Posted on 08/03/2018 12:12:03 PM PDT by Signalman
Is This Why Trump Hasn't Fired Rosenstein?
In this short video of Judge Andrew Napolitano on "Fox And Friends", Napolitano speculates that Manafort's defense (in his tax evasion, money-laundering trial) is going to be, "I was investigated for all this by the government eight years ago, and I was exonerated. And I'm going to put on the witness stand, as my first witness, the young lawyer who exonerated me...Rod Rosenstein".
Note: Other than Napolitano's claim of exoneration of Manafort by Rosenstein, I haven't been able to verify this as being factual. with any other source of information. Does anyone know if this exoneration did, in fact occur?
The prosecution may very well be selective and may very well be political but that is not a legal reason for someone being "not guilty". The job of the jury and the judge is to apply the facts to the law. How the case got there is not relevant to them.
I can see it being relevant to a jury nullification and I can see it being considered as a factor in sentencing.
Never. Than can extend an investigation by years when new information is gathered, so theoretically they can extend for as long as they want.
IMO Trump is waiting til after the midterms to ditch Sessions and Rosenstein. If we pick up 3-5 Senate seats confirmation of a new AG will be easier.
I agree. Neither will be here in January if the repubs do well in the mid terms.
He wasnt exonerated unless he got a letter from DOJ saying that. What happened is he WASNT CHARGED. There is a big difference legally.
Really? The statute of limitations exists to require the government to bring a case within the time frame of the statute. There is no exception for “ continued investigation”.very few exceptions exist for not bringing within the statute. In state court leaving the state is an exception for example.
If you dont file within the time you are out of court. That is the whole purpose of the law.
A not guilty verdict in a trial doesn’t mean one is innocent either. Just sayin’.
If it were a perfect world then you would be correct. IRS rules are different that other legal worlds, however, as my tax people have told me. Even though they technically have a 7 year limit, then if they investigate things in each year, then they can extend the statute of Limitations another year. For instance, if the find something in year six, then they can extend the limit another year backwards. I know, it isn’t fair. But if you get tangled up with the IRS, then you should have a good lawyer. That is based on personal experience.
It still has to be proven one way or the other in court.
Interesting. Thanks for posting.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.