The Latest: Trump praises Manafort during jury deliberations

  • Thread starter Thread starter HCTC
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Did you really expect the judge to dismiss the case just because it’s politically motivated?
 
Ridgerunner said:
Did you really expect the judge to dismiss the case just because it’s politically motivated?
Click to expand...
If it were, yes of course.

Can you find a statement of the judge indicating that this in his opinion this case, in contrast to the words of his ruling, is “pollitical persecution”?
 
Ridgerunner said:
Did you really expect the judge to dismiss the case just because it’s politically motivated?
Click to expand...
Yes, that would be his job. Given that it’s motivated by evidence of crimes committed he has therefore not dismissed the case.
 
Political motivation is not a basis for dismissing a case that has gone through a grand jury.

He didn’t use the words “political persecution”, of course. What he said is that Mueller’s people didn’t really care about what Manafort did; that their interest was in impeaching Trump.
 
Ridgerunner said:
Political motivation is not a basis for dismissing a case that has gone through a grand jury.
Click to expand...
It would if the grounds for prosecution had not basis in fact or law, but was merely a political persecution. So it is something of a red herring. And however the judge prodded the prosecutors, his actual ruling is his actua ruling.

Nice that you have shifted towards some commentary as the basis for your claims of political persecution, and away from the absurd idea that “Manifort is being tried for things that Rosenstein decided did not constitute crimes years ago, and declined to prosecute.”
 
Last edited:
dvdjs said:
It would if the grounds for prosecution had not basis in fact or law, but was merely a political persecution. So it is something of a red herring. And however the judge prodded the prosecutors, his actual ruling is his actua ruling.
Click to expand...
As has famously been said, a grand jury would indict a ham sandwich because nobody gets to present any evidence but the prosecutor.
 
Ridgerunner said:
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.
Click to expand...
So, no?

Because I don’t recall, in any of the accounts I’ve been reading of the trial, Judge Ellis saying that the prosecution was suborning perjury.
 
Inisfallen said:
Because I don’t recall, in any of the accounts I’ve been reading of the trial, Judge Ellis saying that the prosecution was suborning perjury.
Click to expand...
He didn’t say the prosecution IS doing it, but he made it clear that he suspected it when he said the objective of the prosecution was to make Manafort “sing” or perhaps even “compose”.
 
The question is whether he insinuated it, and he sure did. Dershowitz, of course, said it straight up and added that it was like Beria and Stalin.

I remembered how the liberals howled when Clinton was undergoing a “special prosecution”. I howled right along with them, because special prosecutions are always “witch hunts”, and they always end up wasting a tremendous amount of money and time in order to prosecute a handful of people who aren’t actually guilty of what the original prosecution was all about.

So with Clinton, it started with an accusation of corruption and ended up with a stupid blue dress and one woman going to jail because she wouldn’t testify against Clinton. The Valerie Plame debacle ended up convicting an innocent man…Scooter Libby.

In this particular witch hunt, Mueller is burning a handful of probably innocent people (even STrzok admitted that Flynn probably isn’t guilty) and trying a bunch of Russians in absentia who will never be punished, ever.

And it’s all to nullify a presidential election.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
40.png
JonNC:
40.png
TheLittleLady:
He is trying to influence the jurors and also softening up the ground for a planned pardon if the jury does not listen.
Click to expand...
In other words, you think Trump should be denied speech rights?
Click to expand...
Sequestering a jury is not an instance of infringing on anyone’s free speech rights. It is really strange that this has not happened in this case.
Click to expand...
Of course not. But not sequestering does not limit the free speech rights of others, including a president.
A bank fraud or tax evasion case is not that unusual. The distinguishing factor of this case is what the judge said about the ulterior motives of the Mueller team.
 
Just wondering: why is Manafort being held in solitary confinement with no access to reading material, tv, radio, etc? Why the need? Anyone?
 
Apparently he contacted someone with whom he formerly did business. Mueller claimed it was witness tampering and got a judge to do it.

I imagine he was under 24/7 surveillance, just as he was for some time before he was indicted.
 
Last edited:
Ridgerunner said:
He didn’t say the prosecution IS doing it
Click to expand...
Evidently, if you read the late June decision on this hearing, the prosecutor’s responses to this feisty judge won the day. Why don’t you recoginze the outcome of the proceeding?
 
The judge called it what it was. It’s an attempt to bring down Trump; nothing else.
 
I don’t think it matters whether he’s innocent or not. I believe he will be found guilty. It’s nearly impossible to avoid conviction when the government goes after you with unlimited resources and powers, and particularly when it can credibly tell a witness he can either spend life in prison or accuse another of wrongdoing.
What’s the federal conviction rate? Isn’t it in the 90 percentile? That’s not due to clever sleuthing. It’s due to breaking people so they’ll do anything the prosecution wants them to do.

Imagine if an accused could threaten witnesses in this way. That would be called “obstruction of justice” and “witness tampering”. But if the government does it, it’s okay.
 
Last edited:
dvdjs said:
The judge pushed the prosecutors; then ruled in their fvor.
Click to expand...
It doesn’t matter. He called the situation as he saw it, and he saw it as a political prosecution aimed at removing Trump from the presidency. And that’s exactly what it is.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top