I think I hit a bulls-eye.
Posted on 10/29/2017 9:25:24 AM PDT by Kaslin
Special Counsel Robert Mueller plans to indict someone this week, we are told. Nobody knows whom or for what, but I know why. People suspect that a Trump ally will be indicted for something vaguely related to colluding with the Russian Government. We do not know any more details than that because we just cannot find any crime there. So why is there such a hurry to indict a Republican now?
The key is that the indictment comes in late October. Right before a November election. There is pattern of October indictments against Republicans.
A previous indictment that came at this time of year was against Sheriff Joe Arpaio. On October 25, 2016, Arpaio was indicted for contempt of court. On November 8, 2016, he lost his re-election bid. In 2017, he was denied the right to a jury trial, convicted, then pardoned by President Trump.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
That argument has been made many times by those that railroaded the Sheriff. It is common practice and codified in Federal cases and probably some states. However, I do not know where the Due Process and Jury of Peers exemption for 'petty' offenses appears in the U.S. Constitution.
When it comes to powers of the State versus an Individual it is the State that is limited by the Constitution regardless the 'inconvenience' of mounting a jury trial.
Something that is 'petty' is not pursued by the full force of the Federal Government UNLESS it is political -- Political witch hunts are something jury nullification would normally check.
In summary, IF the Feds were required to uphold Due Process and Trial by Peers when those charged demanded THEN maybe the Feds would not pursue as many 'petty' matters and many witch hunts would be prevented?
"Defendant Arpaio acknowledges that there is no constitutional right to a jury trial for defendants charged with "petty" offenses where the maximum sentence does not exceed six months imprisonment ...
Seems kind of odd that you're trying to make a legal argument on his behalf that he doesn't even agree with.
“He didn’t really have a right to a jury trial.”
Amendment Six to the US Constitution: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation;”
All means every.
One week before the election!
How long are we going to allow the left to keep this crap up?
The Sheriff was charged with 'illegal' racial profiling aka a violation of individual's civil rights. The judge ordered the Sheriff to stop this supposed illegal racial profiling (unproven by jury trial) THEN subsequently the judge declared the Sheriff in contempt for continuing to illegally racial profile. In essence the Sheriff was prevented from doing his job that he swore to do by a judge determined to stop him from enforcing the law... THAT is why President Trump pardoned the Sheriff...
The racial profiling charge was never proven by jury trial YET the judge held the Sheriff in contempt for doing so?
In summary the premise unproven and without due process and trial by jury was declared fact -that is called railroading in my book....
You can bet the Hillary cabal including Mueller,Rosenstein,and the rest need the person to be indicted to be Manafort,Why? How else can you defend the taping of his phones in Trump Tower to listen in on Trumps campaign?
Never mind Manaforts financial dealings being investigated are years before Trump was a candidate.
This really stinks,sessions refuses himself allowing the entire crime syndicate to be put in place WITH carte Blanche to look at whatever you want,PERFECT,forget the dossier,the FISA court,Crooked FBI,We had cause to listen to Manaforts conversations with Trump and to unmask all the other people.
You will never get these scumbags folks,the corruption runs deep
I think I hit a bulls-eye.
See 87. If they go hard after Manafort (like they did with the dark-of-night FBI SWAT raid on his condo) then this might explode in their faces.
One guess: Mueller & Co. wanted to flip Manafort, but he’s going G. Gordon Liddy on them, so now Mueller is going hard against him, as they did in the SWAT raid.
But this risks massive blowback against Meuller, Hillary, Obama, the DNC, the Podestas, etc., if on the witness stand he lays it all out about Uranium One.
“Retarded. More corruption...”
And that corruption has the threat of ANTIFA acting up days after the announcement of indictments, giving the black-masked scu*bags an excuse to create mayhem and confusion.
Question: Who the f&&k are these people?
Just asking.
IMHO
He also must know about John Podestas dealings with the Russians Joule co. Where he collected 35 million bucks
After action report: Right on 3 of 4. Great call.
No collusion. No problem. They are already trying to bury it.
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.