Mueller Suspected of Giving Podesta Brothers Immunity and Hiding it from the Public

The title is misleading: Mueller has definitely requested immunity, but it has not yet been granted by the court, and the suspicion is that it was given to the Podestas.

Update: Mueller Suspected of Giving Podesta Brothers Immunity to Indict Manafort and Is HIDING THIS FROM PUBLIC

Earlier today it was reported that Robert Mueller is seeking to give immunity to five potential witnesses in the Paul Manafort trial according to a new court filing Tuesday. It’s now suspected that two of the witnesses are creepy and criminal Podesta brothers, the Democrats’ poster boys.

Mueller is filing the requests under seal...

There are indeed other news agencies reporting Mueller's request for immunity for five potential witnesses under seal, such as this one from CBS -- Robert Mueller seeks immunity for 5 witnesses set to testify against Manafort --

Special counsel Robert Mueller's team has asked Judge T.S. Ellis in Virginia to grant immunity to and protect the identities of five individuals who are set to testify against former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort. Mueller's team says that identifying the individuals would result in "risk of their undue harassment."

The filing also notes that there's a concern that the witnesses' "invocation of their privilege against self-incrimination and the court's subsequent grant of immunity could lead to reputation harm for the witnesses."

So it's true that Mueller has made such a request, but near as I can tell, the "suspicion" about the Podestas is coming from a tweet by Conservative Treehouse:

@Tom_Winter We see this for what it is. Robert Mueller is necessarily granting immunity to John and Tony Podesta while prosecuting Paul Manafort (their former contracted employee). Team Mueller also wants the court records sealed to hide the partisan deal from public sunlight. t.co... — TheLastRefuge (@TheLastRefuge2) July 17, 2018

I've been trying to find more information on how this could/would work, but not having much luck. Can anyone school me??? Is this standard procedure to grant immunity and anonymity to witnesses? Are there specific situations or conditions that must be met to do so? Every defendant has the right to face his/her accusers, so how could someone testify anonymously? Or would they simply close the courtroom for the testimony?

And are there any established standards or criteria for who gets immunity? I would think that prosecutors would give immunity to the one committed the lesser crime to testify against the one who committed the greater crime? Or am I presuming too much?

Does the defendant have any recourse? Any grounds or opportunity for objection to granting someone immunity?

Finally, would such immunity protect the witness from any/all related crimes or only those pertaining specifically to his/her testimony?

There is so much to hide, they need a REALLY BIG rock to crawl under!
The whole immunity thing is a sick part of the law, should never happen!

Omg what a slimeball move that would be.
Giving Podesta immunity for the sake of a sham prosecution.
Can our justice system get any more bizarre?

As bold and in our faces as the deep state has been for a few years now, I find it hard--but not impossible--to believe.

If Mueller were to do that it's pitchfork time if Ellis doesn't put a big "woah Nelly!" on it.

a reply to: Boadicea


WHAT?!?! No way! All the Dims say that Mueller is a "straight shooter"!

originally posted by: SeaWorthy
There is so much to hide, they need a REALLY BIG rock to crawl under!
The whole immunity thing is a sick part of the law, should never happen!

You might be right about that. Maybe a lesser charge or sentencing for cooperation and providing evidence... but yeah, I think complete immunity is too much. And too tempting for those who just want to protect the guilty -- which includes judges and prosecutors unfortunately.

originally posted by: Boadicea
The title is misleading: Mueller has definitely requested immunity, but it has not yet been granted by the court, and the suspicion is that it was given to the Podestas.

Update: Mueller Suspected of Giving Podesta Brothers Immunity to Indict Manafort and Is HIDING THIS FROM PUBLIC

Earlier today it was reported that Robert Mueller is seeking to give immunity to five potential witnesses in the Paul Manafort trial according to a new court filing Tuesday. It’s now suspected that two of the witnesses are creepy and criminal Podesta brothers, the Democrats’ poster boys.

Mueller is filing the requests under seal...

There are indeed other news agencies reporting Mueller's request for immunity for five potential witnesses under seal, such as this one from CBS -- Robert Mueller seeks immunity for 5 witnesses set to testify against Manafort --

Special counsel Robert Mueller's team has asked Judge T.S. Ellis in Virginia to grant immunity to and protect the identities of five individuals who are set to testify against former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort. Mueller's team says that identifying the individuals would result in "risk of their undue harassment."

The filing also notes that there's a concern that the witnesses' "invocation of their privilege against self-incrimination and the court's subsequent grant of immunity could lead to reputation harm for the witnesses."

So it's true that Mueller has made such a request, but near as I can tell, the "suspicion" about the Podestas is coming from a tweet by Conservative Treehouse:

@Tom_Winter We see this for what it is. Robert Mueller is necessarily granting immunity to John and Tony Podesta while prosecuting Paul Manafort (their former contracted employee). Team Mueller also wants the court records sealed to hide the partisan deal from public sunlight. t.co... — TheLastRefuge (@TheLastRefuge2) July 17, 2018

I've been trying to find more information on how this could/would work, but not having much luck. Can anyone school me??? Is this standard procedure to grant immunity and anonymity to witnesses? Are there specific situations or conditions that must be met to do so? Every defendant has the right to face his/her accusers, so how could someone testify anonymously? Or would they simply close the courtroom for the testimony?

And are there any established standards or criteria for who gets immunity? I would think that prosecutors would give immunity to the one committed the lesser crime to testify against the one who committed the greater crime? Or am I presuming too much?

Does the defendant have any recourse? Any grounds or opportunity for objection to granting someone immunity?

Finally, would such immunity protect the witness from any/all related crimes or only those pertaining specifically to his/her testimony?

Oh, you guys heard about the indictments and scoured the internet for a version of the story that most lines up with your fantasy! Cool. No one knows who it is, and you guys are getting on the wild, flailing desperation train. Its not a good look. Be Best.

What's not to like about immunity deals ?

Ignore crimes committed to go after the 'bigger' fish.

The complete antithesis of that word JUSTICE.

originally posted by: Asktheanimals
Omg what a slimeball move that would be.
Giving Podesta immunity for the sake of a sham prosecution.

It really would be a slimeball move.

And if it's true, I'll always believe that Manafort was only prosecuted in order to give such a deal to the Podestas... rightly or wrongly.

originally posted by: The GUT
As bold and in our faces as the deep state has been for a few years now, I find it hard--but not impossible--to believe.

If Mueller were to do that it's pitchfork time if Ellis doesn't put a big "woah Nelly!" on it.

I don't know about Ellis, but I know I found myself feeling rather thankful that it's not Judge Berman... I don't think there's any doubt how she'd rule!

originally posted by: neo96


Ignore crimes committed to go after the 'bigger' fish.

Or letting bigger fish go and going after 'lesser" fish for partisan deep state purposes.

We already know Tony Podesta was involved with whatever went on with Manafort and the lobbying. It's odd that he hasn't been charged as well. Had to shut down his business for it, but so far nuthin'.

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: Boadicea


WHAT?!?! No way! All the Dims say that Mueller is a "straight shooter"!

Yeah, well, folks say lots of things, eh?

originally posted by: The GUT

originally posted by: neo96


Ignore crimes committed to go after the 'bigger' fish.

Or letting bigger fish go and going after 'lesser" fish for partisan deep state purposes.

We already know Tony Podesta was involved with whatever went on with Manafort and the lobbying. It's odd that he hasn't been charged as well. Had to shut down his business for it, but so far nuthin'.

Muller's team has even filed motions trying to prevent Manafort's defense attorney from arguing selective prosecution. Specifically because of the question of why the Podestas didn't get charged for doing the exact same thing.

Clearly, those bullets are hitting very close to the bulls-eye.

So he is prosecuting one man, whilst giving at least two others immunity for doing the same thing.
Ah, justice.

These guys lobbied on behalf of Russia to remove sanctions for years. Why is nobody bringing this up? Not to mention Clinton and Obama selling 20% of America's Uranium to them. It's #ing insane.

a reply to: Boadicea

We see this for what it is. Robert Mueller is necessarily granting immunity to John and Tony Podesta while prosecuting Paul Manafort (their former contracted employee).

That's factually incorrect AFAIK and in the context of what Paul Manafort has been charged with, it's definitely incorrect. A chunk of what Manafort is charged with involve the lobbying efforts funded by Yanukovych/PoR front European Centre for a Modern Ukraine in 2012.

The indictments references to US lobbying firms. One of them is the Podesta Group and the other is Mercury. Though both do/did some degree of bipartisan lobbying, Podesta Group was clearly mostly Democratic and Mercury, Republican.

Both of these firms were under contract to lobby for ECMU under the direction of Rick Gates and Paul Manafort.

It would make sense that principals from both would be witnesses for the prosecution of Manafort. At any rate, the tweet has the employer/employee relationship reversed, excludes the Republican firm altogether and includes John Podesta, who wasn't a principal in Podesta Group as he left PG in 1993, nearly 20 years earlier.

It's possible that Tony Podesta is one of the five but it seems highly unlikely that John Podesta would be.

originally posted by: Konduit
These guys lobbied on behalf of Russia to remove sanctions for years. Why is nobody bringing this up? Not to mention Clinton and Obama selling 20% of America's Uranium to them. It's #ing insane.

Have you ever bothered to actually research the Uranium sales?

Uranium is a commodity that's bought/sold/traded all the time.

Uranium has many uses.

More alt right fan fiction.
All threads quoting the gatewaypundit should be moved to hoax bin right away.
In fact, the owner of the site should rename the hoax sub forum to alt-right lala land where snip such as this thread belongs to. It would be win win for everyone.

originally posted by: CigaretteByrnes

originally posted by: Boadicea
The title is misleading: Mueller has definitely requested immunity, but it has not yet been granted by the court, and the suspicion is that it was given to the Podestas.

Update: Mueller Suspected of Giving Podesta Brothers Immunity to Indict Manafort and Is HIDING THIS FROM PUBLIC

Earlier today it was reported that Robert Mueller is seeking to give immunity to five potential witnesses in the Paul Manafort trial according to a new court filing Tuesday. It’s now suspected that two of the witnesses are creepy and criminal Podesta brothers, the Democrats’ poster boys.

Mueller is filing the requests under seal...

There are indeed other news agencies reporting Mueller's request for immunity for five potential witnesses under seal, such as this one from CBS -- Robert Mueller seeks immunity for 5 witnesses set to testify against Manafort --

Special counsel Robert Mueller's team has asked Judge T.S. Ellis in Virginia to grant immunity to and protect the identities of five individuals who are set to testify against former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort. Mueller's team says that identifying the individuals would result in "risk of their undue harassment."

The filing also notes that there's a concern that the witnesses' "invocation of their privilege against self-incrimination and the court's subsequent grant of immunity could lead to reputation harm for the witnesses."

So it's true that Mueller has made such a request, but near as I can tell, the "suspicion" about the Podestas is coming from a tweet by Conservative Treehouse:

@Tom_Winter We see this for what it is. Robert Mueller is necessarily granting immunity to John and Tony Podesta while prosecuting Paul Manafort (their former contracted employee). Team Mueller also wants the court records sealed to hide the partisan deal from public sunlight. t.co... — TheLastRefuge (@TheLastRefuge2) July 17, 2018

I've been trying to find more information on how this could/would work, but not having much luck. Can anyone school me??? Is this standard procedure to grant immunity and anonymity to witnesses? Are there specific situations or conditions that must be met to do so? Every defendant has the right to face his/her accusers, so how could someone testify anonymously? Or would they simply close the courtroom for the testimony?

And are there any established standards or criteria for who gets immunity? I would think that prosecutors would give immunity to the one committed the lesser crime to testify against the one who committed the greater crime? Or am I presuming too much?

Does the defendant have any recourse? Any grounds or opportunity for objection to granting someone immunity?

Finally, would such immunity protect the witness from any/all related crimes or only those pertaining specifically to his/her testimony?

Oh, you guys heard about the indictments and scoured the internet for a version of the story that most lines up with your fantasy! Cool. No one knows who it is, and you guys are getting on the wild, flailing desperation train. Its not a good look. Be Best.

Podesta ? That u?

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Konduit
These guys lobbied on behalf of Russia to remove sanctions for years. Why is nobody bringing this up? Not to mention Clinton and Obama selling 20% of America's Uranium to them. It's #ing insane.

Have you ever bothered to actually research the Uranium sales?

Uranium is a commodity that's bought/sold/traded all the time.

Uranium has many uses.

You can invest in Uranium, but why don't you have a go at having some delivered and see where you get to...
One thing is for certain, Robert Mueller won't turn up to deliver a sample of the goods for you.