Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

SleepingGiantFan

Manafort trial

Recommended Posts

Just now, bluerules009 said:

You are the one that said no to the wager that was your idea.  You weren't willing to consider terms.  Plus and I can't stress this enough, I don't care.

I said straight up. How is that so difficult for you to understand?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe Manafort didn't have anything to do with Russia "collusion", but he appears to have been a very naughty boy.  The argument that he should bet away with these charges because "this was before the Trump/Russia stuff" is odd to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, retrofade said:

Oh I'm sorry, I forgot that anyone that dislikes Trump is a "leftist" in your crazy view.

Did I hurt your feelings?  I had forgotten what a fragile little thing you are.

Should we call you a "moderate" or does that word trigger your snowflake ass too?

"Don't underestimate Joe Biden's ability to F@*k things up."

Barack Obama

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, retrofade said:

Oh I'm sorry, I forgot that anyone that dislikes Trump is a "leftist" in your crazy view.

 You're a leftist to them because they're all staunch, non-partisan, principled, libertarian leaning independents and not Republican hacks. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, retrofade said:

I said straight up. How is that so difficult for you to understand?

If you gave me 10-1 odds you would be getting a crazy bargain.  Especially since if Manafort pleads guilty eventually to lying to an FBI agent so as to keep from spending all his money on lawyers from now until 2030, you will be claiming you won.  Federal government prosecutors win 99.8% of their cases.  http://justicedenied.org/wordpress/archives/3190  I am not stupid unlike you.

I understand that even if Manafort thinks he has a 75% chance of winning at the end of the case.  Mueller will offer him a save face deal to plead guilty to illegal parking and serve 6 months instead of the possible 25% chance at life in prison.  Hard to turn down the save face deal when the stakes are so high.

Although overall federal courts generate convictions at a remarkable rate, there were twenty federal judicial districts that had a 100% conviction rate in 2015. Not a single defendant was acquitted in:

  • Colorado: 466 convictions, 0 acquittals.
  • Delaware: 88 convictions, 0 acquittals.
  • District of Columbia: 262 convictions, 0 acquittals.
  • Illinois, Central: 346 convictions, 0 acquittals.
  • Illinois, Northern: 898 convictions, 0 acquittals.
  • Illinois, Southern: 412 convictions, 0 acquittals.
  • Indiana, Northern: 266 convictions, 0 acquittals.
  • Indiana, Southern: 386 convictions, 0 acquittals.
  • New Hampshire, 154 convictions, 0 acquittals.
  • North Carolina, Eastern: 529 convictions, 0 acquittals.
  • North Carolina, Western: 791 convictions, 0 acquittals.
  • Pennsylvania, Middle: 392 convictions, 0 acquittals.
  • Pennsylvania, Western: 495 convictions, 0 acquittals.
  • Tennessee, Eastern: 722 convictions, 0 acquittals.
  • Texas, Eastern: 1,071 convictions, 0 acquittals.
  • Vermont: 201 convictions, 0 acquittals.
  • Washington, Western: 518 convictions, 0 acquittals.
  • West Virginia, Southern: 301 convictions, 0 acquittals.
  • Wisconsin, Eastern: 336 convictions, 0 acquittals.
  • Wisconsin, Western: 98 convictions, 0 acquittals.

It is particularly notable that in 2015 there were zero federal court acquittals in Illinois — the fifth most populous state with 12.9 million people.[5]

Twenty-eight other federal judicial districts had one defendant acquitted in 2015:

  • Alabama, Middle: 162 convictions, 1 acquittal.
  • Alaska: 183 convictions, 1 acquittal.
  • Arkansas, Western: 262 convictions, 1 acquittal.
  • California, Northern: 470 convictions, 1 acquittal.
  • Georgia, Southern: 445 convictions, 1 acquittal.
  • Guam: 100 convictions, 1 acquittal.
  • Iowa, Northern: 359 convictions, 1 acquittal.
  • Iowa, Southern: 329 convictions, 1 acquittal.
  • Kentucky, Western: 238 convictions, 1 acquittal.
  • Louisiana, Eastern: 412 convictions, 1 acquittal.
  • Louisiana, Middle: 171 convictions, 1 acquittal.
  • Louisiana, Western: 353 convictions, 1 acquittal.
  • Maine: 188 convictions, 1 acquittal.
  • Massachusetts: 456 convictions, 1 acquittal.
  • Mississippi, Southern: 306 convictions, 1 acquittal.
  • Missouri, Eastern: 464 convictions, 1 acquittal.
  • Missouri, Western: 891 convictions, 1 acquittal.
  • Nevada: 671 convictions, 1 acquittal.
  • New York, Eastern: 648 convictions, 1 acquittal.
  • North Carolina, Middle: 526 convictions, 1 acquittal.
  • North Dakota: 457 convictions, 1 acquittal.
  • Northern Mariana Islands: 20 convictions, 1 acquittal.
  • Ohio, Northern: 738 convictions, 1 acquittal.
  • Oklahoma, Eastern: 99 convictions, 1 acquittal.
  • Oregon: 640 convictions, 1 acquittal.
  • South Carolina: 737 convictions, 1 acquittal.
  • Utah: 650 convictions, 1 acquittal.
  • West Virginia, Northern: 424 convictions, 1 acquittal.

So more than half of the 94 federal judicial districts had zero to one acquittal in 2015.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, bluerules009 said:

This is about nothing more than ruining a persons life because he won't testify against Trump.   

If I was Manafort I would be asking Mueller what he wanted me to testify to,so I could get immunity like everyone else.   Which is of course what Mueller is wanting.

Now that you mention it, Wesley Snipes didn’t offer to testify against Trump either. Hmmmm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, UNLV2001 said:

You're half right and half wrong - This is a trail due to Manafort's own illicit doings & dealings ............but you are right in that Manafort should spill his guts on everything and get a soft landing, otherwise odds are Manafort dies in prison (he's 70+) 

If he does testify, there is a good chance someone spikes his drink with pelonium.

The witness protection program is his only chance to die of old age a free man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

9 hours ago, bluerules009 said:

If you gave me 10-1 odds you would be getting a crazy bargain.  Especially since if Manafort pleads guilty eventually to lying to an FBI agent so as to keep from spending all his money on lawyers from now until 2030, you will be claiming you won.  Federal government prosecutors win 99.8% of their cases.  http://justicedenied.org/wordpress/archives/3190  I am not stupid unlike you.

I understand that even if Manafort thinks he has a 75% chance of winning at the end of the case.  Mueller will offer him a save face deal to plead guilty to illegal parking and serve 6 months instead of the possible 25% chance at life in prison.  Hard to turn down the save face deal when the stakes are so high.

Although overall federal courts generate convictions at a remarkable rate, there were twenty federal judicial districts that had a 100% conviction rate in 2015. Not a single defendant was acquitted in:

  • Colorado: 466 convictions, 0 acquittals.
  • Delaware: 88 convictions, 0 acquittals.
  • District of Columbia: 262 convictions, 0 acquittals.
  • Illinois, Central: 346 convictions, 0 acquittals.
  • Illinois, Northern: 898 convictions, 0 acquittals.
  • Illinois, Southern: 412 convictions, 0 acquittals.
  • Indiana, Northern: 266 convictions, 0 acquittals.
  • Indiana, Southern: 386 convictions, 0 acquittals.
  • New Hampshire, 154 convictions, 0 acquittals.
  • North Carolina, Eastern: 529 convictions, 0 acquittals.
  • North Carolina, Western: 791 convictions, 0 acquittals.
  • Pennsylvania, Middle: 392 convictions, 0 acquittals.
  • Pennsylvania, Western: 495 convictions, 0 acquittals.
  • Tennessee, Eastern: 722 convictions, 0 acquittals.
  • Texas, Eastern: 1,071 convictions, 0 acquittals.
  • Vermont: 201 convictions, 0 acquittals.
  • Washington, Western: 518 convictions, 0 acquittals.
  • West Virginia, Southern: 301 convictions, 0 acquittals.
  • Wisconsin, Eastern: 336 convictions, 0 acquittals.
  • Wisconsin, Western: 98 convictions, 0 acquittals.

It is particularly notable that in 2015 there were zero federal court acquittals in Illinois — the fifth most populous state with 12.9 million people.[5]

Twenty-eight other federal judicial districts had one defendant acquitted in 2015:

  • Alabama, Middle: 162 convictions, 1 acquittal.
  • Alaska: 183 convictions, 1 acquittal.
  • Arkansas, Western: 262 convictions, 1 acquittal.
  • California, Northern: 470 convictions, 1 acquittal.
  • Georgia, Southern: 445 convictions, 1 acquittal.
  • Guam: 100 convictions, 1 acquittal.
  • Iowa, Northern: 359 convictions, 1 acquittal.
  • Iowa, Southern: 329 convictions, 1 acquittal.
  • Kentucky, Western: 238 convictions, 1 acquittal.
  • Louisiana, Eastern: 412 convictions, 1 acquittal.
  • Louisiana, Middle: 171 convictions, 1 acquittal.
  • Louisiana, Western: 353 convictions, 1 acquittal.
  • Maine: 188 convictions, 1 acquittal.
  • Massachusetts: 456 convictions, 1 acquittal.
  • Mississippi, Southern: 306 convictions, 1 acquittal.
  • Missouri, Eastern: 464 convictions, 1 acquittal.
  • Missouri, Western: 891 convictions, 1 acquittal.
  • Nevada: 671 convictions, 1 acquittal.
  • New York, Eastern: 648 convictions, 1 acquittal.
  • North Carolina, Middle: 526 convictions, 1 acquittal.
  • North Dakota: 457 convictions, 1 acquittal.
  • Northern Mariana Islands: 20 convictions, 1 acquittal.
  • Ohio, Northern: 738 convictions, 1 acquittal.
  • Oklahoma, Eastern: 99 convictions, 1 acquittal.
  • Oregon: 640 convictions, 1 acquittal.
  • South Carolina: 737 convictions, 1 acquittal.
  • Utah: 650 convictions, 1 acquittal.
  • West Virginia, Northern: 424 convictions, 1 acquittal.

So more than half of the 94 federal judicial districts had zero to one acquittal in 2015.

So I guess you actually didn't mean this then.

13 hours ago, bluerules009 said:

His own illicit doings the FBI was aware of for almost a decade and didn't think it worth their while to pursue.  This is a politically motivated arm twisting which will result in the ruining of several peoples lives for no other reason than politics.

There is a good chance Manafort beats these charges despite Mueller giving immunity to all 5 of his co-conspirators.   When Manaforts lawyer calls an FBI agent to the stand and has him testify that they knew of these activities for years and didn't think them worth pursuing.  That is going to make the jury think twice.

 

Good to know that you're just a hypocrite. That's one of your favorite things to call people, right? :P 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, bluerules009 said:

This is about nothing more than ruining a persons life because he won't testify against Trump.   

If I was Manafort I would be asking Mueller what he wanted me to testify to,so I could get immunity like everyone else.   Which is of course what Mueller is wanting.

Nothing more? C'mon, BR, you're better than that. Manafort paid his 2015(?) income tax via money transfers through three eastern countries which are Europe's versions of banana republics. At a minimum he's being properly prosecuted for income tax evasion and money laundering.

You are correct on the latter part. From what's been said by former federal prosecutors, now that the trial has begun he has probably blown his chance for no prison time whatsoever but if convicted, he's looking at possibly spending the rest of his life behind bars. By agreeing to testify against Trump maybe he could get an agreement to just a few years of easy time.

Boom goes the dynamite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, bluerules009 said:

It is pretty hard to beat a billion dollar prosecution budget I agree.   Especially when the government can provide known liars as unimpeachable NSA witnesses who can basically say anything they want and hide behind national security when asked to provide any proof.

"Unimpeachable?" You literally couldn't be more wrong about that. ANY witness can be impeached unless the trial is rigged in favor of one side or the other and the way TS Ellis has been ruling, if he favors anybody, it's Manafort.

And are you aware that one of the foremost reasons for the prosecution of suspected criminals is to deter others from acting similarly? Maybe your mileage differs but if Manafort actually engaged in the criminal conduct of which he's been charged, as a taxpayer myself, I don't want to see him get away with it.

Boom goes the dynamite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, SleepingGiantsFan said:

"Unimpeachable?" You literally couldn't be more wrong about that. ANY witness can be impeached unless the trial is rigged in favor of one side or the other and the way TS Ellis has been ruling, if he favors anybody, it's Manafort.

And are you aware that one of the foremost reasons for the prosecution of suspected criminals is to deter others from acting similarly? Maybe your mileage differs but if Manafort actually engaged in the criminal conduct of which he's been charged, as a taxpayer myself, I don't want to see him get away with it.

As a taxpayer I also want to see guys that do this stuff go down. But I don't want it selectively enforced due to political reasons and that is exactly what it looks like. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Rebelbacker said:

As a taxpayer I also want to see guys that do this stuff go down. But I don't want it selectively enforced due to political reasons and that is exactly what it looks like. 

I haven't given it enough thought to know whether I agree but you could be correct.

Boom goes the dynamite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, retrofade said:

 

So I guess you actually didn't mean this then.

 

Good to know that you're just a hypocrite. That's one of your favorite things to call people, right? :P 

I actually did mean that hypocrite.   Just because I won't take a ridiculous bet on your terms doesn't mean I don't stand behind everything I said.

Nothing dumber than a lefty like you, if you don't think this is a politically motivated prosecution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, bluerules009 said:

I actually did mean that hypocrite.   Just because I won't take a ridiculous bet on your terms doesn't mean I don't stand behind everything I said.

Nothing dumber than a lefty like you.

So wait... you stand by saying that Manafort stands a good chance of walking, but you're not willing to make a bet on it. Yet.... that somehow makes me a hypocrite? Oh toolsy, you're nothing if not predictable. Go back to jacking off to pictures of Trump. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, retrofade said:

So wait... you stand by saying that Manafort stands a good chance of walking, but you're not willing to make a bet on it. Yet.... that somehow makes me a hypocrite? Oh toolsy, you're nothing if not predictable. Go back to jacking off to pictures of Trump. 

Like I said above it is unlikely Manafort gets off scot free because Mueller will offer him a save face plea that Manafort would be foolish to turn down.   You would claim that as a victory.

I think at this point considering the prosecution hasn't provided us with any evidence of wrong doing yet.  Not saying they don't have any just saying the trial is progressing and we haven't seen anything reported.  Now that very well could be that journalists are too stupid to know what real evidence is.   

20% chance he gets off scot free at best.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...