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.

 

The other shoe drops in Manafort's case - Rosenstein himself cleared Manafort back in 2006

page: 11
45
<< 8  9  10   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 13 2018 @ 08:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: RadioRobert

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: RadioRobert

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: RadioRobert


Manafort and the timeline (ie, Manafort's home already being raided prior to the authorization), it's murky. Rosenstein can say, "Oh, by the way, look into Manafort, too" at anytime, and that begins to fall under the SC purview. But whether that gives him a carte blanche for actions taken before that authorization was received is a lot less clear legally.

The charter/memos give specific powers and authority to the SC. Much like the police can't get a warrant for your neighbors house and just turn over yours too while they are in the neighborhood. They can't do that, and then get authorization (a warrant) including your home. BUT they can get new authorization that covers you at any time. They aren't bound by the scope of their original investigation in that sense.


Is there legal testimony this happened?

If there is the case would moat likely be over by now.

Read the written response from team Mueller. It cites a memo written 2 August 2017 mentioning Manafort as it's authority. Problem: the raid on Manafort's home, for example, takes place in July. So where's the earlier authorization? The office of the SC is saying it's classified, and also, they had verbal communication authorizing the investigation. Great. Prove it. The burden is on the govt, not the defendant here.


Again true but how did they get the warrants then? It would be a massive problem and as bad as the perception is of these folks they just aren't that stupid IMO.


How did they get warrants? They went to a judge and said, "Hi, I'm Joe Feebee, and I'm with Mueller's special counsel office, and I am submitting this fine warrant application filled with evidence constituting probable cause so that you can authorize me to search his estate for records I believe critical to our investigation."
And the judge looked at it and said, "Yes, Mr Feebee, it appears you have filled this application with evidence constituting probable cause allowing me to endorse this warrant for the purpose of your investigation".

The judge knows he has a commission and assumes this is covered in his jurisdiction. The defense never gets a chance to say, "hey, wait a minute" when they go before a judge for a warrant. That's happening now.

If the office of the SC did it deliberately, they'd have a big problem. They didn't. They just #'ed up. They charged in and afterward realized, "#, we're on thin ice". There would be no reason to mislead the court for the warrant. They just had to get their ducks in a row. But it looks like they didn't.

Now they are trying to save their baby, and I think they may be misleading the court as to when and how the authorization to look into Manafort came about. The reason I am suspicious is that the statements don't fit together well. They failed to make a comprehensive argument. It was more like throwing stuff against the wall. People on solid ground don't do that in my experience. "We can do whatever we want. The charter isn't enforceable by you. We also have an August memo mentioning Manafort. There are other memos, but you can't see them. Well, we got verbal communication authorizing us at every step".

Probably why the judge wants to take a look at what's in the mystery box instead of taking their word for it.


That would fall back pretty hard on the judge for not asking for proof. Period. Mueller would have had to out right forge documents. Which is possible but I find unlikely.

Would Grassley and Gowdy be saying they support mueller? I don't think so but I can't say for sure.

I find it far more probable the narrative presented by the msm is exaggerated and lacking the actual details.
edit on 13-5-2018 by luthier because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 13 2018 @ 11:51 AM
link   
It won't-- the judge assumes Mueller as an officer of the court has broad reaching power and won't overstep his jurisdiction. Mueller is the one who overreached.
And no, Mueller didn't have to forge documents (though who knows when all the memos actually date from). He just filed for something he didn't have authority to do. I'm sure he assumed he did. If he knew he didn't have jurisdiction first, he would have just called and gotten it first. It's not like Rosenstein is at all antagonistic. So no, he'd never have to knowingly deceive the court to get the warrant. It'd be like forging a key to your parents' car when you know they'd let you drive if you'd ask. Just ask. He just #'ed up. It happens. Or maybe he really does have a clear authority based on a secret memo. I don't know. The filing and transcript makes me think it's not that clear.
Is he deceiving the court now in an effort to cover up the mistake? More likely, but again, who knows until the memos get read by the judge.



posted on May, 13 2018 @ 12:35 PM
link   
a reply to: RadioRobert

Indeed who knows.

However it would seem someone like gowdy would not be so supportive he finishes up with a massive oversight.

The judge would most likely want to see documents Mueller has been appointed and has jurisdiction. If he relied on Mueller's reputation and prior relationship some of the scrutiny will be on him.



 
45
<< 8  9  10   >>

log in

join