All-purpose news and politics thread: Two Steps Beyond!(Part II)

[JackDaw]

Can a defense attorney demand a mistrial based on his own incompetence?

In U.K...appeal courts are very reluctant to accept directly idea that a defence lawyer can be incompetent.

But on other hand new defence teams obviously do launch appeals on basis of “new” evidence quite regularly...and quite often any rational person considering the nature of the “new” evidence will reflect that any competent original defence should have unearthed it and used it in original trial.

[JackDaw]

The great double post beast strikes again, so I fight back via the edit function...

[Tami]

I don't know where you got that but asking for acquittal does not equal mistrial.

It's procedural. Every case asks for that.


There are none. Every defense asks for one.


No ...

This is separate from the Acquittal filing.

A Juror May Cost Mueller Big Time in Manafort Trial

But, from what I heard he Judge is a hard-sell as far as Mistrials are concerned. Even if a Juror saw something he or she shouldn't have, or heard something they shoudln't have, the judge will probably find a way to mitigate it without a mistrial.

[BeastieRunner]

My 2 favorite pieces of evidence Team Mueller entered today:

Paul Manafort turned to Jared Kushner for help in an attempt to secure a Trump administration job for banker Stephen Calk. “On it!’’ Kushner replied on Nov. 30, 2016.

"We should make him Army Secretary!" -- Manafort "Only if he can secure you a larger loan!" -- Kushner

-------

I'm sorry, but I think Trump is screwed.

If this is the level of evidence in the FRAUD case, and it makes Trump look really bad ... I can only imagine the criminal evidence ...

[BeastieRunner]

This is separate from the Acquittal filing.

A Juror May Cost Mueller Big Time in Manafort Trial

But, from what I heard he Judge is a hard-sell as far as Mistrials are concerned. Even if a Juror saw something he or she shouldn't have, or heard something they shoudln't have, the judge will probably find a way to mitigate it without a mistrial.

Rule 29 was rendered at 10:49AM EST.

There will be no mistrial.

There are no separate filings from Rule 29 because there's been no verdict rendered from the jury.

Stop pushing something that is not true.

BTW: Your link is from Law and Crime News which heavily slants right and lost a libel case recently. They're the only news reporting the juror infraction other than MSNBC, citing the same article.

Most of the spitballing on the seal seems to be dead due to the fact that Manafort, Team Mueller, and the judge have a chamber conference today.

The delays seem to indicate a plea deal being offered.

Doesn't mean Manafort is guilty or that he takes it, but it is SOP to offer one prior to the jury instructions.

[Tami]

Rule 29 was rendered at 10:49AM EST.

There will be no mistrial.

There are no separate filings from Rule 29 because there's been no verdict rendered from the jury.

Stop pushing something that is not true.

BTW: Your link is from Law and Crime News which heavily slants right and lost a libel case recently. They're the only news reporting the juror infraction other than MSNBC, citing the same article.

Most of the spitballing on the seal seems to be dead due to the fact that Manafort, Team Mueller, and the judge have a chamber conference today.

The delays seem to indicate a plea deal being offered.

Doesn't mean Manafort is guilty or that he takes it, but it is SOP to offer one prior to the jury instructions.

I first heard of it on MSNBC, which, if anything, slants left. I hadn't heard of a decision on the issue. But it was being discussed today as a possibility. I am not pushing something that is not true, I am only talking about something that has been discussed on the news.

'Juror issue' a possible explanation for Manafort trial delays

Chuck Rosenberg, former U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, talks with Rachel Maddow about the kinds of things that can come up in a trial that resemble what was seen in court today at the trial of Donald Trump's former campaign manager Paul Manafort.

[BeastieRunner]

I first heard of it on MSNBC, which, if anything, slants left. I hadn't heard of a decision on the issue. But it was being discussed today as a possibility. I am not pushing something that is not true, I am only talking about something that has been discussed on the news.

'Juror issue' a possible explanation for Manafort trial delays

The fact of the matter is that the mistrial motion was rendered. Rule 29.

IT WOULD HAVE BEEN ANNOUNCED TODAY.

It was not. The judge ruled in favor of Team Mueller. It's literally in every news source.

If anybody can ask for a mistrial it's the prosecutors.
https://abovethelaw.com/2018/08/shou...st-a-mistrial/

Rule 29 motion failed today. There will be no mistrial.

EDIT TO ADD: I also pointed out the source that MCNBC was using was nailed for libel, which was also your OG source. I should have left off the slants left or right commentary.

[worstblogever]

It probably should speak volumes that there is no witness that Manafort or his lawyers can call upon to make him look less guilty. Some would view his lawyers passing on doing that as them giving up, but it's probably strategic. They literally have no one that can provide any testimony that won't get blown apart like a wet paper bag by the Mueller team and make things even worse.

Tomorrow's the closing arguments, jury should not need long to deliberate on this. Mueller's team will have a conviction by the weekend. Probably by Thursday.

[PaulBullion]

JFK was also a journalist and yet he hired his friend Ted Sorensen to ghost write his books including Profiles in Courage which won a Pulitzer Prize for Biography, although I doubt the book deserves a Pulitzer Prize since JFK's daddy bribed a longtime member of the Pulitzer prize board to persuade others to vote for Profiles in Courage.

That...
means nothing. It does not explain the opinion you explained in the least.

[Tami]

The fact of the matter is that the mistrial motion was rendered. Rule 29.

IT WOULD HAVE BEEN ANNOUNCED TODAY.

It was not. The judge ruled in favor of Team Mueller. It's literally in every news source.

If anybody can ask for a mistrial it's the prosecutors.
https://abovethelaw.com/2018/08/shou...st-a-mistrial/

Rule 29 motion failed today. There will be no mistrial.

EDIT TO ADD: I also pointed out the source that MCNBC was using was nailed for libel, which was also your OG source. I should have left off the slants left or right commentary.

The issue had been brought up. I did not say or mean to imply that it was definite, only that the possibility had been brought up. I am glad to hear that idea was shot down. There is nothing wrong with me sharing what I heard and leaving it up to the group here to discuss it. Once more facts came to light, we now have a better understanding of the situation.

If an information source is corroborated by other sources, even if it is presented as a possibility and not as fact, then it is worth considering until actual facts emerge, regardless if one of the sources is considered "right' or 'left'.

I am not writing a news article or a dissertation, only conveying what I have heard and seeking out the truth behind it.

[BeastieRunner]

It probably should speak volumes that there is no witness that Manafort or his lawyers can call upon to make him look less guilty. Some would view his lawyers passing on doing that as them giving up, but it's probably strategic. They literally have no one that can provide any testimony that won't get blown apart like a wet paper bag by the Mueller team and make things even worse.

Tomorrow's the closing arguments, jury should not need long to deliberate on this. Mueller's team will have a conviction by the weekend. Probably by Thursday.

- Jerry Sandusky was found guilty 21 hours after the defense rested with no witnesses. Found guilty on all charges.
- Defense called no witness in the Greco Murder Trial. 6 hours later, she was found guilty on all charges.

It's not uncommon but it is risky for the defense. It doesn't bode well in most circumstances. Guilty or not, they almost always render verdicts quickly.

[BeastieRunner]

The issue had been brought up. I did not say or mean to imply that it was definite, only that the possibility had been brought up. I am glad to hear that idea was shot down. There is nothing wrong with me sharing what I heard and leaving it up to the group here to discuss it. Once more facts came to light, we now have a better understanding of the situation.

If an information source is corroborated by other sources, even if it is presented as a possibility and not as fact, then it is worth considering until actual facts emerge, regardless if one of the sources is considered "right' or 'left'.

I am not writing a news article or a dissertation, only conveying what I have heard and seeking out the truth behind it.

I get you. It's cool. We're cool.

I apologize for being a little edgy ... FAKE NEWZZZ!!!one1! ... gets spread real fast anymore.

[BeastieRunner]

PM Manafort Trial update:

Defense argued that the forfeiture notice was relevant to why the Federal Savings Bank wrote off $16M in loans to Manafort as a loss.

“The reason behind the banks writing off the loan is clearly… the government’s action. These loans were current until his indictment.”

Team Mueller pointed out that the property has not actually been seized, and in fact it was part of the bond package that kept Manafort out of jail until his recent indictment on new charges in DC federal court.

Team Mueller stated that it doesn't change anything in the case.

Judge: “It’s not relevant, and it’s confusing and prejudicial. It doesn’t say anything about whether the funds are restrained.”

Request by the defense denied.

Team Mueller stated they planned to bring up the bank’s loss in rebuttal only if the defense raises the issue in their closing argument. They joked, “I don’t have enough time, your honor.”

Judge admonished both sides to trim their arguments down.

Judge proposed giving jurors a specific instruction about his comments, effectively saying they were expressions of opinion and could be disregarded entirely.

Team Mueller argued that the judge’s proposal should be condensed as to not place such emphasis on the judge’s opinions.

“I just don’t think that’s where the court wants to be.”

The Judge said that Team Mueller's proposal did not note a federal judge’s right to do that. “That’s still the law of the land,” he quipped and made a split infinitive joke. Which is something he's known to have a pet-peeve about.

Judge asked Team Mueller pointedly about his opinionated remarks.

“Do you think I made any such comments?”

After a long silence, Team Mueller affirmed.

Judge asked for an example.

They listed the yet-to-be addressed Gates incident.

“That really hurt the government, didn’t it?”

The judge said he would consider combining Team Mueller’s proposal with his own.

Judge called for recess.

[BeastieRunner]

Here's some of today's scuzy evidence, largely focused around Kushner and Manafort.

Have fun spinning that one, Trumpettes!

I think Team Mueller just sent up the signal flare that Kushner is the big fish they want.

[worstblogever]

Here's some of today's scuzy evidence, largely focused around Kushner and Manafort.

Have fun spinning that one, Trumpettes!

I think Team Mueller just sent up the signal flare that Kushner is the big fish they want.

That one e-mail... we already have heard numerous Kushner corruption stories. I mean, his father went to jail for political corruption in Jersey. But the Kushner family was offering Chinese nationals immigration VISAs for cash. Kushner reportedly leaked classified intel to Saudi Arabia to lead to the Crown Prince rounding up all his political enemies on trumped-up charges. Sure, one e-mail... but Kushner has just been sloppy and brazen about this whole misadventure.

As was Manafort. As was Don Junior.

Like, Stupid Watergate and all that... but these people left a trail of bread crumbs that you can see from space.