Just saw a news headline (CNBC) stating the Judge said he was threatened about this case and is now traveling with Marshall protection. I would have thought he was already getting that sort of protection, particularly in such a high profile case.

quote:

Originally posted by 46and2:
Just saw a news headline (CNBC) stating the Judge said he was threatened about this case and is now traveling with Marshall protection. I would have thought he was already getting that sort of protection, particularly in such a high profile case.

Link to story ^^^

http://www.foxnews.com/politic...tened-over-case.html

some pretty far out speculation by CT

Shortly before 3:00pm this afternoon Judge Ellis said he personally had received threats and would keep the names of jurors a secret for their safety despite the media demand their names be made public.

The judge is being protected full time by the U.S. Marshals and shared with the court: “I won’t tell you what threats I’ve received,” he said, “but I have the Marshals’ protection. Where I go, they go. I had no idea this case would excite these emotions,” the judge said.


Ellis also said that he would ultimately unseal everything from the trial except for the jurors’ names and the transcript of a sidebar conference with lawyers that he said was related to Mueller’s broader investigation.

There is some insightful speculation, based on a history of media complicity within the larger storyline, that the media already have a juror contact (perhaps paid) and were seeking the names and addresses as cover for their reporting from their juror source. Given the media conduct in the larger two-year dynamic; and considering they have attached themselves to the inherent risk of sunlight; we cannot dismiss this possibility.

The media are enmeshed within the story of the DOJ and FBI corruption. However, only recently did we discover the media engagements were not just pervasive, they were/are participatory. As a consequence the same media cannot reasonably report on any aspect of the story without exposing their own duplicity; their only choice is to double down on lies they helped create and promote.

https://theconservativetreehou...reached/#more-152993

https://www.powerlineblog.com/...-manafort-jurors.php

Why do you suppose seven news organizations–all liberal, presumably–wanted to know who the jurors are and where they live? They are worried that the jury, having heard the evidence, may not render the “right” verdict, i.e., the one that helps the Democratic Party.

So they want to know who the jurors are so they can apply pressure on them through mob action, newspaper denunciations, online harassment and so on. This is how today’s Democratic Party operates. If the jury fails to render the Democrats’ preferred verdict, what do you suppose Maxine Waters will suggest Democrats should do to the jurors if they venture out in public?

UPDATE: Via a commenter, these are the Democratic Party news outlets who want to know the names and addresses of the jurors who have not yet fallen into line for the Democratic Party: CNN, NBC, the New York Times, Politico, the Associated Press, Buzzfeed and the Washington Post. That tells you every single thing you might have wanted to know about what is going on here.

quote:

CNN, NBC, the New York Times, Politico, the Associated Press, Buzzfeed and the Washington Post. That tells you every single thing you might have wanted to know about what is going on here.

Yep. Tee-ing up a viral lynching for those that may not support the doctrine.

I don't really give a squirt about Mr. Manafort, but by their own actions these turds have me hoping for an acquittal; regardless of his actual level of involvement. Just to shove it back in Mueller's smarmy face, and as a big F-you to the whole midnight SWAT raid of the guy's house.

But it's really a no-lose situation for the big picture. If he is guilty, he's just a minor player who happened to work for DT for a few months. And if he's acquitted, it shows Mueller can't even bring a successful case against a minor player who happened to work for DT for a few months.

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
https://www.powerlineblog.com/...-manafort-jurors.php

Why do you suppose seven news organizations–all liberal, presumably–wanted to know who the jurors are and where they live? They are worried that the jury, having heard the evidence, may not render the “right” verdict, i.e., the one that helps the Democratic Party.

So they want to know who the jurors are so they can apply pressure on them through mob action, newspaper denunciations, online harassment and so on. This is how today’s Democratic Party operates. If the jury fails to render the Democrats’ preferred verdict, what do you suppose Maxine Waters will suggest Democrats should do to the jurors if they venture out in public?

UPDATE: Via a commenter, these are the Democratic Party news outlets who want to know the names and addresses of the jurors who have not yet fallen into line for the Democratic Party: CNN, NBC, the New York Times, Politico, the Associated Press, Buzzfeed and the Washington Post. That tells you every single thing you might have wanted to know about what is going on here.

Do you think, even for a minute, these 12 citizens and 4 alternates, good and true, have not been followed, and maybe by all parties, Gov., defense and media, and that dossiers have been compiled on each?

I’m surprised they were not sequestered, frankly.

quote:

I’m surprised they were not sequestered, frankly

As was I.

But yes, the only reason they want the names before the verdict is so they can apply pressure to the families through the DNC enforcement arm (those facisist fags). Nothing it out of bounds to a leftist, and they know the law will look the other way no matter what they do.

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
There is some insightful speculation, based on a history of media complicity within the larger storyline, that the media already have a juror contact (perhaps paid) and were seeking the names and addresses as cover for their reporting from their juror source.

This stands out. With all the help the media's been given by loyal followers the idea of a jury contact isn't too far fetched.

These aren't isolated incidents- It's a coordinated ballet. Being paranoid doesn't mean they're Not out to get you.

http://theweek.com/speedreads/...ions-without-verdict

After three days of deliberations, there is still no verdict in Paul Manafort's tax and bank fraud trial.

The jury indicated it would stay until at least 6:15 p.m. on Monday night, later than they stayed on Thursday and Friday

Manafort jury ends day 3 of deliberations without a verdict

http://thehill.com/homenews/ne...onclusion-on-a-count

The jury in former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort's criminal trial asked the judge what they should do if they can't come to a consensus on a single count, a question that could indicate they are nearing a verdict.

The note suggests that the jury is having difficulty coming to a conclusion on at least one of the 18 criminal bank and tax fraud charges facing Manafort.

“Your honor, if we cannot come to a consensus on a single count, how do we fill out the jury verdict form for that count and what does that mean for the final verdict,” said the note Judge T.S. Ellis III read aloud in court.
Ellis, who reconvened court 11:30 a.m. said, “This is not an exceptional or unusual event in a jury trial.”

He said the note “suggests he knows the answer” to whether the juror have reached a verdict on the 17 other charges, but he said he was not going to ask them at this time where they stand.

The jury also asked Ellis for a new verdict form, which he said he was not going to provide.

Manafort’s lead attorney Kevin Downing said the jury should get a new form with a third option. He said the jurors shouldn’t be misled to think a hung jury at the end of this trial isn’t appropriate.

If the jurors fail to reach a consensus, Ellis told Downing he would “consider accepting what they reach.”

He brought the jury back into the courtroom at 10 minutes to noon and instructed them to try to reach a unanimous verdict. He told them they should not hesitate to re-examine their views and change their decision if they think it’s erroneous.

“In conferring together, each of you should pay attention and respect the views of each other,” he said.

The jury is in their fourth day of deliberations in the trial, the first test in court for special counsel Robert Mueller's team of prosecutors.

Ellis stressed Tuesday that it is not an unusual occurrence for a jury to inquire as to what happens if it cannot come to a consensus on any one count.

Mueller again goes to court and says the Michael Flynn case cannot be scheduled for a sentencing hearing due to the status of the investigation.

Mueller and defense attorneys request they give a status report by 17 Sep 2018.

Flynn confessed to lying to the FBI 1 Dec 2017.

Almost 9 months ago.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/2...anafort-verdict.html

Jury reaches verdict on 8 counts in criminal trial of Paul Manafort, Trump's former campaign chairman

but don't know yet what the verdict is

Manafort guilty on 8 counts

5 counts of filing false tax returns 2009-2014

3 counts of bank fraud

jury hung on the other 10 counts (mistrial declared on these 10)

waiting to hear more

quote:

but don't know yet what the verdict is

Your link says:
Paul Manafort found guilty in federal trial

Jurors have reached a verdict on eight counts in the trial of President Donald Trump's former campaign chief, Paul Manafort.

In a note to U.S. District Court Judge T.S. Ellis, the jurors said they had not reached a consensus on the 10 remaining counts in the bank fraud and tax crimes trial.

Manafort should be as free as Tony Podesta.

Must be nice to know people.

quote:

Originally posted by mbinky:
Manafort should be as free as Tony Podesta.

Must be nice to know people.

Did Podesta file false tax returns?

We'll never know. Know why? There isn't a wich hunt looking through all his financials. But there is plenty to say that he was doing the exact same thing as Manafort.

And we'll never know. It's not about what you do, it's about who you know. And Podesta knows the right people.

quote:

Originally posted by mbinky:
We'll never know. Know why? There isn't a wich hunt looking through all his financials. But there is plenty to say that he was doing the exact same thing as Manafort.

And we'll never know. It's not about what you do, it's about who you know. And Podesta knows the right people.

You know nothing of the kind. Was Podesta audited? Maybe the witch at the IRS found no auditable discrepancies. Hundreds of thousands of people keep good records, hire competent help to prepare and file reasonably compliant tax returns. They are especially careful when they are in professions and businesses likely to attract opposition research attention, like campaign managers.

Your cynical averments are not impossible, of course, but without facts to base them.

Ah huh. A blind man can see that their are two tiers of justice in this country.

For some there is a justice system. For others there is a "just-us" system.

quote:

But there is plenty to say that he was doing the exact same thing as Manafort.

And we'll never know.

It does seem that Democrats are given "immunity" far too easily.... as was the case with everyone around Hillary.



Mueller gives Tony Podesta immunity to stick it to Paul Manafort

Read more: https://www.americanthinker.co...t.html#ixzz5OqomTZs7

How many people have been charged with collusion or anything related to Russia? Millions and millions spent for a tax evasion case, ridiculous.