• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Judge in Manafort case says Mueller's aim is to hurt Trump

Pedestrian said:
The judge is out of line, this is signed-off on by the grand jury and we are supposed to have equal

but separate powers and the Judge must stick to the law too.
Click to expand...

The judge IS sticking to law in hearing challenges by the defense as to the jurisdiction of the prosecutor. The judge is judging, hence the name.

The DoJ sets the prosecutors guidelines not the court.
Click to expand...

It is not without limits, hence the need to document it.

Time to do what the repubs do, I think it's repub 102, if necessary...go judge shopping.
Click to expand...

Holy crap, that is some fine projection.
 
tres borrachos said:
You just want to continue being dishonest and not admitting your mistake (I'm not even going to call it a lie - I'm going to chalk it up as a mistake). I have no interest in your trolling and dishonesty. Come back when you want to debate like an adult.
Click to expand...

No mistake here. Standing on solid ground. It wouldn't have mattered what many of your posts in this thread I responded to, what I responded with you could not justify.

Bested
 
vesper said:
No mistake here. Standing on solid ground. It wouldn't have mattered what many of your posts in this thread I responded to, what I responded with you could not justify.

Bested
Click to expand...

I made sure that everyone can see your lie. Now I'll go back to what I originally said. You lied, you got caught, and now you're just acting like a little petulant kid. Hannity is on in an hour. Go drool over him. No interest in your trolling, anger and lying tonight.
 
tres borrachos said:
I made sure that everyone can see your lie. Now I'll go back to what I originally said. You lied, you got caught, and now you're just acting like a little petulant kid. Hannity is on in an hour. Go drool over him. No interest in your trolling, anger and lying tonight.
Click to expand...

Nope I didn't lie, I provided you with an array of links and you couldn't counter it and that is why you got personal. Bested!
t
 
tres borrachos said:
Ken Starr's mandate was this:

ORDERED by the Court in accordance with the authority vested in it by 28 U.S.C. Sec. 593(b) that Kenneth W. Starr. . . be and he is hereby appointed Independent Counsel with full power, independent authority, and jurisdiction to investigate to the maximum extent authorized by the Independent Counsel Reauthorization Act of 1994 whether any individuals or entities have committed a violation of any federal criminal law, other than a Class B or C misdemeanor or infraction, relating in any way to James B. McDougal’s, President William Jefferson Clinton’s, or Mrs. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s relationships with Madison Guaranty Savings & Loan Association, Whitewater Development Corporation, or Capital Management Services, Inc. . . .

But we ended up with a semen stained dress.
Click to expand...

Yep-- we had clear delineation as to what Starr was looking for.
Nothing like that exists now. Which explains the comments of Ellis
 
tres borrachos said:
Was it five years? i was pregnant with my first when that all was going on and wasn't paying much attention.

Five years, and people are weeping about how long Mueller is taking?
Click to expand...
Actually, it was six years, from 1994 - 2000.

Didn't prove a damn thing, either.
 
Atomic Kid said:
LOL! How hard would anyone have to 'rack their brain' over being asked if you have had any direct conversations with any high Russian official about sanctions. That would grab anybody's attention. Especially someone who is our National Security Chief. You're dwelling in the theater of the absurd.
Click to expand...

Maybe if you work at McDonald's for a living a few conversations with the Russian ambassador would stand out a bit more, but when you whole job is speaking to foreign dignitaries, and has been for decades, then they don't stand out quite so much.

Also, did you see that the unredacted House Intelligence Document finally revealed the nature of the infamous Flynn discussion with Kislyak? Turns out Flynn's grand scheme of collusion was to tell the Russian Ambassador that Russia shouldn't escalate tensions in response to US sanctions. That bastard! :roll:
 
MovingPictures said:
None of these people seem to understand that judges go off on personal rants like this What the SC's main target is or isn't, has nothing to do with Manafort's crimes -
Click to expand...

Which is entirely the point of what Ellis said.
 
Athanasius68 said:
Yep-- we had clear delineation as to what Starr was looking for.
Nothing like that exists now. Which explains the comments of Ellis
Click to expand...

We don't have clear delineation as to what Mueller is looking for? I thought we did. Evidence of Russian interference in the elections. That was pretty clear to me.

Starr's mandate was to investigate Whitewater, Madison Guaranty and Capital Management Services. I guess when that didn't yield anything that's when he went on to Paula Jones and a semen stained dress. Maybe Janet Reno was more flexible with the latitude she gave him. I don't remember. I also don't remember Clinton screaming every hour about it being a "witch hunt" but I admittedly was busy then.

It went on for years. No clue what the hurry is with Mueller. Russian interference in US elections should be more important to people than Bill Clinton's semen. You'd think, anyway.
 
MovingPictures said:
Actually, it was six years, from 1994 - 2000.

Didn't prove a damn thing, either.
Click to expand...

It proved Bill Clinton could ejaculate, which I'm sure was a matter of national importance to most people. I'm not sure what else it proved after all those years.
 
tres borrachos said:
We don't have clear delineation as to what Mueller is looking for? I thought we did. Evidence of Russian interference in the elections. That was pretty clear to me.

Starr's mandate was to investigate Whitewater, Madison Guaranty and Capital Management Services. I guess when that didn't yield anything that's when he went on to Paula Jones and a semen stained dress. Maybe Janet Reno was more flexible with the latitude she gave him. I don't remember. I also don't remember Clinton screaming every hour about it being a "witch hunt" but I admittedly was busy then.

It went on for years. No clue what the hurry is with Mueller. Russian interference in US elections should be more important to people than Bill Clinton's semen. You'd think, anyway.
Click to expand...

A special prosecutor is not needed to search for such evidence.
 
NonoBadDog said:
That's not what I am saying so don't put words in my mouth. You do that a lot and it's dishonest. I am waiting for the Judge's interpretation. You can think about the case any way you cant. Repeating yourself over and over and over doesn't give your opinion any more weight than it had the first time you expressed it.
Click to expand...

We're all waiting on the judge's interpretation and giving our opinion on what that should be. If "waiting on the judge" etc. disposed of any argument, there would be no threads on DP related to the Mueller investigation, for example, because all of us are nearly 100% ignorant about the evidence and the likely outcome, and we're all awaiting his conclusions. In the meantime we are debating the issues.

All I did was point out your argument ignores the case law on point, that is binding on the judge, and dismissed the point with a hand wave, and isn't very persuasive.
 
Last edited:
Athanasius68 said:
Which is entirely the point of what Ellis said.
Click to expand...

Actually, Ellis' comment would lead one to believe that he is more concerned with Manafort giving up information on Trump than he is seeing Manafort get punished for his crimes, if he is in fact guilty of them.
 
Athanasius68 said:
Which is entirely the point of what Ellis said.
Click to expand...
The DOJ reserves the right to appoint whomever they want to oversee an investigation, just as they did during Starr's investigation.
 
tres borrachos said:
Actually, Ellis' comment would lead one to believe that he is more concerned with Manafort giving up information on Trump than he is seeing Manafort get punished for his crimes, if he is in fact guilty of them.
Click to expand...

He was more concerned about the authority and juristiction of Mueller to investigate and prosecute Manafort.
 
tres borrachos said:
Actually, Ellis' comment would lead one to believe that he is more concerned with Manafort giving up information on Trump than he is seeing Manafort get punished for his crimes, if he is in fact guilty of them.
Click to expand...
Exactly.

The judge simply doesn't like that information relating to Trump that could be used in an impeachment referral as a result of the case in his courtroom.

He's a Reaganite, it's not a shock.
 
Common Sense 1 said:
The federal judge is calling Muller's team! This is pretty astonishing! Even the judge knows this is nothing but get President Trump.


Judge in Manafort case says Mueller's aim is to hurt Trump

https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/04/politics/paul-manafort-hearing/index.html

(CNN)A federal judge expressed deep skepticism Friday in the bank fraud case brought by special counsel Robert Mueller's office against former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, at one point saying he believes that Mueller's motivation is to oust President Donald Trump from office.

Although Mueller's authority has been tested in court before, Friday's hearing was notable for District Judge T.S. Ellis' decision to wade into the divisive political debate around the investigation.

"You don't really care about Mr. Manafort's bank fraud," Ellis said to prosecutor Michael Dreeben, at times losing his temper. Ellis said prosecutors were interested in Manafort because of his potential to provide material that would lead to Trump's "prosecution or impeachment," Ellis said.
Click to expand...

Bye bye mr judge.

Anyone who would trust his decision in the future is either a crook or a fool or both.

Axe this ****
 
MovingPictures said:
The DOJ reserves the right to appoint whomever they want to oversee an investigation, just as they did during Starr's investigation.
Click to expand...

Aye-- consistent with the regs governing that choice.
 
MovingPictures said:
Exactly.

The judge simply doesn't like that information relating to Trump that could be used in an impeachment referral as a result of the case in his courtroom.

He's a Reaganite, it's not a shock.
Click to expand...

What information related to Trump? Mueller has said Trump is not a target of his investigation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom