Ed Breaking: Mueller Grand Jury charges filed, arrests as soon as Monday

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Great Zaganza said:
So Manafort's lawyers are stupid?
Click to expand...

Maybe not, they're pursuing a strategy to maximize their billable hours. I'm not sure to what end beyond the enrichment of the lawyers. Manafort looks to be cooked. I wonder how his lawyer managed to get out the nonsense about his client wanting to prove his innocence with a straight face.

But suppose Manfafort had won this round. So he gets prosecuted by some other federal prosecutor who uses the same overwhelming evidence against him that Mueller has? Or Trump pardons him* and he faces state prosecutors? Mueller might be in much more of a mood to cut him a deal than the other prosecutors he would face in return for some juicy Trump bits. On the other hand I'm not completely sure Manafort has got any juicy Trump bits to cough up. If that's the case, Manafort might die an old man in prison.

* I doubt that Trump will pardon Manafort. Trump is doing everything he can to pretend that he might pardon the various folks associated with this case, but the political penalty for this would be huge for Trump and the Republican Party and it might exacerbate Trump's problems since the people he pardoned could be forced to testify against him since they no longer have the right to plead the firth amendment on the stuff they were pardoned for.
 
Last edited:
A local prosecutor doesn't have the resources, focus and profile of the Mueller probe: they might settle for much less and without extra dirt on Trump.
No, Manafort would have been much better off if this motion had been granted.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
A local prosecutor doesn't have the resources, focus and profile of the Mueller probe: they might settle for much less and without extra dirt on Trump.
No, Manafort would have been much better off if this motion had been granted.
Click to expand...
I'm from the UK so don't pretend to understand all the USA legal stuff, but doesn't the quote above say "— but he has not ruled yet".

Does that mean he hasn't decided yet whether to grant the motion?
 
BadBoy said:
I'm from the UK so don't pretend to understand all the USA legal stuff, but doesn't the quote above say "— but he has not ruled yet".

Does that mean he hasn't decided yet whether to grant the motion?
Click to expand...

I think there are two separate things....

The motion to dismiss the indictment has been ruled upon, and denied.

Motions to suppress evidence have yet to be ruled upon.
 
BadBoy said:
I'm from the UK so don't pretend to understand all the USA legal stuff, but doesn't the quote above say "— but he has not ruled yet".

Does that mean he hasn't decided yet whether to grant the motion?
Click to expand...

There are two criminal cases against Manafort with two different judges in two different jurisdictions. It is unusual to have to separate cases brought against a defendant for similar crimes. The possible reason for this is that Manafort committed crimes in two different jurisdictions and hence charges needed to be filed in both jurisdictions.

The thing that confuses me a bit is that Manafort's lawyers attempted to block the prosecutions by filing a civil lawsuit and by appealing the indictments. The decision on the civil law suit was deferred until the issue was decided for the criminal case in Washington but that decision has also gone against Manafort. The judge in Washington has now decided against Manafort in the criminal case. The judge in Virginia has not published a decision.
 
davefoc said:
There are two criminal cases against Manafort with two different judges in two different jurisdictions. It is unusual to have to separate cases brought against a defendant for similar crimes. The possible reason for this is that Manafort committed crimes in two different jurisdictions and hence charges needed to be filed in both jurisdictions.

The thing that confuses me a bit is that Manafort's lawyers attempted to block the prosecutions by filing a civil lawsuit and by appealing the indictments. The decision on the civil law suit was deferred until the issue was decided for the criminal case in Washington but that decision has also gone against Manafort. The judge in Washington has now decided against Manafort in the criminal case. The judge in Virginia has not published a decision.
Click to expand...
Is the judge a Trumper? Or just a Republican.
 
BadBoy said:
Is the judge a Trumper? Or just a Republican.
Click to expand...

Good question. It seems like he popped off with some irrelevant pro-Trump spin. It seems to be fairly routine in the US for prosecutors to go after underlings and cut deals if they turn on their bosses in crime so complaining that Mueller really wanted to get Trump is just complaining about what is normal behavior for a prosecutor unless the judge was arguing that the case against Manafort was thin and wouldn't have been brought if Mueller wasn't biased by his desire to get Trump.

If he was making that argument, IMO, he would be acting as a Trumper since the evidence against Manafort is very strong that he committed very serious crimes regardless of Mueller's motive for bringing the case. My guess is that in the end the judge will decide against Manafort so why the judge popped off will be moot. If he did decide for Manafort I think Mueller might be able to appeal the decision and I think the judge's decision would be overturned.
 
The Big Dog said:
"The NYT is being quite silly in saying Mashburn's testimony can't be corroborated."

He takes an article from the NYT, slaps "breaking" on it, and then shows that Seth has not earthly clue what "corroborated" means in a news article.

The Poet is incompetent.
Click to expand...

Literally the next sentence: "Of course it can be: by George Papadopoulos, the man who sent Mashburn the email."
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
Are you under the impression the article says that the journalist who wrote it can't corroborate the existence of the email?
Click to expand...

You did not answer my question. The answer to my question (and Seth's specious claim) that the New York Times was acting 'silly" because the email could be "corroborated" by Papadopoulos is: "Mr. Mashburn and Mr. Papadopoulos declined to comment."

The answer to your question is yes, neither the journalist, the New York Times, the:

... investigators for the Senate Judiciary Committee have not found any such message. The special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, was also searching for similar emails, according to a person familiar with a request for documents that his investigators sent to the Trump campaign. The campaign, which has examined its emails and other documents, also cannot find the message, and officials do not believe it exists.
Click to expand...

and given that Papadopoulus is cooperating with Mueller, this further puts the lie to Seth's inane and consistently wrong speculation.
 
The Big Dog said:
You did not answer my question. The answer to my question (and Seth's specious claim) that the New York Times was acting 'silly" because the email could be "corroborated" by Papadopoulos is: "Mr. Mashburn and Mr. Papadopoulos declined to comment."

The answer to your question is yes, neither the journalist, the New York Times, the:



and given that Papadopoulus is cooperating with Mueller, this further puts the lie to Seth's inane and consistently wrong speculation.
Click to expand...

I don't think you even know what you're arguing. Certainly nothing you've posted here contradicts what Abramson has said, and you only just now seem to have realised that whether or not the journalist can corroborate the existence of the email is irrelevant to what Abramson said.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
I don't think you even know what you're arguing. Certainly nothing you've posted here contradicts what Abramson has said, and you only just now seem to have realised that whether or not the journalist can corroborate the existence of the email is irrelevant to what Abramson said.
Click to expand...

Abramson claimed that the NYT is being "silly" because Seth claims (based on nothing but rank speculation) that Papadopoulos can corroborate it.

The article shows without any doubt that Papadopoulos HAS NOT CORROBORATED it, despite the NYT, Congress, Mueller and others trying to do so!

It is obvious that Seth's claim is another incompetent lie.
 
I took a look at all the indictments that have come out of the Mueller investigation, and it really illustrates very well why I am so disappointed with the media coverage and most discussion of it.

The majority of indictments have been against Russian operatives who used identity theft to spread falsehoods on social media and use those falsehoods to sow discord among Americans. That ought to be big news. The Russians have an ongoing, active, propaganda campaign to undermine American democracy, and it's working, and they are breaking laws in order to make it happen. That's important stuff.

But it doesn't use the word "Trump", so it's largely ignored.

The right wing wants to shut the investigation down because they're afraid it might dig some dirt on Trump. The left wing wants to keep it going, but they overlook the little matter of Russian dirty tricks unless somehow it is connected to Trump. This investigation is doing important work. It's also looking into the Trump campaign.


If Trump staffers played an active role supporting the crimes of the Russians who have been indicted, I would be all for throwing the book at them, including at the Big Cheese himself, but I don't think that happened. I think that, to the extent they had anything to do with it, they were just played by the Russians. That's worth knowing, but it won't, and shouldn't, result in impeachment, assuming that's all there is.

Well, I await the report, but I fear that when the investigation wraps up it will say, "There was a concerted effort by the Russians to subvert American democracy, but Donald Trump wasn't part of that effort." and the country will say, "So, no big deal, right?"
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom