It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The other shoe drops in Manafort's case - Rosenstein himself cleared Manafort back in 2006

page: 2
45
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 9 2018 @ 11:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

This is crazy




posted on May, 10 2018 @ 12:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Xcathdra

This is crazy



That is an understatement.. Cohen is being prosecuted by the SDNY because it is outside of Mueller's jurisdiction and yet any plea agreement in Cohen's case has to be signed off on by Mueller... If he has to sign off on it then why did he have to refer the case to the SDNY?

This entire issue stinks to high heaven.

I still maintain that an adverse ruling by the judge in Manaforts case or Cohen's case is going to be the death knell for the SC.

The fact the NY AG was making trips to DC to coordinate with FBI/DOJ officials who are opposed to Trump is also a massive problem since it is direct evidence of a conspiracy to go after Trump by any means necessary.

The only part Napolitano got wrong was the Presidents pardon power. Normally a Presidents pardon authority does not apply to state charges. However the state of New York has a state law making prosecutions of people who were already charged at the federal level or who already received a Presidential pardon a no go. The state law views that action as double jeopardy (which it is not but since its a state law it is in New York).

The desperation to bring Trump down has blinded some to the legal jeopardy they created for themselves.



edit on 10-5-2018 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2018 @ 02:55 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra


Now more than a decade later Rosenstein authorizes Mueller to go after Manafort for crimes he himself already cleared him of.


This is just getting sad and wow, if this is the previous Manafort investigation that has been being referenced all along, it really kills that talking point.

In 2005, Manafort was just getting started in Ukraine and still working for Akhmetov. Anyone with even a passing knowledge of Manafort's recent past or who has paid the least amount of attention to the current case against him should read the dates in the OP and shrug their shoulders.

So what if he was investigated in 2005 and Rosenstein didn't pursue charges in 2006? It has nothing to do with anything that followed nor would it preclude opening a new investigation in light of additional information.

Let me introduce you and the idiot judge (wow, I really missed my calling going into IT) to the just the initial Manafort indictment.

Second sentence of the first paragraph on the first page:


Between at least 2006 and 2016, MANAFORT and GATES acted as unregistered agents of the Government of Ukraine, the Party of Regions (a Ukrainian political party whose leader Victor Yanukovych was President from 2010 to 2014), Yanukovych...


Even if there was such a thing as investigative double jeopardy or whatever nonsense is implied here, how can one be investigated in 2005 and cleared in 2006 for crimes occurring between 2006 and 2016? Does the DOJ have a time machine they're not telling us about?

Same page:


In order to hide Ukraine payments from United States authorities, from approximately 2006 through at least 2016, MANAFORT and GATES laundered the money through scores of United States and foreign corporations, partnerships and accounts.


Oh yep, here it is on page three:


10. The Party of Regions was a pro-Russian political party in Ukraine. Beginning in approximately 2006, it retained MANAFORT, through DMP and then DMI, to advance its interests in Ukraine, including the election of its slate of candidates.


Of course, anyone who is actually read up on the topic already knows this. Start reading through the dates in the tables on the next few pages. Notice how 99% of the named entities were formed after 2006? "Already investigated with time machine! Nothing to see here! Derp!" And look at the STARTING dates of the wires that literally constitute wire fraud that they were indicted for:



All of the transactions in the table are 2008 - 2014.

Have you simply not been paying any attention to this case at all, saw this video and thought it was a super hot take? I can't wait to come back with "the investigation was in 2005 before any of the crimes" response to the meme "but he was already investigated (so he must be innocent!)"

And speaking of innocence, what is this "exoneration letter?" The term exoneration refers to an overturned conviction. You would seriously think that a judge would know this.

I love how this clown yammers about how prosecutions flipping people is "reprehensible," calls it "bribery" and basically states that anyone who flips is lying when they testify. Along with making that unreasonable blanket declaration, he ignores the fact that testifying is only one thing a cooperating witness does.

But the most obvious thing that he completely ignores is that Gates committed crimes that he pleaded guilty to and that it's pretty obvious that Manafort is guilty af too. Even if you don't see that, what defense is there for a defendant that goes, "I'm innocent because your ultimate goal is to prosecute my boss!" That's not a thing.

It's a ludicrous, meaningless, ill-formed talking point being pushed out through the echo chamber.

The whole Trump supporter preoccupation with defending Manafort is what's really reprehensible. It's not because any one of you actually believes for a second that Manafort is innocent. Not because you would have similar opinions in similar circumstances if your politics wasn't the primary driver of your opinion making. No, you're hoping a guilty man escapes justice because you're afraid of the implications for Trump.
edit on 2018-5-10 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2018 @ 04:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

I had assumed the NYAG was NXIVM.

There is a much, much larger cancer hidden beneath the surface here.



posted on May, 10 2018 @ 05:01 AM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

Except for the fact the SC already admitted in court the investigation into Manafort was not based on any new information they uncovered. They picked the investigation back up to, as the judge pointed out, pressure Manafort into providing info about Trump.

If there is no new evidence then the DOJ is at the same place they were at when Rosenstein first exonerated Manafort. If new evidence was uncovered it would have been submitted and it has not been. That is most likely the reason the SC has refused the discovery requirements. They have nothing to turn over except for the original evidence and as has been stated Rosenstein will be witness #1 for the defense because that evidence led to nothing.

Hang in there though.. You will eventually get one


At the rate the SC is going they are on the verge of a Brady violation.
edit on 10-5-2018 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2018 @ 06:25 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

This has been the Manafort defense.


Apparently you missed Napalitano say the judges opinion is political, has no evidence, and means nothing legally. Also that Rod can write a retro active letter and another prosecutor will pick up the case.

www.foxnews.com...


The judge's comments as to Mueller's motivation are dicta. Dicta are the unsolicited, unnecessary and often personal opinions of the court on matters not strictly before the court and not integral to the court's ruling. Stated differently, there is an abundance of speculation in the media but zero evidence in the record before Judge Ellis -- zero -- on which he could base his opinion; and his opinion of the prosecutor's motivation is irrelevant. It made national headlines because Trump supporters agree with it, and it is probably accurate -- but it is legally meaningless.

edit on 10-5-2018 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2018 @ 06:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

I'm confused. Perhaps you can elucidate me on some things. How does being cleared of wrongdoing in 2006 absolve Manafort of any potential wrongdoings in 2015-16?



posted on May, 10 2018 @ 06:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Xcathdra

This is crazy



That is an understatement.. Cohen is being prosecuted by the SDNY because it is outside of Mueller's jurisdiction and yet any plea agreement in Cohen's case has to be signed off on by Mueller... If he has to sign off on it then why did he have to refer the case to the SDNY?

This entire issue stinks to high heaven.

I still maintain that an adverse ruling by the judge in Manaforts case or Cohen's case is going to be the death knell for the SC.

The fact the NY AG was making trips to DC to coordinate with FBI/DOJ officials who are opposed to Trump is also a massive problem since it is direct evidence of a conspiracy to go after Trump by any means necessary.

The only part Napolitano got wrong was the Presidents pardon power. Normally a Presidents pardon authority does not apply to state charges. However the state of New York has a state law making prosecutions of people who were already charged at the federal level or who already received a Presidential pardon a no go. The state law views that action as double jeopardy (which it is not but since its a state law it is in New York).

The desperation to bring Trump down has blinded some to the legal jeopardy they created for themselves.




Apparently you also missed him saying they were working to change the double jeopardy law....

talkingpointsmemo.com...



posted on May, 10 2018 @ 06:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Xcathdra

I'm confused. Perhaps you can elucidate me on some things. How does being cleared of wrongdoing in 2006 absolve Manafort of any potential wrongdoings in 2015-16?


Where did tue 2015 investigation begin? Is it actually within the legal scope?

They are fair questions.



posted on May, 10 2018 @ 06:57 AM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Could be. However it's most likely in order to secure witness testimony the prosecution was looking for ways to bribe the witness. If the penalty of conviction could be overthrown by a pardon the prosecution would have a lesser chance of getting testimony.

The supreme court has provided legal precedent for prosecutors to basically bribe and lie to a witness to secure testimony. On top of that prosecutorial immunity is a broad shield. It's similar to qualified immunity for police.

We can argue if that should be allowed but the fact is, those prosecutorial tools are common place...

Napalitano describes that here from the extended interview.


The practice of indicting a person for a matter utterly unrelated to the core of the government's investigation in order to turn the indicted person into a government witness, though often repellant, is commonplace and has received approval by numerous Supreme Court opinions. Clearly, obtaining a guilty plea from retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, the president's former national security adviser, for lying to FBI agents about the existence of a lawful telephone conversation and obtaining a guilty plea from Rick Gates, Manafort's former business partner and deputy Trump campaign manager, for lying about who said what at a lawful meeting are parts of a plan to get these folks to give evidence or testimony about the president that prosecutors want to hear.



posted on May, 10 2018 @ 06:58 AM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I disagree and see this is as yet another shallow attempt to derail the investigation. Let's see how this plays out. Who wants to take bets that THIS will be the final nail for the investigation coffin and it will end now this has come to light? I'm going to go ahead and say nope.



posted on May, 10 2018 @ 07:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I disagree and see this is as yet another shallow attempt to derail the investigation. Let's see how this plays out. Who wants to take bets that THIS will be the final nail for the investigation coffin and it will end now this has come to light? I'm going to go ahead and say nope.


The judge is derailing the investigation? Hes the one asking these questions.



posted on May, 10 2018 @ 07:06 AM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

So?



posted on May, 10 2018 @ 07:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

So?


So....is he derailing the investigation?

Im trying to work past the rubber stamp reply you gave. How is the judge derailing the investigation by questioning its provenance and legality? Explain this.



posted on May, 10 2018 @ 07:17 AM
link   
In the legal world the prosecution and defense do everything possible to win. They don't always get what they want granted.

In this case Manafort was also using the motion as a discovery to find out the depth of mueller's case. Pretty common.

The judge actually denied this and is sealing the mandate so only he is going to read it.

Since we know ronstein has given mueller authority and can even do so retroactively according to napalitano, and there is legal precedent from the supreme court to use unrelated charges to secure testimony we can assume this particularly part of the defense will not go forward.

The judge'a comments are his personal opinion and have no legal meaning.

My take is since Gates is a little nightingale they have the proof they need to secure a guilty charge for Manafort past crimes.



posted on May, 10 2018 @ 07:25 AM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Because it's obvious he is trying to ask these questions to raise doubt in the right wing blogosphere. It's working too since we have threads like this pretending like the questions are "GOTCHA!" moments that will end the investigation. Though, just like all the other pretend "GOTCHA!" moments that Foxlandia has attempted, this one won't pan out either. A judge can ask all the questions he wants, it doesn't mean there is anything wrong with the investigation though.
edit on 10-5-2018 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2018 @ 07:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

So you are saying the judge is part of a vast right wing conspiracy?

Its his trial. You wont accept his findings unless they meet your bias?



posted on May, 10 2018 @ 07:51 AM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I said no such thing; bias requires no conspiracy to perpetuate. How about answering my original question you so carefully dodged answering? Do you think these questions will derail the investigation and the Manafort investigation will be such down because of them?
edit on 10-5-2018 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2018 @ 07:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I said no such thing; bias requires no conspiracy to perpetuate. How about answering my original question you so carefully dodged answering? Do you think these questions will derail the investigation and the Manafort investigation will be such down because of them?


Depends on the answers.

But "derail the investigation" is a ridiculous term. "Prove it a sham" is more appropriate.



posted on May, 10 2018 @ 08:04 AM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

So yes, no, maybe? Rewording my question to align with your right wing biases doesn't absolve you of my request to answer it.




top topics



 
45
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join