Mueller's investigation into Trump takes action

[Tambora]

Pre-trial detention has a few main purposes: to ensure that the accused shows up to their trial, to ensure that the public is safe from any threat that they pose, things like that.

Right.
It's a double whammy.
#1 whammy
They can lock you up in a cage just like a criminal because they think you did something, but have not proved that you did.
#2 whammy
They can lock you up in a cage just like a criminal because they think you might do something, but have no proof that you will.

Mueller's team argued successfully that the defendants were flight risks, hence the monitoring requirement. And yet they were allowed to go home and go to church and be with their families on bail that is relatively small compared to their net worth.

How could they prove that he would try to flee?
So they lock up folks for something they think they might do.
And why on earth are they making him PAY them out of his own pocket to be let out of a cage till his trial?

I see a problem with that if our legal system is really grounded in "innocent until PROVEN guilty".

When BLM raises this issue of unfair bail for poor black defendants, do you just tune it out? Do you only care when it impacts (very lightly, I might add) two of the most privileged men in America?

Seriously? That's where you think I was going with this?
So long, moron.
:wave:

 

[rexlunae]

Right.
It's a double whammy.
#1 whammy
They can lock you up in a cage just like a criminal because they think you did something, but have not proved that you did.
#2 whammy
They can lock you up in a cage just like a criminal because they think you might do something, but have no proof that you will.

Yeah, no question, it's not ideal. But then, you can't possibly wait until you have a conviction, can you? You wouldn't release the New York Halloween attacker on pre-trial release, right? Somewhere in there, a judge, with the recommendation of the prosecutor, has to make a judgement call.

How could they prove that he would try to flee?

They can't prove it. They aren't required to. It's a risk. That's what they have to argue.

So they lock up folks for something they think they might do.
And why on earth are they making him PAY them out of his own pocket to be let out of a cage till his trial?

That's what bail is. You pay money to ensure that you'll come back to trial.

I see a problem with that if our legal system is really grounded in "innocent until PROVEN guilty".

Have you ever served jury duty? The guy sitting in the defense chair next to the lawyers, often chained up, is innocent until proven guilty. If you can't impose on them at all until you have a conviction, maybe they should just be allowed to stand up and walk away. If you can't impinge on anyone's rights until you have secured a conviction, then there's no way to convict anyone. Like with other trappings of our justice system, judges ensure that the defendant's rights are balanced with the state's responsibility to ensure justice.

Seriously? That's where you think I was going with this?

I think you should think about it. Michael Brown was entitled to the same presumption of innocence. You picked an awfully strange defendant to suddenly care about this issue.

 

[jgarden]

And yet an anti-Trump military judge lets a coward deserter who got other soldiers maimed go free.

"The Donald," with his 5 deferments and ongoing feuds with gold-star families, is no position to pass judgement as to who is a coward and a deserter!

 

[Tambora]

"The Donald," with his 5 deferments and ongoing feuds with gold-star families, is no position to pass judgement as to who is a coward and a deserter!

Everybody has a right to call him a coward deserter because he was a coward deserter.

 

[Tambora]

Yeah, no question, it's not ideal. But then, you can't possibly wait until you have a conviction, can you? You wouldn't release the New York Halloween attacker on pre-trial release, right? Somewhere in there, a judge, with the recommendation of the prosecutor, has to make a judgement call.



They can't prove it. They aren't required to. It's a risk. That's what they have to argue.



That's what bail is. You pay money to ensure that you'll come back to trial.



Have you ever served jury duty? The guy sitting in the defense chair next to the lawyers, often chained up, is innocent until proven guilty. If you can't impose on them at all until you have a conviction, maybe they should just be allowed to stand up and walk away. If you can't impinge on anyone's rights until you have secured a conviction, then there's no way to convict anyone. Like with other trappings of our justice system, judges ensure that the defendant's rights are balanced with the state's responsibility to ensure justice.




I think you should think about it. Michael Brown was entitled to the same presumption of innocence. You picked an awfully strange defendant to suddenly care about this issue.

See, once again you jump to conclusions of what I support.
I don't have a problem with containing before they have a trial.
I'm showing that the lovely phrase we hold dear, 'innocent till proven guilty', is not really a reality in practice because you ARE going to be treated like you ARE guilty before you are proven guilty in a court of law. (
And here's the worst part ......, you ARE going to be treated like you ARE guilty before you are proven not guilty in a court of law.
Both the innocent and the guilty were treated as guilty before proven.

 

[kmoney]

What possible trouble does this pose for Trump??? A big fat zero.

At the moment I agree that Trump is still in the clear. I was trying to say the Papa stuff has more potential because that was his campaign.

 

[rexlunae]

See, once again you jump to conclusions of what I support.
I don't have a problem with containing before they have a trial.
I'm showing that the lovely phrase we hold dear, 'innocent till proven guilty', is not really a reality in practice because you ARE going to be treated like you ARE guilty before you are proven guilty in a court of law. (
And here's the worst part ......, you ARE going to be treated like you ARE guilty before you are proven not guilty in a court of law.
Both the innocent and the guilty were treated as guilty before proven.

I guarantee that if convicted, Manafort will face significantly less comfortable living conditions than being held under house arrest.

 

[Danoh]

"The Donald," with his 5 deferments and ongoing feuds with gold-star families, is no position to pass judgement as to who is a coward and a deserter!

:chuckle: I'm beginning to think you've been hanging with these Trump supporters on here a bit so long that you've ended up with your version of their obvious self-delusion: that one can actually reason with them.

Ya can't. Nobody home. You are dealing with individuals who so long ago merged their claims of a Lord and a moral compass with years of profound failure to examine what they actually hold to that they long ago lost any sense of the difference between the two.

Nothing new in such...for as their supposed moral compass Himself noted to their exact kind, some two thousand years ago.

John 8:43 Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

Points for consideration....

1. These guys did no actual lobbying.

2. If they filed a form 2055 for tax exemption on money made overseas the whole case falls apart.

3. If they didn't but the money is still tax exempt, what's the penalty for skipping the form?

 

[WizardofOz]

Points for consideration....

1. These guys did no actual lobbying.

Sure they did. What makes you claim that they didn't?

2. If they filed a form 2055 for tax exemption on money made overseas the whole case falls apart.

3. If they didn't but the money is still tax exempt, what's the penalty for skipping the form?

Did they file this and why would it make their money exempt from taxes? Why did they hide the money from the IRS and funnel it through a shell game?

You're really desperate to defend Manafort. Why?

Will you be defending Democratic Lobbyist Tony Podesta with as much vigor if he's indicted?

 

[WizardofOz]

Special Counsel Mueller has enough evidence to charge Flynn, son:NBC

Special Counsel Robert Mueller has collected sufficient evidence to charge Michael Flynn, U.S. President Donald Trump's former national security adviser, and his son, NBC News reported on Sunday, citing multiple sources familiar with the investigation. NBC News said Mueller's team is looking at possible money laundering charges, lying to federal agents, and Flynn's role in a possible plan to remove an opponent of the Turkish president from the United States in exchange for millions of dollars.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

Sure they did. What makes you claim that they didn't?

They brokered a deal.

Did they file this and why would it make their money exempt from taxes?

Do your own homework.

Why did they hide the money from the IRS and funnel it through a shell game?

The IRS does not have the authority to demand people to claim something that would take a search warrant to otherwise find out.

Why would you call believing the Fourth Amendment an act of hiding?

You're really desperate to defend Manafort. Why?

Pure fantasy in you're own mind.

Will you be defending Democratic Lobbyist Tony Podesta with as much vigor if he's indicted?

I hold that all Americans have the same rights.

 

[WizardofOz]

I hold that all Americans have the same rights.

You failed to answer a single question. Let's start with the first one: why do you say Manafort and Gates did not engage in "actual lobbying"?

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

You failed to answer a single question. Let's start with the first one: why do you say Manafort and Gates did not engage in "actual lobbying"?

I edited the post, you can go back and read it.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

The defrauding the bank idea is completely laughable.

Breeches of contracts are civil matters.

In the case with Mannafort the bank lost no money.

So why would it even pursue him?

If it doesn't like the Liberal law that forces it to loan more money in differing circumstances maybe they should consider some lobbying. :chew:

http://www.criminal-law-lawyer-source.com/terms/contract.html

 

[WizardofOz]

They brokered a deal.

An internal report states that Manafort was paid $600,000 a month over four years, reaching the $28.5 million total, according to a source who has seen the report.

Manafort lobbied on behalf of Yanukovych and the Party of the Regions for 4 years.

Manafort was paid at least $28.5 million, far more than the $12.5 million reported last year, from “black money” funds run by the Party of the Regions

He lobbied for them for 4 years and he lied by falsifying the amount he was paid, which is illegal.

Do your own homework.

There is absolutely no reason this money would be exempt from taxation. You're really stretching. Otherwise, why would you think it would be exempt?

The IRS does not have the authority to demand people to claim something that would take a search warrant to otherwise find out.

:hammer:
Um, yeah...they do. You cannot falsify earnings and obstruct the IRS with false statements.

Why would you call believing the Fourth Amendment an act of hiding?

The government had probable cause and :idea: found evidence of illegal activity by both Gates and Manafort, showing the warrant was...warranted.

 

[WizardofOz]

The defrauding the bank idea is completely laughable.

Breeches of contracts are civil matters.

It's not a breach of contract, it's bank fraud...which is illegal

 

[kmoney]

Manafort had three passports, each with a different number. Why he would need three passports?

Shady McShade.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

It's not a breach of contract, it's bank fraud...which is illegal

Umm, how was the bank damaged?

Defraud
To make a Misrepresentation of an existing material fact, knowing it to be false or making it recklessly without regard to whether it is true or false, intending for someone to rely on the misrepresentation and under circumstances in which such person does rely on it to his or her damage. To practice Fraud; to cheat or trick. To deprive a person of property or any interest, estate, or right by fraud, deceit, or artifice.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

:hammer:
Um, yeah...they do. You cannot falsify earnings and obstruct the IRS with false statements.

The false statement to the IRS was whether or not he had offshore accounts.

The government had probable cause and :idea: found evidence of illegal activity by both Gates and Manafort, showing the warrant was...warranted.

It's not illegal to have offshore accounts.

For the IRS to ask, "under threat of penalty" if you have them, violates the Fourth Amendment.