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.

 

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

page: 9
37
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 2 2018 @ 02:25 PM
link   
If Manafort walks, Mueller may as well get his coat. He'll be a laughing stock.




posted on Aug, 2 2018 @ 02:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: Xcathdra

Have you been able to verify that Rod Rosenstein cleared manafort of the charges that he's being tried for, something like 8 years ago?

I could not find any actual articles from that time. Mentioning that trial.


Confirmation came from Judge Ellis when he ruled in favor of Muellers motion to preclude the defense from raising the point Rosenstein already cleared him of the charges. They also cant raise anything russia related although Ellis warned the prosecution that if they open the door to either then the suppressed info is fair game to bring into the trial.



posted on Aug, 2 2018 @ 02:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth
If Manafort walks, Mueller may as well get his coat. He'll be a laughing stock.


Thats the way certain US media outlets are reporting this. The Manafort prosecution is the litmus test for what Mueller / Rosenstein are doing. The good news is this case with judge Ellis started before the other trial in the DC circuit with a different judge. If Mueller gets destroyed and Ellis starts throwing stuff out then the other judge is faced wit h the problem of following suit or allowing it and creating grounds for an appeal.



posted on Aug, 2 2018 @ 02:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra

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.


I pointed this out before, but Rosenstein admitted that he broke the rules of the code that gives him power to appoint a Special Counsel. Mueller's entire operation is not legal.


§ 600.1 Grounds for appointing a Special Counsel. The Attorney General, or in cases in which the Attorney General is recused, the Acting Attorney General, will appoint a Special Counsel when he or she determines that criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted


Rosenstein:

My decision is not a finding that crimes have been committed or that any prosecution is warranted. I have made no such determination.


The Mueller investigation is an illegal operation.
edit on 2/8/2018 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2018 @ 02:33 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

You are preaching to the choir on that point. However since Judge Ellis didnt throw the case out on those grounds I have to assume there is something that we dont have access to that convinced Ellis the SC was on semi solid grounds.



posted on Aug, 2 2018 @ 02:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: UKTruth

You are preaching to the choir on that point. However since Judge Ellis didnt throw the case out on those grounds I have to assume there is something that we dont have access to that convinced Ellis the SC was on semi solid grounds.


Or it could be that Ellis allowed it in order to embarrass the SC and show it for what it is...it could also be that Rosenstein changed the scope AFTER the original appointment. If the latter, it's still not legal as the original appointment ran counter to the code governing Rosenstein's powers - in his own words. i.e. 'we'll investigate you in case you committed a crime... oh look we found something... now it's legit'.
edit on 2/8/2018 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2018 @ 02:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: Xcathdra

Have you been able to verify that Rod Rosenstein cleared manafort of the charges that he's being tried for, something like 8 years ago?

I could not find any actual articles from that time. Mentioning that trial.


Confirmation came from Judge Ellis when he ruled in favor of Muellers motion to preclude the defense from raising the point Rosenstein already cleared him of the charges. They also cant raise anything russia related although Ellis warned the prosecution that if they open the door to either then the suppressed info is fair game to bring into the trial.

Thankyou for following this trial so closely, and for having a great memory!

Keeping Paul manafort in solitary confinement is a tragedy, considering the nature of the charges.
edit on 8/2/2018 by carewemust because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2018 @ 02:42 PM
link   

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.


Sounds like it's time to investigate the judge.



posted on Aug, 2 2018 @ 02:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

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.


Sounds like it's time to investigate the judge.


Ah there it is! I was waiting for it.
Corruption corruption everywhere - except those going after Trump of course



posted on Aug, 2 2018 @ 02:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: UKTruth

You are preaching to the choir on that point. However since Judge Ellis didnt throw the case out on those grounds I have to assume there is something that we dont have access to that convinced Ellis the SC was on semi solid grounds.


Or it could be that Ellis allowed it in order to embarrass the SC and show it for what it is...it could also be that Rosenstein changed the scope AFTER the original appointment. If the latter, it's still not legal as the original appointment ran counter to the code governing Rosenstein's powers - in his own words. i.e. 'we'll investigate you in case you committed a crime... oh look we found something... now it's legit'.


Thats why I am not of the same mindset of Ellis doing this to embarrass the SC. Allowing the case to go forward on those grounds is a no no under US law.

What I can see him doing isd allowing the case to go forward to give the government the benefit of the doubt that they are on sound legal footing. If at the end its apparent the SC is not then he has the authority to end the trial and dismiss all charges as null. Even if it gets to a jury and he feels requirements were not met he can set aside a juries verdict.



posted on Aug, 2 2018 @ 02:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: Xcathdra

Have you been able to verify that Rod Rosenstein cleared manafort of the charges that he's being tried for, something like 8 years ago?

I could not find any actual articles from that time. Mentioning that trial.


Confirmation came from Judge Ellis when he ruled in favor of Muellers motion to preclude the defense from raising the point Rosenstein already cleared him of the charges. They also cant raise anything russia related although Ellis warned the prosecution that if they open the door to either then the suppressed info is fair game to bring into the trial.

Thankyou for following this trial so closely, and for having a great memory!

Keeping Paul manafort in solitary confinement is a tragedy, considering the nature of the charges.


His solitary confinement is not what solitary confinement actually is for convicted criminals. Because he is not convicted he has his own room, own bathroom / shower, separation from convicted inmates, access to a computer and phone and can have visitors via lawyers.

As for keeping up its one of the added benefits of depression. Turn the tv on and just veg out.
edit on 2-8-2018 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2018 @ 02:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

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.


Sounds like it's time to investigate the judge.


Care to explain your thought process on that? So far nothing the judge has done even comes close to misconduct or prejudicial bias towards one party.
edit on 2-8-2018 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2018 @ 04:16 PM
link   
Judge Ellis tells Mueller's team that he may throw the case out if they do not produce key Witnesses.



posted on Aug, 2 2018 @ 04:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Following the updates on the trial is quite confusing. All the testimony seems to be about documents Gates signed, shell companies Manafort's bookkeeper didn't know about and Manaforts clothes, houses and gardens????
Do they actually have any evidence of his exact income and tax returns to determine whether he didn't pay enough or not? It seems the documents relating to the other charge - bank fraud - are signed by Gates.
After all the talk, I thought they'd have concrete evidence???



posted on Aug, 2 2018 @ 06:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: Xcathdra

Following the updates on the trial is quite confusing. All the testimony seems to be about documents Gates signed, shell companies Manafort's bookkeeper didn't know about and Manaforts clothes, houses and gardens????
Do they actually have any evidence of his exact income and tax returns to determine whether he didn't pay enough or not? It seems the documents relating to the other charge - bank fraud - are signed by Gates.
After all the talk, I thought they'd have concrete evidence???


The pictures and invoices of what he bought demonstrates that not paying taxes was not based on a humanitarian basis. There have been cases where people did not pay taxes because they needed money for medications / medical procedures etc. In those cases the people in question who didnt pay taxes received rulings with compassion and reduced or no fines with agreements to repay whats owed with fixed payments over long periods of time.

By demonstrating everything Manafort bought they showed he had no legitimate reason for failing to pay taxes. The testimony from some witnesses today delved into his finances and the fact 2 sets of books were kept. 1 set showing 1 set of numbers and a second identical book that had numbers changed.

IE 1 book for tax purposes with fraudulent information to hide assets with the second set of books keeping track of the actual amounts.

They are demonstrating he had no reason to not pay taxes. It also shows, with 2 sets of books, that he was hiding money. Signing off on fraudulent transfers / creating fake receipts goes to the fraud and embezzlement angle.

The prosecution calling Gates, in my opinion, is dangerous. Gates already lied to the feds after he struck the deal to testify (which should by all rights invalidate the deal). I guarantee that angle is going to be fully exploited by Manaforts team.
edit on 2-8-2018 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2018 @ 06:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Thanks.
So who created the second set of accounts? Manafort or Gates?
I heard Manafort is trying to suggest that it was Gates defrauding the company. Don't believe that, frankly. I think Manafort is dirty, but we'll soon find out if there is enough to convict.



posted on Aug, 3 2018 @ 07:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: Xcathdra

Thanks.
So who created the second set of accounts? Manafort or Gates?
I heard Manafort is trying to suggest that it was Gates defrauding the company. Don't believe that, frankly. I think Manafort is dirty, but we'll soon find out if there is enough to convict.


No idea... It could be Gates, it could be Manafort or it could be both. The prosecution has to prove their case and Manaforts team only has to change the mind of 1 person on the jury.

Lets see what happens when Gates takes the stand. I think the result of that testimony will make or break the prosecutions case. I just dont see how they are going to get around the fact he lied to prosecutors and still got a deal.



posted on Aug, 3 2018 @ 10:57 AM
link   
lawandcrime.com...



Paul Manafort‘s third day on trial over charges of bank fraud and tax evasion was cut a bit short on Thursday after government attorneys made the same mistake twice in a row.





After the jury left, Ellis took a few minutes to tell the press and public all about the bench conference. As it turns out, not only was Ayliff a non-noticed witness being asked to give the equivalent of expert testimony, but the prosecution and defense had already agreed on what the term “financial interest” meant. Moreover, this agreement was provided on a proposed–and approved–jury instruction. That is, not only was Ayliff not an expert and not a noticed expert as necessitated by the Federal Rules of Evidence–but his testimony had the potential to derail an already-agreed-upon definition of the term(s) in question. This, Ellis said, could have “confused or clouded” things for the jury.

This is a mess.



posted on Aug, 3 2018 @ 02:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
This is a mess.


That is putting it nicely.. I have never seen a prosecution piss a judge off this badly this number of times and on a continual basis as this.

Wtf is the special counsel think they are doing. It is almost like they are intentionally undermining their own case.



posted on Aug, 3 2018 @ 03:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: shooterbrody
This is a mess.


That is putting it nicely.. I have never seen a prosecution piss a judge off this badly this number of times and on a continual basis as this.

Wtf is the special counsel think they are doing. It is almost like they are intentionally undermining their own case.


Occam would suggest your impression of how much they're 'pissing' off the judge is the likely culprit.....



new topics

top topics



 
37
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join