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: 5
25
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 3 2018 @ 04:57 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

But that is what is beyond the rules that the DOJ plays by. The allegation is they didmt have the authority to authorize a fishing expedition.




posted on Jan, 3 2018 @ 05:06 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

It's not.

And further more.


ROSENSTEIN: I know what [Mueller’s] doing. I'm properly exercising my oversight responsibilities, and so I can assure you that the special counsel is conducting himself consistently with our understanding about the scope of his investigation.



posted on Jan, 3 2018 @ 05:17 PM
link   
a reply to: projectvxn

So your saying if the FBI is investigation a crime, and find another crime in the process, then the other crime isn't able to be prosecuted? That doesn't sound right to me. Are they suppose to ignore it? In my opinion, Manafort, and Trump for that matter, probably have dirty hands with money laundering for the Russian mob. Just my guess. We'll see.



posted on Jan, 3 2018 @ 05:21 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier


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

That's the part that isn't legal.



posted on Jan, 3 2018 @ 05:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Vector99

Right. Says nobody but manafort's lawyers and partian hacks...


Guess we will see.

My guess you say the system is rigged when it's thrown at as totally frivolous.



posted on Jan, 3 2018 @ 05:37 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

Even if it gets thrown out, that doesn't mean it didn't have legal merits. Dozens of cases are thrown out every day that have legal merits.

Here's my thought. I hope it gets thrown out or he loses because manafort is a filthy swamp creature. But if it doesn't, the silver lining is that the whole trump Russia investigation goes out with a whimper as it should.



posted on Jan, 3 2018 @ 05:38 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

Yeah...itll be interesting to see.

Like i said...im not a fan of people skirting justice.



posted on Jan, 3 2018 @ 05:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

I don't believe that at all..nor is there evidence of such.

The evidence will speak for itself. This trivial lawsuit has no bearing in the truth whatever it may be...in fact I assume it will push mueller to let more tidbits out and pus the judge in the criminal case to be skeptical of the defense as they are trying to undermine the criminal court. Judges are not partial to such legal tactics. The civil case is very weak.

Also when was the information he has collected? By comey or mueller?

The whole thing wreaks of a hail Mary.

People also assume these investigators are morons. They are literally top dogs in the country.



posted on Jan, 3 2018 @ 05:43 PM
link   
a reply to: MiddleInsite

Well, it depends. As it pertains to a special counsel, yes, or they need to refer their unrelated findings to the DoJ to investigate. If it's not Russian interference, the special counsel has no business investigating it.

But the reason this threatens the entire special counsel probe is that the special counsel was not set up according to doj regs. They pretty much broke the rules to give someone else unlimited power and money (which they wouldn't have had) to investigate anything they wanted under the guise of Russia.



posted on Jan, 3 2018 @ 05:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: MiddleInsite

Well, it depends. As it pertains to a special counsel, yes, or they need to refer their unrelated findings to the DoJ to investigate. If it's not Russian interference, the special counsel has no business investigating it.

But the reason this threatens the entire special counsel probe is that the special counsel was not set up according to doj regs. They pretty much broke the rules to give someone else unlimited power and money (which they wouldn't have had) to investigate anything they wanted under the guise of Russia.


They broke no rules. Your assuming this lawsuit is valid.



posted on Jan, 3 2018 @ 05:50 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

They're definitely not top dogs, they're not morons though. They're likely get the slaughtered by an actual top dog attorney. I mean, if they were smart, they wouldn't have stacked their ranks with political hacks.



posted on Jan, 3 2018 @ 05:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

There is only one thing more foolish than one who represents themselves as their own lawyer, and that is the person who sues a persecutor.



posted on Jan, 3 2018 @ 05:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Vector99

I did champ. Also my father in law was a chief of staff for a state AG, my sister in law has three law degrees and teaches law,...

It ain't going nowhere. I would be willing to bet on it. It looks fancy and it fooled you I guess. He tries to create a legal precedence but it won't work. Mark my words. It's nearly impossible to fight vague investigative powers.

But you can hope and be impressed I can't atop you. Then complain it's rigged when it's thrown out.


While your father may be a ex chief of staff for an AG how does that make him a legal expert? I didn't know the head of a department meant you were a legal scholar. And on top of that how does our sister have three law degrees? Could she not pass the bar to become an actual law practicing attorney? And how exactly would three laws degrees be helpful to anyone besides the schools she wasted her money on?

And with all of your families claimed law experience what exactly makes you an expert? Besides being blood related to what you claim as experts?


I see you're not even blood related. So now marrying a family who claims to have attorneys for family members makes one a legal expert now....wow times have changed.
edit on 3-1-2018 by GuidedKill because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2018 @ 05:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: shooterbrody

Nothing. They can't use it in prosecution. He never sized anything..he asked and they handed it over.

, and there were no specific claims..

It was a publicity stunt, just like this.

thanks again for ignoring fed prosecutor law
Mueller will be removed if his investigation seized privileged info
i linked the law previously
you didnt read it
ask your famous inlaws



posted on Jan, 3 2018 @ 05:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: angeldoll

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: angeldoll

perjury
it was a process crime to that investigation
much like what flynn plead to

what Manafort was indicted for was NOT a process crime
and Manforts suit claims it was OUTSIDE the SC scope, which will be an interesting debate


Nope. He perjured himself about Lewinski, not Whitewater, which was the reason for the investigation.

it was a process crime during the whitewater crap
same as flynn



posted on Jan, 3 2018 @ 05:55 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

He didn't seize anything. He was handed the information. You can't just cite legal definitions as proof.

mobile.twitter.com...

Why don't you point for point tell me how this federal judge is wrong. You can use your statute.

By the way why did manafort file a civil lawsuit?

Wouldn't you normally file a motion to the criminal judge instead of try and circumvent the criminal court...

Oh that's right your a legal genius you probably can cite a statute from Google.
edit on 3-1-2018 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2018 @ 05:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Vector99

Right. Says nobody but manafort's lawyers and partian hacks...

....and US law.



posted on Jan, 3 2018 @ 05:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Vector99

Right,..interpreted by a guy on ats..



posted on Jan, 3 2018 @ 06:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: shooterbrody

He didn't seize anything. He was handed the information. You can't just cite legal definitions as proof.

mobile.twitter.com...

Why don't you point for point tell me how this federal judge is wrong. You can use your statute.

By the way why did manafort file a civil lawsuit?

Wouldn't you normally file a motion to the criminal judge instead of try and circumvent the criminal court...

Oh that's right your a legal genius you probably can cite a statute from Google.

whose investigation is this?
mueller has ethical responsibilities no matter if you realize it or not
oh and if these were the "TOP DOGS" as you claim tvey would not have made the mistakes they have
2 of the team have already been removed and a fn federal judge has recused himself
not the "TOP DOGS" you claim



posted on Jan, 3 2018 @ 06:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Vector99

Right,..interpreted by a guy on ats..

No, I showed you the statute required for appointing a special prosecutor.

You chose to be ignorant and ignore it.




top topics



 
25
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join