He’ll sit in the clink until his trial. That’s how it’s goes sometimes, papi.
He is and has always been a civil libertarian - regardless of which side is having their civil liberties stepped on.
He’s right.
M
The superseding INDICTMENT documented how Manafort tried to suborn PERJURY, which is why his BAIL was REVOKED.
He’s pretending like he hasn’t no clue that’s people get their bail revoked or sit courtside until trial, which is utter ■■■■■■■ nonsense to anyone with a law degree.
It’s sad to se me how far he’s fallen.
First he violated a judge’s order. Second, a witness finked on him. There’s nothing here that needs a trial.
2 Likes
No, as I explain, the analogy is not for ■■■■■ As I explained, if a person is out on bail, and is suspected of committing new crimes, with evidence, than bail is likely to be revoked. No conviction required, depending on the evidence. Up to a Court to decide, given the evidence, and the circumstances. You do acknowledge that fact of bail revocation underlying my analogy, yes?
I’m not going to admit any such stupid thing. You are INNOCENT until proven guilty in a court of law. Paul Manafort is a danger to NO ONE and is NO flight risk. There is NO GOOD REASON he needs to be in jail. This is a prosecutor trying to get Manafort to plead guilty and save him from having to prove his case - it’s as simple as that.
M
[/quote]
Ok, you’re just being dishonest. You didn’t address the question: are you claiming that bail revocation requires a conviction on additional crimes? Because that claim would be easily dismissed by facts and reality.
If it were Hillary Clinton, under precisely this set of circumstances and evidence, you’d be orgasmically pissing your pants here if her bail were not revoked. Save yourself further embarrassment and admit it, OK?
The fact is that bail revocation, based on the evidence of Manafort’s attempts to get witnesses to perjure in court, is precedented and not unreasonable.
No…no it’s not. Fairly standard
An indicted defendant can in many cases provided they have the means to post bail and remain free pending trial. This supposes that said defendant doesn’t commit any other criminal acts while on bail. Do that and you are likely to be remanded. This has been the case throughout this history of our criminal justice system here in the U.S. You don’t just keep getting do overs. This is not a difficult concept to undertstand. The whole idea of bail is to promote the idea of innoncent until proven guilty. You keep doing stupid ■■■■ and you aren’t going to keep getting chances.
I literally cannot believe someone would defend this. A person caught on tape shooting a person to death, presented to a grand jury, indicted, and same evidence shown at pre-trial hearing. Do you think we should let said person back onto the street provides they pay “reasonable” bail?
I know what your answer is going to be and it’s either going to be ludacris or hypocritical, so pick your poison.
Guaranteed he isn’t going to be he arguing that some low life gang member from Harlem be granted bail for $50 on a murder charge.
I’m sure he will and American civil liberties take another hit.
M
Why don’t you do me a favor and stop telling me how I feel about civil liberties? I’m REALLY the best person to know how I fell about them.
You’re really LOUSY at it.
M
1 Like
Minor disappointment.
Ken does not offer more details. May not be as bad as DC, might even be better. Rural VA? Might find a few Trump fans in the clink there. He will have the best protection jail can provide.
1 Like
And only person responsible for everyone thinking you don’t know what they are
Lol. Dude, seriously, people sit in jail until their trials or they make a deal most of the time.
You just must be completely unfamiliar with he American criminal justice system. Seriously.
1 Like
Only when its someone or some organization he happens to agree with politically
Great post, thanks.
1 Like
It’s seriously unbelievable how little you know about how bail works
