The other shoe drops in Manafort's case - Rosenstein himself cleared Manafort back in 2006

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: luthier

As I said, if this investigation was not the result of new intelligence rather the new information came as the result of the investigation then yes that's exactly what happened.

I don't have the facts to determine this, the judge didn't either, that's why he demanded to get it.

No you are confused. The motion is over if Mueller has jurisdiction.

It has nothing at all to do with the fact finding.

a reply to: luthier

I edited my last post. Like I said we don't have the proof of what happened yet, but the judge has to find out and it seems like he will.

a reply to: luthier

I'm in my phone. Look at where the judge asked manafort why the right thing wouldn't be to refer the case back.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: luthier

I edited my last post. Like I said we don't have the proof of what happened yet, but the judge has to find out and it seems like he will.

The judge is asking for proof of jurisdiction which Ronstein in has publicly stated exists...

Not sure what evidence you have contrary to this.

Napalitano is a libertarian. Read his work. He feels the same way you do but has to work in the actual legal system. I value his opinions.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Yes that would be the ethical thing.

What I am saying is there is legal precedent for squeezing witnesses. Which is the judge's argument. He doesn't like that it's common practice. I don't either.

However go back to the common law marriage thing. I don't like it but if it's the law I need to change that through my legislators. Or challenge that in court. Which is what mana fort is doing.

Unfortunately the legal precedent is against him and his chances are slim.

Ellis also told mana fort it's very possible he is going away for life.

a reply to: luthier

You need to read the exchange I mentioned, this isn't about squeezing witnesses. It's more akin to illegal search and seizure (manaforts defense)

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: luthier

You need to read the exchange I mentioned, this isn't about squeezing witnesses. It's more akin to illegal search and seizure (manaforts defense)

Again no proof and contrary warrants.

The defense motion wasn't even about that.

a reply to: luthier

No, the judge asked for the proof and is getting it.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

What I saw was the judge asked for Mueller's mandate from ronstein. Since the motion from the defense is over jurisdiction that seems to be accurate.

Do you have an exchange where he is asking for the search warrants which had nothing to do with this hearing?

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

What I saw was the judge asked for Mueller's mandate from ronstein. Since the motion from the defense is over jurisdiction that seems to be accurate.

Do you have an exchange where he is asking for the search warrants which had nothing to do with this hearing?

The searches were challenged and a motion to suppress (disallow / throw it all out) any evidence was filed. The position is the warrants were illegal based on Mueller's lack of jurisdiction.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

What I saw was the judge asked for Mueller's mandate from ronstein. Since the motion from the defense is over jurisdiction that seems to be accurate.

Do you have an exchange where he is asking for the search warrants which had nothing to do with this hearing?

The searches were challenged and a motion to suppress (disallow / throw it all out) any evidence was filed. The position is the warrants were illegal based on Mueller's lack of jurisdiction.

Exactly. Which we already know isn't true per ronstein himself.

This is why Napalitano is saying it's dicta...

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

What I saw was the judge asked for Mueller's mandate from ronstein. Since the motion from the defense is over jurisdiction that seems to be accurate.

Do you have an exchange where he is asking for the search warrants which had nothing to do with this hearing?

The searches were challenged and a motion to suppress (disallow / throw it all out) any evidence was filed. The position is the warrants were illegal based on Mueller's lack of jurisdiction.

Exactly. Which we already know isn't true per ronstein himself.

This is why Napalitano is saying it's dicta...

and the court requested the scope document to determine if A - Mueller had jurisdiction as well as B - to determine if Rosenstein had the authority to make the change he did in the manner he did.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Sure. But according to the author you posted he does.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Xcathdra

Sure. But according to the author you posted he does.

and, again, the defense is challenging that jurisdiction. Mueller and Rosenstein can claim they acted within the law / DOJ guidelines however the judge has the ability to review it and decide for himself if the jurisdiction is lawful / the SC is lawful / Rosensteins authority to grant the additional jurisdiction was lawful.

a reply to: Xcathdra

And again a former federal judge whom you linked said it was meaningless because he has that authority.

On top of that goes further and says a local prosecutor will just pick up the case.

In fact looking at how nunes just had his meeting at the doj over this document it may be the judge doesn't even have clearance to read the document.

a reply to: luthier

So if the judge doesn't get to determine if the sc is in scope who does?
We now have 2 branches of government seeking information from a non elected official about the scope of the investigation and being stonewalled.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: luthier

So if the judge doesn't get to determine if the sc is in scope who does?
We now have 2 branches of government seeking information from a non elected official about the scope of the investigation and being stonewalled.

Except the white house backs the doj....

The information the judge needs will be presented. However I don't know if he has the security clearance to read fully unredacted documents. Maybe he does.

Just saying you have to weed through the political bs.

Also why is it the only qualified republican (trey gowdy) to understand the legal documents on the Intel committee supports the Mueller investigation?

a reply to: luthier

Why would the judge need security clearance to see the document that states rr gave Mueller permission?

That is all the judge needs to see.
It should be READILY available......unless it doesn't exist.

a reply to: shooterbrody

Exactly. But the document may have an expansion that explains where some evidence came from..

According to Napalitano Rod can even write a retro active document.

Rod has already stated he has approved all of Mueller's work...


You can't simply go into everything with confirmation bias.

Why does Gowdy who Nunez gives all text documents for review approve the Mueller investigation?

a reply to: luthier

And it may just be as simple as Mueller is outside his scope