The other shoe drops in Manafort's case - Rosenstein himself cleared Manafort back in 2006

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Xcathdra

I guess we will see. So far you have been wrong an awful lot. You read the law as literal like you are reading it.

Judge nap already said and knew and talked about on fox and friends the AG Was working to change the NY law. I think I also linked the former AG Saying so a while back.

Actually I have not been wrong so constantly repeating that lie doesnt help your position.

Yup and the US constitution prevents ex post facto laws so good luck. You cant pass a law that would retroactively allow prosecution of a crime that was prohibited from prosecution when the crime occurred.

a reply to: luthier

Except I don't think you understand that is what happens in trials. The prosecution and defense do everything possible and the judge is the referee. 

No. You don't try "everything possible". There is a clear difference between legal wrangling and misleading the court.

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: RadioRobert

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: RadioRobert

Manafort and the timeline (ie, Manafort's home already being raided prior to the authorization), it's murky. Rosenstein can say, "Oh, by the way, look into Manafort, too" at anytime, and that begins to fall under the SC purview. But whether that gives him a carte blanche for actions taken before that authorization was received is a lot less clear legally.

The charter/memos give specific powers and authority to the SC. Much like the police can't get a warrant for your neighbors house and just turn over yours too while they are in the neighborhood. They can't do that, and then get authorization (a warrant) including your home. BUT they can get new authorization that covers you at any time. They aren't bound by the scope of their original investigation in that sense.

Is there legal testimony this happened?

If there is the case would moat likely be over by now.

Read the written response from team Mueller. It cites a memo written 2 August 2017 mentioning Manafort as it's authority. Problem: the raid on Manafort's home, for example, takes place in July. So where's the earlier authorization? The office of the SC is saying it's classified, and also, they had verbal communication authorizing the investigation. Great. Prove it. The burden is on the govt, not the defendant here.

Again true but how did they get the warrants then? It would be a massive problem and as bad as the perception is of these folks they just aren't that stupid IMO.

Misrepresenting facts to the court in order to obtain the warrant comes to mind. Like telling the court you have jurisdiction (verbal or written) when in reality you dont (or didnt at the time which is still a major no no).

What about the statute of limitations for what Manafort is charged with?

Is that in play?

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: RadioRobert

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: RadioRobert

Manafort and the timeline (ie, Manafort's home already being raided prior to the authorization), it's murky. Rosenstein can say, "Oh, by the way, look into Manafort, too" at anytime, and that begins to fall under the SC purview. But whether that gives him a carte blanche for actions taken before that authorization was received is a lot less clear legally.

The charter/memos give specific powers and authority to the SC. Much like the police can't get a warrant for your neighbors house and just turn over yours too while they are in the neighborhood. They can't do that, and then get authorization (a warrant) including your home. BUT they can get new authorization that covers you at any time. They aren't bound by the scope of their original investigation in that sense.

Is there legal testimony this happened?

If there is the case would moat likely be over by now.

Read the written response from team Mueller. It cites a memo written 2 August 2017 mentioning Manafort as it's authority. Problem: the raid on Manafort's home, for example, takes place in July. So where's the earlier authorization? The office of the SC is saying it's classified, and also, they had verbal communication authorizing the investigation. Great. Prove it. The burden is on the govt, not the defendant here.

Again true but how did they get the warrants then? It would be a massive problem and as bad as the perception is of these folks they just aren't that stupid IMO.

Misrepresenting facts to the court in order to obtain the warrant comes to mind. Like telling the court you have jurisdiction (verbal or written) when in reality you dont (or didnt at the time which is still a major no no).

That is a massive stretch of imagination.

The judge just said sure I don't have a career in don't need any proof.

originally posted by: burgerbuddy
What about the statute of limitations for what Manafort is charged with?

Is that in play?

When dealing with financial crimes the statute of limitations starts when the last illegal transaction occurred. So, as an example, if Manaforts last illegal transaction was last week, the statute of limitations would start then so they could go back decades if its all linked.

Also contrary to popular belief different felonies will have different statute of limitations and even then it can change based on the situation.

originally posted by: RadioRobert
a reply to: luthier

Except I don't think you understand that is what happens in trials. The prosecution and defense do everything possible and the judge is the referee. 

No. You don't try "everything possible". There is a clear difference between legal wrangling and misleading the court.

No there is not a clear difference in terms of the treatment of a witness and prolonging discovery as long as legally possible.

I disagree there. Federal prosecutors have been given enormous power. I personally believe far too much.

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: RadioRobert

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: RadioRobert

Manafort and the timeline (ie, Manafort's home already being raided prior to the authorization), it's murky. Rosenstein can say, "Oh, by the way, look into Manafort, too" at anytime, and that begins to fall under the SC purview. But whether that gives him a carte blanche for actions taken before that authorization was received is a lot less clear legally.

The charter/memos give specific powers and authority to the SC. Much like the police can't get a warrant for your neighbors house and just turn over yours too while they are in the neighborhood. They can't do that, and then get authorization (a warrant) including your home. BUT they can get new authorization that covers you at any time. They aren't bound by the scope of their original investigation in that sense.

Is there legal testimony this happened?

If there is the case would moat likely be over by now.

Read the written response from team Mueller. It cites a memo written 2 August 2017 mentioning Manafort as it's authority. Problem: the raid on Manafort's home, for example, takes place in July. So where's the earlier authorization? The office of the SC is saying it's classified, and also, they had verbal communication authorizing the investigation. Great. Prove it. The burden is on the govt, not the defendant here.

Again true but how did they get the warrants then? It would be a massive problem and as bad as the perception is of these folks they just aren't that stupid IMO.

Misrepresenting facts to the court in order to obtain the warrant comes to mind. Like telling the court you have jurisdiction (verbal or written) when in reality you dont (or didnt at the time which is still a major no no).

That is a massive stretch of imagination.

The judge just said sure I don't have a career in don't need any proof.

and yet that is what occurred with the FISA warrants and the violations of the Woods protocol.

Judges are not investigators and do not investigate the applications for warrants / etc brought to them. Since the applicants are officers of the court is is presumed they are submitting truthful information to the court.

So no, its not a stretch of the imagination.

The Woods protocol violation is enough to end the SC and all investigations linked to it via the information they collected with those warrants as fruit of the poisonous tree.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: RadioRobert

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: RadioRobert

Manafort and the timeline (ie, Manafort's home already being raided prior to the authorization), it's murky. Rosenstein can say, "Oh, by the way, look into Manafort, too" at anytime, and that begins to fall under the SC purview. But whether that gives him a carte blanche for actions taken before that authorization was received is a lot less clear legally.

The charter/memos give specific powers and authority to the SC. Much like the police can't get a warrant for your neighbors house and just turn over yours too while they are in the neighborhood. They can't do that, and then get authorization (a warrant) including your home. BUT they can get new authorization that covers you at any time. They aren't bound by the scope of their original investigation in that sense.

Is there legal testimony this happened?

If there is the case would moat likely be over by now.

Read the written response from team Mueller. It cites a memo written 2 August 2017 mentioning Manafort as it's authority. Problem: the raid on Manafort's home, for example, takes place in July. So where's the earlier authorization? The office of the SC is saying it's classified, and also, they had verbal communication authorizing the investigation. Great. Prove it. The burden is on the govt, not the defendant here.

Again true but how did they get the warrants then? It would be a massive problem and as bad as the perception is of these folks they just aren't that stupid IMO.

Misrepresenting facts to the court in order to obtain the warrant comes to mind. Like telling the court you have jurisdiction (verbal or written) when in reality you dont (or didnt at the time which is still a major no no).

That is a massive stretch of imagination.

The judge just said sure I don't have a career in don't need any proof.

and yet that is what occurred with the FISA warrants and the violations of the Woods protocol.

Judges are not investigators and do not investigate the applications for warrants / etc brought to them. Since the applicants are officers of the court is is presumed they are submitting truthful information to the court.

So no, its not a stretch of the imagination.

Fisa warrants are entirely different and have far looser regulations. 99 percent approved, and 75 violations were found after the Patriot act expanded them in the first year.

Not the same process by any means.

a reply to: luthier

The 99% approval rate is a fallacy if you look into it, I suggest you do so. If you can't figure out why let me know and I will do the research for you.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

If you are suggesting the win rate isn't a way to look at it is debatable.

However John ashcroft doj was dinged 75 times post warrant..the court wasn't cleaned up since with regulation.

And that was before the Protect America Act

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: RadioRobert

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: RadioRobert

Manafort and the timeline (ie, Manafort's home already being raided prior to the authorization), it's murky. Rosenstein can say, "Oh, by the way, look into Manafort, too" at anytime, and that begins to fall under the SC purview. But whether that gives him a carte blanche for actions taken before that authorization was received is a lot less clear legally.

The charter/memos give specific powers and authority to the SC. Much like the police can't get a warrant for your neighbors house and just turn over yours too while they are in the neighborhood. They can't do that, and then get authorization (a warrant) including your home. BUT they can get new authorization that covers you at any time. They aren't bound by the scope of their original investigation in that sense.

Is there legal testimony this happened?

If there is the case would moat likely be over by now.

Read the written response from team Mueller. It cites a memo written 2 August 2017 mentioning Manafort as it's authority. Problem: the raid on Manafort's home, for example, takes place in July. So where's the earlier authorization? The office of the SC is saying it's classified, and also, they had verbal communication authorizing the investigation. Great. Prove it. The burden is on the govt, not the defendant here.

Again true but how did they get the warrants then? It would be a massive problem and as bad as the perception is of these folks they just aren't that stupid IMO.

Misrepresenting facts to the court in order to obtain the warrant comes to mind. Like telling the court you have jurisdiction (verbal or written) when in reality you dont (or didnt at the time which is still a major no no).

That is a massive stretch of imagination.

The judge just said sure I don't have a career in don't need any proof.

and yet that is what occurred with the FISA warrants and the violations of the Woods protocol.

Judges are not investigators and do not investigate the applications for warrants / etc brought to them. Since the applicants are officers of the court is is presumed they are submitting truthful information to the court.

So no, its not a stretch of the imagination.

Fisa warrants are entirely different and have far looser regulations. 99 percent approved, and 75 violations were found after the Patriot act expanded them in the first year.

Not the same process by any means.

Uhm not even close. FISA warrants involving US citizens is extremely strict (more so than a normal warrant) and must comply with the Woods protocol. A FISA warrant has many different layers of review before it even reaches the DOJ. It is filled out and reviewed by the Agent. It goes to the counsel for that agents district. If he signs off it goes to the SAC for the FBI region. If he signs off it goes up their chain to the regional and then HQ level. Once they all have signed off it goes to the DOJ FISA review lawyer who goes over it all. Once its signed off their it goes to the top of the DOJ for approval.

Only then is it submitted. Those layers of review and protections, including the Woods protocol for US citizens, is why 99.8% are granted.

In the case of the FISA warrants related to this that process was not followed. It was restricted to just the top tier of the FBI and DOJ and did not go thru the standard review process. They also lied on the FISA application by failing to disclose where the info came from and misrepresenting other facts to mislead the court.

In case you werent aware 2 prior attempts to obtain a FISA warrant on this topic were rejected by the court. The Woods protocol was also violated however the court was mislead on that topic as well.

So its completely appropriate for this judge to second guess the SC and what he is claiming. The same holds for Rosenstein.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Really do you need proof for a fisa warrant?

U.S.
SECRET COURT SAYS F.B.I. AIDES MISLED JUDGES IN 75 CASES
By PHILIP SHENONAUG. 23, 2002


The nation's secret intelligence court has identified more than 75 cases in which it says it was misled by the Federal Bureau of Investigation in documents in which the bureau attempted to justify its need for wiretaps and other electronic surveillance, according to the first of the court's rulings to be released publicly.

The opinion by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which was issued in May but made public today by Congress, is stinging in its criticism of the F.B.I. and the Justice Department, which the court suggested had tried to defy the will of Congress by allowing intelligence material to be shared freely with criminal investigators

How did this happen in 2002

Then the Protect America Act

a reply to: luthier

No I have filled out enough warrants to know what they are, what the requirements are, what perpetrating a fraud on the court by misleading / omitting information in those applications is and how they apply. FISA warrants dealing with US citizens are more strict and require compliance with the Woods protocol.

Why did the Woods protocol come into existence and when?

Hint - it came into effect when the FBI/DOJ kept misleading the court to obtain the warrants. You seem to be confusing a standard FISA warrant targeting foreign nationals and a FISA warrant targeting a US citizen. There is a massive difference and this entire SC crap was because of a (4) FISA warrants targeting a US citizen.

Also FISA has been around since 1977.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: luthier

No I have filled out enough warrants to know what they are, what the requirements are, what perpetrating a fraud on the court by misleading / omitting information in those applications is and how they apply. FISA warrants dealing with US citizens are more strict and require compliance with the Woods protocol.

Why did the Woods protocol come into existence and when?

Hint - it came into effect when the FBI/DOJ kept misleading the court to obtain the warrants.

There is no proof necessary for fisa. Reasonable suspicion is fine. It's a different process and has been made more broad about every 4 years.

And your appeal to authority is meaningless

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: luthier

No I have filled out enough warrants to know what they are, what the requirements are, what perpetrating a fraud on the court by misleading / omitting information in those applications is and how they apply. FISA warrants dealing with US citizens are more strict and require compliance with the Woods protocol.

Why did the Woods protocol come into existence and when?

Hint - it came into effect when the FBI/DOJ kept misleading the court to obtain the warrants.

There is no proof necessary for fisa. Reasonable suspicion is fine. It's a different process and has been made more broad about every 4 years.

And your appeal to authority is meaningless

Stop reading only what you want.

A FISA warrant targeting a US citizen has very strict criteria, as I have already pointed out. It must comply wit h the Woods protocol.

Your attempt to ignore facts and the difference between FISA targeting a foreign national and one targeting a US citizen is pathetic.

A warrant requires probable cause.
A FISA warrant targeting a US citizen also requires probable cause and a lot of other requirements. One of which is everything in the warrant must be confirmed as fact and verified before use in a FISA warrant targeting a US citizen.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: burgerbuddy
What about the statute of limitations for what Manafort is charged with?

Is that in play?

When dealing with financial crimes the statute of limitations starts when the last illegal transaction occurred. So, as an example, if Manaforts last illegal transaction was last week, the statute of limitations would start then so they could go back decades if its all linked.

Also contrary to popular belief different felonies will have different statute of limitations and even then it can change based on the situation.

Oh Ok, didn't know he messed up last week. Is he charged for that?

I thought it was only from 2006.

Murder has no time limit.

Clapper ran out the clock on his perjury.

It's not double jeopardy if Manafort wasn't charged in 2006, either.

So I'm a bit confused.

Or do I need more red bull in my Sake?

lol.

a reply to: luthier

It's 99% because they discuss whether it will be a success with the Judge and the Judge tells them what to change to get approval. The approval rate is high because they more or less work together to draft an application that will get passed.

Responding to a letter from Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Pat Leahy (D-VT) and ranking member Charles Grassley (R-IA), the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court says, yes, it's true, we do approve 99% of all wiretap applications. But for the first time, the FISC also says that it demanded changes to 24.4 percent of those applications before granting final approval (that's for a recent three-month period).

www.npr.org...

a reply to: burgerbuddy

I was using Manafort and committing a financial crime last week to demonstrate how statute of limitations worked for financial crimes. Everything he is charged with date back to 2005/2006 however we dont know when the last illegal transaction occurred.

In general here are the guidelines -
18 USC 213 - LIMITATIONS (criminal procedure)

Double Jeopardy - A person cannot be charged for the same crime twice. If a person is charged with a crime and found not guilty of that crime then they cannot be charged for that crime again.

If a person is charged with a crime -
* - and a witness is sworn in jeopardy attaches.
* - a jury is seated jeopardy attaches.
* - and the prosecution violates certain laws / rules (like Brady or Giglio) or some other serious act the charges can be dismissed with prejudice, meaning charges cannot be refiled (some exemptions exist but its complicated).

Because the Federal government and a state government are considered separate sovereigns, a person can be charged with the same crime at the 2 different levels. However it is rare (as far as my experience goes anyways). The State of New York has a state law that says if a person is charged for a crime at the federal level he cannot be charged with the same crime at the State level as the state law considers it double jeopardy. The same applies to a Presidential pardon in the state of New York. If POTUS issues a pardon a person cannot be charged with that crime in State court in NY.
To my knowledge only New York State has this law. Every other state can charge a person who is also charged at the federal level. Also a Presidential pardon in states other than New York have no bearing on state prosecutions. A Presidential pardon only applies to federal crimes and not state (NY being the exception).

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: RadioRobert

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: RadioRobert

Manafort and the timeline (ie, Manafort's home already being raided prior to the authorization), it's murky. Rosenstein can say, "Oh, by the way, look into Manafort, too" at anytime, and that begins to fall under the SC purview. But whether that gives him a carte blanche for actions taken before that authorization was received is a lot less clear legally.

The charter/memos give specific powers and authority to the SC. Much like the police can't get a warrant for your neighbors house and just turn over yours too while they are in the neighborhood. They can't do that, and then get authorization (a warrant) including your home. BUT they can get new authorization that covers you at any time. They aren't bound by the scope of their original investigation in that sense.

Is there legal testimony this happened?

If there is the case would moat likely be over by now.

Read the written response from team Mueller. It cites a memo written 2 August 2017 mentioning Manafort as it's authority. Problem: the raid on Manafort's home, for example, takes place in July. So where's the earlier authorization? The office of the SC is saying it's classified, and also, they had verbal communication authorizing the investigation. Great. Prove it. The burden is on the govt, not the defendant here.

Again true but how did they get the warrants then? It would be a massive problem and as bad as the perception is of these folks they just aren't that stupid IMO.

How did they get warrants? They went to a judge and said, "Hi, I'm Joe Feebee, and I'm with Mueller's special counsel office, and I am submitting this fine warrant application filled with evidence constituting probable cause so that you can authorize me to search his estate for records I believe critical to our investigation."
And the judge looked at it and said, "Yes, Mr Feebee, it appears you have filled this application with evidence constituting probable cause allowing me to endorse this warrant for the purpose of your investigation".

The judge knows he has a commission and assumes this is covered in his jurisdiction. The defense never gets a chance to say, "hey, wait a minute" when they go before a judge for a warrant. That's happening now.

If the office of the SC did it deliberately, they'd have a big problem. They didn't. They just #'ed up. They charged in and afterward realized, "#, we're on thin ice". There would be no reason to mislead the court for the warrant. They just had to get their ducks in a row. But it looks like they didn't.

Now they are trying to save their baby, and I think they may be misleading the court as to when and how the authorization to look into Manafort came about. The reason I am suspicious is that the statements don't fit together well. They failed to make a comprehensive argument. It was more like throwing stuff against the wall. People on solid ground don't do that in my experience. "We can do whatever we want. The charter isn't enforceable by you. We also have an August memo mentioning Manafort. There are other memos, but you can't see them. Well, we got verbal communication authorizing us at every step".

Probably why the judge wants to take a look at what's in the mystery box instead of taking their word for it.