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

a reply to: shooterbrody

One would assume that new evidence has come out in recent years that prove a crime was commited that the FBI didnt have at the time of original review of the case. Such evidence as the ledgers and information out of Ukraine about Manaforts actions.

originally posted by: RickyD
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.

Rosenstein did not have the authority to even appoint a special counsel in the first place - for any reason, let alone a blank cheque for anything Mueller wanted to do.

28 CFR 600.1 Grounds for appointing a Special Counsel.
The Attorney General, or in cases in which the Attorney General is recused, the Acting Attorney General, will appoint a Special Counsel when he or she determines that criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted and -

(a) That investigation or prosecution of that person or matter by a United States Attorney's Office or litigating Division of the Department of Justice would present a conflict of interest for the Department or other extraordinary circumstances; and

(b) That under the circumstances, it would be in the public interest to appoint an outside Special Counsel to assume responsibility for the matter.

There were no grounds for a criminal investigation, which Rosenstein admitted himself.

Quote:

“In my capacity as acting attorney general I determined that it is in the public interest for me to exercise my authority and appoint a special counsel to assume responsibility for this matter,’’ Rosenstein said in a statement. “My decision is not a finding that crimes have been committed or that any prosecution is warranted. I have made no such determination. What I have determined is that based upon the unique circumstances the public interest requires me to place this investigation under the authority of a person who exercises a degree of independence from the normal chain of command.”

Clearly he had no right. A special counsel is not meant for a public enquiry or for the 'public interest'. Note the words AND in the law. It requires that criminal investigation is warranted, which is exactly what Rosenstein said he was NOT the reason for the SC.

This is an open and shut case according to the law and Rosenstein's own words.

originally posted by: UKTruth

Only the truly sick, twisted and bitter would condone the double standards in the legal system that we are witnessing.

Amen. Quoted for truth. TDS, it turns out, is not only a real thing, but for some progresses to criminally insane.

Judge Ellis is a rarity these days: He took his oaths seriously. Did he actually tell Mueller, "C'mon Man" in disbelief at the lie? Priceless common sense from the bench.

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: theantediluvian

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?

Bingo.
That is precisely the reason that makes it clear that Manafort is not being treated equally under the law and it points to a clear case of going after Trump.

a reply to: UKTruth

Little secret... They are not the same.

originally posted by: RickyD
a reply to: theantediluvian

Except this all comes from before Manafort was even apart of any trump campaign...probably before trump ever thought to run. So how is this in any way covered by his mandate which relates to the election?

The letter that appointed Muller states as a secondary scope: anything he stumbles upon during his primary investigation, being the election meddling thing.

The broad authorisation is quite is thing. However, what muller also stumbled upon on de D-side of things, is still not being prosecuted...... By no-one!

It does give reason for thought.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
"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.

Actually, it's clear that Rosenstein did not have the authority to authorize Mueller to investigate if 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."

This was what the order of appointment authorized:

"any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation..."

Manafort's charges stem from alleged "crimes arising out of payments he received from the Ukrainian government before and during the tenure of President Viktor Yanukovych."


It's very curious that Rosenstein's language directly contradicts the order of appointment. But it does.

Rosenstein would have had to issue a new order for a special counsel to investigate the Manafort charges. But, instead he wrote a memo incorrectly claiming the Manafort investigation was covered in the order of appointment...

...and didn't even sign it.

Did the alleged Manafort crimes arise "directly from the investigation" or "out of payments he received from the Ukrainian government before and during the tenure of President Viktor Yanukovych?"

It's times like this that I feel like they are playing games with us and winning.


****

ETA: Also, notice the semi-colons below....



I think it's possible there was more related to Manafort that was, in fact, redacted from the memo. I would expect to see ";and..." at the end of the first bullet point if those two bullet points were all there was. It's entirely possible that when the judge sees the unredacted memo, he finds there was more that was withheld.

It's pretty simple. If the DOJ just handed over all these files from the prior investigation(s) into Manafort (2005, 2007, I believe according to the transcript, but I'm not looking at it now), then those matters did not "arise from" investigation into Russian attempts to influence the 2016 election, or efforts by the Trump campaign to aid those efforts. Those investigations existed well before Manafort was connected to the campaign (indeed before it existed). In what way can we say it arose from the Mueller investigation? All those matters were known to exist before he started. Not only did he not uncover the matter, it was handed to him already started from over a decade ago. Now maybe Mueller has new evidence. But that doesn't really help his case to keep it, because if it's true he subpoenaed witnesses, documents, obtained warrants outside the scope of his charter, then that might get tossed in a ruling.The defense also alleges the alleged authorization from Rosenstein specifically for Manafort is post-dated of some of the Mueller actions. In other words, Mueller began to find things and act, and they realized they might be outside the scope and would need specific authorization. That's even worse for Mueller's arguement.
So was the attempt to say the SC charter drafted by lawyers wasn't supposed to be legally/judicially enforceable. The judge wasn't having that.

I do think this is being "trumped up" so to speak. The judge just tells the prosecution to stop with the horse poop and call spades spades. He tells them the DOJ already knew about it long ago and they shared it with Mueller, so it didn't arise from the Mueller investigation. He says, start being honest about why this is being kept under Mueller's thumb. To put pressure on Manafort in regards to Trump. He stop short of saying it is improper, but says, let's be honest about what is going on. He tells them he finds their first argument completely without merit ( "not intended to be judicially enforceable" ) but also presents them the opportunity to make a case he might find more compelling - he even tells them what direction to start heading. He asks both parties why it shouldn't simply be referred to a federal district like the Cohen case since it clearly isn't related to the charter, and the prosecution starts with more poop about how the judge doesn't have clearance to know the other parts of the charter, which is clearly not true. The defense says the "new" Rosenstein memo/authorization is post hoc, and that they are convinced Rosenstein would have written it explicitly, not verbally (another prosecution ploy). He based this on many years of experience at Justice under Rosenstein. The judge really wants to see for himself, understandably.

I'd guess the judge just punts it away from Mueller. Maybe he tosses evidence if it was outside the scope when acquired, but a new investigation might get a new warrant based on PC anyway to acquire the same info. Depending on what is or isn't in the Rosenstein memos, maybe the games piss off the judge and he boots it entirely, but I wouldn't bet on it. I think Manafort just gets away from Mueller and back into other trouble with a new federal investigation team convened.

Anyone know if the prosecutors complied with the judges request?
Shouldn't be that hard to track down a permission slip should it?

originally posted by: shooterbrody
Anyone know if the prosecutors complied with the judges request?
Shouldn't be that hard to track down a permission slip should it?

He gave them two weeks, so we should know something Friday/Saturday...

a reply to: UKTruth

IMO the permission slip should not be that hard to locate, unless they do not actually have one....
Also all of this.....
"Mueller Asks Judge to Deny Manafort Request for ‘Disclosures’ Hearing"
www.courthousenews.com...

Special Counsel Robert Mueller asked a federal judge Monday to deny Paul Manafort’s request for a hearing exploring “allegedly improper disclosures” made by the media, which the former Trump campaign chairman says ruined his chances for a fair trial.

a reply to: shooterbrody

Why would they want an open hearing on all the leaks coming from their team? Predictable.

Tell me again how Muller is supposedly some Elliot Ness-esque super cop? Because right now it appears that Manafort, Flynn, and the Russians are taking turns beating him up in court.

The judge has ruled that Mueller can make forward.

Judge Amy Berman Jackson ruled today, denying Manafort’s motion to dismiss. She also firmly stated that Mueller’s investigation was justified.

Here’s the ruling: www.politico.com...

Some excerpts:

The motion to dismiss will be denied for a number of reasons.
First, the indictment falls squarely within that portion of the authority granted to the Special Counsel...

The second reason Manafort’s motion fails is that the Department of Justice promulgated the Special Counsel Regulations for its own internal management, and they do not create any substantive rights for the benefit of individuals under investigation. This means that Manafort cannot predicate a motion to dismiss on the regulations.

Finally, the case did not arise in a vacuum, and the Special Counsel did not create his own job description. He was appointed to take over an existing investigation, and it appears from the chronology and the written record that the matters contained in the Superseding Indictment were already a part of the ongoing inquiry that was lawfully transferred to the Special Counsel by the Department of Justice in May of 2017. More important, the Acting Attorney General has confirmed in writing that he assigned the Special Counsel the specific responsibility to investigate the very allegations that comprise the Superseding Indictment.

So much for those who thought Jackson’s harsh questioning of Mueller’s team meant the case against Manafort would be dismissed.

So this was a different case. The OP did not correct the name of the judge in the original post, leading to my mistaking the above ruling to be from he same judge.

originally posted by: Pyle
a reply to: UKTruth

Little secret... They are not the same.

Correct. Manafort never told the podesta group that their ultimate c!isn't was a foreignor. They were not held culpable because of that.

a reply to: Sillyolme

Different court.
There are two separate courts hearing indictments of Manafort.
The ruling by the judge today is from the District of Columbia... everyone expected that ruling.

a reply to: shooterbrody

Done.
Judge said ok go ahead with your case.

a reply to: nataylor

So much for those that are confusing one judge with another in completely different courts.
The judge this thread relates to is from the Eastern District of Virginia, Judge T.S. Ellis.

a reply to: UKTruth

Ok. This is not the judge that pushed back this is a motion by the defense in the DC case.
Got it. Thanks. I only heard it announced. I didn't see details yet. I see it online now.