Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
3 hours ago, keepthefaith said:

 

That's a lousy effort by the writer to conflate Trump to crimes Manafort may have committed years before Manafort worked for Trump. 

You mean the guy that put his very name on Trump University shouldn't be connected to another con man? Ya, ok 

Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

You're bad at this. 

 

 

What ?......it's simple Gator logic

 

You see  A = B

 

                     C = D

 

                   So A =  X

 

So............All con men are responsible for each other.................

 

 

Wait.............................................he IS bad at this

Edited by B-Man
  • Haha (+1) 2
Posted
4 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Look at it this way... And I'm not saying I know the answer here, I'm merely running through possibilities. 

 

In 2010 RR exonerates Manafort for these charges (money laundering). In 2018, without getting new evidence (according to the filings to date), RR is now going after the same guy he cleared previously. Issues of Double Jeopardy aside (koko might be able to add insight there), what's changed between 2010 and 2018? 

 

... Perhaps the resident of the Oval Office? Perhaps RR wasn't "free" to indict Manafort in 2010, but now he is. 

 

 

This whole mess is a circus with Rosenstein as a ringmaster in a clown suit. 

Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Look at it this way... And I'm not saying I know the answer here, I'm merely running through possibilities. 

 

In 2010 RR exonerates Manafort for these charges (money laundering). In 2018, without getting new evidence (according to the filings to date), RR is now going after the same guy he cleared previously. Issues of Double Jeopardy aside (koko might be able to add insight there), what's changed between 2010 and 2018? 

 

... Perhaps the resident of the Oval Office? Perhaps RR wasn't "free" to indict Manafort in 2010, but now he is. 

 

 

It's probably not double jeopardy. That doesn't attach unless there was a prior prosecution that was either dismissed on its merits (or lack thereof), or if a trial had commenced and the defendant was acquitted (or there was no finding of guilt for various technical reasons). Throwing around the term 'exonerated' here may be a bit strong. If Rosenstein declined prosecution back in the day for whatever reason (including lack of evidence), that's not the same thing as being acquitted; it's not double jeopardy. However, more information on what actually happened is needed.

 

Where it might become interesting is if Rosenstein declined to prosecute based on some deal that was made, which is somewhat common. I don't really do federal practice, but there are times you can get a so-called "no-pros" (not going to prosecute) letter from the US Attorney's office in conjunction with a plea deal somewhere else, or for providing very useful information on a bigger crime committed by someone else. For example, Joe Methhead gets caught transporting a kilo of meth across state lines. The US Attorney may not give a crap about prosecuting Joe, if he can give up good, solid, credible information (and testimony) on a meth superlab, and the people running it. Doesn't mean Joe was "exonerated", it just means they're not going to prosecute him for it.

Edited by Koko78
  • Like (+1) 1
  • Thank you (+1) 3
Posted
23 minutes ago, Koko78 said:

 

It's probably not double jeopardy. That doesn't attach unless there was a prior prosecution that was either dismissed on its merits (or lack thereof), or if a trial had commenced and the defendant was acquitted (or there was no finding of guilt for various technical reasons). Throwing around the term 'exonerated' here may be a bit strong. If Rosenstein declined prosecution back in the day for whatever reason (including lack of evidence), that's not the same thing as being acquitted; it's not double jeopardy. However, more information on what actually happened is needed.

 

Where it might become interesting is if Rosenstein declined to prosecute based on some deal that was made, which is somewhat common. I don't really do federal practice, but there are times you can get a so-called "no-pros" (not going to prosecute) letter from the US Attorney's office in conjunction with a plea deal somewhere else, or for providing very useful information on a bigger crime committed by someone else. For example, Joe Methhead gets caught transporting a kilo of meth across state lines. The US Attorney may not give a crap about prosecuting Joe, if he can give up good, solid, credible information (and testimony) on a meth superlab, and the people running it. Doesn't mean Joe was "exonerated", it just means they're not going to prosecute him for it.

 

:beer: 

Posted
32 minutes ago, Koko78 said:

 

It's probably not double jeopardy. That doesn't attach unless there was a prior prosecution that was either dismissed on its merits (or lack thereof), or if a trial had commenced and the defendant was acquitted (or there was no finding of guilt for various technical reasons). Throwing around the term 'exonerated' here may be a bit strong. If Rosenstein declined prosecution back in the day for whatever reason (including lack of evidence), that's not the same thing as being acquitted; it's not double jeopardy. However, more information on what actually happened is needed.

 

Where it might become interesting is if Rosenstein declined to prosecute based on some deal that was made, which is somewhat common. I don't really do federal practice, but there are times you can get a so-called "no-pros" (not going to prosecute) letter from the US Attorney's office in conjunction with a plea deal somewhere else, or for providing very useful information on a bigger crime committed by someone else. For example, Joe Methhead gets caught transporting a kilo of meth across state lines. The US Attorney may not give a crap about prosecuting Joe, if he can give up good, solid, credible information (and testimony) on a meth superlab, and the people running it. Doesn't mean Joe was "exonerated", it just means they're not going to prosecute him for it.

 

Similar to how they declined to prosecute Hillary, which leaves here open to future prosecution on the same activities.  

 

But you bet your ass that the Democrats would be screaming "But double jeopardy!!!" in that case.  

Posted
19 minutes ago, njbuff said:

Can’t Trump just pardon Manafort?

Yes, but that would ruin the show! Look, this whole trial is a charade so Manafort told Trump to kick back, get his popcorn ready, AND hold my beer... 

 

Mueller's problem here is not just his boss RR, it's the fact Manafort has the money to defend himself unlike Flynn, Gates, and Popsicle... 

Posted

This got missed earlier. So much for immunity. 

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2018/07/31/politics/mueller-investigation-foreign-agent-referrals-new-york/index.html

 

bye, bye Tony. Interesting that they waited until the AG was gone to unseal this. 

 

And not just Tony. Obama's WH counsel:

https://mobile.twitter.com/seanmdav/status/1024425902984359937

 

https://mobile.twitter.com/Tom_Winter/status/1024431366677643264

  • Like (+1) 3
Posted
10 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

This got missed earlier. So much for immunity. 

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2018/07/31/politics/mueller-investigation-foreign-agent-referrals-new-york/index.html

 

bye, bye Tony. Interesting that they waited until the AG was gone to unseal this. 

 

And not just Tony. Obama's WH counsel:

https://mobile.twitter.com/seanmdav/status/1024425902984359937

 

And working across both sides of the aisle as Vin Weber was referred as well.

 

One more of your earlier observations/predictions coming to fruition.

  • Like (+1) 2
Posted
1 hour ago, Deranged Rhino said:

This got missed earlier. So much for immunity. 

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2018/07/31/politics/mueller-investigation-foreign-agent-referrals-new-york/index.html

 

bye, bye Tony. Interesting that they waited until the AG was gone to unseal this. 

 

And not just Tony. Obama's WH counsel:

https://mobile.twitter.com/seanmdav/status/1024425902984359937

 

https://mobile.twitter.com/Tom_Winter/status/1024431366677643264

  

And not just Obama's White House Counsel.  He was part of Bill's defense team during the impeachment hearings.  And was part of John Kerry's campaign.  And Obama's "informal foreign policy adviser" during his first campaign.

 

And in private practice, he advised...wait for it...Viktor Yanukovich.

 

Funny how all these connections keep popping up over and over.  If I were a gatorman, I'd be screaming "Collusion!"

  • Like (+1) 2
Posted
1 minute ago, DC Tom said:

  

And not just Obama's White House Counsel.  He was part of Bill's defense team during the impeachment hearings.  And was part of John Kerry's campaign.  And Obama's "informal foreign policy adviser" during his first campaign.

 

And in private practice, he advised...wait for it...Viktor Yanukovich.

 

Funny how all these connections keep popping up over and over.  If I were a gatorman, I'd be screaming "Collusion!"

 

Speaking of Kerry, what are the odds they have a FISA on him? Remember those picture of him meeting the Iranians in Paris? Is 'ol Johnny under more surveillance than he realizes? Maybe Mr Brennan is too. 

 

Late night thoughts. 

×
×
  • Create New...