Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard
Because.... it's an investigation.
My guess is that during the original investigation they put in "x" amount of effort, routine investigation, but when they took a closer look at him during the Russian collusion investigation it was "x times a thousand" and they discovered more.
A judge telling the FBI they don't have the right to bring charges against someone after they find evidence of a crime is utterly ridiculous. Are they using Manafort to get to Trump? I am sure they are. This is the job of the Special Prosecutor - they get the people at the bottom to flip on the guy above them. The FBI got the guys below Manafort to flip and tell them what they know about Manafort, and.... If Manafort doesn't want to flip then he can take his chances and go to trial.
Nothing wrong with this at all. The FBI, in the course of their investigation, found a crime. Maybe they offered Manafort a deal, maybe they didn't. If they offered him a deal and he decide not to take it, he still goes to trial.
The Special Prosecutor has every right to pursue this.
|
"A judge who's been serving on the federal bench since the 1980s is old enough to remember when Justice Department special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation was about alleged Russian collusion. Now the judge wants to know why Mr. Mueller's signature prosecution doesn't appear to have anything to do with it."
https://www.wsj.com/articles/mueller...dge-1525467768
"The exclusionary rule was adopted to effectuate the Fourth Amendment right of all citizens 'to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures . . . .' Under this rule, evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment cannot be used in a criminal proceeding against the victim of the illegal search and seizure. This prohibition applies as well to the fruits of the illegally seized evidence." United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338 (1974).
"The essence of the constitutional provision prohibiting unreasonable searches and seizures is not merely that evidence so acquired shall not be used before a court but that it shall not be used at all; while facts thus obtained may be proved like any others if knowledge of them is gained from an independent source, nevertheless the knowledge gained by the government's own wrongs cannot be used by it in a criminal prosecution." Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963).
"Under this Court's holdings, the exclusionary rule reaches not only primary evidence obtained as a direct result of an illegal search or seizure, but also evidence later discovered and found to be derivative of an illegality or 'fruit of the poisonous tree.' It extends as well to the indirect as the direct products of unconstitutional conduct." Segura v. United States, 468 U.S. 796 (1984).