"Come on fellas, conspiracy, what is that really? I just don't see it, that count just doesn't make sense"
The Paul Manafort Trial: (Update): Guilty of 8 Charges, Remaining 10 Charges Deadlocked
- Thread starter Shard Shinjuku
- Start date
"Come on fellas, conspiracy, what is that really? I just don't see it, that count just doesn't make sense"
Possible, sure. But it's safe to say it's a rather large improbability.
Not really. It is quite clear they mean 17 out of 18 they have agreed on. Otherwise if there was more than one count they couldn't agree on they would have used "those counts" instead of "that count".
You were living in a bubble then. You have to live in the real world and not go from a hyper positive bubble to a hyper negative bubble.
I do not like how this judge has behaved and I fear how many Trump sympathisers may be in that jury.
Confusion would only creep in for someone who looks at the question with no other knowledge of what's going on. A jury that can't yet agree on any counts isn't going to ask for a new verdict sheet: they wouldn't have anything to put on one.
So question, why wouldn't the judge give them a new verdict form? What's the implication there?
Sounds good so far, we'll see!
Sounds good so far, we'll see!
Is there a live blog or such that I can follow?
I could bike down to the court house and hang near the reporters but that would coincide with my lunch break
How much of a better lunch could there be than hearing in person that scumbag rot in prison?
There's also torrential rain going on right now; my chassis would get all wet and I'd have to wipe it all down
I'm expecting Trump to hold a Pardon-Manafort show at one of his red meat rallies if he's found guilty.
Just like he did for Sheriff Joe.
Just like he did for Sheriff Joe.
Not after they just got sent back to deliberate further.
Someone clearly caved and we have a verdict.
The came to anonymous decisions on 17 of 18 counts. Not sure this update means they have come to agreement on all 18.
It's not clear at all. "That count" is the correct way to refer to each single count, even when there is more than one count being referenced. All it means for sure for me is that they have agreed on at least one count, and they have not agreed on at least one count.
I am a goober. Thanks for letting me know. I just hate having to follow twitter for these sorts of things.
Huh? They ask:
"If we cannot come to a consensus on a single count, how should we fill in the jury form for that count?"
They can't agree on one count. The sentence, taken as a whole, is clear.
He'd pick out any acquittals and run with those claiming the others verdicts are witch hunt/unfair/not legally binding. Some way to get a positive/trump positive tweet about it to rile up the base and make the legal system look bad
Fuck! really!? Shit, I'm going to lunch. This was a waste of excitement.
Permitted from? What does that even mean?
Also, what does happen if they can't agree on one of the counts? I assume he is found guilty on all other counts and for that one count they have another trial?
I mean its this exactly, we don't know the outcome of the verdict and counting on it being all guilty before we know it for sure is a bad idea.
I'm not trying to be overly negative but the unknown is the unknown, we don't know whats going on with what the jury is thinking and because of that assuming that its 17/18 guilty isn't a good idea because we just don't know. It's fine to hope for that, I'm sure thats what were all thinking but don't assume, assuming in general is just a bad idea with these kinds of things.
Sounds like he's guilty on all but 1 count to me.
Innocent on all but 1 count wouldn't make sense to deliberate on.
But, weirder things have happened.
Innocent on all but 1 count wouldn't make sense to deliberate on.
But, weirder things have happened.
Was about to post the same thing. Apparently, nobody speaks English anymore.
uhmmmm how would that work?
"Yes, we have found Manafort paid shit for taxes, but we all agree that's ok"?
"Yes, we have found Manafort paid shit for taxes, but we all agree that's ok"?