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?

Is collusion same as conspiracy? ;)

After two years of various investigations and leaks galore, if there were, the participants would, at the very least, already have been tried and convicted in the press.

Damn shame that absolutely none of that carries over from your job to your participation here.

Again with the unintended humor, lol. You’re always good for a laugh! :D

There hasn't yet been a single leak from Mueller's team and every action he has taken has been a complete surprise to everyone involved. Your faulty logic is an example of the adage "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." In other words, you seem to believe that since you don't know everything that Mueller knows, Mueller knows nothing. It doesn't work that way, Skippy.

The White House, OTOH, leaks like a sieve, likely because there are still a few good people working there who are horrified at the ineptness starting from the top. The Mueller team is composed of truly the best of the best. Quite a contrast.

I still have difficulty with folks taking this fart joke punchline potus seriously.

You and me both. :eek:
His own people have called him a joke, a moron and an idiot among other things. What is there to like or admire about this con artist?

His great head of hair? Oh, wait...

Oh, no. Not a single leak. Except for these:

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...m_npd_nn_tw_ma

https://www.cnn.com/2017/10/27/polit...ion/index.html

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...ts-cooperation

https://www.wsj.com/articles/special...obe-1501788287 In this one, the WSJ reported on the Grand Jury and the Prez's legal counsel wasn't aware of it.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/special...ers-1503694304

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...-tower-n796746

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKBN1C92WN

https://pagesix.com/2018/01/02/russi...-says-witness/

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/15/polit...ion/index.html

You claim no leaks, yet there's been plenty of news from "sources with direct knowledge of the investigation" about what Mueller's merry band is up to. While the articles, of course, don't name sources, the leaks appear in some cases to come from folks on Mueller's team, or possibly someone within the DOJ that Mueller may be required to brief. In any case, the info is getting out there.

More BS. You may be wishing for a particular outcome here, and that's fine. But you don't get to ignore the information that's out there in the process, an then tell me "it doesn't work that way" while you ignore it.

In the mean time, Dershowitz weighs in:

An experienced federal judge has confirmed what I have been arguing for months, namely, that the modus operandi of special counsel Robert Mueller is to charge associates of President Trump with any crime he can find in order to squeeze them into turning against Trump.

This is what Judge T.S. Ellis III said at a hearing Friday: “You don’t really care about Mr. Manafort’s bank fraud … What you really care about is what information Mr. Manafort could give you that would reflect on Mr. Trump or lead to his prosecution or impeachment.”

This was precisely the point Ellis was making with regard to Manafort. A similar point could be made with regard to Trump’s former national security adviser, Michael Flynn, and perhaps to his personal attorney, Michael Cohen. Indeed, Flynn pleaded guilty to a highly questionable charge precisely because his son was threatened with prosecution.

Last week was not a good one for special counsel Mueller. Nor was it particularly good for Trump, as his new lawyer Rudy Giuliani presented a somewhat garbled narrative with regard to the payments made to adult film star Stormy Daniels. But it was an excellent week for the Constitution and for all Americans, because a federal judge made it clear that no one — not even the special counsel — is above the law and beyond scrutiny by our system of checks and balances.

In summary - Mueller was charged to go find any evidence of individuals colluding with Russia to impact the 2016 election. So, go find evidence of that, and that's fine. But Mueller doesn't, in Manafort's case, get to go back fish for potential "crimes" that occurred far in advance of 2016 just to put pressure on folks to act in a way that they otherwise would not. And making such charges are not evidence of crimes.

In Flynn's case, Mueller got Flynn to plead guilty to lying to the FBI, even though no one in the FBI suggested that Flynn lied about anything. It appears that Flynn pleaded guilty to keep Mueller from going after - and potentially destroying the career and future of Flynn's son. In the process, Flynn has been bankrupted and destroyed.

Whatever the Trump's campaign may or may not have done, this is just flat out wrong.

This is absolutely standard operating procedure for investigating and prosecuting conspiracies by criminal enterprises like the Trump family, Mafia, Enron and drug cartels. In fact, Guiliani gained quite a reputation for doing exactly the same thing in NYC. Dershowitz, an outspoken civil libertarian, defense counsel and cable news gadfly, is adamantly opposed to any (of the perfectly legal) tactics that result in conviction of the type of criminals he normally represents.

FWIW, I bet Judge Ellis is going to let Mueller continue prosecuting Manafort.

Whitewater, Ken Starr, Benghazi........................ring a bell?

I have no legal background and no expertise on the matter, but, this is what I think...
I think the judge is making the prosecution jump this extra hurdle so that the defense is unable to come back and say the judge did not consider everything and was somehow biased.

no one — not even the president* — is above the law and beyond scrutiny by our system of checks and balances.

Fixed that for Dershowitz. He’s become quite unhinged in his old age.

Dershowitz has been getting pretty wingnutty, but nothing like Trump's other cable mouthpiece Giuliani.

Except that in the investigation/prosecutions that you reference, there is direct and ample evidence of a crime that has been commited. The Comey/Mueller investigation is an investigation in search of a crime. Quite a big difference.

Republicons are such hypocrites and our friend Whell is typical of the breed.

Wow. The Chicklet remark bothered you that much, huh? :rolleyes:

Sure they do. So do theClarence Thomas hearings, the CIA (non) leak investigation....

Grow up, kiddo.

Tell that to the ~20 people who have been indicted and half dozen who have been convicted in Mueller's first year. I'm pretty sure that there will be quite a few more indictments coming from Mueller and the SDNY. Are you really stupid enough to believe that there won't be? In case you haven't noticed, your Dear Leader hardly acts like an innocent man.

When it happens, whell will be here to tell us it's a travesty of justice, and he never liked Trump anyway, and Pence is a white knight!

Ken Starr went on from '94 to '98 and what did he get for his effort$$$?
Bill Clinton lying about a BJ and how lame was that? :rolleyes:
Worse, he was impeached for lying under oath.
How about getting Trump under oath. If it was televised, Trump's dream will come true. It will be the largest watched event ever on TV. :D

And Mueller has a handful of guilty pleas and yet you claim he is looking for a crime!
Are you really this dense or lowering yourself to the Dotard? :rolleyes:

He's not dense. He's just committed to making his stand, against us, with good or bad arguments, whatever he can get, as long as it's opposition to us. This mission defines him, and he will never waver.

NONE of whom have been indicted for anything to do with "collusion". That's the essential point of the judge's comments. Investigating an actual crime: that's fine. Destroying people's lives in search of a crime, not so much. But, hey, if the dutiful search for a crime leaves destruction in its wake that impacts only folks you have a political disagreement with, I guess that's just fine with you. :rolleyes:

You apparently need a history lesson, or your post is an example of historical revisionism. Whitewater was about far more than that. There were shenanigans galore at Madison Guarantee, the S&L operated by Clinton buddy Jim McDougall, that eventually cost the taxpayers $60 MM to bail out. Jim and his wife Susan were convicted and sentenced.

Meanwhile, at the Small Business administration, David Hale went on to serve time for fraud in connection with a loan he made to the Clintons: $300,000 that was never repaid. He claimed the Clintons pressured him into making the loan, but that charge was never corroborated.

See, the difference is that there were actual crimes that had been committed in the Whitewater sceanrio, some of which were already being investigated by the time Robert Fiske and Ken Starr showed up, and some of those had the Clinton's fingerprints on them. That includes the work Hillary did for the Rose Law Firm as legal counsel for Madison Guarantee.

Remember how no one could find the Rose Law Firm billing records for two years after they were subpoenaed. Then one day, they magically show up...only copies though. So the person who magically found them didn't see fit to provide the originals. The delay of producing those records likely kept the Resolution Trust Corporation from filing suit against the Clintons for the losses it incurred as part of the Whitewater Land Development fiasco. Remarkably, the same day Resolution Trust closed its doors, the billing records magically appeared.

Mueller has been sent out to search for crimes. That's quite a big difference.

You actually believe that Mueller and the SDNY aren't investigating actual crimes (or that the crimes Manafort is currently charged with aren't crimes)?:rolleyes: I suppose if that helps you sleep at night, continue believing the unbelievable. Once Mueller's and SDNY's hammers come down on the extended Trump crime family, it will be interesting to hear the spin you come up with to help you rationalize your continued support of such an obvious con man. I'm guessing you'll just parrot Limbaugh, Hannity and the rest of the wingnut media, as you always seem to do.

Sure I do, and there's ample proof of that. For example, Comey told Congress during his testimony that no one at the FBI thought that Flynn had lied to them. And yet, Flynn plead guilty to lying to the FBI. Now, you can speculate all you want about why Flynn agreed to plea, but there's ZERO evidence that Flynn's plea has anything to do with Trump's campaign or Russian "collusion".

You can also speculate all you want about the other pleas, none of which indicate the Flynn has any evidence of "Russian collusion". The indictments also have nothing to do with "Russian collusion".

So, if Mueller's charter is to investigate "Russian collusion", where's evidence of the crime? There is none, and Mueller can apparently look for one all he wants, and destroy anyone he wants in the process. Unless, of course, some adults step in and reign him in.

Uh huh. And Donny never lies, Limblow is a paragon of truth, and Hannity sticks to the facts. Whell’s World.