Political psychologist Bart Rossi, Ph.D., looks at the psychology of what the jury may be thinking. Why was there a restatement of “What are the parameters of reasonable doubt?” Is this an indication of the verdict outcome?
According to Dr. Bart Rossi, he sees this case as a litmus test for the American people. Mueller seems to have a mountain of evidence, not only in the Manafort case — there are 18 counts of bank fraud, tax evasion, etc. — but it will likely impact the overall credibility of the Russia investigation, and subsequent charges brought against others as well. At least as it relates to the court of public opinion.
Paul Manafort was the campaign chairman for the Trump Campaign for 5 months, beginning in March 2016 when Donald Trump said
“Paul is a great asset and an important addition as we consolidate the tremendous support we have received in the primaries,” Trump said in a statement on March 29, 2016.
He served in that capacity until mid-August when he resigned under the weight of allegations that were beginning to come to light.
His prior connection to Russian operatives and his high unpaid debts on loans he took from them raises questions. Why did he seek out a position on the Trump campaign, and why did he agree to do it for free? for free — devoid any salary.
And what does it mean that the jury asked the judge to define ‘reasonable doubt’ during deliberations?
In today’s episode, Dr. Rossi delves into what the jurors may be thinking. He also talks about the impact of the psychological implications of what Americans are thinking, feeling.