(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?

hung jury or acquittal ...

THAT'S ALL SHE WROTE

Both sides get 90 minutes for their closing statements. I dare team taint to reach for that 91st minute in front of this judge.

(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

WOW! Talk about triggered....

(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!

He has another trial scheduled. Going on the stand now can compromise the second trial from what I understand. So he was never going to testify here.

Stop the press. Did RWT really not know what an insurance deductible was?

(08-14-2018 01:13 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(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:  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.

Why the heck are you attacking him personally? In HIS OPINION, ergo "from what I saw", the case wasn't proven, therefore didn't see the need to call defense witnesses. And?

Can you refute any of what he said, or just quibble about the nit "from what I saw"?

Petty schit, being petty.

(08-14-2018 03:54 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  Stop the press. Did RWT really not know what an insurance deductible was?

got stalled at the tracks....



#lesssaidthebetter

#untilnecessary

(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?

Exactly. So what? who even knew who this guy was or care much if he goes away for 2-4?

If he was doing the hocus-pocus or the hokey-pokey with the laws and regs, forgery, wire fraud, whatever it might be, off he goes.

Bueller gets the notch in the bedpost for something wholly unrelated to what he was hired to do, the entire case was examined and set aside YEARS before he dropped by the Trump campaign for a cup of coffee and a donut, and long before Trump won the election, was inaugurated or served the first day in office.

Who cares?

(08-14-2018 03:54 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  Stop the press. Did RWT really not know what an insurance deductible was?

Yep, and it occurred while he was trying to teach (lecture) us about insurance. It was embarrassing.

(08-14-2018 04:19 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(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?

Exactly. So what? who even knew who this guy was or care much if he goes away for 2-4?

If he was doing the hocus-pocus or the hokey-pokey with the laws and regs, forgery, ,wire fraud, whatever it might be, off he goes.

Bueller gets the notch in the bedpost for something wholly unrelated to what he was hired to do, the entire case was examined and set aside YEARS before he dropped by the Trump campaign for a cup of coffee and a donut, and long before Trump won the election, was inaugurated or served the first day in office.

Who cares?

The left needs something, anything, to be able to declare Bueller a winner and reassure themselves that the witch hunt was justified. The indicted of Russians for buying ads on BookFace was something, but an actual conviction of someone who actually met the president is like finding the Holy Grail.

(08-14-2018 04:19 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(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?

Exactly. So what? who even knew who this guy was or care much if he goes away for 2-4?

If he was doing the hocus-pocus or the hokey-pokey with the laws and regs, forgery, wire fraud, whatever it might be, off he goes.

Bueller gets the notch in the bedpost for something wholly unrelated to what he was hired to do, the entire case was examined and set aside YEARS before he dropped by the Trump campaign for a cup of coffee and a donut, and long before Trump won the election, was inaugurated or served the first day in office.

Who cares?

apparently wasting 10's of millions on nothing is > than spending 30B to protect our southern border.....

(08-14-2018 03:54 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  Stop the press. Did RWT really not know what an insurance deductible was?

I made a mistake trying to explain my personal situation, confusing deductibles with coinsurance, and quickly corrected the record and owned up to my mistake. I'm well aware what insurance deductibles are and how they work.

(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?

I don't. Manafort would have likely made a terrible witness as well as opening himself up to questions from the prosecution his lawyers would have been foolish to subject him to.

I fail to see how this take is bloodlust in any way shape or form, but hey...

Not to mention that this trial has next to nothing to do with any collusion.

(08-15-2018 08:11 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(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?

I don't. Manafort would have likely made a terrible witness as well as opening himself up to questions from the prosecution his lawyers would have been foolish to subject him to.

I fail to see how this take is bloodlust in any way shape or form, but hey...

Not to mention that this trial has next to nothing to do with any collusion.

I disagree with you. And here's why. The Manafort as a witness, I don't think he'd been terrible, I think it serves no point. The prosecution was to prove that he had foreign accounts and he didn't notify anyone and he was laundering money from Ukraine. Based on the transcripts that I've read they did a piss poor job of establishing this. I'm not a lawyer, jmo. So if they couldn't connect dots with their witnesses why put the defendant on the stand? On top of that the gaffes the prosecution has made with evidence and even their expert witness or trying to establish an expert witness during the trial also laid the groundwork for Manafort not needing to defend himself. Honestly I don't know if he was listed to testify.

The second part of your statement stated next to nothing to do with collusion. This trial as stated by several here and Judge Ellis has nothing to do with the 2016 election, therefore nothing about collusion. The prosecution and defense was told at the beginning the words referring to collusion, the election, and Trump will not be allowed due to the timeline of the charges. And when the prosecution has flirted with the line or crossed it, Eliis has reprimanded them about it. I think Mach alluded to something about Trump supporters being on the jury this would be a hung jury. I'm thinking the prosecution would hope for Never Trumpers and plant seeds of doubt. Also remember they considered not calling Gates. Two reasons would be, in my opinion, was they couldn't use the collusion angle or they know without collusion the case was weak.

Now i can't speak for how the entire trial went, I wasn't there just read transcripts here and there. I don't think Manafort is banking on a pardon. I think they're expecting a not guilty because like anything in this justice system, you have to prove that the guy is guilty. If you can't, right or wrong, the guy walks. Not sure they proved guilt.

Deliberation starts tomorrow.

Might warrant a small bowl of popcorn, certainly not an entire bag...

There is nothing unusual or any kind of message hidden in the tea leaves when a Defense doesn't put up any witnesses.

(08-15-2018 05:34 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  Deliberation starts tomorrow.

Might warrant a small bowl of popcorn, certainly not an entire bag...

I don't really give a rat's ass about Manafort and what happens to him for a couple of reasons. The first is that this case has absolutely NOTHING to do with Trump or collusion. The second is that even if convicted, Manafort is in no way some grave threat to turn on Trump because, again, there was no collusion. Of that I'm confident.

Now, having said that, I'd be lying if I said I wouldn't enjoy seeing Bueller lose this case because with a conviction, the left and the MSM will be touting this as some grand victory for Bueller and justification for his witch hunt. If he loses, they'll just blame Trump for interfereing and claim he needs to be impeached for obstruction of justice.

(08-15-2018 06:06 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  

(08-15-2018 05:34 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  Deliberation starts tomorrow.
Might warrant a small bowl of popcorn, certainly not an entire bag...

I don't really give a rat's ass about Manafort and what happens to him for a couple of reasons. The first is that this case has absolutely NOTHING to do with Trump or collusion. The second is that even if convicted, Manafort is in no way some grave threat to turn on Trump because, again, there was no collusion. Of that I'm confident.
Now, having said that, I'd be lying if I said I wouldn't enjoy seeing Bueller lose this case because with a conviction, the left and the MSM will be touting this as some grand victory for Bueller and justification for his witch hunt. If he loses, they'll just blame Trump for interfereing and claim he needs to be impeached for obstruction of justice.

Yep.

(08-14-2018 02:30 PM)SoMs Eagle 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!

He has another trial scheduled. Going on the stand now can compromise the second trial from what I understand. So he was never going to testify here.

Plus putting him on the stand allows the prosecution to re-state every bit of their case sequentially for the jury, now an old semi-retired lawyer turned honest bootlegger told me that so...

(08-15-2018 06:00 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  There is nothing unusual or any kind of message hidden in the tea leaves when a Defense doesn't put up any witnesses.

Especially when your defense rests on the prosecution not being able to prove their case.