Jurors in Manafort trial send judge four questions

[Doc1]

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".

Obviously it is, dope.

Sorry, no. He can put his money anywhere he wants.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

'Jury questions potentially a good sign for Manafort'



.............'FU@K!'...............




If Mueller loses this case, he and Rosenstein are left with:

Flynn:
Indicted for Lying to the FBI. Flynn lied about something that was not even illegal. Some surmise he got flustered and Strzok - a seasoned interrogator and experienced Counter-Intelligence agent - intimidated / pressured him into pleating guilty.

POTENTIAL DEFENSES FLYNN'S LAWYERS COULD USE:
- The US IG reported he found the FBI altered testimony after the fact.
(I am not saying they altered Flynn's testimony)

- Then Director of the FBI Comey testified under oath that his FBI agents did not believe Flynn lied during his interview.

- Evidence shows Strzok also interviewed Hillary aides Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills, that according to the transcripts of their testimony they lied about not knowing about Hillary's server. Lying to the FBI is a crime. It is the same crime Strzok indicted Flynn over ... yet he refused to indict Abedin and Mills for the same exact crime (but there was no bias involved).


Papadopoulos:

The FBI got a 'tip' from someone that a Trump campaign Associate met with an Australian Diplomat and told the diplomat that the Russians had dirt on Hillary.

1. The tip ended up coming from the Australian Diplomat.

2. The Australian turned out to be a HUGE Hillary supporter and donor.

3. Papa was not a Trump Associate but instead a self-important, UNPAID Trump Campaign VOLUNTEER.

4. Papa was indicted because of a 'drunken conversation Papa and the Australian Rep had in the bathroom of a British pub.

POTENTIAL DEFENSES PAPADOPOULOS LAWYERS COULD USE:

- This was OBVIOUSLY a set-up. A huge Hillary donor agrees talks to Papa, tips off the FBI. (which makes it look more and more like the FBI was working FOR / WITH Hillary Clinton - no indictment of Abedin / Mills, Stzok altered the final FBI report on Hillary's server scandal which kept her from being indicted, got the Dossier from Hillary and used it to get warrants on Trump....)

- A DRUNKEN (the FBI's words) conversation in the bathroom of a British pub. How Drunk? Can you trust anything a drunk says? Usually when a guy gets drunk his ego and mouth get bigger and his intellect and standards (regarding women) get smaller. I mean, he called himself a Trump Associate - part of Trump's team. HE WAS AN UNPAID TRUMP CAMPAIGN VOLUNTEER. That exaggeration alone proves he was self-important and running his mouth to make himself seem bigger than he was...

Russians:
There are actuallty2 separate groups of Russians that have been indicted. The 1st group - that has nothing to do with Trump - is still waiting trial because Mueller keeps pushing the date of their trial back, violating their right, I might add, to a speedy trial. Whether or not Mueller ever decides to go ahead with the trial is anyone's guess.

The 2nd group of Russians are the ones working for the Russian govt, the ones Obama knew were interfering back n 2014 yet did nothing to stop. How convenient it is to indict 'the boogeymen' (don't get me wrong, they most probably are the ones who did what they are being accused of) who will NEVER be interviewed by the DOJ / Special Counsel, who will NEVER be able to tell their side / defend themselves, who will NEVER be extradited, and who will NEVER be brought to Justice.

Even if Manafort is found guilty...Even if Flynn is found guilty...Even if Papadopoulos is found Guilty...Mueller still has ZERO EVIDENCE of illegal collusion between Trump and the Russians or involving Trump with the Russian Interference Obama and his administration ALREADY KNEW was going on. Mueller will be left with ZERO evidence of such a crime, which was / is the sole reason he was appointed Special Counsel.

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.

How is it 'abandoning the thread premise', which was not even a 'premise'. It was a statement of fact.

Of course you don't see it as strawmen posts are your specialty.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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?

His innocence or guilt has nothing to do with Trump and Russia. That's the point.

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?

You are no expert on who or why a person should prosecute, so we will put down your comment to irrelevant bitching.

 

[Obama2020]

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.

Surprised you're asking that question...

Mueller referred the case to the eastern court of Virginia because tax fraud is not part of his mandate.

Manafort might still be useful in Mueller's investigation (district of Columbia).

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sorry, no. He can put his money anywhere he wants.

That is not what I said. I said in #66 he gets to pay taxes in accordance with American law.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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".

Obviously it is, dope.

Sorry, no. He can put his money anywhere he wants.

Sure. But foreign accounts with a balance of more than 10k must be reported to the IRS.

To deliberately not report it is tax fraud.

 

[iceberg]

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?

His innocence or guilt has nothing to do with Trump and Russia. That's the point.

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?

You are no expert on who or why a person should prosecute, so we will put down your comment to irrelevant bitching.

fuck.

that means i am now in company with every single one of your posts.

god damn my own luck.

 

[iceberg]

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.

Surprised you're asking that question...

Mueller referred the case to the eastern court of Virginia because tax fraud is not part of his mandate.

Manafort might still be useful in the Mueller's investigation (district of Columbia).

is mueller trying the case himself?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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.

Yep, keep telling yourself that.

Is that not correct?

 

[JakeStarkey]

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?

His innocence or guilt has nothing to do with Trump and Russia. That's the point.

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?

You are no expert on who or why a person should prosecute, so we will put down your comment to irrelevant bitching.

fuck. that means i am now in company with every single one of your posts. god damn my own luck.

Now that's a silly post with nothing on the OP. What I said was true. You, as a partisan ideologue, just don't like it.

 

[Doc1]

Sorry, no. He can put his money anywhere he wants.

That is not what I said. I said in #66 he gets to pay taxes in accordance with American law.

I wasn't responding to you.

 

[DrLove]

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?

His innocence or guilt has nothing to do with Trump and Russia. That's the point.

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?

You are no expert on who or why a person should prosecute, so we will put down your comment to irrelevant bitching.

fuck.

that means i am now in company with every single one of your posts.

god damn my own luck.

Translation: I just got - - -

 

[iceberg]

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?

His innocence or guilt has nothing to do with Trump and Russia. That's the point.

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?

You are no expert on who or why a person should prosecute, so we will put down your comment to irrelevant bitching.

fuck. that means i am now in company with every single one of your posts. god damn my own luck.

Now that's a silly post with nothing on the OP. What I said was true. You, as a partisan ideologue, just don't like it.

the lord blessed you with an unfair amount of stupid.

 

[Hiryuu]

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.

It shouldn't be hard for the judge to provide instruction regarding "reasonable" that is supported in precedence. The only problem I can see coming out of it, is if the judge or the jury tries to measure the prosecution's intent on bringing the charges, and somehow wants to translate that to the guilt or innocence of the defendant in regards to the charges brought. If that's the case, who knows what will happen.

 

[easyt65]

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?

[URL='https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.shopify.com%2Fs%2Ffiles%2F1%2F0804%2F6487%2Fproducts%2Fparticipation_trophy_1_large.jpg%3Fv%3D1523044295&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fshipabagofdicks.com%2Fproducts%2Fparticipation-trophy&docid=lobF8_P1cv7TfM&tbnid=pPgNzIL58bPbfM%3A&vet=10ahUKEwjJoPzKnfTcAhVM3FMKHRc2Dc8QMwjDAigAMAA..i&w=400&h=400&bih=805&biw=1178&q=trophy&ved=0ahUKEwjJoPzKnfTcAhVM3FMKHRc2Dc8QMwjDAigAMAA&iact=mrc&uact=8'][/URL]
[URL='https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fres.cloudinary.com%2Fteepublic%2Fimage%2Fprivate%2Fs--j81kVEaB--%2Ft_Resized%2520Artwork%2Fc_fit%2Cg_north_west%2Ch_954%2Cw_954%2Fco_191919%2Ce_outline%3A35%2Fco_191919%2Ce_outline%3Ainner_fill%3A35%2Fco_ffffff%2Ce_outline%3A35%2Fco_ffffff%2Ce_outline%3Ainner_fill%3A35%2Fco_bbbbbb%2Ce_outline%3A3%3A1000%2Fc_mpad%2Cg_center%2Ch_1260%2Cw_1260%2Fb_rgb%3Aeeeeee%2Fc_limit%2Cf_jpg%2Ch_630%2Cq_90%2Cw_630%2Fv1507796176%2Fproduction%2Fdesigns%2F1965861_1.jpg&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.teepublic.com%2Fsticker%2F1965861-winner-winner-chicken-dinner&docid=GDRVoAHDhDDJZM&tbnid=QmNGay9l26zxwM%3A&vet=10ahUKEwjy2eq_nfTcAhURrFMKHR6BAJcQMwhVKAowCg..i&w=630&h=630&bih=805&biw=1178&q=winner%20winner%20chicken%20dinner&ved=0ahUKEwjy2eq_nfTcAhURrFMKHR6BAJcQMwhVKAowCg&iact=mrc&uact=8']
Mueller was appointed to investigate Russian Interference in the 2016 election and the possible connection to / collusion of President Donald Trump.


In less than a year of Mueller's appointment as Special Counsel and of his investigation (it has now gone over 2 years) it cost tax payers $16.7 MILLION. (That's a lot of money for 'butt-hurt'.)
-- [URL='https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2018/05/31/muellers-investigation-cost-16-7-million-in-just-under-a-year-new-documents-show/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.80165e5cd197']Mueller’s investigation cost $16.7 million in just under a year, new documents show[/URL]
[URL='https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fres.cloudinary.com%2Fteepublic%2Fimage%2Fprivate%2Fs--j81kVEaB--%2Ft_Resized%2520Artwork%2Fc_fit%2Cg_north_west%2Ch_954%2Cw_954%2Fco_191919%2Ce_outline%3A35%2Fco_191919%2Ce_outline%3Ainner_fill%3A35%2Fco_ffffff%2Ce_outline%3A35%2Fco_ffffff%2Ce_outline%3Ainner_fill%3A35%2Fco_bbbbbb%2Ce_outline%3A3%3A1000%2Fc_mpad%2Cg_center%2Ch_1260%2Cw_1260%2Fb_rgb%3Aeeeeee%2Fc_limit%2Cf_jpg%2Ch_630%2Cq_90%2Cw_630%2Fv1507796176%2Fproduction%2Fdesigns%2F1965861_1.jpg&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.teepublic.com%2Fsticker%2F1965861-winner-winner-chicken-dinner&docid=GDRVoAHDhDDJZM&tbnid=QmNGay9l26zxwM%3A&vet=10ahUKEwjy2eq_nfTcAhURrFMKHR6BAJcQMwhVKAowCg..i&w=630&h=630&bih=805&biw=1178&q=winner%20winner%20chicken%20dinner&ved=0ahUKEwjy2eq_nfTcAhURrFMKHR6BAJcQMwhVKAowCg&iact=mrc&uact=8']
The Manafort case has NOTHING to do with what Mueller has been charged to investigate. Every day Mueller spends on the Manafort case is another day of tax dollars wasted on an investigation Mueller is being paid to do but is NOT.


He found a potential crime - Congrats. It has nothing to do with why he was appointed Special Counsel. The DOJ is an entire agency (supposedly) dedicate to dispensing justice. They have LOTS of lawyers / prosecutors NOT being paid to specifically investigate Russian Interference who could be assigned to this case, allowing Mueller and his team to get back to the job they were hired to do.[/URL][/URL]

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sorry, no. He can put his money anywhere he wants.

That is not what I said. I said in #66 he gets to pay taxes in accordance with American law.

I wasn't responding to you.

Doesn't not matter. My post is correct.

 

[Doc1]

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".

Obviously it is, dope.

Sorry, no. He can put his money anywhere he wants.

Sure. But foreign accounts with a balance of more than 10k must be reported to the IRS.

To deliberately not report it is tax fraud.

Of course, nut I think what you're going to find here is the prosecution simply tried to bury the jury with information hoping that they'd be overwhelmed and unable to sift through it correctly.

 

[Doc1]

Sorry, no. He can put his money anywhere he wants.

That is not what I said. I said in #66 he gets to pay taxes in accordance with American law.

I wasn't responding to you.

Doesn't not matter. My post is correct.

Shhhh, nobody is talking to you.

 

[iceberg]

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.

It shouldn't be hard for the judge to provide instruction regarding "reasonable" that is supported in precedence. The only problem I can see coming out of it, is if the judge or the jury tries to measure the prosecution's intent on bringing the charges, and somehow wants to translate that to the guilt or innocence of the defendant in regards to the charges brought. If that's the case, who knows what will happen.

not at all. but if the jury is asking for clarification then it would guess it's to apply to how they are interpreting the facts, one way or the other. add in the other 3 questions and you've got (4) very good questions to show this jury is doing their job and i'm thankful for that and want justice, not revenge, to come out of this.

 

[iceberg]

Sorry, no. He can put his money anywhere he wants.

That is not what I said. I said in #66 he gets to pay taxes in accordance with American law.

I wasn't responding to you.

Doesn't not matter. My post is correct.

well shit. i missed halley's comet, and now this.