Posted on 08/02/2018 7:14:58 AM PDT by Federalist Patriot
Wow! Interesting information from Judge Andrew Napolitano. He pointed out on Fox News yesterday that Rod Rosenstein led a team of Prosecutors investigating Paul Manafort 8 YEARS AGO for the same things he’s being prosecuted for now by Special Counsel Robert Mueller – and Rosenstein exonerated Manafort, deciding NOT to charge him.
Mueller is trying to squeeze Manafort into turning on Donald Trump. The Money-Laundering charges against Manafort are a vehicle to try and destroy Trump by putting so much pressure on Manafort he will make something up against Trump to save himself. Napolitano said Manafort’s lawyers may call Rosenstein as a witness and ask him to explain to the jury why he decided not to prosecute Manafort 8 years ago! . . .
(Excerpt) Read more at freedomslighthouse.net ...
Manafort literally pulled this case out of the basement of the Treasury Department. It has absolutely nothing to do with Russians, collusion, etc. The judge even warned Mueller about this, but let the case go forward. You can see the judge is already limiting Mueller on a lot of things.
Napolitano hasn’t been the sharpest in his commentary lately - I’d like to see some evidence of the exoneration, as opposed to a decision not to charge.
Mueller likely told RR that he was drilling a dry hole with the Russian collusion baloney and RR passed his old Manafort file to Mueller: “Here, Bob. See if you can make this stick. We can’t just let him go.”
Lordy I hope so. It would put this circus on full display
Weren’t Mueller and Weissman FBI at that time? Call them too
I think you mean Mueller
Mueller was head of FBI at that time wasn’t he?
Interesting. Yeah, I see your point. The Judge used the word "exonerated" but it was not by a jury. Never went to trial it would appear. But the case was weak enough he decided not to prosecute, I guess.
Napolitano hasn’t been right much, he just says what the far-right want to hear.
Double jeopardy?
Rosenstein tabling his old investigation of Manafort is a far cry from “exoneration”. I’d speculate it was more a matter of politics and corruption.
At the time, Rosenstein worked at the pleasure of the Obama administration, and Manafort was an associate of Democrat insiders including the Podesta Brothers and Tad Devine.
Was Rosenstein ordered to shut it down, as a matter of Democrat/Hillary privilege and to protect cabal members that Manafort might expose in court? I’d like to see Rosenstein questioned about that under oath. It’s obvious that now, Manafort is being prosecuted for political purposes of the Dems. Is it any less probable that he was protected for the political purposes of the same faction before? I am biased towards Manafort not being convicted, because I want to thwart the current anti-Trumper media, IC, politicians, etc. But is Manafort actually guilty? I bet that Rosenstein thinks so.
Rosenstein knew that the old Manafort case had nothing to do with the 2016 election. Was he frustrated before, and used the Russian Collusion narrative as a way to have another go? There are a great many possibilities regarding motives.
VWRY, VERY INTERESTING!!
If Nappy’s info is TRUE, then this entire case should BLOW UP!
THAT makes TOTAL sense!
Yes, I did. I wish I could go back and edit that.
thx.
I have not seen ANY pro-Trump comments from Napolitano for at least 1 year.
Interesting. Yeah, I see your point. The Judge used the word "exonerated" but it was not by a jury. Never went to trial it would appear. But the case was weak enough he decided not to prosecute, I guess.Napolitano hasn’t been the sharpest in his commentary lately - I’d like to see some evidence of the exoneration, as opposed to a decision not to charge.
. . . but if the case is no stronger now than it was then - and why should it be, exactly? - then the decision to prosecute now is political. It is for the purpose of weakening the POTUS.It does not further the interests of justice, unless there was corruption in the initial decision not to prosecute. Which is probably not a case that Rosenstein would be eager to make.
It might not literally be “double jeopardy,” in a technical sense, but it sure is a kissing cousin to it.
. . . which makes it a candidate for consideration underPeople have a right to legally serve a presidential candidate without fear of legal consequences.
- Amendment 9
- The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
And we-the-people have the right to hear out, and accept or reject, a candidate without reference to a second guess prosecution. To hold otherwise is to allow the government to control who is able to participate in the election process without due process of law. In that sense, the First Amendment is implicated.
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.