Jurors in Manafort trial send judge four questions

[easyt65]

He didn’t have a problem ignoring Manaforts “crimes” while he was the FBI director

2014:
FBI Director Mueller ignored the massive amounts of evidence exposing Russian crimes associated with the KGB Bank's effort to buy Uranium One.

US AG Holder and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton - who knew about these crimes - ignored them, did not share them with their fellow committee members whose job it was to approve or deny the sale of Uranium One to the KGB Bank. The deal went through as the crimes were kept quiet.

President Barak Obama ignored the crimes...and ignored the Russian Interference he was told was going on - and signed off on the deal giving the Russians 20% of the US supply of Uranium.

President Obama learned about the Russian interference, Counter-Intelligence operations, and the Russians attempt to hack senior govt Reps' e-mails...and said nothing, did nothing.

Obama ignored Hillary's illegal unauthorized unencrypted unsecured server containing TOP SECRET data while knowing the Russians were out trying to hack people like her - he let it continue and thus 'facilitated' Russia and 5 other foreign entities acquiring US TOP SECRET data off of Hillary's server.

So far under the Mueller investigation....

Mueller was ok with hiring a biased anti-Trump Pro-Hillary criminal FBI agent to be part of his team,...until the public found out about him and Mueller was forced to fire him.

Mueller was ok with / ignored Brennan's involvement and Perjury, ignored Clapper's involvement and perjury, ignored Comey's perjury, ignored McCabe's perjury, ignored the US IG recommendation to indict McCabe and investigate Strzok, ignored US AG Lynch's potential Obstruction after Comey testified she 'DIRECTED' him not to talk about or treat the Hillary investigation like an investigation but as an 'issue'....etc...etc....etc....

The Special Counsel was formed for one reason and one reason only - GET TRUMP...and any of his associates you can in an attempt to flip them.

EVERYTHING about this entire circus since it began the moment the news went out that Trump had beaten Hillary has been about THAT.

 

[iceberg]

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.

if this *does* fall through for mueller, it does hurt the rest of his case.
Okay, I get it now. THAT'S why you're stressin' it!

oh good god woman - you accuse me of trying to make you something i'm not then run around doing this.

if i paypal you $20 will you stop being such a bitch?

$50

sure. but if you're a bitch after that point, you give me back $100.

still a go, chief?

I'm not being a bitch.

then why did you agree to the deal initially if you feel you weren't being a bitch to start with? i offer $20 to have you stop doing something, you ask for more (good job!) and then suddenly say you're NOT doing something that you've plainly asked for more money to STOP doing.

and you wonder why it's so difficult to talk to you. your position changes from post to post.

anyway - if you're up for it - PM me and take this offline. your being a $50 bitch has nothing to do with this topic.

 

[Hiryuu]

I'm not being a bitch.

At best you can only say you don't want to be a bitch. Then iceberg would have to prove otherwise beyond reasonable doubt. Of course it could all go sideways depending on who gets selected for the jury.

 

[iceberg]

I'm not being a bitch.

At best you can only say you don't want to be a bitch. Then iceberg would have to prove otherwise beyond reasonable doubt. Of course it could all go sideways depending on who gets selected for the jury.

ROFL!!!! ok - you win the internet for the day in combining the most topics into 1 reply and still staying relevant to the original topic!

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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.

Holy Baby Jebuz, dude didn't even read the article. It clearly states that anything over 10K must be reported.

Anyone who has followed the trial would know this if they didn't already. Why these dopes argue from a position of ignorance is beyond me.

 

[Crepitus]

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.

Don't you watch the news?

 

[Hiryuu]

Anyone who has followed the trial would know this if they didn't already. Why these dopes argue from a position of ignorance is beyond me.

More of a testament to what people who have never transferred 10k or more, or had holdings in excess of 10k or more overseas, don't know already. Even if someone has to follow the trial to know that, I still don't feel sorry for their broke ass. Which would lead someone to wonder how hard would it be to convince a jury, should that be what the question was about?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Anyone who has followed the trial would know this if they didn't already. Why these dopes argue from a position of ignorance is beyond me.

More of a testament to what people who have never transferred 10k or more, or had holdings in excess of 10k or more overseas, don't know already. Even if someone has to follow the trial to know that, I still don't feel sorry for their broke ass. Which would lead someone to wonder how hard would it be to convince a jury, should that be what the question was about?

The jury doesn't need to be convinced. They're instructed on the crime and given evidence of that crime.

There is no foreign accounts listed on Manafort's tax returns yet bank records show Manafort making payments from a foreign account.

Case closed. Done.

 

[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.

Don't you watch the news?

probably not what YOU consider news, no.

 

[Crepitus]

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.

Oh, is Trump on trial here.....you lying fuck???

No he is not.

Do you lying fucks think he is???

You bet your ass!!!

You ain't real bright are you.

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 it now? Let me know if you have trouble with the bigger words.

 

[iceberg]

Anyone who has followed the trial would know this if they didn't already. Why these dopes argue from a position of ignorance is beyond me.

More of a testament to what people who have never transferred 10k or more, or had holdings in excess of 10k or more overseas, don't know already. Even if someone has to follow the trial to know that, I still don't feel sorry for their broke ass. Which would lead someone to wonder how hard would it be to convince a jury, should that be what the question was about?

The jury doesn't need to be convinced. They're instructed on the crime and given evidence of that crime.

There is no foreign accounts listed on Manafort's tax returns yet bank records show Manafort making payments from a foreign account.

Case closed. Done.

um...they must be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt of the guilt, or there is no guilt.

sometimes i think you go into overdrive to pull stupid out of your ass.

 

[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.

Oh, is Trump on trial here.....you lying fuck???

No he is not.

Do you lying fucks think he is???

You bet your ass!!!

You ain't real bright are you.

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.

how? how will getting manafort for tax evasion help his russia investigation on trump?

come on 200w - you should be bright enough to link these 2.

 

[Crepitus]

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.

Don't you watch the news?

probably not what YOU consider news, no.

Why be deliberately uninformed?

 

[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.

Don't you watch the news?

probably not what YOU consider news, no.

Why be deliberately uninformed?

dunno. why are you?

 

[Crepitus]

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.

Oh, is Trump on trial here.....you lying fuck???

No he is not.

Do you lying fucks think he is???

You bet your ass!!!

You ain't real bright are you.

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.

how? how will getting manafort for tax evasion help his russia investigation on trump?

come on 200w - you should be bright enough to link these 2.

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.

 

[Crepitus]

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.

Don't you watch the news?

probably not what YOU consider news, no.

Why be deliberately uninformed?

dunno. why are you?

Lol, you're the one who just claimed not to watch the news, not 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.

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.

Oh, is Trump on trial here.....you lying fuck???

No he is not.

Do you lying fucks think he is???

You bet your ass!!!

You ain't real bright are you.

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.

how? how will getting manafort for tax evasion help his russia investigation on trump?

come on 200w - you should be bright enough to link these 2.

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.

if opinion - why do you insult people who opinion you do not share?

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.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Anyone who has followed the trial would know this if they didn't already. Why these dopes argue from a position of ignorance is beyond me.

More of a testament to what people who have never transferred 10k or more, or had holdings in excess of 10k or more overseas, don't know already. Even if someone has to follow the trial to know that, I still don't feel sorry for their broke ass. Which would lead someone to wonder how hard would it be to convince a jury, should that be what the question was about?

The jury doesn't need to be convinced. They're instructed on the crime and given evidence of that crime.

There is no foreign accounts listed on Manafort's tax returns yet bank records show Manafort making payments from a foreign account.

Case closed. Done.

um...they must be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt of the guilt, or there is no guilt.

sometimes i think you go into overdrive to pull stupid out of your ass.

um...they must be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt of the guilt, or there is no guilt.

sometimes i think you go into overdrive to pull stupid out of your ass.

I didn't say otherwise, dope.

I was simply pointing out that the case is not difficult.

 

[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.

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.

Don't you watch the news?

probably not what YOU consider news, no.

Why be deliberately uninformed?

So they can come in here and post dopey strawmen threads.

 

[mudwhistle]

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.

Oh, is Trump on trial here.....you lying fuck???

No he is not.

Do you lying fucks think he is???

You bet your ass!!!

You ain't real bright are you.

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 it now? Let me know if you have trouble with the bigger words.

I really don't give a damn what you numbnuts are making it out to be.
A guilty verdict under normal circumstances does not reflect on Trump.
It's also clear that the reason for the indictments are purely political, not a search for justice.