Judge delays start of trial of ex-Trump campaign chief Paul Manafort until July 31 [trunc]

CNBC ^ | 23 JUL 18 | Dan Mangan

[DCBryan1]

•A federal judge has postponed until July 31 the start of the upcoming trial of President Donald Trump's former campaign chief Paul Manafort. •The judge also has granted immunity to five potential witnesses for their testimony against Manafort, who is charged with crimes related to his consulting and lobbying work for a pro-Russia political party in Ukraine. •Prosecutors in the office of special counsel Robert Mueller had asked for so-called use immunity for the five witnesses, which would bar their testimony at Manafort's trial from being used against them in a criminal prosecution. A federal judge has postponed from Wednesday until July 31 the start of the upcoming trial of President Donald Trump's former campaign chief Paul Manafort after Manafort's lawyers complained of having a vast amount of newly disclosed documents to sift through.

Judge T.S. Ellis III also granted immunity to five potential witnesses for their testimony at that trial in U.S. District Court in Alexandria, Va.

The potential witnesses were identified as Dannis Raico, Cindy Laporta, Conor O'Brien, Donna Duggan and James Brennan. The determination of whether to call the witnesses to testify will be made by prosecutors during the trial.

Prosecutors in the office of special counsel Robert Mueller had asked for so-called use immunity for the five witnesses, which would bar their testimony at Manafort's trial from being used against them in a criminal prosecution. Ellis' decision to grant them use immunity does not preclude the quintet from being charged on the basis of other evidence.

[Lurking Libertarian]

Sometimes a little time for contempt beats a long stretch of hard time.

The way courts interpret "use immunity," it is virtually indistinguishable from transactional immunity. The leading case is Oliver North's. The Iran-Contra Special Prosecutor, hearing that North was going to be given use immunity to testify before Conress, took all of the evidence he had already accumulated against North and sealed it in a locked safe. When North went to trial, the prosecutor used only evidence that had been in that safe. The Court of Appeals nonetheless reversed North's conviction, because the prosecution couldn't prove that none of its witnesses had heard (first or second-hand) North's immunized testimony, which might have affected their "demeanor" when testifying.

[PAR35]

Yes, but that was before Bush set up his secret courts to hear secret evidence.

I’m old enough to remember back in the last century where they had now outmoded ideas like “confronting your accuser” and “public trials”.

[Karliner]

This is a terrible travesty of a banana court. Whatever Manafort may have done PRIOR to this it's over. This is disturbing and Mueller( cap'n Obvious here) deserves to get his ass sued right back to the dark ages if Paul Manafort lives because there will be bitterness, depression and possibly he might even die of the solitary and whatever stress it's putting on him

And while I'm on a rant, TOMMY TOMMY TOMMY, TOMMY ROBINSON!!

[SkyPilot]

So, it appears at this point that Tucker was wrong, and Podesta has not been given immunity.

Mueller may have backed off giving Pedophile Tony Podesta immunity once:

1. It leaked out to Fox News

2. The judge ordered that the names of those given immunity be released to the public and not under seal