Discussion in 'Current Events' started by MrTLegal, May 16, 2018.
I understand. You didn't mean to suggest, when you were suggesting.
In your warped mind maybe.
Oh really? Which ones?
TWO DAYS to provide the documentation to Judge Ellis...tick...tick....
Setting aside that Ellis' ruling has zero impact on Judge Jackson or on Manafort's criminal liability - even as it relates specifically to that one charge in front of Ellis - what will you say if Ellis rules against Manafort?
The better question then, is what will you say if Ellis doesn't rule against Manafort? Put yourself on the spot...
I will say that Manafort is still ****ed because the Virginia DA can copy-pasta the complaint against Manafort and file the new criminal complaint the very next day.
Quite a complicated non answer. It presupposes that there is actual foreknowledge. I highly doubt that. But in any event, the answer is pretty much what I expected, which was no answer at all......
Let's take it to Napolitano!
Fox News Host Bill Hemmer asked Judge Andrew Napolitano, “Now, so the attorney for Manafort from the very beginning, I believe, on day one he said this is gonna be our defense. ‘You are outside of your bounds.’ And you’re saying that’s good for an opinion but it’s not good from a legal standpoint. I understand that. The judge could still rule this way. Would Manafort be off the hook if that were to happen?”
Napolitano responded, "No. If Judge Ellis dismisses this indictment on the theory that Bob Mueller did not have the jurisdiction to prosecute this charge in this venue in Virginia, then the local federal prosecutors in the Eastern District of Virginia will get an identical indictment from another grand jury and they will prosecute it. There’s no ‘Out of the woods.’"
I guess it depends what you mean by “doesn’t exist”
Is that like saying Acorn doesn’t exist since they changed names but kept the same staff?
I wouldn't expect her to rule any other way.
I have no idea what you think this has to do with his comment or my reply?
Things have been going well for 9 years straight, lol.
But that is what Ellis said would happen; that a US Attorney would pick up the charges anyway. The charges won't get dismissed.
Not sure what the relevance of other investigations have to do with Manafort anyway.
Again, you probably do know better, but playing the game seems more important to you. Again, it is a non responsive answer. Of course it doesn't matter, because you have an expectation of a set of circumstances. It still doesn't answer the actual question which is, as a point of law, having been thrown out, why that doesn't give you pause. And of course, your response, although unresponsive is, who cares, DC will pick up the indictment. I mean, we get the tactic already. Fail here, obfuscate elsewhere. It isn't an entirely opaque tactic that liberals use.
Let's be clear - you only asked how would I react if the Judge ruled against Mueller. I told you my reaction would be to think that Manafort is still screwed for the reason I cited. You claim that it is a non-response because your "actual" question (which was only just now enumerated) is whether the ruling, as a point of a law, gives me pause?
Setting aside that I am just assuming that phrase to mean something along the lines of, "wouldn't this judge's ruling give you reason to doubt or dismiss the rest of the Mueller investigation," no, I don't see why it would give me pause. It only means that this judge disagrees with Mueller's interpretation of the investigative authority granted to him by Rosenstein. It has no bearing on the ruling from Judge Jackson or on Manafort's criminal liability.
This is unfortunate. Mueller (aside from his proven track record of going after innocent people and lack of respect for the rules of justice) is going outside the scope of the investigation.
Given the incredible amount of power afforded a special prosecutor - nothing outside the scope of the investigation should be admissible in court for the conviction of others. Full Stop.
That this Judge die not step in and quash the idictment on this basis is an anathema to our justice system and an affirmation of how corrupt it is.
Based on research, your not going to like his decision.
That’s my theory, he may surprise me, but I do expect the Ellis lecture.
Separate names with a comma.