Previous posters said that he never went to trial in the old case....so was not exonerated.
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.
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
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?
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?
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
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.
Interesting. Thanks for posting.