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

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

But they tried.

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Nobody is hiding. It's a valid question.

So why did the judge say he would review this sealed?

Because manafort wanted to use this as a discovery as well and he lost that part.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

But they tried.

Prosecutors and defenses try all kinds of things.

That isn't unusual at all...

originally posted by: burgerbuddy

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: burgerbuddy

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: KansasGirl
a reply to: burntheships

The fact Rosenstein thinks he is above the law and untouchable, along with Mueller, will most likely be their downfall.

He's a weasley mofo, just look at him.

All they need is a swastika armband, right out of central casting.

Herr Mueller. Heil!

Well trump picked the weasle. As he did Manafort.

But sure it's the Democrats.

You know what a backstabber is, right?

It's not like they are wearing signs around their necks.

Should be flaming tires but that's a different thread.

He sure picked a lot of morally bankrupt and back stabbers. Again is he not accountable? And I guess we can't bring up any of Ronstein's past in that case...

Sorry but if I hire an idiot I take that as my responsibility.

a reply to: luthier

So why did the judge say he would review this sealed?

Did you miss the sentence after he said he would review it under CIPA if necessary?

Here it is again:

If CIPA is needed, we will invoke it and use it. But I don't think it will be necessary.

emphasis mine

This judge is not happy with Mueller's team responses and will not be sidetracked with meaningless drivel.

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

OK and? It's his opinions.

Like I said I think it's probable the case continues.

Rod has already publicly stated his approval.

Like Napalitano I think it goes forward and the judges comments ate legally meaningless

a reply to: luthier

OK and? It's his opinions.

And since he is the judge on the case, his opinion matters. Yours, mine, nor anyone else's matters, only the judge's. If he wants to see the document granting jurisdiction to Muller and his team in a completely un-redacted format, that is his right and duty as the judge on the case.

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: luthier

OK and? It's his opinions.

And since he is the judge on the case, his opinion matters. Yours, mine, nor anyone else's matters, only the judge's. If he wants to see the document granting jurisdiction to Muller and his team in a completely un-redacted format, that is his right and duty as the judge on the case.

That is correct.

What is the chance he throws the case out in your opinion?

a reply to: luthier

I'm not sure, that would depend on whether or not he is satisfied with what is in the scope memo; Mueller's entire effort could be for naught and everything could be scrapped. So far judge Ellis does not seem very well disposed toward Mueller's team at present.

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

And two months ago he denied manafort bail and told him he could be going away for life.

So it seems like a stretch to me to say he is going to throw it out. With Rod saying he gave Mueller the ok...

But who knows.

I believe his comments have been blown out of proportion by a lot of people.

But again it is possible the media is correct sometimes.

That was 12 years ago skippy. We have a new host of crimes. He’s going to prison. You need to come to grips that you support criminals. Then again that’s pretty much what CONservative means. Nothing but scum.

a reply to: soundguy

That is pretty absurd to say conservatives are scum.

Manafort is probably going to jail but it doesn't do America any good to divide ourselves.

a reply to: Xcathdra

just to point out :

the 2005 case never went to court - so no " double jerpardy "

plus - new evidence COULD come to light that world lead to a fresh prosecution case

but hey - wingnut heaven

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: Xcathdra

just to point out :

the 2005 case never went to court - so no " double jerpardy "

plus - new evidence COULD come to light that world lead to a fresh prosecution case

but hey - wingnut heaven

COULD come to light ... yes. IIRC they said no new evidence came to light that started the new investigation. Do they make a habit of intense investigation with no evidence of a crime?

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Nobody is hiding. It's a valid question.

So why did the judge say he would review this sealed?

Because manafort wanted to use this as a discovery as well and he lost that part.

It's not a valid question, he knew the Judge had clearance.

The Judge did not say he would review it sealed, what he said was IF it was necessary he would, but he thought it would not be necessary.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Nobody is hiding. It's a valid question.

So why did the judge say he would review this sealed?

Because manafort wanted to use this as a discovery as well and he lost that part.

It's not a valid question, he knew the Judge had clearance.

The Judge did not say he would review it sealed, what he said was IF it was necessary he would, but he thought it would not be necessary.

www.emptywheel.net...

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Nobody is hiding. It's a valid question.

So why did the judge say he would review this sealed?

Because manafort wanted to use this as a discovery as well and he lost that part.

It's not a valid question, he knew the Judge had clearance.

The Judge did not say he would review it sealed, what he said was IF it was necessary he would, but he thought it would not be necessary.

www.emptywheel.net...

Why are you posting a stupid opinion piece, I read the entire interaction already, I don't need someone telling me how to think. Are you disputing in some way my previous post? Can you explain what you disagree with?

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Sure. The entire argument from the judge is completely taken out of context.


The judge isn't going to throw out to the public an unredacted document that exposes names of people who aren't being prosecuted or are from the Intel community.

The conservative news outlets literally chopped out parts of the judges statements.

This judge also refused bail a couple months ago...

What do you think the chances are this is thrown out after he reads the unredacted documents?

Do you think some of this was to get testimony on the court record from the prosecution and the defense?

There isn't really much to say but what do you think the odds are it's thrown out. Your comments make it seem like an 80 percent chance. I would say the opposite.

a reply to: luthier

Like I said, I am not interested in a liberal opinion piece, I made factual statements as to what the Judge said, what that I said do you take issue with. If nothing, then just say so rather than make it seem like you do without saying what it is that is wrong.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

The judge didn't just say that. He said a multitude of things. As he has in the casend so far.

I highly doubt it gets released to the public unredacted. Though again I could be wrong.

And one more time do you believe the judges comments mean he has a high chance of throwing the case out?