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?
Previous posters said that he never went to trial in the old case....so was not exonerated.
Instead of using the word, “exonerated”, maybe Napolitano should have said that Rosenstein “decided not to pursue charges against Manafort”.
But I’m still not convinced this occurred.
He wasn’t “exonerated” in a trial ... but if he was investigated by the U.S. Justice Department and they didn’t file any charges in the matter, then he sure as hell WAS exonerated by any objective measure.
Unless there was some serious paperwork involved “I was investigated and not charged before” is a crap defense.
There is a reason the federal government has something like a 97% conviction rate on criminal investigations of income tax fraud. They only begin investigations on cases they believe are winnable and then only about 80% of those go on for indictment. In other words they only take slam dunk cases.
If the Manafort case was previously rejected it may merely mean that the chance of winning was something less than 90%. It doesn’t mean he was innocent.
Judge Ellis already said that can’t be used by the defense. Can’t even be ementioned.
I had heard that early on. The whole thing had been shelved and I think Mueller remembered it and thought it would be an easy win. I think with the additional spy tech that Strok brought with him they were able to pursue something that was not worth the effort to DOJ.
The whole purpose of this was to dirty up Trump any way the could.
However, now that they have opened this up, we can use the same tools to go after a lot of liberals hiding money from the taxman.....including the Clinton Foundation, the Mc Cain Foundation, the Tides Foundation etc.
It’s not that he was exonerated. Rather, it was kinda like when Comey “exonerated” Hillary.
In an article from the Hill it was reported that prosecutors requested “Berman block Manafort from providing evidence that shows he was investigated, but not charged, prior to Mueller’s appointment last summer.”
It’s an article from 7/9/18 and I don’t know how the judge ruled. Don’t even know why it was judge Berman instead of Ellis. —Hard to keep everything straight.
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3669608/posts
Judge Ellis already said that can’t be used by the defense. Can’t even be ementioned.
-
Why? Isn’t that proof (more or less) that this is all political in nature rather than a sincere attempt to see justice done?
Have no fear Rosenstein will have a story in place to work with Mueller’s thugs to convict Manafort.
What’s the Statute of limitations on tax cases?
One can hope!
So if/when Trump’s AG (whoever that may be in any given moment based on recusals) goes after Hillary, she’ll trot out her ‘good friend’ James “Too Tall to Fail” Comey and say, “See this guy? He said I didn’t do anything wrong!” It’s the ‘Dindu Nuffin’ defense.
I wonder who was in his circle of friends 8 years ago when he was not prosecuted?
I guess we still don’t know why he won’t fire Rosenweasel
True. But it does mean that Manafort would not have been indicted if he hadn’t helped Donald J. Trump campaign for the presidency.And that means that the prosecution is selective on a political basis - and therefore should be thrown out of court.
The evidence the prosecution will present will be a pretext, not the reason, that the prosecution proceeds.
1) At the time he stopped pursuing the case against Manafort, Rod Rosenstein worked at the pleasure of the Obama administration.
2) Manafort’s associates at that time were John and Tony Podesta, Tad Devine, etc.—all Hillary cabal members.
3) If Manafort went to trial, things that the Hillary cabal were doing would likely have been exposed.
Rather than Rosenstein “exonerating” Manafort, perhaps pals of Hillary (and Manafort) educated Rosenstein about the career and health benefits of discontinuing the case.
As much as I would prefer a not guilty verdict, evidence of Manafort paying large bills from overseas companies, etc., sure implies that he was up to something. But I suspect that Rosenstein, believing Manafort is guilty, used the SC opportunity to take care of unfinished business. I’m eager to hear the defense, which might be able to explain it all.
Rosenstein should be interrogated about this under oath; perhaps his impeachment hearing would be a good venue. Why was the case dropped previously? Was there any pressure to drop it? By whom?
Manafort must have been know to the FBI/DOJ for decades.
Here’s a Leftist story from 2008 of Manafort partnering with McCain in behalf of Russia (Oleg Deripaska):
https://www.thenation.com/article/mccains-kremlin-ties/
Here’s an article from 1989 NYT on Manafort admitting influence peddling:
https://www.nytimes.com/1989/06/21/us/bush-consultant-peddled-influence-at-hud-he-says.html
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.