Posted on 07/24/2018 6:36:08 AM PDT by Red Badger
Alexandria, Virginia (CNN)A federal judge in Alexandria, Virginia, granted the request Monday for five witnesses to testify with immunity in the criminal trial of former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, the first trial in the Russia investigation by special counsel Robert Mueller. US District Judge T.S. Ellis also delayed the start of the trial, originally scheduled for Wednesday, to July 31. Ellis will begin meeting jurors this week as scheduled. When jury selection begins, one question potential jurors will not be asked is how they voted in the 2016 presidential election. "Of course people can be fair and impartial no matter who they voted for," Ellis said.
The jury will consist of 16 people, including four alternates. The five witnesses granted immunity are: James Brennan, Donna Duggan, Conor O'Brien, Cindy Laporta and Dennis Raico. Court filings do not provide details as to what each will be testifying about.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
Manafort is charged with doing work for Ukrainians which he did not report in the US.
The Russians invaded Crimea and the Ukrainians are looking for help to combat the Russians.
Manafort was helping the Ukrainians resist Russia who got Trump elected? To me, that’s obvious collusion!
/s
>>When jury selection begins, one question potential jurors will not be asked is how they voted in the 2016 presidential election. “Of course people can be fair and impartial no matter who they voted for,” Ellis said.
so it’ll be like an Austin jury of 8 Democrat identifiable groups and 3 Communist/independents?
Unless Trump was somehow involved in those tax fraud property purchases, prior to Manafort joining the campaign, there is no there there regarding Trump in this prosecution actually for tax fraud, money laundering, and logan act matters.
Given the info in the indictment, it looks like a slam dunk so when he is convicted, I can see the headline: Former Campaign head for Trump convicted of fraud. No where in any of these headlines does it say when questioned, the Ruskie/Ukranian guy said there was no connection to the campaign in the Ukranian lobbying that took place long before Trump was a candidate.
Suggest you read up on the background. Hillary and company promoted “democracy”, i.e., overthrowing the elected but unpopular and hyper-corrupt Ukrainian government (but somehow that’s not colluding to interfere in another country elections...). Manafort was paid to advise and support the elected pro-Russian Ukrainian regime. IOW, Manafort sinned by working for the other side than Hillary, so he must be hounded and imprisoned.
Since Manafort at some periods worked with and for the Hillary’s pals, the Podesta brothers, you have to wonder which side they were on. I suspect some of the animus against Manafort is for defecting to the other team, soaking up cash they coveted, etc.
Devout chicken. Mueller wouldn’t dare prosecute without intimidated witnesses. TRUMP is innocent, too.
I admit having only a vague understanding of the dynamics at play but, I would imagine if this is true, Manafort would have more dirt on them than on Trump, for whom he worked for 5 months.
Giving immunity to five others suggests to me that they are complicit in the crime also.
Wake up an smell the covfefe, that isn't what happened.
Will the immunity cover everything and forever ? D’oh
You’re right. The Russians have been there a long time.
That part of the world has been corrupt and dangerous and probably involved in nuclear proliferation and all sorts of bad juju. Lot’s of money changing hands and I’m going to back away slowly making no sudden moves...
Quoting Emily Litella, “Never mind”
Will the immunity cover everything and forever ? D’oh
= = = = = = = = = =
If yes to that question, look for 1st couple of ‘witnesses’ to be HRC & BO and a few High Profile cronies.
Just hoping that the ruling is for THIS trial, pertaining to THIS defendant PERIOD.
Sort of a take on WJC & depends on what is is
The witnesses are bankers and financial guys. This is basically a tax evasion case without connection to the campaign or Trump.
Guess I better start putting /s on most everything.
Then again when one does that some are ‘insulted’ that I didn’t think they wouldn’t figure it out.
Guess we are getting to the rest of the worlds ‘standards’ where sarcasm or sardonicism is considered personal assaults IF one names a person.
Maybe generalization still legal.
Like ‘they’ used to say... IF one has to explain a joke maybe it wasn’t really a joke after all.
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.