SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  The Lounge    First charges filed in Mueller investigation// Manafort jury deliberating
Page 1 ... 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 

Moderators: Chris Orndorff, LDD
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
First charges filed in Mueller investigation// Manafort jury deliberating Login/Join 
Member
posted Hide Post
No wonder they were non-committal on putting him on the stand.

Oh, so Gates is "taking responsibility" for his actions...with a convenient plea deal, but Manafort is supposed to do the same taking the fall all by himself?

If Manafort didn't say to do illegal stuff in an email or to a different (and credible) witness, he should walk.

"WTF" is always an appropriate response to seeing ones tax liability IMHO. Wink




“People have to really suffer before they can risk doing what they love.” –Chuck Palahnuik

The world's a dangerous place, we can help! http://portlandfirearmtraining.com/
 
Posts: 3554 | Location: Oregon | Registered: October 02, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Gracie Allen is my
personal savior!
posted Hide Post
quote:
No wonder they were non-committal on putting him on the stand.

And then putting him on the stand (because the judge, ah, strongly hinted that Mueller couldn't prove his case otherwise, wound up leaving everyone wondering whether Manafort or Gates was the bad guy in the story.

Is it just me, or does anyone else thing the jury might get the impression that Mueller isn't terribly confident in his case against Manafort? More and more this sounds like the Fibbers tried to intimidate Manafort into giving them the testimony they wanted by threatening to take him to trial despite knowing that they didn't have anything like a solid case against him - and he called their bluff.
 
Posts: 21842 | Location: Deep in the heart of the brush country, and closing on that #&*%!?! roadrunner. Really. | Registered: February 05, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
I believe in the
principle of
Due Process
Picture of JALLEN
posted Hide Post
The jury hasn’t received its instructions yet, so they don’t know, officially, what must be proven.




Luckily, I have enough willpower to control the driving ambition that rages within me.

When you had the votes, we did things your way. Now, we have the votes and you will be doing things our way. This lesson in political reality from Lyndon B. Johnson

"Some things are apparent. Where government moves in, community retreats, civil society disintegrates and our ability to control our own destiny atrophies. The result is: families under siege; war in the streets; unapologetic expropriation of property; the precipitous decline of the rule of law; the rapid rise of corruption; the loss of civility and the triumph of deceit. The result is a debased, debauched culture which finds moral depravity entertaining and virtue contemptible." - Justice Janice Rogers Brown
 
Posts: 47385 | Location: Texas hill country | Registered: July 04, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
safe & sound
Picture of a1abdj
posted Hide Post
quote:
"WTF" is always an appropriate response to seeing ones tax liability IMHO.



I may not e-mail that to my accountant, but it's certainly the first thought that comes to mind when I see mine.


________________________



www.zykansafe.com
 
Posts: 12996 | Location: St. Charles, MO, USA | Registered: September 22, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Needs a check up
from the neck up
Picture of Timdogg6
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by a1abdj:
quote:
"WTF" is always an appropriate response to seeing ones tax liability IMHO.



I may not e-mail that to my accountant, but it's certainly the first thought that comes to mind when I see mine.


I most certainly sent an almost identical email to my accountant. Turns out my payroll company hadn't withheld on my check for 12 months and I paid it, but hell yes I have sent that email.


__________________________
The entire reason for the Second Amendment is not for hunting, it’s not for target shooting … it’s there so that you and I can protect our homes and our children and and our families and our lives. And it’s also there as fundamental check on government tyranny. Sen Ted Cruz
 
Posts: 4459 | Location: Boca Raton, FL The Gunshine State | Registered: July 30, 2002Reply With QuoteReport This Post
wishing we
were congress
posted Hide Post
https://www.politico.com/story...8-judge-ellis-769889

The federal judge overseeing the Paul Manafort trial conceded Thursday morning that he made a mistake in chastising special counsel Robert Mueller’s prosecutors a day earlier in front of the jury.

Addressing the jurors before prosecutors called their first witness of the day, U.S. District Court Judge T.S. Ellis said he “may well have been wrong” on Wednesday when he slammed the Mueller team for allowing an expert witness from the IRS to remain in the courtroom while other witnesses were testifying.

Typically, witnesses aren't supposed to hear anyone else's testimony in a trial so they don't influence each other, but Mueller’s team got Ellis’ permission during the trial’s opening arguments last week to have the IRS agent in the court on a regular basis.

“This robe doesn’t make me anything other than human,” Ellis told the court on Thursday morning after instructing the jury to forget what he had said to the Mueller team about the IRS witness. “You’ve got to put that aside.”

Mueller’s team has been frustrated by repeated slapdowns from Ellis during the Manafort trial — now in its eighth day. Before court started on Thursday morning, they filed a written motion to formally protest how they had been called out over the IRS witness.

The Mueller team asked Ellis to explain to the jury that the prosecution had done nothing wrong and cited a transcript of the first day of the trial last week showing that prosecutor Uzo Asonye specifically asked that witnesses be excluded "with the exception of our expert and our [FBI] case agent." The judge and the prosecutor went on to discuss Michael Welch by name and his expertise. And the judge unmistakably approved the exception.

"The Court mistakenly faulted the government for permitting IRS revenue agent Michael Welch, the government’s expert witness, to remain in the courtroom during the proceedings, when in fact on the first day of trial the Court had expressly granted the government’s motion to do so," prosecutors complained in their motion. "The Court’s reprimand of government counsel suggested to the jury—incorrectly—that the government had acted improperly and in contravention of Court rules. This prejudice should be cured."

Ellis chastised Asonye in court on Wednesday moments after he called Welch to the stand. "It's my clear recollection....that I wasn't admitting experts," Ellis said. "You need to ask specifically. You're going to go ahead now, I'm going to permit that, but I want you to remember that."

Asonye responded that prosecutors would "check the transcript," but it was their belief that they specifically asked for permission to allow expert witnesses like Welch to remain in the courtroom despite the usual prohibition.

"Well, let me be clear: I don't care what the transcript says," Ellis snapped, before backing down a little. "Maybe I made a mistake. But I want you to remember don't do that again. When I exclude witnesses, I mean everybody. Now, it may be that I didn't make that clear."

The judge's tone suggested he was disturbed by the prosecutors' actions, although he eventually declared, "It's not a big deal."

In their letter, Mueller's team said that the judge's action left a "negative impression" of them. "The Court’s sharp reprimand of government counsel in front of the jury on August 8 was...erroneous. And, while mistakes are a natural part of the trial process, the mistake here prejudiced the government," Mueller's team wrote, asking Ellis to tell jurors he was mistaken and the prosecution did nothing wrong.

Before the jury came in Thursday but after the session began, Asonye asked Ellis to address the issue. The judge snapped, “Alright, I’m going to take care of that.”

The judge's slap at the prosecution on Wednesday over the expert witness issue was just the latest in a series of rebukes he's delivered to Mueller's squad in recent days over topics ranging from body language to excessive informality to efforts to introduce visual imagery of Manafort's lavish lifestyle. The prickly exchanges have clearly begun to grate on the prosecution team, which has sometimes protested verbally in court, but did not formally lodge a written objection before Thursday.

On Wednesday, Ellis scolded prosecutor Greg Andres for responding to the court's questions with terms the judge considered too casual, like "yeah" or "yup."

“Be careful about that,” he told Andres. “This is not an informal proceeding.”

Andres slipped up again moments later, offering a “yup” in response to another question from the judge.

“I beg your pardon?” Ellis intoned, his irritation evident.

“Yes, Judge,” Andres answered.

Ellis has sometimes faulted defense attorneys, but that has been more rare. On the other hand, the prosecution has been doing most of the heavy lifting thus far as the government presents its case, with the defense's opportunity to call witnesses expected next week.

Prosecutors turned Thursday morning back to the bank fraud charges against Manafort, calling a mortgage assistant who handled his 2015-16 application for a loan on a Manhattan condominium he owned with his wife and one of his daughters.

Melinda James, an assistant at Citizens Bank, testified that Manafort signed documents declaring the Howard Street condo as a second home used as a residence for their daughter Jessica and then-husband Jeffrey Yohai. Manafort also stated that he didn’t have any other mortgages on a wide swath of real estate he owned.

But Mueller’s team noted documents showing Manafort had also filed tax returns declaring the property, located in New York’s SoHo neighborhood, as a rental for 365 days a year that had been listed on Airbnb. Prosecutors also presented insurance and financial documents detailing debts Manafort had on his other properties.

In her testimony, James said that while considering the loan she discovered on the website Streeteasy that the property was available for rent, even though Manafort billed it as a home for his family. She explained that the bank and the loan underwriters would have made different calculations if they believed Manafort was renting out the condo or that he had other mortgages on his properties.

During cross-examination, the defense again pointed the finger at its No. 1 bogeyman, star prosecution witness and former Manafort aide Rick Gates. Defense attorney Jay Nanavati noted that the Citizens Bank loan went through a "months-long application process" and that the individual who sent the bank insurance documents suggesting there were no other outstanding loans was Gates.

Gates also called the bank to assuage doubts about a loan that the bank had flagged as a potential obstacle to mortgaging the Howard Street property, James testified. He told the bank that they were not moving forward with that loan.

"It was not until you got a telephone call from Mr. Gates later that day that things went off the rails, correct?" Nanavati asked.

"I guess — if you call it off the rails," James said.

Nanavati also noted that even if Manafort's 2015 and 2016 tax returns displayed the Howard Street property as a rental property for the entirety of those two years, those returns wouldn't have been filed until after the Howard Street mortgage application Manafort was filed and approved.

However, Asonye pointed out that Manafort was copied on an email where Gates provided the allegedly misleading information saying there was "no mortgagee" on Manafort's other properties. The prosecutor also suggested it was bizarre to think Gates was unilaterally trying to trick the bank.

"As far as you know, did Mr. Gates received one penny from this cash-out refinancing?" Asonye asked.

"No," James replied.

"Who got the money?" Asonye asked.

"Mr. Manafort," James said.

There were a couple of breaks in its availability, though, Evenson said. One involved the apartment coming off the rental site on Feb. 26, 2016, just days before the mortgage went through. The apartment popped back onto the site one month later, the Airbnb official said.

Evenson, a retired Navy Seal, did acknowledge that the company had no indication Manafort himself was ever considered a "host" on the platform. Instead, Manafort's then-son-in-law, Yohai, was listed as the contact.

Manafort and his wife Kathleen ultimately closed on the $3.4 million loan on March 4, 2016 — less than four weeks before he was named the Trump campaign’s convention manager for the Republican National Convention.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

I hope there is at least one juror who is tired of Mueller's crap.
 
Posts: 11661 | Registered: July 21, 2002Reply With QuoteReport This Post
I believe in the
principle of
Due Process
Picture of JALLEN
posted Hide Post
Why are we rooting for Manafort?




Luckily, I have enough willpower to control the driving ambition that rages within me.

When you had the votes, we did things your way. Now, we have the votes and you will be doing things our way. This lesson in political reality from Lyndon B. Johnson

"Some things are apparent. Where government moves in, community retreats, civil society disintegrates and our ability to control our own destiny atrophies. The result is: families under siege; war in the streets; unapologetic expropriation of property; the precipitous decline of the rule of law; the rapid rise of corruption; the loss of civility and the triumph of deceit. The result is a debased, debauched culture which finds moral depravity entertaining and virtue contemptible." - Justice Janice Rogers Brown
 
Posts: 47385 | Location: Texas hill country | Registered: July 04, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
wishing we
were congress
posted Hide Post
quote:
Why are we rooting for Manafort?


Because I despise Mueller and his team. They are part of the overall conspiracy to frame Donald Trump.

I want Mueller humiliated and exposed as a biased zealous prosecutor on steroids. One who has caused massive disruption and obstruction to the Trump administration agenda.

Two years into this farce of an investigation and all the FBI initially, and then Mueller, have accomplished is to lie, hide the truth from the American people, and destroy people to get them to testify against Trump. I don't think the Mueller team has the slightest interest in the truth or justice. They want to impeach Donald Trump.

YMMV
 
Posts: 11661 | Registered: July 21, 2002Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Peace through
superior firepower
Picture of parabellum
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by JALLEN:
Why are we rooting for Manafort?
Because the enemy of my enemy is a ham sandwich.
 
Posts: 83845 | Registered: January 20, 2000Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Glorious SPAM!
Picture of mbinky
posted Hide Post
Why is Mueller prosecuting something that had nothing to do with the 2016 election? Why didn't he indict Tony Podesta?

I hope Manafort walks. Political persecution under the guise of "the law" is still political persecution.

Why are you being deliberately obtuse?
 
Posts: 8232 | Registered: June 13, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
I believe in the
principle of
Due Process
Picture of JALLEN
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by mbinky:
Why is Mueller prosecuting something that had nothing to do with the 2016 election? Why didn't he indict Tony Podesta?

I hope Manafort walks. Political persecution under the guise of "the law" is still political persecution.

Why are you being deliberately obtuse?


“Deliberately obtuse” in this case means you can’t understand what I am driving at.

It is not necessary to free Manafort from an otherwise justified conviction if he failed to file proper tax returns, laundered money, etc. It appears that Manafort was chargeable with these crimes in 2014, but was not because it hit too close to home on one of Obamas WH lawyers. Now, Manafort put himself in the crosshairs so that reticence to charge evaporated. Standard prosecution strategy.

I favor folks being charged, tried and convicted on proper evidence. I avoid drawing conclusions about evidence I’ve not seen and heard. Maybe they have the proof, maybe not. If Manafort was being prosecuted by the US Attorney, I suspect few of us would be bothered, or rooting for Manafort. These aren’t so-called process crimes, like with Scooter Libby, Michael Flinn and similar.

Being unhappy with Mueller need not require letting Manafort off the hook, if there is one.




Luckily, I have enough willpower to control the driving ambition that rages within me.

When you had the votes, we did things your way. Now, we have the votes and you will be doing things our way. This lesson in political reality from Lyndon B. Johnson

"Some things are apparent. Where government moves in, community retreats, civil society disintegrates and our ability to control our own destiny atrophies. The result is: families under siege; war in the streets; unapologetic expropriation of property; the precipitous decline of the rule of law; the rapid rise of corruption; the loss of civility and the triumph of deceit. The result is a debased, debauched culture which finds moral depravity entertaining and virtue contemptible." - Justice Janice Rogers Brown
 
Posts: 47385 | Location: Texas hill country | Registered: July 04, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of Tubetone
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by JALLEN:
Why are we rooting for Manafort?


It seemed to me with Judge Ellis repeatedly peening the prosecution about how they were not interested in justice but in getting Manafort to "sing or compose" against Trump, that some notion of "selective prosecution" could be involved.

"The ‘equal protection’ clause of the Fourteenth Amendment forms the basis for the prohibition of selective prosecution whereas it reads:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.
No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

As the Fourteenth Amendment provides the basis, the United States Supreme Court in United States v. Armstrong has defined the term ‘selective prosecution’ as follows:

“A selective prosecution claim is not a defense on the merits to the criminal charge itself, but an independent assertion that the prosecutor has brought the charge for reasons forbidden by the Constitution.

Proving selective prosecution is quite difficult and it is incumbent on the defendant [to] meet the burden of proof. According to United States v. Gutierrez, 990 F.2d 472, 476 (9th Cir. 1993) in order to establish a prima facie case of selective prosecution a defendant must show both “(1) that others similarly situated have not been prosecuted, and (2) that the prosecution is based on an impermissible motive, i.e. discriminatory purpose or intent.”
Link

If a prosecutor dug up an old charge already reviewed and passed upon for prosecution as with Manafort because the new prosecutor wanted to wring some song or composition out of a defendant, when might that be selective prosecution?

It seems that people don't necessarily have a great love for Manaford but for the process, as even recognized by the judge, to target a citizen to achieve a political objective against the president does not seem fair - seemingly a gross misuse of raw federal power to crush someone for a partisan objective against the prosecutors' political opponent (Trump) and by someone (Mueller) who Trump wouldn't hire for FBI Director.

I think it comes more from that sort of idea. Even if Manafort is guilty of some tax issue, isn't that something that can be handled with penalties and repayment?

It smells.

Why jail and why get a questionable singer or composer to roll over on Manafort to dodge two hundred years in prison? It just all feels so slimey in this circumstance.


_______________________________
NRA Life Member
NRA Certified Range Safety Officer
 
Posts: 2581 | Registered: January 06, 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post
wishing we
were congress
posted Hide Post
http://www.foxnews.com/politic...-team-complaint.html

Judge T.S. Ellis III mysteriously delayed testimony Friday in the case of ex-Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, pushing off the day's proceedings for hours after prosecutors once again complained about his criticism of them.

It’s not clear if the delay is connected to the complaint filed by Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team. Ellis on Friday also empathically reminded the jury that they must refrain from talking about the case with others – stoking speculation the delay could be related to juror issues.

But the postponement is significant, as prosecutors had been hoping to finish calling witnesses Friday -- and Ellis has a reputation as a strickler for keeping trials moving.

In the Mueller team motion filed Friday morning, they accused the judge of unfairly criticizing them in court, saying it’s possible his recent comments could “confuse and mislead the jury.”

Mueller deputy Andrew Weissmann and other attorneys on the team specifically noted how Ellis made negative comments this week about their focus on a bank loan Manafort applied for but did not receive.

“You might want to spend time on a loan that was granted,” Ellis said in court Thursday.

The prosecutors, in Friday's motion, asked Ellis to retract his comment, saying it “misrepresents the law regarding bank fraud conspiracy” and “improperly conveys the Court’s opinion of the facts, and is likely to confuse and mislead the jury.”

Ellis has not yet addressed motion in court.

Manafort is accused of committing tax and bank fraud with millions made through political work in Ukraine. He has pleaded not guilty to the charges.

On Thursday, Ellis expressed regret after prosecutors filed a similar motion complaining Ellis unfairly reprimanded them in front of the jury over allowing a witness sit in the courtroom before his testimony.

That truce between the judge and prosecutors, though, did not last long.

Hours later, when prosecutors tried to introduce an exhibit that was dozens of pages long, Ellis interjected: "There might be some kind soul on the jury who thinks they need to leaf through all this stuff -- and it isn't true."

And then, Ellis instructed Mueller team to try and focus their questions, before joking prosecutors aren’t familiar with their own exhibits after they asked for a minute to pull out a piece of paper.

On Wednesday, Ellis explained that he would not ask the defense to reveal as much information as he has demanded from the prosecution because “it’s sort of like poker -- you don’t have to show your hand until you’re called.”

Earlier this week, Ellis seemed to accuse Greg Andres, the prosecutor, of crying in his courtroom.

“I understand how frustrated you are. In fact, there’s tears in your eyes right now,” Ellis said Monday, according to a Bloomberg-obtained transcript.

When Andres denied Ellis’ claim, the judge said, “Well, they’re watery.”

Earlier this week, the prosecution’s star witness, Rick Gates – who struck a plea deal to cooperate with the government -- testified that he and Manafort committed bank and tax fraud together.

The prosecution had been expected to wrap up its case by Friday afternoon. It’s unclear how Friday’s delay will affect that.
 
Posts: 11661 | Registered: July 21, 2002Reply With QuoteReport This Post
wishing we
were congress
posted Hide Post
After a nearly five-hour delay, the prosecution in Paul Manafort's trial called its first witness of the day on Friday afternoon, with the lengthy delay still unexplained in the courtroom.

Judge T.S. Ellis returned to the courtroom at 2:22 p.m. ET, more than a half hour after they were scheduled to reconvene. After conferring with attorneys for the prosecution and defense briefly, Ellis said: "Mr. Andres, you may call your next witness."

Prosecutor Greg Andres reminded him the jury still needed to be brought in.

The courtroom erupted in laughter.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/10...-day-nine/index.html
 
Posts: 11661 | Registered: July 21, 2002Reply With QuoteReport This Post
wishing we
were congress
posted Hide Post
Prosecution rested in the Manafort trial.

Waiting today to see if the defense presents any evidence.

Jury expected to get the case very soon.
 
Posts: 11661 | Registered: July 21, 2002Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Get my pies
outta the oven!

Picture of PASig
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by JALLEN:
Why are we rooting for Manafort?


I don't know, why do you root for Sessions so much when he's proven again and again he's a worthless bum?

This thing would be over had it not been for this loser.


 
Posts: 23427 | Location: Pennsylvania | Registered: November 12, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
wishing we
were congress
posted Hide Post
https://www.independent.co.uk/...ueller-a8490851.html

Judge TS Ellis III must decide on something called a Rule 29 motion or a “motion for a judgment of acquittal.” And in a filing late Monday, the defense argued that at least one bank would have approved Manafort for loans no matter what information he entered in his loan applications.

The motion filed by defense lawyers usually comes after prosecutors rest and is mostly a procedural matter. It asks the judge to find there is not enough evidence to warrant a conviction and to acquit the defendant without sending the case to the jury.

Judges rarely grant such motions but defense attorneys almost always make the request as a way to preserve the matter for appeal in the future if their clients are convicted. In instances in which such motions are granted, the defendant goes free and cannot be prosecuted again.

Mr Manafort's defense team thinks there is potential for the four Federal Savings Bank fraud charges - Mr Calk's bank - to be dismissed because of previous comments made by Judge Ellis in court, who suggested the bank couldn't be defrauded if its founder wanted Manafort to have the loans.

"We believe there's not been a showing of materiality as to those counts, that the bank -- the evidence suggests that the bank did not rely on any representations made by Mr. Manafort in granting those loans, and at this time, it would be appropriate to dismiss those counts," defense attorney Richard Westling said in court Monday evening

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

some court observers were surprised that the Mueller team did not have Calk testify
 
Posts: 11661 | Registered: July 21, 2002Reply With QuoteReport This Post
I believe in the
principle of
Due Process
Picture of JALLEN
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by PASig:
quote:
Originally posted by JALLEN:
Why are we rooting for Manafort?


I don't know, why do you root for Sessions so much when he's proven again and again he's a worthless bum?

This thing would be over had it not been for this loser.


I don’t think it is useful to characterize my comments about Sessions as “rooting” for him as much as trying to point out the unjustified excessive criticism of Sessions by many on this Forum, driven mostly by emotion and abetted by ignorance. Far from defending Sessions, I merely point out that many of the criticisms are excessive and unjustified expressions of frustration.

Some of the comments about Sessions have been hopelessly excessive and wrong. These critics ignore everything but this Russian business, and display an abject ignorance of recusal, how it works, what is means. They don’t know and don’t care. All they seem to know or care about is that someone is threatening Trump and Sessions isn’t helping to stop it.

Far from being able to stop it, if Sessions had not recused himself, we would be going round and round about the egregious conflict of interest and taint infecting the Russian interference investigations. Rosenstein is exercising exactly the same authority over the proceedings that Sessions might have.

Case in point “this worthless bum.” It is hardly proven. Sessions has gone about the other issues adequately, running a huge operation 93 US Attorneys, fighting gangs, drugs, this immigration fiasco, trying to fashion some sensible policy out of the looney tunes mishmash of statutes, executive orders, and court made law and rulings.

Trump has expressed frustration with Sessions. Fine... fire him. Maybe jump from the frying pan into the fire.




Luckily, I have enough willpower to control the driving ambition that rages within me.

When you had the votes, we did things your way. Now, we have the votes and you will be doing things our way. This lesson in political reality from Lyndon B. Johnson

"Some things are apparent. Where government moves in, community retreats, civil society disintegrates and our ability to control our own destiny atrophies. The result is: families under siege; war in the streets; unapologetic expropriation of property; the precipitous decline of the rule of law; the rapid rise of corruption; the loss of civility and the triumph of deceit. The result is a debased, debauched culture which finds moral depravity entertaining and virtue contemptible." - Justice Janice Rogers Brown
 
Posts: 47385 | Location: Texas hill country | Registered: July 04, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of Pipe Smoker
posted Hide Post
My major complaint with the DOJ is Rosenstein, rather than Sessions. Why did he choose Mueller, who is hell-bent on convictions rather than truth and justice?




Cognition?
On.
 
Posts: 3377 | Location: San Diego | Registered: July 26, 2014Reply With QuoteReport This Post
The Whack-Job
Whisperer
Picture of 18DAI
posted Hide Post
So, conflict of interest is a good reason for Sessions to sit out but not a good reason for Rosenstein and Mueller to recuse themselves?

Because those two are way more conflicted than Mr Magoo is. Yet, they soldier on. Regards 18DAI




Blue lives matter.
 
Posts: 3356 | Registered: August 13, 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post
  Powered by Social Strata Page 1 ... 8 9 10 11 12 13 14  
 

SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  The Lounge    First charges filed in Mueller investigation// Manafort jury deliberating

© SIGforum 2018