Trying to graft all this political BS onto this case is ridiculous.

Yep. It's a case that stands on it's own merits. But all the political bs was inserted before the trial and it's not ending now that it's over either.

(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.

You okay bro? You've been conspicuously absent for a couple days.

I didn't follow this trial as closely as I have some other high-profile trials in the past. My sense is that most of the others were decided properly based on the evidence presented. I don't have that sense about this one, but that may simply be because my understanding of the evidence is somewhat limited.

(08-23-2018 06:47 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I didn't follow this trial as closely as I have some other high-profile trials in the past. My sense is that most of the others were decided properly based on the evidence presented. I don't have that sense about this one, but that may simply be because my understanding of the evidence is somewhat limited.

Did you hear the reports that only one juror held out on the 10 counts they didn't convict him on? So 8 counts were 12-0 and 10 counts were 11-1. That's pretty overwhelming IMO.

(08-23-2018 09:25 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(08-23-2018 06:47 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I didn't follow this trial as closely as I have some other high-profile trials in the past. My sense is that most of the others were decided properly based on the evidence presented. I don't have that sense about this one, but that may simply be because my understanding of the evidence is somewhat limited.

Did you hear the reports that only one juror held out on the 10 counts they didn't convict him on? So 8 counts were 12-0 and 10 counts were 11-1. That's pretty overwhelming IMO.

I heard that. I'm just trying to reconcile that to the evidence that I heard about. What evidence do you think led to the convictions? Trying to figure out what I missed hearing about. As I said, I didn't follow this one closely.

(08-23-2018 09:29 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-23-2018 09:25 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(08-23-2018 06:47 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I didn't follow this trial as closely as I have some other high-profile trials in the past. My sense is that most of the others were decided properly based on the evidence presented. I don't have that sense about this one, but that may simply be because my understanding of the evidence is somewhat limited.

Did you hear the reports that only one juror held out on the 10 counts they didn't convict him on? So 8 counts were 12-0 and 10 counts were 11-1. That's pretty overwhelming IMO.

I heard that. I'm just trying to reconcile that to the evidence that I heard about. What evidence do you think led to the convictions? Trying to figure out what I missed hearing about. As I said, I didn't follow this one closely.

I did not follow it closely either. There were no cameras in the courtroom, so relying on slanted pundits it not exactly beneficial to any observer trying to get an objective take on things.

Overview:

Manafort simultaneously argued that 'he didn't have the money' when it came time for his taxes, but did have the money when he was applying for a loan

Manafort clearly used foreign accounts to pay for personal expenses, which was pretty damning evidence that he knew he was using those bank accounts to pay for personal bills, regardless of how much effort he put into to hiding it

The star witness was Manafort's actions.

(08-23-2018 09:29 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-23-2018 09:25 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(08-23-2018 06:47 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I didn't follow this trial as closely as I have some other high-profile trials in the past. My sense is that most of the others were decided properly based on the evidence presented. I don't have that sense about this one, but that may simply be because my understanding of the evidence is somewhat limited.

Did you hear the reports that only one juror held out on the 10 counts they didn't convict him on? So 8 counts were 12-0 and 10 counts were 11-1. That's pretty overwhelming IMO.

I heard that. I'm just trying to reconcile that to the evidence that I heard about. What evidence do you think led to the convictions? Trying to figure out what I missed hearing about. As I said, I didn't follow this one closely.

As one article said, reporters usually don't have the knowledge to understand what they are covering and they focus on the most salacious details.

I couldn't convict on tax fraud on the evidence I read about. But they may have introduced a bunch of exhibits that supported the charge and the reporters didn't talk about that. If the prosecution tried to talk about expensive suits, it would have just annoyed me, not swayed me to their case, but that's what the reporters tried to talk about.

The evidence on not reporting the foreign bank accounts seems clear (but I've never heard of that being "criminal," only "civil"). The bank fraud on the NY condo case seemed pretty strong where it was misrepresented as personal instead of rental. Although again with the bank fraud, I've never heard of it being charged when the banks didn't lose any money, and so far as I can tell, they didn't.

(08-27-2018 09:42 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Overview:

Manafort simultaneously argued that 'he didn't have the money' when it came time for his taxes, but did have the money when he was applying for a loan

Manafort clearly used foreign accounts to pay for personal expenses, which was pretty damning evidence that he knew he was using those bank accounts to pay for personal bills, regardless of how much effort he put into to hiding it

The star witness was Manafort's actions.

I will agree with you on this one. The juror who has since been interviewed said Gates testimony was not needed and was not reliable. She said the paper trail was the only evidence they needed and that it was clear. She also said that even though the prosecution tried to bring up Trump there was no evidence at all of Trump being involved in this at all. She also said some of the prosecution attorneys slept in the courtroom. SMFH.