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

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: UKTruth

I wouldn't be so sure of that he could easily return the case to Virginia and its prosecutor. Mueller took this from them saying he had jurisdiction to do so. If the judge decides he does not and returns it to them huge win for Mueller. Because the likely outcome will become paying a fine as opposed to going to jail.

It would not be easy to return the case to the other prosecutor in Virginia. As the defense correctly pointed out Mueller's additional investigation already subpoenaed records / obtained evidence. If the SC did not have the authority / jurisdiction to do it then the evidence was improperly obtained. Sending it back would be just as detrimental to the governments case as if it stayed with the SC.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Xcathdra

Thanks for the info and link.
If Manafort broke the law he should be held responsible, but Mueller doesn't get to break the law in order to hold him responsible.
Funny how there is trouble in all these cases except for the "lying to the fbi" portions(Flynns case will blow that open).

I am getting the feeling the SC just assumed people would run for a plea deal rather than plead not guilty and fight the charges.

originally posted by: xxspockyxx
I recently read that a lot of Muellers scope was given to him verbally by Rosenstien so I wonder how that will hold up in court?

It won't hold up at all. There is a reason the SC statute requires a formal letter appointing the special counsel. It spells out the parameters of the investigation, including jurisdiction. An expansion of jurisdiction would need a second memo to formalize the expansion.

The other issue here is with what the defense counsel raised when he commented that he used to work for the DOJ for 15 years, 5 of which were under Rosenstein. Rosenstein is memo crazy. He is all about documentation. If that is his standard and now all of a sudden we have a verbal directive something is wrong.

Part of me wonders if the explanation of verbal directives is to explain away any failings in the scope memo. It is also possible he said verbal to try and save the case should the judge determine the SC actions, which occurred prior to the granting of additional jurisdiction, were unlawful (after the fact).

IE Rosenstein verbally approved it on this date but didnt get around to the formal letter until this later date.

If that is the strategy I dont see the judge buying into it.

a reply to: Xcathdra

I think its crazy these are CAREER law enforcement people.
Our law enforcement agencies have been fubar for decades.
These are the situations the founders warned us about.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Xcathdra

I think its crazy these are CAREER law enforcement people.
Our law enforcement agencies have been fubar for decades.
These are the situations the founders warned us about.

Thankfully this judge agrees with that sentiment.

A 78-year-old Reagan appointed judge. He obviously is letting his politics get in the way of doing his job

originally posted by: Willtell
A 78-year-old Reagan appointed judge. He obviously is letting his politics get in the way of doing his job

Are you ageist?

originally posted by: Willtell
A 78-year-old Reagan appointed judge. He obviously is letting his politics get in the way of doing his job

Sorry, that would be the liberal activist judges who keep ruling based on politics.

Are you saying this Judge doesn't deserve to see the scope memo? It's political activism to do so? You liberals are hilarious, sad, but hilarious.

a reply to: introvert

Irrelevant. You have no more credibility with me. Justice is not subjective.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Irrelevant.

Which part? Be specific.

You have no more credibility with me.

I never claimed or expected otherwise and I doubt I had much to begin with. The only thing I can claim is you are being dishonest and have purposefully misrepresented my words on several occasions. Unless you have issues with reading comprehension, but I doubt that is the case.

Justice is not subjective.

That is your opinion.

Regardless, you have validated my concerns. Not sure why we had to go through all this nonsense just to agree that this was politicized by the judge.

a reply to: introvert

Which part? Be specific.

I was. All of it.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: RickinVa
This thread should have come with a trigger warning.

The fact that a judge would question the Special Council was bound to trigger someone.


Read back through the thread and see if you can figure out who got triggered. Happy hunting!

I think I figured it out.
BOOM😭

No, Mueller’s indictment of Manafort is well within the legal responsibilities of the special prosecutor.

Only a die-hard political judge would say otherwise.

Clintons SP was chosen to investigate Whitewater but they ended up going after Clinton for lying about sex

originally posted by: Willtell
No, Mueller’s indictment of Manafort is well within the legal responsibilities of the special prosecutor.

Only a die-hard political judge would say otherwise.

Clintons SP was chosen to investigate Whitewater but they ended up going after Clinton for lying about sex

NO, Muellers indictment of Manafort is looking highly suspect and you are in fact wrong.
BOOM!🤡

a reply to: Willtell

Sorry they have a scope they must follow. Your post must mean you know the full scope of the memo, I'd love you to share it.

a reply to: Willtell

Clintons SP was chosen to investigate Whitewater but they ended up going after Clinton for lying about sex

That was two separate investigations. Please check your history.

Whitewater resulted in no charges whatsoever against the Clintons, only a contempt charge against Susan McDougal for refusing to testify after being subpoenaed.

The Lewinski scandal resulted in Bill Clinton agreeing to testify via recorded tape before a Grand Jury and contradicting his denial of his earlier statement under oath that "he did not have sex with that woman" (Lewinsky). The perjury charges came from those statements and did not result in a criminal conviction because they could not result in a criminal conviction. They were referred to Congress, and the House voted for impeachment. The Senate then refused to remove him.

Clinton was not required to testify, although the dress contained DNA evidence of his affair. He was not even required to submit the original deposition. As President, he could not be charged with a crime. He could be sued civilly, and I imagine his actions were taken to try and prevent that. Stupid move if you ask me... had he just admitted it when placed under oath the first time, no one would have cared except the pundits. I certainly didn't, and don't. If I was married to Hillary, I would be looking for something better, too.

In contrast, Mueller has dredged up an old closed FBI case against Manafort and re-opened it, even though there is no tie to Russia in it. That is clearly outside the scope of his investigation. Mueller has no connection to the Daniels case, and cannot investigate it. Mueller has no connection to the Cohen investigation and cannot investigate it. Mueller can investigate any campaign associate of Trump to see if they had any improper contact with Russian nationals, and if he finds evidence of another crime connected to that investigation, he can indict for it as well. But he cannot simply decide he wants to investigate something else.

TheRedneck

Mueller's investigation is sounding more and more like a parallel construction.

Judge T.S. Ellis is now in possession of the ultra top-secret "scope of authority" memo that AAG Rosenstein wrote to Bob Mueller in August of last year.

Story: www.foxnews.com...

Now we'll see if judge Ellis feels that putting Manafort on trial for his pre-2016 activities is lawful, or was it just another chapter in Bob Mueller's overall witch hunt.

originally posted by: carewemust
Judge T.S. Ellis is now in possession of the ultra top-secret "scope of authority" memo that AAG Rosenstein wrote to Bob Mueller in August of last year.

Story: www.foxnews.com...

Now we'll see if judge Ellis feels that putting Manafort on trial for his pre-2016 activities is lawful, or was it just another chapter in Bob Mueller's overall witch hunt.

Case dismissed.......

originally posted by: GuidedKill

originally posted by: carewemust
Judge T.S. Ellis is now in possession of the ultra top-secret "scope of authority" memo that AAG Rosenstein wrote to Bob Mueller in August of last year.

Story: www.foxnews.com...

Now we'll see if judge Ellis feels that putting Manafort on trial for his pre-2016 activities is lawful, or was it just another chapter in Bob Mueller's overall witch hunt.

Case dismissed.......

I'm interested in hearing the colorful language Judge Ellis will use, after soaking in Rosenstein's secret instructions to Mueller. Hope they're made in public once again.