Manafort

[Tgo01]

There IS such a thing as an acquittal: which is an official verdict of innocence.

An acquittal is the same damn thing as a "not guilty" verdict. A judge can acquit someone which is NOT an "official verdict of innocence", it has all of the same implications as a not guilty jury verdict.

I honestly feel dumber every time you try to sound smart and fail spectacularly.

[time4fun]

Is that the case? I was under the impression that you're either guilty or not guilty but can't ever be found "innocent".

As a matter of technical legal language you're correct - I'm oversimplifying for the purpose of a normal conversation (ish). The government can actually come back after you if they find new evidence- the only way you're ever truly immune to further prosecution is if you already had a guilty verdict/plea.

But they can't come after you with the same evidence (though it's done by retroactively declaring the case as a mistrial- which basically changes the state back to no verdict). You're functionally immune to prosecution based on the existing evidence with a verdict of not guilty. In a mistrial, they can come after you with the same evidence because no verdict was rendered. So you're Shrodinger's citizen: neither guilty nor not-guilty at the same time.

[cwolff]

As a matter of technical legal language you're correct - I'm oversimplifying for the purpose of a normal conversation (ish). The government can actually come back after you if they find new evidence- the only way you're ever truly immune to further prosecution is if you already had a guilty verdict/plea.

But they can't come after you with the same evidence. You're functionally immune to prosecution based on the existing evidence with a verdict of not guilty. In a mistrial, they can come after you with the same evidence because no verdict was rendered. So you're Shrodinger's citizen: neither guilty nor not-guilty at the same time.

I'm watching trumps rally. The crowd keeps shouting Lock her up, Lock her up. HAHAHA. Waiting to see if trump pardons Manafort right on live TV.

[cwolff]

Poor Bret Baier. He and the trumplicans at Fox had a rough day so he ended his broadcast with puppies.

[time4fun]

I'm watching trumps rally. The crowd keeps shouting Lock her up, Lock her up. HAHAHA. Waiting to see if trump pardons Manafort right on live TV.

*Facepalm* These people are willing to overlook anything.

Also it looks like Cohen is willing to testify that Trump did have advanced notice of the Trump Tower meeting.

The house of cards is starting to come tumbling down. Look for Trump to do something extreme to either change the subject or to stop everything in its tracks.

At the end of the day- the US has a long-standing tradition of never going after your political opponents (Trump has already tried repeatedly to break that tradition because he only cares about himself). There's a reason why Ford Pardoned Nixon. That means that it's almost guaranteed that no one is going to go after Trump when this is all said and done. That means that for Trump, impeachment is the least risky option. If this all comes crashing down fast enough, he likely faces a higher risk of indictment as a sitting President than as a former one. (Even if neither chance is particularly high)

Once he realizes that, he may suddenly not be particularly interested in saving his own job.

[Neveragain]

The 80's are guilty of creating really shitty pop music.

The 80's are also guilty of having fucking awesome hair.

[cwolff]

*Facepalm* These people are willing to overlook anything.

Also it looks like Cohen is willing to testify that Trump did have advanced notice of the Trump Tower meeting.

The house of cards is starting to come tumbling down. Look for Trump to do something extreme to either change the subject or to stop everything in its tracks.

At the end of the day- the US has a long-standing tradition of never going after your political opponents (Trump has already tried repeatedly to break that tradition because he only cares about himself). There's a reason why Ford Pardoned Nixon. That means that it's almost guaranteed that no one is going to go after Trump when this is all said and done. That means that for Trump, impeachment is the least risky option. If this all comes crashing down fast enough, he likely faces a higher risk of indictment as a sitting President than as a former one. (Even if neither chance is particularly high)

Once he realizes that, he may suddenly not be particularly interested in saving his own job.

Ya, Cohen's attorney is on the warpath. At the very least he's definitely trying to get trumps attention.

I think that impeachment will be good for trump. They should hold enough seats to stave off losing and then he will have carte blanche to do whatever the hell he wants.

I am also interested though in the difference between committing crimes as a candidate than as POTUS. We've seen this work against him in some civil actions already.

[Androidpk]

I'm starting to lean towards Mueller directly indicting Trump. If there was ever a time to challenge that notion it's now.

[cwolff]

I'm starting to lean towards Mueller directly indicting Trump. If there was ever a time to challenge that notion it's now.

I would love to know what Emmett Flood is doing right now. I think he sends Rudy out to get all the headlines acting crazy and he's been absolutely silent behind the scenes.

[Tgo01]

The government can actually come back after you if they find new evidence- the only way you're ever truly immune to further prosecution is if you already had a guilty verdict/plea.

But they can't come after you with the same evidence (though it's done by retroactively declaring the case as a mistrial- which basically changes the state back to no verdict). You're functionally immune to prosecution based on the existing evidence with a verdict of not guilty. In a mistrial, they can come after you with the same evidence because no verdict was rendered. So you're Shrodinger's citizen: neither guilty nor not-guilty at the same time.

What the hell are you talking about? Being acquitted means you are immune from further prosecution for that crime. Period. It doesn't matter if later on the prosecution finds a video showing that indeed Bob did kill that gas station clerk, if it wasn't presented at trial and the jury found Bob not guilty then Bob is a free man for that murder. This is why prosecutors are sure they have all of the evidence they think they need to convict you of a crime first before filing any charges because if the jury comes back with a not guilty verdict it's too late. The only thing they could try and do is go after Bob for a different crime, but they sure as shit can't charge him with assault if a jury already found him not guilty of murder. They could try for maybe robbery if the video showed Bob robbing the gas station and they didn't already charge him with robbery in the first trial.

The only exception to this is the dual sovereignty doctrine where a person could be tried in both state court and federal court for the exact same crime. But if Bob is found not guilty in state court then the state can never ever ever ever ever ever try him for the gas station clerk's murder. Ever.