Politics Manafort goes on trial tomorrow

[DaLincolnJones]

The question is, why did someone having such financial problems, committing felonies to hide felonies, agree to work for free in the Trump campaign? After Trump won the nomination, the RNC even agreed to pay him and he turned it down. Why?

Fantastic question, and well stated.

That actually cuts to the quick, doesn't it? A lot of the things I was thinking about would be revealed by answering this.

 

[DaLincolnJones]

Great point. If Don jr. says so then it must be the way he stated is as we know, the Trumps don't lie. Your logic on so many things is really fucked up.

My point was that this was nothing new. The meeting had been hashed over at least a year ago, so obviously saying that he had denied it was false.

 

[CupWizier]

My point was that this was nothing new. The meeting had been hashed over at least a year ago, so obviously saying that he had denied it was false.

You have no point. Trumps have been lying from the very beginning when Trump said during a debate that he had never met Putin and never had a conversation with him and it was all downhill from there to the recent, yes, Don jr met with Russians to get dirt on Hilary (which is illegal). Follow the bouncing ball as I feel you have been nodding off way to often and are well behind.

 

[yankeesince59]

Matters not.

Obviously he can adjust his testimony to match his cohorts in perjury, and no jury will believe him.

...yes, actually it does matter. What part of "the judge gave permission" don't you understand.

...who committed perjury?...or are you simply making up stuff again?



...I have not posted here for very long but that seems to be your MO.

 

[yankeesince59]

The judge, T.S. Ellis III, has repeatedly suggested that Mueller is only pursuing the case to pressure Manafort into implicating Trump. “You don’t really care about Mr. Manafort’s bank fraud,” he said in a hearing. “You really care about what information Mr. Manafort can give you that would reflect on Mr. Trump or lead to his prosecution or impeachment or whatever.”

http://time.com/5352999/paul-manafort-trial/

...for the umpteenth time, he's said nothing of the sort since the trial began.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

A witness who was allowed to hear testimony of others is worthless in any court of law.

He's not a witness, he's an expert. There is a big difference.

 

[yankeesince59]

I didn't say you did. Just asking everyone to taking easy.

...understood, and thanx.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Matters not.

Obviously he can adjust his testimony to match his cohorts in perjury, and no jury will believe him.

No, again, he's an expert, not a witness.

If someone was on trial for real estate fraud, you could sit in the courtroom and listen to the trial and then be called as an expert on real estate. You would be asked on real estate procedure, not on your opinion of the defendant.

 

[MARIS61]

He's not a witness, he's an expert. There is a big difference.

He is most definitely a witness.

Whether he's an expert or not is moot, as the term "expert" has no reliable method of measurement of criteria. It's an empty term of self-aggrandizement.

The fact he is being paid a ridiculous sum of money to create, tailor and present an "opinion" that will support the prosecution's theory makes him a highly suspect witness.

Allowing him to hear other witness's testimony that he has been paid to independently corroborate with his "expert opinion" makes his "opinion" worthless.

 

[MARIS61]

No, again, he's an expert, not a witness.

If someone was on trial for real estate fraud, you could sit in the courtroom and listen to the trial and then be called as an expert on real estate. You would be asked on real estate procedure, not on your opinion of the defendant.

No.

I have been a witness in several trials.

Was never permitted to view any of the trials, nor were any of the "experts".

There is no legal/logical reason to ever allow it, other than to suborn perjury.

 

[yankeesince59]

He is most definitely a witness.

Whether he's an expert or not is moot, as the term "expert" has no reliable method of measurement of criteria. It's an empty term of self-aggrandizement.

The fact he is being paid a ridiculous sum of money to create, tailor and present an "opinion" that will support the prosecution's theory makes him a highly suspect witness.

Allowing him to hear other witness's testimony that he has been paid to independently corroborate with his "expert opinion" makes his "opinion" worthless.

...no, it's not "moot"...it's simple law.

 

[MARIS61]

...for the umpteenth time, he's said nothing of the sort since the trial began.

Nonsense.

As I just showed you.

 

[yankeesince59]

No.

I have been a witness in several trials.

Was never permitted to view any of the trials, nor were any of the "experts".

There is no legal/logical reason to ever allow it, other than to suborn perjury.

...lol...my god, were you ever called as "an expert"?...you either can't grasp the simple difference between the two or you're simply arguing for the sake of arguing.

 

[yankeesince59]

Nonsense.

As I just showed you.

...no, you produced an article quoting the judge from BEFORE the trial.

...keep spinning.

 

[MARIS61]

...no, it's not "moot"...it's simple law.

Ridiculous.

Go ahead and quote me the "simple" law or STFU and stop trolling with your unsupported denials and childish "no, it's not".

Bring something factual to the debate for once or go troll on Huffpost.

 

[yankeesince59]

Ridiculous.

Go ahead and quote me the "simple" law or STFU and stop trolling with your unsupported denials and childish "no, it's not".

Bring something factual to the debate for once or go troll on Huffpost.

...lol...someone has their knickers in a bunch...why would I need Huffington Post?...as if that's relevant...and when was the first or last time you brought "something factual" to a debate?

But per your request, here ya go...enjoy;

"A factual witness is an individual who is knowledgeable towards the facts of the case through a direct participation or observation of the intricacies involved. For example in a murder case, a factual witness would be an observer of the actual murder or an acquaintance of the individuals involved in the case. The factual witness simply delivers truthful statements regarding the character of those involved or an account of what they saw take place.


In contrast, an expert witness is an individual who holds a specialized knowledge in a particular educational field concerning the case. For example, an expert witness can be a doctor who is well-versed in a particular field of medicine. As an expert witness the individual will use his or her advanced knowledge of a particular subject to elucidate on a piece of information regarding the trial to facilitate an appropriate verdict."


...clear it up any?

 

[CupWizier]

Ridiculous.

Go ahead and quote me the "simple" law or STFU and stop trolling with your unsupported denials and childish "no, it's not".

Bring something factual to the debate for once or go troll on Huffpost.

Here's your proof. The fucking judge approved it so maybe you need to stfu.

 

[MARIS61]

...no, you produced an article quoting the judge from BEFORE the trial.

...keep spinning.

No, it was during a court hearing on the charges, which is part of the trial record.

Maybe you should consult your attorney before

He's not a witness, he's an expert. There is a big difference.

An expert witness is still a witness.

The only difference is he is being paid an enormous sum to say what his employers (the prosecution) want him to say.

 

[MARIS61]

...lol...someone has their knickers in a bunch...why would I need Huffington Post?...as if that's relevant...and when was the first or last time you brought "something factual" to a debate?

But per your request, here ya go...enjoy;

"A factual witness is an individual who is knowledgeable towards the facts of the case through a direct participation or observation of the intricacies involved. For example in a murder case, a factual witness would be an observer of the actual murder or an acquaintance of the individuals involved in the case. The factual witness simply delivers truthful statements regarding the character of those involved or an account of what they saw take place.


In contrast, an expert witness is an individual who holds a specialized knowledge in a particular educational field concerning the case. For example, an expert witness can be a doctor who is well-versed in a particular field of medicine. As an expert witness the individual will use his or her advanced knowledge of a particular subject to elucidate on a piece of information regarding the trial to facilitate an appropriate verdict."


...clear it up any?

I asked you to quote your simple law, not provide a definition of what we already know and agree on.

 

[MARIS61]

Here's your proof. The fucking judge approved it so maybe you need to stfu.

Means nothing in a Court of Appeals.

 

[CupWizier]

Means nothing in a Court of Appeals.

what is it about you? Do you think Manafort is innocent and shouldn't go to prison? Why? Your constant defending of these criminals is astonishing.

Prove that an expert witness can't be present in the courtroom during a trial.

 

[yankeesince59]

I asked you to quote your simple law, not provide a definition of what we already know and agree on.

...since you have a problem understanding the terminology between the two terms, I simply outline them for you with hopes that you'd finally wrap your brain around a simple concept that really shouldn't even need explaining.

...as far as the "law" part the judge has already taken care of that part and ruled on it...are you saying you know more about the law than the judge does?

 

[yankeesince59]

Means nothing in a Court of Appeals.

...what are you talking about now?

 

[yankeesince59]

No, it was during a court hearing on the charges, which is part of the trial record.

...lol...a hearing is not a trial...there are no witnesses or a jury at a hearing...but you knew that, right?

...but just in case, here you go, ...again. Educating you is kinda getting boring;


Definition of Hearing
In law, hearing implies the general assessment of a case by the judge, wherein preliminary decision is taken by the judge, regarding whether the case is to be pursued or not. These are oral arguments, in support of the case, to settle it or make a judgement or to decide relevant aspects of the case, to ascertain the way in which trial will proceed. It can be held for any civil, criminal or administrative proceeding.

In a court hearing, the lawyers of both the parties, i.e. prosecution and defendant, present material, facts, information and evidence before the judge, concerning the case. After that, the judge decides whether to hold the accused or not for trial, on the basis of the evidence provided.

Definition of Trial
The trial can be understood as the legal proceeding in which the evidence and witnesses are legally taken on oath, and the guilt or innocence of the accused is determined. It tends to find out the cause of the incidence/offence and ends in conviction or acquittal of the inmate.

The trial is an official hearing of a lawsuit, before a court, to verify facts and evidence and ascertain legal claims that result in the judgement, through adversary system. The adversary system relies on accusatorial method, wherein the public prosecutor accuses the other party, i.e. defendant, for committing the crime. The accused is believed as innocent unless the charges filed on him are proven beyond reasonable doubt.

 

[CupWizier]

No, again, he's an expert, not a witness.

If someone was on trial for real estate fraud, you could sit in the courtroom and listen to the trial and then be called as an expert on real estate. You would be asked on real estate procedure, not on your opinion of the defendant.

I was a witness to a friend of mine to testify about his dog that bit a cop and sat through the whole court proceeding. I wasn;t testifying to anything I saw of the incident as I wasn't there. I was merely there to testify about the demeanor of his dog.

 

[MARIS61]

The question is, why did someone having such financial problems, committing felonies to hide felonies, agree to work for free in the Trump campaign? After Trump won the nomination, the RNC even agreed to pay him and he turned it down. Why?

Maybe because he is a multi-millionaire, who like all multi-millionaires is set for life despite taking a loss here and there, and he just wanted to serve his country and bask in the limelight of his successful candidate?

That's the rational/logical conclusion.

 

[MARIS61]

...lol...a hearing is not a trial...there are no witnesses or a jury at a hearing...but you knew that, right?

...but just in case, here you go, ...again. Educating you is kinda getting boring;


Definition of Hearing
In law, hearing implies the general assessment of a case by the judge, wherein preliminary decision is taken by the judge, regarding whether the case is to be pursued or not. These are oral arguments, in support of the case, to settle it or make a judgement or to decide relevant aspects of the case, to ascertain the way in which trial will proceed. It can be held for any civil, criminal or administrative proceeding.

In a court hearing, the lawyers of both the parties, i.e. prosecution and defendant, present material, facts, information and evidence before the judge, concerning the case. After that, the judge decides whether to hold the accused or not for trial, on the basis of the evidence provided.

Definition of Trial
The trial can be understood as the legal proceeding in which the evidence and witnesses are legally taken on oath, and the guilt or innocence of the accused is determined. It tends to find out the cause of the incidence/offence and ends in conviction or acquittal of the inmate.

The trial is an official hearing of a lawsuit, before a court, to verify facts and evidence and ascertain legal claims that result in the judgement, through adversary system. The adversary system relies on accusatorial method, wherein the public prosecutor accuses the other party, i.e. defendant, for committing the crime. The accused is believed as innocent unless the charges filed on him are proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Having nothing to support your implication that the judge's words somehow carry less weight (they don't), you rely on nitpicking my choice of words.

Will it make you happy if I use the term Case instead of Trial?

Either way it is in the court record as are all pre-trial motions, which then become a permanent part of the record.

 

[CupWizier]

Maybe because he is a multi-millionaire, who like all multi-millionaires is set for life despite taking a loss here and there, and he just wanted to serve his country and bask in the limelight of his successful candidate?

That's the irrational and illogical conclusion.

fify

 

[MARIS61]

what is it about you? Do you think Manafort is innocent and shouldn't go to prison? Why? Your constant defending of these criminals is astonishing.

Prove that an expert witness can't be present in the courtroom during a trial.

They can, if the judge determines they will be testifying on their opinion of other testimony.

It simply destroys any credibility they might have retained before doing so.

 

[MARIS61]

I was a witness to a friend of mine to testify about his kangaroo that bit a cop and sat through the whole court proceeding. I wasn;t testifying to anything I saw of the incident as I wasn't there. I was merely there to testify about the demeanor of his kangaroo.

Fify