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.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[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.

If they find him guilty of Jaywalking the leftists here will call it a win and say it proves Russian Collusion.
This is how dishonest these people are.

 

[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.

 

[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.

i'm fascinated by the legal process here. i know a lot of people are much more educated than i am on this topic so i like to hear form both sides on an honest take on how this is going and what it means day to day.

 

[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.

If they find him guilty of Jaywalking the leftists here will call it a win and say it proves Russian Collusion.
This is how dishonest these people are.

and those who do i simply ignore. it would be like arguing with a 2 year old at that point, thereby validating their stupidity.

 

[Claudette]

Reasonable doubt is something that defines whether they believe that the person is guilty or that he is not.

Its all really confusing for the lay person which most of us are.

If they are asking for a definition of Reasonable doubt then they do have doubts.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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.

If they find him guilty of Jaywalking the leftists here will call it a win and say it proves Russian Collusion.
This is how dishonest these people are.

It's politics. People on both sides like to present things in a favorable light.

 

[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.

i'm fascinated by the legal process here. i know a lot of people are much more educated than i am on this topic so i like to hear form both sides on an honest take on how this is going and what it means day to day.

I am not a lawyer but an engineer, but law is a process like any other process, be it design, operations, or construction (things engineers deal with).

One has to remember that legal processes sometimes don't match how we expect things to play out in the real world. This is especially true with white collar crime.

My brother is a lawyer (prosecutor) and he says there are two types of cases. "who did it" and 'what happened".

In a murder case, someone is dead, that's a fact. the question is who did it.

In this case, money moved around, and they have to prove what happened was illegal. (and in this case who actually did the naughty stuff)

 

[iceberg]

Reasonable doubt is something that defines whether they believe that the person is guilty or that he is not.

Its all really confusing for the lay person which most of us are.

If they are asking for a definition of Reasonable doubt then they do have doubts.

that's my take at this point. they want to know if what they "doubt" is legally applicable. or someone does.

 

[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.

i'm fascinated by the legal process here. i know a lot of people are much more educated than i am on this topic so i like to hear form both sides on an honest take on how this is going and what it means day to day.

I am not a lawyer but an engineer, but law is a process like any other process, be it design, operations, or construction (things engineers deal with).

One has to remember that legal processes sometimes don't match how we expect things to play out in the real world. This is especially true with white collar crime.

My brother is a lawyer (prosecutor) and he says there are two types of cases. "who did it" and 'what happened".

In a murder case, someone is dead, that's a fact. the question is who did it.

In this case, money moved around, and they have to prove what happened was illegal. (and in this case who actually did the naughty stuff)

agreed. that would seem to be very difficult indeed. if the defense feels that wasn't proven, there's no gain to continue the conversation but going that route as they have has it's own gambit of pitfalls as well.

what is legal vs. what is right and wrong is not always the same.

 

[skews13]

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?

 

[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?

 

[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?

can you take your bullshit to any other thread here? the adults would like 1 playground where the kids are not kicking their hate sand around.

thank you.

 

[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?

 

[Obama2020]

Its a nasty case.

Gates plead guilty and you have a huge pile of damning paperwork from financial institutions.

... and jury is asking for the definition of reasonable doubt ?

What’s the second question? ‘Can we go to the restroom’ ?

 

[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.

 

[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.

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?

 

[there4eyeM]

What Manafort might be innocent of would be the better question.