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

Finally, some adult supervision arrives to the Mueller investigation:

“I don’t see what relationship this indictment has with anything the special counsel is authorized to investigate,” U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis in the Eastern District of Virginia said.

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 charges against Manafort are nothing more than an attempt to get Manafort to flip and dish on the Trump campaign.

Lawyers for Manafort asked the judge in the Virginia case to dismiss an indictment filed against him in what was their third effort to beat back criminal charges by attacking Mueller’s authority.

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.

Yup, so throw the case out or refer it (if in fact there is supportable evidence of a crime) to the appropriate bench.

It seems you again got your running orders from Limbaugh. He covered that very issue with his normal ranting hyperbole just minutes before your post (I just listened to it myself on the way back from the pool). You really shouldn't depend on Limbaugh to interpret the news for you.

Anyway, it seems to me that the best thing that can happen for Manafort is Mueller referring the charges to the US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia for prosecution (the EDV already has a fraud attorney in the courtroom). One way or the other, Trump's criminal Campaign Manager is phucked, just as Cohen is in the SDNY.

“I’m not saying it’s illegitimate,” (Judge) Ellis said.

Ellis suggested that if he ruled in Manafort’s favor, the case could simply be returned to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Virginia.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local...a4c_story.html

What's interesting about this is that you Trump and his sycophants whined (a "disgrace" and a "witch hunt") when Mueller referred Cohen's case to the SDNY because it was perceived as an effort to protect the prosecution of Cohen if Trump ended up firing Mueller. Can't have it both ways, Trumpkins.

Sorry, missed Limbaugh but its good to know you've got that covered for the Media Matters folks. :rolleyes:

Its absolutely the right thing to do to question how far, and why, Mueller can stray off the reservation.

He also asked the special counsel’s office to share privately with him a copy of Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosentein’s August 2017 memo elaborating on the scope of Mueller’s Russia probe. He said the current version he has been heavily redacted.

Here, the judge is asking for Rosentein's rationale and how far ranging the probe should be. There absolutely should be limits, particularly since none of the charges so far are related to "collusion". Its the right question to ask.

I'm totally OK with the judge's question. However, I'd be willing to bet that he ultimately decides against Manafort once documentation shows how tightly Manafort was connected to Russian money. However, if he sides with Manafort, the EDV will simply pick up the prosecution and move forward. Even if the case is moved to the EDV, there's still a strong likelihood that Manafort will be charged by Mueller in forthcoming conspiracy charges.

Sure, Whell. I’m certain you were saying the same thing about Watergate, the Clinton impeachment proceedings, Benghazi, et al. :rolleyes:

He may decide against Manafort, but not for that reason. Manafort was "tight with Russian money" before he was involved with the Trump campaign, and I've seen no evidence - nor has Mueller charged Manafort with - any activity that is connect to the Trump campaign.

There will be no "conspiracy charge" because there's been no conspiracy. But you'd also need to define what the crime is that Manafort was involved in when committing conspiracy, because conspiracy on its own is not a crime.

You've not had an original thought in your head in quite some time, have you? By the way, yes, during Watergate I wanted nothing more than to see Nixon resign.

Actually, unlike an HR flunky, my job depends on my having original, highy creative thoughts regularly. It’s how I’ve survived and thrived 33+ years at one of the largest corporations in the country. Your job depends on spinning the corporate line as “good news”, no matter how untrue.

You simply repeat whatever Limblow and Hannity tell you to think. You would have been a “good German”. :rolleyes:

And you know that exactly how? Because Limbaugh says it every day?

First, Mueller IS the adult in this room.
Second, how do you know there is no conspiracy, or collusion?