Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Dunamisdeos]

The idea that he would get off with not guilty (or even a hung jury) on all counts is worrying.

[smjjames]

Isn't a hung jury the same as mistrial? In both cases they can just retry I think?

I'm guessing they're very confident in the makeup of the jury pool. And I suppose the way things are now the best we can probably expect is a hung jury anyways. Nobody actually gives a shit about malfeasance when they're just trying to thumb their nose at the other side.

Theres nothing in the jury pool that makes me think that the best we can expect is a hung jury, at least as far as what I know about it. If you mean politics by 'other side', they're supposed to put politics aside, but there is an inescapable political undercurrent here.

[nenjin]

Isn't a hung jury the same as mistrial? In both cases they can just retry I think?

It is. But it would basically exonerate Trump in the eyes of his supporters, and I think there would be less overall support for another go at Manafort in the public's mind. And possibly any further prosecutions.

I'm guessing they're very confident in the makeup of the jury pool. And I suppose the way things are now the best we can probably expect is a hung jury anyways. Nobody actually gives a shit about malfeasance when they're just trying to thumb their nose at the other side.

Theres nothing in the jury pool that makes me think that the best we can expect is a hung jury, at least as far as what I know about it. If you mean politics by 'other side', they're supposed to put politics aside, but there is an inescapable political undercurrent here.

I would have thought a lot of things lately should put aside politics, but that ain't happened in a lot of instances. If we can't expect a jury of people's peers to actually care about the facts of the case, expecting them to the go the extra mile and also put aside their politics against the facts of the case is even less likely to happen.

[smjjames]

Theres still another one in September, and that one is supposed to be more on his connections with Russia and stuff.

[Egan_BW]

Or that they really don't think they can win, but want to look like they think they can just in case they somehow do.

[Starver]

Knowing who they're an 'ally' of, maybe the relevant summing up will be "FAKE PROSECUTION! THE MAINSTREAM WITNESSES ARE IN LEAGUE WITH THE DEEP COURT! WE ACTUALLY HAVE HAD THE BIGGEST AFFIDAVITS! JUROR EMPLOYMENT HAS INCREASED THANKS TO US!"...

[smjjames]

Yea that's a good point there ispil. I guess it remains to be seen just what they'll try to defend with in the closing statements, probably try to obsfucate or something as that's about the only trick they have left.

If the jury does find him guilty, hopefully they find him guilty of all charges just to not give Trump even a sliver of a victory to grab onto.

Hopefully it doesn't take real long for the jury to come to a decision.

[Doomblade187]

Yea that's a good point there ispil. I guess it remains to be seen just what they'll try to defend with in the closing statements, probably try to obsfucate or something as that's about the only trick they have left.

If the jury does find him guilty, hopefully they find him guilty of all charges just to not give Trump even a sliver of a victory to grab onto.

Eh, he'll make a handle. "PAUL MANAFORT, CAMPAIGN COFFEE BOY, HAS NEVER JAYWALKED A DAY IN HIS LIFE!!"

[Karnewarrior]

Honestly, they might just be planning on losing the case and having Trump pardon him on all charges. It's not like that'd be hard to spin as a "victory against the Deep State" and would fit the persecution complex of the alt-right base Trump panders so hard to way better than just beating us libtards straight up.

Sure, every rational person in America would be outraged, but that's nothing new. Hasn't been since 2016.

[Max™]

He's got unpardonable state charges too.

[hector13]

The Trump campaign is suing Omarosa for breach of contract, specifically a non-disclosure agreement. This seems a bit iffy to me, since it’s a political campaign, which should be as transparent as is humanly possible, yes?

[Micro102]

I'm pretty sure the non-disclosure agreements are unenforceable. I do see a problem with recording things in these meetings, don't know the legality of that though.

[Frumple]

The NDAs are both unenforceable (on multiple different levels, from what I understand; on top of other problems with them apparently federal employees are some sort of exception to them sticking,* though I haven't paid attention to the details) and frankly a nasty trap for trump/the white house even if they weren't.

The thing about NDAs is their punitive aspect works off damages. Monetary damages. Which would have to be proven. I.e. trump would have to provide proof he's profiting off his position as POTUS to get anything out of anyone that signed the pointless things.

*E: More specifically, as near as I can tell the extent a NDA can be applied to a former federal employee speaking on unclassified subjects is "not". By firing omarosa (or any other person that's been a federal _{and maybe political in general} employee), pretty much any NDA that was agreed to became void. The POTUS cannot legally censor the speech of a former employee speaking about what they experienced during their job save regarding matters formally classified. First amendment's a bit of a bastard of a thing that doesn't quite apply to the government like it does to non-government entities~

[Trekkin]

The POTUS cannot legally censor the speech of a former employee speaking about what they experienced during their job save regarding matters formally classified. First amendment's a bit of a bastard of a thing that doesn't quite apply to the government like it does to non-government entities

POTUS cannot, no. Trump can have employees of his organization/campaign sign NDAs, since unless and until he's President, they're not yet federal employees. That is what happened here, since Omarosa signed such an NDA while employed by the campaign; that NDA was just written to broadly prevent any criticism of Trump at any time, including during his Presidency and afterwards.

Insofar as she's speaking about her experiences as a federal employee, there are almost certainly grounds for piercing the veil, but there's still ambiguity over how that interacts with the full scope of the agreement.

[Frumple]

*shrugs* It would still have to prove damages, far as I'm aware, or have a stipulated penalty fee* or somethin'. Basically not something omarosa (or much of anyone else) really has to worry about, heh. NDAs only have so much teeth at the end of the day.

* Number of people willing to cover that for stuff on the tangerine shitgibbon: Probably larger than his inauguration crowd.