Thinking about this on the way home, I’m not so sure. I have a sinking suspicion that Manafort (and just about every other Mueller indicts) is going to get off with a hung jury. All it takes is one die-hard Trump supporter who is smart enough to lie his way through voir dire that decides that defeating the deep state witch hunt is worth spending a couple of weeks on jury duty, and Manafort’s back out on the street faster than you can say jury nullification.
Great post, comrade! I put you in for big vodka bonus with the boss, eh?
Aren’t you tired of winning?
Lucy says to Charlie Brown, “Well, you win some, you lose some”. He answers winsomely “That would be nice.”
Are you and Silver Lining in a competition to see who is more stupid?
You two wouldn’t happen to be co-workers? Are your desks next to each other?
I have to say Silver Lining has you beat. You’re an idiot (obviously) but his idiocy is at least comical.
Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk
Well, they were dumb enough to vote for Trump in the first place. Who knows, it may be the smartest thing the poster in question has ever done. It could be their high point, and their decision on who to marry was even worse. Think about that for a second.
Отличная работа, товарищ! Давайте есть борщ и мастурбируем с дядей Владимиром.
What are the odds of a hung jury or nullification? Like jurors might actually understand that the case against Manafort is compelling but refuse to convict because they’re living in Trumpland - what are the odds of that happening?
My mind doesn’t want to go there, but it already has.
But the definition of “dirt on Trump” has shifted quite a bit, from “nobody on the campaign met with Russians” to “collusion isn’t a crime.”
Hung jury: possible. But there are a large number of charges, and they’re bound to reach verdicts on some of them. This is also just trial #1 of 2.
Outright nullification: the odds are astronomical. It takes one juror to hang, but it takes all of them to nullify. On every single charge.
hence the picking nits over “collusion” versus “conspiracy”. Words matter, and spinners gotta play the cards in their hands.
Can you hear Rudy up on the soapbox shouting “I looked and there is no crime called collusion” vs “Conspiracy is not much of a crime”.
If you’re talking about Mueller, then you’re correct. As yet, he has not charged the President with anything, nor is it likely that he will. The President is immune from prosecution. It’s his son and others in the campaign who are likely to bear the punishment.
As far as general dirt goes, though, Trump stole money that was donated to his charity for veterans. The SDNY referred it to the feds for criminal handling, but the case to shut the charity down looks pretty solid, if you read through the suit.
nm, multiply ninja’d.
That’s far from settled. Though as a practical matter it presents many logistical difficulties.
The SDNY is the feds. The charity case is being investigated by the State of NY, and thus far they have brought only civil charges. Acting NYAG Underwood has sent referrals to the IRS and FEC to see if the conduct of the charity violates any federal tax law or election law, but those investigations are still in their infancy.
It seems to be the current vote by those in the know. Though, that said, those in the know don’t know what all is knowable. I think it’s reasonable to say that if Mueller finds a video of Trump cannibalizing a live baby, he’ll ask for and receive an exception to the policy. But in terms of what he is actually investigating (which, for the record, is not cannibalism) it’s probably unlikely that he will ask for an exception unless there’s a smoking gun of treason, as defined in the Constitution:
“Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.”
Originally, I had ruled out treason. But since the indictment of the 12 Russian military officers was issued, it opens up again. If Trump somehow guided the actions of those 12 people, in full knowledge that they were Russian military, then that would be full-on treason against the United States of America, punishable by hanging on the White House lawn.
Highly doubtful, but it is back on the table in a…theoretical sense.
Sorry, you are correct. I should have said State of New York.
According to this article evidence from Cohen poses a big problem for Mueller. Any evidence later deemed to be subject to shyster-crook confidentiality privilege would not only be useless but other subsequent evidence might be tossed as “fruit of the tainted tree.”
The author’s article, Seth Waxman, suggests that Mueller offer not to subpoena Trump in return for Trump waiving his shyster-crook privilege, but even Trump isn’t that stupid, right?
This makes sense. I had forgotten just how many charges Manafart was looking at.
The number of charges against Manafort is not a big deal. These are not separate and distinct charges, each with it’s own set of competing versions of events. It’s pretty much all more of the same. Whatever works for one works for the others.
From what I’ve read, early indications are that Manafort’s defense is going to rest (primarily?) on two things. 1) that his complicated financial transactions were not done for nefarious purposes on his end but because the Russian oligarchs he dealt with did business that way, and 2) that Gates is the real villain, and he committed all sorts of crimes (including ripping off Manafort). Whatever you think of these defenses, the point is that they probably can be applied to all or almost all the charges against Manafort, and if you’re a member of the jury who for whatever reason finds them plausible you could conceivably acquit on all charges.
From what I’ve seen, expert commentary gives Manafort very long odds, and I have no reason to doubt that. But I don’t think the number of charges in itself adds all that much in this regard.
Doesn’t matter how many charges, as long as they are all heard by the same jury. If it contains a Trump true-believer, he can just sit there mumbling “Fake news, Deep state, no collusion!” throughout the entire proceedings, and there is nothing anyone can do about it.