[Tsundoku]

How are judges selected for a case? Or is it a lottery?

[Aptorian]

It being America I imagine it has something to do with prayer meeting and briefcases full of money.

[Tapper]

Cause, on 21 August 2018 - 09:15 AM, said:

Luv2B_Sassy, on 21 August 2018 - 09:03 AM, said:

I don't know the ins and outs of this stuff, but I'm nervous about some of the questions the jury has been asking (like to re-explain "reasonable doubt"). The judge has also been pretty bratty throughout the trial, but I can't say if refusing to answer those points of law is part of that or just normal judge stuff. And I mean, in general it's good for judges to be tough on prosecutors? But that's in conflict with what I want to happen!

Would love to get a more lawyerly take on it all though.

Bratty How?

Also apparently ths jury is anonymous. The judge says he has been getting death threats.

Politico has a day by day report of the case. A couple of remarks the judge was needled by:
Early on, the judge wanted a fast trial and cut prosecutors short by denying them the option of presenting multiple witnesses that essentially would say the same thing (at the start of the trial, these consisted mostly of people providing luxury services (boutiques, landscape design, et cetera) who Manafort paid through his shell companies instead of paying them directly in his own name. In the same vein, the judge told the prosecutors and defense that closing statements should not exceed 90 minutes.

Later on, the judge objected to the term oligarch for Manafort's Ukranian employers, arguing that their character nor the internal politics in the Ukraine were relevant to a tax fraud case.
Thirdly, one of the prosecutors repeatedly used language the judge deemed overly familiar/ disrespectful towards him or the court in general.

Where the judge was forced into an apology was (iirc) when the prosecution brought an FBI-agent to the stand who had been present during the entire trial as a witness. They were granted special permission to do so earlier on by the judge, but he had forgotten he did and was pretty ticked off by it.

So far, interviewed glass half full legal experts are saying that a longer deliberation could point to the jury paying attention to the vast amounts of documents supplied to them by the prosecution, and less to (for example) the testimony of Rick Gates, which was less of a threat to Manafort than expected due to Gates' admission he stole money from Manafort (or raised the bills Manafort asked him to submit by an amount X, which he would then siphon off for himself), to the tune of 3 million or so (on a grand total of around 60 million, I think).

Glass half empty experts say this case was crystal clear and any deliberation longer than a day means the defense (and Trump) managed to get into the head of the jury.

[Maark Abbott]

Luv2B_Sassy, on 21 August 2018 - 09:03 AM, said:

I don't know the ins and outs of this stuff, but I'm nervous about some of the questions the jury has been asking (like to re-explain "reasonable doubt"). The judge has also been pretty bratty throughout the trial, but I can't say if refusing to answer those points of law is part of that or just normal judge stuff. And I mean, in general it's good for judges to be tough on prosecutors? But that's in conflict with what I want to happen!

Would love to get a more lawyerly take on it all though.

In UK law, generally speaking, a judge will admonish on poorly constructed arguments etc, at least as far as our former in-house counsel told us. But generally they're there to make a decision based on the evidence in front of them. They're supposed to be utterly impartial.

[QuickTidal]

Luv2B_Sassy, on 21 August 2018 - 09:03 AM, said:

I don't know the ins and outs of this stuff, but I'm nervous about some of the questions the jury has been asking (like to re-explain "reasonable doubt"). The judge has also been pretty bratty throughout the trial, but I can't say if refusing to answer those points of law is part of that or just normal judge stuff. And I mean, in general it's good for judges to be tough on prosecutors? But that's in conflict with what I want to happen!

Would love to get a more lawyerly take on it all though.

So it sounds like the newest "ask" by the jury was just a "what if they disagreed about ONE of the 18 counts against Manafort."

If that's accurate it means Manafort will probably go down on 17 of the 18 counts, and likely still head to jail for life.

[Aptorian]

And this is just the first of two trials.

Then comes the true test. Does Trump pardon him and do we go all the way down the rabbit hole?

I've got to say, this season of Stranger Things is really great. The story is so unpredictable.

[worry]

The 10 they couldn't reach a verdict on were declared mistrials, so prosecutors can opt to try again with a different jury, as I understand it. And yah there's still the second trial coming up.


Also Michael Cohen just took a plea deal on 8 counts (today's lucky number?!?!) including tax fraud, that apparently includes 3-5 years of prison time.

As historian Kevin Kruse notes, we still have not seen DJT's tax returns: https://twitter.com/...004475484024833

[worry]

[worry]

I assume you're talking about the college student whose body was found. It's pretty awful, and I have no doubt DJT is going to make red meat of the suspect (who's apparently unlawfully present in the U.S.).

I don't mean to sound crass, because I take nothing away from the tragedy of it all for her and for her family & friends, but I think it's pretty gross when these 'missing person' cases become national news. It only makes sense in the context of sensationalism, because they almost never have national news value. Plus we all see which select few get their pictures plastered on TV for hours a day, and which missing people never get that level of airtime, if any. It's so tabloid, and cable news is a toxic industry.

[Tiste Simeon]

Big news re Manafort and Cohen today! Good news for those who actually care what happens to the world. 🙂

[JPK]

I decided to hop over to check out how the_donald is handling the Manafort/Cohen news. Lo and behold, silence. There were a couple of posts about the situation BK and Worry were mentioning and the rest of it was typical the_donald angry incel hatespeech.

That place really makes me appreciate how open these forums really are.

[Cause]

Tiste Simeon, on 21 August 2018 - 09:45 PM, said:

Big news re Manafort and Cohen today! Good news for those who actually care what happens to the world. 🙂

Seems very big. Still I think its gonna take a long time for this to play out still. I honestly wonder if this will be as bad for trump as so many seem to hope. Its also been 2 years, the wheels f justice grind slow, by the time everything is done he might be leaving office anyway. Maybe I'm just pessimistic from watching these kinds of trials happen here locally.

I really enjoy the part where for whatever reason the justice department doesn't by tradition apparently use names, so cohen plead guilty to helping, an anonymous for now, candidate for federal office. Who could it be.....

[Tapper]

Cause, on 22 August 2018 - 07:47 AM, said:

Tiste Simeon, on 21 August 2018 - 09:45 PM, said:

Big news re Manafort and Cohen today! Good news for those who actually care what happens to the world. 🙂

Seems very big. Still I think its gonna take a long time for this to play out still. I honestly wonder if this will be as bad for trump as so many seem to hope. Its also been 2 years, the wheels f justice grind slow, by the time everything is done he might be leaving office anyway. Maybe I'm just pessimistic from watching these kinds of trials happen here locally.

I really enjoy the part where for whatever reason the justice department doesn't by tradition apparently use names, so cohen plead guilty to helping, an anonymous for now, candidate for federal office. Who could it be.....

He's not going to be impeached before the 2020 elections, I would think. If by then he is neck-deep in hot water Democrats would likely have an easier time winning over neutrals and what moderate Republicans are left than if Trump is impeached and a new candidate can use a backstab narrative to run on.

As for the wheels of justice being slow: not sure if I understood this correctly, but apparently the abuse of campaign finance could bite Trump after he steps down from office, as it is actually a crime that can be demonstrated, whether it leads to impeachment or not. Losing 2020 (or, shudder, 2024) and then appearing in court and being found guilty would be perhaps be the best possible ending to the Trump presidency.

[QuickTidal]

Query: I realize it would be inordinately DUMB of Trump to pardon Manafort for the Federal portion of his crimes, when the State case (which goes to trial in September and has 30 times the evidence apparently) is probably going to put him away anyways and Turmp can't pardon him out of that...is he going to risk basically saying to the American public "I know this guy bilked the country out of 20mil in YOUR tax dollars, AND is a war criminal but I like him, so I'm pardoning him"...I know he's stupid, but is he THAT stupid?

Also, I find it interesting that Cohen's plea comes with a stipulation that he won't fight whatever sentence comes down, and the one being bandied about is (inexplicably only) 3-4 years....but it supposedly says that he's not cooperating with Prosecutors either? I always assumed plea deals came with SOME cooperation? At any rate, he is on record as telling the court that he paid someone he didn't name off $130,000 at the behest of the candidate (who he also doesn't name) to "affect the outcome of the 2016 election"...and I'm like...isn't that it right there? The smoking gun?

Anyways...yesterday as Tiste mentioned was a RESULT after too long without anything to try to pull the US from the Darkest timeline...it's not going to have any major affects right now...but it's a start.

Also, anyone else think that if this is what Mueller had against Manafort and Cohen that he has something much bigger on the big fish?

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 22 August 2018 - 12:51 PM

[QuickTidal]

Sidebar: Someone on Splinter News in the comments said this was yesterday's theme song.



EDIT: Cohen's lawyer also said that he is more than willing to talk to Mueller and tell him everything he knows...and has no interest in being pardoned by the President. Oh boy, he flipped HARD.

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 22 August 2018 - 01:06 PM

[Tapper]

QuickTidal, on 22 August 2018 - 12:49 PM, said:

Also, anyone else think that if this is what Mueller had against Manafort and Cohen that he has something much bigger on the big fish?

I think Mueller has (some or huge amounts of) information pointing at collusion with Russia, but not the framework to make a definite timeline, nor define (all) the actors, the extent they're involved, nor the role of Trump in it all. I highly doubt whether whatever he has is enough to be labeled collusion/ intent to collude by Rosenstein, who he reports to, let alone by Republican members of Congress. Likewise, with the obstruction of justice side of the investigation.
On top of all that, Mueller is apparently of the belief that one cannot indict the president.

If he had smoking gun/ clear cut proof of collusion by the Trump campaign, he would report on it as soon as possible to avoid doing a Comey on the midterm elections - Giuliani has been making this point specifically when he calls on Mueller to wrap up the investigation (and now again to say that the Manafort conviction has no links to collusion). However, with Manafort found guilty, the investigation has shown it does serve a purpose and does unearth crimes, buying time to go past the midterms, if Mueller sees the need.

In the meantime, the Trump camp consistently releases more information and continues to change the narrative, which helps and hinders the investigation: more information, but also more to investigate.

As for Cohen: I think that case was handed off by Mueller to the State of New York. It might only become a headache for Trump once he steps away from politics and loses legal immunity.

[QuickTidal]

Tapper, on 22 August 2018 - 02:15 PM, said:

If he had smoking gun/ clear cut proof of collusion by the Trump campaign, he would report on it as soon as possible

No he wouldn't. That would be dumb. He needs all his ducks in a row. Mueller is not one to jump just because he has a piece of damning evidence. No prosecutor worth their salt would do that. What about Mueller so far shows you he would do such a thing?

Sufficed to say that Mueller has aimed at a whole slew of Trump's cronies so far (was it 19 indictments?), and so far has slowly but surely nailed the ones he's finished with, to the wall.

Manafort and Cohen are but opening salvos.

And just so we're clear. "collusion" is not the crime. The crime is actually conspiracy. The colluding just leads to that. Trumps repetitive "collision is not a crime" is a tactic that the media has fallen for hook, line and sinker...by repeating something that is technically true (collusion is not exactly the crime on its own in the US Law books) he keeps that word in the media and can fluff it off...the media should have long ago switched to referring to the Russia investigation as one into "conspiracy" so that the public would have that word on their lips instead of collusion. Collusion is merely a buzzword. A person can collude with people and it's not a crime, but if they collude to commit a crime, then the crime is what they are convicted of.

I'm not under any illusion that these two guilty guys are about to crack the case wide open right now, today...but they are piece of an obviously much bigger pie. Think about it. Two of Trumps closest people, his campaign manager and friend, and his personal lawyer/fixer for the last 12 years...are guilty of massive crimes. Let that sink in.

What I know of Mueller's past...he's calm, methodical, and calculating. He doesn't jump up because he's got OJ's bloody glove in his hands and a lie detector test that he failed...he needs to craft a case that make it airtight and inescapable before going public.

[Tiste Simeon]

Exactly QT. Mueller isn't the type to run to tabloids waving his evidence around. He has been acting with composure and just getting on with it - the exact opposite of Trump in fact.

I would suggest that once he is ready and it is unavoidable that Trump is guilty his fans will have to admit it but then nothing so far has suggested to me that Trump fans listen to silly little things like facts or truth...

[Tapper]

QuickTidal, on 22 August 2018 - 03:03 PM, said:

Tapper, on 22 August 2018 - 02:15 PM, said:

If he had smoking gun/ clear cut proof of collusion by the Trump campaign, he would report on it as soon as possible

No he wouldn't. That would be dumb. He needs all his ducks in a row. Mueller is not one to jump just because he has a piece of damning evidence. No prosecutor worth their salt would do that. What about Mueller so far shows you he would do such a thing?

Sufficed to say that Mueller has aimed at a whole slew of Trump's cronies so far (was it 19 indictments?), and so far has slowly but surely nailed the ones he's finished with, to the wall.

Manafort and Cohen are but opening salvos.

And just so we're clear. "collusion" is not the crime. The crime is actually conspiracy. The colluding just leads to that. Trumps repetitive "collision is not a crime" is a tactic that the media has fallen for hook, line and sinker...by repeating something that is technically true (collusion is not exactly the crime on its own in the US Law books) he keeps that word in the media and can fluff it off...the media should have long ago switched to referring to the Russia investigation as one into "conspiracy" so that the public would have that word on their lips instead of collusion. Collusion is merely a buzzword. A person can collude with people and it's not a crime, but if they collude to commit a crime, then the crime is what they are convicted of.

I'm not under any illusion that these two guilty guys are about to crack the case wide open right now, today...but they are piece of an obviously much bigger pie. Think about it. Two of Trumps closest people, his campaign manager and friend, and his personal lawyer/fixer for the last 12 years...are guilty of massive crimes. Let that sink in.

What I know of Mueller's past...he's calm, methodical, and calculating. He doesn't jump up because he's got OJ's bloody glove in his hands and a lie detector test that he failed...he needs to craft a case that make it airtight and inescapable before going public.

Mueller's assignment is not to bring Trump down. It is an investigation on behalf of the DOJ , to whom he reports. It is not his decision to go public with the information, either. If it is going to be published, it will likely be published through a House or Senate committee.

He is going to be following it through up until the point where he cannot gather more proof, but I don't expect him to make a watertight case that will lead to impeachment - because that is not his assignment. At best, the report will refer to Trump the same way Watergate referred to Nixon: as an unindicted co-conspirator - and I think that's more likely to be coming from the obstruction of justice angle than from Russia.

[QuickTidal]

Tapper, on 22 August 2018 - 08:11 PM, said:

Mueller's assignment is not to bring Trump down.

No, but it's clearly an offshoot since he wants to interview him, and the investigation has already indicted a whole slew of Trump's cronies. Never mind that Cohen's plea is in most parts about the election in which Trump was elected and campaign fraud. It's all part and parcel...even if it's not the main mandate. Bringing Trump down is still a part of the investigation that his whole crew has been clearly involved in illegal activities, including his sons.

Tapper, on 22 August 2018 - 08:11 PM, said:

He is going to be following it through up until the point where he cannot gather more proof, but I don't expect him to make a watertight case that will lead to impeachment - because that is not his assignment.

His assignment is to investigate Russian interference in the election and specifically Trump's campaign. It's about him whether he likes it or not. We can argue semantics till the cows come home, but Mueller's team is investigating Trump and his people, and how that relates to the Russian interference they know happened. Shrug.

Tapper, on 22 August 2018 - 08:11 PM, said:

At best, the report will refer to Trump the same way Watergate referred to Nixon: as an unindicted co-conspirator - and I think that's more likely to be coming from the obstruction of justice angle than from Russia.

I agree it will come as an obstruction angle. I also think his problems get infinitely more complex and jail-worthy AFTER he's not the president anymore...whenever that is...I think that once he no longer has the shield of being POTUS, he's going to jail for a bunch of likely financial crimes, and a small part of me even thinks he will bolt the country first to somewhere he can't be extradited. But that's just speculation really.

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 23 August 2018 - 05:42 PM