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

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: luthier

I said iirc they admitted they took up the old investigation with no new evidence being present.

So for 2, yes it is IF there was no new evidence.

A grand jury and judge issued the subpoenas and allowed indictments.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

It is completely normal and legal for prosecutors to charge people in unrelated matters to the original indictment to produce testimony.

a reply to: luthier

Yes, when they are investigating a crime and find evidence of wrongdoing.

What they can't do is investigate a person to find a crime to pin on them.

a reply to: luthier

Meaningless point. That in no way shows wrongdoing did not occur as the Grand jury would not have access to that.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: luthier

Yes, when they are investigating a crime and find evidence of wrongdoing.

What they can't do is investigate a person to find a crime to pin on them.

A grand jury and judge issued the indictments...

That isn't what happened.

Literally all the proof points you are picking up on a cable news talking point.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

It is completely normal and legal for prosecutors to charge people in unrelated matters to the original indictment to produce testimony.

Perhaps, but the judge in this case is casting a stinkeye over the process, and rightfully so. He has almost certainly seen the letter from Rosenstein clearing Mueller. Unless new evidence has surfaced that we (and the judge) haven't heard about, Mueller is violating Manafort's civil rights, and the case should be tossed out of court.

I would give Mueller the benefit of the doubt if there was reason to believe the original decision to clear Manafort was corrupt (as is clearly the case with Hillary and her server), but no one is alleging that. And given that this would necessarily involve Mueller calling his boss Rosenstein a crook, it isn't likely to happen.

originally posted by: AndyFromMichigan

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

It is completely normal and legal for prosecutors to charge people in unrelated matters to the original indictment to produce testimony.

Perhaps, but the judge in this case is casting a stinkeye over the process, and rightfully so. He has almost certainly seen the letter from Rosenstein clearing Mueller. Unless new evidence has surfaced that we (and the judge) haven't heard about, Mueller is violating Manafort's civil rights, and the case should be tossed out of court.

I would give Mueller the benefit of the doubt if there was reason to believe the original decision to clear Manafort was corrupt (as is clearly the case with Hillary and her server), but no one is alleging that. And given that this would necessarily involve Mueller calling his boss Rosenstein a crook, it isn't likely to happen.

I think you are confusing what is ethical with what is legal.

The judge has a right to an opinion and it's true. However it's legally meaningless.

It's like arguing a stop sign shouldn't have been in that location . It doesn't matter.

The judge has to follow the law not politics.

The judge also stated Manafort has a real chance to go to jail for the rest of his life.

The judge has no evidence to support his opinion and since Ronstein (whom trump appointed) has publicly aknowledged Mueller is doing what he is allowed a retro active letter is even possible.

What non legal people missed is the defense actually lost even though temporary. The judge issued he will read the mandate in a sealed viewing, meaning the defense will not be allowed the mandate.

Manafort also is only arguing jurisdiction. He is also using this motion as a discovery to learn more about Mueller's case but it was basically shot down unless the judge decides to reveal the mandate which would be unheard of.

I am not a fan of this squeezing of witnesses for testimony. But it has been supported by scotus. By republican scotus members.

PS we have no idea what new evidence there is or is not.

What we have is news wars. We need to wait and see what reality is. Napalitano is a guy I trust mote than most on the news stations. He isn't afraid to buck up to the narrative and present how the legal system actually works.

Also let's just bring up Gowdy who supports Mueller. He is the guy Nunes gives the documents to because Nunes is unqualified to understand what he is given.

a reply to: luthier

No confusion here. The judge has LEGAL concerns about the case, not moral ones.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: luthier

No confusion here. The judge has LEGAL concerns about the case, not moral ones.

The judge has no evidence to support his opinion. It was a political feel good moment. That is it.

Unless ronstein abandons Mueller there is no case for his opinions.

Do you have proof Ronstein hasn't given Mueller the jurisdiction? Because the opposite is available from Ronsteins own mouth.

And it's totally legal for prosecutors to try and squeeze witness testimony thanks to scotus...

a reply to: luthier

That's the judges point, he should have the evidence and Mueller said he didn't need it. He's getting it though.

It's up to Mueller to prove he has jurisdiction and link the investigation. As you said, as of now there is no evidence he does.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

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.

Just to point out what the author of this article used in the op believes as a former federal judge.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: luthier

That's the judges point, he should have the evidence and Mueller said he didn't need it. He's getting it though.

Sure but manafort's defense is not. Which is what they were hoping for...

a reply to: luthier

Awesome I said nothing about motivation reasons, I'm talking jurisdiction.

a reply to: luthier

I'm not here to help criminals, I'm here to make sure my rights are maintained.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: luthier

I'm not here to help criminals, I'm here to make sure my rights are maintained.

Well you should hold your lawmakers acountable not argue after the fact. Both scotus and Congress have allowed this practise.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I agree with you most likely that prosecutors use shady technique.

But it doesn't matter. I disagree with common law marriage but I can't argue against the law if it's the law as a defense.

a reply to: luthier

No, they haven't. You are confusing things. Please show me SCOTUS legalizing the investigation of individuals to find crimes to pin on them without any evidence of a crime leading to that individual.

I want every criminal prosecuted, I don't want to politicize the FBI into a weapon and give away my constitutional rights.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: luthier

No, they haven't. You are confusing things. Please show me SCOTUS legalizing the investigation of individuals to find crimes to pin on them without any evidence of a crime leading to that individual.

There is no evidence that has happened.

The judge didn't make that argument

Manafort didn't either

a reply to: luthier

As I said, if this investigation was not the result of new intelligence rather the new information came as the result of the investigation then yes that's exactly what happened.

I don't have the facts to determine this, the judge didn't either, that's why he demanded to get it.

Actually manafort did make that argument when he said it would be improper to send the case back. The judge also spoke to it.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Nobody does accept politicians. The fbi doesn't have a great record.

Everyone seems to think somehow it's because of trump. It's not new. Though it is a problem.

I don't know that this case with Mueller has evidence of that yet.