Interesting from Manafort case. No collusion not Trump related per SC

[dirtytoeddawg]

Notes from recent court proceedings:

“Evidence or argument relating to Mr. Manafort's work for then-candidate Trump's campaign in 2016 or the Special Counsel's investigation of the campaign's alleged collusion with the Russian government," the Manafort team wrote in a June 22 motion, "is wholly irrelevant to whether Mr. Manafort's personal income tax returns were false, whether he willfully failed to file reports of foreign accounts, and whether he conspired to commit, or committed, bank fraud."

Mueller's response was two-fold. On the issue of collusion, the special counsel, in a motion filed July 6, flatly said, "The government does not intend to present at trial evidence or argument concerning collusion with the Russiangovernment and, accordingly does not oppose the defendant's motion in that respect."

To those Trump opponents who had hopedMueller would unveil evidence of Trump-Russia collusion involving Manafort, it was a sharp andstunning admission: there's no collusion in thecase against Manafort.”

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...nuous-link-between-manafort-charges-and-trump

 

[JudgeLarryDawg]

Notes from recent court proceedings:

“Evidence or argument relating to Mr. Manafort's work for then-candidate Trump's campaign in 2016 or the Special Counsel's investigation of the campaign's alleged collusion with the Russian government," the Manafort team wrote in a June 22 motion, "is wholly irrelevant to whether Mr. Manafort's personal income tax returns were false, whether he willfully failed to file reports of foreign accounts, and whether he conspired to commit, or committed, bank fraud."

Mueller's response was two-fold. On the issue of collusion, the special counsel, in a motion filed July 6, flatly said, "The government does not intend to present at trial evidence or argument concerning collusion with the Russiangovernment and, accordingly does not oppose the defendant's motion in that respect."

To those Trump opponents who had hopedMueller would unveil evidence of Trump-Russia collusion involving Manafort, it was a sharp andstunning admission: there's no collusion in thecase against Manafort.”

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...nuous-link-between-manafort-charges-and-trump

I am not a keen student of the law you why isn't the Manafort case being scrutinized as an example of either

Malicious Prosecution or Abuse of Process
While the two claims are similar, malicious prosecution and abuse of process claims have some essential differences.

A plaintiff can sue for abuse of process when a defendant starts a legal process with the intention to obtain results for which the process was not designed. A plaintiff can sue for malicious prosecution when a defendant “maliciously” prosecutes a criminal case or uses a civil proceeding against the plaintiff when the defendant knows he or she doesn’t have a case. In addition, the plaintiff must have already obtained a “favorable termination” of the defendant’s malicious case before he or she can sue for malicious prosecution.

 

[DawgHammarskjold]

I am not a keen student of the law you why isn't the Manafort case being scrutinized as an example of either

Malicious Prosecution or Abuse of Process
While the two claims are similar, malicious prosecution and abuse of process claims have some essential differences.

A plaintiff can sue for abuse of process when a defendant starts a legal process with the intention to obtain results for which the process was not designed. A plaintiff can sue for malicious prosecution when a defendant “maliciously” prosecutes a criminal case or uses a civil proceeding against the plaintiff when the defendant knows he or she doesn’t have a case. In addition, the plaintiff must have already obtained a “favorable termination” of the defendant’s malicious case before he or she can sue for malicious prosecution.

Very, Very Special Counsels like Silly Savage Mueller are mostly immune from legal action.

 

[dirtytoeddawg]

The case against Manafort is weird as hell to me. It appears all the SC did was to pick up old DOJ files on him and bring them back for prosecution and added a few more recent items. Much of his transgressions stem back over a decade and have nothing to do with the SCs original intent. RR expanded the SCs scope specifically and after the fact to allow for this. It truly seems to be a facade of some sort.

 

[deadduckdawg]

Did y'all see this Trump Tweet with a spelling mistake. I have to wonder if it was intentional. FAH, either way.
"Ex-FBI LAYER [sic] Lisa Page...."