Judge tosses Manafort civil suit challenging special counsel

a reply to: matafuchs

Yup, if was just some lowly volunteer you'd have a case to make, but he wasn't and you don't.

Denial is a hell of a drug!

originally posted by: Swills
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Do you not have an adblocker up? Besides, just click the X to make the bad pay wall go away! .

There is no 'X' to close the pop-up and I do have an adblocker. Turning it on and/or off...I still can't access the article. Also..."rebooting" doesn't work and, yes, my computer is plugged in and I paid my electric bill. *eyeroll*

ETA: See? No 'X.'

a reply to: Swills

You don't know wtf you are talking about. I explained it. Manafort is one of the dirtiest people in politics but he is good at one thing and that is getting delegates. That is what TRUMP said about him in multiple books, interviews,etc. He realized that Manafort could not be on the campaign anymore and did not like his tactics AFTER the convention.

From "Let Trump Be Trump"

After the story of unregistered lobbying work broke, according to the excerpt, Trump said: “Tell Jared to fire him.” Manafort protested, according to Lewandowski and Bossie — “It will make me look guilty” — but, according to the new book, “Jared told him there wasn’t much that could be done. A press release was going out in 60 seconds.”

Trump used him for what he needed and got rid of him. Business is business....

a reply to: MotherMayEye

He just does not want to admit he pays to read the WaPo....

a reply to: matafuchs

a reply to: Swills

Oh, I get that, but you could have at least opined on the fact as to why the judge ruled how she did, and not implied that it was because the concern about the scope of Mueller's investigation is without merit.

That was my point. I know the T&C guidelines, but I also know a misleading OP when I see one--you framed it as the civil case being his only hope to be a free man. The same things can be brought up during the criminal trial, at least with the judge. That civil case isn't the end-all to his hopes, although I see his hopes as being relatively bleak at this point.

a reply to: ShadeWolf

You also can't have fair and unbias judges and LEO...which I never mentioned LEO but still same same I guess...when they're running around pulling favors for people in the hopes of appointments/reappointment. I mean line cops and such sure they get hired like everyone else...leadership however is where the problems are. Same for judges...smaller courts not such a big deal the higher courts absolutely should be chosen some other way. I mean lets be honest the SC doesn't hear half the cases we need rulings on and even then those are appointed too and usually politically motivated appointments which isn't exactly fair and unbias either.

Furthermore, do none of you know that Manafort and Podesta worked together on Russian deals that involve...you guessed it...HRC? Along with Podestas brother they were the goto people for lobbying in DC for decades. Manafort at one time even retained and worked with one of Obamas lawyers. These guys will not be talking about what Trump did but what they did for HRC. They are ALL under investigation by Mueller right now and it ALL happened before the campaign even started for Trump.


This has all been a good show but the clock is slowing getting to zero for the DC establishment.

a reply to: matafuchs

All these snakes work together. Including the former lobbyist Trump who was a Clinton Democrat prior to his latest ambitions.

Sold a bill of goods as an outsider.

I could care less that happens to Manafort. The basis of his challenge was a stretch and that's putting it mildly.

He is a political prostitute. He gets paid for what he can do for you.

Everyone Knew and Knows that.

Even Trump.

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: Swills

Judge was appointed by O. Look at two other cases she ruled on....

Link

Earlier this year, for instance, she dismissed a lawsuit filed by the parents of two of the four Americans who died at the U.S. compound in Benghazi, Libya in 2012, seeking to hold Trump’s election opponent Hillary Clinton responsible. And four years ago, she sided with the Obama administration request and put on hold a lawsuit by House Republicans demanding papers related to former Attorney General Eric Holder’s botched Fast-and-Furious gun-tracking operation.

I think they should be looking for collusion here at home in the justice system...

Ahh, yes. Since you and others cannot seem to understand the idea of frivolous and absurd lawsuits being thrown-out legitimately, it must be collusion of some sort.

Sure...

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
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.

I could read it just fine. There is a link at the top right to sign up for a paid subscription, but I was still able to read the article.

Even have a screen shot in case it is needed.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

I use uBlock Origin and it's great! I get no paywalls when visiting a WaPo site. When on my phone and I visited said site, I can always just close out the paywall by hitting X.

What adblocker do you use?

originally posted by: Swills
a reply to: MotherMayEye

I use uBlock Origin and it's great! I get no paywalls when visiting a WaPo site. When on my phone and I visited said site, I can always just close out the paywall by hitting X.

What adblocker do you use?

Well, sh*t. I installed it and it worked.

Blaaaaah! Now I have to thank you for the good tip.

Thank you, Swills.


ETA: And concede you are not probably paying to read the WaPo. It was an unfair and heinous accusation. heh.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

No problem! Hell no I ain't paying for any news site! I'm cheap! Although, 1 dollar they're asking for isn't much lol!

a reply to: Swills

OK Ok Ok ...you don't pay for the site...apologies here as well....

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
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.

Exactly, the article actually reads like the judge told the lawyer that he's not wrong, just in the wrong court. I would expect motions to be filed in the criminal case, and suspect the civil lawsuit was just testing the waters for an avenue of defense.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: jjkenobi

Uh huh. So she could just toss a solid case.

A case that has been wiiddled down by manafort himself.

Why not? We have far left whackjobs on the 9th circuit that think they can go against legal presidential orders.

originally posted by: Carcharadon

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: jjkenobi

Uh huh. So she could just toss a solid case.

A case that has been wiiddled down by manafort himself.

Why not? We have far left whackjobs on the 9th circuit that think they can go against legal presidential orders.

Heck of a deflection there, don't you think?