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

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: toysforadults

Because it's bull# that's why.
Napolitano had Hillary in jail every week of 2016. He's never right.

We now know why that is though, and its not good for Comey or the FBI.

All the commentary about Mueller's only interest in the case is to squeeze Manafort and get Trump is legally meaningless. He's admits it is not necessarily improper. He is simply telling them to call a spade a spade. Don't piss in his ear and tell him it's raining, in other words.

The part where he specifically addresses the issue before him (does this fall under the SC's purview) is entirely meaningful. He has to rule on the motion before him based on the legal merits. Not why the case is being tried, but does Mueller have the authority to bring it before the court. Everything revolving around that is central to the motion he is ruling on. It could not be more meaningful.

When it comes to the memos authorizing 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.

a reply to: luthier

Yawn, still looking for those quotes you keep promising. Afterall I said Manafort is getting the case dropped, so it should be easy for you to quote it. Or you can keep lying, either way, everyone reading can see me asking you to quote me and you refusing to do it.

originally posted by: RadioRobert
All the commentary about Mueller's only interest in the case is to squeeze Manafort and get Trump is legally meaningless. He's admits it is not necessarily improper. He is simply telling them to call a spade a spade. Don't piss in his ear and tell him it's raining, in other words.

The part where he specifically addresses the issue before him (does this fall under the SC's purview) is entirely meaningful. He has to rule on the motion before him based on the legal merits. Not why the case is being tried, but does Mueller have the authority to bring it before the court. Everything revolving around that is central to the motion he is ruling on. It could not be more meaningful.

EXACTLY. Careful though people will soon be claiming you are saying Manafort has already won and Mueller is going to jail. They won't be able to quote you saying it, but the claims will keep coming.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Xcathdra

And again a former federal judge whom you linked said it was meaningless because he has that authority.

On top of that goes further and says a local prosecutor will just pick up the case.

In fact looking at how nunes just had his meeting at the doj over this document it may be the judge doesn't even have clearance to read the document.

Legitimate authority is up to the judge presiding over the case. Since the other judge forgot to mention it is up to the judge to keep both sides of a legal argument in line. When the government becomes to aggressive, for instance abusing its authority to prosecute a person who was already cleared of the crimes by the government, the judge brings them back in line.

While Rosenstein can determine jurisdiction it is not absolute. Rosenstein, or any other person in a similar position, can go beyond their authority. A court can tell them that and limit the authority they granted.

I am not sure why this is so difficult for you to understand. Your argument is exactly why Judge Ellis wants the memo. The authority of Rosenstein and the SC is not absolute and the judge in this case feels the SC is beyond their authority.

It is called checks and balances. You should look it up.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Xcathdra

Where is this exoneration letter? Does that override any prosecution by the actual court?

Ask Rosenstein where it is. Also yes it would preclude any further legal action which is probably why the judge went down this road of chastising the SC and challenged their authority.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Xcathdra

And again a former federal judge whom you linked said it was meaningless because he has that authority.

On top of that goes further and says a local prosecutor will just pick up the case.

In fact looking at how nunes just had his meeting at the doj over this document it may be the judge doesn't even have clearance to read the document.

Legitimate authority is up to the judge presiding over the case.

True just using the author of the op's link.

not absolute and the judge in this case feels the SC is beyond their authority.

Not really. You have no idea what his motivation is.

Judges also make people say things on record.

Manafort probably wants to use this as a discovery and expose the investigation.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: RadioRobert
All the commentary about Mueller's only interest in the case is to squeeze Manafort and get Trump is legally meaningless. He's admits it is not necessarily improper. He is simply telling them to call a spade a spade. Don't piss in his ear and tell him it's raining, in other words.

The part where he specifically addresses the issue before him (does this fall under the SC's purview) is entirely meaningful. He has to rule on the motion before him based on the legal merits. Not why the case is being tried, but does Mueller have the authority to bring it before the court. Everything revolving around that is central to the motion he is ruling on. It could not be more meaningful.

EXACTLY. Careful though people will soon be claiming you are saying Manafort has already won and Mueller is going to jail. They won't be able to quote you saying it, but the claims will keep coming.

No careful I agree with almost everything he said..

You saying they looked for a crime before assuming one from evidence isn't the same thing.

originally posted by: RadioRobert
All the commentary about Mueller's only interest in the case is to squeeze Manafort and get Trump is legally meaningless. He's admits it is not necessarily improper. He is simply telling them to call a spade a spade. Don't piss in his ear and tell him it's raining, in other words.

The part where he specifically addresses the issue before him (does this fall under the SC's purview) is entirely meaningful. He has to rule on the motion before him based on the legal merits. Not why the case is being tried, but does Mueller have the authority to bring it before the court. Everything revolving around that is central to the motion he is ruling on. It could not be more meaningful.

When it comes to the memos authorizing 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.

You have seen Rosenstein say he has givendors Mueller the authority and Mueller has checked with him though correct?

And you did see Manafort's lawyer say he worked with Rod and knows there are extensive notes?

Don't you find it possible he wants to expose the notes for his defense and to secure a pardon by exposing parts of the investigation that are unknown to other defenses?

It seems some folks think legal games between the defense and prosecution are done misionary style.

Both sides do everything possible to win. Including long shots.

a reply to: luthier

Then you need to read the 48 page transcript of the proceedings because that is exactly what the judge was doing. Questioning and challenging the SC authority and by extension Rosensteins authority to expand Mueller's jurisdiction into an area unrelated to Trump Russia collusion.

a reply to: luthier

Dude, really?

It's the judge presiding over the case asking the prosecutor toprove he has the autborityto bring these charges.

Not Manafort's lawyer.

The judge.

How do you keep conflating this fact with some kind of discovery attempt by Manafort?

a reply to: Xcathdra

I read them.

So did Napalitano.

We both have different opinions than you do as to what that means.

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

If you read the transcript Manafort's lawyers says he knows rosenstein keeps extensive documentation.

If he can release those it will detail the investigation.

The judge tempered that and is asking for things around the may 17th letter.

Again I have no idea. But we will see.

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.

a reply to: luthier

You have seen Rosenstein say he has givendors Mueller the authority and Mueller has checked with him though correct? 

And you did see Manafort's lawyer say he worked with Rod and knows there are extensive notes? 

Don't you find it possible he wants to expose the notes for his defense and to secure a pardon by exposing parts of the investigation that are unknown to other defenses? 

Yes. Rosenstein said that. The question arises when did Rosenstein so endow Mueller with that power.

Yes. Manafort's counsel wants to see the memos. See the dates on the memos. We know the August memo, for example, post dates the search of Manafort's home. Is there an earlier authorization? The defense (and Ellis also, seemingly) isn't impressed wifh verbal assurances that verbal authorization happened. Show the goods.

I don't think Manafort has any hope of a pardon. The memos will have to be turned over in discovery anyway. All the stalling just presents the impression they don't have what they say they have. At least not as clearly as they are pretending to. Also, the defense has a right to a speedy trial. Mueller doesn't get the option of stalling and refusing discovery to prevent an effective defense. It's misconduct , and he already tried it in the Concord case.

Before they get there though, they must demonstrate to the judge they have the legal authority to even put it before the court. That's why the defense made the motion, and that's why the judge is looking at the memos. "Does Mueller have legal standing to bring this case before the court?" That's the question before the court at the moment. The rest is noise until we know that answer.

a reply to: RadioRobert

I agree.

Except I don't think you understand that is what happens in trials. The prosecution and defense do everything possible and the judge is the referee.

What Mueller is doing is up to the judge to temper, scold, similar to little tidbits he did to the defense if you read the transcript or the way the defense tried to file a civil suit to gain more knowledge of the case through discovery and throw a hail Mary.


The fact gowdy says he supports the Mueller investigation makes me suspect of the narrative Mueller is way out of bounds.

Again it's just my opinion.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Xcathdra

I read them.

So did Napalitano.

We both have different opinions than you do as to what that means.

Yup and as I pointed out Napolitano was wrong on his comment about a state verse federal prosecution as well since NY state law doesnt allow for it.

Given your position you did not read, or you didnt understand, the exchanges that took place and the meaning of them. Why do you think the judge kept going after the SC, telling him to stop running away from the questions he was asking? Almost the entirety of the judges interaction with the SC dealt with their authority to go after Manafort for charges unrelated to Trump Russia collusion and Rosensteins authority to allow the SC to do it.

The legal requirements to appoint a special counsel are laid out and are specific. There MUST be a crime. Rosenstein listed no crime in the SC appointment letter and contrary to popular belief "collusion" is not a crime anywhere in the federal body of law (criminal). The second requirement is a conflict of interest somewhere within the DOJ or its umbrella.

The SC argued they can essentially do and investigate whatever they want because of the appointment letter and scope memo. The judge is telling them it doesnt work that way and has challenged that position.

Hence the demand for an unredacted copy of the scope memo. It didnt help the SC position when they attempted to tell the judge he didnt have security access to actually see it (which, as pointed out, all federal district court judges have security clearance and there are procedures in place to protect sensitive information).

Let me boil it down to the basic.

The SC is saying they can investigate whatever they want and the appointment and scope memo is their basis.
They then tel the judge he cant see the scope memo.

How do you think this is going to end?

The judge has every right to challenge the SC and Rosenstein. The judge can determine if the SC is outside of the statute. The judge can decide if the SC / Rosenstein overstepped their authority by allowing a criminal investigation and prosecution on a case that was already in existence prior to the SC and one of which Rosenstein already closed out with exoneration letter.

Not to mention the judge has not delved into the other major violation committed by the SC - Brady. That violation alone is enough to end the prosecution with dismissal of charges with prejudice.

a reply to: Xcathdra

I guess we will see. So far you have been wrong an awful lot. You read the law as literal like you are reading it.

Judge nap already said and knew and talked about on fox and friends the AG Was working to change the NY law. I think I also linked the former AG Saying so a while back.

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.

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.