Posted on 06/28/2018 11:10:48 AM PDT by Jim Robinson
A federal judge says “even a blind person” can see that Special Counsel Robert Mueller is prosecuting Paul Manafort as a way to acquire evidence against his “true target,” President Trump.
U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis III made the comment in an opinion released this week that nonetheless sided with Mr. Mueller and against Mr. Trump’s former campaign manager. He rejected Mr. Manafort’s argument that the Mueller-brought tax-evasion indictment exceeded the special counsel’s authority and should be dismissed.
Judge Ellis, sitting in the Eastern District of Virginia, expressed dismay at the special counsel system and at Mr. Mueller in particular.
“Given the investigation’s focus on President Trump’s campaign, even a blind person can see that the true target of the Special Counsel’s investigation is President Trump, not defendant, and that defendant’s prosecution is part of that larger plan,” he wrote. “Specifically, the charges against defendant are intended to induce defendant to cooperate with the Special Counsel by providing evidence against the President or other members of the campaign. Although these kinds of high-pressure prosecutorial tactics are neither uncommon nor illegal, they are distasteful.”
In negotiations between Mr. Mueller and Trump attorneys over a possible interview, the prosecutor has said Mr. Trump isn’t a target––a specific Justice Department term that means the government has evidence the person committed a crime...
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
I’ve really had enough seeing these scumbags in our Government get away with this crap.
Go watch any random five minutes of Congress grilling Wray and Rosenstein today. It’s utterly disgusting that weasels like this actually wield power in our government. Louis Gohmert was asking Rosenstein questions, and he just sat there smirking before offering his usual non-answer.
The Congress-creatures all pretend to be offended and angry - and then do absolutely nothing.
Judicial Cognitive Dissonance.
Judge Ellis turns into Lucy and the football.
In accordance with my understanding, this is factually incorrect.
The true meaning of this is that the person who is not targeted, is at the point in time the statement was made, not known to have committed a crime, and is not the focus of the investigation. Now in the overall comprehensive investigation, they may later be found to have done something wrong, but it has not become evident yet. Trump is still not a target. They don't even know if anything wrong did occur, and singling Trump out at this point would be overreach.
This above statement I highlighted is intended to convince weak minds that they have "some" goods on Trump now.
While that may be true, the public and this writer certainly DO NOT know that.
I highly doubt it also. Mueller will keep delaying this until the November elections, and make some big nothing-burger statement in late October that the media can blow out into a major made up scandal.
That was the whole intent of his investigation. Job done.
So this judge sees and enumerates all the things wrong and then goes along with it. Like Comey.
And the IG report
Mueller’s retaliatory investigation of Judge Ellis will commence tomorrow.
I definitely think part of this is to ensure that NO ONE will ever want to work to elect any Republican.......just in case the ‘Powers that be’ decide to gin up a case and destroy everybody in the candidate’s realm.
Yeah. Too bad Ellis didn’t take it a step further. He didn’t throw the whole thing out
Telling Trump he is not a "target" is, under these circumstances, highly misleading, so much so as to be an outright lie.
What Trump is, is a "subject" of a Grand Jury investigation (or more than one). I have BEEN a "subject" of a federal Grand Jury investigation, after very unwisely speaking to two FBI agents who showed up in my office one day without having a lawyer present.
A "subject" is one hair's breadth away from being a "target". The difference is, when you become a "target", the government has to notify you by sending you a "target letter" telling you that the prosecutor has probable cause to accuse you of a crime or crimes and that he will be presenting his evidence to a Grand Jury.
The easiest way to graduate from being a "subject" to being a "target" is to provide evidence to the prosecutor without first being given immunity. All the prosecutor has to do is to get you to make a statement under oath which conflicts with evidence he has (or has made up), and, bingo! You are now a "target".
In my case, I was collateral damage as part of a larger issue the government was pursuing, BUT, by giving evidence that the government needed without immunity, it would have been easy for the government to indict me to squeeze the people I worked for at the time.
As it turned out, I was granted "use immunity", testified, and the big fish threw a fundraiser for the Clinton campaign (Bill), and the whole thing went away.
President Trump is the subject, the only subject, of the Mueller investigation. As such, he can't get immunity (what would be the point - it's him they want) - and he's inches away from target status.
For a smart guy, he doesn't have a very good legal team. Pray for him, but keep your powder dry.
I watched Rosenstein for 5 minutes and had to turn away.
Bingo. There apparently is a “Good Ol’ Boys Club” in the judiciary, too. And why would that surprise me, knowing a lot of what’s been going on for half a century? Mueller is GUILTY of hand-delivering a sample of yellow cake to Moscow in the U1 calumny; but is still at large, prosecuting OTHERS!
Sitting “on a fence” in the Eastern District if Virginia.
Then why isn’t this judge using the powers he has and dismissing the charges...with prejudice?
I think they were trying today to get Rosenstein to lose his temper, to illustrate his true self.
According to Hannity, Rosenstein was asked today in the hearing about his threat earlier this year to committee staffers to surveil them, and Rosenstein responded by trying to laugh it off and dismiss it as not being seriously made.
Enough talk. Impeach Rosenstein so Trump has cover to fire him.
Does anyone remember that Manafort worked for the Podesta Group?
Are there any lawyers here that can explain how a prosecutor can use a witness that has been compromised so?
Can the duress the witness is under be used at trial?
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.