Posted on 08/02/2018 5:05:26 AM PDT by SleeperCatcher
Bombshell: Eight years ago Paul Manafort was investigated for the very same charges he has since been indicted for by special counsel Robert Mueller.
Fox News legal analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano made this point on Wednesday during an appearance on the network’s morning show, “Fox & Friends.”
What’s more, a legal team led by current Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein was responsible for exonerating Manafort, as Napolitano reminded the audience.
(Excerpt) Read more at thenationalsentinel.com ...
Vile corrupt souls have no problem lying at any time.
I agree. And if I were on the jury this go-round would also look hugely politically motivated.
” He was not prosecuted. That doesn’t mean he was exonerated or is innocent.”
Excellent point.
I often am perturbed when someone says “he was found innocent”.
NO THEY WEREN’T. They were found “NOT GUILTY”. YUGE difference.
It’s hyperbole for Judge Nap to use the word “exonerated”.
"[They're hoping to say] look, you have two choices: die in prison or testify against your former associate. And most people will take the 'testify' option rather than the 'die in prison' option." SOURCE
I would think that the statue of limitations would apply then. Once the government knows of a “crime” the clock starts ticking on the statute of limitations.
Indeed; the Left in the US wants to transform our society into the South American totalitarian model with a ruling elite and an impoverished, subservient mass of lower class workers. Mueller and the rest of the coup plotters should reflect that many of those societies have death squads on the right and left that tend to remove opponents on either side.
What you said. Yes, I HOPE Ellis throws the whole thing out. Think of the POTUS tweets!! Then the MSM will tie itself in knots with “....but the Russians have been indicted....”, etc.
So, you’re telling me that Hillary may someday be able to be brought up on charges?
“I thought double jeopardy was not allowed.”
Double jeopardy exists when you are tried a second time for a crime you have been tried for once before and were exonerated by a “not guilty” verdict. In this case Manafort was investigated and the prosecutors decided not to prosecute. Since he was not tried at the time, and found not guilty, he remains in jeopardy of charges being brought.
“The idea that government prosecutors can bankrupt you to get you to cooperate needs to be changed.”
It isn’t just government with the potential to bankrupt. Frivolous civil cases are filed every day against small businesses purely to extort money. Rather than face a judgment that could result in bankruptcy, innocent individuals and businesses pay large sums to avoid facing juries who may award huge sums based on emotion. Such verdicts do not have to be unanimous. I sat on one such jury and was a dissenting juror. The defendant had an idiot for an attorney and the plaintiff had a gift for drama and emotion. My foolish fellow citizens in the jury box were easily swayed by the silver tongued lawyer.
Imaging you are retired and driving down the street. A toddler runs out in front of you from behind a car parked on the road. Your vehicle strikes the child and she is paralyzed for life. What do you think the jury verdict will be even though the fault lies with the parent who was texting instead of watching and controlling the child? You will see your life’s savings evaporate in a jury trial.
In the Duke La Crosse case that prosecutor paid for his crime...
The state of NC did right.
Good model to copy...
LOL - the ‘press’ will ignore this one...
His SECOND appearance closed that "I shall return" loophole and closed the case.
Except that his closing of the case was an abuse of power and usurped the authority of the Attorney General....who had just "colluded" with Bubba on her airplane.
It would have to be new charges....which are likely available if one rweally looked at her foundation.
Mueller’s prosecuting history is that he is a bungler. Yes, and just go back and look at all the dead end candidates he tried to prosecute over the anthrax scare, back in the days in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. Twice he persecuted persons he could not prove were responsible for those attacks, and not only could be not prove the casses, the evidence exonerated the defendents.
Mueller is a top example of the Peter Principle at work - persons rising to their level of incompetence.
He was always innocent. They could not find evidence to prosecute, i.e., exonerate is the right term.
“Don’t mess with us. We have 1000 lawyers and an unlimited budget. We will destroy you and your family.”
And the money is not ours, its yours, and we will show you how we will use it against you or anyone else to coerce you into getting our way...
We all know Manafort is pure evil he owns an Ostrich Jacket and that’s like wearing Big Bird ,LOL
I was wondering about this. It could be a double edged sword because you know Rod will not be friendly to the defense.
I don’t think the judge will grant the Motion for Acquittal. He denied the Motion to Dismiss. What will the jury do? I predict a mistrial. Inability to reach a verdict. Up to Mueller what to do from there.
Always appreciate your insights. That would be a good outcome as it would force Mueller to continue to expose his real intent... if a jury of his “ peers” couldn’t come to a decision then why should we believe that Mueller knows better...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.