(08-14-2018 12:09 PM)NIUAlum90 Wrote:  Defense rests and will not call a single witness.

They believe the prosecutors did not prove their case.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/paul-manafort-trial-day-11-defense-rests-manafort-will-not-take-the-stand/ar-BBLUGoZ?ocid=spartanntp

Dear lord, was this case weak or not prosecuted well?

Any legal minds care to chime in on this?

(08-14-2018 12:39 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  If they didnt call any witnesses, then it sounds like they believe the case isnt proven and that they dont need to hold the jury up any longer trying to prove reasonable doubt.

They never (as far as I saw) directly linked Manafort to the crime of the loans. The accountant and Gates pretty much admitted they did everything, but that Manafort KNEW what they were doing. Yet they could provide no proof that Manafort actually did know what they were doing, other than saying it was in face to face communications. They could provide no written / email documentation to show Manafort was in on it.

Any jury can convict, but the evidence against Manafort on the actual crimes on this case were really weak-sauce, and came primarily from the testimony of a guy who actually committed the crimes, and had motive to commit them to hide his embezzlement actions.

(08-14-2018 12:47 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(08-14-2018 12:39 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  If they didnt call any witnesses, then it sounds like they believe the case isnt proven and that they dont need to hold the jury up any longer trying to prove reasonable doubt.

They never (as far as I saw) directly linked Manafort to the crime of the loans. The accountant and Gates pretty much admitted they did everything, but that Manafort KNEW what they were doing. Yet they could provide no proof that Manafort actually did know what they were doing, other than saying it was in face to face communications. They could provide no written / email documentation to show Manafort was in on it.

Any jury can convict, but the evidence against Manafort on the actual crimes on this case were really weak-sauce, and came primarily from the testimony of a guy who actually committed the crimes, and had motive to commit them to hide his embezzlement actions.

What you saw? The trial was not televised. And what law school did you graduate from again?

(08-14-2018 12:50 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(08-14-2018 12:47 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(08-14-2018 12:39 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  If they didnt call any witnesses, then it sounds like they believe the case isnt proven and that they dont need to hold the jury up any longer trying to prove reasonable doubt.

They never (as far as I saw) directly linked Manafort to the crime of the loans. The accountant and Gates pretty much admitted they did everything, but that Manafort KNEW what they were doing. Yet they could provide no proof that Manafort actually did know what they were doing, other than saying it was in face to face communications. They could provide no written / email documentation to show Manafort was in on it.

Any jury can convict, but the evidence against Manafort on the actual crimes on this case were really weak-sauce, and came primarily from the testimony of a guy who actually committed the crimes, and had motive to commit them to hide his embezzlement actions.

What you saw? The trial was not televised. And what law school did you graduate from again?

You do realize that the case was live-reported by the media, dont you?

And its funny someone who tried to school us on Obamacare, yet didnt know what an insurance deductible was, is asking for my credentials.

I did serve on two juries, one being a sequestered capital murder case. I do have experience in what I am talking about. Now, how do you stack up against that?

(08-14-2018 12:57 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(08-14-2018 12:50 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(08-14-2018 12:47 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(08-14-2018 12:39 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  If they didnt call any witnesses, then it sounds like they believe the case isnt proven and that they dont need to hold the jury up any longer trying to prove reasonable doubt.

They never (as far as I saw) directly linked Manafort to the crime of the loans. The accountant and Gates pretty much admitted they did everything, but that Manafort KNEW what they were doing. Yet they could provide no proof that Manafort actually did know what they were doing, other than saying it was in face to face communications. They could provide no written / email documentation to show Manafort was in on it.

Any jury can convict, but the evidence against Manafort on the actual crimes on this case were really weak-sauce, and came primarily from the testimony of a guy who actually committed the crimes, and had motive to commit them to hide his embezzlement actions.

What you saw? The trial was not televised. And what law school did you graduate from again?

You do realize that the case was live-reported by the media, dont you?

And its funny someone who tried to school us on Obamacare, yet didnt know what an insurance deductible was, is asking for my credentials.

I did serve on two juries, one being a sequestered capital murder case. I do have experience in what I am talking about. Now, how do you stack up against that?

Sure...but which media did you watch? Did you get the take/opinions of both liberal and conservative analysts?

But okay...you had jury duty once...congratulations...you're now a legal expert. I guess I am too since I too have served on a jury!

And congrats on bringing up the deductibles again (a sure sign you're triggered). It's like the 25th time. Do you get a set of steak knives or something?

(08-14-2018 01:01 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(08-14-2018 12:57 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(08-14-2018 12:50 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(08-14-2018 12:47 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(08-14-2018 12:39 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  If they didnt call any witnesses, then it sounds like they believe the case isnt proven and that they dont need to hold the jury up any longer trying to prove reasonable doubt.

They never (as far as I saw) directly linked Manafort to the crime of the loans. The accountant and Gates pretty much admitted they did everything, but that Manafort KNEW what they were doing. Yet they could provide no proof that Manafort actually did know what they were doing, other than saying it was in face to face communications. They could provide no written / email documentation to show Manafort was in on it.

Any jury can convict, but the evidence against Manafort on the actual crimes on this case were really weak-sauce, and came primarily from the testimony of a guy who actually committed the crimes, and had motive to commit them to hide his embezzlement actions.

What you saw? The trial was not televised. And what law school did you graduate from again?

You do realize that the case was live-reported by the media, dont you?

And its funny someone who tried to school us on Obamacare, yet didnt know what an insurance deductible was, is asking for my credentials.

I did serve on two juries, one being a sequestered capital murder case. I do have experience in what I am talking about. Now, how do you stack up against that?

Sure...but which media did you watch? Did you get the take/opinions of both liberal and conservative analysts?

But okay...you had jury duty once...congratulations...you're now a legal expert. I guess I am too since I too have served on a jury!

And congrats on bringing up the deductibles again (a sure sign you're triggered). It's like the 25th time. Do you get a set of steak knives or something?

I take it that since you cant count, and since you didnt name what you were on a jury for, you dont stack up. You could have just said so and left it at that.

(08-14-2018 12:57 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(08-14-2018 12:50 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(08-14-2018 12:47 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(08-14-2018 12:39 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  If they didnt call any witnesses, then it sounds like they believe the case isnt proven and that they dont need to hold the jury up any longer trying to prove reasonable doubt.

They never (as far as I saw) directly linked Manafort to the crime of the loans. The accountant and Gates pretty much admitted they did everything, but that Manafort KNEW what they were doing. Yet they could provide no proof that Manafort actually did know what they were doing, other than saying it was in face to face communications. They could provide no written / email documentation to show Manafort was in on it.

Any jury can convict, but the evidence against Manafort on the actual crimes on this case were really weak-sauce, and came primarily from the testimony of a guy who actually committed the crimes, and had motive to commit them to hide his embezzlement actions.

What you saw? The trial was not televised. And what law school did you graduate from again?

You do realize that the case was live-reported by the media, dont you?

And its funny someone who tried to school us on Obamacare, yet didnt know what an insurance deductible was, is asking for my credentials.

I did serve on two juries, one being a sequestered capital murder case. I do have experience in what I am talking about. Now, how do you stack up against that?

Sure...but which media did you watch? Did you get the take/opinions of both liberal and conservative analysts?

But okay...you had jury duty once...congratulations...you're now a legal expert. I guess I am too since I too have served on a jury!

And congrats on bringing up the deductibles again (a sure sign you're triggered). It's like the 25th time. Do you get a set of steak knives or something?

(08-14-2018 01:04 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(08-14-2018 01:01 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(08-14-2018 12:57 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(08-14-2018 12:50 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(08-14-2018 12:47 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  What you saw? The trial was not televised. And what law school did you graduate from again?

You do realize that the case was live-reported by the media, dont you?

And its funny someone who tried to school us on Obamacare, yet didnt know what an insurance deductible was, is asking for my credentials.

I did serve on two juries, one being a sequestered capital murder case. I do have experience in what I am talking about. Now, how do you stack up against that?

Sure...but which media did you watch? Did you get the take/opinions of both liberal and conservative analysts?

But okay...you had jury duty once...congratulations...you're now a legal expert. I guess I am too since I too have served on a jury!

And congrats on bringing up the deductibles again (a sure sign you're triggered). It's like the 25th time. Do you get a set of steak knives or something?

I take it that since you cant count, and since you didnt name what you were on a jury for, you dont stack up. You could have just said so and left it at that.

Yeah...you're right...it's closer to 20. Here's at least 16 for you:
http://csnbbs.com/thread-842729-post-15073911.html#pid15073911
http://csnbbs.com/thread-829875-post-14671230.html#pid14671230
http://csnbbs.com/thread-834654-post-14816132.html#pid14816132
http://csnbbs.com/thread-837151-post-14897237.html#pid14897237
http://csnbbs.com/thread-837151-post-14897432.html#pid14897432
http://csnbbs.com/thread-837595-post-14909889.html#pid14909889
http://csnbbs.com/thread-837338-post-14899850.html#pid14899850
http://csnbbs.com/thread-820246-post-14404985.html#pid14404985
http://csnbbs.com/thread-820246-post-14405111.html#pid14405111
http://csnbbs.com/thread-820246-post-14405297.html#pid14405297
http://csnbbs.com/thread-818462-post-14357461.html#pid14357461
http://csnbbs.com/thread-817094-post-14320288.html#pid14320288
http://csnbbs.com/thread-815348-post-14266486.html#pid14266486
http://csnbbs.com/thread-815348-post-14272986.html#pid14272986
http://csnbbs.com/thread-813598-post-14215728.html#pid14215728
http://csnbbs.com/thread-460548-post-14464080.html#pid14464080

(08-14-2018 01:11 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(08-14-2018 01:04 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(08-14-2018 01:01 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(08-14-2018 12:57 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(08-14-2018 12:50 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  You do realize that the case was live-reported by the media, dont you?

And its funny someone who tried to school us on Obamacare, yet didnt know what an insurance deductible was, is asking for my credentials.

I did serve on two juries, one being a sequestered capital murder case. I do have experience in what I am talking about. Now, how do you stack up against that?

Sure...but which media did you watch? Did you get the take/opinions of both liberal and conservative analysts?

But okay...you had jury duty once...congratulations...you're now a legal expert. I guess I am too since I too have served on a jury!

And congrats on bringing up the deductibles again (a sure sign you're triggered). It's like the 25th time. Do you get a set of steak knives or something?

I take it that since you cant count, and since you didnt name what you were on a jury for, you dont stack up. You could have just said so and left it at that.

Yeah...you're right...it's closer to 20. Here's at least 16 for you:
http://csnbbs.com/thread-842729-post-15073911.html#pid15073911
http://csnbbs.com/thread-829875-post-14671230.html#pid14671230
http://csnbbs.com/thread-834654-post-14816132.html#pid14816132
http://csnbbs.com/thread-837151-post-14897237.html#pid14897237
http://csnbbs.com/thread-837151-post-14897432.html#pid14897432
http://csnbbs.com/thread-837595-post-14909889.html#pid14909889
http://csnbbs.com/thread-837338-post-14899850.html#pid14899850
http://csnbbs.com/thread-820246-post-14404985.html#pid14404985
http://csnbbs.com/thread-820246-post-14405111.html#pid14405111
http://csnbbs.com/thread-820246-post-14405297.html#pid14405297
http://csnbbs.com/thread-818462-post-14357461.html#pid14357461
http://csnbbs.com/thread-817094-post-14320288.html#pid14320288
http://csnbbs.com/thread-815348-post-14266486.html#pid14266486
http://csnbbs.com/thread-815348-post-14272986.html#pid14272986
http://csnbbs.com/thread-813598-post-14215728.html#pid14215728
http://csnbbs.com/thread-460548-post-14464080.html#pid14464080

Fail. I was talking about how many times I served on a jury, which you posted back incorrectly. But glad you are tracking how many times I mentioned your insurance deductible failure. You do realize thats like telling someone that a Ford Festiva is better than a corvette while not knowing what a steering wheel is?

(08-14-2018 01:12 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Did the defense really have a choice here? Not like they were ever going to put Manafort on the stand!

(08-14-2018 01:31 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

(08-14-2018 01:12 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Did the defense really have a choice here? Not like they were ever going to put Manafort on the stand!

Why do you have such bloodlust over this? It doesn't even have anything to do with non-existent Russia collusion, so why are you so invested?

(08-14-2018 01:31 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

(08-14-2018 01:12 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Did the defense really have a choice here? Not like they were ever going to put Manafort on the stand!

Why do you have such bloodlust over this? It doesn't even have anything to do with non-existent Russia collusion, so why are you so invested?

(08-14-2018 01:13 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Was that what got you into law school?

(08-14-2018 01:16 PM)fsquid Wrote:  Either the defense is confident or they know the pardon is coming. You'll hear both the rest of the day.

(08-14-2018 01:53 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-14-2018 01:16 PM)fsquid Wrote:  Either the defense is confident or they know the pardon is coming. You'll hear both the rest of the day.

Or they figured that witnesses couldn't help them. Sound like the prosecution left things kind of muddled. If they put an expert witness up there, they might help clarify things for the prosecution.