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.
A federal judge on Friday sharply criticized Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s criminal case in Virginia against President Trump’s former campaign manager, Paul Manafort, and openly questioned whether Mueller exceeded his prosecutorial powers by bringing it.
“I don’t see what relationship this indictment has with anything the special counsel is authorized to investigate,” U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis in the Eastern District of Virginia said.
At tense hearing at the federal courthouse in Alexandria, Virginia, the judge said Mueller should not have “unfettered power” in his Russia probe and that the charges against Manafort did not arise from the investigation into Moscow’s alleged meddling in the 2016 U.S. election.
(CNN)A federal judge expressed deep skepticism Friday in the bank fraud case brought by special counsel Robert Mueller's office against former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, at one point saying he believes that Mueller's motivation is to oust President Donald Trump from office.
Although Mueller's authority has been tested in court before, Friday's hearing was notable for District Judge T.S. Ellis' decision to wade into the divisive political debate around the investigation.
"You don't really care about Mr. Manafort's bank fraud," Ellis said to prosecutor Michael Dreeben, at times losing his temper. Ellis said prosecutors were interested in Manafort because of his potential to provide material that would lead to Trump's "prosecution or impeachment," Ellis said.
"That's what you're really interested in," said Ellis, who was appointed by President Ronald Reagan.
Ellis repeated his suspicion several times in the hour-long court hearing. He said he'll make a decision at a later date about whether Manafort's case can go forward.
"We don't want anyone in this country with unfettered power. It's unlikely you're going to persuade me the special prosecutor has power to do anything he or she wants," Ellis told Dreeben. "The American people feel pretty strongly that no one has unfettered power."
When Dreeben answered Ellis' question about how the investigation and its charges date back to before the Trump campaign formed, the judge shot back, "None of that information has to do with information related to Russian government coordination and the campaign of Donald Trump."
At one point, Ellis posed a hypothetical question, speaking as if he were the prosecutor, about why Mueller's office referred a criminal investigation about Trump's personal attorney Michael Cohen to New York authorities and kept the Manafort case in Virginia.
They weren't interested in it because it didn't "further our core effort to get Trump," Ellis said, mimicking a prosecutor in the case.
Further, Ellis demanded to see the unredacted “scope memo,” a document outlining the scope of the special counsel’s Russia probe that congressional Republicans have also sought.
The special counsel argues that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein granted them broad authority in his May 2, 2017 letter appointing Mueller to this investigation. But after the revelation that the team is using information from the earlier DOJ probe, Ellis said that information did not “arise” out of the special counsel probe – and therefore may not be within the scope of that investigation.
Jack Posobiec
🇺🇸
Verified account @JackPosobiec
3h3 hours ago
Breaking: Federal Judge Ellis gives Mueller two weeks to turn over the full unredacted secret memo that Rosenstein refused to give to Congress
A defense attorney in a court filing says special counsel Robert Mueller has disclosed he has no evidence that former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort communicated with Russian government officials.
If the attorney is accurate, it delivers another credibility blow to the Democratic Party-financed dossier, which accuses Mr. Manafort of orchestrating Trump-Russia collusion.
Kevin Downing, a defense attorney for Mr. Manafort, filed the brief April 30 in the special counsel’s money-laundering case against his client. Those charges are confined to millions of dollars he earned as a political consultant for Ukrainian politicians.
The Ukraine criminal case, to date in public court filings, has nothing to do with alleged Trump-Russia coordination. But Mr. Downing’s brief to a federal judge is relevant to the Mueller Russia investigation because it punches a big hole in dossier conspiracies being investigated by the FBI and Congress.
Mr. Downing said he has asked Mr. Mueller’s prosecutors multiple times under mandatory discovery rules for any information showing any communication between Mr. Manafort and Russian officials during the campaign season.
“The special counsel has not produced any materials to the defense — no tapes, notes, transcripts or any other material evidencing surveillance or intercepts of communications between Mr. Manafort and Russian intelligence officials, Russian government officials [or any other foreign officials],” Mr. Downing said. “The Office of Special Counsel has advised that there are no materials responsive to Mr. Manafort’s request.”
Mr. Downing said that government-sourced news stories saying Mr. Manafort communicated with Russians during the campaign were an “elaborate hoax.”
Mr. Downing’s declaration deals another blow to the veracity of the dossier, funded by the Democratic Party and the Hillary Clinton campaign and written by former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele.
Mr. Steele laid out a supposed “extensive conspiracy” between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin, and Mr. Manafort, as the dossier narrative goes, was right in the middle of it.
Mr. Steele wrote, “speaking in confidence to a compatriot in late July 2016, Source B, an ethnic Russian close associate of Republican US presidential candidate Donald TRUMP, admitted that there was a well-developed conspiracy of co-operation between them and the Russian leadership. This was managed on the TRUMP side by the Republican candidates campaign manager, Paul MANAFORT, who was using foreign policy advisor, Carter PAGE, and others as intermediaries.”
Mr. Page and Mr. Manafort have denied all the dossier’s Trump-Russia collusion charges, none of which have been confirmed publicly.
The fact that the special counsel, according to Mr. Downing, says he has no evidence of communications creates questions for other Trump-Russia reporting.
In a major story promoting collusion, The New York Times in February 2017 ran a story that said the U.S. government had complied a large amount of communication intercepts and phone records between Trump campaign officials and Russian intelligence. On its face, the story meant there was collusion.
That June, former FBI director James B. Comey, told the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence that the Times story was almost completely wrong. There were no such records.
Then there is the issue of Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who appointed Mr. Mueller and later gave him the parameters for investigating Mr. Manafort. One justification was the Ukrainian money. There other was allegations of Manafort-Russia coordination to interfere in the 2016 election.
The Rosenstein memo did not provide the source for that allegation. The only public allegation of such coordination is found in the Steele dossier posted online by BuzzFeed on Jan. 10, 2017.
The dossier has emerged as one of the more important documents in modern U.S. political history.
The FBI has relied on it greatly. It used the dossier to obtain a court-approved wiretap on Mr. Page, who has not been charged. Agents also relied on the dossier for leads and to question witnesses.
On his book tour, Mr. Comey has said the bureau tried to “replicate” Mr. Steele’s work.
The FBI formed an alliance with Mr. Steele and committed to paying him $50,000 to continue investigating Mr. Trump. But the FBI fired Mr. Steele after he violated FBI rules and went to the news media with his conspiracy tales.
The Republican majority on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence concluded in a final report last week that there was no collusion, thus rejecting all the dossier charges.
The committee’s Democrats, led by Rep. Adam Schiff of California, relied on the dossier at hearings and in questioning witnesses. Mr. Schiff applauded Mr. Steele’s work.
Mr. Downing made his no-evidence disclosure in a memorandum asking a judge to hold a hearing into government leaks against his client.
He said many of those leaks alleged a Russian-Manafort conspiracy that, while non-existent, damages his clients standing before a trial jury.
He specifically cited The New York Times February 2017 story. The story helped the Times win the George Polk Award in Journalism for its Russia coverage.
“If the representations of the special counsel are accurate and there is not, in fact, any evidence of communications between Mr. Manafort and foreign officials, then the perpetrators of this elaborate hoax must be identified and punished and the substantial unfair prejudice to Mr. Manafort must be remedied,” Mr. Downing wrote.
originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Christosterone
I just read some of the comments this judge made and it seems he is using his position to vent his own political frustrations.
He even goes as far as to opine on the intent of the prosecution and Mueller's team.
Very odd for a judge to say such things. Even if the case is dismissed, he is making it quite easy for the prosecution to argue that the judge's judgment was clearly tainted or politicized.
perhaps if muellers team followed the law this wouldnt happen
maybe they will give up their redacted super secret scope like the judge PREVIOUSLY asked for
if manafort committed crimes muellers team will have let them off because they simply couldnt follow the rules
fumny how you comprehend complex issues when its not in trumps favor but this is so puzzling
federal judges accuse prosecutors of lying while adjudicating pre trial motions all the time
same judge that earlier stated manafort may be a flight risk because he faces life in jail.....but now he is biased hahahaha
if manafort committed crimes and muellers teams incompetence allows manafort to walk it would be a shame
originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Christosterone
I just read some of the comments this judge made and it seems he is using his position to vent his own political frustrations.
He even goes as far as to opine on the intent of the prosecution and Mueller's team.
Very odd for a judge to say such things. Even if the case is dismissed, he is making it quite easy for the prosecution to argue that the judge's judgment was clearly tainted or politicized.