I have not followed this as closely as some here, but I have a question. I heard yesterday (can’t recall where) on some news show that the DOJ has previously decided NOT to indict the Manafort case based on the investigation as it existed then. Is this true and does anyone have a link or source for that or did I not hear it correctly? I think the proper wording would be - was a case previously referred for action to the U.S. Attorney in that district. If it were and it was not acted on or presented to a grand jury this is highly irregular to throw all these charges at someone years after the fact. I would have liked the defense to have made further inquiry about this, but they may have in their written brief.
It is possible that I misunderstood what I heard or perhaps my supposition is what I heard. Seems like this would be very important if this evidence already existed pre-dating the campaign formation and Manafort’s involvement. The Judge appears correct in his assessment that the only reason Manafort is in his courtroom is that he became affiliated with the campaign. That does not appear to be very fair and the Judge seems to feel the same way. This is an even more persuasive argument if the case was dormant and not charged two years prior to Manafort accepting the role of campaign chairman.
Just from this transcript in the court, Manafort was under investigation by the DOJ as early as 2005. Obviously no indictments were made until the SC was named and wanted something on Trump.
Judge Ellis does not specifically say, but does seem to have the Statute of Limitations in mind. If Manafort’s actions were crimes, why wasn’t he prosecuted years ago?
The SC seems to be lying by claiming the SC investigation uncovered new facts about those long-past Manafort actions.