It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Judge in Manafort trial says he's been threatened over case

page: 5
35
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 17 2018 @ 05:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Kharron

Didnt Rosenstein have the chance to indict manafort for these crimes 7 years ago, and deicided not to do anything?

He's getting life in prison now?

Serious question? Life. For what?




posted on Aug, 17 2018 @ 05:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Kharron

I'll agree he made the right decision. The media doesn't need to know who these people are.



posted on Aug, 17 2018 @ 05:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Kharron

A slightly more complete set of quotes here. Somewhat ambiguous though.

The federal judge overseeing the Paul Manafort fraud trial signaled Friday afternoon a reluctance to publicly identify the jurors, saying they were “scared” and “afraid” and adding, “I’m not going to reveal any threats.”

“I had no idea this case would incite this emotion,” U.S. District Court Judge T.S. Ellis III said in an open court hearing, responding to a motion from seven news organizations, including POLITICO, seeking access to sealed materials related to the trial.

www.politico.com...


Hmmm, the word "reveal" sticks out. If he is talking about the threats to the jurors, and it seems he is, it would imply that threats had already been made.

Thanks for the link.



posted on Aug, 17 2018 @ 05:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: samuelsson
a reply to: Kharron

Didnt Rosenstein have the chance to indict manafort for these crimes 7 years ago, and deicided not to do anything?

He's getting life in prison now?

Serious question? Life. For what?


If they presented enough evidence that he committed crimes, he should pay his debt to society. It does seem rather silly though, considering that you could probably charge half the people in DC with this same #. Not that it's okay, but it's messed up that he gets singled out and made an example of because so Mueller can appease people who still aren't over the 2016 election.



posted on Aug, 17 2018 @ 05:45 PM
link   
a reply to: samuelsson




Serious question? Life. For what?

Tax and bank fraud. But none of them call for life sentences though, 15-20 for each count think.



posted on Aug, 17 2018 @ 05:46 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785




It does seem rather silly though, considering that you could probably charge half the people in DC with this same #.
Hmmmmmm. Donald lives in Washington.
edit on 8/17/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 17 2018 @ 06:21 PM
link   
a reply to: samuelsson

That is the possiable sentence based on the number of charges, hence the stacking claim by the defense. The average sentence for the type of charges is 5 to 7 years. It depends on how many charges if any he is found guilty of. The second trial in DC is going to be what will determine if it's life or not.


On tax charges he faces in Virginia alone, his likely sentence would be eight years, prosecutors said in a previous court filing. 


That is just the tax charges, he also faces the bank fraud and wire fraud charges which could mean another 5 to 7.

www.google.com...

edit on 8/17/2018 by DJMSN because: Addition



posted on Aug, 17 2018 @ 06:25 PM
link   
CNN is now sueing to get those names of jurors, lmfao



posted on Aug, 17 2018 @ 06:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Arnie123

Do you have the source for that?



posted on Aug, 17 2018 @ 06:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: face23785




It does seem rather silly though, considering that you could probably charge half the people in DC with this same #.
Hmmmmmm. Donald lives in Washington.


Yea, finding dirt like that on Trump is way above the capabilities of the FBI. Poor Mueller, and he would have had him too, if it wasn't for them meddling kids.



posted on Aug, 17 2018 @ 06:47 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

The way Trump is talking about this whole trial being sad and part of the witchhunt and saying Manafort is a great guy and all does anyone really believe he is not going to pardon him if he is convicted?



posted on Aug, 17 2018 @ 06:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: Arnie123

Do you have the source for that?
Naw, after a second look, it seems to be a spin article on just the initial motion filed by CNN and Co, by the federalist source.



posted on Aug, 17 2018 @ 08:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

hrrm now that you mention it it is odd they didnt bring that up in the betting odds....how many jurors would it take for a mistrial?

www.npr.org... this NPR link worries about jury nullification which i guess is another option not mentioned by the bookies

CHANG: A lot of observers say that this is going to be a slam dunk for the prosecution because there's so much evidence. But you bring up in your piece something that could derail the government's case, and that's this idea of jury nullification. Can you just briefly explain what is jury nullification?
HONIG: Jury nullification happens when the jurors disregard the evidence that's been introduced at trial and the judge's legal instructions and instead decide the case based on some personal belief - some external belief that they may have, whether that's a political belief, a religious belief or just sort of a personal feeling about the case.
CHANG: OK. But jury nullification is extremely rare. Do you think there could be a greater chance of jury nullification in this case because it's been so highly anticipated and so politically charged? We have the president today calling, in tweets, for an end to the Russia investigation.
HONIG: Yes. Jury nullification is extremely rare. I want to make sure that point's clear. And I think jury nullification is at a higher likelihood in a high-profile case and especially here. This is about as high-profile as it gets.
CHANG: Well, how about you? Do you have personal experience with this? I mean, have you had a case where you were pretty sure one juror nullified?
HONIG: I have. About 10 years ago, I was tasked with doing the fourth trial of John Gotti Jr. here in New York City. He had been tried three times previously, and each time the jury hung. A few years later, he was charged again, and I tried that case against John Gotti Jr. And the jury hung 6-6. And at the end, we got to talk to the jurors. And the jurors who were for acquittal essentially said, yeah, we don't doubt that he was guilty. We just think it's unfair to try someone four times. So essentially...
CHANG: Oh, yeah.
HONIG: ...What that jury did was say, OK, the evidence may make out this guy's guilt, but we have a belief - a personal belief - about, basically, the overall fairness of the system.
CHANG: You've already mentioned that there's a possibility of a hung jury. If there were a hung jury in this case, what are the broader implications for the Mueller investigation? Would that be really damaging?
HONIG: I think a hung jury would be seen as pretty much an - akin to an acquittal. Technically, a hung jury is a tie, and almost always those cases are retried. But a hung jury is - make no mistake - is a loss for the prosecutor. I've had a hung jury. It hurts. If you ask a defense lawyer, will you take a hung jury? Ninety-nine times out of a hundred, they'll say absolutely. And a hung jury here would be - I would predict that the president and others would gloat about a jury refused to convict. They didn't acquit. OK, but they refused to convict based on Mueller's evidence.


so my first question answered hung jury is a tie ,how do you think the public would react to a nullification ruling? knowing nothing about the jurors can we even guess that any of them would be going this route? and if it is a nullification ruling what do you think would be its effect on the larger Muller investigation? you seem pretty informed on court stuff so figured you may be a good person to ask but any one else can feel free to educate me on such matters,my only court experience is as a defendant in my rambunctious youth in which thankfully i won far more then i lost due to a shark of a lawyer



posted on Aug, 17 2018 @ 08:56 PM
link   
a reply to: jhn7537

None of that happened. Relax dude.
Sheesh.
No jurors have been threatened.



posted on Aug, 17 2018 @ 08:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Arnie123

thefederalist.com...

dailycaller.com...

theconservativetreehouse.com... verdict-reached/ this one has what looks like the motion but not sure if real or photoshopped


these are the only links ive found talking about media suing over it and have not seen it on the more major or mainstream media sources ,with only the last one claiming to have a copy but seems to not be the most credible list of sources even to me as a moderate republican

www.scribd.com... this is supposedly it but again skeptical can any one verify if this was a real request or not?

it seems juror names and addresses are public record which seems odd.....reason.com...

But one 79-year-old New York divorcee found out what jury duty is like when the circumstances are not the best. Ruth Jordan, a member of the jury in the trial of Tyco International executives Dennis Kozlowski and Mark Swartz, has not only had her name and photo spread around the world, but was ridiculed in New York newspapers for allegedly being stingy, snobbish, and paranoid. The abuse occurred because she supposedly made a sympathetic signal to defense lawyers. That outrage prompted The Wall Street Journal's website and the New York Post to publish her name while the trial was underway, which is almost unheard of. With that information out, Jordan soon got a hostile anonymous phone call and a letter she regarded as disturbing. So Judge Michael Obus declared a mistrial, citing "the notoriety that was brought to bear on one particular juror, whose name and background have been widely publicized in the media." By that time, it was irrelevant that the abuse was unwarranted. The judge made a point of declaring that she did nothing wrong. His ire was directed at the press for disclosing her identity.
this seems like an odd thing to allow and again not saying the claim that cnn/other media sued to get this info is real or not its why i asked if any one could confirm just posted this to show how when photos and names are posted it can cause problems and seems like a really odd thing to allow at all



posted on Aug, 17 2018 @ 09:04 PM
link   
a reply to: RalagaNarHallas

Acquittal is highly unlikely. You really can't argue with paper.
Hung jury could happen if someone wants their fifteen minutes of fame being the lone holdout. Conviction must be unanimous.
He's not walking that's certain.



posted on Aug, 17 2018 @ 09:05 PM
link   
a reply to: samuelsson

Not a life sentence but given his age it will be for the rest of his life.



posted on Aug, 17 2018 @ 09:07 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785

The media gets a jury list after every big news worthy trial.
Not during the trial but after.



posted on Aug, 17 2018 @ 09:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme




None of that happened. Relax dude. 
Sheesh. 
No jurors have been threatened.


Once again nonsense with the hopes that everyone will believe it and not say something. Just once, once, a link to back up the nonsense would be nice.


Paul Manafort's trial will stretch into a fourth week, as jurors headed home Friday without reaching a verdict for the second straight day and the judge overseeing the case alluded to "threats" the jury may be receiving.


The Judge alluding to possiable threats that the jury has received. Of course, for some as long they say it didn't happen, then it didn't happen right ? Never mind reality and LINKS, sheesh.

www.politico.com...
edit on 8/17/2018 by DJMSN because: Addition



posted on Aug, 17 2018 @ 09:30 PM
link   
The judge could have been threatened by Trump or Republicans for all you know... there is no evidence that liberals are behind it.




top topics



 
35
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join