saw that coming given the snippets we've gotten from the courtroom so far... the judge asking prosecutors if they're crying, etc.
that weighs on the jury
but you left out the fact that judge ellis ended up conceding that he acted out and had to specifically address that to the jury this morning
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/...e-ellis-769889
The federal judge overseeing the Paul Manafort trial conceded Thursday morning that he made a mistake in chastising special counsel Robert Mueller’s prosecutors a day earlier in front of the jury.
Addressing the jurors before prosecutors called their first witness of the day, U.S. District Court Judge T.S. Ellis said he “may well have been wrong” on Wednesday when he slammed the Mueller team for allowing an expert witness from the IRS to remain in the courtroom while other witnesses were testifying.In their letter, Mueller's team said that the judge's action left a "negative impression" of them. "The Court’s sharp reprimand of government counsel in front of the jury on August 8 was...erroneous. And, while mistakes are a natural part of the trial process, the mistake here prejudiced the government," Mueller's team wrote, asking Ellis to tell jurors he was mistaken and the prosecution did nothing wrong.
Before the jury came in Thursday but after the session began, Asonye asked Ellis to address the issue. The judge snapped, “Alright, I’m going to take care of that.”
I didn't leave out anything. That link and quote were both included in the tweet.
lol @ "saw that coming"
Yeah right.
Do you agree with your tweets chris?
your tweet does not have that quote nor does it link to that article. it links to sarah carter's blog. and nowhere in there is a link to the article i posted
yeah, i didnt post it here, so cant really hold that against you.lol @ "saw that coming"
Yeah right.
btw the issue isn't really that the judge has ruled against them on objections or whatever... its that his tone/demeanor towards them can impact the jury in ways that it shouldn't.
Direct quote from sarcarter article:
Direct link with quotes from saracarter article:“I don’t care what the transcript says, maybe I made a mistake,” Ellis fumed. “When I exclude witnesses I mean everybody unless I make a special exception.”
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/...s-ellis-768715 same authors
Want to try again?
that quote from ellis was from wednesday. that came BEFORE the prosecution's letter/complaint. this was separate from his apology to the jury on thursday.
Direct link with quotes from saracarter article:
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/...s-ellis-768715 same authors
Want to try again?same authors. it's a different article, chris. don't be so disingenuous
the article i posted is more recent and includes the judge's apology to the jury on thursday.
So you're upset that she didn't link to an article that was updated and written 5 and half hours after she wrote her article? OK.
She didn't link to my specific politico article that was written after she wrote hers
i'm not upset.
the article i referenced was first published at 10am eastern time today. sarah carter's article went up at 1:20pm eastern time today. and you posted it here just an hour ago... leaving out pretty important developments that had occurred as of that time
lol
lol Chirs pwnd and mad.
BUT MUH ELLIS
next chris will post an article from may about ellis yelling at prosecutors
Yes, Sarah Carter was intentionally misleading you and the rest of the public by leaving out information that occurred either during or right after she posted the article. Nevermind the link to politico and an article written by the exact same authors. Congratulations bro on the solid sleuthing.
its less about carter intentionally misleading anybody and more about you being to intellectually lazy to figure out because you saw an article that you think is politically good for you
How's that disingenuous thingy working out for you?
You said I left out a fact that occurred either during or directly after she wrote the article. These are your accusations.
How is the article "politically good" for me?
my accusation is that you posted outdated news which left out important developments. i dont care when carter wrote the article. even if she wrote it 5 hours before the developments, it woulnd't matter. what matter is that YOU posted it here long after it was outdated and you left out some pretty important information... ie judge ellis told the jury this morning that he was mistaken the day before
you said anything anti-mueller is good for you. an article that paints the prosecution in a bad light (whining about a judge) is just that
If you read some of the back and forth, the judge was clearly trying to clown around and get laugh and some notice.
Im sure it was hilarious, but ya had to be there.
I’m guessing...
Holy . Someone call a mod stat.
No. Someone said I was pro Manafort and I said I was anti Mueller. Why are so disingenuous, and why are you a liar?you said anything anti-mueller is good for you. an article that paints the prosecution in a bad light (whining about a judge) is just that
Hang tight. They just getting started.
There are currently 6 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 6 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
