I am starting to think this ENTIRE Manafort thing is going to come up completely empty.
I expect to see motions to dismiss starting next week.
That really is a wow. I thought double jeopardy was not allowed. Oh that’s right the government is free to do whatever it darn well pleases. Something the foolish youth, and sadly too many adults, fail to realize, and/or accept, as the reality of a strong large government.
Mr. Rosenstein, were you lying then, or are you lying now, ... remember, you are under oath...
Investigated, not tried.
They can keep investigating as long as they have money. But Manafort was not tried for the crime, so no double jeopardy.
Although, if I was on the jury and they came with Rosenstein to talk about eight years ago, there would have to be some pretty convincing evidence to get me to vote guilty.
In SOLITARY for a non-crime alleged a DECADE hence;
THAT, in a nutshell, is the FBI.
Nice when the boss tells you where all the parts are to make your job easier......
He wants evidence of fraud not costs of goods.
Why I bet Manafort even eats Steak and Lobster.
Paul Manafort, political prisoner....
the judge will see through that as being BS, the jury may not.
Is there a statute of limitations for whatever it is that Manafort is charged?
...Eight years ago Paul Manafort was investigated for the very same charges he has since been indicted for by special counsel Robert Mueller...
Well, in that case Hellary should be immediately indicted for crimes she committed and which “no reasonable prosecutor” would have prosecuted her for earlier.
The Statute of limitations for her classified documents crimes is 10 years and it is running now.
Nope. Never going to happen because it would backfire terribly against the defense of they tried it.
On direct, Rosenstein would testify that Manafort was not exonerated, they just were not able to gather sufficient evidence to prosecute Manafort. That would then open the door for the protection to have Rudenstein basically summarize their entire case on cross examination. “We would have prosecuted then if only we had been able to show then what we know now, that [insert prosecution’s closing arguments].”
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.
So, you’re telling me that Hillary may someday be able to be brought up on charges?
LOL - the ‘press’ will ignore this one...
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.
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 have never thought Manafort committed a crime. Muellers case is likely pretty weak.
Just curious......does anyone know who recommended Manafort to Trump??