re: Judge slaps Mueller AGAIN

Posted by ninthward

Boston, MA

Member since May 2007

20452 posts

Posted on 8/2/18 at 1:01 pm to brian_wilson

quote:
no it doesn't. maybe learn some grammar?

Dude.

Posted by ninthward

Boston, MA

Member since May 2007

20452 posts

Posted on 8/2/18 at 1:04 pm to brian_wilson

quote:
SO pizzagate, uranium one, seth rich, and hillary killing people should be off topic? Or does it only apply to manafort?

No, please don't take what I said out of context and try to move the goal posts in order to label this a conservative issue because I was commenting directly to you about your statement about mob judgment over the judicial system.

Posted by Wednesday

Member since Aug 2017

15466 posts

Posted on 8/2/18 at 1:17 pm to AggieHank86

quote:
How many cases have you tried to a jury?

I've lost count. . .

You list a witness as "will call" and indicate to the Court that he's available and/or issue a subpoena, and then randomly decide not to call him there can be inferences drawn against you for changing your mind.

It also indicates as another poster said, that they were somehow tipped off that the witness changed his story and/or they realize that nobody would believe him. Regardless, it indicates that they realized he would make their case worse. It further indicates (as another person stated) that they over-charged him on purpose to try to make him invent cuhlusion or some other crap.

This post was edited on 8/2/18 at 1:18 pm

2 ...

Posted by AggieHank86

Texas

Member since Sep 2013

42941 posts

Posted on 8/2/18 at 1:23 pm to TBoy

quote:
Drama queens. Just wait and watch. He may get convicted, he may not. But your minute by minute drama queen stuff isn’t scoring propaganda points. It will play out soon enough.

Try to remember that you are speaking of the same group of people who claimed some great defense victory when BOTH parties filed a JOINT motion for continuance in the Concord case in May and predicted involuntary dismissal before July.

These are not legal scholars.

Posted by AggieHank86

Texas

Member since Sep 2013

42941 posts

Posted on 8/2/18 at 1:26 pm to upgrayedd

quote:
That insinuates that you don't really care if he gets a fair trial because you think he's guilty.

You have quite a vivid imagination.

Posted by JuiceTerry

Roond the Scheme

Member since Apr 2013

40868 posts

Posted on 8/2/18 at 1:27 pm to Wednesday

quote:
You list a witness as "will call" and indicate to the Court that he's available and/or issue a subpoena, and then randomly decide not to call him there can be inferences drawn against you for changing your mind.

It also indicates as another poster said, that they were somehow tipped off that the witness changed his story and/or they realize that nobody would believe him. Regardless, it indicates that they realized he would make their case worse. It further indicates (as another person stated) that they over-charged him on purpose to try to make him invent cuhlusion or some other crap.

And all of this shite is moot, as the prosecution never said they weren't going to call him, and he will testify

Posted by Humanelement

Baton Rouge

Member since Sep 2015

1366 posts

Posted on 8/2/18 at 1:29 pm to SlowFlowPro

frick Merrit Garland

Posted by AggieHank86

Texas

Member since Sep 2013

42941 posts

Posted on 8/2/18 at 1:30 pm to Wednesday

quote:
You list a witness as "will call" and indicate to the Court that he's available and/or issue a subpoena, and then randomly decide not to call him there can be inferences drawn against you for changing your mind.

Admittedly my experience is primarily on the Civil side of the docket, but I have seen this allowed ONLY when a lawyer talks about a witness in opening or in voir dire and then does not use them AND when the witness is under the control of that lawyer.

Posted by TurboDogTiger

Triangle, NC

Member since Feb 2007

828 posts

Posted on 8/2/18 at 2:18 pm to ibldprplgld

quote:
No sir. Your mandate is to investigate collusion. Any absence of proof thereof does not mean expand and dig deeper for anything else you can find. It means stop the clown show.

Order 3915-2017 Appointment of Special Counsel

(ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation

Posted by KiwiHead

Auckland, NZ

Member since Jul 2014

27732 posts

Posted on 8/2/18 at 2:53 pm to brian_wilson

quote:
He forged documents to show he had higher income than he did,

Just described how lending to the self employed get mortgage loans

quote:
he forged documents to indicate a loan was paid off when it wasn't, or that a property didn't have a mortgage when it did. There are paper trails on all of this including the infamous - can you covert this to a word doc for me rick? email.

On the forged documents that showed a loan was paid off, that could be slightly problematic, but the underwriter and loan officer is required to do the due diligence on all of this. If there was a mortgage, this is on the bank and the bank solely. Most banks are going to employ abstractors, etc, to comb the documents in the clerk's office. Now, if he had a mortgage under private signature (really dumb) that could be problem. Even if this was a commercial loan covered under UCC, there is a due diligence by the lending institution that would pick this up.

I would say that those that signed off on these loans have more legal liability than Manafort. Manafort has more exposure on the tax front

Posted by NC_Tigah

Carolinas

Member since Sep 2003

124189 posts

Posted on 8/2/18 at 3:19 pm to Bunyan

quote:
This might be the most incompetent group of prosecutors I have ever seen

No.
But Weissmann et al are dipping from the same well that led to horribly rendered past convictions, and left trial judges in the Enron and Arthur Andersen thoroughly embarrassed. Ellis's antennas are fully up.

Posted by keakar

Member since Jan 2017

30128 posts

Posted on 8/2/18 at 3:25 pm to ibldprplgld

the only thing that happens here is he goes down for tax evasion, thats it. there are documents that prove he did that without any doubt.

all the rest of the BS they charged him with just goes up in smoke here

Posted by LSUvet72

Member since Sep 2013

12136 posts

Posted on 8/2/18 at 3:29 pm to Jjdoc

quote:
Cant prove conspiracy without Gates

For all you melting Snowflake MFs out there screaming at the sky.......

:spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank:

Posted by BigAppleBucky

New York

Member since Jan 2014

1807 posts

Posted on 8/2/18 at 4:54 pm to Jjdoc

Tax evasion:

Bookkeeper: Paul Manafort 'approved every penny' of bills
Bank Statements, debit/credit advices, etc. document the ownership and foreign locations of bank accounts. Vendors saying they got wire transfers from banks in Cyprus pretty much nails things down.

Bank fraud:

Not sure exactly how this will go, but the bank executive who Manafort bribed conspired to give Manafort loans under fraudulent circumstances.

Feds might want to save the Gates ammunition for later trials and/or bigger game. But one of the prosecutors said today, Gates would testify. He can tie things together.

2 ...

Posted by BlackHelicopterPilot

Top secret lab

Member since Feb 2004

52833 posts

Posted on 8/2/18 at 5:00 pm to BigAppleBucky

quote:
Vendors saying they got wire transfers from banks in Cyprus pretty much nails things down. Bank fraud:

Can you explain? I don't know the details. Why is paying from an "overseas" bank a problem?

If I had a Swiss Bank Account (Or, one in the Caymans)...could I NOT pay for goods and services from it?

I truly do not know.

Posted by McChowder

Hammond

Member since Dec 2006

5253 posts

Posted on 8/2/18 at 5:04 pm to TurboDogTiger

quote:
(ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation

Thank you for posting this.

Nothing in this case was derived directly or indirectly from Mueller's investigation. It was a matter opened a decade and a half ago and was mothballed years before muh Russia.

Posted by Kickadawgitfeelsgood

Lafayette LA

Member since Nov 2005

14089 posts

Posted on 8/2/18 at 5:24 pm to BlackHelicopterPilot

quote:
Can you explain? I don't know the details. Why is paying from an "overseas" bank a problem?

Where did the money come from? If it was income, did you report it ?

Posted by BlackHelicopterPilot

Top secret lab

Member since Feb 2004

52833 posts

Posted on 8/2/18 at 5:26 pm to Kickadawgitfeelsgood

quote:
Where did the money come from? If it was income, did you report it ?

Well...that would be important no matter where the bank was, no?

I understand the idea of "this was living beyond the reported funds available" stuff. But, why is it important that the bank was in Cyprus or wherever?