Judge Mulls Dismissal Of Manafort Charges, Sharply Questioned By Mueller Overreach

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Grambler

www.reuters.com...
here is a msm source for the same story

At tense hearing at the federal courthouse in Alexandria, Virginia, the judge said Mueller should not have “unfettered power” in his Russia probe and that the charges against Manafort did not arise from the investigation into Moscow’s alleged meddling in the 2016 U.S. election.

The judge questioned why Manafort’s case there could not be handled by the U.S. attorney’s office in Virginia, rather than the special counsel’s office.

Seems Mueller will have to justify his scope.

Another good point. If they're really just interested in justice, why didn't they just ask the appropriate US attorney to re-evaluate Manafort's case? Having Muller investigate this makes a prima fascia case that they're trying to tie this to the Trump campaign.

a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

Did mueller charge him with anything not previously investigated and dropped by the fbi?

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

There isn't...but the FBI investigating him prior and choosing to not pursue at that time tells you quite a bit about the motives here.

We have no way of knowing how far the FBI got in their investigation or why no charges were pursued at that time.

Had Mueller done something new that was uncovered, i'd have a pitchfork in hand with you.

So then you will not support any prosecution of anyone related to anything having to do with Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server since it was investigated by the FBI and no charges were pursued?

But this...this reaffirms my belief that there is a coup underway currently.

1. A coup is when power is seized from a country's leadership illegally. It's inherently extrajudicial.

2. Mueller cannot remove Trump from power, only Congress can do that and that would require successful impeachment in the House followed by *two-thirds* of the Senate voting to remove him.

3. In order for an impeachment to proceed based on information given to Congress by Mueller, Mueller would have to first find evidence that would support impeachment. If Mueller found evidence that warranted impeachment, shouldn't an impeachment follow?

There's no way that any of this could objectively be characterized as a "coup" (or attempted "coup") unless you believe that Mueller is going to fabricate evidence of a crime serious enough to compel impeachment — evidence that would stand up to scrutiny by Congress — with the goal of replacing Trump with Mike Pence.

a reply to: theantediluvian

If actual evidence is presented of course impeachment should be the next step, but IF all they have are people that were bankrupted defending themselves, or plead guilty to keep their kids from being charged, saying xyz happened.

Anyone claiming independent thought should question whether or not impeachment should happen.

originally posted by: theantediluvian

We have no way of knowing how far the FBI got in their investigation or why no charges were pursued at that time.

You are correct. But we do know the investigation happened, and no charges were pursued. We also know that what he is under indictment for right now is not new information for the FBI, as it was part of the prior investigation.

So then you will not support any prosecution of anyone related to anything having to do with Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server since it was investigated by the FBI and no charges were pursued?

We have record that it was not investigated, and a determination was created in advance. There is evidence of malfeasance on the part of the FBI. Whether we go after Hillary is less important than addressing the crooked FBI agents.

Still..you miss my point: the fact that the FBI investigated and cleared Mueller, only to go after him on the same charges once Trump was elected seems to support the assertion that this investigation is a witch hunt.

1. A coup is when power is seized from a country's leadership illegally. It's inherently extrajudicial.

2. Mueller cannot remove Trump from power, only Congress can do that and that would require successful impeachment in the House followed by *two-thirds* of the Senate voting to remove him.

3. In order for an impeachment to proceed based on information given to Congress by Mueller, Mueller would have to first find evidence that would support impeachment. If Mueller found evidence that warranted impeachment, shouldn't an impeachment follow?

There's no way that any of this could objectively be characterized as a "coup" (or attempted "coup") unless you believe that Mueller is going to fabricate evidence of a crime serious enough to compel impeachment — evidence that would stand up to scrutiny by Congress — with the goal of replacing Trump with Mike Pence.

Your lack of imagination here is staggering.

The "Legal" fixings will be outed soon.

Parti almozt over

🎁💡

The main news is that this federal judge claims that Bob Mueller is way off the rails.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: RickyD

Except Mueller explicitly gave Mueller the authority to investigate Manafort's Ukrainian government work:

Committed a crime or crimes arising out of payments he received from the Ukrainian government before and during the tenure of President Viktor Yanukovych.

Freudian slip?

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

You are correct. But we do know the investigation happened, and no charges were pursued. We also know that what he is under indictment for right now is not new information for the FBI, as it was part of the prior investigation.

I don't know if that's accurate. I do know that I've read that *some* information obtained by the Mueller team came from the DOJ but I don't believe anyone outside of the Mueller team knows what part of the body of evidence they have/would present in court relating to the current charges against Manafort come from prior investigation.

If the FBI had the evidence that Mueller's team has now, why wouldn't they have prosecuted him already?

That suggest to me that they didn't feel they had enough to prosecute previously. If they do now, why shouldn't they? Besides, just as "you really want my boss!" isn't a defense against prosecution for one's crimes, I don't believe, "I wasn't prosecuted before!" is a viable legal defense either.

We have record that it was not investigated, and a determination was created in advance. There is evidence of malfeasance on the part of the FBI. Whether we go after Hillary is less important than addressing the crooked FBI agents.

So because you believe that there was FBI malfeasance in relation to the HRC email investigation, all bets are off? In that case, I believe that if the FBI had the evidence that Mueller's team does now and the DOJ didn't purse charges against Manafort and Gates, that it was likely malfeasance on somebody's part. I urge Rep. Nunes to get to the bottom of why these criminals were allowed to walk free to continue their criminal exploits.

I'm half-joking. I would like to know more about why charges weren't pursued against Manafort and Gates previously but again, I suspect that at that point, they couldn't put enough pieces together to make a case.

Still..you miss my point: the fact that the FBI investigated and cleared Mueller, only to go after him on the same charges once Trump was elected seems to support the assertion that this investigation is a witch hunt.

My point is that I don't believe that he was "cleared" of anything. I'm not sure that's even a thing with the FBI. Comey's previous announcement about Clinton certainly didn't stop them from opening a second investigation into her email usage and announcing it a week before the election.

It's not like being found not guilty in a court of law — there's no double jeopardy in being investigated twice for the same crime.

Your lack of imagination here is staggering.

We all have to strike a balance between what we want to believe and what's supported by the facts.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: RickyD

Except Mueller explicitly gave Mueller the authority to investigate Manafort's Ukrainian government work:

Committed a crime or crimes arising out of payments he received from the Ukrainian government before and during the tenure of President Viktor Yanukovych.

Freudian slip?

No but thanks for pointing out my mistake.

a reply to: theantediluvian

Your missing the point. The question is did Mueller even have the right to file the charges in the first place.

originally posted by: proximo
a reply to: theantediluvian

Your missing the point. The question is did Mueller even have the right to file the charges in the first place.

I'm not missing anything, I've pointed out at least twice that Mueller did in fact have the authority to do so. It was spelled out explicitly in the unredacted portion of the memo from Rosenstein that the judge requested be filed with him in completely unredacted form.

The following allegations were withing the scope of the Investigation at the time of your appointment and are within the scope of the Order:

...

Allegations that Paul Manafort:

...

Committed a crime or crimes arising out of payments he received from the Ukrainian government before and during the tenure of President Viktor Yanukovych.

The crimes that Manafort is charged with all arise out of payments he received from the Ukrainian government before and during the tenure of President Viktor Yanukovych.

It really couldn't be much clearer than that. The only question about Mueller's authority is a question about what he has been authorized to investigate by Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein. As you can see from the memo, he was explicitly authorized.

a reply to: RickyD

I'm guessing you may be right on that assumption

a reply to: theantediluvian

Explicitly authorized to investigate things involving Russian collusion during the election...not from years prior. That's what you keep leaving out. Sure if this had occurred during the campaign or election it would be covered, however it did not and its tantamount to a witch hunt to try and get someone to throw trump under the bus because muller doesn't have anything better.

a reply to: theantediluvian

It is not a legal defense in any form.

But it is an interesting point worth consideration, as the last 3 years have been anything but squeaky clean for the FBI.

Clinton had new information presented. The FBI tried to bury it. Comey opened up the second investigation (then immediately closed it) as a form of plausible deniability (his own admission) for people in the DOJ and FBI. He didn't investigate anything....he went through motions to placate his politicized bosses.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: RickyD

Except Mueller explicitly gave Mueller the authority to investigate Manafort's Ukrainian government work:

Committed a crime or crimes arising out of payments he received from the Ukrainian government before and during the tenure of President Viktor Yanukovych.

Freudian slip?

"Thoughts of reality" "Thinking" to --- "Words"

It's an affliction.

😎

a reply to: RickyD

Explicitly authorized to investigate things involving Russian collusion during the election...not from years prior. That's what you keep leaving out.

No, I'm not leaving anything out. You're simply mistaken. Again, this is directly from Rod Rosenstein, the person who appointed Mueller, authorizes what he investigates and defines the scope of his investigation.

The following allegations were within the scope of the Investigation at the time of your appointment and are within the scope of the Order:

...

Allegations that Paul Manafort:

...

Committed a crime or crimes arising out of payments he received from the Ukrainian government before and during the tenure of President Viktor Yanukovych.

Manafort's lawyers argued that Mueller was investigating beyond the scope of what Rosenstein authorized Mueller to investigate. That's clearly not the case as demonstrated by Rosenstein's memo stating explicitly that the matters from which the charges stem are within the scope of the investigation.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

It is not a legal defense in any form.

But it is an interesting point worth consideration, as the last 3 years have been anything but squeaky clean for the FBI.

I don't find it quite as interesting as you and certainly not exculpatory. As long as the evidence presented in court is legitimate and obtained legally, it is what it is.

Clinton had new information presented. The FBI tried to bury it. Comey opened up the second investigation (then immediately closed it) as a form of plausible deniability (his own admission) for people in the DOJ and FBI. He didn't investigate anything....he went through motions to placate his politicized bosses.

Three devices were confiscated in an unrelated matter and one of them was found to contain emails from the Clinton server. The extent of the investigation would have been comparing the emails to known emails that had already been turned up in the original investigation, finding anything new and then inspecting those emails. I don't know what they did specifically but I can tell you that comparing the newer batch against the known batch shouldn't have been very difficult to accomplish in an automated fashion.

Are you saying that wasn't done?

I don't know what you're referring to when you say the FBI "tried to bury it" but I can tell you that it was a very big deal that they announced 11 days before the election that one of the candidates was under a new FBI investigation. "Plausible deniability" is your very loose interpretation of what Comey said.

a reply to: theantediluvian

You guys are way off base here. The Judge is questioning why these charges were not brought up in state or federal court. Then he tells them why they didn't do this in his opinion. This judge felt Mueller was lying and an attempt to take down Trump and had nothing to do with prosecuting a crime. Judge is right however if he committed a crime special council isn't the best place to convict him. This should be turned over to federal prosecutors

The judge has requested the unredacted "Scope Memo",

We will see what happens now.

Rosentstein just might see impeachment yet!