Manafort juror said one holdout 'exasperated' others with her logic

mobile.reuters.com...

Paula Duncan, a Manafort juror and Trump supporter that helped convict Manafort claimed there was one juror who was the holdout on the other 10 counts. She said that everyone was exasperated with the ladies logic and that it made no sense.

Im glad to see that even Trump Supoorters see the corruption that has enveloped this administration

a reply to: HunkaHunka


Manafort is not part of this administration, never was, he was briefly a campaign chairman. And all these crimes were way before Trump... SSOOOOOO try again

a reply to: HunkaHunka

"She was just saying I want to review my notes," Duncan said. "When we asked her to explain her side she really couldn’t give us a good reason. She just said she had reasonable doubt."

Sounds perfectly reasonable.

This is journalism?

What’s reasonable about it? Reason requires an explanation, and in this case there was none

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: HunkaHunka

"She was just saying I want to review my notes," Duncan said. "When we asked her to explain her side she really couldn’t give us a good reason. She just said she had reasonable doubt."

Sounds perfectly reasonable.

This is journalism?

Except there isn't any corruption other then you not liking the POTUS.

Good on the holdout and probably had their reasons.

a reply to: HunkaHunka

....because it is an active trial and anything said is heresay 😌

It’s not an active trial anymore

originally posted by: Arnie123
a reply to: HunkaHunka

....because it is an active trial and anything said is heresay 😌

originally posted by: norhoc
a reply to: HunkaHunka


Manafort is not part of this administration, never was, he was briefly a campaign chairman.

He said the corruption that envelopes this administration, that's not the same as saying Manafort was a part of the administration.

a reply to: HunkaHunka

The burden of proof is on the prosecution. If the juror wasn't at that point in time convinced, that's reason enough.


You nor the other jurors get to speak for the person described.

a reply to: HunkaHunka

...and people aren't talking, so speculate all you want.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: HunkaHunka

The burden of proof is on the prosecution. If the juror wasn't at that point in time convinced, that's reason enough.


You nor the other jurors get to speak for the person described.

I have to agree with that much. It is really immaterial what anyone else says, if a juror was unconvinced, then she was unconvinced, end of story.

a reply to: HunkaHunka

This woman also said she is a trump fan and wanted manafort to be innocent.

However she had to do whats right, and voted he was guilty, which is very respectable.

She also said she could tell the prosecutors from muellers team were not into it, and were sleeping off and on and kicking their feet up, and that she knows the mueller investigation is just a witch hunt.

a reply to: alphabetaone

Exactly. The fact that Manafort was convicted means that she eventually was satisfied with the evidence.

What she was thinking, or as the article stated 'held out,' is really scraping the bottom of the barrel.

Thus my question; this is journalism?

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: norhoc
a reply to: HunkaHunka


Manafort is not part of this administration, never was, he was briefly a campaign chairman.

He said the corruption that envelopes this administration, that's not the same as saying Manafort was a part of the administration.

Then why bring it up?

a reply to: JinMI


It's sensationalism...nothing new there.

I have to kind of respect her holding out in the face of what im sure was internal pressure (irrespective of what the reality is), it shows an independent thinker wanting more information. The reality of it is, she WAS convinced in 8 counts, that kind of gives the "hold out" quite a bit of credibility.

originally posted by: schuyler

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: norhoc
a reply to: HunkaHunka


Manafort is not part of this administration, never was, he was briefly a campaign chairman.

He said the corruption that envelopes this administration, that's not the same as saying Manafort was a part of the administration.

Then why bring it up?

Simple, because corruption surrounding this administration is ultimately what's in question for the Special Counsel.

a reply to: HunkaHunka

Actually if she still had reasonable doubt then she had reasonable doubt. She does not HAVE to explain herself.

and from the article:

Duncan said there was no reason to have convicted Manafort on one FBAR count and not the other three. She said the holdout appeared to be willing to convict only for 2012 because there was a piece of evidence with Manafort's name on it. "We didn’t understand her logic and to us if he was guilty on the tax documents he was pretty much guilty on the FBARs," Duncan said. "It made sense to everyone but her."

That is pretty sound reasoning there. So the AP and yourself will have to do better to make her sound crazy, and yes that is exactly what both the AP and you are trying to imply.

The prosecution failed to prove provable things.

It's was simple.

They were schlock operation.

💥🚬💥

a reply to: xuenchen

Yet they succeeded on 8 counts.

Manafort is going to prison for a LONG time :-)

originally posted by: HunkaHunka
a reply to: xuenchen

Yet they succeeded on 8 counts.

Manafort is going to prison for a LONG time :-)

He was guilty.

The longer the better.

The setup worked.

He got exposed.

Implant got unrooted.

💥😎💥