I see text from the IG’s report.
What are you trying to draw attention to, exactly?
No verdict. Back again tomorrow.
Maybe there are two different realities in the jury room.
18 counts in a document heavy case takes time. Either that or a Trump true believer is on the jury.
And for anyone trying to draw a conclusion based on the length of deliberations, it goes both ways.
It is safe to assume that jury deliberations may take longer in complicated cases with multiple defendants, counts or charges, which will require longer jury instructions. Still, there is no “average” jury deliberation and the time-frame is anyone’s guess.
Maybe another day or two? So far, they’ve had enough time to deliberate about an hour and a half per count. Not very much time. I read somewhere that the judge refused the creation of an index to align each piece of physical evidence with the corresponding count. I woudn’t be surprised if an entire day was spent just sifting through the evidence, organizing it, and deciding how to go forward with deciding.
That they’ve taken this long tells me, and this is pure conjecture, that they’re not taking a single narrative and running with it as a slam dunk to categorize all of the charges. Or, if they have done that, there is one or two holdouts on the other side of that narrative.
My guess is they’re going very diligently through each count and assessing them individually.
I’m gonna stick with my original pure gut guess of guilty on 12 of 18 charges. Not guilty or hung on the rest.
Yeah, I agree that they’re probably being very diligent about their work. Good.
My guess would be that long deliberation tends to favor the defense when there is just one or two charges. When you have a metric buttload, like 18, there are more good reasons why the jury could be taking a long time, and those good reasons could benefit either side.
3 Likes
The contradiction.
There’s no contradiction there.
Clinton and her staffers “talked around” classified information - as in, they obliquely referred to classified information without revealing the information itself in the email.
That they claimed they didn’t know was classified because they didn’t see markings.
When did “they” claim that?
You’re misinterpreting the context here.
Clinton wasn’t emailing classified files back and forth, and claiming that she didn’t know they were classified. That’s not what happened - and if you know how SIRPNet works, it’s also nearly impossible to actually do.
Clinton and her staffers inadvertently mentioned classified information in the body of their emails - something that they actively avoided (by “talking around”), and occasionally missed.
As in, lets say Clinton sent an email to Abedin, mentioning that Ambassador X asked her for Y policy change. If that meeting itself was classified, then mentioning anything about it is spillage.
1 Like
If there’s a true believer on the jury, I want to see that movie.
all i hope is that the jury gets it right. whatever that is.
And guess who just moved into Paul Manafort’s facility?
Day three no verdict.
Just remember he is innocent until proven guilty. Defense got their turn, essentially looked at the jury said, the prosecution didn’t prove his guild, we will not be calling any witnesses.
Then it went to closing statements then to the jury.
Starting to look more and more like they may not have proven guilt to the jury.
Others might say the defense knew they didn’t have much of a chance and took a gamble.
And looks like the jury is going through the counts one by one meticulously. I don’t think that looks good for Paulie.
On which of the 18 charges?
Could be one, could be all.
But considering the defense didn’t put up a defense, just said: Remember, They have to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt. They didn’t do it. And now three days of deliberations.
