Image 01 Image 03

No Manafort verdict Monday, but the jury did order lunch for Tuesday

No Manafort verdict Monday, but the jury did order lunch for Tuesday

If Manafort is found Not Guilty on all charges, anti-Trump heads are going to explode in a simultaneous combustion not seen since about 1.30 a.m. Eastern on November 9, 2016

No verdict to day in the Paul Manafort case.

The jury deliberated a little later than usual, until about 6:15 p.m., but then adjourned to resume tomorrow.

The media and social media frenzy is building.

Excitement filled the media ballpen when the jury sent a note to the judge. But alas, it was just tomorrow’s lunch order:

Talk about reading tea leaves and spinning:

On the news that the jury hadn’t reached a verdict, Manafort attorney Kevin Downing told reporters, “Mr. Manafort was happy to hear that and thinks it was a very good day.”

Defense attorneys generally see long deliberations as an indication that jurors disagree about their clients’ guilt or have substantive concerns about complicated legal aspects of the case, which could lead to a hung jury, or that they have avoided rushing to judgment. But experts have cautioned that the case against Manafort is complex, and that jurors could simply be taking their time.

The whirlwind trial is the first to result from Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s ongoing investigation into Russian election meddling, although Manafort’s prosecution does not relate to any election interference or alleged collusion by the Trump team with Russian officials.

A source close to the Manafort defense team told Fox News that after days of deliberations, the proceedings have taken on the feel of the run-up to the 2016 election, in which everyone had been suspecting things to go one way, only to be surprised by the outcome.

In this case, the defense team has been pleased that pundit predictions about a quick guilty verdict haven’t panned out.

Unlike in the morning, as the jurors entered the courtroom in the evening, they seemed to turn away from both the prosecution and defense, avoiding eye contact. The jurors, with a few exceptions, seemed flat and drained.

Earlier on Monday, Downing said he and Manafort remained confident, and that Manafort was “doing very well.”

Seriously, what’s the point of defense counsel exuding confidence and spinning to the media?

Or as Hillary would say, what difference, at this point, does it make?

The topic of the media request for juror names and addresses continues to stir We covered the request last Friday, and why it was dangerous in this social media mob environment:

In a case such as this, that could be seen as an act of media intimidation — the jury is not sequestered so they certainly would hear about it. In an environment of online mobs and CNN having threatened to doxx a gif maker who mocked CNN, the jurors rightly would be concerned if the judge released their personal information to the media.

The media could have waited until after the verdict, but that would not have allowed the media to camp outside jurors homes in time for the immediate news cycle. Jurors also could have been given the choice, after the verdict, whether to have their names revealed.

That’s not to say these same media outlets won’t take it on themselves to out the jurors, particularly if there is a not guilty verdict, but the judge wasn’t going to make it easy for them.

Byron York had a good Twitter thread on it:

Thinking about Manafort jury and social media. First trial of Trump era. Resistance feels morally justified doing anything. So what if jury returns verdict and Resistance disapproves? Maybe mixed decision viewed as insufficiently punitive?

In that case, doxxing seems inevitable if jurors’ names become public. That’s why media request was troubling. One thing for jurors to come forward, speak voluntarily. Another to have court reveal their identities…

Either way, journalists, freelance Resistance types will search for jurors’ names. And then: Have they ever posted anything objectionable on social media? Have their children? Relatives? Any questionable online associations?

One can see KFILE, Twitter mobs, others dig, dig, digging. Didn’t happen–wasn’t possible–in Clinton era or even Plame affair juries. Seems inevitable with confluence of social media and Trump Resistance.

Having read a lot of Twitter reactions as the day went on, there is only one prediction I can make with certainty:

If Manafort is found Not Guilty on all charges, anti-Trump heads are going to explode in a simultaneous combustion not seen since about 1.30 a.m. Eastern on November 9, 2016


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Colonel Travis | August 20, 2018 at 9:09 pm

I have no idea what will happen. All I know is I want NeverTrumpers and leftists to make the companies that produce high blood pressure and anti-anxiety medicines richer than Exxon, Wal-Mart, Google, Amazon and Apple combined.

    Tom Servo in reply to Colonel Travis. | August 20, 2018 at 10:45 pm

    Agreed, I would not hazard any predictions. Too many charges, too complicated a case. Not a surprise at all that it is taking this long, no matter how it comes out.

    At least Rattlesnakes have a warning signal when they are going to strike. These leftist vipers with which we have to contend do not. Even a Rattlesnake has more credibility and better motives.

DINORightMarie | August 20, 2018 at 9:17 pm

“If Manafort is found Not Guilty on all charges, anti-Trump heads are going to explode in a simultaneous combustion not seen since about 1.30 a.m. Eastern on November 9, 2016”

I really, Really, REALLY hope this comes to pass! If it were on video, I would be hitting repeat on that video for a long, long time…….

#CouldntHappenToNicerPeople #WishingAndHopingAndThinkingAndPraying #DreamALittleDream #Schadenfreudealicious

    The resulting compilation videos would be epic. I am still enjoying the ones that feature the Election Night aftermath!

      I find it interesting that so many of us have independently collected Election Tears porn to amuse ourselves. It speaks to why Trump won – we have been so hungry to have a leader that fights back.

      I don’t understand how the NeverTrump Traitors expect everyone to go back to the status quo Failure Theatre: Losing Gracefully IV after Trump leaves office. Simply not gonna happen.

      I’ve already got my response planned:

You don’t suppose they’re binge-watching “The Apprentice”, do you? 😉

It’s nice to think of the Leftist heads exploding on a Not Guilty verdict, but I won’t hold my breath waiting for the Jury to return Not Guilty verdicts on all counts of the indictment. I’m prepared to be pleasantly surprised if the Jury fails to reach a verdict or only finds him Guilty on the single least serious of the charges.

When did this whole thing go stupidly “tribal”?

I suspect that the vast majority of Americans don’t give a good crap what the jury decides. Neither do those of us who know who Monofart has been for decades. A lot of trials end in head-shaking ways, no matter where you stand. Including at the counsel’s table…

    “Ragspierre”, the coward that refuses to answer simple questions, believes in big government as exhibited in this case.

    Tell us again how Avenatti and the hooker are going to sink Trump. You remember them, right?

    Tribal, that is a perfect fit for you deranged nevertrumpers. A tribe if one ever existed.

    Mr T Rump asks when this thing went triball… that’s so cute.

    Next, he’ll be lecturing us about civility and decorum.

    Colonel Travis in reply to Ragspierre. | August 20, 2018 at 10:29 pm


    That’s extremely clever. Did you come up with that in 6th grade study hall today?

    I think you give an extremely good crap about this case but you’re too dishonest and/or a coward to admit it. Monof…er, excuse me, your elevated humor is just too much for my brain to handle! Manafort’s life doesn’t have anything to do with mine, but I’m very interested in this case because people like you cannot shut up for even five minutes from telling people like me that Trump has seven heads and ten horns and a tail that swept a third of the stars out of the sky.

      ‘and a tail that swept a third of the stars out of the sky.’

      Love the imagery. Is it from a particular mythology or did you just come up with it?

      Interesting how all of a sudden Rags is distancing himself from the trial. He claimed to have been following it very closely, so perhaps he’s come to a realization that there is nothing there.

        Colonel Travis in reply to Fen. | August 20, 2018 at 10:37 pm

        It’s how the Book of Revelation described Satan.

          I’ve forgotten the passage. I’ll have to go back to it. Thanks.

          tom_swift in reply to Colonel Travis. | August 21, 2018 at 12:09 am

          King James—

          And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars:

          And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered.

          And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads.

          And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born.

          And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne.

          And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days.

          And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,

          And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven.

          And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

          For many years Apocalypse was the only part of German bibles which had illustrations. Obviously, that’s where all the cool stuff is.

    Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | August 20, 2018 at 10:51 pm

    I made a plain statement of fact mixed with opinion.

    You vicious punks responded with personal, off-topic attacks.

    It’s just who you are. Thanks for the demonstration.

      Colonel Travis in reply to Ragspierre. | August 20, 2018 at 10:58 pm

      You vicious punks responded with personal, off-topic attacks.

      Sorry, can’t stop laughing.

      Rags: I made a –

      Context. Your reputation proceeds you. Don’t play the victim. You’ve been a dick to everyone here for quite some time.

      Remember when you mocked my dead father? I still do.

      Don’t be a Brennan. Own it and accept the consequences of your behavior. You wanted to be despised, this is what it looks like.

      Thought I must confess the added irony is an unexpected pleasure. Thank you for being so entertaining.

        Tom Servo in reply to Fen. | August 21, 2018 at 12:56 am

        Rags should just consider it a Career Achievement Award.

        And he might also consider this little observation about the human condition – sometimes some people foul their own nest so badly that their only good option is to take off and find surroundings where they haven’t worn out their welcome.

        Or put another way, it’s easier to get a new audience than it is to get a new act. This audience is sick of your show, Rags.

        Anonamom in reply to Fen. | August 21, 2018 at 10:04 am

        “Though I must confess the added irony is an unexpected pleasure. Thank you for being so entertaining.”

        What I find mind-boggling is that I suspect he actually believes himself to be the victim here. Clearly, the poor man needs help. Whether that be therapy, medication, or a long stay in a rehab facility, I don’t know, but I hope he figures it out. But mostly I just wish he’d GO AWAY.

      MarkS in reply to Ragspierre. | August 21, 2018 at 6:22 am

      Hey Rags, you’ve heard about that heat and the kitchen thing, I suspect, right?

      userpen in reply to Ragspierre. | August 21, 2018 at 10:28 am

      “You vicious punks responded with personal, off-topic attacks.” You mean attacks like these :

      “You are disgusting.”
      “Do you have anything of substance, pissant? If not, STFU.”
      “You’re a lying POS.”
      “You poor idiot.”
      “You first, T-rump sucker.”

      Obakemono in reply to Ragspierre. | August 21, 2018 at 10:52 am

      You want some French-cries with that whaaaaaaaaaaaaa burger?

    When the left made it that way. That is when it becam tribal. Exactly then. The left made politics personal like this, rags.

    Alan McIntire in reply to Ragspierre. | August 21, 2018 at 8:03 am

    It went “stupidly tribal” when deep state Hillary Clinton supporters made the effort to overthrow the results of a legal election.

    Alan McIntire in reply to Ragspierre. | August 21, 2018 at 8:03 am

    It went “stupidly tribal” when deep state Hillary Clinton supporters made the effort to overthrow the results of a legal election.

    jdjohnson50 in reply to Ragspierre. | August 21, 2018 at 9:14 am

    Hi Calvin!

I feel like the length of time this is going on means that there is going to be either a mistrial or a ‘compromise’ verdict where he’s found guilty on a few lesser charges but not of the main ones.

The government case rests upon Gates. I would not rely on anything Gates. Not Guilty on any charges.

    MarkS in reply to Elzorro. | August 21, 2018 at 6:25 am

    True, but given the demographics of the jury pool locale, it’s safe to assume that there are at least a few whacky leftists or Never Trumpers in that room

MomInLatteland | August 21, 2018 at 12:12 am

A couple years ago I was seated on a 6 person jury to decide a criminal DUI case. The prosecution had one witness: the state patrol officer who pulled the guy over. They also had video of the traffic stop and subsequent arrest.

I was surprised when the defense called no witnesses but as the jury deliberations unfolded it became obvious why. Five of us – after watching and listening to the prosecutor tell us ‘what’ exactly we saw on the tape – began to have doubts beyond reasonable that the PA was telling the truth. Had the defendants car swerved, indicating intoxication? No. It swerved when the car in the lane next to him came into his lane. In fact, the defendant showed amazing control avoiding a collision. Did the guy stumble when he got out of his car? Not that I ever saw.

In his closing arguments, the Defense Attorney simply showed us the tape from when it started to when it finished. By then I knew I couldn’t vote to convict based on the tape AND on the fact that the PA had lied to us. We ended as a hung jury as the only other woman on the jury stated quite adamantly that she didn’t believe the PA or the arresting officer would ever lie…

Ended as a hung jury as she was never going to be convinced to do anything but vote for Hillary… er, I mean believe what her betters in government service told her to believe.

    No victim. In your case and this case who is the victim of these horrible crime being prosecuted with penalties worse than many murder cases? In the instant case of Manafort I guess the victim could be the treasury or something? I do not see the banks as victims. I have no sympathy for banks or the treasury. Not Guilty.

My best guess is the probability of all not-guilty is about zero. There’s a certain amount of guilt in “Well, the prosecution went through all this trouble and we’ve been here so long, and there are *so* many charges…”

Then again, we can always hope for the “S***w it, this is all a load of (censored), let’s go home.”

    Joe-dallas in reply to georgfelis. | August 21, 2018 at 12:09 pm

    With a little reality check – I am Concurring – This is a jury from the eastern district of Virginia – a heavy democratic enclave. There will some jurors who will vote for conviction just because he is associated with trump.

    on a similary note, that is why hillary would never have been convicted – impossible to seat a jury that would not have several that would never vote to convict hillary no matter how obvious the crime.

      And this is why there will be a civil war. You can’t live in a civil society with the laws depending solely on what party you belong to, and as long as one party is playing it that way, the other party is forced to as a matter of self defense.

If Manafort is found Not Guilty on all charges, anti-Trump heads are going to explode in a simultaneous combustion not seen since about 1.30 a.m. Eastern on November 9, 2016

I don’t think it’d be as cataclysmic as The Great Day was.

They were so certain that they were going to win it all, Make History™ with America’s First Termagant President, and be in a position to finally squash all those pestilential things like free speech, personal responsibility, men, logic . . . all those things the Left hates but Barry was too lazy to finish off for good.

This, though, they’re not so sure of. So the disappointment won’t be so acute if they don’t get it.

I have no idea what the jury will actually do. Reality is that we have not seen everything the jury has. So it’s just pure speculation at this point.

I do however wish they find him not guilty and than the media does dox them hard. Why?

Because it provides more proof that the media is out of control with their hatred of Trump. That they would willingly go after jurors on a case because it didn’t go the way they wanted it too would be a great help in the mid-term elections and in 2020.

    Elzorro in reply to Blueshot. | August 21, 2018 at 1:03 am

    They are safe as long as they deliberate. If they hang or find him NG they will be hunted down by the MSM, doxed, and their lives made miserable, is my guess. If they find him guilty they will be given the same treatment as a conquering hero returning to Rome after a victory in battle. complete with trumpets and wreaths on their heads.

“Seriously, what’s the point of defense counsel exuding confidence and spinning to the media?”

Jury isn’t sequestered.

They go home, and see the news. And hear the opinions on the case from family and friends. And on social media.

Not supposed to? There’s a world of difference between what ppl are not supposed to do and what they actually do.

The craziest thing about this trial is it has zero to do with Trump. The media acts like Manafort was involved in hacking the DNC server and that a conviction proves collusion. If Manafort had a scintilla of evidence against Trump he could have given it to Mueller and walked. Protecting Trump to his own detriment makes absolutely no sense unless he just doesn’t have anything. Manafort is facing a life sentence for crimes that are usually settled out court with a stiff fine, not a life sentence.

    Elzorro in reply to Jackie. | August 21, 2018 at 6:45 am

    They have this hope that he will become the Gates of their impeach Trump effort. They are grasping at any straw to keep hope alive and stifle defeatism.

Alan McIntire | August 21, 2018 at 8:04 am

Maybe all this time means it’s going to be a hung jury.

Given the nature and locale of the jury pool, my guess is that they are simply milking the deliberations for more free lunches.

    Elzorro in reply to tlcomm2. | August 21, 2018 at 2:05 pm

    The movie will be called ‘Escape From the Swamp’. This is a jury from the DC suburbs. They will find him guilty and haul ass. Just a hunch. They want to get out of their with their hides.

I just heard the jury is deadlocked on all counts. Allen charge soon? It is hanging it appears. I hear they can not reach verdict on any count. There must be some Americans on that jury if this is accurate.. Hot Damn!

ScottTheEngineer | August 21, 2018 at 12:23 pm

The thing I dislike the most about this is if you read any article about the trial they always mention trump no less than 5 times and he has absolutely nothing to do with it.

Listening to the talking heads on FNC, they obviously haven’t a clue about how Jury Trials work. They are speculating about what a jury question regarding a potential failure to reach concensus on one count means. It seems that they have never heard of a jury failing to convict on all counts in the indictment. They are talking about a “partial verdict”, what the Hell is that? Had a case appealed to the Fifth Circuit on a basis (IIRC, it was 1980) that the Jury didn’t give due consideration to the defense presentations. The Appeals Court determined that the Jury had given careful consideration of the charges because they found the defendant Not Guilty on almost a fifth of the counts. The only time a Jury must reach consensus on all counts of an indictment is when it is a one count indictment or the Jury Instructions inform them that the counts are so interrelated that a Not Guilty of a certain count means the defendant can’t be guilty of the other(s) and that is very rare.

    Elzorro in reply to Edward. | August 21, 2018 at 12:39 pm

    My bet is they have verdicts and want to escape. They just do not know how to fill in the form. no telling what the verdicts are yet.

    Elzorro in reply to Edward. | August 21, 2018 at 12:41 pm

    I would be surprised if they hung on only one of 18 myself. It would not make any sense. But then again……None of this makes any sense to me.

Oh My. Judge will use Sawyer to resond to jury.
Conclusion:  Scheme to Deprive of Honest Services
Ellis is awesome. Will hit em’ with sawyer

The jury was permitted to find the first element of mail and wire fraud, the scheme to defraud, upon proof that either the gift statute or the gratuity statute was violated.   The gift statute as charged, however, was a legally insufficient basis upon which to find the scheme to defraud.   Although the gratuity statute was properly instructed in terms of honest services mail fraud, we cannot tell if the convictions were based on that statute or the insufficiently charged gift statute.   When a jury has been presented with several bases for conviction, one of which is legally erroneous, and it is impossible to tell which ground the jury convicted upon, the conviction cannot stand.  United States v. Nieves-Burgos, 62 F.3d 431, 435-36 (1st Cir.1995).