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 ...
I have posted about Sydney and her great book a number of times this year.
If people want to see how the inter workings of DOJ went bad under both parties — this is the book. Powell is very disgusted with what is happening with our President being villanized.
Mueller is a top example of the Peter Principle at work - persons rising to their level of incompetence.
And a vampire of our money, as in the end he/his team still gets paid for carrying on their brand of theater
Under J. Edgar Hoover, the FBI routinely engaged in illegal wiretapping. The culture of corruption was endemic from the start. It remains.
Might do more than sing, he might compose. The remark conveys that witnesses will fabricate evidence on demand of a prosecutor.
The system is designed to be immune from correction.
The public has a few tools at its disposal, but general outrage is, IMO, weak. Courts need to be viewed as having no moral legitimacy or authority, and if called to serve on a jury, the public can simply reject the court and prosecutor (same thing) proposition. This must be done through subterfuge, as courts will not seat jurors who reject the court's legitimacy.
“Might do more than sing, he might compose”
That’s it! Thanks smart dude.
I have never thought Manafort committed a crime. Muellers case is likely pretty weak.
Just curious......does anyone know who recommended Manafort to Trump??
I wouldn't be surprised if the Judge invited the defense lawyers to file the motion.
“Frivolous civil cases are filed every day”
We were victims of just that kind of abuse 35 years ago when we were preparing to start construction on the home we’ve lived in for 32 years. And you are absolutely right. Although we were not parties to the dispute, the plaintiff chose to put a lis pendens on our property to try and coerce a settlement from the defendant, who was the party from whom we had purchased our building site. We endured 18 months of moving around to several rentals because we had sold our former residence. During the period of the lawsuit, we saw construction loan financing go from 8% to 18% thanks to that worthless a$$hole Jimmah Cahatah. The pr!ck judge in the case, when we complained, told us that our remedy was to sue the plaintiff ourselves.
And after we were actually in our new home, the plaintiff sued us over an additional nonsensical claim. We hired the former defendant’s lawyer, countersued and ended up driving him out of his home to pay off all of his past lawyers along with ours.
But the grief the legal “system” caused us was inestimable. But “it” doesn’t care, just so long as the lawyers are getting paid.
Not even then if they dream up some added federal charge for the same thing only called something different, like the ever popular hate crime. That should definitely be illegal but I understand how that came into acceptance. White juries never found white perps guilty of murder in the South if the victim was black. Of course that same situation exists in reverse in an around DC but we won't go there.
“But “it” doesn’t care, just so long as the lawyers are getting paid.”
Agree with you. In business I was involved in quite a bit of litigation. I learned much of the legal maneuvering was about putting financial pressure on the other party to achieve the required result. Justice, truth, and fairness were not a consideration.
“Agree with you. In business I was involved in quite a bit of litigation. I learned much of the legal maneuvering was about putting financial pressure on the other party to achieve the required result. Justice, truth, and fairness were not a consideration.”
Exactly, in our case the plaintiff ( an adjoining property owner with a beef with the party who sold him his home, and who also owned the property we purchased) filed the lien against us claiming he would prevent us from connecting to a sewer line that ran alongside his private road ( most of which we actually owned, but for which he had an easement) that had been put in to serve our home and a couple of others. He even threatened the sewer contractor so he didn’t get a sewer connection for his own home, ultimately forcing him to pay for his connection, which he tried to make on our property. After he settled with the person who sold him his home, he proceeded to sue us to try and prevent our making our sewer connection. We made the connection by not trespassing on his property so he sued us for nine causes of action, including one in which he claimed that I had assaulted him. He showed up with a new lawyer, and ours pointed out that the guy had three or four prior attorneys none of whom had been paid. The whole thing folded and we ended up placing a lien on his home for our legal costs, which ended up forcing him to sell to satisfy ours, as well as a number of other people’s legal cost because he was suing everyone for anything.
“Agree with you. In business I was involved in quite a bit of litigation. I learned much of the legal maneuvering was about putting financial pressure on the other party to achieve the required result. Justice, truth, and fairness were not a consideration.”
Exactly, in our case the plaintiff ( an adjoining property owner with a beef with the party who sold him his home, and who also owned the property we purchased) filed the lien against us claiming he would prevent us from connecting to a sewer line that ran alongside his private road ( most of which we actually owned, but for which he had an easement) that had been put in to serve our home and a couple of others. He even threatened the sewer contractor so he didn’t get a sewer connection for his own home, ultimately forcing him to pay for his connection, which he tried to make on our property. After he settled with the person who sold him his home, he proceeded to sue us to try and prevent our making our sewer connection. We made the connection by not trespassing on his property so he sued us for nine causes of action, including one in which he claimed that I had assaulted him. He showed up with a new lawyer, and ours pointed out that the guy had three or four prior attorneys none of whom had been paid. The whole thing folded and we ended up placing a lien on his home for our legal costs, which ended up forcing him to sell to satisfy ours, as well as a number of other people’s legal cost because he was suing everyone for anything.
If you got caught cheating on taxes once, it does not give you freedom to cheat again. You can be convicted again and again for the same crime.
If he refuses this judges subpena he may find himself in jail. I don’t think this judge will put up with his flaunting of the law. He can be forced to testify as a hostile witness. Again though if Rosenstien does testify it would give me reasonable doubt enough to vote not guilty. Rosenstein is dirty.
Right on!
We sorely need to change our legal system. The plaintiff must pay all costs of the defendant if proven innocent. That will cut down frivolous law suits by 75%.
And I say that as father of a lawyer who is working on litigation suit based on harmful medication. Because I want to eliminate as many frivolous suits as possible which are clogging the courts and justice is being delayed way too much.
Rosenstein on the stand, under oath, and the defense gets to ask any questions the judge will allow? I would be very surprised see that happening.
Yeah but that wasn’t the case here. But the answer really is he wasn’t charged and acquitted by an adjudication process. Therefore not an issue of double jeopardy for the same case, because there was no case. Just an investigation.
Correct on those points. Double jeopardy is probably a rare occurrence because one can’t murder (most serious crime with no statute of limitations) the same person twice.
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.