+- Cincinnati Bengals Message Board / Forums - Home of Jungle Noise (http://thebengalsboard.com)
+-- Forum: Off Topic Forums (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Off-Topic-Forums)
+--- Forum: Politics & Religion 2.0 (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Politics-Religion-2-0)
+---- Forum: P & R Archive (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-P-R-Archive)
+---- Thread: Manafort decision (/Thread-Manafort-decision)
Manafort decision - fredtoast - 08-17-2018
The fact that the jury has deliberated for over a day makes me think Manafort may beat these charges.
I have not followed the trial that closely, but it seemed like a slam dunk conviction. I know Gates is not trustworthy, but the prosecution seemed to have enough documentation to convict him without Gates testimony.
Apparently Defense counsel violated a the ruling on a motion in limine that forbade the mention of political motives. Judge has been very pro-defense. Could be a mistrial.
If Manafort beats these charges Trump and FoxNews will need a pile of towels to clean up the ejaculate.
RE: Manafort decision - PhilHos - 08-17-2018
(08-17-2018, 02:57 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Apparently Defense counsel violated a the ruling on a motion in limine that forbade the mention of political motives.
What does this mean? Serious question.
(08-17-2018, 02:57 PM)fredtoast Wrote: If Manafort beats these charges Trump and FoxNews will need a pile of towels to clean up the ejaculate.
No doubt.
RE: Manafort decision - Benton - 08-17-2018
At this point in history it doesn’t matter.
If convicted, he’ll be pardoned and one side will scream abuse while the other says its rightig a wrong.
If a mistrial (I can’t foresee him really being found innocent), one side will say Justice was served and the other will scream incompetence.
RE: Manafort decision - Bengalzona - 08-17-2018
This case has been over-hyped and over-politicized, IMO.
Manafort and Gates were screwing around committing fraud and tax evasion, there is little doubt of that. And that is what this case is about. During the Mueller investigation, it was discovered that this had occurred. So, they did what they were supposed to do and brought charges based upon the evidence.
This particular case was never about Trump or Russian interference or collusion. It was incidental to the overall investigation. This happens a lot with these Special Investigations (see Watergate). It has always been about a couple of white collar dudes illegally enriching themselves. The results should have no bearing on the overall Russian investigation.
I think there is little doubt they did it. From as little as I have been following it, it seems like the prosecution is saying, "Manafort did it! Gates was with him and helped and told on him!" while the defense is saying, "Gates did it and Manafort didn't even know!".
RE: Manafort decision - fredtoast - 08-17-2018
(08-17-2018, 03:00 PM)PhilHos Wrote: What does this mean? Serious question.
Before any trial starts there are motions about what evidence will be allowed. In the movies this happens in open court when one party tries to introduce some evidence and the other attorney yells "I object". The fact is that most of these evidentiary issues are anticipated before trial and the judge rules on them. Any motion filed before the trial begins is a "motion in limine".
In this case the defense was not permitted to mention the political aspects of the Meuller investigation into Trump, but the defense attorney apparently brought it up in his closing argument saying that this whole case was just part of Meullers attack on Trump.
RE: Manafort decision - PhilHos - 08-17-2018
(08-17-2018, 03:40 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Before any trial starts there are motions about what evidence will be allowed. In the movies this happens in open court when one party tries to introduce some evidence and the other attorney yells "I object". The fact is that most of these evidentiary issues are anticipated before trial and the judge rules on them. Any motion filed before the trial begins is a "motion in limine".
In this case the defense was not permitted to mention the political aspects of the Meuller investigation into Trump, but the defense attorney apparently brought it up in his closing argument saying that this whole case was just part of Meullers attack on Trump.
I never heard of "motion in limine" so thanks for the info.
Rep.
RE: Manafort decision - Bengalzona - 08-17-2018
(08-17-2018, 03:40 PM)fredtoast Wrote: In this case the defense was not permitted to mention the political aspects of the Meuller investigation into Trump, but the defense attorney apparently brought it up in his closing argument saying that this whole case was just part of Meullers attack on Trump.
And the judge let that pass?
Wonder why? I mean, the judge was part of the initial evidenciary decisions.
RE: Manafort decision - fredtoast - 08-17-2018
(08-17-2018, 04:19 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: And the judge let that pass?
Wonder why? I mean, the judge was part of the initial evidenciary decisions.
The judge ordered the jury to disregard the comments.
But that is a bush league move by the defense counsel. He knows that the jury can't un-hear what he said. I think he was just emboldened by the fact that the judge has been so strongly pro-defense.
Earlier in the trial the judge actually apologized for his action toward the prosecutor in front of the jury. I have never heard of that before.
RE: Manafort decision - Benton - 08-17-2018
(08-17-2018, 04:27 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The judge ordered the jury to disregard the comments.
But that is a bush league move by the defense counsel. He knows that the jury can't un-hear what he said. I think he was just emboldened by the fact that the judge has been so strongly pro-defense.
Earlier in the trial the judge actually apologized for his action toward the prosecutor in front of the jury. I have never heard of that before.
That had me curious, hadn't heard about that.
Wow. Way to cast shade, your honor.
Quote:“Well let me be clear: I don’t care what the transcript says,” Ellis snapped. “Maybe I made a mistake. But I want you to remember, don’t do that again. When I exclude witnesses, I mean everybody. Now, it may be that I didn’t make that clear. It may be that I did allow this, but don’t do it in the future.”
Witnesses typically are barred from sitting in the courtroom, except in the case of certain expert witnesses like Welch, or unless specifically approved by the judge.
Asonye was allowed to continue questioning Welch — who went on testify that Manafort didn’t report at least $16 million on his tax returns between 2010 and 2014 — but prosecutors worried that the damage had already been done.
They filed a motion Thursday saying the tongue-lashing could be prejudicial to their case — and asked for the judge to explain that he had been wrong.
“While mistakes are a natural part of the trial process, the mistake here prejudiced the government by conveying to the jury that the government had acted improperly and had violated court rules or procedures,” prosecutors wrote.
https://nypost.com/2018/08/09/judge-apologizes-to-manafort-prosecutors-for-yelling-at-them/
'I don't care what I said, that's not what I meant.'
Most likely sent a bad message to the jury that prosecutors were trying to pull a fast one.
RE: Manafort decision - michaelsean - 08-17-2018
Didn’t the judge say something like “he didn’t know you were stealing from him” when a witness said something about Manafort being aware of where all his money was?
Also is there anything a prosecutor can do after the trial? I’ve always assumed a not guilty verdict ended it completely.
RE: Manafort decision - Nebuchadnezzar - 08-17-2018
The defense knew they were getting this judge so why not go for a bench trial?
RE: Manafort decision - Bengalzona - 08-21-2018
Verdicts are in, at least some of them.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/21/politics/paul-manafort-trial-jury/index.html
Guilty on 8 counts. Hung on the rest.
![[Image: 39913915_10212046758309108_4538453892567...e=5BF88EDD]](https://scontent.fphx1-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/39913915_10212046758309108_4538453892567924736_n.jpg?_nc_cat=0&oh=9ebe4eaa37440fda0de50d9a9c85df17&oe=5BF88EDD)
RE: Manafort decision - michaelsean - 08-21-2018
(08-21-2018, 06:44 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: Verdicts are in, at least some of them.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/21/politics/paul-manafort-trial-jury/index.html
Guilty on 8 counts. Hung on the rest.
That ought to be enough. Not sure about the victory for Mueller comment. Didn’t know his job was to “win”.
RE: Manafort decision - Belsnickel - 08-21-2018
(08-21-2018, 06:57 PM)michaelsean Wrote: That ought to be enough. Not sure about the victory for Mueller comment. Didn’t know his job was to “win”.
It will be interesting to see what the government decides to do about the other 10 charges. I have a feeling that will depend strongly on what is handed down as the sentence.
RE: Manafort decision - BmorePat87 - 08-21-2018
Trump has called the decision "a disgrace".
RE: Manafort decision - SunsetBengal - 08-21-2018
And still, not a shred of anything linking toward "Russian collusion"..
RE: Manafort decision - michaelsean - 08-21-2018
(08-21-2018, 07:17 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: It will be interesting to see what the government decides to do about the other 10 charges. I have a feeling that will depend strongly on what is handed down as the sentence.
Yeah if they pin half a century on him no need to continue.
RE: Manafort decision - bfine32 - 08-21-2018
(08-21-2018, 07:21 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Trump has called the decision "a disgrace".
I suppose it's a case of going where the evidence leads; however, I think he is referring to the impetus of the probe in relationship to the charges.
I personally have no issues with discovering something else when looking for another thing; but I thought may liberals weren't really a fan of this. Of course I could be off track.
RE: Manafort decision - Belsnickel - 08-21-2018
(08-21-2018, 07:21 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Trump has called the decision "a disgrace".
I have to say that I am impressed with the jury. Not because of the 8 guilty verdicts, but it looks like they were very meticulous in their deliberations.
RE: Manafort decision - Bengalzona - 08-21-2018
(08-21-2018, 07:26 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: And still, not a shred of anything linking toward "Russian collusion"..
That's how investigations go. If the FBI is investigating someone (which requires a substantial amount of evidence for them to start an investigation in the first place) for federal racketeering and they uncover evidence that the dude killed someone, then they will investigate the murder as well while they continue the racketeering investigation.
That's what has happened here with Manafort. It occurred quite frequently during the Watergate investigation.