Discussion in 'The War Room' started by JosephDredd, Jul 12, 2018 at 9:16 AM.
I'm trying to follow that rabbit down the Google hole...
LULZ, he may hope to get tried by people in Roanoke County, but the city itself hates the man. I don't think it's surprising that Trump opted to visit Radford and Lynchburg instead of Roanoke.
How often do you say this about the average joe doing time in prison because in the course of investigating crime A law enforcement discovered evidence of the perpetration of crime B? Cleared of A joe goes to trial and then the big house for B.
It's a scenario that occurs somewhere virtually every single day in the American justice system.
That's not what he said. He implied that Manafort was a "high-profile" defendant. General population prisoners usually target high-profile defendants to gain notoriety. But to prejudge Manafort's guilt would be a huge violation of the canon of judicial ethics, and would probably get the judge removed from the case. FWIW, Manafort is what we call a pretrial detainee (as opposed to a convict), and his conditions of confinement cannot amount to "punishment" under the Eighth Amendment. Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (1979). Manafort's attorneys may consider filing a writ of habeas corpus or some other collateral proceeding if he's concerned that jail staff will treat him unfairly. The only reason not to is because it will probably delay the trial.
John Mitchell - Nixon's campaign manager.
He didn't say the jail could handle high-profile defendants; he specifically said terrorists, traitors and skies.
You can infer all you want, but most of us will just read the words he actually (and very specifically) spoke.
Actually, I have always been concerned about the rights of the accused. It's one the many areas in which I diverge from the mainstream Right. Erosion of Fourth Amendment rights is one of my biggest concerns. Go back and read my posts – I'm not the one to accuse of hypocrisy in this area.
Now YOU on the other hand... How many times do you complain about average people being railroaded by overzealous prosecutors? I'm not familiar with your general stances, so I'd like to know how consistent you really are when it comes to administration of justice.
How about you click on your own link and read it again.
Which part of this have you twisted to insinuate that the judge really meant to say "high profile defendants"?
Manafort is going to get BTFO at trial.
It's nothing I can recall ever commenting on specifically. But I have always clearly leaned in the direction of "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear" (with obvious caveats) when it comes to right of privacy.
If Joe is being investigated for the alleged fencing of stolen car parts, a warrant is issued on that basis, no stolen parts are found on his property but barrels full of human remains are, I am firmly on the side of completely redirecting the investigation against Joe.
The part where he says "the professionals at Alexandria Detention Center are very familiar with housing high-profile defendants . . ."
Oh shit, you got me there. I wonder why he specified terrorists, traitors and spies, though. Why do you think he specified terrorists, traitors and spies?
I am going to have to disagree on that. Good, law-abiding people have a right to tell the government "No." It is our prerogative, and that is true whether your name is Paul Manafort or Paul Daley. I disagree with anyone who insinuates that one must agree with a search or an investigation unless they have "something to hide." That's a very dangerous view to hold. It can come back to bite you easily. I urge you to reconsider.
There's something called the "plain view exception" to the warrant requirement. Simply put, if an officer is lawfully present in a location, but he notices immediately identifiable evidence of crime (including evidence which is not listed in the warrant), he can seize that evidence without a warrant. If necessary, the investigators can also apply for a new warrant. Nothing wrong with that.
But I don't think investigators should be allowed to lie in their affidavits, I don't think they should be allowed to create pretextual investigations out of whole cloth, and I don't believe they should be allowed to launder their personal grudges into an investigation. I also believe crimes should be prosecuted equally. If investigators want to send @ultramanhyata to jail, I don't think they should be allowed to rummage through everything in your life until they gather enough evidence to sustain any old random charge. I would hope you agree with that proposition. Don't let your hate for Trump (with Manafort as his proxy) cloud your common sense.
Only the best people.
His side and stuff... I wonder if he would have said the same things about the campaign manager of a dem.
Those would be examples of high-profile defendants who are detained in high-security environments pending trial. Honestly, if the judge were to directly call Manafort a "terrorist" or "traitor," that would be the best thing for his case because he's got another ground for appeal (assuming he loses the trial).
Anyone remember when @bobgeese and @SBJJ were talking about how this case wasnt looking good for Mueller after the judge wanted to see the unredacted document from Rosenstein outlining the extent of Mueller's investigative power?.....Well, I sure as hell do remember
Actually, I'm wondering what you would say about that, because the Podesta brothers did literally same exact thing Manafort is accused of.
Good, so then we agree that the judge made a point of informing him that he would be well taken care of at a place that handles terrorists, traitors and spies.
Separate names with a comma.