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.

 

Paul Manafort sues Mueller and the DoJ

page: 10
25
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 4 2018 @ 12:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: SirHardHarry

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Vector99

if muellers team was "THE TOP DOGS" mueller would have turned manafort over for rosenstein to prosecute
but no mueller HIMSELF had to get the indictment


Mueller knows exactly what he's doing. Mainly uncovering a vast criminal conspiracy around trump and co and also involving russian interests and money laundering. The web is vast, and that's what mueller is finding. Trump put himself on the radar the moment his ego got too big and he pounced on the presidency.

And they're sweating. That's why they're doing everything they can to shut it all down.


LOL!!!!! Umh... RIGHT! Well... since you are going to go there... maybe you could link us to some actual evidence of substance to support that "reality"? (...and be sure to pass it on to Mueller's crew. They have been having some trouble finding it.)

Evidence = that which provides direct proof of the truth of an assertion.





posted on Jan, 4 2018 @ 12:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: carewemust

Laws are laws. But they take the same volume of knowledge as physics to understand them.

Ever see the cliche volumes of books in a lawyers office, and their desks spilled over with case files and law books?

You cant Google a statute and expect to understand what it means. It's not that simple. Particularly in a common law system.


I see. So attorneys are promoted to the level of JUDGE if they've accumulated and mastered enough knowledge to be a good referee during trials?



posted on Jan, 4 2018 @ 04:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: carewemust

Laws are laws. But they take the same volume of knowledge as physics to understand them.

Ever see the cliche volumes of books in a lawyers office, and their desks spilled over with case files and law books?

You cant Google a statute and expect to understand what it means. It's not that simple. Particularly in a common law system.


I see. So attorneys are promoted to the level of JUDGE if they've accumulated and mastered enough knowledge to be a good referee during trials?



With 2 yrs of Judge school, of course.

Still, doesn't there have to be an actual crime to start an investigation?

Wasn't Mueller head of the FBI when they were investigating corruption involving the U1 deal and then made it disappear?
What happened to it?

He is going to have his own problems soon.

I hope Manafort gets his day in court.




posted on Jan, 4 2018 @ 05:27 AM
link   
If already posted / pointed out my apologies.

When I saw the lawsuit was filed I was of the mindset that the motion would be dismissed by the court. However now that we can see the brief that was filed my position has changed to thinking Manafort will prevail.

Manafort Lawsuit Will Likely Shut Down Deep State Mueller Investigation!

Bullet points from the article above -
* - First in order to challenge the legality of the Special Counsel in this situation a person had to have legal standing. No one had standing until Manafort and others were charged.

* - The orders give by DAG Rosenstein (appointment of special counsel and what of is charged with doing) are illegal. Under Federal Law the special counsel can only be put in place to investigate a crime. In this instance "collusion with Russia" is NOT a crime. Since that was the situation that was used to constitute the special counsel, investigate collusion by the Trump campaign and Russia, Muellers investigation is invalid / illegal.

* - "Investigating collusion" was the catalyst that allowed the fishing expedition. The other part of Muellers mandate, to investigate any crimes that may arise from the investigation of collusion. The special counsel was given a mandate to investigate a non existent crime in order to provide cover so they could go after Trump and associates for any crimes they can dig up.

You cant start an investigation into someone when no crime exists.
You can't use the initial baseless investigation in order to go fishing hoping to find a different crime.

Now - what about "conspiracy" that members bring up? No one has been accused of / indicted for "conspiracy". As no one has been charged with that it cannot be used as a foundation to justify the special counsel. "What if / what aboutism" doesnt work in this instance.

* - The information Mueller obtained from Manafort's pre dawn raid on his house were taken illegally. They were not specified in the warrant for starters. Even if a successful argument is made as an exception to the 4th amendment the documents were protected by attorney client privilege. A member of Muellers team has been successful to a point in the past for breaching attorney client privilege. However that same member has had a lot of his "successful" prosecutions verdicts vacated by higher courts for the manner in which the evidence was obtained / what evidence was used.

The legal argument being presented by Manaforts legal team is compelling as it is based in fact and is supported by law. Also people need to understand the law that created the special counsel position (think Bill Clinton investigation) was allowed to expire on constitutional grounds. During that Clinton time period a judge did give an opinion on the status of special counsel. The judge stated that a special counsel would most likely be legal as an internal policy rule.

With that said a special counsel was last appointed during Bil Clintons mess so the current legality of special counsel is not all that clear, which is another point that can be raised by Manaforts team.

Based on all information available publicly it looks like Manaforts legal challenge is on sound legal ground and likely to succeed.

If he wins then Mueller is done.



posted on Jan, 4 2018 @ 05:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: burgerbuddy
Still, doesn't there have to be an actual crime to start an investigation?


Ding ding ding ding....

You my friend nailed it and won the prize.

I am thinking the reason some Republicans and Trump were keeping Mueller in place was because Muellers investigation was exposing criminal acts by Clinton and cronies. Since she and her cronies arent charged nor under investigation by MUeller they have no standing to challenge Muellers team. We need to remeber that several prominent Democrats have spoken out agaisnt Mueller and DAG Rosenstein.

We may now know why they changed their tune.
edit on 4-1-2018 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2018 @ 06:51 AM
link   
Interesting timing...


Breaking: FBI and DOJ Announce They Will FINALLY Deliver Subpoenaed Docs on Phony Dossier to Congress


House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-CA) is tired of waiting for Deep State to turn over subpoenaed documents.

Nunes and GOP lawmakers on the Intel Committee gave the Department of Justice and FBI until Wednesday to turn over requested documents on the phony Trump dossier.


click link for article / video.



posted on Jan, 4 2018 @ 09:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

As an alleged officer you have to understand this will be thrown out...

Or you haven't read up on the actual investigative powers given to mueller...

Why did he not file a motion in the criminal court,..how is that hearing going to go on the 16th when the judge for the criminal case sees him trying to circumvent her court?

My guess is not well.

link



posted on Jan, 4 2018 @ 09:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: carewemust

Laws are laws. But they take the same volume of knowledge as physics to understand them.

Ever see the cliche volumes of books in a lawyers office, and their desks spilled over with case files and law books?

You cant Google a statute and expect to understand what it means. It's not that simple. Particularly in a common law system.


I see. So attorneys are promoted to the level of JUDGE if they've accumulated and mastered enough knowledge to be a good referee during trials?


I don't know if you are trying sarcasm but sort of..
Once they have reputations of being knowledgeable of the law and having success in cases they can be recommended and confirmed. Some states elect judges which is a pretty dumb idea IMO.

One interesting aspect of lawyers is they seldom stick to party lines and are hired for their skill. They can be totally opposed to their client and still operate. Now plenty do fight for their beliefs as well but it crosses party lines far more than politicians.



posted on Jan, 4 2018 @ 09:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
Interesting timing...


Breaking: FBI and DOJ Announce They Will FINALLY Deliver Subpoenaed Docs on Phony Dossier to Congress


House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-CA) is tired of waiting for Deep State to turn over subpoenaed documents.

Nunes and GOP lawmakers on the Intel Committee gave the Department of Justice and FBI until Wednesday to turn over requested documents on the phony Trump dossier.


click link for article / video.


Could you have found a more partisan explanation?

Almost 100 percent speculation.

What happens of it turns out the docs are more damning than perceived?

Sessions and Rodstein and Wray are all Trump picks. Why would they be protecting the data?
edit on 4-1-2018 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2018 @ 09:44 AM
link   
a reply to: luthier

What the hell did you link to?

As an officer with experience in dealing with the courts Manaforts argument is valid and has a chance to succeed.

As for filing the motion he had to be charged first with a crime in order to have standing to challenge the investigation. This hearing has no bearing on what the other judge thinks or does, assuming its a different judge hearing the argument. This motion does not circumvent the courts.



posted on Jan, 4 2018 @ 09:47 AM
link   
a reply to: luthier

At least my source is not a scanned image of what looks like a newspaper clipping.

The explanation is not partisan. It is a legal challenge made by the defense and is completely valid and lawful. I get the impression you dont have a ;allot of experience with the US judicial system. pre trial motions are filed all the time by both sides.

What you mistakenly view as partisan is in fact normal.



posted on Jan, 4 2018 @ 09:49 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

I linked to the federal register, it's scanned and highlighted.

www.nytimes.com...

Charges for manafort.

Again why did he not file a motion in the criminal court but chose a civil lawsuit?

Your not batting well in our legal discussions.

And I wasnt talking about the civil lawsuit. I was talking about the dosier.

As far as I know the info in question hasn't been released to the public or nunes wouldn't be grand standing.
edit on 4-1-2018 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2018 @ 09:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: luthier

What the hell did you link to?

As an officer with experience in dealing with the courts Manaforts argument is valid and has a chance to succeed.

As for filing the motion he had to be charged first with a crime in order to have standing to challenge the investigation. This hearing has no bearing on what the other judge thinks or does, assuming its a different judge hearing the argument. This motion does not circumvent the courts.


Actually, this is a very odd move for Manafort to make.

If he did have a solid legal position to stand on, he should have used this as a motion to dismiss in the criminal proceedings, and not in a civil suit.

And Manafort has been charged with crimes already.



posted on Jan, 4 2018 @ 09:55 AM
link   
a reply to: introvert

No kidding.

Yet I have no experience with the US courts....



posted on Jan, 4 2018 @ 10:07 AM
link   
a reply to: luthier

No you linked to something from pbs.twimg.com...

The dossier was used to obtain the FISA warrant.
The dossier has been debunked.
McCabe could not provide specifics as to what was corroborated to Congress other than Paige having a meeting in Russia and even they he couldnt answer when it occurred or who it was with.

It was filed in civil court because it is a motion for injuctive relief.

If you dont know what you are talking about with regards to the law you should not be making claims (which are wrong).
5 USC 701 - JUDICIAL REVIEW

The legality and authority of the Special Counsel is being challenged. Manaforts legal team wants a judge to review their argument to end Muellers investigation and disallow the charges based on lack of authority. Specifically collusion is not a crime and collusion was the reason spelled out in DAG Rosensteins letter to Mueller defining his authority.

Try again.



posted on Jan, 4 2018 @ 10:09 AM
link   
It is not an odd move when you consider the judge in manaforts case has already done this...
www.politico.com...



The federal judge overseeing the criminal case against former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort and his associate Rick Gates has issued a gag order limiting comments to the media and the public by lawyers, defendants and witnesses in the case.

When all manaforts lawyer said was this...
www.washingtontimes.com...



Kevin Downing, attorney for former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, said Monday that the indictment against his client was “ridiculous.” Mr. Downing said there was “no evidence” of collusion by Mr. Manafort or anyone in the Trump campaign, adding that Mr. Manafort’s activities in Ukraine were to “further democracy” and help Ukraine “come closer” to the United States and European Union. “Those activities ended in 2014, over two years before Mr. Manafort served in the Trump campaign,” Mr. Downing told reporters outside the U.S. District Courthouse in D.C.




The attorney also questioned the grounds for the indictment, explaining that it was based on the Foreign Agents Registration Act filing that requires all persons representing foreign powers to disclose that relationship and information about the relationship, including finances, to the U.S. government. “The United States government has only used that offense six times,” he said. “Since 1966, it only resulted in one conviction.”




“The second thing about this indictment, that I myself find most ridiculous, is a claim that maintaining offshore accounts, to bring all your funds into the United States, as a scheme to conceal from the United States government is ridiculous,” he said.


Lawyers talk to the press all the time, and what Manaforts lawyer said was not horrible and mostly accurate. So in light of a judge that already is restricting the first amendment rights of people the judge is supposed to be impartial to, it is not that odd of a move to file a civil case.



posted on Jan, 4 2018 @ 10:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: luthier

What the hell did you link to?

As an officer with experience in dealing with the courts Manaforts argument is valid and has a chance to succeed.

As for filing the motion he had to be charged first with a crime in order to have standing to challenge the investigation. This hearing has no bearing on what the other judge thinks or does, assuming its a different judge hearing the argument. This motion does not circumvent the courts.


Actually, this is a very odd move for Manafort to make.

If he did have a solid legal position to stand on, he should have used this as a motion to dismiss in the criminal proceedings, and not in a civil suit.

And Manafort has been charged with crimes already.


His legal team cant file for dismissal until the complaint is reviewed and ruled on by a judge. His motion is just that, a judicial review of Muellers / Rosensteins authority.

If Manaforts team is successful then you will see a motion to dismiss in the criminal court.

As for it being an odd move - not really and these types of motions occur frequently. The only reason it seems to be a big deal now is because fo the players involved and what it is attached to.
edit on 4-1-2018 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2018 @ 10:16 AM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

It is not so much of a lawsuit than it is a review. The authority of a government entity is being challenged, which makes it civil since no criminal acts are being alleged against the government. They are asking a judge to review the special counsels mandate and determine if it is valid under federal law.



posted on Jan, 4 2018 @ 10:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: introvert

No kidding.

Yet I have no experience with the US courts....


That is very evident.



posted on Jan, 4 2018 @ 10:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

He didn't file a motion. He filed a civil complaint.

Do you know the difference. He is the plaintiff..

His charges which he was put under house arrest for and have been reviewed are in a criminal court.

Do you have any knowledge of the US courts at all.



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join