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.
These are GOP investigating, charging, and trying Manafort, Defiant1. We Americans are responsible to our laws in terms of taxation whether we reside in or out of the country.I find it disturbing that liberals want to control what people do with their own money in countries other than the US>
did you see me say this should not be followed up on?As a cop so to speak, he can't just ignore crimes he finds committed while looking into Trump's campaign's dealings. You ever seen a cop go into a home and ignore a meth cook because they were there on a dv charge? No? Same difference.this is a question of mine - what does this case have to do with trump and russia collusion? i get that "hey we found a crime we must prosecute" - go for it. put it in the system and let the system do their job. but why is mueller so heavy into this when it doesn't appear to have a thing to do wit russia or his core role today.Some do, yes, and most know that Manafort is a bad dude getting his day in court. Will you accept the verdict?Spoofing Marty's material is so easy.
The jury will do a good, I believe, with the case that has been presented.
I am willing to accept the outcome if it goes for or against Manafort, but the Alt Right want and will support only one verdict.
The Alt right doesn't care, they are too busy being WP morons.
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.
What do mean by accept the verdict?
Even if he gets convicted it doesn't lead to anything else. If he gets acquitted Muller will continue on anyway.
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.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.
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.
No. Fifteen other people testified besides Gates. The fact that you continue to assert that it is all about Gates only highlights your ignorance of the trial.
Gates is the crux of their case, because he was the one with the hands on the levers.
If the jury thinks he is just covering his own ass, you have reasonable doubt, and then at worst for Manfort a hung jury, at best acquittals.Gates is the crux of their case, because he was the one with the hands on the levers.
He's not. Gates had nothing to do with Manafort's personal tax filings. By all means though, continue to be a fool.
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.
No. Fifteen other people testified besides Gates. The fact that you continue to assert that it is all about Gates only highlights your ignorance of the trial.
Gates is the crux of their case, because he was the one with the hands on the levers.
If the jury thinks he is just covering his own ass, you have reasonable doubt, and then at worst for Manfort a hung jury, at best acquittals.Gates is the crux of their case, because he was the one with the hands on the levers.
He's not. Gates had nothing to do with Manafort's personal tax filings. By all means though, continue to be a fool.
If Gates was really pulling the strings Manfort's personal tax filings relied on information from Gates and the corporations.
Fruit of the poisoned pill.....
even so i'm still waiting for someone - ANYONE on any side to tell me what this tax evasion has to do with RUSSIA to begin with. potential crime yes. prosecute and give him his trial like we'd all get. no issues.
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.
No. Fifteen other people testified besides Gates. The fact that you continue to assert that it is all about Gates only highlights your ignorance of the trial.
Gates is the crux of their case, because he was the one with the hands on the levers.
If the jury thinks he is just covering his own ass, you have reasonable doubt, and then at worst for Manfort a hung jury, at best acquittals.Gates is the crux of their case, because he was the one with the hands on the levers.
He's not. Gates had nothing to do with Manafort's personal tax filings. By all means though, continue to be a fool.
If Gates was really pulling the strings Manfort's personal tax filings relied on information from Gates and the corporations.
Fruit of the poisoned pill.....
No, dope. Manafort knew he had overseas accounts because he bought things with wire transfers. That was in the evidence, fool.
You don't even understand the charges let alone the case made in the trial.
even so i'm still waiting for someone - ANYONE on any side to tell me what this tax evasion has to do with RUSSIA to begin with. potential crime yes. prosecute and give him his trial like we'd all get. no issues.
but even if he's found guilty, what impact does *this* have to do with RUSSIA?
can someone link that up for me?
No. Fifteen other people testified besides Gates. The fact that you continue to assert that it is all about Gates only highlights your ignorance of the trial.
Gates is the crux of their case, because he was the one with the hands on the levers.
If the jury thinks he is just covering his own ass, you have reasonable doubt, and then at worst for Manfort a hung jury, at best acquittals.Gates is the crux of their case, because he was the one with the hands on the levers.
He's not. Gates had nothing to do with Manafort's personal tax filings. By all means though, continue to be a fool.
If Gates was really pulling the strings Manfort's personal tax filings relied on information from Gates and the corporations.
Fruit of the poisoned pill.....
No, dope. Manafort knew he had overseas accounts because he bought things with wire transfers. That was in the evidence, fool.
You don't even understand the charges let alone the case made in the trial.
and yet here we are on day two of jury deliberations....
Your opinion is the law?These are GOP investigating, charging, and trying Manafort, Defiant1. We Americans are responsible to our laws in terms of taxation whether we reside in or out of the country.I find it disturbing that liberals want to control what people do with their own money in countries other than the US>
Not my GOP.
We aren't talking about residence.
If I take money that I have paid all the taxes on and I want to invest it by opening a company in another country, the US has no right to any of that money unless I bring it back into the country.
Manafort will lose 'in a landslide'....No. Fifteen other people testified besides Gates. The fact that you continue to assert that it is all about Gates only highlights your ignorance of the trial.
Gates is the crux of their case, because he was the one with the hands on the levers.
If the jury thinks he is just covering his own ass, you have reasonable doubt, and then at worst for Manfort a hung jury, at best acquittals.Gates is the crux of their case, because he was the one with the hands on the levers.
He's not. Gates had nothing to do with Manafort's personal tax filings. By all means though, continue to be a fool.
If Gates was really pulling the strings Manfort's personal tax filings relied on information from Gates and the corporations.
Fruit of the poisoned pill.....
No, dope. Manafort knew he had overseas accounts because he bought things with wire transfers. That was in the evidence, fool.
You don't even understand the charges let alone the case made in the trial.
and yet here we are on day two of jury deliberations....
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.
No. Fifteen other people testified besides Gates. The fact that you continue to assert that it is all about Gates only highlights your ignorance of the trial.
Gates is the crux of their case, because he was the one with the hands on the levers.
If the jury thinks he is just covering his own ass, you have reasonable doubt, and then at worst for Manfort a hung jury, at best acquittals.Gates is the crux of their case, because he was the one with the hands on the levers.
He's not. Gates had nothing to do with Manafort's personal tax filings. By all means though, continue to be a fool.
If Gates was really pulling the strings Manfort's personal tax filings relied on information from Gates and the corporations.
Fruit of the poisoned pill.....
No, dope. Manafort knew he had overseas accounts because he bought things with wire transfers. That was in the evidence, fool.
You don't even understand the charges let alone the case made in the trial.
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.
His innocence or guilt has nothing to do with Trump and Russia. That's the point.even so i'm still waiting for someone - ANYONE on any side to tell me what this tax evasion has to do with RUSSIA to begin with. potential crime yes. prosecute and give him his trial like we'd all get. no issues. but even if he's found guilty, what impact does *this* have to do with RUSSIA? can someone link that up for me?
a simple "no, i can't do that" would be sufficient.even so i'm still waiting for someone - ANYONE on any side to tell me what this tax evasion has to do with RUSSIA to begin with. potential crime yes. prosecute and give him his trial like we'd all get. no issues.
but even if he's found guilty, what impact does *this* have to do with RUSSIA?
can someone link that up for me?
Nice way to abandon your thread premise in favor of a more desireable strawman narrative.
then why is mueller spending his time on this case to try it when there are many other qualified prosecutors who can do this and allow him to return to the investigation?His innocence or guilt has nothing to do with Trump and Russia. That's the point.even so i'm still waiting for someone - ANYONE on any side to tell me what this tax evasion has to do with RUSSIA to begin with. potential crime yes. prosecute and give him his trial like we'd all get. no issues. but even if he's found guilty, what impact does *this* have to do with RUSSIA? can someone link that up for me?
How is it 'abandoning the thread premise', which was not even a 'premise'. It was a statement of fact.even so i'm still waiting for someone - ANYONE on any side to tell me what this tax evasion has to do with RUSSIA to begin with. potential crime yes. prosecute and give him his trial like we'd all get. no issues.
but even if he's found guilty, what impact does *this* have to do with RUSSIA?
can someone link that up for me?
Nice way to abandon your thread premise in favor of a more desireable strawman narrative.
that's my assumption as well, but i also see how it can apply either way. on it's own it's just a question. with no context around it, we take it and run to make it mean something to us. i'm trying to NOT do that but lord, the trolls.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.
In simple form, asking for definition of "reasonable doubt" would identify to what degree a member or members of the jury should believe the prosecution has proven the intent of the defendant, or the degree to which they should view the strength of the evidence provided by the prosecution. Other than that, all you can assume is that at least one member of the jury doubts the strength of the prosecution's case, which leaves it to judge to instruct them as to what they should view as "reasonable".
No. Fifteen other people testified besides Gates. The fact that you continue to assert that it is all about Gates only highlights your ignorance of the trial.
Gates is the crux of their case, because he was the one with the hands on the levers.
If the jury thinks he is just covering his own ass, you have reasonable doubt, and then at worst for Manfort a hung jury, at best acquittals.Gates is the crux of their case, because he was the one with the hands on the levers.
He's not. Gates had nothing to do with Manafort's personal tax filings. By all means though, continue to be a fool.
If Gates was really pulling the strings Manfort's personal tax filings relied on information from Gates and the corporations.
Fruit of the poisoned pill.....
No, dope. Manafort knew he had overseas accounts because he bought things with wire transfers. That was in the evidence, fool.
You don't even understand the charges let alone the case made in the trial.
So what, that isn't "illegal".
So what, that isn't "illegal".
Gates is the crux of their case, because he was the one with the hands on the levers.
If the jury thinks he is just covering his own ass, you have reasonable doubt, and then at worst for Manfort a hung jury, at best acquittals.Gates is the crux of their case, because he was the one with the hands on the levers.
He's not. Gates had nothing to do with Manafort's personal tax filings. By all means though, continue to be a fool.
If Gates was really pulling the strings Manfort's personal tax filings relied on information from Gates and the corporations.
Fruit of the poisoned pill.....
No, dope. Manafort knew he had overseas accounts because he bought things with wire transfers. That was in the evidence, fool.
You don't even understand the charges let alone the case made in the trial.
and yet here we are on day two of jury deliberations....
So what? There are 18 counts that have to be deliberated.
