Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

NIUAlum90 · 08-14-2018 12:09 PM

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/...spartanntp

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

Any legal minds care to chime in on this?

Jugnaut · 08-14-2018 12:21 PM

(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/...spartanntp

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

Any legal minds care to chime in on this?

Its actually pretty common for the defense to not present any witnesses. Basically the defense is that there is reasonable doubt.

UofMstateU · 08-14-2018 12:39 PM

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.

Redwingtom · 08-14-2018 12:47 PM

(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?

That being said, any jury can acquit as well. 03-wink

UofMstateU · 08-14-2018 12:50 PM

(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?

Redwingtom · 08-14-2018 12:57 PM

(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?

UofMstateU · 08-14-2018 01:01 PM

(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.

Redwingtom · 08-14-2018 01:04 PM

(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.

~~Kronke~~ · 08-14-2018 01:05 PM

(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 won't speak for UofMstateU, but what I did see from the trial (not much), I saw from this guy, who always cited the transcripts with his analysis.

https://twitter.com/techno_fog

**450bench** · 08-14-2018 01:09 PM

When I heard that no defense witnesses were called in this case, I immediately thought about the fact that no defense witnesses were called in the Charles Manson murder trial of 1970-1971...obviously different circumstances but hopefully the verdicts will be vastly different as well.

UofMstateU · 08-14-2018 01:11 PM

(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-150...id15073911
http://csnbbs.com/thread-829875-post-146...id14671230
http://csnbbs.com/thread-834654-post-148...id14816132
http://csnbbs.com/thread-837151-post-148...id14897237
http://csnbbs.com/thread-837151-post-148...id14897432
http://csnbbs.com/thread-837595-post-149...id14909889
http://csnbbs.com/thread-837338-post-148...id14899850
http://csnbbs.com/thread-820246-post-144...id14404985
http://csnbbs.com/thread-820246-post-144...id14405111
http://csnbbs.com/thread-820246-post-144...id14405297
http://csnbbs.com/thread-818462-post-143...id14357461
http://csnbbs.com/thread-817094-post-143...id14320288
http://csnbbs.com/thread-815348-post-142...id14266486
http://csnbbs.com/thread-815348-post-142...id14272986
http://csnbbs.com/thread-813598-post-142...id14215728
http://csnbbs.com/thread-460548-post-144...id14464080

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?

Redwingtom · 08-14-2018 01:12 PM

Did the defense really have a choice here? Not like they were ever going to put Manafort on the stand!

Redwingtom · 08-14-2018 01:13 PM

(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-150...id15073911
http://csnbbs.com/thread-829875-post-146...id14671230
http://csnbbs.com/thread-834654-post-148...id14816132
http://csnbbs.com/thread-837151-post-148...id14897237
http://csnbbs.com/thread-837151-post-148...id14897432
http://csnbbs.com/thread-837595-post-149...id14909889
http://csnbbs.com/thread-837338-post-148...id14899850
http://csnbbs.com/thread-820246-post-144...id14404985
http://csnbbs.com/thread-820246-post-144...id14405111
http://csnbbs.com/thread-820246-post-144...id14405297
http://csnbbs.com/thread-818462-post-143...id14357461
http://csnbbs.com/thread-817094-post-143...id14320288
http://csnbbs.com/thread-815348-post-142...id14266486
http://csnbbs.com/thread-815348-post-142...id14272986
http://csnbbs.com/thread-813598-post-142...id14215728
http://csnbbs.com/thread-460548-post-144...id14464080

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?

Okay, so two jury's make you a legal expert. Was that what got you into law school?

But you're right. I don't stack up. I'm clearly not a legal expert like you because I only sat on one jury. You're priceless dude...priceless. 03-lmfao

fsquid · 08-14-2018 01:16 PM

Either the defense is confident or they know the pardon is coming. You'll hear both the rest of the day.

~~Kronke~~ · 08-14-2018 01:31 PM

(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?

UofMstateU · 08-14-2018 01:33 PM

(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?

Clearly because this is what gets Trump impeached.

stinkfist · 08-14-2018 01:46 PM

(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?

best rhetorical POD!

green · 08-14-2018 01:52 PM

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

high lsat ...

UF LAW

bullet · 08-14-2018 01:53 PM

(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.

fsquid · 08-14-2018 02:18 PM

(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.

Its what I meant on the first part, I should have been more specific

Threaded Mode \| Linear Mode Manafort Trial: Defense rests
Author	Message