The other shoe drops in Manafort's case - Rosenstein himself cleared Manafort back in 2006

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

So yes, no, maybe? Rewording my question to align with your right wing biases doesn't absolve you of my request to answer it.

How ismt it answered?

- you term of "derail the investigation" is a left wing talking point cliche with no basis in reality. Its called "fighting the charges" and is what defendants do.

- the investigation could end depending on the answers provided to the judge.

Is there another way i can answer to make it more clear? Or is there something youve asked that i didn't see?

a reply to: theantediluvian

Iirc they said it was not based on new information. That would mean it was based on what he was cleared on unless I missed something.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Ugh... Again with the coyness. So do you think the investigation will end as a result of these question?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

It. Depends. On. The. Answers.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: theantediluvian

Iirc they said it was not based on new information. That would mean it was based on what he was cleared on unless I missed something.

From Napelitano

The financial crimes charged, though unrelated to Mueller's initial duty of looking for a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and foreigners, are real, and no federal prosecutors with jurisdiction could ethically overlook them.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Sheesh... Just make a guess and tell me what you think will happen. I worded the original question as a friendly bet. I wagered that the investigation will go on without knowing the answers. Surely you have an idea of what will happen or at least a guess right?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Id guess...

....that the answers will mean nothing to manaforts case. I hope not anyway.

But itll likely burn rosenstein pretty badly.

a reply to: luthier

Your point? If the investigation was not based on new information why did it start?

In America we investigate crimes, we can't investigate people to find something to charge them with.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Here is napalitano this morning.

video.foxnews.com...=show-clips

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

For one we have no idea if there is new evidence. It was the charges are the same.

And two my point is that isn't what is happening at all.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Thank you. So why is burning Rosenstein even important? Seems useless to me if the questions aren't going to end the investigation. To me, that seems like legal pettiness done for ego soothing and not so much to gain any legal ground in the Manafort case.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Ive long been an enemy of federal law enforcement. Its a racket that does more to trample American freedom than any other element of government.

They set people up, kill people in unspeakable ways, and pursue objectives not in line with voter values.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I'm not a fan of law enforcement in general, but I still see them as a necessary evil as a bulwark against anarchy and defending the rule of law.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Ive long been an enemy of federal law enforcement. Its a racket that does more to trample American freedom than any other element of government.

They set people up, kill people in unspeakable ways, and pursue objectives not in line with voter values.

This is true. They also do good things.

The supreme court also gives them this power as does congress.

People need to stop watching cable news and politicians arm waving and pay attention to how the legislators vote. Hen hold them accountable.

But that isn't what happens people want there liar to win and fail to hold them accountable because they believe the other side is their enemy.

Donald Trump is not being treated differently, his supporters just believe the hype...

He is an amateur at this and doesn't have the inside connections to hide as well as carreer politicians.

I think it's been proven he wants the same as everyone else. He want to profit off of the presidency. The people around him do as well..
In fact he looks like an amateur Hilary Clinton to me.

The only positive I see is one his foreign policy may work for some other bullies, and two his lack of impulse control is exposing how politicians think and work to those who don't have time to research politics and rely on the news to tell them the truth.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Charge him using our civilized legal system or let a crazy person loose on him when no one is looking.

These criminals tried to subvert a first world democracy by wasting the time, resources and dignity of the last remaining super power and got they got caught.

There is no good that can be said for them. PUNISH the crime or the crime will punish for us all.

I love it. The judge in Manafort's case has made it quite clear that he does not consider trying to get at Trump to be a legitimate reason to resurrect these charges. Unless Mueller/Rosenstein can come up with a good excuse that does not revolve around the president, he'll likely toss the charges.

a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

The judges personal opinion is irrelevant.

Literally.

I don't think you have read what napalitano actually said.

Literal quote..

The judge's comments as to Mueller's motivation are dicta. Dicta are the unsolicited, unnecessary and often personal opinions of the court on matters not strictly before the court and not integral to the court's ruling. Stated differently, there is an abundance of speculation in the media but zero evidence in the record before Judge Ellis -- zero -- on which he could base his opinion; and his opinion of the prosecutor's motivation is irrelevant. It made national headlines because Trump supporters agree with it, and it is probably accurate -- but it is legally meaningless.

a reply to: Xcathdra

If prosecutor wrote manafort an exoneration letter why is this allowed to be investigated I thought you could not be convicted of same crime twice

a reply to: luthier

I said iirc they admitted they took up the old investigation with no new evidence being present.

So for 2, yes it is IF there was no new evidence.

a reply to: luthier

Of course it's not. But it's an indicator of what might be going on.