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

a reply to: shooterbrody

It seems improbable. The person who wrote his mandate has said otherwise.

Perhaps rod bungled the investigation but that isn't the same thing. Nor what the judge was alluding to by squeezing a witness. Squeezing a witness is stadard practice unfortunately. I don't like it either. Especially since the defense can't even provide a lolly pop.

But SCOTUS has ruled in favor of the practice of bringing up charges for unrelated crimes for witness testimony.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Where is this exoneration letter? Does that override any prosecution by the actual court?

a reply to: toysforadults

Because it's bull# that's why.
Napolitano had Hillary in jail every week of 2016. He's never right.

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

What I saw was the judge asked for Mueller's mandate from ronstein. Since the motion from the defense is over jurisdiction that seems to be accurate.

Do you have an exchange where he is asking for the search warrants which had nothing to do with this hearing?

The searches were challenged and a motion to suppress (disallow / throw it all out) any evidence was filed. The position is the warrants were illegal based on Mueller's lack of jurisdiction.

Exactly. Which we already know isn't true per ronstein himself.

This is why Napalitano is saying it's dicta...

Rosenstein's word is not law, but is dicta. The Judge will determine the legality after he sees the written documents. You are misquoting what Nap called dicta. He said the judges OPINION on why they are going after Manafort is dicta, the judge demanding to see the scope memo is NOT dicta.

a reply to: Sillyolme

You are not following the conversation.

It appears that Manafort was investigated and cleared. They used the old investigation which he was cleared of as a reason to investigate him because they were targeting him specifically in order to find a crime rather than investigating a crime which led to him. You can't do that.

We will know more once the Judge sees the memo and makes a ruling, right now all we can do is speculate.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

What I saw was the judge asked for Mueller's mandate from ronstein. Since the motion from the defense is over jurisdiction that seems to be accurate.

Do you have an exchange where he is asking for the search warrants which had nothing to do with this hearing?

The searches were challenged and a motion to suppress (disallow / throw it all out) any evidence was filed. The position is the warrants were illegal based on Mueller's lack of jurisdiction.

Exactly. Which we already know isn't true per ronstein himself.

This is why Napalitano is saying it's dicta...

Rosenstein's word is not law, but is dicta. The Judge will determine the legality after he sees the written documents. You are misquoting what Nap called dicta. He said the judges OPINION on why they are going after Manafort is dicta, the judge demanding to see the scope memo is NOT dicta.

Perhaps you should read it again....

Particularly where he expands and says Rod can write a retro active letter, a local prosecutor can pick up the case, and he sees evidence of a crime...

Also no where does it say there is no new evidence. That is your take. If you think prosecutors don't look at prior court records and use them as an investigative tool you don't understand law...show me where the prosecution says the charges were based on only the old case. Then show me that it can't be retried. There was no conviction.

Also this was not the cause of the investigation by the way. The investigation has been split between two courts and they allowed and offered the defense to consolidate to one.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: KansasGirl
a reply to: burntheships

The fact Rosenstein thinks he is above the law and untouchable, along with Mueller, will most likely be their downfall.

He's a weasley mofo, just look at him.

All they need is a swastika armband, right out of central casting.

Herr Mueller. Heil!

originally posted by: burgerbuddy

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: KansasGirl
a reply to: burntheships

The fact Rosenstein thinks he is above the law and untouchable, along with Mueller, will most likely be their downfall.

He's a weasley mofo, just look at him.

All they need is a swastika armband, right out of central casting.

Herr Mueller. Heil!

Well trump picked the weasle. As he did Manafort.

But sure it's the Democrats.

a reply to: luthier

Mueller squeezing the witness has jack squat to do with the scope of the investigation.
Either it is in or not.
A letter from rr would end the "speculation".
Pretty simple imo.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: luthier

Mueller squeezing the witness has jack squat to do with the scope of the investigation.
Either it is in or not.
A letter from rr would end the "speculation".
Pretty simple imo.

Agreed

Here is another quote from judge ellis

“Given the nature of the charges against the defendant and the apparent weight of the evidence against him, defendant faces the very real possibility of spending the rest of his life in prison,” wrote Ellis, an appointee of President Ronald Reagan.

a reply to: luthier

One could legitimaetly make the argument it IS the democrats ultimately responsible for all this nonsense. They are the ones who chose to put forth as their Presidential candidate the ONE person who couldn’t beat a blind monkey* in a Presidential election, let alone the other guy who should have been unelectable save for the complete lack of competitiveness on the other party’s full ticket. Not even smart enough to at least pick a VP candidate anyone would want running the Country.

* No disrespect to blind monkeys.

a reply to: luthier

It has been a week.....guess that is a difficult letter to write?

originally posted by: Lab4Us
a reply to: luthier

One could legitimaetly make the argument it IS the democrats ultimately responsible for all this nonsense. They are the ones who chose to put forth as their Presidential candidate the ONE person who couldn’t beat a blind monkey* in a Presidential election, let alone the other guy who should have been unelectable save for the complete lack of competitiveness on the other party’s full ticket. Not even smart enough to at least pick a VP candidate anyone would want running the Country.

* No disrespect to blind monkeys.

Well yes in that case it certainly is the Democrats.
I just find it funny theor is no accountability for Trump's bad judgement on some of these characters.

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: burgerbuddy

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: KansasGirl
a reply to: burntheships

The fact Rosenstein thinks he is above the law and untouchable, along with Mueller, will most likely be their downfall.

He's a weasley mofo, just look at him.

All they need is a swastika armband, right out of central casting.

Herr Mueller. Heil!

Well trump picked the weasle. As he did Manafort.

But sure it's the Democrats.

You know what a backstabber is, right?

It's not like they are wearing signs around their necks.

Should be flaming tires but that's a different thread.

originally posted by: luthier

Perhaps you should read it again....

Particularly where he expands and says Rod can write a retro active letter, a local prosecutor can pick up the case, and he sees evidence of a crime...

I don't need to read it again, I am not going on Judge Nap, I am going on what Ellis is saying. By the way as an American citizen we should ALL be terrified of the idea they can write a new memo that is retroactive. That idea is terrifying.

Don't worry Judge, I had no warrant to search that man's house, but I am getting one tomorrow that will retroactively cover it now that I got him on something.

TERRIFYING.

Manafort's defense also covers Nap's opinion that this can just be given to another prosecutor. They claim since there is no jurisdiction, any evidence found is tainted and can't be used since it would not have been found without the illegal investigation. I hope he wins, as loathe as I am to let a criminal walk free, I am more loathe to have my rights trampled on.

a reply to: luthier

Is this actually the truth or is it merely a microscope has been placed on his team and that we have discovered things we would find if we did the same to Obama and Clinton and others? We know the Russian oligarch that is damning evidence of Russian collusion was heavily involved with Clinton .. it's just not being investigated. If we actually want to follow the evidence why isn't it?

originally posted by: luthier
Here is another quote from judge ellis

“Given the nature of the charges against the defendant and the apparent weight of the evidence against him, defendant faces the very real possibility of spending the rest of his life in prison,” wrote Ellis, an appointee of President Ronald Reagan.

Meaningless quote, even if he was innocent there is the very real possibility he could spend his life in prison. Dicta.

a reply to: luthier

The information the judge needs will be presented. However I don't know if he has the security clearance to read fully unredacted documents. Maybe he does.

That tactic has already been tried by Mueller's team and of course the judge has the necessary security clearance. From the court transcript:

MR. DREEBEN: Your Honor, if I could ask leave to consult with the relevant components of the intelligence community because that is a classified document.

THE COURT: Yes, of course, you may do that. If any part of it is classified, it won't surprise you to know that a district judge is fully cleared. In fact, I have several espionage trials underway. If CIPA is needed, we will invoke it and use it. But I don't think it will be necessary. I just want to be sure I understand it fully

So no hiding behind, "it's classified."

(transcript link above is direct .pdf link)

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: luthier

Is this actually the truth or is it merely a microscope has been placed on his team and that we have discovered things we would find if we did the same to Obama and Clinton and others? We know the Russian oligarch that is damning evidence of Russian collusion was heavily involved with Clinton .. it's just not being investigated. If we actually want to follow the evidence why isn't it?

Of coarse they would find out Clinton is a dirt bag.

What I don't believe is that Trump is not a dirt bag as well.

He hired morons in many instances and crooks just like we see with the Clintons.

Bill also had a runaway prosecutor.

But no Trump is a snowflake. He is different special and it's unprecedented.

Not really.

I am a vocal opponent of these laws that allow judiciar unethical practice.

What I don't do is say we'll tye other team did it so it's unfair if we can't.

Like I keep saying we need to hold legislators accountable not complain when the horse is out of the barn. It's too late.

Take the people crying about the CIA cabinet appointee being "for torture" well those same morons voted to allow the laws that led to that and she is the tip of the spear doing whatever is legal to achieve a mandate.

What I believe is the laws are out of line with ethics. That has nothing to do with Mueller. I believe as does Gowdy who reads the information he is working in bounds.

You don't.

We will see next week. My guess is the case continues.

But I could be wrong.