TrumpPutingate III: the beginning of the end

#9,476
#9,476
Just to add to this - from the article it is not clear which emails are being discussed and what the time line is.

WikiLeaks published two troves of emails that had been hacked by the Russian cyber spies. On July 22, 2016, three days before the Democratic National Convention, WikiLeaks began publishing about 20,000 emails hacked from Democratic National Committee servers, as CNN recounted.

Later, on October 7, WikiLeaks began publishing emails hacked from the server of Clinton campaign chair John Podesta. This happened just hours after the infamous Access Hollywood tape, in which Trump is heard making shockingly obscene and misogynistic remarks about women, was released by the Washington Post.

Which emails that Cambridge Analytica had in their possession a month before WikiLeaks published them is not clear from Wood’s report. Assange first revealed that he had the emails on July 12, 2016, as Vox reported, but when Assange specifically came into possession of the emails also remains unclear.
Click to expand...
 
#9,477
#9,477
[twitter]1010250661601169409[/twitter]

Mueller is going to end up publicly admitting that this has literally nothing to do with Trump and the phony Russian collusion. Lol
 
#9,478
#9,478
golfballs said:
[twitter]1010250661601169409[/twitter]

Mueller is going to end up publicly admitting that this has literally nothing to do with Trump and the phony Russian collusion. Lol
Click to expand...

And the reason you don't put this before the jury is because they are there solely to determine whether the defendant is guilty of the crime charged (i.e., whether each element of the crime has been established). Selective prosecution is not an element of the crime charged, so it's an irrelevant issue for the jury.
 
#9,479
#9,479
#9,480
#9,480
evillawyer said:
And the reason you don't put this before the jury is because they are there solely to determine whether the defendant is guilty of the crime charged (i.e., whether each element of the crime has been established). Selective prosecution is not an element of the crime charged, so it's an irrelevant issue for the jury.
Click to expand...

You are clearly not a lawyer. Just come clean
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#9,481
#9,481
evillawyer said:
And the reason you don't put this before the jury is because they are there solely to determine whether the defendant is guilty of the crime charged (i.e., whether each element of the crime has been established). Selective prosecution is not an element of the crime charged, so it's an irrelevant issue for the jury.
Click to expand...

I would love to hear the prosecution explain why the information they had on Manafort wasn’t a big deal until it was tied to the Russia investigation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#9,483
#9,483
NorthDallas40 said:
I would love to hear the prosecution explain why the information they had on Manafort wasn’t a big deal until it was tied to the Russia investigation.
Click to expand...

Prosecutors have very broad discretion. Manafort ain't getting the case kicked on a selective prosecution argument.
 
#9,484
#9,484
evillawyer said:
Prosecutors have very broad discretion. Manafort ain't getting the case kicked on a selective prosecution argument.
Click to expand...

I understand the prosecutions assertion and I know it’s a thin prospect. If a crime is committed who cares why you’re being prosecuted. However...

The United States Supreme Court has defined the term as follows: "A selective prosecution claim is not a defense on the merits to the criminal charge itself, but an independent assertion that the prosecutor has brought the charge for reasons forbidden by the Constitution."[1]
Click to expand...

What if Manafort’s charge to investigate is found to be unconstitutional. Horowitz is supposedly investigating the basis now. If it’s found that Mueller never should have gotten the car keys what about trying to take ole Paul for a ride?
 
#9,485
#9,485
NorthDallas40 said:
I understand the prosecutions assertion and I know it’s a thin prospect. If a crime is committed who cares why you’re being prosecuted. However...



What if Manafort’s charge to investigate is found to be unconstitutional. Horowitz is supposedly investigating the basis now. If it’s found that Mueller never should have gotten the car keys what about trying to take ole Paul for a ride?
Click to expand...

Hasn't Mueller and his entire team been made special AUSAs in the ED Va to deal specifically with this potential issue? Thus, even of the special counsel rug is pulled out from underneath Mueller, he still has the special AUSA fallback position.

https://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2018/05/21/mueller-virginia-case-special-assistant-us-attorneys-600777
 
#9,486
#9,486
evillawyer said:
Hasn't Mueller and his entire team been made special AUSAs in the ED Va to deal specifically with this potential issue? Thus, even of the special counsel rug is pulled out from underneath Mueller, he still has the special AUSA fallback position.
Click to expand...

They have and I thought Judge Nap did a commentary on this that is complicates things for Mueller, not stream lines. How can you both be independent and an AUSA subordinate to the DOJ chain of command?
 
#9,493
#9,493
volinbham said:
Just to add to this - from the article it is not clear which emails are being discussed and what the time line is.
Click to expand...

The timeline is the big thing for me.

Also wondering why this Cambridge Analytica had access to Trump stuff anyway? They are a third party. Why did they decide to get involved?
 
#9,494
#9,494
LouderVol said:
The timeline is the big thing for me.

Also wondering why this Cambridge Analytica had access to Trump stuff anyway? They are a third party. Why did they decide to get involved?
Click to expand...

Retained by Trump campaign for data analytics. That's why it's suspect if they had the emails prior to public release
 
#9,496
#9,496
evillawyer said:
And the reason you don't put this before the jury is because they are there solely to determine whether the defendant is guilty of the crime charged (i.e., whether each element of the crime has been established). Selective prosecution is not an element of the crime charged, so it's an irrelevant issue for the jury.
Click to expand...
What? So you can't bring up racist cops, predjuiced administration's and the like that have had cases thrown out since AMERICA?
 
#9,497
#9,497
evillawyer said:
Retained by Trump campaign for data analytics. That's why it's suspect if they had the emails prior to public release
Click to expand...

Not sure why anyone would hire them after this? Sounds like they went rummaging beyond their scope. I guess it depends on what data they were supposed to be looking at. But usually I would assume it's not dig thru our files type of anaylitics. More the take a look at public trends type of thing.
 
#9,498
#9,498
LouderVol said:
Not sure why anyone would hire them after this? Sounds like they went rummaging beyond their scope. I guess it depends on what data they were supposed to be looking at. But usually I would assume it's not dig thru our files type of anaylitics. More the take a look at public trends type of thing.
Click to expand...

I think there's already evidence out there that Cambridge Analytica offered to do work for WikiLeaks on the hacked emails to make them more user friendly (searchable by using various data fields and the like).
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#9,499
#9,499
LouderVol said:
What? So you can't bring up racist cops, predjuiced administration's and the like that have had cases thrown out since AMERICA?
Click to expand...

If your argument is that a piece of evidence was planted and should not be considered because the cop who found it is racist, that would probably go to the jury since that would go to an element of the crime (whether you did it or the intent with which you did some action). If you're not contesting any of the evidence though and you just want to argue that the prosecutor has it in for you, there is nothing there for the jury to consider because the prosecutor's decision to prosecute is not an element of the crime charged.
 
#9,500
#9,500
evillawyer said:
I think there's already evidence out there that Cambridge Analytica offered to do work for WikiLeaks on the hacked emails to make them more user friendly (searchable by using various data fields and the like).
Click to expand...

So is CA saying that they provided Trump with the WikiLeaks stuff? I guess I don't see the full picture with them.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top