Paul Manafort sues Mueller and the DoJ

a reply to: Xcathdra

Yep. This will be the straw that will likely break the camel's back, not in this manafort lawsuit, but in general.

Special counsel regs require a criminal event being investigated to appoint

Appointment defers to Comey testimony as the basis of what should be investigated

Comey testified it was a counter intelligence investigation, not criminal

a reply to: Xcathdra

Not really a lynch pin. Or it would have come out months ago...

Like I said. Does he owe money and returning favor?

a reply to: luthier

Well no, not based on my opinion but fact. If you look up scalias dissent you will see it dealt wit the special prosecutor statute passed by Congress that allowed Congress to appoint a special prosecutor. Congress is not judicial nor is it executive and has no say in law enforcement actions or the investigations and prosecutions there of. It was a violation of separation of powers.

The new special counsel law is restricted solely to the Department of Justice and therefore on its face is lawful. The issue comes from the overly broad authority granted and the fact collusion is not a crime.

If you base an investigation and prosecution on something that is not illegal then anything gleaned from that investigation is fruit of the poisonous tree and cant be used.

a reply to: Dfairlite

Yet nobody has argued this, nobody that matters in Congress or the doj?

It's highly unlikely.

Particularly the crimes uncovered.

Collusion is not what is investigated..

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Xcathdra

Not really a lynch pin. Or it would have come out months ago...

Like I said. Does he owe money and returning favor?

Not that I am aware of however owing money is not against the law and neither are owing favors. You run into trouble when it moves into quid pro quo territory. The thing to understand is it is not legal to investigate a person for breaking a nonexistent crime or for engaging in a behavior that in and of itself is not illegal.

Also in terms of Manaforts legal argument it is the linchpin of their case. There entire argument centers on the violations of the statute.

You cannot just assume someone is hiding something that is illegal and start an investigation in hopes you find something. You need a foundation to build on and using a non existent crime is not a foundation. All this and we have not even moved into the constitutional violations arguments on this matter.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: luthier

Well no, not based on my opinion but fact. If you look up scalias dissent you will see it dealt wit the special prosecutor statute passed by Congress that allowed Congress to appoint a special prosecutor. Congress is not judicial nor is it executive and has no say in law enforcement actions or the investigations and prosecutions there of. It was a violation of separation of powers.

The new special counsel law is restricted solely to the Department of Justice and therefore on its face is lawful. The issue comes from the overly broad authority granted and the fact collusion is not a crime.

If you base an investigation and prosecution on something that is illegal then anything gleaned from that investigation is fruit of the poisonous tree and cant be used.

IMO it is entirely based on your opinion and interpretation.

Everything you stated must be proven in court.

I haven't read a single opinion from a federal judge, defense, or prosecution with credibility that echoes your opinion.

Furthermore the oversight has not found this.

Can you find anyone with a legal reputation other than on ats who finds this complaint has a good chance?

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Xcathdra

Not really a lynch pin. Or it would have come out months ago...

Like I said. Does he owe money and returning favor?

Not that I am aware of however owing money is not against the law and neither are owing favors. You run into trouble when it moves into quid pro quo territory. The thing to understand is it is not legal to investigate a person for breaking a nonexistent crime or for engaging in a behavior that in and of itself is not illegal.

Also in terms of Manaforts legal argument it is the linchpin of their case. There entire argument centers on the violations of the statute.

You cannot just assume someone is hiding something that is illegal and start an investigation in hopes you find something. You need a foundation to build on and using a non existent crime is not a foundation. All this and we have not even moved into the constitutional violations arguments on this matter.

So just to understand your understanding what are some of the problems this lawsuit faces, and I font mean the deep state bs.

Are you familiar with the takedown of the mob?

In you'really opinion Mueller understands the law less than you do?

The entire doj and all their lawyers have used grave oversight.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Dfairlite

Yet nobody has argued this, nobody that matters in Congress or the doj?

It's highly unlikely.

Particularly the crimes uncovered.

Collusion is not what is investigated..

The reason no one argued it is because of legal standing. Congress or anyone else cannot challenge it since they arent the ones affected by it. People had to be charged under the authority of Mueller to have standing and that happened when Paige / Manafort / Popadapolis were charged.

The lack of authority argument is based on collusion not being a crime.

If you look a few posts up I linked the letter Rosenstein issued to MUeller and what his job is. It very clearly states any link / cooperation with the russian government - www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: luthier

I am referring to Scalias opinion and what it was based on. His dissent came in the 1980's and was restricted to the statute in place at the time.
www.nytimes.com...


As for whats occurring now -
As I stated a few pages back this special prosecutor (Mueller) is based on the new CFR I linked to. There is no case law established for this version of the special prosecutor. Since it is not using the expired statute the rulings / opinions in place for the old law dont really apply. There is not a separation of powers argument to apply to this new special counsel.

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Xcathdra

Not really a lynch pin. Or it would have come out months ago...

Like I said. Does he owe money and returning favor?

Not that I am aware of however owing money is not against the law and neither are owing favors. You run into trouble when it moves into quid pro quo territory. The thing to understand is it is not legal to investigate a person for breaking a nonexistent crime or for engaging in a behavior that in and of itself is not illegal.

Also in terms of Manaforts legal argument it is the linchpin of their case. There entire argument centers on the violations of the statute.

You cannot just assume someone is hiding something that is illegal and start an investigation in hopes you find something. You need a foundation to build on and using a non existent crime is not a foundation. All this and we have not even moved into the constitutional violations arguments on this matter.

So just to understand your understanding what are some of the problems this lawsuit faces, and I font mean the deep state bs.

Are you familiar with the takedown of the mob?

The issues I see with the lawsuit all fall on to the side of the government having to justify their actions as lawful and within the scope of the law in question. They have to justify the extended authority to investigate other crimes / matters that come from the basis of the special prosecutor.

To me its a simple argument, which is rare in the legal realm.

Was the appointment of a special prosecutor valid?
Was the expanded authority for other crimes valid?

If Manaforts team fails they resume their motions to suppress evidence with the argument it was improperly obtained and a violation of attorney client privilege. If the evidence is tossed the government better hope they have something else to sustain the charges that was gathered legally. If not the case / prosecution goes out the window.

An exception to attorney client privilege is when the lawyer knowingly engages in an illegal act and even then one of Muellers prosecutors has been slapped down hard by the courts for that method.

I am familiar with the methods used against the mob (namely Capone and tax evasion). However the problem with that analogy the feds had reasonable suspicion laws were being broken. In Manaforts case collusion is not a crime.

There is a fundamental difference between mob prosecutions and manaforts prosecution. This doesnt even delve into the difference in laws / case laws between then and now either.

a reply to: Xcathdra

I disagree since the law canonical.

The real danger here which the confirmation bias of supporters are not seeing is a federal court rules against manafort. Then it becomes without question Mueller is in bounds.

So I will ask again how could this lawsuit fail?

a reply to: Xcathdra

Your assuming that manafort didn't offer special priveldge or access to the us government or campaign in exchange for personal gain..
Which is a very large crime.

For instance we still have no idea how many informants there are..

We don't know if he was caught laundering money in a scheme to give access to the campaign or caught making promises to vote for unrefistered foreign lobbyists.

In all honesty there are several crimes he could have committed. Even without the campaign knowing.

Maybe he accepted information that was sensitive for access or future votes...who knows. Mueller doesn't have to tell the public..

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Xcathdra

I disagree since the law canonical.

The real danger here which the confirmation bias of supporters are not seeing is a federal court rules against manafort. Then it becomes without question Mueller is in bounds.

So I will ask again how could this lawsuit fail?

a ruling against Manafort does nothing but confirm the appointment and scope of the order was lawful. That ruling would have no impact on the motions to suppress evidence based on 4th amendment violations or violations of attorney client privilege.

The validity of the special counsel is whats being challenged with this filing and nothing else.

The only way this lawsuit fails is if the judge decides the special counsel was duly created and the scope of authority is valid. Like I said this particular issue is straight forward.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Right. But everyone saying Mueller is out of bounds will have a little setback.

However reviewing federal judge reviews of Mueller alleged misdeeds I wouldn't personally expect motions to work either.

But that's just me.

originally posted by: luthier
Your assuming that manafort didn't offer special priveldge or access to the us government or campaign in exchange for personal gain..
Which is a very large crime.

Not quite... In the legal realm you cant just assume a person committed a crime. You need something to back it up. Given Manafort was only charged with a financial crime from a decade ago that has nothing to do with russia or the 2016 election says a lot. It says they found nothing illegal between Manafort and anything russia 2016 related.

Basic example -
You are a police officer and you are driving on a 2 lane highway. A car is approaching from the opposite direction. You cant just assume the car is violating the law and pull it over. You first have to observe a possible law violation (IE the vehicle appeared to be traveling faster than the posted speed limit). That observation is what allows an officer to then activate his radar unit to confirm his observation and in this case the car is indeed speeding.

That action provides the officer with reasonable suspicion a crime occurred, meeting the legal requirements to initiate a lawful traffic stop. During that stop the officer engages in an investigation of the possible violation. If the officer confirms the car was speeding he reaches probable cause and can arrest / issue a citation. If its not confirmed the officer has to let the vehicle go free with no further action.

This standard applies to all investigations.

In Mueller's case they need something that suggests Manafort / other engaged in some activity that possibly violated the law (reasonable suspicion). That in turn allows them to continue their investigation. If that investigation reveals evidence to substantiate the law violation then they look at the laws he violated and the charges that apply(probable cause).

originally posted by: luthier
For instance we still have no idea how many informants there are..

I dont see the relevance here so if you could elaborate more. The presence of an informant is not like what is shown on tv. Informants can be questioned and generally speaking its incumbent on the prosecution to prove the informant is valid and what he says is accurate and true. If the informant has never been used before (credible) their testimony can become problematic, especially if they have a sketchy past. It also comes down to how the prosecution uses the informant (IE are they now testifying as an "informant" because they were guilty of a crime and were given a deal for their testimony.)

originally posted by: luthier
We don't know if he was caught laundering money in a scheme to give access to the campaign or caught making promises to vote for unrefistered foreign lobbyists.

Sure but once again we can only use what he has been charged with. You cannot use speculation with nothing to support it as evidence of a crime / criminal activity.

originally posted by: luthier
In all honesty there are several crimes he could have committed. Even without the campaign knowing.

Sure but we come back to the issue that Mueller was supposed to be investigating Trump Russia collusion in the 2016 election and not financial crimes from a decade ago that have no bearing on the collusion investigation.

General rule of thumb for lawyers -
It doesnt matter what they think it only matters what they can prove.

We can think Obama was not a US citizen however proving it is something else entirely.

originally posted by: luthier
Maybe he accepted information that was sensitive for access or future votes...who knows. Mueller doesn't have to tell the public..

All he has been charged with is the financial crimes. Theory is fine but again we come back to needing to prove it instead of just speculating on it.

originally posted by: luthier
Right. But everyone saying Mueller is out of bounds will have a little setback.

Mueller and Rosenstein being out of bounds is the claim and the burden to challenge it has been met by the very law itself. Thats why I was saying its a straight forward issue -
Was the DAG within the law when he appointed the special counsel?
Was the special counsels authority to investigate crimes beyond the Russia probe lawful.

3 things can occur -
* - The court finds Rosenstein / Mueller are completely within the law - case moves forward in court.
* - The court findds Rosenstein / Mueller are in violation of the law - case ends after a motion to dismiss is filed.
* - The 3rd possibility is a mixed ruling. The court can say the appointment of a SC was lawful however the broad authority granted to the SC to investigate others crimes is outside the boundaries.

In the event of #3 you once again come back to charges being dropped against Manafort since his charges stem from section II and III of the memo.

originally posted by: luthier
However reviewing federal judge reviews of Mueller alleged misdeeds I wouldn't personally expect motions to work either.

But that's just me.

If Manaforts team can make an argument that Manaforts constitutional rights were violated then we will see appeals from both sides most likely to SCOTUS. Given their position on the warrant Manaforts team already has grounds to appeal if their motion to suppress is dismissed.

An argument can be made about Mueller and his past history that shows bias. The goal of any investigation is to go where the evidence takes you, regardless if it leads to something you dont like (confirmation of a crime or confirmation of no crime). Law Enforcement and Prosecutors are not suppose to win by any means necessary. You start running into a whole slew of constitutional violations doing that.

The last thing a prosecutor or law enforcement officer wants to do is create bad case law.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Could you list all twelve of his charges and explain this again. They don't all appear to be financial crimes.

Also if it turns out rod has the authority to grant Mueller this..

(ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation

Then it not going to be very easy for manafort.

Also you say a lot about the constitutionality but the reality is federal courts have been leaning on suspects for testimony for a long time. It's become normal.

Now we can argue and I would be on your side about if that should be allowed but it is.

That rotten newspaper you criticized was from the federal register.

Wow

originally posted by: luthier
Could you list all twelve of his charges and explain this again. They don't all appear to be financial crimes.

Manafort indictment
1 - Conspiracy against the United States
2 - Conspiracy to launder money
3-6 - Failure to file reports of foreign banks and financial accounts (FY 2011-2014)
7-9 - Failure to file reports of foreign banks and financial accounts (FY 2011-2013)

The indictment sheet gives you the entire run down of the governments allegations against Manafort and are all linked to financial crimes.

originally posted by: luthier
Also if it turns out rod has the authority to grant Mueller this..

(ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation

Then it not going to be very easy for manafort.

Section II and III are reliant upon section I being valid. Section 1, the investigation into Russian collusion, is the issue. Since collusion is not a crime (criminal) it violates the SC law, which requires a violation of the law. Since collusion is not a crime / a law the argument is it doesnt meet the requirement. If section I is invalidated by the court then II and III are null by default since they rely on I.

originally posted by: luthier
Also you say a lot about the constitutionality but the reality is federal courts have been leaning on suspects for testimony for a long time. It's become normal.

Sure and in those cases where a person rights were violated / evidence illegally obtained / government exceeding its authority those same courts have thrown out charges / vacated convictions.

originally posted by: luthier
Now we can argue and I would be on your side about if that should be allowed but it is.

That rotten newspaper you criticized was from the federal register.

I criticized it because it had no bearing on this special counsel since an entirely different law is in use.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: luthier
Could you list all twelve of his charges and explain this again. They don't all appear to be financial crimes.

Manafort indictment
1 - Conspiracy against the United States
2 - Conspiracy to launder money
3-6 - Failure to file reports of foreign banks and financial accounts (FY 2011-2014)
7-9 - Failure to file reports of foreign banks and financial accounts (FY 2011-2013)

The indictment sheet gives you the entire run down of the governments allegations against Manafort and are all linked to financial crimes.

originally posted by: luthier
Also if it turns out rod has the authority to grant Mueller this..

(ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation

Then it not going to be very easy for manafort.

Section II and III are reliant upon section I being valid. Section 1, the investigation into Russian collusion, is the issue. Since collusion is not a crime (criminal) it violates the SC law, which requires a violation of the law. Since collusion is not a crime / a law the argument is it doesnt meet the requirement. If section I is invalidated by the court then II and III are null by default since they rely on I.

originally posted by: luthier
Also you say a lot about the constitutionality but the reality is federal courts have been leaning on suspects for testimony for a long time. It's become normal.

Sure and in those cases where a person rights were violated / evidence illegally obtained / government exceeding its authority those same courts have thrown out charges / vacated convictions.

originally posted by: luthier
Now we can argue and I would be on your side about if that should be allowed but it is.

That rotten newspaper you criticized was from the federal register.

I criticized it because it had no bearing on this special counsel since an entirely different law is in use.

It was not a different law at all..

No in the cases I am referring to its allowed as its literally stated in the special council exerp I provided from the federal register.


Again I am going to call it now and say this lawsuit is dismissed quickly.

And Mueller can proceed as he planned with the exception of the possible laundering charge getting dropped.

Mark it flag it that is my prediction.