General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWow, the only thing Manafort's douchebag lawyer had to say was
that in two courts they found there was no collusion. What a dick. Manafort wasn't tried for anything related to Russia. Guess Downing was getting his talking points from Trump.
spooky3
(34,448 posts)demmiblue
(36,846 posts)Another to watch tonight
mobeau69
(11,144 posts)Lindsay
(3,276 posts)from Trump, as you suggest.
notdarkyet
(2,226 posts)Bernardo de La Paz
(49,001 posts)world wide wally
(21,742 posts)jberryhill
(62,444 posts)I wish people would stop repeating that right-wing lie.
If that statement were correct, then both of these cases would have been thrown out.
Judge Berman, DC:
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.190597/gov.uscourts.dcd.190597.301.0_3.pdf
The motion to dismiss will be denied for a number of reasons. First, the indictment falls squarely within that portion of the authority granted to the Special Counsel that Manafort finds unobjectionable: the order to investigate any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign.Appt. Order ¶ (b)(i). Manafort was, at one time, not merely associated with, but the chairman of, the Presidential campaign, and his work on behalf of the Russia-backed Ukrainian political party and connections to other Russian figures are matters of public record. It was logical and appropriate for investigators tasked with the investigation of any links between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign to direct their attention to him. Thus, the Departmental regulations that Manafort claims were violated by paragraph (b)(ii) of the Appointment Order are not implicated here, and the motion, which supplies no other basis to dismiss the indictment, should be denied for that reason.
Judge Ellis, VA:
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.vaed.383106/gov.uscourts.vaed.383106.97.0_32.pdf
In sum, ¶ (b)(i) of the May 17 Appointment Order makes clear that the Special Counsels investigation into the payments defendant received from Russian-backed Ukrainian officials was authorized because the investigation involved potential links between a Trump campaign official the defendant and the Russian government via the Russian-backed Ukrainian President. The May 17 Appointment Order also confirms that the Special Counsel was authorized to prosecute the crimes alleged in the Superseding Indictment because evidence of these alleged crimes was uncovered as part of the Special Counsels aforementioned investigation.
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,686 posts)Russian interference with the US election (colloquially but inaccurately referred to as "collusion" ). Jeg beklager.