Judge tosses Manafort civil suit challenging special counsel

a reply to: jjkenobi

But the GOP ensuring Obama couldn't appoint a SCOTUS judge so Trump could appoint a conservative judge is somehow okay?

originally posted by: RickyD
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?

No I am going to tell you to examine reality. Elected officials add a layer of corruption that while still possible in unelected officials, create conflicts of interest of even larger proportions...

a reply to: eNumbra

Them vs Us, the conservative way.

a reply to: matafuchs

Or she did her job?

My, 2 whole cases! Say it ain't so!

a reply to: scraedtosleep

I have no idea because I don't care what some anonymous user on 4 chan has to say about anything, ever.

a reply to: dragonridr

Well, I'm no lawyer so I'll just assume it's either of two things, a) they racked up a bunch of BS in hopes to negotiate for something they really wanted, or b) they knew it was a bunch of BS that was going nowhere.

Either way, a bunch of BS.

a reply to: luthier

I would argue it would be the other way around...if you examine reality...or you know actually have a real connection to it past reading articles online and posting on forums about it. But hey what do I know...

originally posted by: RickyD
a reply to: luthier

I would argue it would be the other way around...if you examine reality...or you know actually have a real connection to it past reading articles online and posting on forums about it. But hey what do I know...

Apparently not that elected judges are more corrupt than non elected ones by a large proportion.

a reply to: matafuchs

Manafort was Trump's Campaign Manager FFS!

Like Trump, you're just trying to minimize his importance to the Trump campaign because now he's under all these charges and will sooner or later be heading off to prison.

HE'S JUST A COFFEE BOY AND NOTHING MORE!!!!

a reply to: SlapMonkey

You're not allowed to quote the entire article in an OP, just the first few paragraphs. It's up to you to click on the link and read it, or not.

The fact Manafort's lawyers thought it was a good idea to have a civil case somehow nullify his criminal case is beyond stupid. Crackpot team he's got there!

a reply to: Swills

I posted 2 cases. There are many, many more. I tried to show 2 very high profile cases. Nothing more.

a reply to: luthier

Guess we all have opinions...however I will believe what I've seen over your opinions unless you have something more to back them up with. If you do I am happy to take a look and rethink my position if the evidence is compelling.

a reply to: Swills

Hey was there for 3 months. He did EXACTLY what I stated. If you want to call him that, yes, he was a coffee boy whose job it was to get delegates. Roger Stone told Trump to use him. If you actually took the time to study the campaign and how it was run and how they won you would know that.

When the DNC realized Manafort was working for the 'other team' and winning they started talking about his Russian Connections that he was being investigated for by the FBI since 2014 before he had anything to do with Trumps team.

No minimization...just facts...

originally posted by: RickyD
a reply to: luthier

Guess we all have opinions...however I will believe what I've seen over your opinions unless you have something more to back them up with. If you do I am happy to take a look and rethink my position if the evidence is compelling.

Sure start here. Heck just Google elected judges.

today.law.harvard.edu...

Find your own sources. If elected officials are somehow better it would show here.

a reply to: RickyD

You do realize judges work by appointment from the same politicians you said clearly have bias correct?

I never said anything about the bias.

I said that judges are more qualified to make legal decisions.

a reply to: Grambler

I wasn't mocking you in anyway. I was asking you a question.

I never brought there biased into it.

I said that judges are more qualified to make legal decisions than a committee would be.

I even said as much in my reply.

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: scraedtosleep
a reply to: Grambler

I wasn't mocking you in anyway. I was asking you a question.

I never brought there biased into it.

I said that judges are more qualified to make legal decisions than a committee would be.

I even said as much in my reply.

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 would argue that investigators are more qualified to find out if a crime was committed than a judge.

else we would have judges tracking down evidnce, interviewing suspects, etc.

So no, a judge would be no where at all as qualified as investigators in deciding rather or not collusion was committed. They would be more qulaified to deterimine who should have access to the evidence, how it should be allowed to be prented in a criminal or civil case, etc.

But they are not investigators.

a reply to: Swills

You have linked to an article that requires me to have a subscription to the WaPo.

I wish ATS would prohibit using sources that solicit money before you can read the content.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Do you not have an adblocker up? Besides, just click the X to make the bad pay wall go away! Whatever the case, it was the only source at the time.

a reply to: RickyD

Elected judiciary/law enforcement is the single most absurd political idea I've ever heard of. You cannot have a fair, unbiased system when officers of the court and LE have to be concerned about campaigning and their reelection prospects.