The largest collapse of a political party in American history

Discussion of current events
User avatar
cassowary
Posts: 2062
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:30 pm

Re: The largest collapse of a political party in American history

Post by cassowary » Mon May 07, 2018 12:57 am

Milo wrote:
Sun May 06, 2018 10:29 pm
cassowary wrote:
Sun May 06, 2018 6:52 pm
We will see Milo. I don't know or have any conviction how the good judge Ellis III will rule.

If I am the judge, I will throw it out. That's because Manafort was investigated years ago and cleared without charges. Mueller only charged him to put the squeeze on him to get to Trump. That strikes me as being unfair.
How do you know he was cleared?
I read it somewhere and recall the word "cleared" used. However, I can't now find the specific article where that word was used. However, if you click Doc's twitter link, you will find this comment by the good judge Ellis III:
"The court: Even though it did not arise from your investigation. It arose from a pre-existing investigation."
The good judge was referring to the investigation of Manafort for alleged offences committed as long ago as 2005. So, after reviewing the evidence long ago, another investigator decided not to press charges. Mueller dug up this old investigation done by another person and decided to press charges so as to squeeze Manafort to get Trump.

I don't think this is fair to Manafort.

User avatar
SteveFoerster
Posts: 1394
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:17 pm
Location: Northern Virginia, USA and Dominica, West Indies
Contact:

Re: The largest collapse of a political party in American history

Post by SteveFoerster » Mon May 07, 2018 8:28 am

cassowary wrote:
Mon May 07, 2018 12:57 am
Milo wrote:
Sun May 06, 2018 10:29 pm
cassowary wrote:
Sun May 06, 2018 6:52 pm
We will see Milo. I don't know or have any conviction how the good judge Ellis III will rule.

If I am the judge, I will throw it out. That's because Manafort was investigated years ago and cleared without charges. Mueller only charged him to put the squeeze on him to get to Trump. That strikes me as being unfair.
How do you know he was cleared?
I read it somewhere and recall the word "cleared" used. However, I can't now find the specific article where that word was used. However, if you click Doc's twitter link, you will find this comment by the good judge Ellis III:
"The court: Even though it did not arise from your investigation. It arose from a pre-existing investigation."
The good judge was referring to the investigation of Manafort for alleged offences committed as long ago as 2005. So, after reviewing the evidence long ago, another investigator decided not to press charges. Mueller dug up this old investigation done by another person and decided to press charges so as to squeeze Manafort to get Trump.

I don't think this is fair to Manafort.
I'm no lawyer, and I didn't study the transcript or anything, but I thought the bit about "cleared" referred to Ellis's authorisation to review classified materials?

Also, even if a suspect is "cleared" in an investigation, doesn't that just mean prosecutors give up because they don't think they have a case, and can't they therefore reopen essentially any investigation so long as an acquittal at trial hasn't taken place?
Writer, technologist, educator, gadfly.
President of New World University: http://newworld.ac

User avatar
Milo
Posts: 1253
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 10:14 pm

Re: The largest collapse of a political party in American history

Post by Milo » Mon May 07, 2018 9:02 am

SteveFoerster wrote:
Mon May 07, 2018 8:28 am
cassowary wrote:
Mon May 07, 2018 12:57 am
Milo wrote:
Sun May 06, 2018 10:29 pm
cassowary wrote:
Sun May 06, 2018 6:52 pm
We will see Milo. I don't know or have any conviction how the good judge Ellis III will rule.

If I am the judge, I will throw it out. That's because Manafort was investigated years ago and cleared without charges. Mueller only charged him to put the squeeze on him to get to Trump. That strikes me as being unfair.
How do you know he was cleared?
I read it somewhere and recall the word "cleared" used. However, I can't now find the specific article where that word was used. However, if you click Doc's twitter link, you will find this comment by the good judge Ellis III:
"The court: Even though it did not arise from your investigation. It arose from a pre-existing investigation."
The good judge was referring to the investigation of Manafort for alleged offences committed as long ago as 2005. So, after reviewing the evidence long ago, another investigator decided not to press charges. Mueller dug up this old investigation done by another person and decided to press charges so as to squeeze Manafort to get Trump.

I don't think this is fair to Manafort.
I'm no lawyer, and I didn't study the transcript or anything, but I thought the bit about "cleared" referred to Ellis's authorisation to review classified materials?

Also, even if a suspect is "cleared" in an investigation, doesn't that just mean prosecutors give up because they don't think they have a case, and can't they therefore reopen essentially any investigation so long as an acquittal at trial hasn't taken place?
Yes.

User avatar
Doc
Posts: 1858
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:09 pm
Location: Cradle To Grave

Re: The largest collapse of a political party in American history

Post by Doc » Thu Jun 14, 2018 4:24 pm

When you see the writing on the wall....

Image
“"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros

Post Reply