Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Any half-way decent judge (Judge T.S. Ellis III, a Reagan Appointee at that) wouldn't allow proceedings for the indictment of "Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi for [blowing] up the WTC in 1999 despite being dead for 51 years...."; Judge T.S. Ellis III is privy to the same evidence Mueller is.
Erm no he's not. Why would he be?
He's only privy to the evidence Mueller presents. He's solely there to ensure that the law us followed not what to present, or not. Nor is he there to preside in the judgement, that's for the jury.
Location: 23.7 million to 162 million miles North of Venus
23,498 posts, read 12,496,511 times
Reputation: 10450
Quote:
Originally Posted by bentlebee
Just saw the article on a different website and I’m flabbergasted how this political prosecution can keep continuing.
Unbelievable and very scary!
I haven't gotten over being flabbergasted at the super duper deluxe immunity package that was given to the Awans . Whatever the deep state wants they get, it seems.
Quote:
Originally Posted by momonkey
Actually, it is the investigation of some people's crimes.
The trail doesn't lead to Russia or the Trump campaign.
In all cases, the trail leads to the Clinton campaign and the DNC, but none of those people are being charged with obvious crimes,
In fact, they have been systematically given immunity to prevent them from testifying against Hillary.
Now we find that Tony Podesta will also be given immunity...well, surprise, surprise, surprise!
Yep. She's tied to all of it, every single bit of it. She gets away with meddling in our election, harms hundreds of thousands of Bernie supporters, and, it's crickets from the left and their leaders. She must have one whale of a dirty secrets file collection, probably so massive that it takes up ever inch of one of the homes she owns.
He's only privy to the evidence Mueller presents. He's solely there to ensure that the law us followed not what to present, or not. Nor is he there to preside in the judgement, that's for the jury.
Thanks for the clarification; the point remains. What proof can you offer that he'd to allow the indictment of a "ham sandwich", so to speak? (let alone proceed to trial?) He has more discretion than being implied.
Here's the exhibit list for Manafort's upcoming trial:
Tony Podesta, who employed an "Art collection manager" aka a person who handles his laundered money who closed the largest lobbying group in Washington and fired everyone after Mueller was hired. Unfreakingbelieveable. No one in Washington was registered as a foreign agent only 7 people have ever been charged with failing to register as a foreign agent it was a law that was never enforced before Manafort.
He's only privy to the evidence Mueller presents. He's solely there to ensure that the law us followed not what to present, or not. Nor is he there to preside in the judgement, that's for the jury.
Got to wonder about some of these posts.
Either folks weren't paying attention in government class, or they took government classes in a nation other than the US.
There's no proof required, think about it. The judge isn't there to determine indictment. The only evidence presented is by the prosecution, what makes you think a Ham Sandwich can't be indicted?
I mean God had been successfully sued in civil court, where the judge actually determines whether there is a case and standing.
ETA: One further point is that a Grand Jury is not required to show probable cause, it's only invoked where the evidence of probable cause is very tenuous, or to force a hostile witness to testify.
There's no proof required, think about it. The judge isn't there to determine indictment. The only evidence presented is by the prosecution, what makes you think a Ham Sandwich can't be indicted?
I mean God had been successfully sued in civil court, where the judge actually determines whether there is a case and standing.
This isn't civil court, this is a federal criminal case. And without any more context, I can't address the claim that " god has been successfully sued in court".
Judges Ellis and Jackson have heard Manfort's lawyers motions to dismiss the case, and subsequently denied them.
Quote:
“Because the Special Counsel’s appointment was consistent with both Constitutional requirements regarding appointment of officers and statutory requirements governing the authority to conduct criminal litigation on behalf of the United States, the Special Counsel had legal authority to investigate and to prosecute this matter and dismissal of the superseding indictment is not warranted,” Ellis wrote in his opinion.
Tuesday’s ruling was the second time a judge has upheld Mueller’s prosecutorial power, which could have wide ranging implications as he investigates whether Trump’s campaign colluded with Russia.
Quote:
Previously, Judge Amy Berman Jackson for the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia also refused to dismiss charges against Manafort, after his lawyers sought to discredit Mueller’s probe by accusing Rosenstein of violating Justice Department rules governing the appointment of special counsels.
the problem with grand jury indictments is that they only view evidence from one side of the case, the prosecution. and if the prosecutor is sharp enough, they can indict just about anyone for just about anything.
That's because the prosecutor, by name and nature, is the one who brings the indictment. Without the indictment, there are not two "sides", so there would be no one to give testimony. The person indicted may not even be aware of an investigation at the point the indictment is sought.
It could be that Podesta is being offered immunity to testify because A) He personally has nothing to do with Russian collusion or the Trump campaign, which Mueller is investigating, and B) He knows something about the illicit business of Paul Manafort, who is neck deep in both the Trump Campaign and dealings with Russia. I may be wrong, but that's the way I'd bet. If Mueller wants to catch the bigger fish, he has to use the smaller one for bait.
That sounds good in theory, but, there's no challenge at a grand jury, there's no cross examination of witnesses, a half way decent prosecutor could convince 12 jury panel members that Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi blew up the WTC in 1999 despite being dead for 51 years and a publicly sworn pacifist.
There have also been convictions, that is quite a few indictments to dismiss as prosecutor bias. Lets wait on the remaining trials before we claim these are not worthy indictments particularly by someone with Mueller's integrity.
Mueller has nothing to gain by this, I don't even think he wanted the job but he is the best person by far to be running this investigation. People need to stop claiming witch hunt every day and await the outcome. Trump could learn much from Reagan's complete silence during Iran Contra, he's not helping the country with his comments.
Last edited by Goodnight; 07-20-2018 at 05:19 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
