Politics Manafort goes on trial tomorrow

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Sounds like they have come to consensus on 17 counts. Having trouble with one. They can give a partial verdict for that count. It is possible that may happen. The judge has asked them to look again at the evidence and try to come to a consensus.
 
Last edited:
Chris Craig said:
Sounds like thry have come to consensus on 17 counts. Having trouble with one. They can give a partial verdict for that count, which will likely happen.
Click to expand...

Have to say, this is interesting. He is either going to have a very good day or a very bad one.
 
Chris Craig said:
I think so too. I wonder which count they are having trouble with?
Click to expand...

I know for fact that it only takes one guy to sway a jury. Most are in the middle and have never served on a jury. Make a strong argument on how A) You do not like the defendant. B) How it will effect the defendant for the rest of his life C) Get the jury involved in the "Why" of the over kill on the case and how these were the same charges from ten years ago that the gov dropped or what ever relevant angle is available.
 
Chris Craig said:
I think so too. I wonder which charge/count they are having trouble with?
Click to expand...
Who knows, but I found it strange that the judge would not provide them with the help they asked for...Ellis has been an erratic dick throughout the hearing and the trial.
 
DaLincolnJones said:
I know for fact that it only takes one guy to sway a jury. Most are in the middle and have never served on a jury. Make a strong argument on how A) You do not like the defendant. B) How it will effect the defendant for the rest of his life C) Get the jury involved in the "Why" of the over kill on the case and how these were the same charges from ten years ago that the gov dropped or what ever relevant angle is available.
Click to expand...

The fact they have come to a consensus on all the counts but one, points to some guilty verdicts.
 
Last edited:
DaLincolnJones said:
Yeah, one guilty or one not guilty
Click to expand...

It makes more sense that they agreed guilty on others and can't reach consensus on 1 than they agreed not guilty on all but one and can't agree on that one.
 
Chris Craig said:
It makes more sense that they agreed guilty on others and can't reach consensus on 1 than they agreed not guilty on all but one and can't agree on that one.
Click to expand...

I understand that this would be your preference, but the possibility is open. You do realize that the gov is perusing charges that they had the information on for the past ten years, and decided not to prosecute at that time
 
DaLincolnJones said:
I understand that this would be your preference, but the possibility is open. You do realize that the gov is perusing charges that they had the information on for the past ten years, and decided not to prosecute at that time
Click to expand...

Its not merely my preference. It is what logic dictates. If a juror(s) think he is guilty on one charge than it is highly probable that they think he is guilty on others.
 
Chris Craig said:
Its not merely my preference. It is what logic dictates. If a juror(s) think he is guilty on one charge than it is highly probable that they think he is guilty on others.
Click to expand...

Can you not conceive the possibility of the converse? It just as easily could be the other, feeling that they have to convict on something, but letting him go on the overreach..
 
And if the jurors were inclined to ignore the evidence and find him not guilty on 17 counts, they'd have no problem finding him not guilty on the 18th. Given the type of case this is, it isn't very plausible that the evidence is only convincing to the jury on a single count.

So it's probable that there are at least some guiltys.

barfo
 
DaLincolnJones said:
Can you not conceive the possibility of the converse? It just as easily could be the other, feeling that they have to convict on something, but letting him go on the overreach..
Click to expand...

Why would they feel they have to provide one guilty as a token?

barfo
 
barfo said:
And if the jurors were inclined to ignore the evidence and find him not guilty on 17 counts, they'd have no problem finding him not guilty on the 18th. Given the type of case this is, it isn't very plausible that the evidence is only convincing to the jury on a single count.

So it's probable that there are at least some guiltys.

barfo
Click to expand...


You may very well be right...still, I enjoy the show
 
barfo said:
Why would they feel they have to provide one guilty as a token?

barfo
Click to expand...

Oh, I can see it that they want to show that they do not condone the behavior, yet do not agree with the gov overreach..hey, its my fantasy, and I am enjoying it
 
barfo said:
And if the jurors were inclined to ignore the evidence and find him not guilty on 17 counts, they'd have no problem finding him not guilty on the 18th. Given the type of case this is, it isn't very plausible that the evidence is only convincing to the jury on a single count.

So it's probable that there are at least some guiltys.

barfo
Click to expand...

...I'm sure that's the case.

...I never actually expected for Manafort to be found guilty on all of the counts but certainly most of them.
 
DaLincolnJones said:
Yeah, I whould love to see this thread if it does not work out like many in here want it to, epic
Click to expand...

Well, there's always a presidential pardon to provide that same effect.

barfo
 
yankeesince59 said:
...there will likely also be state crimes.
Click to expand...

Youu keep saying that, but as far as I know, once the charges have been dealt with, he can not be charged for the same again. The only exception would be if there was a civil suite like for personal loss.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top