Manafort continues to try to have the charges against him quashed. A judge in Virginia has rebuked Mueller for overstepping his authority for going after Manafort on charges he faces in Virginia bank and tax fraud in order to get leverage on Manafort to coerce him into blowing the whistle on Trump and crew.
Ignore for the moment that Mueller is authorised to investigate "...any matter that arose or may arise directly” from the investigation, which would seemingly cover Manafort's other alleged crimes. In short, Manafort is a person of interest, so anything stemming from this fact, including his prior activities, is fair game.
Ignore for the moment the Judge's borderline insane comment that Mueller is not really interested in prosecuting Manafort for the crime he is accused of having committed in Virginia - as if he, a decade's long veteran of the FBI and its former director is just playing games with the law.
Ignore for the moment the incredibly loaded suggestions that the Judge made, effectively accusing Mueller of playing a political game, and of trying to get Trump impeached.
Let's look at the idiocy in his comments about Mueller is using the charges to try to get Manafort to "sing".
WELL, DUH!
Yes, Mueller is following a tried and true tactic of charging alleged criminals with crimes and then using that leverage to get them to “rat out” their partners in the commission of other, more serious offences. The judge seems very concerned about this tactic….like he has never heard of this before.
On that, maybe what is wrong is that Manafort’s prior conduct was such that he has left himself liable to charges of tax and bank fraud! Instead of complaining that Mueller may have overstepped his mandate, maybe the judge should be a bit more concerned about the prior activities of Mr. Manafort where a Grand Jury has seen enough evidence against Manafort to have the guy indicted!!
A few thoughts.
As a rule, any prosecutor's mandate should include the implicit authority to pursue any prior crimes committed by those who are being investigated, in order to use leverage against accused persons in order to bring other such persons to justice. This is often the only way that all partners in an offence may be brought to justice. This approach stinks because the rat often gets off with little or no punishment at all.
(Note - It is this reality, that guilty people walk in return for their testimony, that usually bothers the judiciary - the Judge in the case is acting like he is in a world turned upside down.)
As well, prosecutors should be able to pursue any criminal activity unrelated to their mandate, but that may be discovered in the investigation of the activities that led to that mandate. If people have a problem with these suggested rules, then don’t commit crimes!
As a rule, any prosecutor's mandate should include the implicit authority to pursue any prior crimes committed by those who are being investigated, in order to use leverage against accused persons in order to bring other such persons to justice. This is often the only way that all partners in an offence may be brought to justice. This approach stinks because the rat often gets off with little or no punishment at all.
(Note - It is this reality, that guilty people walk in return for their testimony, that usually bothers the judiciary - the Judge in the case is acting like he is in a world turned upside down.)
As well, prosecutors should be able to pursue any criminal activity unrelated to their mandate, but that may be discovered in the investigation of the activities that led to that mandate. If people have a problem with these suggested rules, then don’t commit crimes!
If the judge’s implicit theory in questioning Mueller is correct, and the cops can’t use charges against someone as leverage for that person’s testimony against their partner in another offence, this could result in the overturning of literally thousands of previous convictions everywhere in the USA as this police tactic is as old as America itself.
And so, the theory that one alleged criminal cannot be coerced to testify against a partner in an unrelated offence is pure idiocy.
This judge likely knows this is idiotic. If the judge rules against Mueller, I have to think that he will be appealed and overturned....and what does Mueller's personal motivations have to do with the breadth of his mandate anyway!
But the damage to the investigation could be massive, not in terms of the charges - Manafort still faces charges in Washington, DC - but politically, where such a decision will strengthen Trump's claim that the investigation is just a "witch hunt". This political angle maybe why this judge is pursuing this line of argument.
This judge likely knows this is idiotic. If the judge rules against Mueller, I have to think that he will be appealed and overturned....and what does Mueller's personal motivations have to do with the breadth of his mandate anyway!
But the damage to the investigation could be massive, not in terms of the charges - Manafort still faces charges in Washington, DC - but politically, where such a decision will strengthen Trump's claim that the investigation is just a "witch hunt". This political angle maybe why this judge is pursuing this line of argument.
What else do I suspect?
This judge has been on the bench since the time of Reagan. I suspect that in all his time on the bench he has likely NEVER ruled that, when one Black man appeared before him and ratted out another Black man who was his partner in another crime, where this first man’s testimony had obviously been coerced by way of a promise that other unrelated charges would be dismissed or the penalty reduced, this judge has likely NEVER dismissed anything because of "prosecutor overreach" in those cases. You see, "prosecutor overreach" is a special type of "justice" reserved for one’s friends and one’s tribe.
How much darker can the lights dim on that shining city on the hill that we all used to look to in awe?
No comments:
Post a Comment