It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: RadioRobert
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.