U.S. judge questions special counsel's powers in Manafort case

a reply to: TheRedneck

There's a bigger problem for Mueller and the judge isn't going to like it.

Rosenstein’s Secret Special Counsel Memo Was Written After the Feds Already Raided Manafort’s House. Meaning he tried to backdate permission for the raid.

a reply to: introvert

They are not political frustrations, they are legal/constitutional frustrations. A judge SHOULD be pissed off at the idea someone has determined they have unfettered power and can do anything they want.

a reply to: dragonridr

Judge Ellis may have picked up on that already. It is not unusual for a judge to investigate the legality of a brought case, with an eye to demanding further investigation and potential prosecution into anything untoward that he may find.

Methinks perhaps Mueller got too big of an ego going untouched all these years. It has also come out that he and Rosenstein were involved with the early-morning raid of Blagojevich a few years back. I said at the time that there was something very fishy going on and it didn't smell like Long John Silver's special. Mueller may be a Special Prosecutor for the Executive Branch, but he's going up against a sitting President. The Constitution is on Trump's side. Trump cannot even be indicted while President, only impeached and removed (requiring 2/3 supermajority of both houses of Congress, if I remember correctly); Mueller can face criminal charges at any time.

TheRedneck

Back dating approval to make an act legal wont fly.

a reply to: TheRedneck

I wanted to quote that simply because it needs to be preserved for posterity. "It won't affect the case, but I'm concerned it will affect the case."

That's not what was said. Do not be dishonest and misrepresent what was said.

Let's use your own logic here... no, but yes.

Are you just trolling now?

Do you really need me to go through the laundry list of Democratic operatives in and out of Congress that have called for Trump's impeachment since the election (which was a few months before he even took office)? Well, no. I'm not going to. It's common knowledge, and you still haven't even shown that you understand (or will admit to understand) the most basic premise behind the verbal beat-down.

Ok. How does that justify the judge's comments, considering that is was not Democrats in or out of congress presenting the case, or in charge of the SC?

If you read what you just posted, you just admitted that his comments could have been politically-motivated.

That is exactly what we should all fear. The law should be blind to politics.

I never claimed that Mueller's experience caused the judge to question jurisdiction. I said that his experience indicated that he should have well known that was the first thing he had to establish and he did not do so. It doesn't matter if it was Mueller or some guy out of the gutter that wanted to be an attorney... ANYONE who presents a case before ANY judge in ANY respect must first show jurisdiction in order to have standing before the court. Without standing established by jurisdiction, he is wasting the court's time; he has no right to even speak to the judge, much less level charges.

Sure. I can agree with that.

So it begs the question again. What purpose does it serve to say what he said?

If you cannot or will not accept that simple legal fact, there is no way you can even begin to understand the issue. Thus, if you want to continue this conversation, I need to know that you do understand it. I'm not typing that explanation over again for you.

I understand where you are coming from. I just do not understand what purpose it served.

But I think you already admitted that it was potentially politically-motivated. I said that we should keep an eye on it moving forward. You plain as day came out and admitted that his comments to the prosecution were because of the Democrats in and out of congress, their calls for impeachment and that was the most basic premise behind the verbal beat-down.

That shows you believe his motivations were informed by personal politics.

I didn't even go as far as you did, but at least you were finally honest.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
Back dating approval to make an act legal wont fly.

The day of reckoning is coming,and muellers team is not prepared.
"" If that f - - - ing bastard wins, we all hang from nooses"
HRC

This thread should have come with a trigger warning.

The fact that a judge would question the Special Council was bound to trigger someone.


Read back through the thread and see if you can figure out who got triggered. Happy hunting!

a reply to: introvert

That's not what was said. Do not be dishonest and misrepresent what was said.

Actually, yes it was. In your own words, no less.

Are you just trolling now?

I'm using your logic so you tell me. Are we both trolling?

Sure. I can agree with that.

So it begs the question again. What purpose does it serve to say what he said?

Great; we can continue, secure in the admission that jurisdiction is the first step required before presenting even charges.

There are two documents, according to Mueller's team, which provide them with jurisdiction. One is the original document from Rod Rosenstein establishing the Special Counsel. Judge Ellis stated that this did not grant jurisdiction, because the charges stemmed from alleged actions undertaken long before the campaign and were already known to the FBI form a previously investigated case that was not pursued. The second, the secret scope memo from Rosenstein, was not made available to Judge Ellis, despite the open-court claim that it was this second document which established their jurisdiction. Their reasoning that it was not presented was that it concerned other "ongoing investigations" and could endanger national security.

Everything in that last paragraph is factual representation of what happened in open court.

Thus, Mueller's prosecutorial team attempted to present criminal charges to a Federal judge without the documentation establishing the required jurisdiction to have the case heard. That is the very definition of a "rookie mistake." Robert Mueller has worked in the legal profession since 1973, a career spanning 45 years. 12 of those he served as the Director of the FBI, under both a Republican President (George W. Bush) and a Democratic President (Barack Obama). He is not a "rookie."

Therefore, there must be something else behind the reasoning to not be prepared to show jurisdiction. I believe, given the constant allusions to impeachment by a large percentage of Washington DC pundits, the myriad of claims of potential impropriety that have been raised concerning the Mueller probe, the lack of any evidence or even suspicion of future evidence after this much time, multiple highly questionable Federal injunctions that have essentially attempted to overthrow the Constitutional powers of the Presidency, and the outspoken concerns that some have raised that Trump was planning on firing Mueller despite no such actual indication from Trump himself, that it is quite reasonable to suspect that Mueller has intent to use the impending investigation in order to simply pressure Manafort into turning state's evidence on Trump. Otherwise, there is no advantage in even pursuing the case because it cannot even proceed without evidence the prosecutors are refusing to turn over.

While such tactics are regularly used by prosecutors and are not illegal in themselves, the legality of using a mock trial, which one has no possible chance of prevailing in, to intimidate a witness does tread on illegality. There is a large difference between vigorously prosecuting someone for criminal conduct, but allowing a plea deal on condition of turning state's evidence, and attempting to prosecute someone without standing for the sole purpose of threatening them into turning state's evidence. That falls under the broader heading of fraudulent prosecution.

I see no reason to believe that Judge Ellis' comments were anything other than simply anger and frustration that a prosecutor as decorated and respected as Mueller would stoop to such illegal tactics and waste his time in this sort of ruse. I also see no reason for Mueller to do so unless he was somewhat desperate to obtain incriminating information on Trump, which cannot be prosecuted but can only be used as a tool for impeachment.

Thus, the judge's comments. Biased? Quite possibly, but biased in favor of justice.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Very well written
Thank you!

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: Xcathdra
Back dating approval to make an act legal wont fly.

The day of reckoning is coming,and muellers team is not prepared.
"" If that f - - - ing bastard wins, we all hang from nooses"
HRC

After reading about 20 pages of the court transcript I was amazed the judge didnt grant the defense motion to dismiss. The prosecutor attempted several times to provide answers to the judges questions that did anything but answer his question. The judge noted that more than a few times by telling the prosecutor that he was once again running away from the question.

The back and forth over jurisdiction was also problematic for Mueller. The judge pointed out that jurisdiction part A absolutely did not apply. The explanation given to the judge for application of section b also became problematic because the prosecutor attempted to argue Manaforts actions were linked to Russians. The judge interrupted and asked Russians or Ukrainians. The prosecutor had to correct his statement to Ukrainians but tried to claim Manafort had Russian contacts.

The argument given by the prosecutor was a disaster imo.

Trying to tell a judge you have jurisdiction while at the same time trying to argue the judge does not need to see the scope memo was not exactly the brightest move. He even tried to make the argument about the information being restricted (classified / insert generic secret term here). The judge shot that down immediately by reminding the prosecutor all federal district court judges have the security clearance to review the material. He went on to lecture the prosecutor over the steps that can be taken to ensure information is safeguarded by invoking some national security provisions that allows the judge to essentially seal the court and only disclose info from it if it directly affects the defendant.

After seeing the transcripts I see why the judge accused the prosecution of lying. The defense also made the same claims in their answers about the prosecution lying.

This is going to be interesting to see how it plays out.

48 page court transcript ***PDF***

A good read if you have the time.

As I said the SC got owned.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
48 page court transcript ***PDF***

A good read if you have the time.

As I said the SC got owned.

Thanks for the link.

Got to say the reality does not match the headline. Sure the judge asked the SC some questions but he never really attacked them as the stories said. Reading through it I would say he is very likely to throw out Manafort's claim that the SC do not have jurisdiction.

a reply to: UKTruth

Judge seems to go pretty hard on them on what I read from pages 6-9, and it seems he doubts the claim the scope of the investigation covers this.

a reply to: UKTruth

I wouldn't be so sure of that he could easily return the case to Virginia and its prosecutor. Mueller took this from them saying he had jurisdiction to do so. If the judge decides he does not and returns it to them huge win for Mueller. Because the likely outcome will become paying a fine as opposed to going to jail.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Actually, yes it was. In your own words, no less.

By definition, it was not my own words. You made it up and there were very important words used that you seem to have not caught that gives a completely different context from what you presented. Can you quote where I said '"It won't affect the case, but I'm concerned it will affect the case"?

If you would like me to show where you completely went wrong in reading my statement, I'd be glad to point it out, but I think you know and you are being intentionally dishonest.

Again, there is no need to be dishonest. We may not agree on may things, but you could at least present yourself with a bit of integrity.

I'm using your logic so you tell me. Are we both trolling?

You're not even using the words I posted, let alone any bit of logic.

Great; we can continue, secure in the admission that jurisdiction is the first step required before presenting even charges.

I never denied that and that has never been a point of contention. Not sure why you keep arguing a point I never disputed.

Thus, the judge's comments. Biased? Quite possibly, but biased in favor of justice.

Justice can be a very subjective term, depending on the personal interpretation of the person using it. In this case, justice seems to mean, at least to you, a judge that will have emotional outbursts in court about his personal political feelings, when all that was in question at this time was jurisdiction, and politics has nothing to do with his duties at that particular point and time.

In fact, politics should never be a part of his duties .

Like I said, you've already admitted something that I only said we needed to be mindful of and to look out for.

Glad we can agree that he was being politically-biased. You say it's for justice. I say justice should be blind to politics.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Thanks for the info and link.
If Manafort broke the law he should be held responsible, but Mueller doesn't get to break the law in order to hold him responsible.
Funny how there is trouble in all these cases except for the "lying to the fbi" portions(Flynns case will blow that open).

a reply to: introvert

If you would like me to show...

Actually, I think it's a pretty silly dispute to start with. I'm not even sure why you started it. Don't trouble yourself.

You're not even using the words I posted, let alone any bit of logic.

I used your quotes.

I never denied that and that has never been a point of contention. Not sure why you keep arguing a point I never disputed.

I never claimed you disputed it; only that you ignored it.

Justice can be a very subjective term, depending on the personal interpretation of the person using it.

No.

No, NO, NO, NO!

Justice cannot be subjective by definition! Never! If it becomes subjective it is not justice!

You just went off into unicorn riding along rainbows land!

Absolutely not!

Justice is forced adherence to the law. The law is written down and recorded precisely. It is not something that can be changed on a whim because one likes one person and doesn't like the other. That is injustice.

If you can even make that statement, your opinion on anything else on this subject is irrelevant. Good talking to you.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Actually, I think it's a pretty silly dispute to start with. I'm not even sure why you started it. Don't trouble yourself.

True. It is silly. It would not have even become a point if you would not have made a misrepresentation of my comment.

I used your quotes.

Yes, you quoted it, but you did not use the same words in your misrepresentation. Words are important and can change the context of what was said, as is notable in your response.

I never claimed you disputed it; only that you ignored it.

Ignored it? Where did I state that I refused to address that issue?

Justice cannot be subjective by definition! Never! If it becomes subjective it is not justice!

Of course it can be subjective. Justice is a word. A word can mean many things to many people and depending upon it's application.

What you mean is that the application of the law is not subjective. That is true. But the application of the law does not mean that justice was served, or that the law had anything to do with the application of justice.

Justice is forced adherence to the law. The law is written down and recorded precisely. It is not something that can be changed on a whim because one likes one person and doesn't like the other. That is injustice.

Justice exists outside of the law as well.

That is a topic for another time, as it is much more complex than I think we have patience for at the moment.

If you can even make that statement, your opinion on anything else on this subject is irrelevant.

Justice is much more than forced adherence to the law, by definition, and why I said it can be a subjective term.

Good talking to you.

Not really. You've been dishonest, misrepresented what I said, used many logical fallacies and in the end...admitted that the judge's comments were based on his personal political opinions.

You've gone in one big circle, only to validate my concerns.

And for what purpose? To argue over things that were never said or just to troll?

How is that good?

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: TheRedneck

Actually, I think it's a pretty silly dispute to start with. I'm not even sure why you started it. Don't trouble yourself.

True. It is silly. It would not have even become a point if you would not have made a misrepresentation of my comment.

I used your quotes.

Yes, you quoted it, but you did not use the same words in your misrepresentation. Words are important and can change the context of what was said, as is notable in your response.

I never claimed you disputed it; only that you ignored it.

Ignored it? Where did I state that I refused to address that issue?

Justice cannot be subjective by definition! Never! If it becomes subjective it is not justice!

Of course it can be subjective. Justice is a word. A word can mean many things to many people.

What you mean is that the application of the law is not subjective. That is true. But the application of the law does not mean that justice was served, or that the law had anything to do with the application of justice.

Justice is forced adherence to the law. The law is written down and recorded precisely. It is not something that can be changed on a whim because one likes one person and doesn't like the other. That is injustice.

Justice exists outside of the law as well.

That is a topic for another time, as it is much more complex than I think we have patience for at the moment.

If you can even make that statement, your opinion on anything else on this subject is irrelevant.

Justice is much more than forced adherence to the law, by definition, and why I said it can be a subjective term.

Good talking to you.

Not really. You've been dishonest, misrepresented what I said, used many logical fallacies and in the end...admitted that the judge's comments were based on his personal political opinions.

You've gone in one big circle, only to validate my concerns.

And for what purpose? To argue over things that were never said or just to troll?

How is that good?

Are we at the point now where we are arguing over the meanings of words to different people instead of whether or not this judge should get his copy of Muellers scope? I recently read that a lot of Muellers scope was given to him verbally by Rosenstien so I wonder how that will hold up in court? It will take a lot of logic from this point forward on everyone's part.
BOOM😘

a reply to: xxspockyxx

Are we at the point now where we are arguing over the meanings of words to different people instead of whether or not this judge should get his copy of Muellers scope?

If we are all grown adults, we should not have argue about the meaning of words, but it appears I am forced to, if and when words used are lost and context is misrepresented by the dishonest.

No matter, the judge is well within his right to request what he has. I have never disputed that.

I recently read that a lot of Muellers scope was given to him verbally by Rosenstien so I wonder how that will hold up in court?

It will be interesting to see how that turns out.

It will take a lot of logic from this point forward on everyone's part.

Then I guess we are screwed.