companies or tax issues were or were not legal. but people like me are doing the best they can here and i hope they're following the letter of the law, not their emotions, in making their decisions. since they're asking some key questions to at least try and understand, it would appear so.

with 18 charges flung on the wall you'd think something has to stick and unfortunately that seems to have been their goal. throw enough darts to where at least some get the desired effect. to me those are "games" not a hunt for the truth but that's part of our legal system also and a tool for either side to use.

Only the most deluded hacks could determine he is innocent with the amount of paperwork showing the money and who owned it and where it came from. What Gates did it didn’t say or do is irrelevant.

The question all of the magamites should be asking themselves is who will pay the price down the road if he gets off?

Gates is their whole case, how can you say what he said or did is irrelevant?

Gates is not their whole case. Not by any measure.

Why you dopes continually argue from a position of ignorance is beyond me.

Saying that Manfort directed Gates to do all the things that happened IS their whole case. the documents themselves don't implicate Manfort directly enough to work without Gates' testimony, which is why he got such a plum deal to testify.

Saying that Manfort directed Gates to do all the things that happened IS their whole case. the documents themselves don't implicate Manfort directly enough to work without Gates' testimony, which is why he got such a plum deal to testify.

You're simply wrong. You obviously have not followed this trial at all.

 

[iceberg]

i'd have to admit i wouldn't be qualified to understand if all these shell companies or tax issues were or were not legal. but people like me are doing the best they can here and i hope they're following the letter of the law, not their emotions, in making their decisions. since they're asking some key questions to at least try and understand, it would appear so.

with 18 charges flung on the wall you'd think something has to stick and unfortunately that seems to have been their goal. throw enough darts to where at least some get the desired effect. to me those are "games" not a hunt for the truth but that's part of our legal system also and a tool for either side to use.

Only the most deluded hacks could determine he is innocent with the amount of paperwork showing the money and who owned it and where it came from. What Gates did it didn’t say or do is irrelevant.

The question all of the magamites should be asking themselves is who will pay the price down the road if he gets off?

Gates is their whole case, how can you say what he said or did is irrelevant?

Gates is not their whole case. Not by any measure.

Why you dopes continually argue from a position of ignorance is beyond me.

why you have to insult people in each and every thread is also beyond most people older than 4.

this case isn't about trump. it's about the trial and what is going on there. take the hate and anger and find a trump thread.

I said nothing about Trump, dope.

you are correct - i misread the quote inside the quote. that wouldn't happen if i didn't take you retreaded fuckups off ignore sometimes.

 

[iceberg]

i'd have to admit i wouldn't be qualified to understand if all these shell companies or tax issues were or were not legal. but people like me are doing the best they can here and i hope they're following the letter of the law, not their emotions, in making their decisions. since they're asking some key questions to at least try and understand, it would appear so.

with 18 charges flung on the wall you'd think something has to stick and unfortunately that seems to have been their goal. throw enough darts to where at least some get the desired effect. to me those are "games" not a hunt for the truth but that's part of our legal system also and a tool for either side to use.

Only the most deluded hacks could determine he is innocent with the amount of paperwork showing the money and who owned it and where it came from. What Gates did it didn’t say or do is irrelevant.

The question all of the magamites should be asking themselves is who will pay the price down the road if he gets off?

Gates is their whole case, how can you say what he said or did is irrelevant?

Gates is not their whole case. Not by any measure.

Why you dopes continually argue from a position of ignorance is beyond me.

Saying that Manfort directed Gates to do all the things that happened IS their whole case. the documents themselves don't implicate Manfort directly enough to work without Gates' testimony, which is why he got such a plum deal to testify.

Saying that Manfort directed Gates to do all the things that happened IS their whole case. the documents themselves don't implicate Manfort directly enough to work without Gates' testimony, which is why he got such a plum deal to testify.

You're simply wrong. You obvioualy have not followed this trial at all.

and you've yet to really say anything about the trial itself. you're just trolling around getting your shots in. per usual. marty is well known to talk evenly about the topic and within his education on it. that is what builds respect for opinions. the constant insults and NO YOU'RE WRONG do nothing but reaffirm your own ignorance on the topic.

 

[OldLady]

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.

You stressin', iceberg?
Don't want Manafort found guilty? How come, if he broke the law?

you seem to like to "pick a fight" then get all pissed off when i hand you your ass cause you never back up what you say, just FEELZ more.

not stressin at all. i have zero stock in manafort or gates. if they're guilty, fry 'em. that's how the laws work in our country. or at least they did until the dems decided they were above such reproach.

so - you're dead wrong on what im saying. again. yet you feel the need to come in and stomp around like a king kamayamaya bitch who's emo-side of things rules whatever form of common sense you think you were gifted with at birth.

if you want to talk the issue, trial and so forth please dive in and talk about it. you wanna bitch at me and fight, take it to PM where i can kick your ass in private.

You really seem to be building me up into something I couldn't/wouldn't be in my wildest dreams. I asked if you are stressin' it. Why would you start a thread sweatin the jury asking a standard question if it weren't worrying you?
I don't see what this has to do with Dems either way. The guy broke laws or he didn't. His defense is that Gates did it and he didn't know. It will come down to whether there is evidence Manafort DID know. Hard case, probably. Neither of them are exactly Boy Scouts.
I don't really see where a guilty plea by Manafort will matter much one way or the other as far as Trump goes, unless Trump pardons him. As Trump says, he barely knew the guy and this stuff happened way before he worked for the campaign.
If it relates to Trump at all, it is in the fact that Trump seems to keep surrounding himself with crooks and liars. Just bad luck, I take it.

 

[martybegan]

i'd have to admit i wouldn't be qualified to understand if all these shell companies or tax issues were or were not legal. but people like me are doing the best they can here and i hope they're following the letter of the law, not their emotions, in making their decisions. since they're asking some key questions to at least try and understand, it would appear so.

with 18 charges flung on the wall you'd think something has to stick and unfortunately that seems to have been their goal. throw enough darts to where at least some get the desired effect. to me those are "games" not a hunt for the truth but that's part of our legal system also and a tool for either side to use.

Only the most deluded hacks could determine he is innocent with the amount of paperwork showing the money and who owned it and where it came from. What Gates did it didn’t say or do is irrelevant.

The question all of the magamites should be asking themselves is who will pay the price down the road if he gets off?

Gates is their whole case, how can you say what he said or did is irrelevant?

Gates is not their whole case. Not by any measure.

Why you dopes continually argue from a position of ignorance is beyond me.

Saying that Manfort directed Gates to do all the things that happened IS their whole case. the documents themselves don't implicate Manfort directly enough to work without Gates' testimony, which is why he got such a plum deal to testify.

Saying that Manfort directed Gates to do all the things that happened IS their whole case. the documents themselves don't implicate Manfort directly enough to work without Gates' testimony, which is why he got such a plum deal to testify.

You're simply wrong. You obviously have not followed this trial at all.

And yet you provide no backup as to why I am wrong.

The reason for the jury to ask about reasonable doubt is because they have a choice between believing Gates or not.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

If he is found guilty there will be WALL TO WALL coverage.

If not it will barely be covered.

 

[iceberg]

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.

You stressin', iceberg?
Don't want Manafort found guilty? How come, if he broke the law?

you seem to like to "pick a fight" then get all pissed off when i hand you your ass cause you never back up what you say, just FEELZ more.

not stressin at all. i have zero stock in manafort or gates. if they're guilty, fry 'em. that's how the laws work in our country. or at least they did until the dems decided they were above such reproach.

so - you're dead wrong on what im saying. again. yet you feel the need to come in and stomp around like a king kamayamaya bitch who's emo-side of things rules whatever form of common sense you think you were gifted with at birth.

if you want to talk the issue, trial and so forth please dive in and talk about it. you wanna bitch at me and fight, take it to PM where i can kick your ass in private.

You really seem to be building me up into something I couldn't/wouldn't be in my wildest dreams. I asked if you are stressin' it. Why would you start a thread sweatin the jury asking a standard question if it weren't worrying you?
I don't see what this has to do with Dems either way. The guy broke laws or he didn't. His defense is that Gates did it and he didn't know. It will come down to whether there is evidence Manafort DID know. Hard case, probably. Neither of them are exactly Boy Scouts.
I don't really see where a guilty plea by Manafort will matter much one way or the other as far as Trump goes, unless Trump pardons him. As Trump says, he barely knew the guy and this stuff happened way before he worked for the campaign.
If it relates to Trump at all, it is in the fact that Trump seems to keep surrounding himself with crooks and liars. Just bad luck, I take it.

and you coming in with "you stressin" isn't building me into something i'm not? my not allowing you to box me into your own definition of things seems to upset you. all i can say about that is good. stop doing that and our conversations would go much better.

i asked to learn about why the would be asking and what it could mean. have you seen me take a side to say "this proves he's innocent" yet?

no you have not. not in reality anyway but since you've made me something i'm not, to you i *HAVE* said that, which is the most annoying part of talking to you. you're replying to a stereotype you've created 90% of the time, not to me.

my only trump comment was that if this *does* fall through for mueller, it does hurt the rest of his case.

am i wrong?

the fact you've pre-determined the outcome doesn't come across as a problem to you? it does to most rational people. maybe that explains it.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Only the most deluded hacks could determine he is innocent with the amount of paperwork showing the money and who owned it and where it came from. What Gates did it didn’t say or do is irrelevant.

The question all of the magamites should be asking themselves is who will pay the price down the road if he gets off?

Gates is their whole case, how can you say what he said or did is irrelevant?

Gates is not their whole case. Not by any measure.

Why you dopes continually argue from a position of ignorance is beyond me.

Saying that Manfort directed Gates to do all the things that happened IS their whole case. the documents themselves don't implicate Manfort directly enough to work without Gates' testimony, which is why he got such a plum deal to testify.

Saying that Manfort directed Gates to do all the things that happened IS their whole case. the documents themselves don't implicate Manfort directly enough to work without Gates' testimony, which is why he got such a plum deal to testify.

You're simply wrong. You obvioualy have not followed this trial at all.

and you've yet to really say anything about the trial itself. you're just trolling around getting your shots in. per usual. marty is well known to talk evenly about the topic and within his education on it. that is what builds respect for opinions. the constant insults and NO YOU'RE WRONG do nothing but reaffirm your own ignorance on the topic.

My ignorance? Too funny.
Both you and Marty are making blatantly false statements about this trial.

Name at least three others who have testified and tell us what charges they've testified to.

 

[martybegan]

If he is found guilty there will be WALL TO WALL coverage.

If not it will barely be covered.

Unless it is a hung jury due to one "Trump Guy" holding out, then progressives will demand the end of juries, and all trials be decided by judges.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The eighteen charges are carefully fashioned and well evidence.

The jury is doing its job in making sure it understands just what is "reasonable doubt."

If the jury finds Manafort guilty of most or all of the charges, the Alt and Trump right will demand an end to juries and resort to trial by judges.

 

[Obama2020]

I’d be truly amazed if this case ended up being a wet firecracker.

Hopefully Mueller will write a book, I don’t think there’s a precedent for the level of corruption we’re about to be exposed to here.

If I was in Manafort’s iguana shoes, I would have left the USA a long long time ago and enjoyed the cash.