Sen. Blumenthal: "Now NO QUESTION Of Clear Evidence Connecting Manafort To Criminal Wrongdoing"

[kpete]

Link to tweet

[mobeau69]

1. I like this a lot!

Blumenthal is always measured in what he says. This is a BFD!

[procon]

2. The only thing I wanna know is, will he flip? nt

[Vinnie From Indy]

3. I bet he is singing like a canary.

I also bet that he is asking for FBI witness protection.

Putin is an old style mafia boss. He murders his problems.

[procon]

5. Good point. Putin would be much worse than a Federal prison. nt

[Xolodno]

10. Unlikely Putin will "off him".

He needs him alive. Putin's goal was to cause mass chaos for as long as possible in the US Government. The longer this soap opera goes, the longer US intelligence, operations, etc. are hamstrung. That is Putin's prize. We've already lost massive clout and credibility on the global stage...enough probably to affect issues for at least a decade.

[dalton99a]

4. A search warrant signed by a federal judge is serious business

[marybourg]

6. Yes, but it's NOT

"clear evidence of wrongdoing". This is just wrong and should be condemned.

[Cicada]

7. I guess the judge needs 51% odds of a crime to hit "probable" cause

I guess 51% is not enough to be "clear evidence" of a crime. More like not yet clear evidence but probably a crime.

[Igel]

8. If a prosecutor thinks I have evidence

and might destroy it or hand it over to somebody else, you get this kind of raid as well.

Probable cause is a requirement found in the Fourth Amendment that must usually be met before police make an arrest, conduct a search, or receive a warrant. Courts usually find probable cause when there is a reasonable basis for believing that a crime may have been committed (for an arrest) or when evidence of the crime is present in the place to be searched (for a search).

So there's a "reasonable basis" to believe a crime has been committed and there's evidence of that crime in the place to be searched.

Doesn't mean a crime's been committed--just that the prosecutor presented enough information to convince a judge. Moreover, that information or evidence went unchallenged by anybody *but* the judge, and there was nobody there to point out information or evidence that would undermine the claim. That's why we have trials. The prosecutor has a presumption of guilt and suspicion, but still has to prove it.

Doesn't mean that the person whose property is searched or seized is the alleged criminal.

Getting this clear in every instance helps avoid conspiracy and charges of corruption. "But they indicted him and searched his place, but then he got off. The system's rigged." Because it was assumed he was guilty and managed to get declared innocent. If he wasn't guilty, justice was served. Don't know about Manafort. So far it's all circumstantial and in many cases the "evidence" is stuff that was done pre-Trump.

[Gabi Hayes]

9. Fourth amendment? Sounds familiar

Did we have one of those once?

[pnwmom]

11. "Clear evidence of wrongdoing " does not equal "clear PROOF" of wrongdoing.

Last edited Thu Aug 10, 2017, 04:59 AM - Edit history (1)

In order get this warrant, they did provide clear evidence. Whether it will be enough, in combination with other evidence, to eventually prove his guilt is still to be determined.

For example, Donald Junior's emails could constitute clear evidence of soliciting campaign help from the Russians, but it wouldn't necessarily constitute proof that could lead to a conviction. Additional evidence would be necessary.