U.S. judge questions special counsel's powers in Manafort case

a reply to: introvert

He may believe the prosecution lied to the courts, but he does not know for sure and needs more info to get to the bottom of it.

That may be true, but it seems more likely this is about jurisdiction. Mueller does not have blanket jurisdiction; he has the jurisdiction given him by Rosenstein in the memo. The judge apparently does not feel this case lies within the Special Counsel's jurisdiction and it is therefore the duty of the Special Council to show jurisdiction. They have refused to do so by not bringing in the memo from Rosenstein to start with. That is a rookie mistake by Mueller's team.

If the proof of jurisdiction is not submitted to the court within the time frame given, this case will likely be dismissed with prejudice, meaning Manafort goes free.

That's a bad thing, because I believe Manafort may be guilty of money laundering. If it happens, I will blame Mueller's incompetence.

But even more so, this case, if dismissed thusly, will serve as a precedent for any future cases brought by Mueller. He might as well pack up and go home if that happens. It will also damage public faith in Mueller and lessen any recommendation he makes against Trump.

The firing of Comey was Trump knocking a pillar from under the establishment's power base. Rosenstein, by appointing Mueller, shoved a 2x4 in its place. Ellis just struck that 2x4 with a sledgehammer and may have brought the whole place down.

Lisa Page also just resigned from the FBI... coincidence?

TheRedneck

amgreatness.com...

If the judge dismisses Manafort’s case, Mueller justifiably could be fired. According to the federal statute, a special counsel can be removed for “misconduct, dereliction of duty, incapacity, conflict of interest, or for other good cause, including violation of Departmental policies.” Bungling his biggest case because he exceeded his given authority then tried to obfuscate that fact from the court would certainly meet some of that criteria.

This is an angle I had not thought of.
Cover from a federal judge would most likely satisfy congress tho the left would explode. If muellers dirty dig were to go away so could the ig investigation into the rest of the corruption going on. It would be a win win for the status quo and the deep state.

originally posted by: Lab4Us

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.

Lol, as opposed to the 9th circuit where the judges legislate from their benches daily? Fact is, what most of us have known is going to become knowledge for the masses, whether the judge recuses or not. A judge has every right to examine evidence used to secure a warrant. Happens on every trial where a warrant was used. In fact, this is probably the first judge with the guts to actually do his job (re. a POTUS sphere member) publicly, regardless of public perception.

Sure, but I never claimed a judge does not have that right. I'm still confused, as it appears I am being held accountable for things I never said or even implied.

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: introvert

We cannot hold people accountable for their thoughts or personal opinions. We can only hold them accountable for laws or rules they break. 
wow
does mueller know this?
have you seen the question list?
what do you think about this
how do you feel about that

lol
flexable positions make me laugh

Thoughts and personal opinions alone should not be crimes and are irrelevant, unless they are used to discern someone's intent as they committed a crime.

Ahahahaha
Ahahahaha
You are by far the most limber member here
watching you juke and jive the next few months as mueller, comey and the rest of their scoundral crew are exposed will be a real treat
Almost as good as election day.......almost

Ok. That has nothing to do with what I posted.

Seem to be many emotional outbursts from people today.

Not sure why, but it's sad to see that so many cannot control themselves.

a reply to: introvert

OMG its like talking to a liberal wall... You are pathetic all you do is deflect.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Of course this is about jurisdiction and the judge is well within his power to request what he has. It is up to the prosecution to comply or deal with the consequences.

None of that explains or delegitimizes my concerns about the specific quotes I posted from the judge.

He made some concerning statements that potentially puts his objectivity in to question.

Not only does the prosecution need to provide the courts with the proper information to satisfy the judge, the judge now needs to tread very carefully, as he has potentially compromised his position and even the smallest hint of bias or political shenanigans will be jumped on quickly.

originally posted by: notsure1
a reply to: introvert

OMG its like talking to a liberal wall... You are pathetic all you do is deflect.

Again, it appears many of you do not understand what deflection is.

I have been addressing the very topic of the thread and what I have been asked by others.

By definition, that is not deflection. It appears as though all you and others can do is make claims of deflection, as you do not seem to have any other argument to present.

a reply to: introvert

sure it doesnt
keep telling yourself that
i am going to leave a quote here for that is quite appropriate for you .....

"Is it possible that I am a simpleton? I have never thought so myself; and no one must know it now if I am so. Can it be, that I am unfit for my office? No, that must not be said either. I will never confess that I could not see the stuff."
HCA

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: introvert

sure it doesnt
keep telling yourself that
i am going to leave a quote here for that is quite appropriate for you .....

"Is it possible that I am a simpleton? I have never thought so myself; and no one must know it now if I am so. Can it be, that I am unfit for my office? No, that must not be said either. I will never confess that I could not see the stuff."
HCA

More ad homs and no legitimate rebuttal?

Even though I did not request it of you, I am grateful for your perfect lesson on logical fallacies. If you will, let me leave you with a quote as well.

We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light.

Unknown

originally posted by: Pyle

originally posted by: Xcathdra
Apparently the Judge asked the prosecution where they got the authority for what they were doing. They responded by citing the scope memo. The next argument by the prosecution is the memo was secret and cant be shared. This is supposedly what set the judge off.

also -

Marshall Cohen
‏Verified account @MarshallCohen
8h8 hours ago

Federal judge TS Ellis (overseeing Manafort case in VA) questions Mueller's powers, per @kpolantz: "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."

The memo wasnt secret. Part of it was redacted as it pertained to things not related to the Manafort cases but other cases that are not supposed to be public yet.

The redacted due to on going investigations but not secert memo.

DOJ won't give Congress memo about scope of Russia probe

The Department of Justice is declining to give top conservatives in Congress a memo Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein sent to special counsel Robert Mueller in August authorizing and outlining the scope of the Russia investigation, citing the ongoing nature of the investigation.

In an April 30th letter obtained by CBS News' Andres Triay, Assistant Attorney General Stephen Boyd tells Rep. Mark Meadows, R-North Carolina, and Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, the DOJ will not be providing the so-called "scope" memo. Meadows, the chairman of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, and Jordan had requested the memo in an April 9 letter. Rosenstein appointed Mueller to the post of special counsel in May 2017, after President Trump fired former FBI Director James Comey.

"On May 17, 2017, the deputy attorney general appointed the special counsel and issued a one-page appointment order," Boyd wrote. "Consistent with longstanding Department of Justice policy, the appointment order did not identify specific investigations involving specific individuals. In the confidential August 2 memorandum, the deputy attorney general described allegations that fell within the scope of the special counsel's investigation. As you know, that investigation is ongoing."

"The filed memorandum contained redactions to avoid disclosing internal communications between the special counsel and deputy attorney general about active criminal investigations, to protect classified information, and to comply with the longstanding general policy of the department against confirming or denying information about active investigations," Boyd continued. "The department recognizes the keen interest that Congress has in the special counsel's investigation, but respectfully, we must adhere to the longstanding position of the department that congressional inquiries pertaining to ongoing criminal investigations threaten the integrity of those investigations."

If it was not secret why did they hide its existence from the court or fail to disclose it under Brady.

Well the judge ordered them to produce an unredacted copy within 2 weeks so he can decide for himself.

a reply to: introvert

in a nutshell this is you on ats...

even the smallest hint of bias or political shenanigans will be jumped on quickly.

seems that standard only applies to those on the opposite political position as you.....even when you know its bs
as evidenced by this gem

Of course this is about jurisdiction and the judge is well within his power to request what he has. It is up to the prosecution to comply or deal with the consequences.

"When people are two-faced, the only thing you'll know for sure is that you can't trust either of them."
unknown

good day

a reply to: introvert

You do realize we're talking about a senior level Federal judge with over 30 years of honorable service under his belt, right? I know you are some legal genius, but to be honest, I don't think your opinion carries as much weight as his. Especially after posting this:

Not only does the prosecution need to provide the courts with the proper information to satisfy the judge, the judge now needs to tread very carefully, as he has potentially compromised his position and even the smallest hint of bias or political shenanigans will be jumped on quickly.

So compromising a judicial position is now based on whether or not you agree with the decision? After all, I don't remember any of these statements being labelled as "concerning"...

Judge William Alsup on blocking the Executive Order ending DACA:

In his 49-page ruling, Alsup said "plaintiffs have shown that they are likely to succeed on the merits of their claim that the rescission was arbitrary and capricious" and must be set aside under the federal Administrative Procedures Act.
The judge said a nationwide injunction was "appropriate" because "our country has a strong interest in the uniform application of immigration law and policy."
"Plaintiffs have established injury that reaches beyond the geographical bounds of the Northern District of California. The problem affects every state and territory of the United States," he wrote.

That means the judge blocked the Executive Branch from not circumventing Congress.

Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis on the same case:

"Defendants indisputably can end the DACA program," Garaufis wrote, referring to the Trump administration. "The question before the court is thus not whether defendants could end the DACA program, but whether they offered legally adequate reasons for doing so. Based on its review of the record before it, the court concludes that defendants have not done so."

Quite a statement that Executive Orders are only allowable if done to his satisfaction.

Judge John Bates on the same issue:

Judge John Bates, a George W. Bush appointee to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, became the third federal judge to rule that the administration’s phase out of the DACA program qualified as “arbitrary and capricious.”

Sounds like another biased opinion to me.

Judge Derrick Watson ruling to block one of Trump's travel bans:

Judge Derrick Watson said the travel ban -- Trump's third version of the policy -- "plainly discriminates based on nationality."
The President's executive order "suffers from precisely the same maladies as its predecessor: it lacks sufficient findings that the entry of more than 150 million nationals from six specified countries would be 'detrimental to the interests of the United States,'" Watson wrote.

I don't know for a fact, but I seriously doubt Judge Watson was sitting in on the daily briefings in the White House... so his determination is a personal opinion.

Shall I go on? There are literally dozens more. And I don't remember you being concerned about any of them.

Your bias might as well have a flashing neon sign over it.

TheRedneck

They said when Mueller was appointed that he could investigate any crimes he found while investigating Russia.

But Republicans would rather lie so they can try to get their criminals off the hook.

originally posted by: CB328
They said when Mueller was appointed that he could investigate any crimes he found while investigating Russia.

But Republicans would rather lie so they can try to get their criminals off the hook.

Uhm no - Reread the appointment document. He can investigate it as long as it is linked to the Russia problem and ONLY if it falls within his jurisdiction. In this case his jurisdiction is restricted to section A only. When he went after Manafort Rosenstein drafted the secret memo authorizing jurisdiction to section B. The problem is there is no link between Manafort and Trump-Russia collusion.

What we do have is crimes dating back to 2005 that the DOJ already declined to prosecute on.



28 CFR 600.4 - Jurisdiction

(a)Original jurisdiction. The jurisdiction of a Special Counsel shall be established by the Attorney General. The Special Counsel will be provided with a specific factual statement of the matter to be investigated. The jurisdiction of a Special Counsel shall also include the authority to investigate and prosecute federal crimes committed in the course of, and with intent to interfere with, the Special Counsel's investigation, such as perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses; and to conduct appeals arising out of the matter being investigated and/or prosecuted.

(b)Additional jurisdiction. If in the course of his or her investigation the Special Counsel concludes that additional jurisdiction beyond that specified in his or her original jurisdiction is necessary in order to fully investigate and resolve the matters assigned, or to investigate new matters that come to light in the course of his or her investigation, he or she shall consult with the Attorney General, who will determine whether to include the additional matters within the Special Counsel's jurisdiction or assign them elsewhere.

(c)Civil and administrative jurisdiction. If in the course of his or her investigation the Special Counsel determines that administrative remedies, civil sanctions or other governmental action outside the criminal justice system might be appropriate, he or she shall consult with the Attorney General with respect to the appropriate component to take any necessary action. A Special Counsel shall not have civil or administrative authority unless specifically granted such jurisdiction by the Attorney General.

Mueller has A. Manafort's issue forced Rosenstein to draft the secrete memo to grant section B.

Crimes arising directly from is the key phrase. In Manafort and Page's case their crimes did not arise directly from Muellers investigation and are not linked to Trump Russia collusion. In Manaforts case Mueller took info the DOJ already had from when they declined to prosecute Manafort. You cant discover something that is already known.

a reply to: CB328

if that is what you believe you have poor reading comprehension as that in no way what mueller was to investigate
there is a reason he referred the cohen case to the ny ag
mueller has a narrow scope and the judge today stated maniforts case is outside it based on the evidence presented

a reply to: shooterbrody

I do not care about your personal opinion of me.

What is of concern is that you think I'm "two-faced, even though I have not said anything to contradict myself. I never said the judge was not within his power or that the prosecution does not have to comply.

My original point was about the specific quotes I provided.

If you cannot address that aspect, and leave your opinions about me over things I have not either said, implied and such, I suppose there is nothing else I can offer you.

a reply to: introvert

I do not care about your personal opinion of me.

au contraire you care enough to post that statement....

even though I have not said anything to contradict myself

see above bub

I suppose there is nothing else I can offer you.

sounds marvelous, i encourage you to execute this to the best of your limited ability

a reply to: Xcathdra

So Mueller is covered by the original document and section (b) of 28 CFR 600.4 with Rosenstein memo.

Also you do know that new information has come out about Manafort in recent years. Never heard of the ledgers in Ukraine?

a reply to: Pyle

So Mueller is covered by the original document and section (b) of 28 CFR 600.4 with Rosenstein memo.

Why would you think Mueller is in any way covered by the CFR?

a reply to: TheRedneck

You do realize we're talking about a senior level Federal judge with over 30 years of honorable service under his belt, right? I know you are some legal genius, but to be honest, I don't think your opinion carries as much weight as his.

Sure. Of course my opinion would not hold as much weight as his, legally-speaking, but that still does not address the concerns I brought up.

In fact, it appears to be irrelevant, as I no made claim that relies on my opinion being more "weighted" than his.

So compromising a judicial position is now based on whether or not you agree with the decision?

That is not what I said. This is what I said and what you quoted:

the judge now needs to tread very carefully, as he has potentially compromised his position and even the smallest hint of bias or political shenanigans will be jumped on quickly.

That says nothing about him compromising his position through his decision. It says "even the smallest hint of bias or political shenanigans will be jumped on quickly."

Is that unreasonable to suggest? Considering the political climate these days, it should be a given that if someone in a position that should be impartial in their line of duty does give the hint of bias or political shenanigans, someone is going to jump all over that.

In fact, is that not why many have issues with the FBI now?

After all, I don't remember any of these statements being labelled as "concerning"...

Shall I go on? There are literally dozens more. And I don't remember you being concerned about any of them.

Let me get this straight. You are trying to hold me accountable for something I've never said, or you have never seen me post about?

That's an obvious logical fallacy. An appeal to ignorance. Just because you are coming from a place of ignorance and have not seen my opinion on those particular cases, does not, in any way, refute or invalidate my opinion on this case.

Your bias might as well have a flashing neon sign over it.

Of course I am biased. I have never denied it and it would be hypocritical, or in fact a lie, if you yourself claimed otherwise. Would you deny that?

The point still remains that you have not addressed my specific claims/concerns/opinions, nor has anyone else, and seem to be using multiple logical fallacies in order to push, in all honesty, utter nonsense.