Manafort Trial Thread

#504
#504
VarveG20180618_low.jpg
 
#507
#507
AirVol said:
View attachment 163153
Click to expand...

But Al Sharpton?

Airvol with the changeup. Maybe you should start a thread about it and provide evidence.

Here is a start

https://www.cnn.com/2013/03/22/us/al-sharpton-fast-facts/index.html

January 1988 - A Newsday article reveals that Sharpton was an FBI informant on organized crime, public figures, and black civic leaders.
1989 - Is charged with 67 felony counts of tax evasion, larceny and fraud. Is acquitted on all counts and pleads guilty to the misdemeanor charge of failure to file state income tax for 1986.
 
#508
#508
Nothing plays better with a jury than when a defendant says, "you know all that evidence you've heard for the past few weeks...yeah, I got nothing to counter it."

Looks like Manafort's all in on the potential pardon.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mick
#509
#509
evillawyer said:
Nothing plays better with a jury than when a defendant says, "you know all that evidence you've heard for the past few weeks...yeah, I got nothing to counter it."

Looks like Manafort's all in on the potential pardon.
Click to expand...

Worked for AJ.
 
#510
#510
evillawyer said:
I knew we'd get some whataboutism from you. I'm sure when the cop pulls you over for speeding you just whip out a list of license plate numbers and start saying what about this guy and what about that guy.
Click to expand...

Looks like we found the type that falls for fake memes.
 
#511
#511
evillawyer said:
Nothing plays better with a jury than when a defendant says, "you know all that evidence you've heard for the past few weeks...yeah, I got nothing to counter it."

Looks like Manafort's all in on the potential pardon.
Click to expand...
Manafort, like all defendants, is presumed innocent and the defense is banking on that the .Gov hasn't proven his guilt. But you already knew that being a big time lawyer and all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AirVol, davethevol and NorthDallas40
#512
#512
SLICKYINC said:
Manafort, like all defendants, is presumed innocent and the defense is banking on that the .Gov hasn't proven his guilt. But you already knew that being a big time lawyer and all.
Click to expand...

I’d interpret it as the defense is confident the prosecution hasn’t proven their case. Only thing that makes sense. If they felt they needed to prove anything they would have chosen to do so.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SLICKYINC
#513
#513
evillawyer said:
I knew we'd get some whataboutism from you. I'm sure when the cop pulls you over for speeding you just whip out a list of license plate numbers and start saying what about this guy and what about that guy.
Click to expand...

No just pointing out the rules that don’t apply to Dims.
 
#514
#514
SLICKYINC said:
Manafort, like all defendants, is presumed innocent and the defense is banking on that the .Gov hasn't proven his guilt. But you already knew that being a big time lawyer and all.
Click to expand...

Any reputable commentator out there saying the evidence has been insufficient? If the evidence was so weak, Manafort's attorneys would have moved to dismiss the charges. I think they tried to get the bank fraud charge dismissed (motion was denied), but not any of the other charges.
 
#515
#515
Mick said:
But Al Sharpton?

Airvol with the changeup. Maybe you should start a thread about it and provide evidence.

Here is a start

https://www.cnn.com/2013/03/22/us/al-sharpton-fast-facts/index.html

January 1988 - A Newsday article reveals that Sharpton was an FBI informant on organized crime, public figures, and black civic leaders.
1989 - Is charged with 67 felony counts of tax evasion, larceny and fraud. Is acquitted on all counts and pleads guilty to the misdemeanor charge of failure to file state income tax for 1986.
Click to expand...
ED6DC139-6E3E-48A8-AFF6-2D46A454F4C4.png
 
#516
#516
evillawyer said:
Any reputable commentator out there saying the evidence has been insufficient? If the evidence was so weak, Manafort's attorneys would have moved to dismiss the charges. I think they tried to get the bank fraud charge dismissed (motion was denied), but not any of the other charges.
Click to expand...
Your premise was that Manafort had nothing to counter the evidence. Exactly which witness did the defense need to bring to the stand? They had already questioned the "star" witness of the prosecution. It's already been established that the defense is trying to pin it on the "star" witness. It's now up to the jury to decide if the prosecution proved their case. A reputable lawyer shouldn't need a commentator to be proven correct.
 
  • Like
Reactions: davethevol, AirVol and NorthDallas40
#517
#517
evillawyer said:
Any reputable commentator out there saying the evidence has been insufficient? If the evidence was so weak, Manafort's attorneys would have moved to dismiss the charges. I think they tried to get the bank fraud charge dismissed (motion was denied), but not any of the other charges.
Click to expand...

Stopped reading after that
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hayezb, davethevol, AirVol and 1 other person
#519
#519
Former prosecutor that has argued over 500 cases before Judge Ellis. "If I had to bet money... Paul Manafort will be found guilty".
 
#521
#521
evillawyer said:
I'm not there. Neither are you. My point is simply I haven't seen anyone attending and covering the trial who's made any indication that there are real vulnerabilities in the government's case.
Click to expand...

So I guess his attorneys are grossly incomplete in mounting a defense. Hey that’s probably it. He’s playing the mistrial angle due to representation incompetence!!
 
#524
#524
evillawyer said:
I'm not there. Neither are you. My point is simply I haven't seen anyone attending and covering the trial who's made any indication that there are real vulnerabilities in the government's case.
Click to expand...
By adding a conditional adjective “reputable” you’re basically saying there’s no one I believe who is saying the case is weak. If you find someone they will be labeled a kook, alt right, contrarian, etc. If they say the case is a slam dunk, that’s a seasoned analyst, smart guy, level headed, etc.

I think resting in this case makes good sense. This **** is boring. It’s complicated, there have been hours of testimony, charts, discussions of FBARs and foreign filings and IRS regulations, etc. The defense has already crossed the major players. Making this boring stuff last even longer could turn the jury against you. You also deny the prosecutors any ammo for closing. They must reiterate their case, the defense will get the final word. If you think the case is weak this makes perfect sense to deny them additional talking points.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top