U.S. judge questions special counsel's powers in Manafort case

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: shooterbrody

same judge that earlier stated manafort may be a flight risk because he faces life in jail.....but now he is biased hahahaha

That does not invalidate what I said, nor does it justify what the judge recently said.

Your approach is highly illogical.

if manafort committed crimes and muellers teams incompetence allows manafort to walk it would be a shame

True. It would also be a shame to see this process drug out any longer because the judge outed himself as being potentially biased and partial.

This is all coming from a guy that has said that politically biased text messages between fbi agents involved with this investigation have absolutely nothing to do with their job performance... lol.
For quite sometime introvert has been the left's resident spin doctor. What's funny is when he is called out on it he claims no affiliation with the anti Trump movement.

a reply to: Xcathdra

The judge comments are very suspect. Here is a couple things he said:

You don't really care about Mr. Manafort's bank fraud

That's what you're really interested in

His personal comments or feelings about the prosecution's intent is irrelevant and do not apply to the case. His job is to rule on the specifics in the case according to the law. He even resorts to using logical fallacies in this statement:

The American people feel pretty strongly that no one has unfettered power

The judge appears to have compromised his position.

a reply to: Xcathdra

If you can't lawfully make your case then you have no case.

The judges comments that I quoted had nothing to do with the veracity of the prosecution's case.

That should be a bit of a concern, if we want justice to be truthful, fair and blind to politics.

a reply to: introvert

lol
ok im illogical
whatever you say bub

funny whatever you fail to understand or disagree with gets that label

a reply to: introvert

They arent suspect. They are from a judge who sees what is going on. I am going to go out on a limb and guess you dont have much exposure to the federal court system and how Federal judges run the show. What occurred is normal and the accusations made are correct.

Giving your argument the benefit of the doubt though a question -
Given the info in the articles explain how the judge is off base.

Did the prosecutors not to do he accuses them of doing?

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: shooterbrody

perhaps if muellers team followed the law this wouldnt happen

Nothing appears to of have "happened", except the judge seems to be spitting his political frustrations on the bench. Something a judge should not do.

Also, what convictions have been laid at the feet of Mueller's team? What laws have they been proven to have broken?

maybe they will give up their redacted super secret scope like the judge PREVIOUSLY asked for

Perhaps. I'm not entirely privy on the law in regards to that aspect. I'd want to know more before giving an opinion on that aspect.

if manafort committed crimes muellers team will have let them off because they simply couldnt follow the rules

That doesn't make much sense. Mueller's team is going to let Manafort off because they couldn't follow the rules? Then why are they in court?

Simple logic leads me to understand what he was saying is that Mueller not following the rules will lead to someone getting away with crimes that they should be prosecuted for. He probably should have referred this one as well but he thought he could blackmail this guy into giving up info on Trump that he doesn't even have. Hahahahahaha

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Xcathdra

If you can't lawfully make your case then you have no case.

The judges comments that I quoted had nothing to do with the veracity of the prosecution's case.

That should be a bit of a concern, if we want justice to be truthful, fair and blind to politics.

They have everything to do with it. Especially if the prosecution lied in order to get the charges against Manafort. A preexisting investigation that was declined for prosecution was not discovered during the mueller investigation. They used it to go after TRump, as the judge correctly noted.

As Manaforts team correctly challenged, the SC has violated Brady by not turning over all evidence to the defense. Specifically the evidence linking him to Russia-Trump collusion.

a reply to: xxspockyxx

If Mueller referred this case then he is admitting he has no jurisdiction. That means everything against Page is null and void.

Remove those 2 from the TRump link and you have nothing else = no reason for a special counsel.

a reply to: xxspockyxx

This is all coming from a guy that has said that politically biased text messages between fbi agents involved with this investigation have absolutely nothing to do with their job performance... lol.

One does not necessarily affect the other. I stand by that.

We cannot hold people accountable for their thoughts or personal opinions. We can only hold them accountable for laws or rules they break.

For quite sometime introvert has been the left's resident spin doctor. What's funny is when he is called out on it he claims no affiliation with the anti Trump movement.

I am not part of any movement.

Do you have a point to discuss, or did you just come in to post you frustrations about me personally?

It is not my job to babysit political snowflakes. So please don't waste my time.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: xxspockyxx

If Mueller referred this case then he is admitting he has no jurisdiction. That means everything against Page is null and void.

Remove those 2 from the TRump link and you have nothing else = no reason for a special counsel.

So it would be highly illogical for him to do so as it would ruin his entire case. Who need morals when you have hate on your side?

originally posted by: introvert
One does not necessarily affect the other. I stand by that.

We cannot hold people accountable for their thoughts or personal opinions. We can only hold them accountable for laws or rules they break.

Uhm no. Bias is a valid defense from overzealous prosecutions. An investigators / prosecutors personal views can very much impact a case. Especially if they are locked in on one person and refuse to look at anything that might provide context or exculpatory evidence.

originally posted by: introvert
I am not part of any movement.

Do you have a point to discuss, or did you just come in to post you frustrations about me personally?

It is not my job to babysit political snowflakes. So please don't waste my time.

Your post history says otherwise.

a reply to: introvert

We cannot hold people accountable for their thoughts or personal opinions. We can only hold them accountable for laws or rules they break. 
wow
does mueller know this?
have you seen the question list?
what do you think about this
how do you feel about that

lol
flexable positions make me laugh

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: xxspockyxx

This is all coming from a guy that has said that politically biased text messages between fbi agents involved with this investigation have absolutely nothing to do with their job performance... lol.

One does not necessarily affect the other. I stand by that.

We cannot hold people accountable for their thoughts or personal opinions. We can only hold them accountable for laws or rules they break.

For quite sometime introvert has been the left's resident spin doctor. What's funny is when he is called out on it he claims no affiliation with the anti Trump movement.

I am not part of any movement.

Do you have a point to discuss, or did you just come in to post you frustrations about me personally?

It is not my job to babysit political snowflakes. So please don't waste my time.

So if it's on the anti Trump side it is highly logical to be politically biased but if a judge wants to see proof of Muellers original scope he is a partisan hack! What did I tell y'all about this guy. As far as wasting your time with me any further please don't bother. I'm happy to point out hypocritical opinions of other posters without the glory of destroying them in a debate. BOOM!😚

originally posted by: xxspockyxx

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: xxspockyxx

If Mueller referred this case then he is admitting he has no jurisdiction. That means everything against Page is null and void.

Remove those 2 from the TRump link and you have nothing else = no reason for a special counsel.

So it would be highly illogical for him to do so as it would ruin his entire case. Who need morals when you have hate on your side?

I think MUeller is desperate enough to bring down Trump he is will to violates DOJ policies, federal laws and civil rights to get the job done.

Any move by Mueller than suggests he doesnt have jurisdiction is the end of the SC.

It is also why the judge issued an order for the DOJ to turn over the underacted scope memo. That action alone tels me the judge has serious issues with Mueller's jurisdiction with regards to Manafort.

a reply to: Xcathdra

They arent suspect. They are from a judge who sees what is going on

What does that have to do with the facts and veracity of the prosecution's case?

I am going to go out on a limb and guess you dont have much exposure to the federal court system and how Federal judges run the show. What occurred is normal and the accusations made are correct.

The quotes I provided and referred to are nothing more than his personal opinions and have no affect on the veracity of the prosecution's case.

They were irrelevant.

Giving your argument the benefit of the doubt though a question - Given the info in the articles explain how the judge is off base.

That's not a question, but to answer your "question", I would say that the judge is a bit out-of-line in injecting his personal opinions on the prosecution's intent.

Did the prosecutors not to do he accuses them of doing?

Please specify the accusations you wish me to comment on.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Uhm no. Bias is a valid defense from overzealous prosecutions. An investigators / prosecutors personal views can very much impact a case. Especially if they are locked in on one person and refuse to look at anything that might provide context or exculpatory evidence.

What you describe could provide an easy defense, if it were true. But my point still stands.

Having a biased persona opinion and sharing that with other people is not proof that they were biased in the application of their duties.

Your post history says otherwise.

I don't care. Stick to the topic and stop resorting to ad hom fallacies to deflect.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: introvert

We cannot hold people accountable for their thoughts or personal opinions. We can only hold them accountable for laws or rules they break. 
wow
does mueller know this?
have you seen the question list?
what do you think about this
how do you feel about that

lol
flexable positions make me laugh

Thoughts and personal opinions alone should not be crimes and are irrelevant, unless they are used to discern someone's intent as they committed a crime.

originally posted by: introvert
What does that have to do with the facts and veracity of the prosecution's case?

He is saying the SC is lying to the court. As I said - highly relevant.

originally posted by: introvert
The quotes I provided and referred to are nothing more than his personal opinions and have no affect on the veracity of the prosecution's case.

They were irrelevant.

So then the answer would be no, you dont have a lot of exposure to the federal court system and how federal judges run their courtrooms - check.

originally posted by: introvert
That's not a question, but to answer your "question", I would say that the judge is a bit out-of-line in injecting his personal opinions on the prosecution's intent.

and that is a deflection. try again.

originally posted by: introvert
Please specify the accusations you wish me to comment on.

Youve been bitching about it since you came into this thread and now you are trying to deflect. The judge is accusing the SC of lying to the court.

The SC did lie to the court.

I have asked you to present why you think the opposite and you cant do it. If you cant defend your position with something other than the judge was mean then dont bother.

originally posted by: introvert
What you describe could provide an easy defense, if it were true. But my point still stands.

It is a defense and your point does not stand.

originally posted by: introvert
Having a biased persona opinion and sharing that with other people is not proof that they were biased in the application of their duties.

No he is telling the SC he does not believe the answers they provided to him in court and has given them 2 weeks to get it together and to provide a response that doesnt cause him to throw the case out and admonish the prosecution, if not hold them in contempt.

They lied to the court. The judge saw that and called them out.

originally posted by: introvert
I don't care. Stick to the topic and stop resorting to ad hom fallacies to deflect.

Then quit trying to portray yourself as some enlightened non partisan highly logical being. You are far from it and as I said, your post history says otherwise.

The irony in having issues with a judge who calls out prosecutors while you do the exact same thing i nthe thread.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: introvert

We cannot hold people accountable for their thoughts or personal opinions. We can only hold them accountable for laws or rules they break. 
wow
does mueller know this?
have you seen the question list?
what do you think about this
how do you feel about that

lol
flexable positions make me laugh

Thoughts and personal opinions alone should not be crimes and are irrelevant, unless they are used to discern someone's intent as they committed a crime.

Good news for Trump that he has your support then for the enhanced vetting (Muslim ban as the left likes to lie and call it).