Manafort loses bid to stay in 'VIP' jail, could face evidence from 1980s

a reply to: Xcathdra

To whom would they need to explain the basis of their investigation. They don't have to refer to trump to try Manafort for the crimes they discovered he had committed. The scope was any crimes discovered. That doesn't mean it has to be about collusion or even related. If they found a stolen tv they could have charged him with possession of stolen goods. Having nothing to do with trump these charges are complete!y stand alone because this trial is about tax fraud.
Mueller is wisely keeping his cases close to his vest.

originally posted by: SR1TX
What did this guy do again?

What didn't he do?

originally posted by: Kharron

originally posted by: SR1TX
What did this guy do again?

I know of a few charges; money laundering, tax evasion, failing to register as a foreign agent, obstruction of justice, tampering with a witness, conspiracy against the U.S... I'm sure I'm missing some.

Here are the original charges and then the article of some additional ones:

Original D.C.
Original Virginia
Additional
More

I mean what did he really do, not dumb charges the gov makes up.

just read the document.

That is the dumbest thing I have ever read.

You are all sheep...

a reply to: Xcathdra

Excellent post and commentary on the situation!!

This is legal manipulation for the purposes of obtaining a verdict which effectively has no value other than political and can be used as a means to impugn the president.

It's absolute BS! The prosecution could care less about Manafort (douchebag that he is), they want Trump! There's no "justice" being served here.

I'm ashamed of my country and legal system when I see agenda based BS like this happen without people being disbarred and thrown in JAIL!!

a reply to: Xcathdra

Judge we are investigating Russian collusion but we don't want to bring any charges against him on that investigation.

Makes sense.

a reply to: Kharron

You have a certain window of time to bring charges,murder being the only exception,so this post is more liberal BS,grow the hell up already

a reply to: Kharron

The man was in a "jail" with a laptop, meeting area, private bathroom, and a phone! That is NOT JAIL. He should be in a cell with a bed, sink, and toilet!

It's his own fault too! Witness Tampering, is what landed him in jail! Crooked! Just like trump. "The company you keep" tells everything about you!

Can you sue a special counsel for malicious prosecution?

wonder if this means they aren't gonna move the trial to more conservative roanoke, va?? I mean, doesn't make sense to move him closer to the alexandria site if you are just gonna turn around and move the trial down state.

originally posted by: Kharron
a reply to: Xcathdra

Thank you for that explanation. And I'm glad you explained selective prosecution. I was going to ask that too and forgot to put it in.

I still have one question. If they have evidence on him, but don't want to charge him and give him all that evidence during discovery -- what is the point of it? IF he should win the case, he cannot be tried for it again. Why not go at him with all they've got?

Or are they being cocky and thinking they can get him with less than what they have?

In my opinion it goes back to the fact people targeted by the SC are challenging their charges in court. The 13 russians / russian owned business, in my opinion, were not expected to challenge what the SC was doing. Their lawyers not only challenged the charges in court, they exposed more than 70 brady violations for not turning over discovery evidence. they also forced the SC hand by opposing a delay in proceeding requested by the SC.

This seems to be a reoccurring theme with our DOJ, regardless of which party is in power. They get the info thats highly classified yet dont want to disclose it to go after the person related to it.

I always come back to the question -
How can justice that is served in secret be justice.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Xcathdra

To whom would they need to explain the basis of their investigation. They don't have to refer to trump to try Manafort for the crimes they discovered he had committed. The scope was any crimes discovered. That doesn't mean it has to be about collusion or even related. If they found a stolen tv they could have charged him with possession of stolen goods. Having nothing to do with trump these charges are complete!y stand alone because this trial is about tax fraud.
Mueller is wisely keeping his cases close to his vest.

The judge / jury. Manafort doesnt have to take the stand however the investigators do. Rosenstein will take the stand and have to explain why he was investigated and then cleared of all charges. Then he will have to answer why the charges were raised again with the SC. Then he will have to explain why he authorized the additional jurisdiction for the SC to go after Manafort.

There is no way to portray this investigat6ion / prosecution into manafort without it being justified with the investigation into TRump.

The part you are ignoring or not understanding is the question -
Explain the basis for your investigation into Manafort. What occurred that brought him onto your radar screen, again, after he was already cleared of the charges in question.

They then ask why the Podestas arent facing the same charges.

There is no real way to answer those questions without admitting to selective prosecution or bias. Any answer the give that runs contrary to whats already been stated by the SC opens up a perjury can of worms for the SC and his team of investigators.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Xcathdra

Judge we are investigating Russian collusion but we don't want to bring any charges against him on that investigation.

Makes sense.

Except for the fact the Russia investigation is specifically why Manafort is being investigated and the reason for the charges in question.

If Manaforts prosecution has absolutely no relation to the russia investigation then why -
1 - is the special counsel investigating him and charging him and prosecuting him?
2 - Why did ADAG Rosenstein specifically authorize the investigation into Manafort by authorizing additional jurisdiction in order to do so.

You cant have one without the other and by trying to separate the 2 (Manaforts crimes and the russia probe) the context for the SC actions becomes blurred and non definable. It comes across as prosecutorial misconduct and gives the appearance of a prosecution with the sole purpose of trying to destroy an ally of the President for nothing more than vindictive political reasons.

After Strzoks testimony today, which is under oath, I see some of his answers being used by Manaforts legal team to undermine the position of the SC.

originally posted by: kurthall
a reply to: Kharron

The man was in a "jail" with a laptop, meeting area, private bathroom, and a phone! That is NOT JAIL. He should be in a cell with a bed, sink, and toilet!

It's his own fault too! Witness Tampering, is what landed him in jail! Crooked! Just like trump. "The company you keep" tells everything about you!

So should Clinton, Comey, Strzok, Page, Podesta brothers, Obama etc etc etc.

However, and contrary to what Democrats think, a person is innocent until a court of law decides they are guilty and not before then. His incarceration was nothing more than a political maneuver to put pressure on Manafort and anyone else challenging what the SC is doing.

originally posted by: face23785
Can you sue a special counsel for malicious prosecution?

Prosecutorial misconduct and in general no - they have absolute immunity (federal state and local prosecutors also have it). The remedy for prosecutorial misconduct would be up to a judge who presided over the case up to and including contempt, being sanctioned by the court, having their situation referred to the relevant body that oversee's their licensing (bar complaint / action), having the case dismissed and all charges thrown out (and any convictions nullified) etc.

These are just some of the possibilities.

a reply to: Xcathdra

You can't sue the person, but I believe you can sue the federal government (or State). The prosecutor probably wouldn't care (not his/her money), but they could be dismissed by their employer as a result. That, or just parked in a corner out of harm's way until they resigned out of boredom.

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: Xcathdra

You can't sue the person, but I believe you can sue the federal government (or State). The prosecutor probably wouldn't care (not his/her money), but they could be dismissed by their employer as a result. That, or just parked in a corner out of harm's way until they resigned out of boredom.

Federal prosecutors have absolute immunity so im not sure how they would be able to sue the government but not the person who prosecuted the case. I could be wrong but I dont think I am. Also the federal government has sovereign immunity so they must agree to be sued.

Also in recent news -
Mueller seeking immunity for up to 5 people to testify in Manafort trial

Attorneys working with special counsel Robert Mueller on Tuesday submitted a request for immunity for up to five witnesses his team has asked to testify in the trial against Paul Manafort, the former chairman of the Trump campaign.

Mueller made the request in a court filing Tuesday afternoon, which also requests that the identity of the potential witnesses remain under seal.

According to the filing, the potential witnesses have yet to be publicly identified with the ongoing investigation into the Trump campaign's alleged ties to Russia and the office wishes to shield them from "undue harassment."

"The five individuals identified in the motions at issue are third parties who have not been charged in this matter, and who have not been identified publicly with the case," the filing reads. "Disclosing the motions would reveal those individuals’ involvement in the investigation and the trial, thereby creating the risk of their undue harassment."

Dollars to donuts 2 of those people are the Podesta Brothers.