U.S. judge questions special counsel's powers in Manafort case

a reply to: Xcathdra

He is saying the SC is lying to the court. As I said - highly relevant.

He said more than just that.

So then the answer would be no, you dont have a lot of exposure to the federal court system and how federal judges run their courtrooms - check.

No. I do not, but you are using a logical fallacy. My experience or lack thereof does not invalidate my argument in and of itself.

and that is a deflection. try again.

How is that deflection? I directly answered your "question". The judge is out-of-line, or off-base, by injecting his personal opinion.

That is what you "asked", is it not?

I have asked you to present why you think the opposite and you cant do it.

I made no claim as to whether or not the prosecution lied to the court. Can you find a quote where I did? If not, I am not compelled to present an opposing argument to something I never said.

If you cant defend your position with something other than the judge was mean then dont bother.

I said no such thing. There is no need to be dishonest and misrepresent my argument.

That is out-of-line.

Nice to see a judge who is well-grounded in reality...for a change.

District Judge T.S. Ellis is a pretty accomplished individual.

Born on May 15, 1940, in Bogotá, Colombia, Ellis graduated from Princeton University where he earned a Bachelor of Science in Engineering in 1961. Ellis served in the United States Navy as a Naval aviator from 1961 to 1966. Ellis earned a Juris Doctor, magna cum laude, from Harvard Law School in 1969. Harvard awarded Ellis a Knox Fellowship for study in England. He then received a Diploma in Law in 1970 from Magdalen College, Oxford University.

a reply to: introvert

Stop deflecting and support your position.

The SC got caught lying to the judge and was called out. I find it disturbing you are more concerned with the judge calling that out than you are with malicious prosecution coupled with prosecutorial misconduct.

As for your last comment you did. You dont like the judges words to the prosecution. You have failed to explain why that is other than saying you dont like what the judge said.

So save the pity party victim card and support your position. Attacking the judge and not being able to sup[port it sand then saying other people arguments are invalid is out of line. It is along the same lines as what the SC is doing.

The irony.

a reply to: Xcathdra

It is a defense and your point does not stand.

Do you have some sort of logical reasoning for why my point is wrong or unreasonable? Just saying it is wrong is not a valid argument.

No he is telling the SC he does not believe the answers they provided to him in court and has given them 2 weeks to get it together and to provide a response that doesnt cause him to throw the case out and admonish the prosecution, if not hold them in contempt.

That's half true. He may believe the prosecution lied to the courts, but he does not know for sure and needs more info to get to the bottom of it.

Then quit trying to portray yourself as some enlightened non partisan highly logical being. You are far from it and as I said, your post history says otherwise.

I've not done or said any such thing. It appears you are trying to project things on to me that I never said.

The irony in having issues with a judge who calls out prosecutors while you do the exact same thing i nthe thread.

I'm not entirely sure what that is supposed to mean or imply.

a reply to: introvert

Defend your position.

The judge was mean is not a valid defense.

The SC got caught lying, contrary to you ignoring that fact. Why ignore it?

The SC did not come across Manaforts crimes during their investigation of TRump. The DOJ already investigated him and declined to prosecute.

The SC lied when they charged Manafort by stating they had jurisdiction.

They did not.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Stop deflecting and support your position.

I've not deflected and I have been supporting my position.

It appears you think directly answering "questions" is deflection and giving you my thoughts is not enough to support my position.

The SC got caught lying to the judge and was called out. I find it disturbing you are more concerned with the judge calling that out than you are with malicious prosecution coupled with prosecutorial misconduct.

I cannot make any claim as to whether or not the prosecution lied, as I do not have all of the facts. Kind of hard for me to be concerned about it until I do.

The judge, on the other hand, made his personal feelings and apparent bias known publicly. That is concerning, but not much unless it affects his rulings. I hope he is fair and rules on the facts.

As for your last comment you did. You dont like the judges words to the prosecution. You have failed to explain why that is other than saying you dont like what the judge said.

His words are cause for concern and I have even given quotes of his own words with explanations as to why I think they are concerning.

Your inability or unwillingness to read what I have posted is not my concern.

So save the pity party victim card and support your position.

I'm wondering if we are even having the same conversation. You appear to be arguing against things I never said, or you are being completely dishonest.

a reply to: introvert

Deflection and nothing more. When you get around to defending your position let us know.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Defend your position.

Again, I gave you quotes and my opinion on it. What else would you like from me?

The judge was mean is not a valid defense.

I've not made any such defense. There is no need to lie for the sake of debate.

The SC got caught lying, contrary to you ignoring that fact. Why ignore it?

I have not ignored it. I just cannot make any claim to the truthfulness of your accusation. It appears the judge cannot either, as he needs more info to make that judgement. That is why he asked for documents.

The SC did not come across Manaforts crimes during their investigation of TRump. The DOJ already investigated him and declined to prosecute.

That may be true. I'll wait till more info comes out to come to a solid conclusion on that.

The SC lied when they charged Manafort by stating they had jurisdiction. They did not.

That remains to be seen and ruled on.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: introvert

Deflection and nothing more. When you get around to defending your position let us know.

I've directly and very specifically answered your questions and requests. I don't know what else I can do for you.

By the way, who's "us". I thought we were having a conversation as individuals. Are you speaking for a group of members?

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: introvert

Deflection and nothing more. When you get around to defending your position let us know.

I've directly and very specifically answered your questions and requests. I don't know what else I can do for you.

By the way, who's "us". I thought we were having a conversation as individuals. Are you speaking for a group of members?

I think what "we" are trying to say is that you coming on here and saying that you don't have enough information to make any judgements on the facts of this case except that the judge is mean and doesn't agree with your anti Trump spin is noted. No need to reply.

Apparently the Judge asked the prosecution where they got the authority for what they were doing. They responded by citing the scope memo. The next argument by the prosecution is the memo was secret and cant be shared. This is supposedly what set the judge off.

also -

Marshall Cohen
‏Verified account @MarshallCohen
8h8 hours ago

Federal judge TS Ellis (overseeing Manafort case in VA) questions Mueller's powers, per @kpolantz: "We don’t want anyone in this country with unfettered power. It’s unlikely you’re going to persuade me the special prosecutor has power to do anything he or she wants."

a reply to: Christosterone

The people still clinging to the Russia BS are retarded. You guys look so insane and unhealthy. You have acted like absolute fools.

The fact that they think similarly of others proves to me that they now realize how retarded they truly are.

Call us triggered snowflakes...and run from your ethos. Run. Just make it all seem like a joke that you never really cared for.

You were all lied to and your people didnt pull anything off. Trump is looking great and the opposition is in ruins.

You guys bet heavy. Now live with the suck. You were wrong.

So if I understand this correctly; the Special Counsel is saying that they have the authority to prosecute Mr. Manafort based on a memo from Rod Rosentein. This said memo is secret and has been hidden even from the judge handling this case. The judge has asked for this memo or he cannot proceed with the trial. This has all the earmarking of getting Rod Rosenstein fired. If this memo does not conform to the laws of the USA; it could destroy Rod Rosenstein.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Christosterone

I just read some of the comments this judge made and it seems he is using his position to vent his own political frustrations.

He even goes as far as to opine on the intent of the prosecution and Mueller's team.

Very odd for a judge to say such things. Even if the case is dismissed, he is making it quite easy for the prosecution to argue that the judge's judgment was clearly tainted or politicized.

Lol, as opposed to the 9th circuit where the judges legislate from their benches daily? Fact is, what most of us have known is going to become knowledge for the masses, whether the judge recuses or not. A judge has every right to examine evidence used to secure a warrant. Happens on every trial where a warrant was used. In fact, this is probably the first judge with the guts to actually do his job (re. a POTUS sphere member) publicly, regardless of public perception.

a reply to: Christosterone

This entire investigation was to punish Trump, punish his staff and supporters for defeating Hillary.

It was also to deflect any light to shine on the illegal activities of Obama and Hillary.


Screw Dragon Energy, my signature should be, "We live in a Banana Republic".

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: introvert

We cannot hold people accountable for their thoughts or personal opinions. We can only hold them accountable for laws or rules they break. 
wow
does mueller know this?
have you seen the question list?
what do you think about this
how do you feel about that

lol
flexable positions make me laugh

Thoughts and personal opinions alone should not be crimes and are irrelevant, unless they are used to discern someone's intent as they committed a crime.

Ahahahaha
Ahahahaha
You are by far the most limber member here
watching you juke and jive the next few months as mueller, comey and the rest of their scoundral crew are exposed will be a real treat
Almost as good as election day.......almost

originally posted by: Xcathdra
Apparently the Judge asked the prosecution where they got the authority for what they were doing. They responded by citing the scope memo. The next argument by the prosecution is the memo was secret and cant be shared. This is supposedly what set the judge off.

also -

Marshall Cohen
‏Verified account @MarshallCohen
8h8 hours ago

Federal judge TS Ellis (overseeing Manafort case in VA) questions Mueller's powers, per @kpolantz: "We don’t want anyone in this country with unfettered power. It’s unlikely you’re going to persuade me the special prosecutor has power to do anything he or she wants."

The memo wasnt secret. Part of it was redacted as it pertained to things not related to the Manafort cases but other cases that are not supposed to be public yet.

The redacted due to on going investigations but not secert memo.

originally posted by: feldercarb
So if I understand this correctly; the Special Counsel is saying that they have the authority to prosecute Mr. Manafort based on a memo from Rod Rosentein. This said memo is secret and has been hidden even from the judge handling this case. The judge has asked for this memo or he cannot proceed with the trial. This has all the earmarking of getting Rod Rosenstein fired. If this memo does not conform to the laws of the USA; it could destroy Rod Rosenstein.

The judge had the memo just not an un-redacted version. The DOJ redacted everything not related to Manafort as other investigations are still on going.