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

originally posted by: xuenchen
The "Legal" fixings will be outed soon.

Parti almozt over

🎁💡

how often do judges accuse prosecutors of lying in court?

a reply to: theantediluvian

Pretty sure he doesn't have the authority to give muller carte blanche to investigate and prosecute anything he wishes. Maybe I'm wrong but I would have to see the legislation behind that to accept it as fact. The special counsel has to have specific scope I do know that for sure.

This judge has demanded that the Department of Justice release full text of the highly redacted letter that Rosenstein sent to Mueller in August of 2017.

Congress is going nuts this week because Rosenstein told them that he will not release it to their investigative committees.

a reply to: Grambler

There is a Reuters story on it.

its amazing how quiet it is in here

Clever 3D chess comrade Putin!!

Nice try!

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.

Which is odd because the original order from Rosenstein gave Mueller the power to go after any crimes they uncover while looking into the Russian conspiracy to effect the election and work with the Trump team to elect Trump.

a reply to: Pyle

Again I don't think he has the authority to give muller carte blanche to prosceute whatever he wants. The SC's mandate must be specific and defined. So it wasn't legitimate from the get go...and there is good reason it is meant to be defined and specific. If its not you end up with a waste of time political witch hunt meant at accomplishing the goals of,the side who gets the SC to investigate whatever they want...which coincidentally is what we are witnessing now.

a reply to: Pyle

you do not understand what a sc can do

it is a NARROW scope

crimes uncovered not related have to be referred elsewhere
see the cohen case

a reply to: dragonridr

You guys are way off base here. The Judge is questioning why these charges were not brought up in state or federal court.

I don't know what you're trying to say. The charges are in a federal court. The judge in question is a district judge for the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. So you see how this doesn't make sense already?

Then he tells them why they didn't do this in his opinion.

No.

This judge felt Mueller was lying and an attempt to take down Trump and had nothing to do with prosecuting a crime.

No.

Judge is right however if he committed a crime special council isn't the best place to convict him. his should be turned over to federal prosecutors

I don't think you understand what a special counsel is. It's not some sort of court (or council), it's a person. In this case, Robert Mueller. The indictments are obtained from a federal grand jury, charges are filed in a federal court.

You couldn't be more off base if you left the stadium.

I think what you might be referring to is the bit about why Mueller handed off evidence to a US Attorney (SDNY) to pursue in the case of Michael Cohen but didn't do the same with Manafort (and Gates). The likely reason is that the crimes Cohen is suspected of having committed (whatever the may be) actually aren't within the scope as determined by Rosenstein.

Manafort's crimes are. And furthermore, the charges against Manafort can be directly tied to investigating the potential for coordination with the Russians which I imagine is why they were included in the scope explicitly. Let me break this down for you real quick:

Starting in 2006, Manafort had a $10 million per year contract to lobby for Putin, paid for by a Putin associate, Russian billionaire Oleg Deripaska. From Manafort's proposal to Deripaska (source):

“We are now of the belief that this model can greatly benefit the Putin Government if employed at the correct levels with the appropriate commitment to success,” Manafort wrote in the 2005 memo to Deripaska. The effort, Manafort wrote, “will be offering a great service that can re-focus, both internally and externally, the policies of the Putin government.”

The year prior and through 2014 and possibly as late as 2015, Manafort (and his firm, including partner Gates) worked for Viktor Yanukovych and the Party of Regions, eventually getting him elected President in 2010. (he was ousted in 2014). Viktor Yanukovych was Putin's puppet in Ukraine (and is now his guest in Russia). This is where all these charges stem from.

During that time, Manafort also had business dealings with Deripaska and others who are directly connected to Putin. Interestingly, after Yanukovych was ousted, Deripaska went after Manafort and Gates in court for millions he says the men essentially stole from him as part of an investment fund they were supposed to manage.

After Yanukovych went down, Manafort lost his principal client for the past decade and was on the outs with Deripaska. He's borrowing money (fraudulently it's alleged) to keep supporting his lifestyle and his son-in-law's business that he'd invested in has fallen apart and what does he do?

He goes to work for Trump... for free.

Why? Because he was trying to leverage his position to peddle influence because that's how Manafort has made a living for the last four decades or whatever.

He was trying to figure out how to use his proximity to Trump and position running his campaign to get back in with the Putin's pals. In fact, we now know from leaked emails that he even offered to give Oleg Deripaska private briefings about the campaign.

It's been further alleged by a Russian opponent of Putin that Deripaska had meetings on a yacht, with a Russian official acting basically as Putin's liaison. The escort at the center of that business was promptly arrested in Thailand and she claims now to have recordings of the men discussing election meddling.

Whether that last part is what is alleged has yet to be determined but it sure af seems like an amazing coincidence that she was arrested within like a week of the allegations being made publicly and is being held pending extradition.

But hey, that's what Mueller is investigating.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Pyle

you do not understand what a sc can do

it is a NARROW scope

crimes uncovered not related have to be referred elsewhere
see the cohen case

The fact that he didnt do that should tell you alot about what Manafort has been doing...

a reply to: theantediluvian

nice explaination but you left out the part about the feds already looking into manafort and NOT charging him

so now the govt gets to investigate someone stop then start up years later because they MAY be connected in some way to a president your mad about getting elected

the judge sounds like he aint buyin it either

a reply to: Pyle

then why did the judge accuse the prosecutors of lying about their evidence?

a reply to: RickyD

He does have a specific scope that was further defined in the August memo that I excerpted. I don't why you guys are so eager to see Manafort's case dismissed.

Manafort is a criminal and these are probably among the least of his crimes. His own daughters discussed how he had people killed in Ukraine in hacked and leaked text messages. Furthermore, his entire career has been built on corruption and putting/keeping despots in power.

When people say drain the swamp, there's nobody they could be referring to more than Manafort and his ilk (and he's unusual bad among a peer group of amoral assholes).

You do so I think for the same reason that Trump was calling him a "great guy" or whatever today and applauding the judge pushing back on Mueller's team.

Why though? The only reason that really makes sense is that you're afraid that Manafort is somehow key to bringing down Trump (either through impeachment or in reputation). If you believe that's a possibility then I have to question everything about your support for Trump.

If there's no there there, then Manafort poses no risk to Trump.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: RickyD

He does have a specific scope that was further defined in the August memo that I excerpted. I don't why you guys are so eager to see Manafort's case dismissed.

Manafort is a criminal and these are probably among the least of his crimes. His own daughters discussed how he had people killed in Ukraine in hacked and leaked text messages. Furthermore, his entire career has been built on corruption and putting/keeping despots in power.

When people say drain the swamp, there's nobody they could be referring to more than Manafort and his ilk (and he's unusual bad among a peer group of amoral assholes).

You do so I think for the same reason that Trump was calling him a "great guy" or whatever today and applauding the judge pushing back on Mueller's team.

Why though? The only reason that really makes sense is that you're afraid that Manafort is somehow key to bringing down Trump (either through impeachment or in reputation). If you believe that's a possibility then I have to question everything about your support for Trump.

If there's no there there, then Manafort poses no risk to Trump.

then why did the fbi let him go previously?

a reply to: theantediluvian
I have no problem seeing Manafort going down if he committed crimes.

However this judge clearly thinks that this has nothing to do with the original intent of the special counsel, which is probably correct

So the question is should mueller be going after all crimes he finds?

I’m ok with that, as long as he finds them in the process of investigating Russian collusion.

But then why has mueller not charged mercury and the podesta group for the crimes he has accused them of committing, yet he did charge Manafort for the same crime?

It appears this judges gut feeling is correct, mueller is being arbitrary and just going after trump and is picking and choosing which crimes to allow and which to go after

a reply to: theantediluvian

I don't think it should just be his head on the chopping block...so if folks like podesta who literally did the exact same thing as manafort aren't going to be investigated and prosecuted for the same crime then we should not prosecute manafort. That is just one example as I'm sure this sort of thing has been standard proceedure in DC and the FBI and DOJ turn a blind eye cause it suits them...but when they want to depose a sitting president all the stops come out and all of a sudden these laws matter. Same with Flynn and the fact abdine and whats her face lied in the same manner as Flynn which was provable beyond doubt yet only one is being prosecuted. Either we are enforcing the law or we aren't...what we have at the moment is a bias use of the legal system to try and depose a sitting president as one side cheers the other is appalled...

originally posted by: Grambler

Like most motions to dismiss, Paul Manafort's was initially viewed as a long-shot bid to win the political operative his freedom and get out from under the thumb of Special Counsel Robert Mueller.

But after today's hearing on a motion to dismiss filed by Manafort's lawyers, it's looking increasingly likely that Manafort could escape his charges - and finally be free of his ankle bracelets - as judge Amy Berman Jackson questioned Mueller's "unfettered power" to prosecute over charges that have nothing to do with collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians.

Berman said she's concerned Mueller is only pursuing charges against Manafort to pressure him to turn on his former boss, and said the charges against Manafort didn't stem from Mueller's collusion probe, but a preexisting case that was nearly brought by the FBI years ago before it was eventually dropped.

Berman has given prosecutors two weeks to show what evidence they have that Manafort was complicit in colluding with the Russians. If they can't come up with any, she will presumably dismiss the case. She said she would also like to see the letter signed by Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein outlining the scope of the Mueller probe.

Of course, such a dismissal would be nothing short of groundbreaking. It would potentially make it much harder for Mueller to turn witnesses against the president.

www.zerohedge.com...

Have to run but I am seeing if i can find sources that back this up. I am not sure it is legit yet.

Here is another source saying that a judge is saying the manafort charges have nothing to do with russia collusion.

talkingpointsmemo.com...

Must be delusional. Or to much Hannity.😰😰😰😰😰😰😰😰😰😰😰😰😰😰

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Pyle

then why did the judge accuse the prosecutors of lying about their evidence?

Um... He didnt.

At worse he claimed the prosecutors are not bringing full possible charges against Manafort in an effort for him to cut a deal and that they may not have authority to prosecute Manafort themselves for said charges they did bring.

If the current case is dismissed then all that will happen is Manafort case will be refereed to a district prosecutor and things start over. Which may be worse for Manafort because the district prosecutor may not be willing to take a deal.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: RickyD

Except Rosenstein 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.

Which was after the raid on Manafort's home.

The motives are clear here and the fact that the FBI already chose not to pursue Manafort is a clear indication that Mueller is dragging up old issues to keep the Russia story going and try to get to the President. It's blatantly obvious what is going on here and the judge is quite right top demand evidence that Manafort was involved in conspiring with Russia to influence the election.

You can fall back on Rosenstein's after the fact approval of Mueller's strategy, but the simple fact is that Manafort is not being treated equally under the law. If he was then EVERYONE associated to Ukraine would be under investigation. Where's the big investigation into the Podesta's entire lives by Mueller?

It's time for politicians to stop using the legal system as a weapon against enemies.

The same happened with General Flynn. The FBI interviewed him and did not follow up. Then Mueller comes along and destroys his life to try and get at Trump. For what? Nothing that a small army of people don't do in Washington every day. Again, unfair treatment under the law.

This is a very big deal - if the judge rules in Manafort's favour, the entire politically driven witch hunt comes crashing down and not before time. Only the truly sick, twisted and bitter would condone the double standards in the legal system that we are witnessing.