D
dvdjs
Guest
- The very same allegations? Prove it.
- If he indeed found that he had no basis for prosecution then, you cannot logically infer, without knowing the evidence, that there is no genuine basis now.
- Status
I
Inisfallen
Guest
Even if what you say is true, it doesn’t mean anything. Now Rosenstein has a basis for prosecution, in that he has a cooperating, and compelling, witness.
That’s how prosecutions work.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
That would be my assessment as well. Same cases, same information. They just have a witness now who will “compose” the testimony they want.
J
John24
Guest
I’ve gotta say Rosenstein is pretty amazing. He’s able to travel through time and clear a man for crimes committed in the years 2006-2017 in 2006. I think it was a mistake for Rosenstein to not prosecute Manafort for FutureCrimes.
Last edited:
J
John24
Guest
I think you’re asking a lot of the government. It have been pretty difficult to find a witness to testify against Manafort for tax evasion committed in the years 2010-2015 in 2006.
Last edited:
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Cute. So they added some later alleged crimes based on the testimony of a guy who had to say it or go to jail for life. Changes nothing. The objective is, and has always been, to take Trump out of office. This is a political persecution. KGB quality, as Dershowitz observed.
Last edited:
J
John24
Guest
The charges are based on bank records lol. Are you at all familiar with this case?
Pretty amazing that they started investigating Manafort long before Trump announced his candidacy just to take out Trump. Honestly we should probably let it go then, these prosecutors can see the future so they probably have a good FutureReason for persecuting Trump.
I
Inisfallen
Guest
You’re insinuating (at the very least) that Weissman et al. (and Mueller, and Rosenstein) are suborning perjury.
Do you have any convincing evidence for that class?
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
So you have the record for that part of the case? Go ahead and give us the citations. It’s public record now.
Manafort was previously cleared by Rosenstein. He was not under investigation again until he started working for Trump. Then Mueller started it up. This is a political persecution. Even the judge in the case acknowledged that.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
I’m not insinuating anything the judge in the case didn’t also insinuate. He knows more about this case than both of us put together.
D
dvdjs
Guest
- Read the indictment which should put an end to this nonsense of the very same charges.
https://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000015f-6d73-d751-af7f-7f735cc70000 - Here is the evidence list. Please, as I have asked you before, note the dates.
https://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000015f-6d73-d751-af7f-7f735cc70000
Last edited:
A
abucs
Guest
Yeah, right or wrong on the tax charges, that is for definite.
Last edited:
J
John24
Guest
You can start with the indictment, which lists the transactions at issue:
https://www.justice.gov/file/1038391/download
If you want more details you can read daily summaries of the trial and testimony in many media outlets.
He began being investigated again in 2014. He reached out to the Trump campaign in 2016. You should probably stop claiming misconduct on the part of the government when all the misconduct you’re claiming is based on your own misunderstanding of or unfamiliarity with the events in question.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Your “evidence list” is just a repeat of the indictment. And it shows very clearly that what’s alleged is a course of conduct dating back to 2006, and involving both Manafort and Gates as co-conspirators.
That is far, far from being a record of the evidence produced at trial, and actually proves my point. This is a warmed-over Rosenstein investigation but with a “composer” on the part of Gates in it.
That is far, far from being a record of the evidence produced at trial, and actually proves my point. This is a warmed-over Rosenstein investigation but with a “composer” on the part of Gates in it.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Proof please.
D
dvdjs
Guest
Cute.
You presumably meant to say: between at least 2006 and 2015, and in the second part of the scheme between 2015 and 2017.
Your claims here about the very same crimes are incompatible with the indictment and evidence.
Last edited:
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
By golly you’re right, sort of. In 2014, Yanukovych was elected. The FBI decided to get a secret FISA warrant to spy on Manafort. But it was not continuous. It turned up nothing and was abandoned. Then, in 2016 when Manafort started working for the Trump campaign, they restarted it.
Political. And it’s not MY perception. When the judge in the Manafort case says it’s political and when Alan Dershowitz says it’s political, I’m in better company than you are with Mueller and Rosenstein.
Paul Manafort Reportedly Under Intermittent FBI Surveillance From 2014 Until This Year
There are many potential vulnerabilities in President Trump’s legal defense in the multipronged investigation into his Russian ties—Jared Kushner,...
J
John24
Guest
Did you even read the link you posted? 6 months after Manafort reached out to the campaign the government intercepted messages by Russian operatives that implicated Manafort. The reup of surveillance was not based on his association with the campaign but his association with Russian spies.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Oh? Do you have a personal letter from Mueller telling you what was in his mind?
Implicated by Russian spies indeed! All Russians allowed by the regime to have successful businesses are agents of the government in one way or another. Sort of like Tony Podesta. You can’t do business on any scale with Russians without dealing with agents of the government.
No. The judge and Dershowitz are right. This is a political persecution.
D
dvdjs
Guest
Are you referring to the judge’s tough parlay with the prosecutors in early May?
If so, you probably should refer to his ruling on that preliminary hearing.
Manafort Trial Is to Go Forward, but Judge Warns Mueller to Stay Within Authority (Published 2018)
The judge, who had challenged whether prosecutors had exceeded their authority, decided “upon further review” that they had not.
And the trial proceeded.
Last edited:
- Status