Tony Podesta offered immunity to testify against Paul Manafort

Pedophiles run the world
th
 
There's nothing surprising here. It's almost as if people have never heard of immunity before. You offer it to people who have committed crimes that give them knowledge into the crimes of the person you're prosecuting. If they hadn't committed those crimes, they wouldn't need immunity. This is very basic stuff.

Sounds like Manafort should have cut a deal and started working with Mueller before his fellow criminal actors did.

I think he’s driving at this guy doing the same thing but getting away with it and the people decrying manafort will have no issue with Podesta
 
I used to think Trump may not be be guilty but the way his advocates try to discredit the prosecution constantly has made me think Trump is definitely guilty.

It's hilarious that you think Manafort's case has anything to do with Trump.
 
I think he’s driving at this guy doing the same thing but getting away with it and the people decrying manafort will have no issue with Podesta

Manafort could have been the one "getting away with it" if he had taken the deal sooner.
 
I think he’s driving at this guy doing the same thing but getting away with it and the people decrying manafort will have no issue with Podesta

I know what he's driving at. He's an idiot for doing so.

If Manafort had turned into a witness for the prosecution, he too could have had immunity. That's not about double standards or getting away with something or people having no issue with Podesta, that's about 2 co-criminals taking different approaches to their potential legal problems.

If Manafort had turned state's evidence and offered testimony against Podesta, no one would defend Podesta. And the additional questions would still be the same, what was his role in the Russian actions surrounding the 2016 election. Manafort's problem isn't his Ukranian lobbying, that's just the tip sliding in. This is all about 2015/2016 and the U.S. Presidential election.

And this is standard prosecutorial strategy. Start with the crime that you can easily prove. Offer immunity in exchange for being a witness to everyone involved. The main guy rolls then use his testimony to move up the food chain. The other guys roll - use their testimony to back the main guy into a corner and then either he rolls or his conviction opens the door to getting to others. So forth and so on. There's nothing groundbreaking happening here.

I mocked TCK with the Law and Order thing but prosecutors do this all of the time with all types of criminal organizations. At the law enforcement level, cops run operations all of the time where low level players get to stay on the street engaged in criminal activity so that their bosses can get caught. No one acts surprised that some street dealer is allowed to keep dealing drugs so that the cops can catch a big time distributor.

The only absurdity is when people act as if this is something unique because it involves Trump.
 
I know what he's driving at. He's an idiot for doing so.

If Manafort had turned into a witness for the prosecution, he too could have had immunity. That's not about double standards or getting away with something or people having no issue with Podesta, that's about 2 co-criminals taking different approaches to their potential legal problems.

If Manafort had turned state's evidence and offered testimony against Podesta, no one would defend Podesta. And the additional questions would still be the same, what was his role in the Russian actions surrounding the 2016 election. Manafort's problem isn't his Ukranian lobbying, that's just the tip sliding in. This is all about 2015/2016 and the U.S. Presidential election.

And this is standard prosecutorial strategy. Start with the crime that you can easily prove. Offer immunity in exchange for being a witness to everyone involved. The main guy rolls then use his testimony to move up the food chain. The other guys roll - use their testimony to back the main guy into a corner and then either he rolls or his conviction opens the door to getting to others. So forth and so on. There's nothing groundbreaking happening here.

I mocked TCK with the Law and Order thing but prosecutors do this all of the time with all types of criminal organizations. At the law enforcement level, cops run operations all of the time where low level players get to stay on the street engaged in criminal activity so that their bosses can get caught. No one acts surprised that some street dealer is allowed to keep dealing drugs so that the cops can catch a big time distributor.

The only absurdity is when people act as if this is something unique because it involves Trump.
I think you’re missing me here
I get all that, he means people will forget about Podesta in this story or maybe even act like he’s a saint but will pull out THe this is it routine about manafort.
 
This makes good sense to me and seems like a smart use of the law. There was an epidemic of people not properly disclosing their status under FARA, including Jared Kushner (for those keeping score). Typically, this is a slap on the wrist or is simply ignored. By putting Podesta on the hot seat for this, Mueller is accomplishing a couple of things. It sends a message that law and order will be restored. No more privilege-crimes by these political operatives ignoring FARA. Podesta has to cooperate or get nailed here, and other people who have violated this law are now on notice. It also sets the precedent for dragging a lot of butts into a lot of seats, which has the effect of expanding the resources of the investigation to uncover more serious crimes (like what Manafort is going on trial for). This is the meticulous and righteous approach that Comey, who was far too political, failed to use. This is more like a Preet Bharara approach, which doesn't ignore minor crimes because "everybody is doing it."
 
When I saw this on the news this morning, I knew it would be Bob that posted it and I knew it would be a fox news link. So predictable.
 
I know what he's driving at. He's an idiot for doing so.

If Manafort had turned into a witness for the prosecution, he too could have had immunity. That's not about double standards or getting away with something or people having no issue with Podesta, that's about 2 co-criminals taking different approaches to their potential legal problems.

If Manafort had turned state's evidence and offered testimony against Podesta, no one would defend Podesta. And the additional questions would still be the same, what was his role in the Russian actions surrounding the 2016 election. Manafort's problem isn't his Ukranian lobbying, that's just the tip sliding in. This is all about 2015/2016 and the U.S. Presidential election.

And this is standard prosecutorial strategy. Start with the crime that you can easily prove. Offer immunity in exchange for being a witness to everyone involved. The main guy rolls then use his testimony to move up the food chain. The other guys roll - use their testimony to back the main guy into a corner and then either he rolls or his conviction opens the door to getting to others. So forth and so on. There's nothing groundbreaking happening here.

I mocked TCK with the Law and Order thing but prosecutors do this all of the time with all types of criminal organizations. At the law enforcement level, cops run operations all of the time where low level players get to stay on the street engaged in criminal activity so that their bosses can get caught. No one acts surprised that some street dealer is allowed to keep dealing drugs so that the cops can catch a big time distributor.

The only absurdity is when people act as if this is something unique because it involves Trump.

When was immunity offered to Manafort?
 
I think you’re missing me here
I get all that, he means people will forget about Podesta in this story or maybe even act like he’s a saint but will pull out THe this is it routine about manafort.

I'm not missing you here. I'm pointing out that he's looking at the wrong thing because what Podesta is testifying to is about the Ukranian lobbying. However, the entire point of this investigation is the US election. Manafort's role in the Ukranian lobbying isn't that important, except as leverage for the Presidential campaign elements. Podesta's immunity is for the Ukranian lobbying, not for any potential role in the Presidential election.

That's what he's missing. He's fixated on the wrong crime.
 
When was immunity offered to Manafort?

He refused to cooperate with Mueller early on in this process. Cooperation usually comes with some protection from later prosecution on elements of the related crime.
 
Paul Manafort has been charged with many crimes, not just failing to register as a foreign agent. He's been charged with conspiracy against the United States, conspiracy to launder money, false and misleading statements, among other charges.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/po...ul-manafort/cmpR7hezua5LLuCgLS5rFP/story.html

Very convenient for Tucker Carlson to fail to mention that.

Not to mention what Pan has been stating is also exactly correct. Manafort refused to play ball. Offering some sort of immunity to a witness is a common technique.
 
He refused to cooperate with Mueller early on in this process. Cooperation usually comes with some protection from later prosecution on elements of the related crime.

They are providing immunity to Podesta and then receiving the cooperation.
 
It just hit me. I see what you’re saying. Podesta has been cooperating. The immunity is to somewhat make it “official” via testifying?
 
Back
Top