Paul Manafort sues Mueller and the DoJ

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: SirHardHarry

Mainly uncovering a vast criminal conspiracy around trump and co and also involving russian interests and money laundering.

If that's what he's doing, he's doing a really bad job at it... but the next part is what I find interesting:

. Trump put himself on the radar the moment his ego got too big and he pounced on the presidency.

So basically you're admitting that the entire investigation is "the deep state" or "the establishment" attacking a threat? And you're ok with this?

No, I'm not admitting or even suggesting that. Your inference is entirely incorrect, but nice try putting words in my mouth. His campaigns repeated contacts with Russian officials, (Russia's subsequent meddling which the FBI and other intel were aware and have confirmed), which was denied time and time again only be to revealed as lies, that resulted in the investigation, resulted in the likely exposure of his ongoing criminal conspiracy.

No "deep state" or "establishment" conspiracy but a spotlight his criminal enterprises. That.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Interesting read here if you are interested.


Oddly enough it echoes a lot of what I am saying.

www.nationalreview.com...

originally posted by: dasman888

originally posted by: SirHardHarry

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Vector99

if muellers team was "THE TOP DOGS" mueller would have turned manafort over for rosenstein to prosecute
but no mueller HIMSELF had to get the indictment

Mueller knows exactly what he's doing. Mainly uncovering a vast criminal conspiracy around trump and co and also involving russian interests and money laundering. The web is vast, and that's what mueller is finding. Trump put himself on the radar the moment his ego got too big and he pounced on the presidency.

And they're sweating. That's why they're doing everything they can to shut it all down.

LOL!!!!! Umh... RIGHT! Well... since you are going to go there... maybe you could link us to some actual evidence of substance to support that "reality"? (...and be sure to pass it on to Mueller's crew. They have been having some trouble finding it.)

Evidence = that which provides direct proof of the truth of an assertion.

Pretty sure Mueller already has a lot of evidence, that's why he has everyone so nervous trying to shut it down, and why his investigation keep expanding, including more people, and gathering even more evidence. He keeps uncovering more and more evidence, LOL!!

The "reality" that there's "nothing to see here" or a "nothing burger" is the biggest fantasy of all.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Xcathdra

Interesting read here if you are interested.


Oddly enough it echoes a lot of what I am saying.

www.nationalreview.com...

Well that actually makes sense the Russia probe was an investigation. To apoint a special council you need a criminal act. An investigation can find a criminal act but that's now what happened the investigation itself caused the special council. Which means it was fishing expiation making it illegal

a reply to: dragonridr

That would be hard to prove.

Everybody besides the trump team has said Russian interference was real. The Republicans by majority in the committees included.

Now was the Obama doj also not letting a good crisis go to waste and use it to spy on trump possibly.

Just keep in mind none of the narratives have actually made it to court.

I would like to wait and see since Trump had some clintonesque scumbags in his campaign that none are left.

I have doubts trump was involved. I do not doubt though some people he hired were less than on the level. Simply by him not having any experience if nothing else.

a reply to: luthier

Yet no one could provide any evidence. The last time we check. The Russians bought 6k worth of facebook ads which turns out all benefit Hilary. Yet 6k vs hilary's 2.5 billion dollars will have no effect whatsoever.

Hilary lost because she sucked period, she wouldn't win against a monkey. No one needs to cheat to beat her. The fact that she ran is an automatic win for the other person.

Not to mention there is plenty of evidence that the email leaker is Seth Rich and Ambassador Muray. He only admitted to it many times, yet leftists buffoons pretend he doesn't exist because it would destroy their narrative.

a reply to: amfirst1

The investigation isn't over is it?

Do you normally give out the information to the public in a special council or counter Intel operation?

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Xcathdra

Interesting read here if you are interested.


Oddly enough it echoes a lot of what I am saying.

www.nationalreview.com...

I disagree... Reading the article it comes to the same conclusions as Manaforts lawyer, myself and others. What the author of the article did was explain his position on how he would challenge the SC and then explained how Manaforts lawyers are challenging the SC.

Manaforts lawyers are contending the investigation / charges are outside the scope of the SC. By that they are saying the SC appointment violated the SC law because there was no crime to start the investigation. As the author notes the investigation that Mueller has is a continuation of Comey investigation into the russia question. As noted in the article that investigation was NOT criminal but a counter-intelligence investigation.

Rosensteins appointment letter, as noted in the article, does not specify any crimes that would legally justify the appointment of a SC. Also, as the article points out, section II and III goes beyond the scope of the SC because they are not related to the russia probe. In order for Mueller to investigate these financial crimes that are unrelated the DAG would need to grant the additional jurisdiction, which Mueller never requested and Rosenstein never granted.

If Manaforts lawyers prevail it would in fact end the current special counsel. Rosenstein or Sessions would then have to appoint a new special counsel with more specific information, including the crime that would justify a SC.

Of the people currently accused, Popadapolis is the only person who might escape the guiltily plea he entered. Since the other people indicted have not had a court appearance where a jury is seated, or in the case of a bench trial when the first witness is sworn in, jeopardy has not attached. Since Grand Jury's do not determine guilt jeopardy does not apply to those proceedings.

It means charges could be refiled against Manafort / Paige. However if Popadapolis plea is reversed because of the lack of authority of the SC, he could not be recharged with the same crime nor could the same evidence be used.

They will make an argument that since the actions of the SC were unlawful (should they win that argument) any and all evidence collected is tainted. Keep in mind Manaforts team also submitted motions to suppress evidence (violation of the search warrant / attorney client privilege). If that motion is accepted then Manafort and Paige would most likely be protected from being charged for the same crimes using the same evidence.

The only way around that would be if new compelling evidence comes to light that was unknown at the time and is not directly attached to any of the evidence that was suppressed. With that said if we have any lawyers reading please weigh in on this point.

In short -
* - If the evidence is suppressed the charges / prosecutions are done.
* - If the SC appointment violated the law the SC is done.
* - If the SC acted outside of their authority, which is where these charges came from, the charges / prosecutions are done.

a reply to: Xcathdra

That is you and the opinion of manafort lawyer yet no where else accept that drastically partisan freedom watch (who gives a tepid support at best)
Thinks mana fort has a chance. You can look high and low. Republican prosecutors judges. Everyone seems to think it has almost no chance at all of negating the SC.


So I will ask again are you predicting this lawsuit to go through?

Or are you just talking and playing up a narrative presented with confirmation bias and preassuming there was no ill deeds done during the campaign?

By the way what do the Russians call MICE and how long does it take to create an asset? Like I said plenty of defense for rodstein. Since rod gives Mueller the authority it's mostly on him. He already testified Mueller has been in bounds and therefor he supports the way he is handling the investigation. He simply says yes I gave him the power to expand his search. He pretty much did in December at the hearing.

28 CFR 600.4 - Jurisdiction.

28 U.S. Code § 510 - Delegation of

For me the suit hinges on the question as to if the powers granted to a special prosecutor are broad or narrow like that of a warrant. As to filing a civil suit versus criminal, that is pretty simple. Civil court only requires a general consensus with a jury instead of unanimous decision from a criminal jury. Criminal juries also have the power of jury nullification of laws in whole or in part. So a criminal court jury could suppress US statues limiting a special prosecutor that are in place.

And finally, civil courts award money whereas criminal courts do not always include monetary compensation. Manafort would not be satisfied just seeing jail sentences handed out.

a reply to: luthier

As I have stated several times in this thread Manafots legal argument has merit and a good chance of succeeding. The legal argument they put forth is valid and based on existing laws governing the special prosecutor.

Whats the point of having a special prosecutor investigate someone for a crime when the special prosecutor is breaking the law himself to do so.

a reply to: Ahabstar

The legal filing is an administrative matter and not criminal. Federal judges are broken down into 2 categories and one group does handle these types of motions / suits / whatever you want to call it.

The questions being asked are -
* - Was the appointment of a special counsel lawful under the SC statute? The SC law requires a law be broken before one can be appointed.
* - Is the authority granted to the SC overly broad and out of authority? The crimes / people in question are not related to the Russia probe and therefore needed a granting of additional jurisdiction to investigate. Mueller never asked for the additional jurisdiction and Rosenstein never authorized it.

If the SC was illegally constituted and the courts agree its done.
If the authority to investigate the additional crimes is absent then the indictments / prosecutions are done.

The SC law requires a law to be broken and must be included in the authorization document. As we can see no crime is listed. Collusion is not a crime (criminal) and that is what the document states. Finally the investigation was never a criminal one but was a counter intelligence one.

In the rush to appoint a SC they royally screwed it up.

As for the judges and their jurisdiction see this post -
www.abovetopsecret.com...

As we know the current status of Manaforts case is still in the preliminary motion stages. A motion to suppress evidence has been filed as well.

a reply to: Xcathdra

28 CFR 600.4 - Jurisdiction.

(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.

ROSENSTEIN: I know what [Mueller’s] doing. I'm properly exercising my oversight responsibilities, and so I can assure you that the special counsel is conducting himself consistently with our understanding about the scope of his investigation.

Good luck getting around that...


His argument has merit. Just not his legal argument or the procedure and arguments he chose.

If it did he would have filed a motion in the criminal court.

a reply to: Dfairlite

He's welcome to bring any suit he wants.

This is a brave attempt but I doubt he has a leg to stand on.

a reply to: luthier

I believe he hae offered an accurate reason as to why it was filed where it was.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Who has and why?

Further more how will he argue against my last post?


28 CFR Part 600 - GENERAL POWERS OF SPECIAL COUNSEL

28 CFR 600.4 - Jurisdiction.

He nay have a point but he has a bad case. And it will probably be thrown out quick in a federal court. Imo

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Who has and why?

Further more how will he argue against my last post?


28 CFR Part 600 - GENERAL POWERS OF SPECIAL COUNSEL

28 CFR 600.4 - Jurisdiction.

He nay have a point but he has a bad case. And it will probably be thrown out quick in a federal court. Imo

For starters -


If you notice when Rosenstein spells out Muellers jurisdiction it is specific to 28 CFR 600.4(A) only. Sections B and C must be specified in the order and they are not. If Mueller's investigation crosses into section B or section C, because its not specified, he must ask DAG Rosenstein for the authority to act under B(Additional jurisdiction) and C(Administrative jurisdiction). All Mueller is authorized to act under is section A(original jurisdiction). Original jurisdiction is the authority to act on items that are directly related to whats spelled out in the order / memo - IE Anything related to the 2016 election and Russia-Trump "collusion".

If he comes across other crimes during his investigation, and those crimes are not linked to his mandate, they are not covered by original jurisdiction. They would fall under additional jurisdiction and thus far Mueller has made no request for that and Rosenstein has not authorized it.

Manafort has a solid legal challenge based on available information. The indictments are for actions that have no relation to the 2016 elections nor Russia-Trump "collusion".


Reference material -
As you can see in Rosensteins order (above), section B III, it allows Mueller to act under part A only.
* - 28 CFR 600 - JURISDICTION

The following link covers the provisions from 600.4 to 600.10 as noted in section D of Rosensteins SC order.
* - 28 CFR 600 - GENERAL POWERS OF SPECIAL COUNSEL

a reply to: Xcathdra

Mueller doesn't share with the public what he has requested and been granted, or not granted, does he? He's a very quiet Special Counsel.

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: Xcathdra

Mueller doesn't share with the public what he has requested and been granted, or not granted, does he? He's a very quiet Special Counsel.

Nope - the only person he is required to report to is Rosenstein.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Who has and why?

Further more how will he argue against my last post?


28 CFR Part 600 - GENERAL POWERS OF SPECIAL COUNSEL

28 CFR 600.4 - Jurisdiction.

He nay have a point but he has a bad case. And it will probably be thrown out quick in a federal court. Imo

For starters -

If you notice when Rosenstein spells out Muellers jurisdiction it is specific to 28 CFR 600.4(A) only. Sections B and C must be specified in the order and they are not. If Mueller's investigation crosses into section B or section C, because its not specified, he must ask DAG Rosenstein for the authority to act under B(Additional jurisdiction) and C(Administrative jurisdiction). All Mueller is authorized to act under is section A(original jurisdiction). Original jurisdiction is the authority to act on items that are directly related to whats spelled out in the order / memo - IE Anything related to the 2016 election and Russia-Trump "collusion".

If he comes across other crimes during his investigation, and those crimes are not linked to his mandate, they are not covered by original jurisdiction. They would fall under additional jurisdiction and thus far Mueller has made no request for that and Rosenstein has not authorized it.

Manafort has a solid legal challenge based on available information. The indictments are for actions that have no relation to the 2016 elections nor Russia-Trump "collusion".


Reference material -
As you can see in Rosensteins order (above), section B III, it allows Mueller to act under part A only.
* - 28 CFR 600 - JURISDICTION

The following link covers the provisions from 600.4 to 600.10 as noted in section D of Rosensteins SC order.
* - 28 CFR 600 - GENERAL POWERS OF SPECIAL COUNSEL

Exactly and I linked where rodstein said he is aware of the investigation.

As far as I know that qualified as permission to expand. All rodstein has to say is I gave the OK.

Bannon said his comments about the Trump Tower meeting were aimed at Manafort, "a seasoned campaign professional with experience and knowledge of how the Russians operate. He should have known they are duplicitous, cunning and not our friends."