Judge tosses Manafort civil suit challenging special counsel

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: matafuchs

So what. Jesus H Christ. The judge didn't pledge an oath to obama.

You don't have to sign a pledge, you just have to be a believer. It doesn't matter if she throws it out anyway, I am sure the lawyer will try other avenues.

originally posted by: eNumbra

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Swills

Wonder if all the people saying he has a solid case will eat crow or deflect.

The case was thrown out. Couldn't have been very solid. It was thrown out after they limited there claims even.

I was going to suggest “Libruhl Judges” but someone beat me to it.

You are right.

It is lazy to just say that bias means this isnt a worth while decsion.

No doubt you will be going to the thread on the House intel committee finding no russian collusion and saying that anyone who says its because nunes and the other house intel members were bias.

So I guess you are willing to take their word there was no raussian collusion.

Cant wait to see you on that thread and finally admitting there was no russian collusion!

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: eNumbra

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Swills

Wonder if all the people saying he has a solid case will eat crow or deflect.

The case was thrown out. Couldn't have been very solid. It was thrown out after they limited there claims even.

I was going to suggest “Libruhl Judges” but someone beat me to it.

You are right.

It is lazy to just say that bias means this isnt a worth while decsion.

No doubt you will be going to the thread on the House intel committee finding no russian collusion and saying that anyone who says its because nunes and the other house intel members were bias.

So I guess you are willing to take their word there was no raussian collusion.

Cant wait to see you on that thread and finally admitting there was no russian collusion!

Can’t wait to see you quote me where I ever said there must have been.

a reply to: Grambler

Lol. Elected party officials are not the same as judges. There are separations for a reason.

What you should not however is the Senate judiciary is trying to protect the case.

originally posted by: eNumbra

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: eNumbra

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Swills

Wonder if all the people saying he has a solid case will eat crow or deflect.

The case was thrown out. Couldn't have been very solid. It was thrown out after they limited there claims even.

I was going to suggest “Libruhl Judges” but someone beat me to it.

You are right.

It is lazy to just say that bias means this isnt a worth while decsion.

No doubt you will be going to the thread on the House intel committee finding no russian collusion and saying that anyone who says its because nunes and the other house intel members were bias.

So I guess you are willing to take their word there was no raussian collusion.

Cant wait to see you on that thread and finally admitting there was no russian collusion!

Can’t wait to see you quote me where I ever said there must have been.

Well I didnt say you did.

But I am sure you are willing to go on the record right now and say there is no russian collusion, the house intel commitee said so.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Grambler

Lol. Elected party officials are not the same as judges. There are separations for a reason.

What you should not however is the Senate judiciary is trying to protect the case.

Gotcha. SO saying congressmen are biased is perfectly reasonable.

But saying a judge can have bias is out of bounds and should be mocked.

Nice to get that cleared up!

a reply to: Grambler

But it's not the same the House intel committee arn't judges, their just a committee.
Now if a judge said there was no collusion, that would be a different story.

Congress is not the judiciary and they shouldn't be held in the same regard.

a reply to: Grambler

You think that congress knows more about the law than a judge would?

See I am not saying they found no collusion because of bias, I'm saying they are not qualified to know whether or not it happened at all.

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Grambler

Lol. Elected party officials are not the same as judges. There are separations for a reason.

What you should not however is the Senate judiciary is trying to protect the case.

Gotcha. SO saying congressmen are biased is perfectly reasonable.

But saying a judge can have bias is out of bounds and should be mocked.

Nice to get that cleared up!

Everyone is biased.

But the doj wanted the case thrown out and moat every legal expert including conservatives new the civil case was a hail Mary.

She also said this doesn't effect the criminal motion...

But yeah don't use the actual case and critical thought. Just assume it's bias.

But yes traditionally because of the small voting base reps have verse senators and governors they are more outrageous on all sides.

a reply to: Swills

You did read the reasoning behind it, correct: She threw it out because it's not the place of the judicial system to use the civil side to affect criminal proceedings.

That's why she threw it out, not because his challenge against Mueller's investigation lack merit.

In her 24-page ruling , U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson, who also presides in one of Manafort’s criminal cases, rejected his request for an order protecting him from future prosecutions by Mueller’s team.

“A civil case is not the appropriate vehicle for taking issue with what a prosecutor has done in the past or where he might be headed in the future,” Jackson wrote, saying that it was well-established law that a court shouldn’t use its powers in a civil case to interfere in a criminal investigation when a defendant has the ability to challenge the prosecution in a criminal case.

Jackson stressed, though, that her order in the civil case does not address the pending motions in Manafort’s criminal cases and “should not be read as expressing any opinion” about the merits of those arguments. Jackson said she will issue a separate order in the criminal case in which she presides at a later date.

Soooooo, yeah, let's share the whole story, not just half of it and then put forth ideological claims about the ruling.

Judging by most of the initial replies in this thread, no one actually read the linked story.

Pity.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

It seems to me Grassley saw something that makes him nervous. I would say it's a total witch hint and turning into the Lewinsky cherade but I don't believe we have the prosecutions case or even know where it will go.

a reply to: luthier

Yeah, I'm at the point where it's best to just wait and see with everything surrounding the Mueller investigation. It is blatantly obvious that any attempt to predict anything is a fruitless endeavor anymore.

a reply to: scraedtosleep

You do realize judges work by appointment from the same politicians you said clearly have bias correct? What makes you think they're any better than those who appoint them? Also if the ones appointing them are politicians, who we can see for the most part are corrupt and out for themselves, why would an appointee be any different...if not even more so. Do you really think these judges don't put favor on the side that is responsible for their appointment just like politicians scratch the backs of their biggest donors?

originally posted by: RickyD
a reply to: scraedtosleep

You do realize judges work by appointment from the same politicians you said clearly have bias correct? What makes you think they're any better than those who appoint them? Also if the ones appointing them are politicians, who we can see for the most part are corrupt and out for themselves, why would an appointee be any different...if not even more so. Do you really think these judges don't put favor on the side that is responsible for their appointment just like politicians scratch the backs of their biggest donors?

Sure but they aren't fighting for election after.

Also districts that elect judges are found to be many times more corrupt for that reason.

a reply to: luthier

No they did their favors to get there...what would happen if some of those favors were made public? Probably wouldn't look good...in fact it would most likely be career ending if that type of stuff got out. So with that kind of leverage do you really think they're going to go against the wishes of those holding such power?

originally posted by: RickyD
a reply to: luthier

No they did their favors to get there...what would happen if some of those favors were made public? Probably wouldn't look good...in fact it would most likely be career ending if that type of stuff got out. So with that kind of leverage do you really think they're going to go against the wishes of those holding such power?

I know it's a fact elected judges are more corrupt.

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
a reply to: Grambler

You think that congress knows more about the law than a judge would?

See I am not saying they found no collusion because of bias, I'm saying they are not qualified to know whether or not it happened at all.

I dont think i said that.

I tthink I was just implying that all people, even judges (I know who would have thought?) have biases.

So if you are going to mock people that say of course the reason for this judge ruling the way she did was because of bias, you should feel the same way about people that say of course the house intel committee said no russian collusion because of bias.

And as we cane see, people are trying to argue now that its not ok to accuse a judge of bias, but it is ok to accuse the house intel committee, which is hypocritical.

a reply to: luthier

Keep in mind one of my cousins is a judge so I am pretty familiar with how the game is played and how dirty it is. Her grandfather went against those who put her in her seat and they came after her pretty relentlessly...and she is a very low level judge. She is very lucky she was careful with all of her dealings or she wouldn't be working in law now. They removed her grandfather from his magistrate position though.

a reply to: luthier

So we are going to argue over shades of grey when it comes to a system that is meant to be impartial and pretty black and white?

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
a reply to: Grambler

You think that congress knows more about the law than a judge would?

See I am not saying they found no collusion because of bias, I'm saying they are not qualified to know whether or not it happened at all.

I dont think i said that.

I tthink I was just implying that all people, even judges (I know who would have thought?) have biases.

So if you are going to mock people that say of course the reason for this judge ruling the way she did was because of bias, you should feel the same way about people that say of course the house intel committee said no russian collusion because of bias.

And as we cane see, people are trying to argue now that its not ok to accuse a judge of bias, but it is ok to accuse the house intel committee, which is hypocritical.

Really or did you male that up.

What you didn't do was actually look at the ruling, what the doj said, and determine this was actually a predictable call by any judge.