Posted on 08/29/2018 12:34:42 PM PDT by detective
Prosecutors from special counsel Robert Mueller’s team can use evidence from a 1980s Department of Justice review of Paul Manafort’s lobbying activities in the former Trump campaign chairman’s upcoming Washington, D.C., trial, a federal judge ruled Tuesday.
The same federal judge also pushed back Manafort’s trial date to Sept. 24.
U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson approved the use of the roughly 30-year-old report, which prosecutors argued is proof that Manafort was long aware of the disclosure requirements under the Foreign Agents Registration Act. He is charged with failing to register as a foreign agent under the FARA.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Would that be the same FARA that Sen. Javits’ wife, Marian Ann Borris Javits ran afoul of back in the late 70s while her husband was on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee? IIRC, she was working for a PR firm that did work for the Iranian national airline. After all that was revealed, I believe she was allowed to register as a foreign agent and all was good. /s
What version of SQL uses “ILIKE” and what does it do? Thanks.
According to me visa vi having the entirety of the database locally on this laptop (and other places), since 1999 nobody with the name manafort has ever filed with the LDA (lobbying disclosure act) senate database. Where as it looks like several folks share the last name podesta.
These hard facts are just data not necessarily the whole truth of what actually happened; However, it doesn't pass the smell test that Paul is on the up and up and yet he doesn't apper in the LDA or the FAFA when he has been a lobbyist for a long long time.
To the best of my knowledge nobody else in the world has a lobbyist database such as mine :) ssssh
“woman who served on the jury, who was/is a Trump supporter and who spoke with Fox News, reported that save for another woman’s reasonable doubt, Manafort would have been convicted on all 18 counts.”
Jury nullification is a concept that needs to be understood by anyone serving on a jury - the Trump supporter saw this was a political persecution - though Manifort was likely guilty of something it would have never been pursued but for Mueller using it to put the squeeze on Manifort. This kind of gross abuse of the criminal justice system should be answered by any jury that recognizes it. Honestly, with the main witness so conflicted to start with, I would have had reasonable doubt anyway.
McCain’s Kremlin Ties October 1, 2008
Thanks
“Jury nullification is a concept that needs to be understood by anyone serving on a jury”
Indeed. The only peaceful way to stop arbitrary and malicious prosecution would be jury nullification in every capricious federal case.
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.