What are the implications of a hung jury?

Manafort walks?
Retrial?

SpreadsheetAg said:

---

What are the implications of a hung jury?

Manafort walks?
Retrial?

---

I don't see Mueller tucking tail and retreating...so, IMHO - Retrial!

VegasAg86 said:

---

Looks like the jury has made it to lunch on day 2. Let the speculation begin.

---

Start with caviar, main dish Beef Stroganoff, desert Ptichie Moloko, and wash it all down with vodka.

SpreadsheetAg said:

---

What are the implications of a hung jury?

Manafort walks?
Retrial?

---

That's may depend on where the jury sides.

SpreadsheetAg said:

---

What are the implications of a hung jury?

Manafort walks?
Retrial?

---

I think this is one they re try almost no matter what. If it was a situation where the jury broke 9-3 for acquittal, i could see them leaving it alone. But i suspect the number of hold outs is low.

A hung jury is fitting for the political climate since 2016.

bmks270 said:

---

A hung jury is fitting for the political climate since 2016 BUSH v. GORE

---

FIFY

SpreadsheetAg said:

---

What are the implications of a hung jury?

Manafort walks?
Retrial?

---

Probably nothing. Mulehead will just try again in D.C. where he'll have a far more anti-Trump jury pool to pick from.

He is guilty, but
1) should have been charged in 2014 when they first looked at him but passed
2) shouldn't be so blatantly trying to get him to flip on DJT with no evidence of trump wrongdoing for Manafort to corroborate.
3) utilized pieces of shlt shady business people as witnesses who have skirted prosecutions for decades.

Bonfire1996 said:

---

He is guilty, but
1) should have been charged in 2014 when they first looked at him but passed
2) shouldn't be so blatantly trying to get him to flip on DJT with no evidence of trump wrongdoing for Manafort to corroborate.
3) utilized pieces of shlt shady business people as witnesses who have skirted prosecutions for decades.

---

How do they charge him in 2014 for his actions in 2016?

(I think the defense did enough water muddying to potentially get an acquittal on the bank fraud)

Blindey, is there any way they can count the TA contingent in Texas as an acquittal?

Honestly, I can't stand Manafort, but for political purposes, it would be joyously fun to have an acquittal, especially with no retrial. Besides, I'm really not interested in 2-3 days of gloating by our leftist friends, since they obviouisly believe a 2005 criminal trial holds immense impact in a 2016 election.

I saw your brief conversation with etc., and it's staggering how otherwise normal, educated, people lose all sense of reason when it comes to the evil Republicans.

Is this true? Ho lee chit

Just in: Judge Ellis III has revealed that he's been threatened over the Manafort trial and is refusing to reveal the names of jurors.

FYI- CNN has just sued Government for names, address and phone numbers of jurors.

Linky?

there will be a stampede of press trying to get to the jury as soon as the verdict is read. CNN wantscto be the first to stomp all over them.

Tap the brakes. I can't seem to find a link to verify the claim that CNN is suing for names.

Quote:

---

"A thirsty press is essential in a free country," the Judge said in announcing the hearing.

---

OK, but what about the safety and security of these jurors? They didn't ask to be a part of this. They were conscripted. And frankly, I don't think these people will be safe if they return less than a conviction.

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

---

I'll go out on a limb and predict Judge Ellis denies this motion.

Wildcat said:

---

Tap the brakes. I can't seem to find a link to verify the claim that CNN is suing for names.

---

Because it's not true

MASAXET said:

---

Wildcat said:

---

Tap the brakes. I can't seem to find a link to verify the claim that CNN is suing for names.

---

Because it's not true

---

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4770015/8-16-18-Media-Motion-to-Intervene-and-for-Access.pdf


I'm not a lawyer, so maybe "filing a motion" isn't the same thing as "suing". Regardless, there it is.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/08/17/judge-in-manafort-trial-says-hes-been-threatened-over-case.html

Ellis denies motion to release names of jurors


Rejecting the request about the jury, Ellis said he doesn't "feel right" about releasing the names of jurors, adding, "to do so would create a risk of harm to them."

The judge also denied a motion to unseal all the bench conferences and sidebars, which have been sealed. Ellis said all that will be released to the public at the end of the trial.

MASAXET said:

---

Wildcat said:

---

Tap the brakes. I can't seem to find a link to verify the claim that CNN is suing for names.

---

Because it's not true

---

Sounds like the word "suing" is hyperbole.

Quote:

---

Ellis was responding to a number of news organizations the Washington Post, New York Times, AP, CNN, NBC, Politico and BuzzFeed filing a motion to unseal records in the case, including information about the jurors.

---

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/08/17/judge-in-manafort-trial-says-hes-been-threatened-over-case.html

A motion was filed.

Doing so, and the aftermath that the MSM will unleash on these persons, is a trial balloon for what would happen to any potential jurors of an HRC trial, or a Brennan trial, etc.

tsuag10 said:

---

MASAXET said:

---

Wildcat said:

---

Tap the brakes. I can't seem to find a link to verify the claim that CNN is suing for names.

---

Because it's not true

---

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4770015/8-16-18-Media-Motion-to-Intervene-and-for-Access.pdf


I'm not a lawyer, so maybe "filing a motion" isn't the same thing as "suing". Regardless, there it is.

---

lol, MASAXET has his panties in a wad because the headline used the word sue instead of properly saying "filed a motion." Bottom line is CNN and other media outlets are trying to force the court to release names and addresses of the jurors.

VegasAg86 said:

---

tsuag10 said:

---

MASAXET said:

---

Wildcat said:

---

Tap the brakes. I can't seem to find a link to verify the claim that CNN is suing for names.

---

Because it's not true

---

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4770015/8-16-18-Media-Motion-to-Intervene-and-for-Access.pdf


I'm not a lawyer, so maybe "filing a motion" isn't the same thing as "suing". Regardless, there it is.

---

lol, MASAXET has his panties in a wad because the headline used the word sue instead of properly saying "filed a motion." Bottom line is CNN and other media outlets are trying to force the court to release names and addresses of the jurors.

---

Because it makes a difference for multiple reasons. 1) they filed a motion as a non-party in an ongoing action, and did not assert any cause of action, and 2) it was not even directed at the government.

There is a presumption of openness for court records, and there needs to be a reason for court records to be sealed. The media outlets requested that the presumption of openness be maintained, but the judge found there is sufficient reason to seal the pertinent records in this instance (for good reason, IMHO).

Yep. Someone really touchy about cnn.

MASAXET said:

---

VegasAg86 said:

---

tsuag10 said:

---

MASAXET said:

---

Wildcat said:

---

Tap the brakes. I can't seem to find a link to verify the claim that CNN is suing for names.

---

Because it's not true

---

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4770015/8-16-18-Media-Motion-to-Intervene-and-for-Access.pdf


I'm not a lawyer, so maybe "filing a motion" isn't the same thing as "suing". Regardless, there it is.

---

lol, MASAXET has his panties in a wad because the headline used the word sue instead of properly saying "filed a motion." Bottom line is CNN and other media outlets are trying to force the court to release names and addresses of the jurors.

---

Because it makes a difference for multiple reasons. 1) they filed a motion as a non-party in an ongoing action, and did not assert any cause of action, and 2) it was not even directed at the government.

There is a presumption of openness for court records, and there needs to be a reason for court records to be sealed. The media outlets requested that the presumption of openness be maintained, but the judge found there is sufficient reason to seal the pertinent records in this instance (for good reason, IMHO).

---

But in the context of this thread, what's in your first statement doesn't make any difference. The bottom line is that CNN, etc. want names and addresses.

According to Fox/Drudge...it appears the jury will recess for the weekend w/o a verdict. Bets on the future verdict, guilty-all counts, some counts, hung jury or acquittal????

MASAXET said:

---

VegasAg86 said:

---

tsuag10 said:

---

MASAXET said:

---

Wildcat said:

---

Tap the brakes. I can't seem to find a link to verify the claim that CNN is suing for names.

---

Because it's not true

---

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4770015/8-16-18-Media-Motion-to-Intervene-and-for-Access.pdf


I'm not a lawyer, so maybe "filing a motion" isn't the same thing as "suing". Regardless, there it is.

---

lol, MASAXET has his panties in a wad because the headline used the word sue instead of properly saying "filed a motion." Bottom line is CNN and other media outlets are trying to force the court to release names and addresses of the jurors.

---

Because it makes a difference for multiple reasons. 1) they filed a motion as a non-party in an ongoing action, and did not assert any cause of action, and 2) it was not even directed at the government.

There is a presumption of openness for court records, and there needs to be a reason for court records to be sealed. The media outlets requested that the presumption of openness be maintained, but the judge found there is sufficient reason to seal the pertinent records in this instance (for good reason, IMHO).

---

The very first sentence of the article is: "In a motion filed in federal court on Thursday, CNN and several other media outlets requested that the court release the names and home addresses of all jurors in the Paul Manafort fraud case." Everyone does clickbait headlines these days, it's crazy to rely on the headline for anything. I'm impressed they made the actual situation clear so quickly.