Judge in Manafort trial says he's been threatened over case - page 5

The judge in Paul Manafort's fraud trial revealed Friday he has received threats over the case and now travels with U.S. Marshals, as he turned back a media request to release juror information. ... Read More

  1. by   macawake
    Quote from heron
    Furthermore, the fact that the judge declared a mistrial on the remaining counts, rather than acquittal, tells me that he's not as biased as some of the lefty commentary would have us believe.
    Quote from heron
    Well, if the prosecutors managed to convince one trumpster completely and a second one partway, the must have done something right, yes?
    Does a judge have a choice to declare either a mistrial or an acquittal after a jury "hangs"? I thought that was an automatic mistrial? I guess I could search the internet and try to find out, but it's really no biggie and I'm tired. So I guess I'm only wondering if you know for sure?

    Anyway, that wasn't the point I was going to make. My first thought when I saw in news reports that the judge was giving the prosecution a bit of a hard time, wasn't that he was biased against the prosecution. Quite the contrary. My gut reaction was that the prosecution must have a very strong case.

    Based on my perception of the strength of the case, I was actually a bit surprised that Manafort wasn't found guilty on all counts. But admittedly, I don't know all the ins and outs of every single count.

    The reason I linked to this opinion piece back on page one of this thread, was that I don't think the judges demeanor towards the prosecution, signalled that he had any bias against them. Of course I can't possibly know what went through the judges mind, but I think that the opinion piece describes a phenomenon/dynamic that I myself have observed in courtrooms, albeit in a different country. But I figure human psyche is human psyche, regardless of nationality.
    Quote from heron
    Meanwhile, prosecutors have a second bite at the apple in addition to the charges still pending.
    Personally I doubt that they'll bother with trying a second time with remaining ten counts. I could be wrong, but as I understand it, the judge has a lot of leeway when it comes to sentencing, and if he wants to, he can still take the ten counts into consideration.

    That's if he believes that based on the evidence, the defendent is guilty of those charges as well. I could be way off, but I think he has the right to consider a lower standard for sentencing than the "beyond a reasonable doubt", that a jury has to use in order to convict. But I'm not a legal expert by any stretch, so I'm only speculating.

    Quote from chare
    Actually, MediaBiasFactCheck, a site used by some of you on the to right biased and conspiracy theory classifies, Newsweek as having a left bias.
    Well, I'm a what's good for the goose is good for the gander type of gal

    I've already stated that I consider Newsweek to be left of center and I believe that MediaBiasFactCheck does a good job fact-checking various media outlets.

    But I don't think the linked opinion piece was written by a left-leaning individual though. I posted the other outlets that he used to write for, and the way he worded things in that piece made me believe that he leans more to the right/in the Trump direction.

    I don't have the energy to go back and read it, but didn't he say something similar to "the American people deserves answers from CNN and their media pals"? The way that was phrased, kind of gives away a bit of information right there (in my humble opinion of course).

    And this is also from memory so again, you need to fact-check me, but I think he also said something along the lines of when the state starts asking questions about "such things", they are up to no good.

    I don't think there is an automatic rule that says that if something the state does is bad, then that same something must also be bad if the media does it. "The state" has a completely different power over ordinary citizens than the media does, in that "the state" makes laws and is responsible for courts/the legal system. The state can take away a person's freedom, the media can't.

    I don't think it can be used as an argument to prove that the media asking for names and addresses of jurors is bad or nefarious.

    My personal opinion is that the judge made the correct call by not making the jurors identities public, but I don't think the media was trying to intimidate the jurors by asking for them.


    Thank you for the link. Scary times indeed!

    I would have hoped that 0% of Republicans, Independents and Democrats would have answered yes to that question, but I guess not. Sometimes I wonder if people are just plain stupid. What's wrong with some people? Do they have any idea what they're flirting with/inviting?

    I don't think they'd enjoy their lives as much under a President with unfettered powers, as they might be imagining.



    On a final note, since this is a thread about threats, I can't help but make the reflection that I hope that Trump's ex-lawyer, Michael Cohen, is properly protected.

    I can only imagine what some of Trump's more zealous supporters, feel about and might be expressing about the fact that Trump has been potentially implicated in serious legal offenses.
    Last edit by macawake on Aug 23
  2. by   toomuchbaloney
    Heron, I do not believe that all Trump supporters are indoctrinated. Therefore, some of them can continue to see right from wrong, particularly if it doesn't directly involve Trump. Others are too indoctrinated to hear anything that challenges their fabricated reality. For them 2+2=5
  3. by   SC_RNDude
    Quote from macawake
    If SC_RNDude wishes to state his opinion that the media was motivated by a desire to intimidate, he better make it clear that that's his opinion, and that he has no proof.

    I tried to counter him using logic, and that attempt was as I expected, ignored.
    Seriously?

    Obviously, I don't have proof. What would there be? That reason wasn't stated in the motion, I'm sure. It likely wasn't mentioned in the hearing on the motion. I haven't seen CNN or the others come out and say thats what they were trying to do.

    What's with the threatening language? I "better make it clear...". Or what?

    Instead of getting all worked up over a relatively benign statement that maybe 10 people are going to see and not be effected by , just ignore it and move on.

    Are you afraid your followers here aren't bright enough to recognize a opinion vs factual statement?

    There are many reasons I may not have replied to a post, just like some don't reply to mine. I simply don't have the desire to reply to everyone all the time. How long would it take me just to read and reply to yours alone? My dopamine receptors just don't get what they need from a perceived or real victory in an debate or by insulting others, both while collecting "likes" from their AN friends.

    I hope you start holding others to the same standard. Muno, for example, posts all sorts of facts and opinions all the time, seldom references a source, and NEVER gets questioned.
    Last edit by SC_RNDude on Aug 24 : Reason: edit
  4. by   Lil Nel
    Quote from chare
    Actually, MediaBiasFactCheck, a site used by some of you on the to right biased and conspiracy theory classifies, Newsweek as having a left bias.
    That's fine.

    I don't use that tool.

    Instead, I use my own judgment. And I think Newsweek is pretty mainstream.

    I don't use headlines to make that assessment, I judge content of magazine material.
  5. by   macawake
    Quote from SC_RNDude
    Seriously?

    Obviously, I don't have proof. What would there be? That reason wasn't stated in the motion, I'm sure. It likely wasn't mentioned in the hearing on the motion. I haven't seen CNN or the others come out and say thats what they were trying to do.
    Quote from SC_RNDude
    Instead of getting all worked up over a relatively benign statement that maybe 10 people are going to see and not be effected by , just ignore it and move on.
    Well yes. Seriously. I thought my posts so far have made it abundantly clear that I don't view accusing certain media of committing serious crimes as something "relatively benign". I don't know how much more clear I can be regarding that.

    If it's as obvious to you as it is to me, that you don't have proof, then why don't you simply write "I think" or "I believe" and save yourself the hassle of having to clarify yourself and the indignity of looking like you're trying to give an opinion the false guise of fact?

    Quote from SC_RNDude
    Are you afraid your followers here aren't bright enough to recognize a opinion vs factual statement?
    It's not those you call "my followers" that I worry about. I don't view them as particularly susceptible to propaganda. It's the ~35% that seem unable and/or unwilling to tell the difference between fact and fiction, who gives me a headache.

    Quote from SC_RNDude
    What's with the threatening language? I "better make it clear...". Or what?
    I'm sorry, I didn't realize I had the power to frighten you. That was obviously not my intention.

    Oh, and in case you're going to reply that I haven't scared you, then I'll have to wonder why you deemed it necessary to label it and bring up "threatening language" in the first place?

    The consequence of repeatedly posting opinions as facts and failing to differentiate between the two, is that I and perhaps others as well, will categorize a poster who does that in the same group as for example a Kellyanne Conway or a Baghdad Bob.

    Quote from SC_RNDude
    There are many reasons I may not have replied to a post, just like some don't reply to mine. I simply don't have the desire to reply to everyone all the time. How long would it take me just to read and reply to yours alone? My dopamine receptors just don't get what they need from a perceived or real victory in an debate or by insulting others, both while collecting "likes" from their AN friends.
    I'm not saying that you have to answer each and every post. But to give you an example of when I think it's a good idea to answer if you desire credibility. If you post a link to a right-wing TV host who compares the lowest poll approval numbers for three European leaders he could find, to the top poll approval number he could find for Trump and that poll number happens to be an outlier recorded ONE time by a single polling institute... then I think it would behoove you to answer what you believe you've demonstrated by pointing our attention to that?

    I assume you had a reason for posting what can be argued to be a completely meaningless apples vs. oranges statistic? Why wouldn't you share that? I have to assume that you post links to try to make some kind of point, else why bother posting it in the first place? If that point is extremely unclear, why not clarify?

    Quote from SC_RNDude
    I hope you start holding others to the same standard. Muno, for example, posts all sorts of facts and opinions all the time, seldom references a source, and NEVER gets questioned.
    I hold posters to the same standard.

    If a poster posts something that we all know is true, like for example that boiling water is hot, I won't ask for a source.

    If a poster posts something that is less common knowledge, but that I have previously researched and found it to be accurate, I won't ask for a source.

    If a poster posts something that strains credulity or flies in the face of reason, like for example the moon being made of Swiss cheese, you bet I'll ask for a source.

    The reason you don't see me questioning for example Muno, it that I've so far not seen that poster post falsehoods or something that I couldn't verify by using my own pre-existing knowledge.
  6. by   Tweety
    Quote from macawake
    I know you doThe only word of caution I want to add here since I seem to be having a soap box day, is that I don't think letting outrageous claims go unchallenged, is risk-free.

    I think the outrageous claims repeated over and over again, is starting to erode some people's ability to differentiate between truths and lies. The rot spreads. We're seeing lies being promulgated on the macro scale, from the head honcho and parts of the administration, as well as here in this little microcosm.
    I can agree with this. I am probably part of the problem and maybe it's growing up bullied that has caused me to be keenly aware of when to walk away and shut up. I've heard "you're an abomination to the Lord and going to hell!". Really what can I say to that?

    Did you see the meme of the women flipping the bird at the CNN reporter here in my area in Florida during Trump's rally? Really what can I possibly say to her? It might make me feel good to engage with such a fool, but not really. It's an exercise in futility and not worth my time. I would walk away from her.

    My boss's boss is a Trump supporter and I can talk to him. He said that Obama took as many children away from parents as Trump did and the media ignored it. I gave him the facts and he shut up about it because he's a smart educated man. (Yeah "smart educated man" and "Trump supporter" don't seem to match, but there you are).

    That's where I'm coming from.
  7. by   toomuchbaloney
    Quote from Tweety
    I can agree with this. I am probably part of the problem and maybe it's growing up bullied that has caused me to be keenly aware of when to walk away and shut up. I've heard "you're an abomination to the Lord and going to hell!". Really what can I say to that?

    Did you see the meme of the women flipping the bird at the CNN reporter here in my area in Florida during Trump's rally? Really what can I possibly say to her? It might make me feel good to engage with such a fool, but not really. It's an exercise in futility and not worth my time. I would walk away from her.

    My boss's boss is a Trump supporter and I can talk to him. He said that Obama took as many children away from parents as Trump did and the media ignored it. I gave him the facts and he shut up about it because he's a smart educated man. (Yeah "smart educated man" and "Trump supporter" don't seem to match, but there you are).

    That's where I'm coming from.
    There are Republicans, who voted for Trump, who also are able to accept facts which contradict the propaganda and fake news of the GOP. They are not in the same category as cult members who are so indoctrinated that they cannot accept any fact or data that contradicts the propaganda. These are the people who continue to share #walkaway or uranium stories, or reference the corruption of Obama, or complain about the deep state.

    Trump scammed and conned the Republican voters with Putin's help. Some of the are realizing that they've been had and more will be aware as this rotten onion is peeled in the most public fashion.

    The cult, on the other hand, will be convinced that the Donald has been wronged and they will threaten violence and all manner of revolution in defense of their cult leader. They would drink from little paper cups, in protest, if Trump told them to.

close