Judge Challenges Prosecution Bullshit at Manafort Trial

[Camp]

This debate was made after the jury had left the courtroom. What the jury heard was a confession from Manafort's business partner was an admission that the two of them were guilty of the charges.

This has what to do with election 2016?

What does your thread title have to do with the 2016 election?

cause our culture is far more interested in payback than justice.

What's the difference?

 

[easyt65]

What does your thread title have to do with the 2016 election?

The same thing the Manafort trial does...

 

[forkup]

Mueller investigation is a crock of shit. Will result in same if charges are brought. Bunch of Keystone Cops amateur hour that can’t get over fact that Hillary lost in 2016. Donald J. Trump is doing a great job as President and you socialist turds will be taught another lesson in 2018 mid-terms. Public is sick of liberal media and campus professoriate trying to tell them how to think and what opinions they should have.
Manafort prosecutors, Judge Ellis engage in 10-minute courtroom spat

I love these kinds of post. You're arguing that a case should be thrown out, not because of the accused not being guilty. Not because of a lack of evidence. Not even because the judge is fundamentally disagreeing with the evidence. No you are claiming that when a judge challenges the way the prosecution is presenting its case in any form, charges should be dropped.

The fact is that the judge could throw the case out if the prosecution violates manafort's rights. Forcing an end, or a new trial

The judge in this case is protecting Manafords right to a speedy trial. He rules on what evidence is permitted. What you are talking about is if procedural mistakes are made, evidence is been tampered with or something else egregious. Not something like to much evidence, what he considers irrelevant to the case being prosecuted. I have a question.Will you accept Manaford being convicted in this trial? Or will you then site perceived bias as a reason to not accept the verdict?

Prosecution needs to move beyond political grandstanding.

Not an answer to the question I asked now is it? You claim the prosecution is incompetent. You claim the case is weak. You claim the judge isn't accepting the prosecutions case. You claim the case is politically motivated. Will you accept a guilty verdict from a jury of his peers, if all these things are true?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Mueller investigation is a crock of shit. Will result in same if charges are brought. Bunch of Keystone Cops amateur hour that can’t get over fact that Hillary lost in 2016. Donald J. Trump is doing a great job as President and you socialist turds will be taught another lesson in 2018 mid-terms. Public is sick of liberal media and campus professoriate trying to tell them how to think and what opinions they should have.
Manafort prosecutors, Judge Ellis engage in 10-minute courtroom spat

So right wingers shouldn't have to obey the law?

 

[DGS49]

"Speedy trial" has nothing to do with the length of the trial proceedings. It has to do with how long it takes from the time of arrest until the trial starts.

Fortunately or not, this is an Open&Shut case. Manafort is guilty as hell and will be convicted. I think the judge is trying to suppress the grandstanding, as well as prevent the prosecution from inflaming the jury with jealousy about Manafort's extravagant lifestyle.

And The Donald won't pardon him. If the conviction were in any way connected with his Campaign, and the infractions were debatable, he would pardon him, but under these circumstances, Manafort is in trouble. He might not spend the rest of his life in prison, but he will be 113 by the time he is released. Don't forget, a sentence is a sentence in the Federal court. No time off for good behavior.

 

[Camp]

What does your thread title have to do with the 2016 election?

The same thing the Manafort trial does...

Isn't Mueller obligated to prosecute any federal crimes he stumbles into while investigating the Russian meddling and interference in the 2016 election?

 

[iceberg]

Mueller investigation is a crock of shit. Will result in same if charges are brought. Bunch of Keystone Cops amateur hour that can’t get over fact that Hillary lost in 2016. Donald J. Trump is doing a great job as President and you socialist turds will be taught another lesson in 2018 mid-terms. Public is sick of liberal media and campus professoriate trying to tell them how to think and what opinions they should have.
Manafort prosecutors, Judge Ellis engage in 10-minute courtroom spat

So right wingers shouldn't have to obey the law?

well if the left wingers would stop redefining the law to suit their desires, it would make it much easier.

we all have to obey the law. i just wish people would quit using the law as a weapon to twist things around into some fashion where people are either NOT guilty cause you like them or GUILTY because you don't.

we all have to obey the law. period. if/when it is found trump broke the law, let me know. but to this point he's hasn't and he's not even under investigation.

 

[Rosy]

Mueller investigation is a crock of shit. Will result in same if charges are brought. Bunch of Keystone Cops amateur hour that can’t get over fact that Hillary lost in 2016. Donald J. Trump is doing a great job as President and you socialist turds will be taught another lesson in 2018 mid-terms. Public is sick of liberal media and campus professoriate trying to tell them how to think and what opinions they should have.
Manafort prosecutors, Judge Ellis engage in 10-minute courtroom spat

I love these kinds of post. You're arguing that a case should be thrown out, not because of the accused not being guilty. Not because of a lack of evidence. Not even because the judge is fundamentally disagreeing with the evidence. No you are claiming that when a judge challenges the way the prosecution is presenting its case in any form, charges should be dropped.

The fact is that the judge could throw the case out if the prosecution violates manafort's rights. Forcing an end, or a new trial

The judge in this case is protecting Manafords right to a speedy trial. He rules on what evidence is permitted. What you are talking about is if procedural mistakes are made, evidence is been tampered with or something else egregious. Not something like to much evidence, what he considers irrelevant to the case being prosecuted. I have a question.Will you accept Manaford being convicted in this trial? Or will you then site perceived bias as a reason to not accept the verdict?

Prosecution needs to move beyond political grandstanding.

Not an answer to the question I asked now is it? You claim the prosecution is incompetent. You claim the case is weak. You claim the judge isn't accepting the prosecutions case. You claim the case is politically motivated. Will you accept a guilty verdict from a jury of his peers, if all these things are true?

The case is not weak, it is not even there, the case is against Trump remember

 

[ColonelAngus]

Mueller investigation is a crock of shit. Will result in same if charges are brought. Bunch of Keystone Cops amateur hour that can’t get over fact that Hillary lost in 2016. Donald J. Trump is doing a great job as President and you socialist turds will be taught another lesson in 2018 mid-terms. Public is sick of liberal media and campus professoriate trying to tell them how to think and what opinions they should have.
Manafort prosecutors, Judge Ellis engage in 10-minute courtroom spat

I love these kinds of post. You're arguing that a case should be thrown out, not because of the accused not being guilty. Not because of a lack of evidence. Not even because the judge is fundamentally disagreeing with the evidence. No you are claiming that when a judge challenges the way the prosecution is presenting its case in any form, charges should be dropped.

lets back up a bit.

meuller we've been told is a rock star attorney. knows his shit, so i hear. you give him a turd from a black man and a turd from a white man and he'll tell you which is which like the pepsi challenge, except w/o eating it. been hearing this for 18+ months i have.

last thursday he made a mistake. hell all good. rock stars make mistakes. for van halen it was adding sammy hagar. it happens. but van halen didn't make that same mistake a little later in the day and cause the judge to end court early.

and now he's having arguments for 10 minutes with the judge? that's a sideshow, bob. hell maybe it is sideshow bob who took meullers place.

these are not the continued mistakes of a rock star. this is someone who is doing all he can to pull attention away from his own case, it would seem. but hey - his trial, his call. but this judge doesn't put up crap from either side. you play by the rules or you get the **** out. so far meuller has not been playing by the rules.

stop seeing this play by play and forgetting about them along the way. his mistakes are adding up and you only get so many. he loses here his cred is toast for anything else.

Gary Cherone was Van Halen’s mistake, not Sammy...but we all know Dave is the REAL singer of VH.

That being said, I totally agree with you about Mueller.

 

[forkup]

I love these kinds of post. You're arguing that a case should be thrown out, not because of the accused not being guilty. Not because of a lack of evidence. Not even because the judge is fundamentally disagreeing with the evidence. No you are claiming that when a judge challenges the way the prosecution is presenting its case in any form, charges should be dropped.

The fact is that the judge could throw the case out if the prosecution violates manafort's rights. Forcing an end, or a new trial

The judge in this case is protecting Manafords right to a speedy trial. He rules on what evidence is permitted. What you are talking about is if procedural mistakes are made, evidence is been tampered with or something else egregious. Not something like to much evidence, what he considers irrelevant to the case being prosecuted. I have a question.Will you accept Manaford being convicted in this trial? Or will you then site perceived bias as a reason to not accept the verdict?

Prosecution needs to move beyond political grandstanding.

Not an answer to the question I asked now is it? You claim the prosecution is incompetent. You claim the case is weak. You claim the judge isn't accepting the prosecutions case. You claim the case is politically motivated. Will you accept a guilty verdict from a jury of his peers, if all these things are true?

The case is not weak, it is not even there, the case is against Trump remember

In this case Trump wasn't mentioned. Not a few of the people on here made it a point, to make that an argument for claiming that Mueller doesn't have an actual case against Trump. At this point all the different, often mutually exclusive arguments coming from the right are enough to make anybody doubt his sanity. Something I suspect is the general idea.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

The case can't be thrown out. There have been multiple witnesses providing evidence that Manafort has committed the crimes he's charged with. There is also documentary evidence to that effect. There is no legal basis for a dismissal.

 

[initforme]

While I agree nothing will come of this for trump, manafort himself needs to be held accountable for cooking his books. Pay your taxes like the rest of us. Wease!.

 

[initforme]

I cannot believe anyone on this board would defend his actions.

 

[iceberg]

The case can't be thrown out. There have been multiple witnesses providing evidence that Manafort has committed the crimes he's charged with. There is also documentary evidence to that effect. There is no legal basis for a dismissal.

if that clear cut, then why does meuller keep falling over himself?

 

[iceberg]

While I agree nothing will come of this for trump, manafort himself needs to be held accountable for cooking his books. Pay your taxes like the rest of us. Wease!.

yep. if that's what he did, take him down for breaking the law. now why this has to be 3 mis-steps in 3 days for meuller should make people wonder.

 

[Claudette]

Manaforte made money from being a foreign lobbyist and didn’t report the income and didn’t pay taxes on it.

Mueller’s team was hoping to paint the picture that Manaforte is a bad person who hung out with bad Russian people, Manaforte was a Trump advisor. Therefore Trump is a bad person who hung out with bad Russian people.

It should be a pretty ******* easy case to prosecute. Show the trail of money that leads to Manaforte, prove he knowingly obscured the source of the money and knowingly avoided paying taxes.

This all happened in like 2005.

Nothing at all to do with Trump. Why the media is jerking off all over themselves about this case is beyond me...I guess they know Mueller is trying to really make it about Trump.

Too bad for the Mueller team, the judge knows it’s a dog and pony show.

Yup and he's already warned Mueller.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

The case can't be thrown out. There have been multiple witnesses providing evidence that Manafort has committed the crimes he's charged with. There is also documentary evidence to that effect. There is no legal basis for a dismissal.

if that clear cut, then why does meuller keep falling over himself?

Who said anything about it being "clear cut"? We're talking about a judge dismissing the case, not whether the jury will convict. The jury will have the duty to decide whether they are convinced by the evidence. The judge's role is to make sure the evidence is presented in a legal manner.

 

[Rosy]

The fact is that the judge could throw the case out if the prosecution violates manafort's rights. Forcing an end, or a new trial

The judge in this case is protecting Manafords right to a speedy trial. He rules on what evidence is permitted. What you are talking about is if procedural mistakes are made, evidence is been tampered with or something else egregious. Not something like to much evidence, what he considers irrelevant to the case being prosecuted. I have a question.Will you accept Manaford being convicted in this trial? Or will you then site perceived bias as a reason to not accept the verdict?

Prosecution needs to move beyond political grandstanding.

Not an answer to the question I asked now is it? You claim the prosecution is incompetent. You claim the case is weak. You claim the judge isn't accepting the prosecutions case. You claim the case is politically motivated. Will you accept a guilty verdict from a jury of his peers, if all these things are true?

The case is not weak, it is not even there, the case is against Trump remember

In this case Trump wasn't mentioned. Not a few of the people on here made it a point, to make that an argument for claiming that Mueller doesn't have an actual case against Trump. At this point all the different, often mutually exclusive arguments coming from the right are enough to make anybody doubt his sanity. Something I suspect is the general idea.

The case against Manafort is part of the case against Trump, to make Manafort rat Trump out. The prosecution could do this to every person Trump ever worked with, at some point the peoples rights are being violated by a desperate prosecutor.....As we have now.

 

[DJT for Life]

The case can't be thrown out. There have been multiple witnesses providing evidence that Manafort has committed the crimes he's charged with. There is also documentary evidence to that effect. There is no legal basis for a dismissal.

if that clear cut, then why does meuller keep falling over himself?

AND...if it is that clear cut, why did the DOJ refuse to prosecute this
exact same case 9/10 years ago?

 

[bodecea]

He needs to throw the case out.

Oh, I'm sure you wish that would happen. So does Manafort.......and the tiny-handed orange one.