Federal Judge tells Mueller team : "You're lying, and just targeting Trump"

[onwebcam]

A federal judge on Friday harshly rebuked Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team during a hearing for ex-Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort – suggesting they lied about the scope of the investigation, are seeking “unfettered power” and are more interested in bringing down the president.

"You don't really care about Mr. Manafort,” U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis III told Mueller’s team. “You really care about what information Mr. Manafort can give you to lead you to Mr. Trump and an impeachment, or whatever."

Further, Ellis demanded to see the unredacted “scope memo,” a document outlining the scope of the special counsel’s Russia probe that congressional Republicans have also sought.

The hearing, where Manafort’s team fought to dismiss an 18-count indictment on tax and bank fraud-related charges, took a confrontational turn as it was revealed that at least some of the information in the investigation derived from an earlier Justice Department probe – in the U.S. attorney’s office for the Eastern District of Virginia.

Manafort’s attorneys argue the special counsel does not have the power to indict him on the charges they have brought – and seemed to find a sympathetic ear with Ellis.

The Reagan-appointed judge asked Mueller’s team where they got the authority to indict Manafort on alleged crimes dating as far back as 2005.

The special counsel argues that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein granted them broad authority in his May 2, 2017 letter appointing Mueller to this investigation. But after the revelation that the team is using information from the earlier DOJ probe, Ellis said that information did not “arise” out of the special counsel probe – and therefore may not be within the scope of that investigation.

“We don’t want anyone with unfettered power,” he said

Mueller’s team says its authorities are laid out in documents including the August 2017 scope memo – and that some powers are actually secret because they involve ongoing investigations and national security matters that cannot be publicly disclosed.

Ellis seemed amused and not persuaded.

He summed up the argument of the Special Counsel’s Office as, "We said this was what [the] investigation was about, but we are not bound by it and we were lying."

He referenced the common exclamation from NFL announcers, saying: "C'mon man!"

The judge also gave the government two weeks to hand over the unredacted “scope memo” or provide an explanation why not -- after prosecutors were reluctant to do so, claiming it has material that doesn’t pertain to Manafort.

“I’ll be the judge of that,” Ellis said.

Federal judge accuses Mueller's team of 'lying,' trying to target Trump: 'C'mon man!' | Fox News

[dyna mo]

Ellis is simply doing his due diligence to ensure that he is fair and impartial. there's nothing to read into this other than that.

[The Porn Nerd]

Well that's been settled I guess.

Next!

[BaldBastard]

The crimes are still there, Mueller can bring them to the court or as in Cohen's case he can pass them relevant jurisdiction and have someone else do it.

Its just FoxNews grasping at straws.. again

[onwebcam]

Originally Posted by dyna mo

Ellis is simply doing his due diligence to ensure that he is fair and impartial. there's nothing to read into this other than that.

They won't produce the document claiming he doesn't have the clearance. He'll get pissed and toss the case.

Originally Posted by MrBaldBastard

The crimes are still there, Mueller can bring them to the court or as in Cohen's case he can pass them relevant jurisdiction and have someone else do it.

Its just FoxNews grasping at straws.. again

"He also asked whether Rosenstein, who oversees the probe and is considered an important witness into whether Trump tried to obstruct justice, is recused from the case."

https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/04/polit...ing/index.html

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKBN1I51WE

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by onwebcam

They won't produce the document claiming he doesn't have the clearance. He'll get pissed and toss the case.




"He also asked whether Rosenstein, who oversees the probe and is considered an important witness into whether Trump tried to obstruct justice, is recused from the case."

https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/04/polit...ing/index.html

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKBN1I51WE

A Federal Judge can't just get pissed and toss a case. He has rules to follow. I also don't believe he can just demand to see any document he chooses willy-nilly, especially documents in an on-going and separate criminal investigation. he should also ask for a free pass to area 51 while he's asking for things he's unfamiliar with and irrelevant to this case. Last I checked, the prosecution does not need to "care about" the defendant to bring charges against him.

[onwebcam]

Originally Posted by dyna mo

A Federal Judge can't just get pissed and toss a case. He has rules to follow. I also don't believe he can just demand to see any document he chooses willy-nilly, especially documents in an on-going and separate criminal investigation. he should also ask for a free pass to area 51 while he's asking for things he's unfamiliar with and irrelevant to this case. Last I checked, the prosecution does not need to "care about" the defendant to bring charges against him.

You didn't read the article I take it? The reason he is asking for it is because of that precise problem. They are bringing the charges to court in one investigation but the charges derived from another investigation. This is the whole scheme.. They extended prior investigations including the FISA warrants into Mueller's "probe." It's just a continuation of the earlier.. That's it.. If they wouldn't have done that Mueller's team would have had to go back to a judge and explain why they needed to have surveillance on the President and his people. How well do you think that would have worked? The judge would have said "You're just trying to target Trump"

[Matt-ADX]

Originally Posted by MrBaldBastard

The crimes are still there, Mueller can bring them to the court or as in Cohen's case he can pass them relevant jurisdiction and have someone else do it.

Its just FoxNews grasping at straws.. again

Front page of CNN news as well....

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by onwebcam

You didn't read the article I take it? The reason he is asking for it is because of that precise problem. They are bringing the charges to court in one investigation but the charges derived from another investigation. This is the whole scheme.. They extended the prior investigation including the FISA warrants into Mueller's "probe." It's just a continuation of the earlier.. That's it.. If they wouldn't have done that Mueller's team would have had to go back to a judge and explain why they needed to have surveillance on the President and his people. How well do you think that would have worked? The judge would have said "You're just trying to target Trump"

no, of course I read the article. I'm not going to waste time making uninformed posts and I actually prefer making informed posts.

it's common for charges unrelated to stem from an investigation. No one wants our law enforcement to turn a blind eye to crimes simply because they discovered them investigating another crime. You read that into the article. The article also states this judge is very aware of the flight risk and issues manafort presents to the court, thus his view on Manafort's bond, cited in the article I read that you posted and an important part of how he views this.

[onwebcam]

Originally Posted by onwebcam

"He also asked whether Rosenstein, who oversees the probe and is considered an important witness into whether Trump tried to obstruct justice, is recused from the case."

https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/04/polit...ing/index.html

This right here is key. I've been saying it all along. Rosenstein is the one who advised Trump to fire Comey. He's not just an important witness. If he honestly thinks Trump obstructed justice then he was the key player in that obstruction.....

But what really happened is Rosenstein advised Trump to fire Comey so the "probe" could begin in an attempt to legitimize their earlier "investigation/FISA warrant" the last of which Rosenstein signed himself which extended into Mueller's "probe" and gave them their investigative tools without having to go before another judge.

Trump knew about the investigation/warrants in December '16. He gave Comey several opportunities to come clean and he didn't. They figured out Trump was on to them so they devised special counsel....

[JFK]

Originally Posted by dyna mo

Ellis is simply doing his due diligence to ensure that he is fair and impartial. there's nothing to read into this other than that.

"Fair and Impartial" what a judge should be !

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by onwebcam

This right here is a nail on the head. I've been saying it all along. Rosenstein is the one who advised Trump to fire Comey. He's not just an important witness. If he honestly thinks Trump obstructed justice then he was the key player in that obstruction.....

But what really happened is Rosenstein advised Trump to fire Comey so the "probe" could begin in an attempt to legitimize their earlier "investigation/FISA warrant" the last of which Rosenstein signed himself..

Trump knew about the investigation/warrants in December. He gave Comey several opportunities to come clean and he didn't. They figured out Trump was on to them so they devised special counsel....

it's been public knowledge for 1 year now that Rosenstein recommended firing Comey, for reasons other than Russia, the Rosenstein memo is in the public domain. Trump stated clearly why he fired Comey and it had nothing to do with that memo. You know that.

[onwebcam]

Originally Posted by dyna mo

it's been public knowledge for 1 year now that Rosenstein recommended firing Comey, for reasons other than Russia, the Rosenstein memo is in the public domain. Trump stated clearly why he fired Comey and it had nothing to do with that memo. You know that.

Actually, only recently, since Giuliani has been making his rounds has the truth been somewhat coming out. And it's exactly as I've been saying. Trump knew about the investigation via Rogers and Comey wouldn't tell him about it and that's the real reason.... That's why he kept asking about "loyalty" Comey admits he only told Trump about the "salacious" parts of the dossier. Meaning he was holding everything back.. Hiding the fact that they had an ongoing investigation...

And Rosenstein gave Trump what he needed. Affirmation that he needed firing... It was a setup to get the special counsel.

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by onwebcam

Actually, only recently, since Giuliani has been making his rounds has the truth been somewhat coming out. And it's exactly as I've been saying. Trump knew about the investigation and Comey wouldn't tell him about it and that's the real reason.... That's why he kept asking about "loyalty" Comey admits he only told Trump about the "salacious" parts of the dossier. Meaning he was holding everything back.. Hiding the fact that they had an ongoing investigation...

It was almost exactly one year ago in fact:

https://www.google.com/search?q=rose...hrome&ie=UTF-8

trump needles everyone about loyalty, that's who he is and his main demand of people around him- loyalty to him. You know that. I'm no real fan of Comey either, but that has nothing to do with this judge and this case. The defense raised the issue of overreach, it's a logical defense. The judge most certainly won't allow it, like the judge in the civil case didn't allow it as a valid defense.

[onwebcam]

Originally Posted by dyna mo

It was almost exactly one year ago in fact:

https://www.google.com/search?q=rose...hrome&ie=UTF-8

.

Right... And a day or so later Trump fires Comey... He wanted to do it since his first meeting because again he knew they were running the (at the time) secret investigation... On Comey's second visit and this is from Comey himself he says he was asked if he had a warrant on Flynn... This is likely the point they were tipped off that Trump knew.. They had to have special counsel to continue on... Only way to do so is to trigger it.

As far as Manafort goes, he should be tossed in jail as should his co-conspirators the Podesta's. But the problem is how it was done...

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by onwebcam

Right... And a day or so later Trump fires Comey... He wanted to do it since his first meeting because again he knew they were running the (at the time) secret investigation... On Comey's second visit and this is from Comey himself he says he was asked if he had a warrant on Flynn... This is likely the point they were tipped off that Trump knew.. They had to have special counsel to continue on... Only way to do so is to trigger it.

You're leaving out the part that Sessions voluntarily recused himself, handing over responsibility to Rosenstein on the Russia matters.

That was the brilliant keystone of Rosenstein's and Comey's diabolical plan.

[bronco67]

By the way...why are old-ass motherfuckers be deciding anything? From using Congress as an example, it doesn't appear that many of them have gained any wisdom from being on the planet for 80 years.

[onwebcam]

Originally Posted by dyna mo

You're leaving out the part that Sessions voluntarily recused himself, handing over responsibility to Rosenstein on the Russia matters.

That was the brilliant keystone of Rosenstein's and Comey's diabolical plan.

That's was the easy part, just how it was done.. Accuse him of being impartial.. I think they even accused him of being Russian. LOL

So where are we at now? Rosenstein is not only overseeing Mueller but is also overseeing the OIG investigation. Everything that the Congress requests from Horowitz for their oversight investigations is being filtered through Rosenstein.. That's why they are having such a hard time getting what they ask for because he's holding it all back... He's the fixer... He's going to try and sweep everything under the rug.. Sessions is basically just a figurehead at this point as far as I'm concerned.

[dyna mo]

I agree that Sessions lacks a moral compass.

nevertheless, worst case scenario here is this judge may decide that special council investigated too far back into Manafort's past and they may have and some of the charges should be dropped if so. I think it's important to do a thorough investigation but some of the charges against Manafort stem from 10 years ago. The judge may find some legal reason to take issue with those specifically.

[onwebcam]

Originally Posted by dyna mo

I agree that Sessions lacks a moral compass.

nevertheless, worst case scenario here is this judge may decide that special council investigated too far back into Manafort's past and they may have and some of the charges should be dropped if so. I think it's important to do a thorough investigation but some of the charges against Manafort stem from 10 years ago. The judge may find some legal reason to take issue with those specifically.

Sessions wants no part in the coverup. Rosenstein is the one lacking moral compass which is why he's on point and Sessions stays. In the background fiddling around with silly little issues.

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by onwebcam

Sessions wants no part in the coverup. Rosenstein is the one lacking moral compass which is why he's on point.

he very well may be as well. It's not mutually exclusive inside the beltway. But that has nothing to do with Manafort and the charges he faces in this court.

It also may be that this judge doesn't agree that the motivation behind these charges against Manafort are an effort to get him to flip. He may well think that is a misuse of judicial powers but the fact is it's how investigations move forward and it's perfectly legal.

But in the end, he'll rule that the case can move forward.

[Rochard]

Manafort was under investigation before Mueller was appointed.

[onwebcam]

Originally Posted by Rochard

Manafort was under investigation before Mueller was appointed.

Which is why the judge is requesting what he is... And saying what he's saying.. Why didn't they bring charges previously? Nothing new was discovered that made them dive back in... They didn't prosecute before because he was doing the bidding of the previous admin and sending payoffs back to Podesta etc to be distributed. The only reason they are concerned with it now is because of Trump...

[Rochard]

Originally Posted by onwebcam

Which is why the judge is requesting what he is... And saying what he's saying.. Why didn't they bring charges previously? Nothing new was discovered that made them dive back in... They didn't prosecute before because he was doing the bidding of the previous admin and sending payoffs back to Podesta etc to be distributed. The only reason they are concerned with it now is because of Trump...

Because.... it's an investigation.

My guess is that during the original investigation they put in "x" amount of effort, routine investigation, but when they took a closer look at him during the Russian collusion investigation it was "x times a thousand" and they discovered more.

A judge telling the FBI they don't have the right to bring charges against someone after they find evidence of a crime is utterly ridiculous. Are they using Manafort to get to Trump? I am sure they are. This is the job of the Special Prosecutor - they get the people at the bottom to flip on the guy above them. The FBI got the guys below Manafort to flip and tell them what they know about Manafort, and.... If Manafort doesn't want to flip then he can take his chances and go to trial.

Nothing wrong with this at all. The FBI, in the course of their investigation, found a crime. Maybe they offered Manafort a deal, maybe they didn't. If they offered him a deal and he decide not to take it, he still goes to trial.

The Special Prosecutor has every right to pursue this.

[onwebcam]

Originally Posted by Rochard

Because.... it's an investigation.

My guess is that during the original investigation they put in "x" amount of effort, routine investigation, but when they took a closer look at him during the Russian collusion investigation it was "x times a thousand" and they discovered more.

A judge telling the FBI they don't have the right to bring charges against someone after they find evidence of a crime is utterly ridiculous. Are they using Manafort to get to Trump? I am sure they are. This is the job of the Special Prosecutor - they get the people at the bottom to flip on the guy above them. The FBI got the guys below Manafort to flip and tell them what they know about Manafort, and.... If Manafort doesn't want to flip then he can take his chances and go to trial.

Nothing wrong with this at all. The FBI, in the course of their investigation, found a crime. Maybe they offered Manafort a deal, maybe they didn't. If they offered him a deal and he decide not to take it, he still goes to trial.

The Special Prosecutor has every right to pursue this.

"A judge who's been serving on the federal bench since the 1980s is old enough to remember when Justice Department special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation was about alleged Russian collusion. Now the judge wants to know why Mr. Mueller's signature prosecution doesn't appear to have anything to do with it."

https://www.wsj.com/articles/mueller...dge-1525467768


"The exclusionary rule was adopted to effectuate the Fourth Amendment right of all citizens 'to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures . . . .' Under this rule, evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment cannot be used in a criminal proceeding against the victim of the illegal search and seizure. This prohibition applies as well to the fruits of the illegally seized evidence." United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338 (1974).

"The essence of the constitutional provision prohibiting unreasonable searches and seizures is not merely that evidence so acquired shall not be used before a court but that it shall not be used at all; while facts thus obtained may be proved like any others if knowledge of them is gained from an independent source, nevertheless the knowledge gained by the government's own wrongs cannot be used by it in a criminal prosecution." Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963).

"Under this Court's holdings, the exclusionary rule reaches not only primary evidence obtained as a direct result of an illegal search or seizure, but also evidence later discovered and found to be derivative of an illegality or 'fruit of the poisonous tree.' It extends as well to the indirect as the direct products of unconstitutional conduct." Segura v. United States, 468 U.S. 796 (1984).

[onwebcam]

[Rochard]

This is very simple. VERY simple.

The FBI was tasked with an investigation. During the course of the investigation, they discovered crimes were committed. They filed indictments on this person. This is how every investigation works. There is nothing wrong, improper, or illegal about this.

Mueller was tasked with the investigation and "any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation."

[onwebcam]

Originally Posted by Rochard

This is very simple. VERY simple.

The FBI was tasked with an investigation. During the course of the investigation, they discovered crimes were committed. They filed indictments on this person. This is how every investigation works. There is nothing wrong, improper, or illegal about this.

Mueller was tasked with the investigation and "any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation."

"arose" "arise" "It factually did not arise from this investigation"

It arose from an earlier investigation. They didn't "arise" or "arose" from this investigation they were drug in to make it look like something was there. Mueller was using a Title 1 FISA warrant as well from the earlier fraudulent investigation rather than a Title 3.

The Cohen tap leak? It's likely very real... Because they were using the Title 1 FISA warrant on everyone..

The only "gotcha" they had left was the Stormy payment and Giuliani got in front of that.

Mueller's team claims "secret" authority... The judge wants to see that authority or the case is done in his court.

[Speigelau]