Print

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

[Trekkin]

On the other hand, the judge hasn't exactly sounded impartial either, so maybe they're just playing it out and expecting the judge to hand out a slap on the wrist be done with it.

That would be my guess; opening one's mouth in T.S. Ellis' courtroom is a good way to destroy any goodwill one might have with him (largely because he's a staggeringly insecure man who has to constantly prove he's the smartest guy in the room), so they may have calculated that they'd rather have his overt pity than risk running afoul of his ego.

[Max™]

You can take it one step further by making them heil Charlie Chaplin

Or you could quit feeding the Nazis.

*Hides 10-pound bag of Nazseed*

It's ok, I already hid it for you, in the forest...

Spoiler: OH WAIT! (click to show/hide)

I showed the missus that and she was half asleep and mutters in a drunken Reagan impression: "Mr. Gorbachev... tear down this tree..."

She is legend.

[smjjames]

The prosecution's case has been... sloppy. So maybe they think they can get away with the discrediting they've done so far.

On one hand it's pretty clear he's done some bad things, but on the other hand, the evidence of said bad things isn't necessarily "beyond reasonable doubt". Jury may let him off based on that alone.

On the other hand, the judge hasn't exactly sounded impartial either, so maybe they're just playing it out and expecting the judge to hand out a slap on the wrist be done with it.

As far as 'reasonable doubt, I suppose it might hinge more on whether he knew it was wrong or maybe the degrees of it, dunno.

They're doing one of the dismissals based on the judges comments apparently, so, maybe mistrial? How Trump and co. react to the Mueller investigation going forward is going to heavily depend on whether this trial succeeds or not. If it goes to mistrial though, Trump is going to see that as a win regardless.

[Gentlefish]

Whether or not he "knew" it was wrong should have no bearing on the illegality of the case. If I didn't know it was illegal to run someone over and I did it, I should still be prosecuted for it.

[Kagus]

As far as 'reasonable doubt, I suppose it might hinge more on whether he knew it was wrong or maybe the degrees of it, dunno.

That's the thing though, this isn't about proving something 'beyond reasonable doubt'... This is about proving beyond unreasonable doubt. It's a partisan issue, so there has to be a gigantic sword hanging over his head for anybody to care.

[smjjames]

I meant what his intention was, to take your example, if you genuinely ran over someone by accident, that's one thing, if you intended to, that's another. I was thinking more the sentencing part I guess.

Uh... huh. So apparently manafort's defense team has decided to call no witnesses and present no case. Seems like they pretty much immediately rested when their go was up. Interesting choice...?

The CNN liveblog mentions that one of the defense lawyers said that they did so because 'the government hasn't met the burden of proof'. Seems like there's plenty of proof to me though.

As far as 'reasonable doubt, I suppose it might hinge more on whether he knew it was wrong or maybe the degrees of it, dunno.

That's the thing though, this isn't about proving something 'beyond reasonable doubt'... This is about proving beyond unreasonable doubt. It's a partisan issue, so there has to be a gigantic sword hanging over his head for anybody to care.

I certainly hope the lawyers attempted to do 6 republicans and 6 democrats in order to balance things out if it's a partisan issue. Though they really aren't supposed to attempt to manipulate the jury along partisan lines, and the jury themselves are supposed to leave politics behind.

[nenjin]

That seems like supreme arrogance on the part of the defense. Even if the prosecution did not present a strong case, just smugly going "yeah we don't have to do anything" for a trial of this caliber won't win them any favors from people in the jury who actually are paying attention or care about the facts of the case.

[Kagus]

people in the jury who actually are paying attention or care about the facts of the case.

So... Nobody?

These are jury members we're talking about. It's specifically called "A jury of your peers" because they spend the whole time pissing about.

[smjjames]

You'd think they'd at least try a character witness or something, the defense not offering anything makes it look like the defense really doesn't have anything to actually defend with.

Both sides are going to do their closing arguments tomorrow, so, I guess we'll see then if there is anything there.

people in the jury who actually are paying attention or care about the facts of the case.

So... Nobody?

These are jury members we're talking about. It's specifically called "A jury of your peers" because they spend the whole time pissing about.

Nice pun.

[Kagus]

Nice pun.

Thank you. I tried very hard...


But yes, it is incredibly sketchy that they've just gone "Nah, we don't need to assemble a defense". Maybe there's some Moriarty-level bullshit involved?

[Egan_BW]

Nice pun.

Thank you. I tried very hard...


But yes, it is incredibly sketchy that they've just gone "Nah, we don't need to assemble a defense". Maybe there's some Moriarty-level bullshit involved?

"The defense humbly presents... Nothing!"
"Nani!?"
"All according to plan! Hahahaha!"

[smjjames]

Well, they could have had Manafort take the stand, but what kind of defense team ever lets the defendee take the stand.

Though if they try to assert tomorrow that the prosecution hasn't met the burden of proof without giving counter proof (other than what happened during cross examination), then I don't see how that defense is going to work, unless they're just trying to place the seed of doubt in the jury.

[Starver]

Nice pun.

Thank you. I tried very hard...

I had thought it was ur inate cleverness...

[misko27]

Apparently, it's not entirely unusual, but only done when you think the prosecution hasn't presented sufficient burden of proof. It does worry me slightly that they know something we don't, but I'm not losing sleep over it.

[nenjin]

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.