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

a reply to: luthier

Stop saying vague things, please directly state what you take issue with. Everything I said is factual, please directly state what you believe I have misrepresented.

I believe the Judge has a high chance of seeing the Memo and making a ruling. Why would you possibly ask someone what the odds are about something when the facts aren't public. I am sorry I am not falling for the liberal biased logical fallacies, I would rather stick to facts than opinionated assumptions.

Ask me what the odds are the Judge has clear concerns he wants addressed, my answer will be 100%.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

You are basically creating a strawman speaking of fallacy.

I have clearly said the judge will be reviewing the documents in a sealed manor. I mean most likely they are redacted by the doj and fbi for a reason.

Also the fact you think I am liberal is pretty telling which narrative you choose to believe.

Judge Nap is not a liberal. Not even close.

What I disagree with is that the judges opinion or asking for the documents means anything legally for the case.

You seem to believe it does as that is a narrarive going around in some circles.


Ps I brought up the article because it highlighted how the media has purposely edited and left out parts of the dialogue as well as the history of the case.

a reply to: luthier

Sorry I keep asking you what I stated is false and thus far have refused to do so.

I don't care about opinions, I read the transcripts.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: luthier

Sorry I keep asking you what I stated is false and thus far have refused to do so.

I don't care about opinions, I read the transcripts.

Lol, I have to stop.

What you did was use a portion selectively to try and create a narrative I believe is false.

You are afraid to offer your opinion as to what the meaning of the words you typed are and what they mean legally.

Personally I don't think the unredacted letter will be released to the public. Based on evidence from testimony I gave you.

I also don't think the judge asking for the letter means anything legally for the case in terms of it getting it thrown out based on ronstein himself and his own testimony.



I also don't think you understand he has done far more against manafort like house arrest and denying the examination of both letters, providing a district prosecutor to help etc...

But hey keep towing the line making up ad homs and strawmen.

originally posted by: luthier

What you did was use a portion selectively to try and create a narrative I believe is false.

No narrative here I will leave that to you and the opinion pieces you keep posting.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

What opinion pieces. I posted one that was a random one I found.

Then I posted the OP author who is a federal judge.

You posted something either you aren't knowledgeable enough to understand or you are afraid to be wrong in the next 7 days.

I feel confident about my opinion. I provided evidence to back up the laws and statements used to qualify it.

But sure keep hiding.

a reply to: luthier

I have given you multiple chances to post what my narrative is and what I have said that is wrong. You can't do it, nothing left to say.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Sure you believe that Mueller has broken the law, that his prosecution tactics are some how unusual and corrupt, and that this judges opinion and query of the letter seems to mean mana fort is in the clear.

You also believe that there is no new information and that the charges were completely based off of an old case...

When in reality this was an investigation where they split the charges between two courts.

a reply to: luthier

Please quote me when you make reference to what I have said.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

About half a dozen proclaiming Mueller went looking for a crime without evidence.

a reply to: luthier

Still waiting on those quotes. How many times are you planning on posting what I said without actually posting what I said?

originally posted by: AndyFromMichigan
I love it. The judge in Manafort's case has made it quite clear that he does not consider trying to get at Trump to be a legitimate reason to resurrect these charges. Unless Mueller/Rosenstein can come up with a good excuse that does not revolve around the president, he'll likely toss the charges.

I didn't get that impression at all reading the transcript.


I think the judge was entertaining the specific legal pleading that this case in no way happened to "arise from" the investigation into Russian influence of our election, and therefor Mueller held no jurisdiction. It was outside the purview of his charter.

The judge thought the prosecution's argument that the charter from Justice was not supposed to be legally/judicially enforceable laughable. He found their argument that "other" authorization existed, but the judge could not see it laughable. He seemed highly skeptical to the story that the authorization may have just been verbal communication between the office of the SC and Justice.

He also seemed of a mind that if the answer to the question "is this covered by the authority of the SC" is negative, that the investigation should simply be handled by Justice in a Federal District Court (a la Cohen).

In the absence of some sort of gross prosecutorial misconduct (to be honest, it wouldn't entirely surprise me at this point -- such as the judge reading the classified Rosenstein memos and finding absolutely nothing like what they tried to convince the judge of in their pleadings -- ie, they lied to the judge to keep hold of the case), I suspect this will simply get pulled out of Mueller's orbit and handed to a federal prosecutor. A minor setback for Mueller, but no great step forward for Manafort.

There's literally nothing in there about not being able to resurrect the charges because of age. The age is only relevant in as much as the case clearly did not "arise from" Mueller's investigation. In the absense of some other foundation for Mueller's jurisdiction, it is going to be removed from him. There's no reason a federal prosecutor could not pick it right back up.

Just because they declined to prosecute a decade ago means nothing.

If they declined to prosecute until 2017 and no new information has been uncovered, then the timing stinks to high-heaven, but it is already obvious its being renewed to pressure Manafort as an angle into the Trump campaign. If they uncovered new information, then the evidence for this case should be handed to federal prosecutors who are able to legally pursue it.

That will open another can of worms, because then Manafort's new direction will be to convince the next judge that because Mueller was acting outside of his charter when he procured the new evidence (subpoenaed records, witnesses, etc) then the resulting evidence is inadmissible. I don't think that will fly, because another federal prosecutor with authority may have "inevitably" found the same thing through legal investigation properly empowered (inevitable discovery), and further the prosecution could argue Mueller's subpoenas were issued in good faith not knowing they were outside of the purview of his charter. I'm not sure I find the last compelling, but you never know what a judge will do, and the first argument probably holds water under precedent.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

By the way as an American citizen we should ALL be terrified of the idea they can write a new memo that is retroactive. That idea is terrifying.

Don't worry Judge, I had no warrant to search that man's house, but I am getting one tomorrow that will retroactively cover it now that I got him on something.

A strawman they are not even close to the same

No, they haven't. You are confusing things. Please show me SCOTUS legalizing the investigation of individuals to find crimes to pin on them without any evidence of a crime leading to that individual.

Another strawman no proof this is the case.

Your point? If the investigation was not based on new information why did it start?

In America we investigate crimes, we can't investigate people to find something to charge them with.

Another strawman and I never implied there wasn't new information.

I said iirc they admitted they took up the old investigation with no new evidence being present.

So for 2, yes it is IF there was no new evidence.

Please show this is the case. That Mueller team simply picked up some old files and gave them to a grand jury.

a reply to: RadioRobert

Law is not as cut and dry as people think. When federal prosecutors find evidence of a crime they have a moral duty to prosecute.

Prosecutorial immunity and the tools given to a prosecutor are obsurd compared to a defense.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

By the way as an American citizen we should ALL be terrified of the idea they can write a new memo that is retroactive. That idea is terrifying.

Don't worry Judge, I had no warrant to search that man's house, but I am getting one tomorrow that will retroactively cover it now that I got him on something.

A strawman they are not even close to the same

No, they haven't. You are confusing things. Please show me SCOTUS legalizing the investigation of individuals to find crimes to pin on them without any evidence of a crime leading to that individual.

Another strawman no proof this is the case.

Your point? If the investigation was not based on new information why did it start?

In America we investigate crimes, we can't investigate people to find something to charge them with.

Another strawman and I never implied there wasn't new information.

I said iirc they admitted they took up the old investigation with no new evidence being present.

So for 2, yes it is IF there was no new evidence.

Please show this is the case. That Mueller team simply picked up some old files and gave them to a grand jury.

So we have me saying the idea of that happening is terrifying, it is, that doesn't back up your claims at all.
We have me saying the SCOTUS has never ruled in favor of investigating a person to find a crime to pin on them, so what, they haven't.
We have me saying IF there was not new information that led to this investigation ... which is me not making any judgement whatsoever on the facts of the case as you claimed I did.
Then you have me saying again IF they did that it's wrong, again not making any claim on what the unknown facts.

So far you have not presented one single quote from me that would back up your post.

Sure you believe that Mueller has broken the law, that his prosecution tactics are some how unusual and corrupt, and that this judges opinion and query of the letter seems to mean mana fort is in the clear.

Still waiting on you to quote me on these things you claimed. Just look back and quote where I said Manafort is in the clear.

OH that's right you can't, because all I said was the Judge has concerns and he has a right to have those concerns explained since that is his job. OOPS, looks like you keep making claims you can't back up.

I stand by everything I said, IF Mueller did something wrong it's going to go badly for him as this Judge is not giving him a pass it seems.

I will await your next round of quotes to back up your claims .. or you can simply admit you were mistaken about what I said.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Lol. So Mueller just picked up and old file handed to a judge got warrants, t he grand jury gave subpoenas, indictments, and Rosen stein hasn't publicly stated everything was cleared through him, mana forts own lawyer didn't say rod keeps notes etc...

But no you are following the facts. Even with no evidence at all for them.

a reply to: luthier

It really depends on what the judge finds in the memos. If there's something he finds reasonable to specifically empower Mueller in the matter of Manafort, then the circus continues. If he doesn't find something compelling (that also fits the timeline) he probably dismisses the case. It doesn't mean Manafort is free. It just means he is not under Mueller's thumb because it doesn't fall under the SC's purview. I expect some other federal prosecutor will then be tasked with picking it up.
IF the judge reads through all the memos and finds nothing like what the SC's office tried to represent to the judge, all bets are off. He could dismiss it with prejudice.


ETA: Mueller's team admitted they got the files from Justice. It seems to conclusively prove the matter did not "arise from" the Mueller investigation as described in the charter. If he has new evidence after picking it up, it really doesn't matter unless they can show they have authority for this investigation by way of some other memo, etc. That's why the judge wants to see the secret memos. He suspects based on the weaselly answers that he is being misled. I suspect that's what's happening, too, based on those answers, but I assume they will point to another vague clause in the memos which they will argue they interpret in a manner that gives them authority -- which will keep them just shy of contempt and just have the judge simply find the argument uncompelling.

a reply to: RadioRobert
I agree. However, rod would be screwed having said he has approved it all..

a reply to: luthier

Their last line of defense (if that's true) is that he verbally empowered Mueller specifically to the task. That's danger-thin ice.

The reason I think there might be nothing in the memos (and hence, the judge is being misled), is simply the attempt to first keep them from the judge, and that they have already brought up verbal instructions as a reason for jurisdiction. No need to add "verbal instructions" to your argument if you have an ironclad charter/memos.

I think they have a vague clause they are hanging their hats on and the judge may or may not find it has merit. If they don't have something even that good, it will result in fireworks. The judge already gave them the "I'm not a moron, and I find that entire line of argument meritless. Maybe you should try to convince me of this instead because I'd be willing to entertain that notion..."-Speech .

The transcript does not reflect a great deal of confidence from the attorneys in the office of Special Counsel. That much hand-waving and aversion to direct questioning does not signify an extremely strong case. They may well prevail, but even they don't think it's cut and dry.

a reply to: RadioRobert

Now that is one way of looking at it.

The other is that Mueller is trying to prolong any documentation from reaching the public and defense that may tip off other parts of his investigation.

Judge Napolitano a libertarian former federal judge and author of the op has said rod can write a retro active statement for the courts.

He personally sees this as dicta and more a political posturing of the judge. That it is legally meaningless.

It's his opinion but I see him as a guy who doesn't just say what he is told by the media. His books are pretty good.

I think some folks don't know what prosecutors are allowed to do, like squeeze a witness for testimony with an unrelated crime. I may not agree and like nap see it as bribery but they have allowed this for decades.