Moose & Squirrel v Boris & Natasha: what's the deal with the rooskies and trumpland?

[AsburySkinsFan]

1 minute ago, Bang said:

for some reason, the fact our biggest enemy wanted this guy to win is not enough to make "patriotic" people question their motives.

Think what you're told. How embarrassing it must be to live like that.

 

~Bang

 

[PleaseBlitz]

6 minutes ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

Just use any of the other examples of when they lied about something never happening and then came back with "well ok, it happened but so what?"

 

Here, Trump isn't lying in the direct sense of that word.  He's right, "collusion" is not a crime.  It just does not matter.  

 

But, if Trump says it often enough (and oh my, has he said it often enough), it starts to matter to the people that are predisposed to buying into his bull****.  

 

Luckily, Mueller is not one of those people and is very likely to just press on with prosecuting Trump's henchmen and either flipping them or sticking them in prison for committing things that are, in fact, for-real crimes.  

 

Unrelated, why are there no ****ing updates from the Manafort trial?  I was hoping to follow that on a second-by-second basis.  

 

 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/07/31/facebook-says-it-has-uncovered-a-coordinated-disinformation-operation-ahead-of-midterm-elections-involving-false-pages-and-profiles/?utm_term=.d83587d4edca

 

Facebook says it has uncovered a coordinated disinformation operation ahead of midterm elections involving false pages and profiles

 

Quote

The social media company said that it couldn’t tie the activity to Russia, which interfered on its platform around the 2016 presidential election. But Facebook said the three dozen profiles shared a pattern of behavior with the previous Russian disinformation campaign.

 

Hey, Facebook did something not in the absolute worst way possible.  

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

1 minute ago, PleaseBlitz said:

Here, Trump isn't lying in the direct sense of that word.  He's right, "collusion" is not a crime.  It just does not matter.   

No, the lie part was the 5 billion times he said "no collusion".

 

No collusion! No collusion! No collusion! No collusion! No collusion! No collusion! No collusion! No collusion! No collusion! No collusion! Witch Hunt!! No collusion! No collusion! No collusion! No collusion!

 

Ok, there was collusion but it's not a crime.

[AsburySkinsFan]

 

[DogofWar1]

 

[PleaseBlitz]

9 minutes ago, DogofWar1 said:

 

 

[Llevron]

@PleaseBlitz you are pretty jazzed up about this huh? Lol 

[visionary]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I’m a little nervous that the trial could be unpredictable.  What if some Trump hardliners are on it and they just stonewall everything?

[PleaseBlitz]

20 minutes ago, Llevron said:

@PleaseBlitz you are pretty jazzed up about this huh? Lol 

 

I am staunchly anti-witch (except in the Harry Potter universe). I take great pleasure in successful witch hunts and hope Manafort gets burned at the stake or possibly stuffed in a sack with some wild animals and tossed in a river.  

Edited July 31, 2018 by PleaseBlitz

[PleaseBlitz]

8 minutes ago, visionary said:

 

 

I’m a little nervous that the trial could be unpredictable.  What if some Trump hardliners are on it and they just stonewall everything?

 

A valid concern with any high-profile trial.  If the jury deadlocks, then a mistrial will be declared and we'll get to do it again (closer to the November election).  But that would seriously harm the Mueller team's credibility, even if unfairly.  At this point, I can't even entertain the thought that Paul Manafort is innocent.  

Edited July 31, 2018 by PleaseBlitz

[Kilmer17]

No presumption of innocence?  Color me surprised.

[PleaseBlitz]

1 minute ago, Kilmer17 said:

No presumption of innocence?  Color me surprised.

 

The court presumes innocence.  I (1) am not on the jury and (2) can read. 

 

Do you think Paul Manafort is innocent?

Edited July 31, 2018 by PleaseBlitz

[Kilmer17]

Just now, PleaseBlitz said:

 

The court presumes innocence.  I (1) am not on the jury and (2) can read. 

I think he's guilty too.  But I'm curious what your reaction will be if the court finds him not guilty.  WIll you accept that?

[visionary]

5 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

I think he's guilty too.  But I'm curious what your reaction will be if the court finds him not guilty.  WIll you accept that?

How could he be innocent or not guilty of the things he's built his career around?  lol  I won't be shocked if he gets off though.  He's not some poor nobody after all.  

Edited July 31, 2018 by visionary

[DogofWar1]

23 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

A valid concern with any high-profile trial.  If the jury deadlocks, then a mistrial will be declared and we'll get to do it again (closer to the November election).  But that would seriously harm the Mueller team's credibility, even if unfairly.  At this point, I can't even entertain the thought that Paul Manafort is innocent.  

Though wouldn't a juror lying about their preferences/views/positions/etc. be grounds for dismissal from the jury and an alternate brought in?

 

Also, I don't know about federal court, but juries don't need to be 12, it's just the number we use most often, so if, say, 3 people stonewall based on a secret plot, and its found out, wouldn't it be possible for the trial to continue with fewer than 12 jurors, provided nothing tainted the full jury and trial?

 

 

[PleaseBlitz]

8 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

I think he's guilty too.  But I'm curious what your reaction will be if the court finds him not guilty.  WIll you accept that?

 

If the court finds him not guilty, of course I will accept that.  I just don't think it's going to come up.  

[visionary]

1 minute ago, DogofWar1 said:

Though wouldn't a juror lying about their preferences/views/positions/etc. be grounds for dismissal from the jury and an alternate brought in?

 

Also, I don't know about federal court, but juries don't need to be 12, it's just the number we use most often, so if, say, 3 people stonewall based on a secret plot, and its found out, wouldn't it be possible for the trial to continue with fewer than 12 jurors, provided nothing tainted the full jury and trial?

 

It doesn't have to be a plot though, they could just be stubborn or unwilling to give a **** about the evidence because they see it as fake news.

[PleaseBlitz]

1 minute ago, DogofWar1 said:

Though wouldn't a juror lying about their preferences/views/positions/etc. be grounds for dismissal from the jury and an alternate brought in?

 

They'd have to have evidence the juror lied.  If they get to deliberation, and a juror just says they honestly think he's not guilty, probably can't dismiss him/her. 

 

1 minute ago, DogofWar1 said:

 

Also, I don't know about federal court, but juries don't need to be 12, it's just the number we use most often, so if, say, 3 people stonewall based on a secret plot, and its found out, wouldn't it be possible for the trial to continue with fewer than 12 jurors, provided nothing tainted the full jury and trial?

 

 

 

I'm not really going to get into secret plots and whatnot until there is some reason to think it's in play (over an above Manafort's attempted witness tampering).

[Fresh8686]

The evidence, the mountain of a paper trail incriminating this scraggly ass dude, plus Rick Gates testifying against him will make it highly unlikely this guy gets found not guilty.

[visionary]

 

 

 

 

[twa]

They are using six for the jury

[DogofWar1]

19 minutes ago, visionary said:

It doesn't have to be a plot though, they could just be stubborn or unwilling to give a **** about the evidence because they see it as fake news.

 

18 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

I'm not really going to get into secret plots and whatnot until there is some reason to think it's in play (over an above Manafort's attempted witness tampering).

Right right, but what I meant was, if some jurors are dismissed for misconduct, can't the jury continue with less than 12 and find guilt or innocence?

 

Like if all but 9 jurors are dismissed for misconduct, can't the 9, provided they are not viewed at tainted, still render a verdict?

 

Or is that not a thing in federal court?

[PleaseBlitz]

12 minutes ago, DogofWar1 said:

 

Right right, but what I meant was, if some jurors are dismissed for misconduct, can't the jury continue with less than 12 and find guilt or innocence?

 

Like if all but 9 jurors are dismissed for misconduct, can't the 9, provided they are not viewed at tainted, still render a verdict?

 

Or is that not a thing in federal court?

 

a jury of fewer than 12 persons may return a verdict if the court finds it necessary to excuse a juror for good cause after the trial begins.

 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_23

 

Its funny that a GOPer like @Kilmer17 is wondering if people will accept the verdict if Manafort is innocent.  If there is anything out of the ordinary in this trial (and probably without it), the GOP is going to concoct the most ridiculous conspiracy theories when Pauly gets nailed to the cross. 

Edited July 31, 2018 by PleaseBlitz

[Kilmer17]

1 minute ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

a jury of fewer than 12 persons may return a verdict if the court finds it necessary to excuse a juror for good cause after the trial begins.

 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_23

 

Its funny that a GOPer like @Kilmer17 is wondering if people will accept the verdict if Manafort is innocent.  If there is anything out of the ordinary in this trial (and probably without it), the GOP is going to concoct the most ridiculous conspiracy theories when Pauly gets nailed to the cross. 

Not all people.  Just the folks on edge here.

[visionary]