The judge saying Manafort has treated this as a "marketing exercise" raises questions about her impartiality.

Wait a minute, I may be wrong here but weren't his alleged misgivings done 12 years ago? Isn't the Statute of Limitations in effect here?

(06-15-2018 01:30 PM)bullet Wrote:  The judge saying Manafort has treated this as a "marketing exercise" raises questions about her impartiality.

She's an Obama appointee. Impartiality is a no-no to Obama appointees.

(06-15-2018 12:39 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(06-15-2018 12:32 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(06-15-2018 12:21 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(06-15-2018 12:16 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(06-15-2018 12:11 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  Whether this guy has any “dirt” on Trump or not is pretty irrelevant to me. He’s a clear and obvious scumbag who thinks he’s above the law and I love seeing anyone like that get what’s coming to them.

Despite the fact that the DOJ investigated him years ago and dropped is case?

“Dropping it” doesn’t mean he was innocent, just that they didn’t think they could prove it beyond a reasonable doubt in court. Does the DOJ letting Killary go for the emails mean she did nothing wrong?

Evidence that Hillary committed crimes was presented by Comey.

There has been no evidence that Manafort committed a crime.

Stark difference.

Isnt it about time to indict another ham sandwich?

Really? So he’s been arrested, indicted, has his bail revoked, and there’s no evidence he committed any crime? This guy must be the white Nelson Mandela the way he’s been unfairly treated. I apologize Mr Manafort you are clearly a great person who’s never done anything even remotely illegal.

What crime are you convinced beyond a reasonable doubt did he commit?

If charged, you’re now presumed guilty? Is that how this works now?

I guess why not? We’ve never seen overzealous federal prosecutors over step their bounds.

That stuff just doesn’t happen... nor was there any bias at the top of the FBI...

(06-15-2018 01:33 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  Wait a minute, I may be wrong here but weren't his alleged misgivings done 12 years ago? Isn't the Statute of Limitations in effect here?

I've wondered about that.

(06-15-2018 01:33 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  Wait a minute, I may be wrong here but weren't his alleged misgivings done 12 years ago? Isn't the Statute of Limitations in effect here?

You're right, you should tell his defense attorney!

I think its 5 years from discovery, not the crime in the federal system.

(06-15-2018 01:30 PM)bullet Wrote:  The judge saying Manafort has treated this as a "marketing exercise" raises questions about her impartiality.

Sounds like Manafort is feeling a lot more comfortable about the outcome than Bueller.

This fake investigation has been more effective than I could have ever imagined.

(06-15-2018 12:11 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  Whether this guy has any “dirt” on Trump or not is pretty irrelevant to me. He’s a clear and obvious scumbag who thinks he’s above the law and I love seeing anyone like that get what’s coming to them.

In this country you're innocent till proven guilty. That is the basic building block of our laws and court system. There are basically only two reasons to refuse/deny bail

1. The defendant is a flight risk
2. The defendant is a risk to the community

Which one does Manafort fall under? This is an obvious example of prosecutor over reach.

Can you appeal a bond revoktion?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using CSNbbs mobile app

(06-15-2018 05:45 PM)cb4029 Wrote:  This fake investigation has been more effective than I could have ever imagined.

"This fake investigation has been more effective than I could have ever imagined."- Gestapo (1938), KGB (1958), Democrats (2018).

Quite a legacy.

(06-16-2018 08:23 AM)Old Blue Wrote:  

(06-15-2018 12:11 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  Whether this guy has any “dirt” on Trump or not is pretty irrelevant to me. He’s a clear and obvious scumbag who thinks he’s above the law and I love seeing anyone like that get what’s coming to them.

In this country you're innocent till proven guilty. That is the basic building block of our laws and court system. There are basically only two reasons to refuse/deny bail

1. The defendant is a flight risk
2. The defendant is a risk to the community

Which one does Manafort fall under? This is an obvious example of prosecutor over reach.

Considering the amount of overseas money and connections he has to pretend he’s not a flight risk is pretty silly. Also he wasn’t in prison. He was under house arrest and then allegedly reached out to potential witnesses to try to shape their testimony. Yes it’s innocent until proven guilty on them, but that’s not the standard that has to be met on that to revoke bail. It’s only if you are believed to have committed a crime, and the case where this comes into play most is with those out on bail who are believed to be using drugs. The court doesn’t have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt they are using drugs to revoke bail, just that they have a reasonable suspicion of it.

(06-15-2018 12:39 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(06-15-2018 12:32 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(06-15-2018 12:21 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(06-15-2018 12:16 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(06-15-2018 12:11 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  Whether this guy has any “dirt” on Trump or not is pretty irrelevant to me. He’s a clear and obvious scumbag who thinks he’s above the law and I love seeing anyone like that get what’s coming to them.

Despite the fact that the DOJ investigated him years ago and dropped is case?

“Dropping it” doesn’t mean he was innocent, just that they didn’t think they could prove it beyond a reasonable doubt in court. Does the DOJ letting Killary go for the emails mean she did nothing wrong?

Evidence that Hillary committed crimes was presented by Comey.

There has been no evidence that Manafort committed a crime.

Stark difference.

Isnt it about time to indict another ham sandwich?

Really? So he’s been arrested, indicted, has his bail revoked, and there’s no evidence he committed any crime? This guy must be the white Nelson Mandela the way he’s been unfairly treated. I apologize Mr Manafort you are clearly a great person who’s never done anything even remotely illegal.

Anything remotely illegal? Is this what you liberals want? Using the unlimited power of the federal government to squeeze people for an outcome you have already determined?
Maybe if they had subpoenaed Hussein’s college admittance records, his birth records and arrested the good reverend, the bombers and the mob boss y’all might have seen things differently. Hypocrisy in bushels.

(06-15-2018 12:46 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COUNSEL
TO INVESTIGATE RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE WITH THE
2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION AND RELATED MATTERS
https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-releas...1/download

So the first thing you do is indict an individual (who has been reported by (biased) FBI agents to not be lying) for lying. Next you dig up a 10 year old investigation (that had been dropped) to indict another individual with ties to the Trump campaign. Next you go after his personal lawyer to get access to all of his lawyer-client info.
And to make it all appear legit you indict a bunch of Russian nationals and a couple of Russians internet trolling companies. That doesn’t turn out to well though because your BS is called out and the truth is you don’t have evidence for anything but your own incompetence and corruption.

(06-19-2018 06:17 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(06-16-2018 08:23 AM)Old Blue Wrote:  

(06-15-2018 12:11 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  Whether this guy has any “dirt” on Trump or not is pretty irrelevant to me. He’s a clear and obvious scumbag who thinks he’s above the law and I love seeing anyone like that get what’s coming to them.

In this country you're innocent till proven guilty. That is the basic building block of our laws and court system. There are basically only two reasons to refuse/deny bail

1. The defendant is a flight risk
2. The defendant is a risk to the community

Which one does Manafort fall under? This is an obvious example of prosecutor over reach.

Considering the amount of overseas money and connections he has to pretend he’s not a flight risk is pretty silly. Also he wasn’t in prison. He was under house arrest and then allegedly reached out to potential witnesses to try to shape their testimony. Yes it’s innocent until proven guilty on them, but that’s not the standard that has to be met on that to revoke bail. It’s only if you are believed to have committed a crime, and the case where this comes into play most is with those out on bail who are believed to be using drugs. The court doesn’t have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt they are using drugs to revoke bail, just that they have a reasonable suspicion of it.

He was already under house arrest, like they do in other countries, rarely in America.

You simply take his passport.

Its called innocent until proven guilty. They have taken a dozen years to bring these charges.