Comments by "Hallands Menved" (@Hallands.) on "Juror in the Paul Manafort trial speaks out" video.

  1. "One holdout" sounds so nice and clear, but it later emerges that there were several – and that they felt enough group-pressure to cause tears... For whatever reasons, this woman isn't telling the truth, and I sincerely doubt she's a Trump-supporter. What's her motive to come forward as the only one? Isn't that highly unusual? Is it legal for jurors to talk about jury proceedings, even afterwards? She seems to me like a grudging nobody, eager to make her mark and enjoying her only moment of fame.
    37
  2. Steve S I got the exact same impression...
    11
  3. that way So she said, but for some reason I really don't believe her...
    8
  4. Ledzeppanzer No, agreed. Her vibe is murky at best.
    6
  5. Experts are guessing the verdict will be approximately 10 years. My guess is lower, 4. What do the commentators say, more or less than 5 years?
    1
  6. Dancing Filly Really? They can talk freely – even about other jurors and before sentencing or appeal is decided? I'm not so sure. Did you know MSM, lead by CNN no less, actually sued for the names and addresses of the jurors, which judge Ellis declined to divulge, so if that's so sensitive, how come the internal deliberations aren't? Mind you, I don't know what the law is on this, I just think it's strange and inconsistent.
    1
  7. Zorro theHumble When she mentioned the tears, she slipped up and mentioned, not one, but several (gender not implied) who weren't for blanket conviction at first. It's not a procedural criticism, nor is it unusual, but isn't it a bit strange that she comes out with "only one holdout" if the real story is "several holdouts at first, one wouldn't budge"? Anyway, it's not so very important to me. Manafort isn't, as Trump said, "a good person". He may be clever at campaigns, but his vibe is murky. It's just this glaringly biased abuse of special counsel (in itself meant to disperse bias) to go after tax evasion and whatnots eleven years old with ulterior motives! Alas, judge Ellis was weaker than I thought. The case should probably have been tossed and referred to the IRS.
    1