Well, I’ll make sure to spend the next two days wringing my hands and freaking the f*** out and reading stuff like this:
Happy Friday Everyone!!!
1 Like
That’s certainly not how I would interpret it. I don’t recall ever hearing of someone being threatened to convict someone although I’m sure it’s happened. Typically, when you hear about threats made against a judge it’s to let a very guilty person off the hook. If it biases the jury at all I would think it biases them against Manafort.
4 Likes
“I think the whole Manafort trial is very sad,” Trump told reporters. “When you look at what’s going on there, I think it’s a very sad day for our country. He worked for me for a very short period of time. And you know what? He happens to be a very good person. I think it’s very sad what they’ve done to Paul Manafort.”
So basically Trump is for people cheating on their taxes, hiding income from the IRS, and cheating on bank loan applications.
4 Likes
The short term effect of polonium exposure is dying; the long term effect is being dead.
5 Likes
With that hair color I’d think he’s more an orangutan, emphasis on the “tan” as long as “orangu” is Malay for “fraudulent”.
Just rich folk.
1 Like
It’s only day 2, the jury was handed the case Thursday morning, so they will have spent essentially 2 full days deliberating come 4:50 PM today (or nearly 2 full days since I believe they didn’t technically start right at 9:30 AM yesterday and they are leaving a little early today).
A couple things to consider; they aren’t just going in and voting guilty or not guilty for the entire case, they have to go through each individual charge, which is 18 counts I believe (5 counts of tax fraud, namely filing materially false tax returns for years 2010-2014, 4 counts of failing to file FBAR reports with the Treasury detailing foreign bank account holdings and 9 counts of bank fraud). As we could see with some of the questions yesterday, these are crimes that can sometimes deal with complex and technical issues that the jury needs to work through without much assistance from the court/judge. One of their questions indicated they may be somewhat swamped by all the evidence they have to go over (the evidence is in the room with them). The jury has a list of all the exhibits but they sent a note to the judge asking if the court could index that list with the indictment, essentially detailing what charge each exhibit relates to. The judge refused, meaning the jury may attempt to go through all 300+ exhibits and index them to the indictment themselves. I’d imagine that being a very time consuming process (some of the exhibits i’m sure relate to multiple charges). The question indicates that they want to look over all the evidence related to each individual charge and attempt to recollect each exhibits importance. According to some attorneys this issue of going through all the evidence has been made more difficult by one of the judges pre-trial rulings that related to whether the jury would be given a chance to see the exhibits during the trial, the judge ruled that they would not so now there are many pieces of evidence that the jury may of heard being mentioned only in passing in the trial but which they haven’t seen until now in deliberations.
9 Likes
He’s going to walk. Probably on a hung jury.
No Facebook.
Sound like you were an intelligent jury
Sorry for the lame request, but can someone recommend a film that documents the jury process. Thinking there must be a film that delves into the details without putting one to sleep.
I’ve never been on a jury and have come to realize how little I know about the processe. Don’t have the energy for a book.
M. Paul
1 Like
My worry as well, the odds of not having at least one MAGA nut case on the jury is very slim. This is Virginia after all.
Not only is he for it in theory, he made a career out of putting it in practice for himself. There’s a reason we’ve never seen his tax returns. Not as clear how he feels about “[other] people cheating” etc.
I’m the (self) designated movie whisperer, and while I’m not sure there’s a film that is specifically about the jury selection process (I was selected to be an alternate on a jury and it’s a brain numbing process) but there is a film about a jury undergoing its debate in a capital case. 12 Angry Men, 1957, Henry Fonda, B&W, but a film that is timeless.
FYI If a prospective juror indicates bias towards or against the alleged crime or offense that is at issue in the voir dire phase, that’s grounds to be dismissed.
Though this is an older film, its examination of the jury system is as valid as ever, and it may be even more important today when media sensationalism has such a strong effect on public perceptions. The movie stresses that the most crucial issue is not whether the jurors think the accused is guilty but, according to the law, whether that has been proven “beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Henry Fonda, perfectly cast in 12 Angry Men as a man who values reason, leads a troupe of familiar character actors in a movie that makes a virtue out of its cramped setting. Fonda is one of the great movie stars who will be discovered afresh by new generations.
9 Likes
Late to the party, but here’s my 2 cents worth (adjusted for inflation) on the #MAGA concern. If the jury is split 10-2 or 9-3 to convict, then hopefully the foreperson and some assertive jurors will convince any #MAGA jurors to vote to convict, and convince them that if there are problems with that: 1) the Honorable Judge Ellis will take care of things in sentencing (he gave the clues, after all); and 2) the former reality TV show host can pardon Manafort.
This, hopefully, will be enough for those who are reluctant to do the right thing.
1 Like
Bah… I just deleted several paragraphs of eloquent babble (you’re welcome!) when all I really want to say is I don’t have the confidence in this judge that others do and not sequestering this jury leaves an enormous opportunity for nefarious activity to occur.
Hope not, but jurors are human and humans are not perfect. I’ve had jury duty twice, never a case this big, but it doesn’t take much to see how vulnerable our system is, even if it is the best there is.
3 Likes
I guess this jury will be a bit of a Rorschach test for folks.
2 Likes
OT- Another thing that has been driving me nuts today in this banana republic:
“I think Bruce Ohr is a disgrace,” Trump told reporters from the South Lawn on Friday. “For him to be in the Justice Department and doing what he did, that is a disgrace.” Trump said Friday that he would likely strip the security clearance of a Justice Department official “very quickly,”
I say go for it, Orangutan. Revoking retired personal security clearances you may get away with despite the obvious political, not security, issues, but a personal vendetta against an active employee at DOJ is likely an illegal act (lawyers help me out here).
1 Like
The reason that Manafort didn’t cop a plea is the same reason his attorneys didn’t offer a real defense in closing: they know they have a Trumper on the jury who will vote to acquit regardless of the evidence. Functionally it’s jury nullification for purely partisan political and religious reasons, and it’s going to be a huge problem in this country for the next several decades. The first prominent example of this nullification by rightwingers was the bizarre jury decision in the Malheur Wilderness occupation trial out west.
A mistrial will be declared in Manafort, which will prompt Trump to do an extended and very loud victory lap during which he’ll claim that the trial proves Mueller has nothing and it’s time to shut it down for good. The Republicans in Congress will dutifully step in line and demand that Rosenstein fire Mueller.
All of this is an attempted slow-motion coup, coordinated between Trump, the GOP, and Putin.
Only about 120 countries have extradition treaties with the US. Azerbaijan beckons if Manafort wants to make a break for it. There’s even a Trump Tower in Baku.