SE Hoya Containment Thread (aka Politics) - Page 1867 - Sporting Events and Fantasy Sports

Here’s a conversation from a few days after our walk:

Me: You told me you found [George’s tweets] disrespectful.

Kellyanne: It is disrespectful, it’s a violation of basic decency, certainly, if not marital vows . . . as “a person familiar with their relationship.”

Me: No, we’re on the record here. You can’t say after the fact “as someone familiar.”

Kellyanne: I told you everything about his tweets was off the record.

Me: No, that’s not true. That never happened.

Kellyanne: Well, people do see it this way. People do see it that way, I don’t say I do, but people see it that way.

Me: But I’m saying we never discussed everything about his tweets being off the record. There are certain things you said that I put off the record.

Kellyanne: Fine. I’ve never actually said what I think about it and I won’t say what I think about it, which tells you what I think about it.

Of course, how an anonymous source is described is often a matter of negotiation.

Quote

08-17-2018 , 03:06 AM

#46652

Palo

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 10,563

Quote:

Originally Posted by RT

Asking to define "reasonable doubt" seems like a bad sign...

Quote:

Originally Posted by BDHarrison

My understanding is that it is a common question from juries.

Based on my vast jury experience (one armed robbery/murder trial about 15 years ago) it's something the prosecution and/or defense attorneys go over whether the jury asks or not. The judge certainly did not.

Quote

08-17-2018 , 07:14 AM

#46653

dth123451

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2012 Posts: 15,502

Well, this judge is an arrogant piece of ****. I mean, it shouldn't matter, this idiot basically kept a treasure trove of documents that read "I AM COMMITTING TAX FRAUD SIGNED PAUL MANAFORT," but people are stupid and defer to authority and this ******* has been horrible to the prosecution with the jury present for the whole trial. Also we know about deplorables and facts.

Quote

08-17-2018 , 11:35 AM

#46654

cannabusto

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Jan 2013 Posts: 4,876

Quote:

Originally Posted by dth123451

This jurisdiction has a culture of speeding things up purposefully as a matter of justice. Right to a speedy trial and all that. Given that the prosecution is the only side that really has a case at all, they were always going to get the short end of the stick compared to the side whose entire case is more or less: "ummm, but maybe not tho."

Quote

08-17-2018 , 12:04 PM

#46655

Holliday

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 22,226

Quote:

Originally Posted by Palo

It's your job to decide who's telling the truth. Truth. That's what 'verdict' means. It's a word comes down from Old England and all our little old ancestors.

Quote

08-17-2018 , 12:12 PM

#46656

Holliday

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 22,226

Quote:

Originally Posted by dth123451

I'll never forget the show I watched where they recorded jury deliberations and one dude declared what the defendant said on the stand, "You can't count that. The constitution says you can't use someone's own words against them." 11 other people (who were to that point ready to convict) said, "Oh. ok. Yeah, that sounds like what the constitution says." and proceeded to acquit since the prosecution had sort of *assumed* that whole confessing to the crime on the stand thing had wrapped the case up.

Really wish they'd done something like that on Perry Mason.

In the meantime, I don't mind them clarifying basic facts at all.

Quote

08-17-2018 , 12:17 PM

#46657

Palo

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 10,563

I wasn't criticizing the judge. He left it up to the jury to decide like you said. Reasonable doubt is not something easy to define.

Quote

08-17-2018 , 12:41 PM

#46658

GTO2.0

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 3,780

Quote:

Originally Posted by Palo

I wasn't criticizing the judge. He left it up to the jury to decide like you said. Reasonable doubt is not something easy to define.

Wait did the judge not define it at all? Aren’t there like standardized definitions they read in every trial?

Quote

08-17-2018 , 01:27 PM

#46659

offTopic

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 19,510

I sat on a criminal jury last year and the judge made it a point prior to jury selection to define reasonable doubt and all prospective jurors were asked if they they understood the concept. Is this something that differs by jurisdiction?

Quote

08-17-2018 , 05:06 PM

#46660

Palo

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 10,563

This was in 2004 in Federal District Court. There was some education given during jury selection about the process and the important duties jurors have in our legal system. I don't recall the judge trying to define reasonable doubt but the prosecutors and defense sure did during the 18 day trial.

Quote

08-18-2018 , 06:01 PM

#46661

72off

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 67,810

writers really stepping it up this season...

White House Counsel Has Cooperated Extensively With Mueller’s Obstruction Inquiry

Quote:

WASHINGTON — The White House counsel, Donald F. McGahn II, has cooperated extensively in the special counsel investigation, sharing detailed accounts about the episodes at the heart of the inquiry into whether President Trump obstructed justice, including some that investigators would not have learned of otherwise, according to a dozen current and former White House officials and others briefed on the matter.

In at least three voluntary interviews with investigators that totaled 30 hours over the past nine months, Mr. McGahn described the president’s furor toward the Russia investigation and the ways in which he urged Mr. McGahn to respond to it. He provided the investigators examining whether Mr. Trump obstructed justice a clear view of the president’s most intimate moments with his lawyer.

Among them were Mr. Trump’s comments and actions during the firing of the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, and Mr. Trump’s obsession with putting a loyalist in charge of the inquiry, including his repeated urging of Attorney General Jeff Sessions to claim oversight of it. Mr. McGahn was also centrally involved in Mr. Trump’s attempts to fire the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, which investigators might not have discovered without him.

Quote:

Mr. McGahn’s cooperation began in part as a result of a decision by Mr. Trump’s first team of criminal lawyers to collaborate fully with Mr. Mueller. The president’s lawyers have explained that they believed their client had nothing to hide and that they could bring the investigation to an end quickly.

Mr. McGahn and his lawyer, William A. Burck, could not understand why Mr. Trump was so willing to allow Mr. McGahn to speak freely to the special counsel and feared Mr. Trump was setting up Mr. McGahn to take the blame for any possible illegal acts of obstruction, according to people close to him. So he and Mr. Burck devised their own strategy to do as much as possible to cooperate with Mr. Mueller to demonstrate that Mr. McGahn did nothing wrong.

Quote:

To investigators, Mr. McGahn was a fruitful witness, people familiar with the investigation said. He had been directly involved in nearly every episode they are scrutinizing to determine whether the president obstructed justice. To make an obstruction case, prosecutors who lack a piece of slam-dunk evidence generally point to a range of actions that prove that the suspect tried to interfere with the inquiry.

Mr. McGahn gave to Mr. Mueller’s investigators, the people said, a sense of the president’s mind-set in the days leading to the firing of Mr. Comey; how the White House handled the firing of the former national security adviser, Michael T. Flynn; and how Mr. Trump repeatedly berated Mr. Sessions, tried to get him to assert control over the investigation and threatened to fire him.

Quote

08-18-2018 , 07:06 PM

#46662

dth123451

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2012 Posts: 15,502

That's absolutely astonishing. Seriously.

Quote

08-18-2018 , 07:11 PM

#46663

Noze

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 25,711

My favorite part:

Quote:

Mr. Trump’s lawyers still had a chance to keep Mr. McGahn’s insider knowledge from the special counsel. By exerting attorney-client privilege, which allows the president to legally withhold information, they would have gained the right to learn what Mr. McGahn planned to tell investigators and what he might reveal that could damage the president. But the president’s lawyers never went through that process, although they told people that they believed they still had the ability to stop Mr. Mueller from handing over to Congress the accounts of witnesses like Mr. McGahn and others.

Quote

08-18-2018 , 08:05 PM

#46664

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Aug 2004 Posts: 47,036

John Dean 2.0

Quote

08-19-2018 , 10:09 AM

#46665

adios

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 22,530

FTR predictions on Manafort verdicts

Manafort will be found guilty of tax evasion charges. That seems to be a slam dunk.

On the FBAR violation charges > 50% chance of being found guilty but not that much more than 50%. Why government needed Gates testimony is a mystery to me. Don't think he helped with his plea deal and testimony. The Feds certainly didn't need him to testify on tax evasion and bank fraud charges.

On the Bank fraud charges not guilty. Case on these seems really weak.

Quote

08-19-2018 , 10:41 AM

#46666

Holliday

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 22,226

Right--it ain't bank fraud if someone at the bank is in on it!

Quote

08-19-2018 , 10:57 AM

#46667

ChrisV

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 40,336

The one count of felony being a world-class piece of **** seems like a lock.

Quote

08-19-2018 , 04:30 PM

#46668

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Aug 2004 Posts: 47,036

Quote:

Originally Posted by Holliday

Right--it ain't bank fraud if someone at the bank is in on it!

Not remotely a lawyer, but reading the summaries, that was the part I actually bought. Like, yeah, it's obviously awful, but if the owner of the bank is colluding with Pauly in an effort to do shady ****, it's hard to argue that the bank got defrauded.

Probably a decent case to be made that the bank is under sub-optimal ownership tho

Quote

08-21-2018 , 03:23 PM

#46669

72off

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 67,810

Cohen supposedly flipping now (hopefully it's not a fake-out like Papadopa)
Manafort 1 count away from being decided? lololol if he's about to be acquitted

meanwhile Drumpf holding yet another klan rally tonight
if Manafort gets convicted today, there's probably a ~50% chance of him calling for The Purge to begin tonight

good times

Quote

08-21-2018 , 04:00 PM

#46670

72off

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 67,810

oh, Cohen maybe just pleading guilty and waiting for a pardon, rather than flipping

guess i shouldn't assume these kind of things

Quote

08-21-2018 , 04:13 PM

#46671

dth123451

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2012 Posts: 15,502

This rally in WV tonight sure will be something

Quote

08-21-2018 , 04:29 PM

#46672

72off

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 67,810

Cohen supposedly pleading guilty to 8 counts relating to pornstar payments etc, isn't flipping

Manafort jury apparently only able to reach a verdict in 8/18 charges

8 today's magic number i guess

in b4 Manafort not guilty, Cohen pardoned asap, and Drumpf victory lap tonight bc everything is awful

edit: Cohen

Quote:

Stephen Brown @PPVSRB

Counts 1-5. Tax evasion 2012-2016
Count 6 false statement to financial institution Feb 2015-April 2016
Count 7 willful cause of unlawful corporate contribution June 2016-Oct. 2016
Count 8 excessive campaign contribution on Oct. 27, 2016

Count 7 apparently relates to Karen McDougal
Count 8 apparently relates to Stormy Daniels
one or both may implicate Trump

Last edited by 72off; 08-21-2018 at 04:40 PM.

Quote

08-21-2018 , 04:42 PM

#46673

72off

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 67,810

Quote:

The Hoarse Whisperer @HoarseWisperer

Jury convicts Manafort on eight charges. Deadlocked on 10 others.

The eight charges:

- Five tax fraud charges
- Two bank fraud charges
- One count of failing to register a foreign account

Serious jail time here... and Mueller has the right to re-try the remaining 10 counts.

hallelujah!

Quote:

Aaron Wiener @aaronwiener

This is one of those step-back-and-think-about-it moments: The president’s campaign chairman and lawyer are both, separately, guilty of multiple federal crimes, in the same hour.

Quote:

Josh Dawsey @jdawsey1

In a scene you couldn't script, Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort is found guilty on eight counts and Trump lawyer Michael Cohen pleads guilty to eight counts within minutes of each other. Trump is on Air Force One flying to a rally in West Virginia.

Quote

08-21-2018 , 04:44 PM

#46674

dth123451

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2012 Posts: 15,502

35 percent of the country still approves of this ****.

Quote

08-21-2018 , 04:46 PM

#46675

72off

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 67,810

Quote:

Justin Sink @justinsink

hooboy

*COHEN SAYS HE VIOLATED CAMPAIGN LAW AT DIRECTION OF CANDIDATE

*COHEN SAYS HE ACTED FOR PURPOSE OF INFLUENCING ELECTION

*COHEN: VIOLATED CAMPAIGN LAW AT DIRECTION OF UNNAMED CANDIDATE

doesn't sound too good for [CANDIDATE]

Quote

Page 1867 of 2435

First

867 1367 1667 1767 1817 1847 1857 1862 1863 1864 1865 1866 1867 1868 1869 1870 1871 1872 1877 1887 1917 1967 2067 2367

Last

Post Reply Subscribe

...

Page 1867 of 2435

First

867 1367 1667 1767 1817 1847 1857 1862 1863 1864 1865 1866 1867 1868 1869 1870 1871 1872 1877 1887 1917 1967 2067 2367

Last