It will take only ONE deplorable rumper on the Manafort trial

[Eliot Rosewater]

and the whole thing goes up in smoke.

Will most mainstream republicans return a guilty verdict on someone with this much evidence against them? Probably.

Will any deplorable rumper ever return a guilty verdict on anyone related to rump in anyway for any crime at all?

Not in a million years.

Fingers crossed there arent any TRAITORS on the jury.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. That's what voir dire is for.

And in federal court the judge does it. I’m sure any unduly biased jurors were weeded out well before this panel was seated.

[Eliot Rosewater]

3. Yeah, but the odds are not good assuming the deplorable

is good at pretend.

Probably most are not, especially after watching the new Sacha Baron Cohen show

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

11. It's a DC jury.

A lot of minority people. A lot of Democrats. And even if there's one holdout that's not an acquittal, it's a hung jury and not an acquittal - and they'll just retry him.

[global1]

2. With So Much At Stake In This Trial.....

and the money involved and the potential for ultimately coming back and hurting Trump and the Repug Party - is there any chance of any jury tampering going on here? You know buying off of jurors? The people at risk here have plenty to lose and they also have plenty of money.

[Eliot Rosewater]

4. Great point also. ANY trial involving the putin/rump crime family oligarchs

is subject to the greatest amount of tampering and ill will that has ever been done to a jury in history.

I dont want to create an issue that isnt there, but I do want to be prepared for stuff, considering who we are dealing with.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

5. At worst he or she could hang the jury and he will be tried again.

[Eliot Rosewater]

6. Hang? True, it has to be unanimous. If I was a betting man, and I am

and knowing we are up against the richest and most violent destructive man alive, putin not rump, well...i will shut up now

Wait, not gonna shut up just quite yet, BE PREPARED for the richest and one of the most violent men on the planet, putin, to fuck with any trial we have that is in anyway related to him.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

7. It would just be a mistrial and Manafort would be tried again.

Stalin couldn't prevent the Rosenbergs from being electrocuted.

[Eliot Rosewater]

8. Uh, big difference between the two, huge in fact.

But I get your positive thinking approach and I appreciate it.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

10. A hung jury and mistrial are synonymous

If the jury can't reach a unanimous verdict the prosecution or the plaintiff have the option to try the case again.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

13. That's not correct. A mistrial can result from a number of things

that go wrong at a trial, and one of them is a hung jury. Usually, if a jury can't reach a verdict on the first vote the judge will send them back to deliberate some more. If eventually they tell the judge they are hopelessly deadlocked and the judge agrees, a mistrial will be declared but the prosecution will have the option of a retrial. Consider also that Manafort is being tried on eighteen different counts of tax fraud and bank fraud, and the jury has to return a separate verdict as to each one. So it's astronomically unlikely that there could be a hung jury as to all eighteen counts.

[Eliot Rosewater]

16. I didnt say that, the other person did

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

12. A unanimous jury is required for a conviction.

If it's not unanimous the result is a mistrial, not an acquittal. They'll just retry him. Remember, this is a DC jury. Not a lot of Trumpistas in DC.

[H2O Man]

9. True, but ....

considering where the trial is being held, the potential jury pool is unlikely to contain a Trump loyalist willing to subvert justice.

[lame54]

14. This will not equal an acquittal

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

15. Manafort is being tried on EIGHTEEN counts of bank and tax fraud.

The jury has to render a verdict as to each count. I suppose it's possible he could be acquitted as to one or more counts, but he's not off the hook on all eighteen. No way would the prosecutors go ahead with this sort of trial unless they were damn sure of a conviction on something.

[Eliot Rosewater]

17. True, but then you start all over again, maybe. You go through jury selection again

maybe in the same place, maybe not, though that part I am not sure of.

All the while putin and the russians taint the jury pool even more.

My point is things are not normal anymore, if putin or a rumper can interfere with justice, they will. Every time.

[UTUSN]

18. For starters, the judge is hostile, a Deplorable, & star witness GATES might not testify

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

19. No, he isn't. He's a well-respected judge with a reputation for being tough

on both sides. And it would be the smart thing for the prosecutors not to call Gates because if they did, he'd be subjected to cross-examination by the defense, who is trying to blame the whole scheme on him. They already have everything they need from Gates; this is a paper trial and his live testimony probably would add very little.

[Eliot Rosewater]

20. Mueller team will adjust accordingly. Who was speaking when the judge

told them going on about this or that was a waste of time, Mueller himself or someone else on the team?

Greg Andres is the prosecutor, is Mueller even there? He's not, right?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

21. Mueller himself is not trying this case. He's managing the investigation.

The prosecutors are members of his team along with several lawyers from the US Attorneys office for the Eastern District of Virginia.

[Eliot Rosewater]

22. Greg Andres I think is the lead.

I am not worried about the judge, if anything he will make certain nothing that happens in the trial can be used later to cause a mistrial.

[UTUSN]

23. I detest butting heads & have 1 or 2 lumps with you, and don't want more or ever:

Arguments or flaming or just plain differences of opinion can never be won and I'm way too old to research & post scads of Google results to attempt to "prove" my OPINION, but am doing the *briefest* possible Search just for you, results below.

This is by far not anything *exhaustive* because I have *NO*/*ZERO* illusions about convincing you or anybody else about anything. Let's agree to skip past each other, *PLEASE*/thanks/and *FOREVER*!1

***********QUOTE*******

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100210951141

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100210951282

I'm uneasy about judge T.S. Ellis

https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/01/politics/t-s-ellis-manafort-trial-judge/index.html

Meet Manafort trial ringmaster T.S. Ellis

.... Ellis' court regularly hears high-profile cases, especially criminal, because several government agencies are located in Virginia. ....

Born in 1940 in Bogotá, Colombia, Ellis graduated from Princeton with an engineering degree. He served as an aviator in the US Navy, then studied law at Harvard Law School and Oxford University. When assessing the functions of American special prosecutors like Mueller in court, Ellis has grown wistful about his younger days in Britain and compared the US approach to British investigative commissions.

In Manafort's case, Elllis is likely to take a more workmanlike approach. He told federal prosecutors recently they needed to cut a week off their planned presentation.

"Do you have any idea how many bank frauds and income tax false statements (trials) I've heard?" he asked. "None of them last three weeks. None." ....

***********UNQUOTE**********

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

24. ???

I'm not sure what I said that offended you so much, as that certainly was not my intent. Your links actually seem to support my point, but whatever.

[UTUSN]

25. My problem(& it *is* mine) is I don't want to continue disputes but also don't like disputes to hang

You don't know what offended me so much - uh, the constant contentiousness and I"m sure it's just not just with me. Here and in previous encounters, you disputed every single phrase in the sentence of my initial post, as in:

I say: "For starters, the judge is hostile, a Deplorable, & star witness GATES might not testify"

And you say: "No, he isn't. He's a well-respected judge with a reputation for being tough on both sides. And it would be the smart thing for the prosecutors not to call Gates "

And then onwards, you supposedly close off the encounter while continuing to dispute/be contentious, leaving me (and I'm sure whoever your other contestants are) with a sour taste:

"???
I'm not sure what I said that offended you so much, as that certainly was not my intent. Your links actually seem to support my point, but whatever."

Googling will show scads of results from the past couple of months of the judge being testy and irksome towards the prosecution and I don't remember anything similar towards the defense.

*********O.K., I'm checking out, PLEASE, forever, thanks. $500/hr consulting fee is gladly waived.

[bettyellen]

27. Whoa fella, she was not making this personal at all- you were. Take a break and chill.

The judge is tough on both sides, seats has been.
There no evidence he’s “a deplorable”. And the lawyer only said that about Gates so he could get evidence in more than once- and the judge could tell it was BS.

[UTUSN]

28. & here you are.

[bettyellen]

29. You really need to let go of this hostility and debate with respect and not let your ego get the

best of you. Grudges coming out of a debate are uncalled for. It’s wasn’t personal, for Pete’s sake. Get a grip.

[UTUSN]

31. I didn't ask to "debate" you two or to receive your advice/preaching/projections.

[bettyellen]

32. Everyone who comments here hears alternate opinions. You cannot expect people not to express their

own opinions in response. That’s what makes it interesting- and you’re kind of shitting on the idea of discussion. Not sure why you let her reply get under your skin, but it really does seem you need a break. No one here is interested in being subjected to your hostility.

[UTUSN]

35. You don't define, speak for, or decide anybody's expectations except your own.

Like I'd surely love to be Ignored by you, but you just can't stop.

[bettyellen]

36. You have options of your own, but would rather tell others here what to do instead?

You’re choosing to be aggrieved. Have at it, I guess.

[MaryMagdaline]

26. Fingers crossed, but if there is hung jury it will be

Retried. Prosecutors hate retrial, but they learn what went wrong first time and they fix it. The defense, on the other hand, has played its hand, is usually out of money and out of steam.

If we NEVER get Trump, Manafort needs to be put away. Major criminal.

His own daughter’s assessment: “He’s got blood in his hands.”

[ecstatic]

30. Not just any deplorable, the person would have to be really stubborn,

and also have a lot of spare time on their hands. Hopefully the prosecution didn't allow too many retirees on the jury. Based on location, I'm confident that the most vocal jurors will NOT be on that thug's side.

[EffieBlack]

34. Everyone involved (except the defense) is 'politically motivated?"

Interesting first post.

Welcome to DU. Enjoy your stay.

[Eliot Rosewater]

37. I agree, everyone is politically motivated, especially the prosecution, they are motivated

to save the democracy somehow.

I am politically motivated to show up and vote in November, also to save the Democracy.

These filthy rumper pricks dont care about America because it has a "hue" they dont like.