I wish I were on the Paul Manafort jury ...

[dogtag]

No matter how damning the evidence about bank fraud,
the man was on trial simply because of his Trump
connection, so I'd take a leaf from the OJ Simpson jury
and vote not guilty.
Hopefully, there is at least one person on that
jury who's as smart as me.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...soon-jury.html

[togor]

So let me get this straight....you could see compelling evidence that Manafort is a fraud and a crook to the tune of millions of dollars,in but because he has a Trump connection, you'd give him a pass, and a green light to keep lying and cheating.

But if LaShonda gets caught with half a pound of weed in the back seat after getting pulled over for a busted taillight, then damn straight she needs to be sent away.

What if she had a Trump-Pence bumper sticker? Would you acquit?

[Vern Humphrey]

The problem is that jury members are sworn. If I felt I couldn't vote to convict (or acquit) I'd tell the judge -- but I would not violate my oath.

[dogtag]

A juror is there to see that justice is done, not to follow
the Judge's instructions or the prosecutor's glib presentation.
Following "The Letter of the Law" is not necessarily the way to go.
Nothing is black and white. With corrupt lawyers like Muella,
it's easy to get railroaded unless there is at least one savvy juror.

[Roadkingtrax]

Why is Mueller corrupt?

[togor]

Mueller is not corrupt. DT is trying to walk back his "No matter how damning the evidence" phrase. Some small piece of him still has respect for the law and squirms at the thought that ignoring legally admissable evidence is now a thing that he believes in. Just another California juror now.