The Amateur Message Boards of the World Famous VoyeurWeb

When you have to go after the judge, it's safe to say, the prosecution doesn't have a case and the judge is on to them.

When the judge is literally testifying for the defense, it's safe to say you have reason to be concerned about his impartiality.

I've heard of star witnesses.

Now we have a star Judge?

Kinda like those liberal judges of the 9th,
when declaring the President's immigration policy be banned..! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:



But Mueller's team of sissy lawyers were given a chance to get another judge,,when
Manafort's team requested a change of venue...Mueller's team said , NO!
because that district is a blue district and they figured the pool of jurors is anti-Trump.. :o

Gates admitted on the stand that he stole hundreds of thousands of dollars from Manafort.

Trump is a criminal who surrounded himself with criminals. He's about to learn there's no honor among thieves!

LMFAO!!!

:lol: :mrgreen: :lol:

The judge has a duty to look at the facts.

Here are some, Manafort was investigated 7 yrs ago for this and exonerated, and the judge knows this is all just baloney to hope somebody rolls over on Trump for political reasons.

Even if all that were true (which it isn't) whatever happened seven years ago is irrelevant. They are not trying that case again. They are trying the current case.

So if all the stupidity you are dutifully parroting is true, then Manafort has nothing to worry about, does he, because he will be exonerated again. This judge will see to that.

And this judge will obviously vacate a glaringly faulty verdict, so you partisan hacks can just stop worrying about it.
If everything you clowns are saying is true, then Manafort is going to walk free, no doubt about it. Relax and stop wetting yourselves over it. :lol:

Alex Trebek hasn't been in more double jeopardy than this guy.

You really need to stop by the law library some time, johnny.

No wonder you couldn't cut it as a lawyer. You eschew the law.


Gesundheit.

You can't sneeze at the fact that the actual practice of law can be tedious and unpleasant.

Much like the practice of medicine or dentistry.

Or many another job.

Then you should have been right at home.

Nobody here is more tedious than you, johnny.

I mean that. And not in a nice way either.

Gates flipped on Manafort and he flipped on Trump and the swamp rats Trump surrounds himself with.

Alexandria, Virginia (CNN) A court filing from special counsel Robert Mueller signals that Rick Gates may be assisting the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election beyond the case against Paul Manafort.

The judge has a duty to look at the facts.

Here are some, Manafort was investigated 7 yrs ago for this and exonerated, and the judge knows this is all just baloney to hope somebody rolls over on Trump for political reasons.

Yes, johnny, you're tedious. We know.

Those eight-year-old 'facts' even if true, are irrelevant to this case. So one looks at them and shrug them off.

If you're smart, you will do the same.

Here are some, Manafort was investigated 7 yrs ago for this and exonerated, and the judge knows this is all just baloney to hope somebody rolls over on Trump for political reasons.

Bingo the government looked into his activities and blessed off on them as being lawful = estoppel

Unless the laws have changed they can't now convict for him continuing those activities. The whole thing is nothing more than an attempt to try and get Manafort to say something against Trump, if he does they'll drop the whole matter as they have for Gates. Judge Ellis nailed it on day one of the trial.

Only the government didn't look into THESE activities and "blessed off on them" :shock: as being lawful, dimwit.
It's looking into these activities and finding them criminal, most likely, despite a biased judge.

These are different acts, dummy. And the proof of this is that they took place eight years apart. They are not "exactly the same". That's idiotic.

What is it about the concept of time that befuddles you morons so much?
And why are you so determined to have tax frauds walking free? I thought you were supposed to care about taxpayers' money. :lol:

Only the government didn't look into THESE activities and "blessed off on them"

I didn't say they did clown, wake up dude.

So why bother making that irrelevant post then, Tool? Wake up, dude.

If they aren't exactly the same, then these crimes aren't "blessed off" are they.

You're as tedious as johnfibs with his irrelevant distractions from reality.

Clown you really are a slow thinker, you have to pay attention to the detail, read what I said again.

Bingo the government looked into his activities and blessed off on them as being lawful = estoppel

I said they blessed of on "his" activities, not "these" activities like you tried quoting me. If "these" activities are of the same type that "he's" already been blessed off on by the government, there's an estoppel (google it).

Clownslacker has wounded me with his false claim that my correct posts about this case were tedious.

I am now moaning and weeping.

My tears are profuse, and I shall leave the Internet forever.